Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2020

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

We are building the plane while flying it, and we especially want to be prepared for these types of eventualities. We should be having this conversation, but it is suboptimal to try to figure out what those procedures look like as we're trying to navigate the crisis and the emergency. This means that we need to have a much broader conversation about the continuity of constitutional government, so that we can be much better prepared.

You are absolutely right, we need proper procedures, and we need to learn from necessity to have a much more robust posture as a government and as Parliament, to be able to weather these types of storms.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay.

Ms. Bernier, I think a couple of you had talked about the fact that you're not concerned about security as it relates to public meetings. Basically, we should be encouraging people to get involved in the democratic process; therefore, there shouldn't be a concern as to the security around it. Mr. Brassard touched on something, and I'll pick up on that. I don't think the security aspect of it is just about in camera versus public. It can also be about people taking a meeting hostage. Say, for example, a very important public meeting was going to take place and a hacker got in and crashed the system and Parliament couldn't function properly as a result of that.

Would you agree that is equally concerning, or maybe not equally, but that's something that should be of concern as well?

[Chantal Bernier]

Indeed, there have been media reports about that. We definitely need to contend with that.

Perhaps the best way to explain my approach is to explain to you how I've come to it.

I have spent 27 years as a senior public servant, including at the highest levels. Therefore, I have been able to assess the remarkable quality of cybersecurity in government, which is why I'm quite confident that you do have the instruments and the expertise that you need. The point is to apply it in a segmented way, which means protecting information that must be protected, and protecting meetings that must be protected. Obviously, a cabinet meeting and a debate in the House of Commons do not call for the same type of security measures.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay, I understand that better. Thank you.

To both of my NDP colleagues who are joining us today, the issue of Internet connectivity is coming up. This committee is tasked with looking at a virtual Parliament right now, and one of the issues we need to look at is Internet connectivity obviously, not for entire regions but rather to make sure that every MP has the same access to the Internet.

Therefore, would it be safe to say in that context—maybe Ms. Ashton you'll want to pick up on this—provided that all MPs have the same access, it would be fair? It might cost more, but it also costs a lot more for you to travel to Ottawa than it does for me, because I'm only a two-hour drive away. Is the issue here making sure that everybody has the same level of access, and if that could be provided by, for example, satellite Internet, then we would accomplish having the same access for the purpose of a virtual Parliament?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Gerretsen, I allowed you to get your question in, but perhaps our witnesses can answer it another time.

Next we have Madam Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

First, I want to ask a question that concerns several witnesses. We're talking about a virtual Parliament, but my question pertains to another issue.

One key tool to ensure accountability, especially for the opposition, is the opportunity to hold a caucus and to talk privately. There are even rooms where the waves are blocked and where information can't get through.

Has this issue been sidestepped to some extent in favour of the virtual Parliament issue? From the start, should Parliament, including the opposition parties, have received more support to ensure the confidentiality of caucus discussions? The parties don't work with the same platforms, for example.

[Chantal Bernier]

To whom are you addressing your question, Ms. Normandin?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

As I said at the start of my remarks, my question is for all the witnesses, or for those who want to respond. It concerns several issues, such as security, the importance of accountability and information protection.

I see that three witnesses want to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Can we have Madame Bernier first, and then Ms. Ashton? We'll carry on from there.

[Chantal Bernier]

Ms. Normandin, you gave a specific example of the segmentation that Mr. Turcotte and I talked about.

Not all information and debates are protected. In each segment, when you share protected information or when you want to keep a debate confidential, you must determine, with the government's cybersecurity experts, how much security you need based on the confidentiality of the debate.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you for your question.

We all agree that the technicians in Parliament, the people who are helping us work virtually, are doing their best. However, we must focus on some of what we've just learned, particularly with regard to security in caucus meetings. It would be nice to have more support in this area. Yesterday, I tried to set up a meeting with colleagues on Zoom, but I noticed that the system still wasn't very flexible.

We should also look to other governments that have been doing this virtual work for some time. We must be prepared to learn from others to do the best possible job. However, we must also ensure that Parliament's work, meaning the public work, is carried out as soon as possible.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

I want to say two things.

When you talk about cybersecurity, there's always a trade-off between convenience and security. The more security you want, the more inconvenient it will be for people to engage at that level. It is unlikely that we will be able to convince parliamentarians to engage in the sort of behaviour that, for instance, our defence members and our members of the intelligence community engage in for the purpose of protecting their communications. It is also a function of the networks. We simply do not have the secure networks in terms of, for instance, the level II exposed routers and purpose-built networks of the intelligence and defence communities for parliamentarians.

The challenge with a virtual Parliament is that there will be insecurity when caucus meets. Caucus will have to meet on the assumption that the information in caucus is compromised. With the conditions that we have, we cannot provide assurance that it is not. This is part of the challenge of holding a virtual Parliament. I see no way, at least in the short term, of building out a secure network and changing the behaviour of parliamentarians to the point where we can provide the level of assurance that the secure components of government have today with regard to the data protection that would be necessary for that assurance in caucus meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

Ms. Blaney, please.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you to all of the presenters today. I appreciated that information.

I would like my first question to go to Ms. Bernier and Mr. Turcotte.

One of the challenges, as we look at a virtual Parliament, is making sure that we're following the appropriate personal information protection acts. We know that forum selection clauses are pretty standard in online service contracts, but we do have a legal precedent from the Supreme Court of Canada that B.C.'s privacy laws—I'm a member of Parliament from B.C.—merit waiving forum selection clauses because they're much more stringent than other areas.

If issues arise in an online House of Commons sitting, what laws do you think would apply to the case?

[Chantal Bernier]

The Privacy Act, but then there is a legal void in relation to the political parties. The Privacy Act applies to all federal institutions, but the information held by political parties is not covered by the Privacy Act.

Let's therefore put your scenario in the situations where personal information would be discussed or shared in, let's say, a confidential debate. It would never be shared in a public debate unless the information is no longer protected, because, for example, it is already in the public domain. If it is exchanged in a confidential debate, it must be protected to that level of sensitivity that personal information requires. Should there be, let's say, an accidental disclosure, it would be the Privacy Act that would govern the consequences, so the obligations applicable would most likely be the Privacy Act.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

My other question is for my fellow MP Mumilaaq Qaqqaq.

Thank you so much for being here. I know that you had to make a very hard decision to stay in Ottawa to really be part of protecting your own community back home, but you also made it very clear that even if you were sitting in your constituency office in your riding, you are not sure that you would be able to access any committees or any virtual Parliaments. I just want to clarify that this is in fact the case.

[Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Definitely, and with my riding being the largest, I have 25 isolated communities. The capital, Iqaluit, has more services and might be a little more accessible, but as for my hometown of Baker Lake, I couldn't confidently say that. Also, even in Iqaluit, there's nowhere in the territory as of right now where I could confidently say that I would be able to participate in a virtual Parliament.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much. That's very helpful. As we discuss this, I think one of the issues is that a parliamentarian in this circumstance should be able to participate in their office but also in their home.

Ms. Niki Ashton, thank you again for being here today. One of the things you talked about is the need to have good regional representation, especially in a situation like this. I am from a more rural and remote community, and the challenges I'm faced with are very particular to my region. If that voice weren't heard over the long term in Ottawa, I would be very concerned.

Could you talk about the need to have that regional exposure?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Absolutely, and there's an irony, in that it's regions like ours that have some of the most vulnerable communities in the country and also some of the worst access to Internet in terms of the ability of people to live their daily lives, whether it's telehealth, accessing government services or, right now during the crisis, for kids doing their school work, or whether it's our work as members of Parliament.

We have to ensure, much like we do in normal times, that there is fair regional representation. We do that in terms of our budgets and within our parties, but let's be clear that in this time of crisis it's critical that we see a virtual Parliament as the only way we can ensure regional access.

If I could, for just one moment, I'll respond to the earlier comment by a Liberal colleague that here we are, asking about Internet for everybody. I am proud to talk about the need—the desperate need—for equal access to Internet for everybody. To be honest, I think it's very elitist that we as members of Parliament just talk about what we as individuals need, when in fact the barriers we face are a reflection of the barriers that our constituents, our neighbours and our families face in our regions.

I don't think it's out of the ordinary at all, or out of the realm of possibility at all, for a country as wealthy as Canada to invest in the infrastructure needed now for there to be equal access to Internet for all. This crisis is a wake-up call. Let's step up in this moment in time and make this possible for everybody, including MPs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

Next is the five-minute round. We have very little time. We're going to try to get through the five-minute round.

Mr. Tochor, please.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you to all the presenters. I'll go quickly to Ms. Bernier.

If I heard you correctly, you would be comfortable having an in camera session right now with the current technology that we are utilizing in Canada.

[Chantal Bernier]

I would urge you to get a guarantee from the IT experts of the House of Commons that proceeding virtually in camera is secure.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Would you say that confidence has grown? Is it fair to say that two years ago you wouldn't have been as comfortable, but as technology has improved, you have become more comfortable?

[Chantal Bernier]

You're quite correct, because through experience, we see the risks and, therefore, develop more and more safeguards.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Leuprecht, I have a couple of questions for you.

This has been really eye-opening. The more we talk about this, the more I have real concerns about what this could possibly do to our democracy and our stature in the world.

Things are changing in terms of the next frontier, what we face and bad actors around the world. In the past the front lines were a lot different from today's. Is it fair to say that cybersecurity, cyber-attacks or cyber-influence of bad actors in our elections, our economy, you name it, is the next frontier? Is that a fair statement? Is that what we should be watching for?