Evidence of meeting #120 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 csis.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

David Vigneault  Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Peter Madou  Assistant Director, Requirements, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Bo Basler  Director General and Coordinator, Foreign Interference, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ben Carr

Good morning, colleagues. It's good to see everybody.

I trust you had a pleasant Monday.

We are gathered for meeting number 120 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We are continuing, colleagues, as you know, our study on the question of privilege related to cyber-attacks targeting members of Parliament.

We will follow the same format today as we did last week, which is that the first hour will be in public and the second hour will be in camera. We'll have to take a couple of minutes to turn over once we hit the end of that hour.

Joining us today as our witnesses from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are David Vigneault, director; Peter Madou, assistant director, requirements; and Bo Basler, director general and coordinator, foreign interference.

Mr. Vigneault, you and your colleagues will have up to 10 minutes for opening statements, and following that we will go into our line of questioning.

Welcome to our committee.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Vigneault. The floor is yours.

11:05 a.m.

David Vigneault Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ben Carr

Mr. Vigneault, please wait a moment.

We're having a translation issue.

Okay. It looks like we're good.

Go ahead, Mr. Vigneault.

11:05 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issues of cybersecurity, their nexus to national security, and attempts by adversaries to interfere in Canada, are becoming ever more complex. These issues require the full attention of the Government of Canada and all Canadians.

Increasingly, threats to the security of Canada take the form of cyber-threats. Malicious cyber-activity targeting Canada is growing in scale, complexity and sophistication, with cyber-threat actors seeking to advance their economic, political, security and ideological interests to the detriment of Canada and its allies. In short, the digital ecosystem has transformed the nature and conduct of warfare, espionage, diplomacy and trade.

Cyber-threat actors include those affiliated with foreign states, including military and intelligence services, as well as non-state actors.

CSIS actively investigates a variety of cyber-actors, including those from or associated with China, Russia, Iran and India. Regardless of who is directing their activities, cyber-threat actors employ a range of technologies and techniques to exploit weaknesses in information systems, target individuals to gain unauthorized access to systems and networks, or leverage infrastructure in Canada to achieve their broader strategic and geopolitical goals to the detriment of Canada.

CSIS is mandated to collect intelligence on threats to the security of Canada, to advise the government on those threats and, when appropriate, take measures to reduce them. This includes threats that emanate from the cyber-domain.

More specifically, when CSIS identifies national cybersecurity threats, it uses a variety of investigative techniques, including human sources, warranted collection and other methods to determine the scope, motivation, target and source of the threat.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, engages broadly with industry, academia, governments, and indigenous groups to help strengthen Canadians' alertness and resilience to a growing cyber-threat environment. For example, since 2021 alone, over 70 briefings have been provided to parliamentarians on foreign interference and espionage, in which security awareness, including cyber-hygiene, was a key discussion point.

Additionally, CSIS routinely provides intelligence assessments to our government partners, allowing them to make informed policy and operational decisions. CSIS also shares these assessments and investigative leads with our trusted foreign partners in order to assist them in ensuring the integrity of the global information infrastructure upon which Canadian security relies.

However, I would like you to know that CSIS is part of a community of agencies and departments seeking to protect Canada from cyber-threats. While CSIS plays a vital role in the team, it works closely with other key players such as the cybersecurity experts at the Communications Security Establishment, the cyber centre, Public Safety Canada and the RCMP, just to name a few. Together we work to safeguard Canada and its assets, information and national security from an array of cyber-threats.

Regarding the committee's specific study, our colleagues and cybersecurity experts at the CSE and CCCS, with CSIS, produced a chronology of events detailing the interactions between our organizations and the House of Commons.

I will note that CSIS learned of any issues with the House of Commons IT system from CSE in January 2021. Following this, our agency directly briefed the House of Commons IT staff with CSE. From there, we worked with CSE and the House of Commons from January through April 2021 to investigate this activity.

This work outlined that IPAC members were targeted, but importantly, it found no instance of compromise on the system, nor any follow-on activity.

CSIS broadly disseminated intelligence products to clients across the Government of Canada detailing APT31's email tracking attempts on IPAC members in Canada. CSIS's work with the House of Commons predates the FBI reporting that was shared with both CSIS and CSE on any information that was released to the public by the U.S. in 2024.

When this incident was uncovered in early 2021, CSIS followed the protocols that were in place at the time. CSIS worked directly with CSE and the House of Commons to better understand the incident and its impact. Our investigation, alongside CSE's work, helped to inform the House of Commons on the specific technical measures that could be taken to mitigate the incident.

In 2023, the Prime Minister issued a ministerial directive to CSIS, which outlined and clarified CSIS’s role and responsibilities in relation to the investigation, notification and reduction of threats to parliamentarians. The directive outlines that, wherever possible within the law, CSIS must ensure that parliamentarians are informed of threats to the security of Canada directed at them.

This is uncharted territory for CSIS, and is providing an opportunity for reflection, learning and improvement. What is different today under this directive is that it compels us to have the conversation with our partners on how best to ensure that parliamentarians are informed on the potential threats they face. It may not be CSIS, for example, when we are not the lead department responsible for the issue at hand, but because the ministerial directive was issued to CSIS, we will lead the discussion on the process.

Mr. Chair, I think I will skip the recap of the chronology because of time. I will speak quickly to some legislative authorities.

Members of the committee, I think you all understand that the CSIS mandate is guided by legislation that is nearly 40 years old. In the face of rapid technological change and an increasingly complex cyber-ecosystem, gaps in CSIS authorities that limit its ability to detect, investigate and respond to foreign interference, including by sharing information, have become more pronounced.

Bill C-70, which currently sits before the House, proposes a set of focused amendments that will improve CSIS's operational response to foreign interference.

Among these amendments is a proposal to enable information sharing outside the federal government to build resiliency to national security threats, including foreign interference. This will help to build resilience before the threats materialize and will directly enable parliamentarians to make decisions that are more informed.

More broadly, Bill C-70 will ensure CSIS investigations are nimble and responsive, resulting in better collection of intelligence and advice, including for parliamentarians.

The last thing I would say, Mr. Chair, is that in reflecting on this situation in preparation for this appearance, I think my analysis with my colleagues is that everybody did the work they were supposed to do. However, the outcome for parliamentarians is not, I think everybody will agree now, in hindsight, what was desired.

I welcome the work of this committee. I welcome the work that CSIS can do to make sure that in the future we learn from this, and that the outcome for parliamentarians and for Canadians is a different one.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ben Carr

Thank you very much, Mr. Vigneault.

Witnesses, we will now go into rounds of questioning. Just for your awareness, there'll be six minutes allotted to representatives from each political party here today. Then we will go into a slightly reduced line of questioning following that.

With that, Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours for six minutes.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Vigneault, on November 19, 2021, CSIS issued a classified analytical brief to 35 Government of Canada clients on the topic of the Beijing-directed APT31 cyber-attack campaign. Of the 35 Government of Canada clients who received the briefing, did that include the Prime Minister's national security and intelligence adviser?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Mr. Chair, I do not have the specific distribution list. I can say that, generally speaking, such a product would indeed be distributed to the Privy Council Office, and that would include the national security and intelligence adviser. That's the general practice, but I will have to double-check on this specific item.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Did that likely include certain ministers, departments and deputy ministers?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Mr. Chair, the way that the distribution of intelligence works is that the departments are responsible to the intelligence unit within departments to make this information available to their ministers. It would be hard for me to know.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Perhaps the easiest way to go about this is, would you, Mr. Vigneault, undertake to provide a list of the 35 Government of Canada clients who were briefed to this committee?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

I will do that, Mr. Chair.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you.

Is there anything you can elaborate on with respect to that briefing?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Mr. Chair, I do not have specifics of that briefing. What I can say is that, as an intelligence service working with our partners in Canada, as I mentioned in my remarks, but also working with our international partners, we have seen an increase in the sophistication and the aggressive nature of cyber-targeting by China, including by APT31.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Thank you very much.

On August 25, 2023, CSIS issued a second briefing, a classified intelligence assessment to what in the timeline are described as relevant Government of Canada clients, which referenced the ATP31 cyber-attack. Would that have included the Prime Minister's national security and intelligence adviser or PCO? Do you know who those relevant clients are?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Mr. Chair, my answer to this question will be the same as my initial one. I can look into the specific distribution. My assumption is that it would be, but I will confirm with the committee.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

You will undertake to provide a list of who those relevant Government of Canada clients are. Thank you very much for that.

I would note that August 25, 2023 was after the ministerial directive that you alluded to was issued on May 16, 2023.

That directive provides that: CSIS will seek “to ensure that parliamentarians are informed of threats to the security of Canada directed at them”. Why were the parliamentarians not informed pursuant to the ministerial direction?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Mr. Chair, I think this goes to the core of the issue.

As I mentioned, in the cyber-ecosystem, you have different actors with different responsibilities and mandates. We each did our work in collaboration but also, to a certain extent, in parallel.

The initial information did not emanate from CSIS. It emanated from our colleagues at CSE. We work with them to work with the House of Commons.

On the question that the member is asking, if and when the ministerial directive would apply to CSIS is an interesting one. We are learning how, and we are adapting this ministerial directive.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

I don't mean to interrupt, but—

11:15 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Mr. Chair, if I could just finish this, I would say that the key point here is that the assessment at the time was that the information had been shared with the House of Commons in order to mitigate that threat.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

It hadn't been shared with the members of Parliament, which was the basis upon which the directive had been issued. Nonetheless, CSIS was briefing Government of Canada clients who were deemed relevant, presumably the Prime Minister's department, the PCO. You had said that, although there might be other agencies or departments who may be better suited to brief members of Parliament, CSIS would have the role of facilitating or leading discussions around arranging such briefings.

Did that happen?

11:15 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure I would say that I would see that the role of CSIS would have been to organize such a briefing, but I think what is clear in hindsight is that the outcome for parliamentarians is not what anyone wanted, so my commitment to this committee is to learn from this, work with the committee and learn from the results of your work.

With our partners—I can tell you that I was talking to my partners at CSE—we all have the same objective, which is to make sure that in the future we're going to achieve a different outcome for parliamentarians.

I think this is one of the roles.... I would say, being very candid with you, that working with parliamentarians through the House of Commons is something we all need to get better at. We normally go through the House of Commons. I don't want members to think that this is a cop-out by saying that we shared the information with the House of Commons and we washed our hands. That was not at all the intent and the approach.

However, clearly, for people who were targeted by APT31, the outcome was not the one that people would have expected. My undertaking to this committee is that, with my colleagues, we will learn from this and make sure with our partners that we are achieving different outcomes in the future.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ben Carr

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Ms. Fortier, the floor is yours for six minutes.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Thank you very much.

I too would like to understand how it happened. Then we'd be able to know what we should do if something like that were to occur again.

First of all, the chronology provided by the Communications Security Establishment to committee members reported that on February 18, 2021, it was decided that CSIS would inform the House of Commons.

The Communications Security Establishment gave CSIS a list of technical questions to help analyze the suspicious activity.

Why was it decided that CSIS would act as an intermediary between the CSE and the House of Commons?

11:20 a.m.

Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

David Vigneault

Mr. Chair, I don't have a precise answer about the intermediary role, except for the fact that each organization maintains relations with the House of Commons.

Both headquarters and the regions work closely with the House. I'm assuming there was some kind of connection. I'll ask Mr. Madou to answer that.

11:20 a.m.

Peter Madou Assistant Director, Requirements, Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Yes, it's no doubt owing to the fact that for quite a few years, we've had a lot of dealings with the House of Commons. It was no doubt a more straightforward way of proceeding. When a more strategic analysis of a problem is needed, it's usually CSIS that does it. Our colleagues at the CSE work more on the technical analysis side.