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.