Evidence of meeting #49 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 decision.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
So, as citizens, we basically have to be trusting in your ability to be perfect in order for this information not to be somehow misused by nefarious forces in the future.
4:50 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
As I mentioned, there is a risk. You cannot bring that risk to zero.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I do want to register, Chair, my disquiet about the data still being in the system when the commissioner made it clear he understands that the court decision means he doesn't have access to that information.
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I can give you one example of why we're doing further analysis. Let us say some of that information that is subject to that decision was used in any type of proceeding in the context of a criminal case or an administrative case, and we destroy that information. Then, if we go back to Charkaoui II, the Supreme Court decision told the service that when you're using information in a court context—criminal, administrative, tribunal—you have to retain that information. Before we rush and destroy that information, we have to make sure that, by destroying it, we're not going to be contravening another court decision, in this case the Supreme Court decision known as Charkaoui II.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
That's a perfectly reasonable example. What percentage of the associated data relates to that situation?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
That's what we're trying to do now. It is extremely complex to go back—and I can ask John to explain why—into that data bank of associated data and to do that analysis of what is threat related and non-threat related, what was used before, what was not, and what could be safely destroyed.
We have to take the time to do that analysis before we start destroying that information, if that's the decision.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
You're going through the analysis to decide if a subset of the data can be safely destroyed, but you haven't made the decision to safely destroy the data.
Who makes that decision? Is it the minister?
4:55 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
No, it would be me, obviously informing the minister as things progress. It would be informing the minister, and as the minister mentioned, he has asked SIRC to review what we're doing as a result of that decision and to report back to the minister.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Okay, but it sounds like you haven't made that decision yet—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
—so the data is still there.
What does this operational data analysis centre do if you don't have access to the data?
4:55 p.m.
A voice
Do you want to take this question?
4:55 p.m.
John Cousineau Assistant Director, Operations Enablement, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.
As Director Coulombe mentioned, associated data and intercept is but one means of collecting information that the service has. Advanced analytics is used to essentially maximize the value of information that the service collects.
As you can imagine, given that we have other programs that collect information, the advanced data analysis in ODAC is still undertaking analytic work to help move investigations forward, just simply not looking at associated data.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
So it does other analysis not connected to the associated data, and does not need the access to the associated data to continue its analysis in other matters.
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Director, Operations Enablement, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Correct.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
—to your description of the data on page 1 of your remarks, where you say, “Data is used by computer systems to identify, describe, manage or route communications across a network.”
Could you be a bit more specific as to what we're talking about exactly?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Director, Operations Enablement, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Associated data is data about a communication. It defines not the content of the communication, but it defines the communication event. The purpose of associated data is to help the network route to the information through the network.
A very simple example would be that associated data would be a phone number, so the number that is called. Well, the reason that associated data is there is to actually route the telephone conversation to the right destination. That is what we were trying to explain when we said that associated data is used by the network to actually deliver information.
Again, to reiterate, associated data does not describe the content of the communication. It simply describes the context. Classic examples would be date, time, duration, phone number dialled, etc.
5 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am trying to reconcile the Federal Court definition of associated data with the way in which you seem to be defining it. In English, the definition was:
...collected through the operation of the warrants from which the content was assessed as unrelated to threats and of no use to an investigation, prosecution, national defense, or international affairs.
When you talk about the associated data of threat-related communications, there seems to be a contradiction.
5 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Actually, you are right. In his decision, Justice Noël himself said that his definition of “associated data” may differ from the service's definition. I must admit that it may be a little confusing. The section of data that Justice Noël decided that we could not retain constitutes his definition of “associated data”.
5 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
I go back to Mr. Clement's remarks about the way in which you determine which data you are retaining and which data you can have access to in the circumstances you have described.
If your definition is different from the judge's, how can we be assured that you are not in the process of reusing the data that Justice Noël said it was illegal for you to retain?
5 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
First, we said that we were in the process of amending our policies and procedures. There is an adjustment in terminology, but the terminology matters little. Justice Noël's decision is clear: If the information is not threat-related and linked to third-party communications, we cannot retain it. Whether we use the term “associated data” or some other term, we are complying with the decision, which applies to non-threat-related associated data linked to third-party communications.
However, I quite agree that the terminology and the definitions are confusing.
5 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
You have been reworking your definitions and the terminology since that time. However, how do we deal with the fact that data have been retained under one definition and now, following a judgment that makes the retention illegal, you are changing the definitions, but still keeping that data?
I am having difficulty making sense of all that.
