Evidence of meeting #101 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cse.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Deputy Chief, Policy and Communications, Communications Security Establishment
It's always specific to our mandate, which is the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act—
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I appreciate that. I don't have much time. I apologize.
Clause 23 of the proposed CSE act, under part 3 of Bill C-59 says that activities can't be carried out against Canadians. Subclause 24(1) says that “Despite subsections 23(1) and (2)”—which is the prohibition—“the Establishment may carry out any of the following activities in furtherance of its mandate...”. Then it talks about ensuring the protection of information on these networks.
Social media is part of these networks, and that information is at risk. You have been tasked by a minister to ensure that this information is safe, and you're exempt from the prohibitions on collecting Canadians' information as part of that research.
How can we be assured that Canadians' information will not be collected incidentally, as the possibility of the incidental collection of that information is specifically outlined in the bill?
Deputy Chief, Policy and Communications, Communications Security Establishment
Unfortunately, the question is somewhat misleading.
Do we need to access the private communications in order to protect the networks? Is that what you're insinuating?
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
No, I'm talking about this: if a company that's hired by a political party or a polling company is able to obtain its information legally, that information falls under the definition of publicly available information. So, if that information is able to be collected as part of the research that you're doing on the safety of these networks—and you've been tasked with looking into this type of situation, as Acting Minister Brison said this week—would that not then lead to the situation in which Canadians' information can fall under that?
Deputy Chief, Policy and Communications, Communications Security Establishment
If I can come at it this way, the national security and intelligence review agency is going to be reviewing us to make sure that we're compliant with the law. It's going to look at all of our activities.
If we happen to collect this information, it's going to ask, “Why did you collect it?” Now if we only say, “Oh, because we're allowed to do it under publicly available information”, that won't be sufficient. The agency will say, “No, the Privacy Act mandates you to only collect information if it's relevant to part (a), part (b), or part (c).” The carve-out is really only to say, “We needed that information because we're looking to target this foreigner, and we weren't sure whether they're Canadian or not.” There needs to be something that explains that. The publicly available information is really only there to provide clarity for those review bodies so that they cannot completely take away our ability to do what I think everyone does in their regular day, which is use the Internet to get information to inform some decision that they're making.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Unfortunately, we will have to leave that at this point.
Before I thank our witnesses, I just want to say that next week, a week from today, the meeting has been cancelled because we are moving to Friday hours on Thursday, so there will be no meeting this time next week. On Tuesday, Mr. Paul-Hus will be chairing, and I'm counting on the clerk to make sure that he chairs brilliantly, as I expect he will. I will be away, and I wish you all a happy Easter.
Thank you so much for your contribution to our deliberations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That ends our evidence on Bill C-59. We will go to clause-by-clause after the Easter break.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.