Evidence of meeting #119 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
That is correct. That is exactly how we function.
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
You said earlier...you used the words that you're “respectful of the independence”. I think you were referring to the House of Commons staff. What level of independence do they have in this instance in terms of dealing with this?
They have their own IT security people. They were here at our last meeting, as you know, and they provided us with evidence. They're responsible for their area of the organization. Maybe that's not the right term, but I think you understand what I mean in terms of how they have their own roles and responsibilities as it relates to dealing with parliamentarians in this instance.
Can you talk about what level of independence the areas of government or external stakeholders have? Where do you draw that line in terms of how you're providing a service but you're giving that information to the client?
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
We are very much like a service, as you mentioned. When we are made aware of an incident or when we see something through the tools we have, the intent, our goal, is as much as possible to get the information to the right people, to enable them to act and mitigate the threat first. On what happens in a case like a Government of Canada system, deputies, for example, are the ones accountable within each of the departments, and then they have accountability to a minister.
When we pass on that information to an IT department within a government organization, they are the ones who are going to take the necessary steps, with our support as well as, for example, that of Shared Services Canada. It depends on the department.
In an industry as well, it's the same: We'll contact the IT organizations and tell them we've seen something and they are to act on behalf of their organization. Often there will be this back-and-forth that we talked about before in terms of gathering more information for them to act on.
We do this actually quite regularly, because we do this in a pre-notification ransomware initiative that we have put in place with our U.S. partners, for example. Over 500 organizations have been contacted by us at what we call a “CISO level” to be able to thwart an attack before it happens, saving them millions of dollars.
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
This one is a little unusual, isn't it? There's lots of drama, as you've heard with some of the questions here this morning. We're not a normal client, I would say. I want to go back to the MOU in terms of how all areas of the organization have looked back at what we could have done better and how we improve things moving forward.
Does the MOU deal with the communication aspect? You've heard some questions today about who should have been notified by whom and when. What did that new MOU determine as it relates to your relationship with House of Commons staff?
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
I don't want to mislead the committee, so I'll have to go back and reconfirm the contents of the MOU. I can't say that I read it before coming before this committee this morning—
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I think the question would be, going forward, who's to contact parliamentarians if this happens tomorrow?
Chief, Communications Security Establishment
Again, we expect to learn from this incident and to work in collaboration with the House of Commons to identify the best way forward so this incident is not repeated.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
That's great. Thanks very much, Mr. Collins.
Colleagues, that brings us to the end.
Do you have a point of order, Mr. Duncan?
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is just a note for future meetings. I know we have one already scheduled for Tuesday, with a list of witnesses that has been made public. Going forward, could we get into the habit of having the witnesses provide their opening testimony to us in advance, in both official languages? The witnesses had a lot to say in the opening, and it's difficult for us to follow along. I'm trying to make notes. There's a lot being said.
Could we make that the standard going forward, knowing that this is going to be studied? We know who our witnesses are, so could the expectation be that they give it to us at least a day in advance, please?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
That's a fair point to raise, Mr. Duncan. I think we'll just suspend. We don't have to deal with this immediately. The point is taken. We're going to suspend. We can chat about how we can be more effective in that process to benefit members, witnesses and interpreters.
Colleagues, we're going to suspend briefly before we head into the second half. Thank you.
[Proceedings continue in camera]