Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 13th, 2024

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I don't buy that argument. It's not just protocol. It's a culture. It starts at the top. It starts in the Prime Minister's Office. This information has to be shared. The way they classify that information, the way they direct traffic, whether it's through CSE, CSIS, RCMP, the Parliamentary Protective Service or the Speaker, and the way they share that information all starts with the yes or no that comes from the top in the PMO.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I guess I would push back a little bit on Mr. McKay insofar as the ministerial directive was issued in May 2023, following the last question of privilege dealing with Mr. Chong. Following that ministerial directive, there was again a briefing to so-called relevant Government of Canada clients about the APT31 cyber-attack. Again, no members of Parliament were briefed.

Does that lend you any confidence in the ministerial directive and this government's approach to making members of Parliament informed?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Let me push back on the push-back and say that the ministerial directives are helpful but late. Are they properly executed? I don't know. I would have hoped that once that ministerial directive was issued in 2023, they might have reviewed their previous decisions, particularly with respect to us, and advised us, even if we were advised late.

Hopefully, this committee will actually indicate that there is a need to change not only the culture here but also the system and the timeliness of the implementation of the change.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It sounds like Mr. McKay was agreeing instead of pushing back there.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I would like to think that we can spend a little bit more time actually dealing with solutions and analysis of the problem instead of just wasting our time blaming whoever should have been blamed. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that this was an error. We should have been named.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

There's actually a pattern here. It comes back to the national security and intelligence adviser—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Bezan, I am going to let you respond. I'll give you a little bit of leeway if you want to reply.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I would just say that there is blame to go around here, not only at the PMO but in the PCO with the national security and intelligence adviser. What we saw under NSICOP with not sharing information, what we've seen in reporting, what we saw in Mr. Chong's case, testimony at the Hogue inquiry—it all points to the fact that the NSIA has not been sharing this information or is saying it's not important, especially when it comes to parliamentarians.

The position in the culture has been that we don't need to know. Guess what. We need to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I don't know whether we're really disagreeing here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. McKay, I'm sorry. I've given some leniency here.

Mr. Duguid, you have five minutes.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleagues for appearing today.

Mr. Chair, I'm not a veteran of this committee. I think I've been on since the session started in October. For about two-thirds of the time we've been focused on motions of privilege related to foreign interference. There are some very common themes. There's the lack of coordination, the lack of communication and, of course, members of Parliament not being informed, which, I think we all agree, has been totally unacceptable.

The other observation I've made is that this has become a very partisan issue. I was struck by one of the things said by Mr. McKay, the longest-serving member of Parliament around this table, who has served with distinction for many years—I'm not buttering you up, don't worry—which was that we really have to get beyond partisanship on this particular issue. This is about our country. This is about the safety of members of Parliament.

Mr. McKay, you may have heard the NSICOP chair, who did a number of interviews yesterday, when he lighted on this very theme. This is about the security of our country, the security of our decision-makers. This is bigger than any MP and bigger than any party. His suggestion was that the leaders of the major parties in our Parliament have to get together in a room. They have to put their heads together. They have to down tools on the partisanship. As we've been talking about today, they have to come up with solutions and protocols, obviously taking advantage of the Hogue inquiry.

I just wonder what your reflections are. I'd be interested in my other colleagues' reflections as well.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Far be it from me to disagree with Mr. McGuinty on anything. I think he makes a valid point. I would add to the point, though.

Don't just defer to the leadership. Apparently, we're all adults here. We need to take care of our own security. I would be pretty upset if the leadership didn't take it seriously, but I'd be even more upset if we didn't take it seriously. This is a serious committee.

Ms. Mathyssen asked a very difficult question. I thought that Mr. Bezan started to disaggregate the answer to that question a little bit better than Garnett or myself, and that is the hard work that needs to be done here because this is going to keep on happening.

I honestly don't know where the protocols need to be drawn. I dare say, you want to put them in pencil or something that disappears because they're going to change about a week after you actually land on them. We need to take responsibility, and Mr. McGuinty's point is absolutely right. We need to take that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'd just add to that. To Mr. Duguid's point, there's definitely some of this that can be talked about at the caucus level, whether it's through party leaders, House leaders or whips, on the collective action, but there's still the individual privilege here as well and how we balance that off. It ultimately comes down to how we share information and the classification of that information.

When it comes down to cyber-attacks, we're not talking about intelligence and how that intelligence is collected. We're actually talking about a kinetic cyber-attack that has been documented and is known. Some of it may have been shared through Five Eyes partners, but the other Five Eyes partners—or other NATO allies, for that matter—have often taken action a lot quicker than us.

For the APT31 attack, in particular, Sweden knew about it right away and shared it with those who were targeted almost immediately, and there's one other European country that shared that information very rapidly.

I think that is a key point. We don't have to rest on our laurels and look at what other countries are doing. We need to be aggressive now, and we need to make sure that what we're doing is proactive in making sure that each and every one of us is better prepared and protected.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Duguid, just as a brief comment in response to what you said, I agree about the importance of finding solutions.

I do, respectfully, though, sometimes notice that the calls to down tools on partisanship come immediately after a case of significant failure by the government. The government fails to do something they should have done, and then they say, “Well, let's down tools on the partisanship. Be nice to us.” Well, there need to be solutions, but there also needs to be accountability for the choices that were made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Duguid.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to pick up on what my colleague said.

Pre‑emptively, since the Uyghurs and Taiwan are known, have you been contacted to be on the lookout? Do we have that here? Did you get that?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I haven't been.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

No, I am automatically careful. Domestically, though, I think we get a little more relaxed. When we're at home, we think we're all right. I've had burner phones hacked when I've been in Ukraine. We take extra protocols when we travel to Europe.

Lindsay, John and I were in Estonia last summer. We all had burner phones. We left our other phones and iPads and everything at home. When we were coming up to the Russian border at Narva, I even went as far as shutting off my phone and putting it in my safety bag. I put it in airplane mode before I shut it off. When we went to the border, we were filmed the whole time we were there by Russian border guards. When I got back on the bus and we were a good 30 kilometres away from the border, I opened up the bag, and my phone was on. It was out of airplane mode, and it was hacked.

Those types of attacks happen. I think all of us have stories like that when we're travelling. I had it happen when I was parliamentary secretary of defence back in the day as well, on a good old BlackBerry, but this is different. This is happening right here at home, so we have to be even more careful.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I had a similar experience in Ukraine, where we just shut everything down. That's about the only thing you can do.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a few seconds left.

Do you think we are sufficiently equipped, technically, even though we have Five Eyes models? We've heard about Australia, and we're somewhat embarrassed by the fact that the necessary changes haven't been made since 1984. Do you think we're well equipped in Canada?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I'll let one witness answer quickly, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

That's a very difficult question and maybe not entirely relevant to this conversation.

If I looked at the bigger picture, I think Canada is a very sophisticated nation in our participation in the Five Eyes and various other cyber-issues. On this issue, maybe we're not so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

To continue where we left off in terms of that conversation about the security clearance that we should all be receiving, Mr. Genuis, I think you said that we could talk about the systems and the failures, but there is a personal responsibility and people who make those choices put other members at a greater risk.

I am concerned, of course, about the larger context, the cloud that is now hanging over Parliament. A lot of parliamentarians have said this in relation to the NSICOP report. I'm concerned about how we build those processes and systems in order to deal with this larger cloud that we are all worried about in terms of our privilege.

As you also said, culture starts at the top. How do you apply that to your own leader who will not receive a briefing so that he could potentially be part of the solution?