Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, everyone.

Ms. Gaudreau, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I admit I am very concerned about our democracy. A bill is about to be passed. We have to make a major change, and that frightens me.

I'm also concerned that your capacity to act in the performance of your duties is limited. We will be going in camera soon. Since you're the ideal people to propose potential solutions, I'd really like to know what you need in order to prevent this type of situation, to act and to take measures.

That means going so far as to tell us what the role of parliamentarians is when propaganda finds its way into our personal accounts, when even I can't determine what's true and what isn't. When series are designed to influence millions of people who watch them, that's not good. It should set off alarm bells.

I'd like to tell the people watching us that I think it's important that we include all the recommendations you'll be making in our report.

However, I'll have very specific questions to ask in the next few minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Eric Janse]

I'd like to answer that question briefly.

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

Of course. You have the time to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

The floor is yours, Mr. Janse.

[Eric Janse]

I'll give you a more comprehensive answer shortly. Then we can discuss it at greater length.

As the Sergeant-at-Arms has mentioned at two or three previous meetings of the Board of Internal Economy, considerable resources have been approved, especially for the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms. That also has an impact on other services related to security and cybersecurity.

For the moment, we think we're in good shape. We'll be providing you with specific answers to your questions soon.

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

I'd also like to say that what has been put in place to date works very well. I attended a briefing session organized by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms has also provided some support. The warning sign is there; we need to heed it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Ms. Mathyssen, it's over to you for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

On this question of privilege, we weren't alone in finding out about the hack through the media. Other members of the IPAC—Belgium, New Zealand, Australia and others—found out about that hack, as I understand it, through public reporting as well. Their governments are on different sides throughout the political spectrum. They did not inform their members in a majority of cases.

What are we doing to inform ourselves about or learn from the other investigations and other parliaments studying this issue? How are we moving that into our own studies, and how do we deal with this locally?

[Benoit Dicaire]

That is a great question, Ms. Mathyssen. In the in camera portion, I can talk a bit more about our partnerships.

I can definitely state publicly that we have partnerships with other parliaments that were impacted by these types of attacks. Our dialogue is always constant with partners in those parliaments.

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

We're seeing, obviously, that there are various levels of understanding of how serious this is. Even in the NSICOP report I referenced before, which has been in the media, there's a different interpretation of the intelligence.

How are you being given the ability, as a non-intelligence-gathering organization, to come to conclusions about the scope of foreign interference? Do you have adequate resources? This is often a conversation we have, even having it within the harassment study. Do you have the appropriate resources you need? Is something required so we can better inform this committee going forward as we report?

[Eric Janse]

It's a very good question, Ms. Mathyssen.

For the moment, we feel that we are properly resourced with what the Board of Internal Economy recently accorded us. That could change going forward, but speaking on behalf of my colleagues here, I think for the moment we feel that we have the resources required.

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

Is there a discomfort in the interpreting of this intelligence on the part of the House of Commons and security agencies because of your nature of not being an intelligence agency?

[Patrick McDonell]

We have an excellent relationship with the security agencies. There's absolutely no discomfort on our part when we deal with our principal partner for intelligence, which would be CSIS.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Duncan, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning.

I have a couple of questions.

I want to recognize that I'm asking this question in a public setting. I want to set the premise that I'm not requesting that you divulge any specific names of members or foreign state actors in your response.

The Speaker ruled that the failure to notify Mr. Genuis and the other MPs targeted in this case amounted to a prima facie question of privilege. The House administration, the government and security agencies were aware of both specific members and a specific threatening foreign state actor, but members were not informed until external revelations came to light, in this case through the FBI and Department of Justice in the U.S. Mr. Genuis rightly raised the point of who has the responsibility to speak to members about this.

That aside, I want to ask each of you a yes-or-no question, for reasons of not divulging anything from a security perspective or anything under review.

Are any of you aware of any other past or current cases in which you, in your respective roles, were informed by the CSE, CSIS, the FBI, any security agency or anyone in the federal government that an identifiable foreign actor targeted or is targeting an MP or group of MPs, but the individuals being targeted have not been informed of that threat? If you know about a specific member or members and a specific foreign state actor, are you aware of any outstanding notifications that have not been sent to members yet?

[Benoit Dicaire]

I can answer from a cyber perspective. No, we aren't.

Go ahead, Pat.

[Patrick McDonell]

It would be no, sir.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

There are no outstanding claims that you're aware of.

In this case, you were aware of members being targeted and aware through security agencies who the specific.... There are no other outstanding cases that three months down the road we're going to hear about through a whistle-blower or in a media report that says x, y and z happened. There's nothing outstanding about members not being notified that you're aware of.

[Patrick McDonell]

Anytime our principal partner for intelligence contacts us and provides us information in regard to a member of Parliament, we put it in immediate contact with that member of Parliament.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Janse, I want to ask you a question.

The committee adopted a document production order directed to the government and the House administration. The order permits government departments to make redactions consistent with the Access to Information Act. Since the House of Commons is not a government department nor subject to the Access to Information Act, given your role, can you confirm that the House administration will be providing us with the unredacted documents in response to this order?

[Eric Janse]

That's certainly our intent.

Michel, did you want to add anything?

[Michel Bédard]

We received the production order from this committee. The way we read the order is that the House administration is considered a department, so we are to apply the principles that were set out in the order respecting redactions. If the committee wants to provide further clarification on the production order, we'd be happy to implement the production order as adopted by the committee.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

In the way you read it, you're a department, but the House of Commons, as we read it, is not a department and is not an agency, so it would not be encompassed within the directive of this committee.