Evidence of meeting #93 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 video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jean-Pierre Plouffe  Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Gérard Normand  Special Legal Advisor, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
J. William Galbraith  Executive Director, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Micheal Vonn  Policy Director, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
Raymond Boisvert  Associate Deputy Minister, Office of the Provincial Security Advisor, Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Thank you.

Ms. Damoff, you have the floor for five minutes.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to all of you for being here today. It's been quite insightful, and we appreciate the recommendations you're providing to us.

As you know, the current scope of CSE's mandate is to acquire and use information from global information infrastructure. Under the current infrastructure, there really isn't clear direction on how to address the possibility of a Canadian citizen or someone who's residing in Canada having their information collected.

Do you see a benefit in recommending that Bill C-59 be amended to clarify that ministerial authorization be required when CSE does acquire information from or through global information infrastructure when a Canadian or someone residing in Canada has a reasonable expectation of privacy?

11:50 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Could you summarize your question? I'm sorry; I didn't catch exactly what....

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

If a Canadian or someone residing in Canada has an expectation about the privacy of their information, they're not really covered. Do you think it would be beneficial to have ministerial authorization involved when you're collecting that information?

11:50 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Do you mean with regard to CSE?

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Yes.

11:50 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Well, according to the actual mandate, as well as the mandate that is provided for in Bill C-59, CSE cannot target Canadians or persons in Canada. It cannot. It can target people or entities abroad only.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

If I'm away on holidays in Scotland—

11:50 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Well, you're abroad.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Do you think there should be authorization for Canadians when they are in that situation?

11:50 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Well, CSE cannot target Canadians.

Go ahead, Bill.

January 30th, 2018 / 11:50 a.m.

J. William Galbraith Executive Director, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

If you're on holiday in Scotland, CSE would be able to intercept a communication involving you only if they were targeting a foreign entity abroad. All the other privacy protections that apply would be there, and that's what the commissioner would be looking at.

On a question like that, you may want to ask for more detail from CSE itself.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Okay.

11:50 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

In other words, in your example, it's only incidentally that your conversation would be intercepted, because maybe you are talking with somebody else abroad, another entity, and CSE wants to target that other entity, not you. If you happen to be there, this is what we call “incidental”. While targeting foreign entities, CSE might intercept private communications involving Canadians incidentally. That's why they need an authorization from the minister to do that, okay? The prime target is not the Canadian; the prime target is the foreign entity.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Okay. That leads me to this question.

Publicly available information is one of the things you're able to collect, and I don't think Canadians understand particularly well how much private information we actually share publicly.

When I'm logging into an app and it says to use Facebook, can you buy that information from things like my Facebook picture or things that I might have shared that I don't realize are private?

11:50 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

Mr. Normand will respond.

11:50 a.m.

Special Legal Advisor, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Gérard Normand

As of now, the definition does cover information that you can buy. Some have expressed the position that it should not be covered. PIPEDA, for instance, the legislation we have in Canada, does not cover that type of information for it to be part of the publicly available information. Again, that is basically a matter for the government to look at to decide what they want this scope to be.

One thing I would say is that if you look at the definition in the proposed CSIS act, it's even more nebulous, because they refer to a section, so it's circular. They're not defining it at all. For one thing, I think this committee should ensure that the definition they take will apply to both statutes.

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal John McKay

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Motz, go ahead, please, for the final five minutes. Thank you.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you again for your comments.

I want to ask a question, Mr. Commissioner, with respect to your third recommendation. I appreciate the interest you have in being involved in approvals, and to be able to do your job effectively, you need to be involved in a lot of them.

When you talk about the emergency authorizations that the minister issues, you suggest that you should also be reviewing those immediately after they have been issued, which is before they're actioned, as I understand it. If that's the case, would that not, in something that's exigent, maybe put a further timeline or hindrance on the work of the security agency to do their job and maybe prevent an imminent threat?

11:55 a.m.

Special Legal Advisor, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Gérard Normand

The provision we're aiming for would not be to suspend the application of the authorization until the IC has looked at it. It would proceed with this authorization immediately, but the review ex post facto would be to ensure that the decision that was made was reasonable. It has to be made within the five days, so after two or three days, if he decides that it's not, then it has to stop, but it would not prevent it from starting.

11:55 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Jean-Pierre Plouffe

It's actually similar to what they have in the U.K. In other words, the operation is going on and proceeding for the maximum duration of five days, but let's say that in this particular case the IC could intervene after two days or three days, look at it, and say, “Well, I'm sorry, but what you have done in the last two or three days is unreasonable, and it should stop.” This is the purpose, or the gist, if you wish.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB

Okay. If I'm hearing you correctly, you're suggesting that the authorization will proceed in an imminent threat situation. It's a review for the next time.

11:55 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB

Okay. Thank you.

When you look at your resources and at what Bill C-59 is proposing, do you feel confident in the capacity that you have? Do you have enough resources to monitor anyone deemed to be a threat, or would those resources deal only with those who are deemed to be a top-level threat?

11:55 a.m.

Executive Director, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

J. William Galbraith

In terms of whether or not we have adequate resources, the transitional clauses in the bill are quite clear. What we have in terms of the commissioner, the employees, and the appropriation from Parliament all transition to become the intelligence commissioner and his office.

What are the requirements? The requirements are having intimate knowledge of CSE activities and of CSIS activities. Clearly we have the knowledge of CSE from the work that we conduct currently in reviewing the activities of CSE, but we also have on staff now individuals who have experience and knowledge of CSIS. We had the opportunity to do some staffing over the last year, or since June at least, and we have hired individuals with knowledge and experience of CSIS activities. As well, we have engaged special legal counsel, which we have with us here, to deal with the complexity of Bill C-59.

As to whether the staff is going to be adequate going forward, there are a number of unknowns in terms of the number of authorizations that will be required from CSIS or CSE. Only once the bill is enacted and the activities begin will we have a sense of what the volume of authorizations will be, but clearly there was a sense that we have a reasonable starting point. The drafters of the legislation and the government must have felt that we at least had a good start with what we have to transition into the new organization.