44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 9, 2023 10:00AM
- May/9/23 11:30:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that goes to the main point in my intervention, which is this. The Liberals do not care about the safety of parliamentarians or the families of those who serve, so they are either negligent in their duties with malicious intent, grossly incompetent or grossly negligent.
I worked in China for a long time in my previous career and I know about the threats and intimidation. As soon as people land and get into a taxi, it gets pulled over and the Chinese officials know exactly who they are and why they are there.
I have faced intimidation by China. I cannot imagine what it is like to be from the Chinese community living here in Canada, having fled that country for a better life, yet still being faced with threats of violence and intimidation, and worrying about my friends and family back home and the coercion they face. It is unacceptable and the sign of a weak leader. It is not even leadership; it is just weakness.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:33:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to respectfully disagree. This is a matter of national importance and of the safety and security of a sitting member of Parliament. I will go back to what I said during my intervention. CSIS does these reports and investigations only at the request of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety or the Minister of National Defence. I just cannot see it happening that it produced these reports and they somehow sat under a stack of selfies in our Prime Minister's Office without him seeing them. I just cannot see a situation where our Prime Minister does not know about the matter of a national security threat.
Beyond that, CSIS built these reports about potential threats within his party to nominations or whatever. I cannot see any scenario where the Prime Minister, in his leadership, had no knowledge of it. He can say he did not know and plead ignorance all he likes, but I just cannot see it. I have sat in security briefings at the highest level, and I cannot believe that the Prime Minister had no knowledge of it. Our first job is to tell our commander-in-chief when there are threats. We cannot insulate them and allow them to be willfully ignorant of these threats.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 2:27:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, foreign interference is a serious threat to our democracy. A member of Parliament and his family were targeted by a foreign government for his vote in the House. Imagine what it is like for thousands of families across our country that fled governments that were oppressive only to come to Canada and have those threats follow them.
The Prime Minister will not even call a public inquiry. How can he keep the rest of Canadians facing serious threats safe?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 2:27:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning, we have always taken threats to Canadians around foreign interference extremely seriously, which is why we have created new mechanisms and new tools to counter foreign interference. It is why we have actually appointed an independent expert to look at the foreign interference landscape and to ensure that we have all the tools we need and to create more, including a public inquiry if necessary.
We will follow the advice of the independent expert. The expert is the one who is best placed to say how we move forward.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 4:04:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things I would like the minister to address. I have many, many questions for him on his recent announcements, and his attack on law-abiding gun owners and the tools used by hunters.
However, in particular, there is something of a personal nature I would like to ask the minister. He keeps alluding to the Conservatives, and I, of course, am the lead on this file for our party. In his recent press conference, the minister insinuated that it was our fault Liberal members are getting abuse from some online. He insinuated there was violence as a result of, presumably, what I have been doing.
I would like to know if the minister would like to correct what he said because I take great offence to that, particularly when Conservative members have received significant abuse from folks who align with the Liberal side, yet I am not out here accusing the Liberal minister of his rhetoric being the reason that I have received death threats. It is obviously very personal in nature. I took great offence to that. The minister is taking this way too far, and I would like him to apologize.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 4:05:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I have respect for the work she does. She also knows that I am gravely concerned about any threats that have been made against her, as well as against any other member of Parliament in the chamber.
I would also point out that my colleague and parliamentary secretary, who serves on the Standing Committee On Public Safety and National Security, is among many women in the chamber, and they are the disproportionate recipients of death threats. We need to condemn that kind of behaviour. It is absolutely unacceptable. I will never apologize for standing up for the rights of every member, of every woman, to participate in this debate.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 9:09:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this, and I want to do it unambiguously so there is no mistake about what I intend to say here. The Prime Minister knew over two years ago that our colleague in the House was being targeted by a hostile foreign regime, and the Prime Minister did nothing to inform our colleague in the House about that threat and intimidation. It was only recently that we learned about it, and not through the Prime Minister or any minister of his government. We found that out through the media, The Globe and Mail.
That should never happen in this country on something as critical to our democracy as the right of each member in the House to vote freely without intimidation. That should be unchallengeable, yet the government and the Prime Minister failed to advise our colleague of this threat to his family. I find it incomprehensible that we as MP colleagues in the House would do that to each other. That should never happen.
Yesterday, we found out that the diplomat involved in promoting this threat and intimidation against our colleague was expelled by the Prime Minister. All I will say to that is it is too little, too late. The damage is already done with the threats and intimidation. This should not have happened. The least that the government and the Prime Minister owed to our colleague was transparency and the right for him to be informed the moment that CSIS became aware of this and the communication went to the Prime Minister's Office.
I have already mentioned that what is at stake here is not only our right to vote in the House freely, to express ourselves freely, to take positions that are consistent with human values and to do so without the threat of intimidation. It goes far beyond that. Every single Canadian who is watching these proceedings will be asking themselves, “Well, hold it. Am I at risk? Could a hostile regime from around the world, from elsewhere, say Russia or Iran, interfere in my life and threaten me in that way to try to achieve some nefarious outcome that is in their interest and against my interest?” They could say that, yes, and Canadians across this country should be concerned.
However, do members know who should be really concerned? It is Canadians of Chinese background who are concerned that agents of the Communist government would seek to influence them here in Canada to promote the interests of Beijing rather than the interests of Canada. That is what is at stake here.
I fear for our country if we as members of Parliament cannot even ask or expect our government to notify us as these threats emerge. I have no doubt that CSIS would have communicated this to the Prime Minister's Office. I have no doubt at all.
We know from the Prime Minister's chief of staff that the Prime Minister reads everything. Yes, that is what she said. She said he reads everything, as if she looks over his shoulder every waking moment of the day. However, that is what she said. That was her testimony at committee, and I take her at her word. The Prime Minister reads everything, and no doubt this would have come before him because of the serious nature of this threat to the members of this body, this august chamber.
Let me talk about why we have focused on the Communist regime in China. It is this regime that actually perpetrated this violation of our colleague's privileges in this House. I did mention the publicly acknowledged genocide of the Uyghur minority population in China, but this regime is also responsible for many other threats to our country.
We know that there have been at least eight different foreign police stations established by the regime in our country, and to date, no one has confirmed that all of them have been shut down. We have been pleading with the Prime Minister for months to shut down these foreign police stations that Beijing has established here in our country in violation of our sovereignty. The latest report has it that at least two of these foreign police stations are still operating in Canada. That should not be happening in our country, but it is happening under the Liberal government.
What about the two Michaels? It took forever to repatriate those two Canadian citizens because of bogus charges levied against them in China.
We know there has been election interference. By the way, that is another case the Prime Minister has said he was never advised about. There was election interference during the 2019 election and the 2021 election, but he said that nobody ever told him. Really? There were two elections and there was foreign interference in each one. CSIS knew about it and never brought it to the attention of the Prime Minister's Office. We know he reads everything. It is implausible. It is unbelievable that he would not have known, yet to this day he denies actually knowing about that.
We know that with that election interference, at least 11 candidates were targeted in order to be defeated. The conclusion has been drawn that the overall election results were fair and represented the right outcome. I am not challenging that conclusion at all. What I am saying, however, is that for those 11 candidates, like my friends Kenny Chiu in Richmond and Alice Wong in Richmond, it made all the difference because they are not in this House today. It is election interference that the Prime Minister and his government did not take seriously. Bob Saroya is another one of our colleagues who is not in this place. The overall election might have been fair, but for those three individuals and the other eight, it made all the difference. We have to take foreign interference in our elections seriously.
To close, I am going to talk again about what is at stake for our country.
Our national security is at stake. Our economic security and prosperity are at stake because these hostile foreign regimes have been active in intellectual property theft, stealing our research, breaking contracts and violating the international rules-based order. That is serious stuff. That is something this House has to take up and take seriously.
With respect to the personal security and safety of Canadians, I have already mentioned my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. His family was threatened by a hostile foreign regime. It is critical that we take this seriously.
Other things at stake are human rights, freedom, the rule of law and democracy. That is what is at stake here in this debate. I encourage all my colleagues to support this motion and vote in favour of it.
1139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 9:53:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to work with the member on the special committee on Canada-China relations in the last Parliament. We got a lot of important work done. In particular, we began a study, which was interrupted by the election, highlighting the national security threats that were associated with Canada's relationship with the PRC. What struck me about some of the work we did at the time was how many everyday Canadians are impacted by these threats, these instances of foreign interference.
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has recognized as well that, as he faces these threats, he has a position that allows him to bring attention to them, but many people have suffered in silence. There are many stories we have heard, but there are many stories we will never hear, of people who have been victims of foreign interference and have not been able to bring the attention to the situation that should have been brought to it.
I wonder if the member has thoughts and reflections, as we address this privilege issue involving members of Parliament, on how we can stand with everyday Canadians who face worse threats and do not have the same opportunities.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:12:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite's speech here this evening was very informative and very well put together. We keep hearing that there are 11 individuals who were in some way influenced or compromised or whatever in the 2019 election and the 2021 election. I do not know who those 11 are. I do not know if the member knows. However, the member who we do know was interfered with by threats from the Communist Party of China is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Does the member know who any of the others are? I, for one, would like to know who all 11 people are and to see exactly how they were compromised.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Like my colleagues, I rise today to speak about China's interference in political and public affairs and the breach of privilege of a member of this House. Obviously, it is one member, but all of us are under attack in this situation.
I will try to make this quick because I understand that people are waiting to hear from my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, whose expertise is in great demand. I think that there are some things that need to be said.
As we know, for several years now, a number of expert reports have highlighted China's actions, going so far as to accuse it of interfering in the political affairs of several countries, including our own. There have been reports of cyber-attacks on Canadian government institutions, businesses and universities, as well as other suspicious activities, such as manipulating social media and disseminating disinformation.
There are Chinese police stations that are operating while the Prime Minister looks on. There have been debates in the House on the active participation of Chinese government agents in the federal election and the controversial $200,000 donation to the Trudeau Foundation, which raises many questions about how much the Prime Minister knew about these matters.
These activities are extremely disturbing and raise questions about the integrity of our democracy and our electoral processes. We cannot allow foreign powers, no matter how big or how influential, to interfere in our political affairs and disrupt our democratic process. The Liberal government has gone from being disconcertingly naive about the Chinese Communist regime to inexplicably inactive in the face of China's repeated attacks on our democracy.
The straw that broke the camel's back was The Globe and Mail article about a CSIS report from 2021 stating that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family in Hong Kong were being threatened by a Chinese diplomat who was still in Canada. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills had just voted in favour of a motion condemning the genocide of the Uyghurs by the Communist Party of China.
These are all very serious allegations involving troubling information that could have a potential impact on our parliamentary duties. The Speaker's ruling on this matter is exemplary, and I agree with the conclusion that an entity like China intervening with retaliatory measures against an MP and his or her family represents an attack on our collective ability to carry out our parliamentary duties unimpeded.
That is simply unacceptable and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It is our duty to protect our democracy and defend our colleagues' privileges. We must work together to strengthen our national security and protect our democratic institutions from outside threats. We must also support our colleagues and give them the means to fulfill their democratic mandate without fear or intimidation.
The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this motion because it has already debated these issues favourably in the public arena. First, when it comes to the foreign agent registry, I will not list all of the opportunities that the government has had for serious reflection since the member for Wellington—Halton Hills moved a motion in 2020 concerning Huawei's involvement in Canada's 5G network. Obviously, time has proven him right.
The Bloc Québécois has expressed its support for an independent public commission of inquiry into foreign election interference. That position is shared by other opposition parties that think that the recent leaks about China's attempts to interfere in our elections require an independent public inquiry.
Former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley has expressed his support for such an inquiry. According to him, Canadians have the right to know everything about what happened, and the lack of a public inquiry will only prolong the consequences for those who were affected. Kingsley also rejected the argument that a public inquiry could compromise public safety. He stated that public safety is there to protect democracy, not the other way around.
The government has sought to put off a public inquiry for a long time citing public security concerns. However, that has not prevented many people, including the former director of CSIS, Richard Fadden, from joining in the call for a public inquiry.
Overall, it is clear that the calls for a public inquiry into foreign interference in elections are growing stronger. Canadians have the right to know if their democratic process is under threat from foreign actors and what steps their government is taking to protect democracy and the interests of their country.
Can we get the truth on the closure of the covert police stations in Canada and on the threats against people who return to China or who have family in China?
This is not the first report we have heard about persecution and repression of certain people who criticized the Chinese government or who were considered dissidents.
The Chinese government also brought in a social credit system that can affect people's ability to travel, find work and access certain services based on their behaviour and their political leanings. It is important to note that these operations are often carried out covertly and the information is often difficult to verify. However, there is enough evidence to suggest that these threats exist and that governments and citizens should be aware of these risks.
The government's attempts to lower the temperature and stonewall are eroding our confidence in it. Its handling of the expulsion of Chinese diplomat Zhao Wei has been embarrassing.
We must be proactive. We must take steps to strengthen our national security, and we must shield ourselves from foreign attacks. We must also continue to strengthen our ability to identify, report, monitor and counter cyber-attacks. They can be extremely difficult to detect and thwart, but we must be ready to face these threats and to protect our institutions against malicious attacks.
The case of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills raises a bigger problem in a world that is becoming more complex. With the growth of social networks, it is getting easier and easier for malicious people to target and harass elected officials, journalists and other public figures. The threats and attacks can be deeply disturbing and have real consequences for the safety of the individuals concerned. This is our cue to rethink our society and even our use of social media.
Increasingly, we tolerate threats because they are just threats. If we do not tolerate threats towards our colleague, we should not tolerate the threats we are subjected to on social media, either.
Our world is entering a new era. China may be using an old way of doing things right now, but new ways of influencing our elected officials will be found. They will become increasingly insidious. Our lives are showcased on social media. Hackers are finding new ways to go even further in getting data.
Just imagine. A fraudster can practically create a new identity for themselves using data leaked from a bank or government. If a member of Parliament is targeted, what impact will that fake identity have? How will a new power be able to influence elected officials?
I serve on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and these are issues that must be discussed during our study of Bill C-27. We need to ask ourselves whether the government has really made all of the connections that need to be made between all of the laws in order to strengthen the protection of Quebeckers and Canadians.
When it comes to protecting ourselves from China, there is also the Investment Canada Act, which may not go far enough in protecting our vital areas, our supply chains. These are things that I have a lot of questions about.
With the arrival of even more powerful technologies, such as quantum computing, we know that a lot of our data is stored on servers and that China will not hesitate to check that data and use it against us, of course.
Consequently, and in conclusion, we have to equip ourselves with all the tools available to fight foreign interference. That starts with solidarity with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
1407 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:33:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I think that in the current context, his question answers itself. It is extremely worrisome.
I admit that, as an MP, I feel concerned. Obviously, I have no ties to China. However, I am not surprised by the example from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and his leadership on the issue of the Uyghurs and protecting these people. The Uyghurs are under pressure because the Chinese regime is trying to wipe them out, and their safety and survival are truly at risk.
As a Parliament, we are going to need to take strong positions and accept the consequences, as the member for Lac-Saint-Jean did. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean is leading by example. Obviously, he can no longer visit China, and these types of threats are absolutely unacceptable. We must stand firm in solidarity.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:06:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate that my colleague put an emphasis on the reason why the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was threatened. He was threatened because of his leadership in standing with victims of genocide.
Through the motion that he put forward, the motion that was adopted unanimously, though with cabinet abstaining, Canada's legislature was the first in the world, but it started a global movement of other legislatures recognizing the Uyghur genocide. This was a consequential moment of leadership for that member and this Parliament, in spite of the inaction of the government. The threats this member has faced underlines just how consequential that moment was.
I want to thank the member for raising that issue and just invite her to add additional measures, perhaps, that the House needs to take and the government needs to take, to stand with the Uyghur people. The House has spoken on this multiple times, but the government has been far behind.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:20:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.
This is a critically important debate. We are debating a question of privilege, which means that we are debating an instance in which the rights and privileges, and the ability of a member or members of this Parliament to do their job, were threatened.
In particular, we are dealing with a situation where, incredibly, a member of Canada's Parliament and his family were threatened by a foreign government. We have to contend with the reality that a member of Parliament was threatened by a foreign government, the People's Republic of China, Beijing's Communist Party. Why was he threatened? He was threatened because he stood with victims of the Uyghur genocide.
As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, this is deeply personal for me. I grew up hearing stories from my grandmother not only about the persecution she and her family faced, but also about the stories of politicians, everyday leaders, church leaders and everyday people in Germany and throughout the world who were willing to stand with her and stand with other victims of that genocide. Their courageous witness for justice, for universal human dignity, is part of what contributed to my grandmother surviving the war, and to me being alive today and able to give this speech.
I honour and recognize the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for, just like courageous those heroes of the past, being willing to stand with victims of genocide in our own day and bearing the costs of that. He has faced threats. He has faced intimidation from the government of China, a loss that I think is challenging for all of us to understand. There is now an inability, for instance, to safely visit his ancestral homeland and show it to his family. These are real sacrifices, and the member has shown significant courage in taking this stand.
The fact that the government of a foreign state would presume to threaten a member of Parliament here in Canada should underline the new reality we are facing in the world today. It is the reality, sadly, of a new kind of cold war where we have fierce ideological, economic and other forms of strategic competition between a free democratic bloc, on the one hand, and a group of autocratic revisionist powers that seek to reverse and undermine the international rules-based order on the other. In particular, it seeks to overturn the idea that borders should be set through agreement and through the sovereign will of the people, not by force.
These revisionist powers seek to overturn that long-standing consensus. They do not have any respect for national sovereignty, which is why they presume to not only dictate other countries, such as in the case of Russia's actions to invade Ukraine and the cases of the PRC's action to threaten Taiwan and the sovereignty of various other countries in the area, but also intervene and try to stealthily control and direct our institutions here. This is the reality of the world today. It is one of intense strategic competition that I think could be appropriately and honestly described as a new kind of cold war.
The outcome of this competition between free democratic values and this emerging authoritarian revisionist bloc is not certain. We cannot presume the triumph of the values of democracy and liberty. We must struggle, work hard and make the sacrifices necessary to preserve our way of life and spread the cause of freedom to expand the space of freedom to more people around the world. This is something we can hope for, but we cannot presume will happen unless we fully commit ourselves individually and collectively to the pursuit of this end.
I believe the system of free democracy is superior. It harnesses the energies and the creativity of more people and it will prevail under the right circumstances. A critical part of that circumstance is that we summon the courage required to meet the challenge.
I want to speak specifically tonight to the virtue of courage. Courage, quite simply, is the virtue of being willing to risk important and valuable things in pursuit of greater things, in pursuit of things that are good, true and beautiful. It is a willingness to risk our own safety, security, comfort or economic well-being to pursue greater and more important goods. That is the preservation of democracy and of liberty, and a system that recognizes universal human rights and the rule of law. It requires courage and a willingness to sacrifice, if we are going to prevail in the midst of this.
This story of what happened with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, with the threats he faced and the stance he has taken, is about courage. It is about a contrast in courage, sadly, between the stand he took and the positions the government has taken.
The member, in working with other parties, especially other opposition parties, put forward a motion to recognize the Uyghur genocide. It was telling the simple truth that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in China are victims of an ongoing genocide. That motion passed because the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all members of the opposition and some members of the government were prepared to stand up and say it was true and that Canada has obligations under the genocide convention to act for and stand with victims of this genocide. Cabinet did not show the necessary courage. It showed cowardice. Its members remained in their seats and abstained on that all-important vote.
That took courage, because it involved sacrifice. It led directly to threats made against the member and his family, but it also led to legislatures around the world following Canada's example and recognizing this genocide. It was a crucial step in helping people everywhere understand what the CCP is really all about and what its agenda is: The CCP is using the latest technology to inflict a campaign of genocide against an ethnic and religious minority.
That vote was a crucial moment. It took courage and it had consequences: challenging consequences for the member and his family, but positive consequences in terms of advancing awareness and action in response to the still ongoing Uyghur genocide.
I think the response by the government to the threat also tells an important story about courage and cowardice. Because the government did not act, the member was not informed, and when he was informed this past week, when the information was out on the news, the response from the government was to say that it cannot take certain actions, or that it at least has to be very careful to take certain actions because there might be retaliation.
It is the old logic of appeasement, the logic of Neville Chamberlain, to say we do not want to annoy our adversaries in this global reality of competition because they might do things back to us. We will therefore tolerate such outrages as threats to members of Parliament, and we will not take action in response.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs at committee said that we have to consider this very carefully because China might retaliate. We should have the courage to say it is a fundamental point for us here in Canada that we will not tolerate threats made against our citizens, whether or not they are members of Parliament, and we will expel diplomats who engage in that behaviour, period, full stop. That takes courage. That takes a willingness of the government to draw a line. If this was a government of courage, we would not have gotten this far in terms of the vulnerability to these threats.
If the government had courage, we would have had our government recognize the Uyghur genocide. We would have taken strong measures to combat foreign interference, including bringing in a foreign agent registry. We would have taken those measures years ago. However, the government, in a pretense of sophistication, says it cannot do that because we have to think about it carefully and they might retaliate and so forth.
This is fundamentally the logic of weakness, and I think it is so important for us to reflect on this issue of courage and what strength or weakness looks like in the challenge in front of us. I think we will face in the years ahead an ongoing competition between free democracies and revisionist authoritarian powers. We can win this struggle if we collectively have the kind of courage that has been shown by my colleague on this side, and if we have the kind of courage to say we will make the sacrifices required, we will stand up for what is right, we will tell the truth about genocide, we will protect our country and we will protect our citizens.
If we have, collectively, the courage to take that stand and to make the sacrifices associated with it, we will preserve freedom and democracy for generations to come. If we do not, if we buy into the logic of appeasement that refuses to act and that is calcified in faux sophistication, then we will not prevail.
1536 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:31:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in terms of ensuring that these things do not happen again, we have to recognize the reality that we are going to see attempts at this kind of interference. We are going to see interference in the lives of members of Parliament, but also in the lives of other figures in our society, such as elite figures, university officials, people at other levels of government and everyday citizens.
We are going to continue to see these kinds of events, because this is the new reality. It is a reality in which there is intensified competition, but also a much higher degree of mutual penetration, between the different blocs than existed in the last Cold War. We are going to see these challenges intensify, so what do we do in response to that?
We need to undertake many of the measures that have been proposed, and many more, to make our societies stronger and more resilient against these kinds of threats. It is not just a matter of policy. There are policy changes that are required, the foreign influence registry and others, but we need to build a kind of social mentality that is resilient to these kinds of threats.
On the issue of misinformation, for example, government regulation is not the solution to misinformation. The solution is an informed, engaged and aware citizenry where the government is being frank and honest about those kinds of interference. It is something we all need to collectively respond to together.
We are going to continue to see these threats. We are going to have the struggle. This is a critical challenge that Parliament must meet in the days ahead, and we can meet it together, but the government has to step up and lead.
The other thing that is frustrating is that we hear members of the government complain about partisanship, yet they are doing nothing. It is our job to challenge them to take action, and when they take action, we will celebrate that action, absolutely. It was far too late, but it was a small step in the right direction to declare the diplomat in question persona non grata, but there are so many more steps that are required.
370 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
