44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 8, 2024 02:00PM
- May/8/24 2:03:13 p.m.
- Watch
It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.
[Members sang the national anthem]
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 2:30:47 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 2:47:21 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to remind all hon. members to be very mindful of the words they use to ask or answer questions and to keep everything parliamentary.
The right hon. Prime Minister.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 3:08:04 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 3:11:11 p.m.
- Watch
The Speaker will come back to this issue. I will allow the hon. member to continue his question.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 3:13:07 p.m.
- Watch
I know that it is Wednesday, that members have come out of caucuses and that they are ready to go, but it is really important that we take the opportunity to listen to the questions. It will be from the top because the Speaker could not hear it.
The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge from the top, please.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 3:13:48 p.m.
- Watch
No. The hon. member is an experienced member. He knows there are no points of order during question period. The hon. member can raise a point of order after question period.
The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge from the top, please.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 3:23:08 p.m.
- Watch
I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Enrique Manalo, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Philippines.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 3:24:44 p.m.
- Watch
I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for raising this point. However, as he well knows, the Chair can intervene when members use unparliamentary language on the floor of the House of Commons. We will wait for the committee to submit its report.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 3:26:12 p.m.
- Watch
It being 3:25 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence.
Call in the members.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 8:18:51 p.m.
- Watch
I see the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is on his feet, but unfortunately he is not in his seat to ask a question. I am terribly sorry.
To be honest, colleagues, we are now about 15 seconds over the time for questions and comments. It was going to be a particularly short question.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 8:19:33 p.m.
- Watch
I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 29, 2024, by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan concerning cyber-attacks targeting members of Parliament by a foreign state-backed group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 31.
In his intervention, the member alleged that he, along with several other parliamentarians, were the targets of progressive cyber-attacks on their emails in 2021 by a group with ties to the Chinese government. He argued that members were targeted because of their association with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, or IPAC. He and other affected members of the House learned of the attacks through a recent news story.
The member noted that, contrary to a ministerial directive issued last year, members were not notified of this by the government. He stated that this situation was akin to the prima facie question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, where a foreign state had also sought to interfere with the duties of a member. He also indicated that he could not assess the extent to which, as parliamentarians, they were impacted, through the disruption of communications or through the monitoring of their activities, but that their parliamentary work was under attack.
The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan further intervened on the matter on May 1, 2024. He added that the cyber attack in question was aimed at his personal email account rather than his parliamentary account. He further posited, following media reports which stated that House of Commons IT thwarted the attack, that the House Administration is not a security agency and therefore not responsible for informing members of threats made against them.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader mentioned that the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, was advised by the FBI on June 29, 2022, of cyber threats targeting Canadian parliamentarians who are members of the IPAC. Citing the separation between the executive and legislative branches of government, he noted that the CSE believed it appropriate to share all relevant technical information with security officials of the House of Commons and Senate administrations for their action. This was done on June 30, 2022. The parliamentary secretary also pointed out that, given the evolution of security procedures and in consideration of the concerns of members, a ministerial directive was issued in May of 2023 requiring the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, to inform parliamentarians of threats to their security where possible. He concluded by stating that, had the threat occurred following the imposition of the ministerial directive, security agencies would have proactively informed the affected members of the situation.
Finally, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and the member for Humber River—Black Creek, also presumed targets of the attack, rose in support of the question of privilege from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and expressed their concerns on the matter.
In raising his question of privilege, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan brought forward two specific concerns. First is the attempt by the People's Republic of China to interfere in the work of parliamentarians, and second is the lack of notification provided to members of this attempt. The Chair will deal with these two issues separately, starting with the latter.
In accordance with the processes in place at the time, the House administration was advised by relevant Canadian security agencies of the risk associated with potential attacks and appropriate measures were taken to ensure that they would not impact our systems, more specifically our parliamentary network.
Members will appreciate that the processes and the protocols to manage the cybersecurity of the House, by its administration and by the government, have evolved considerably since then. The Chair has no reason to doubt the commitment of the government, through its ministerial directive of May 2023, that members will be advised of threats by CSIS as much as is reasonably possible to do so, bearing in mind various security considerations. It should be noted that the attempt in question and the sharing of the relevant technical information occurred well before the directive was in place, and that the matter was dealt with in accordance with the processes and protocols in effect at that time.
It is important to reiterate that the House of Commons cybersecurity systems in place were successful in preventing a breach and negatively impacting the members' ability to conduct their day-to-day business with their parliamentary email accounts.
However, the member noted in his submission that his personal email was the target of the attempted cyberattack, and the Chair appreciates the concerns of members with regard to being made aware about matters concerning their cybersecurity.
In its 63rd report, presented to the House on April 10, 2024, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs echoed the ministerial directive in recommending that CSIS directly inform members about specific foreign interference threats, including providing a briefing on the mitigation measures taken to ensure members' safety. It also recommended the Speaker oversee the creation of a protocol within the House administration establishing a threshold for informing the whips of the recognized parties of foreign interference threats. The report has yet to be concurred in.
The Chair will now turn to the matter of the attempted interference by the PRC. As the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan noted in his submission, the matter bears similarities with the question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills on May 2, 2023. That case involved various alleged acts of intimidation, linked to the PRC, towards the member and his family. Those acts came in retaliation for political positions taken by the member in the course of parliamentary proceedings. The matter was found to be prima facie. Indeed, as my predecessor stated in his ruling on May 8, 2023, at page 14105 of the Debates:
The Chair agrees that the matter raised by the member, that is that a foreign entity tried to intervene in the conduct of our proceedings through a retaliatory scheme targeting him and his family, squarely touches upon the privileges and immunities that underpin our collective ability to carry out our parliamentary duties unimpeded.
At the time, the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Had the question of privilege by the member of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan been raised while the study was under way, the Chair would have been inclined to suggest the committee consider it as part of that study. This is exactly what occurred when the former member for Durham raised a question of privilege alleging intimidation. At the time, my predecessor stated, on May 31, 2023, at page 15066 of the Debates:
Given that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already been instructed to investigate the matter of foreign interference, the Chair believes that it is the appropriate forum for further discussion of this issue.
In the case currently before us, it is clear to the Chair that an attempt to hack parliamentary emails of several members by a group with ties to the PRC occurred. This is of great concern to the Chair and, indeed, should be to all members. While the attempt was thwarted, it is understandable that a lingering effect on impacted members remains.
Indeed, as my predecessor noted in his ruling on May 8, 2023, a threat, whether successful or not, may still be seen as interfering with a member in the discharge of their duties.
As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 109, I quote:
In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament....Speaker Jerome observed in a 1978 ruling that society demands much of Members but not all demands strictly impose a parliamentary duty. While every Member has duties as a representative of the electorate, a Member may claim the protection of privilege relating only to his or her parliamentary functions, though the line distinguishing these duties might blur.
While the work of IPAC is not, strictly speaking, part of our parliamentary proceedings, it does seem clear to the Chair that the members were targeted due to their parliamentary work. Even if the attack was directed against the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's personal email account, it seems that this was an attempt to interfere in his and in other members’ parliamentary duties and that such interference could have the effect of impeding members.
As the procedural boundaries of parliamentary functions can evolve over time, the Chair, and all members, might appreciate guidance respecting these matters.
While the Chair is bound to consider this question of privilege based on its own merits, it must also bear in mind broader considerations.
Protecting the security of members, whether physical or cyber, is of course essential to the functioning of the House. Cybersecurity attacks to our systems have multiplied over the recent past and there are no indications they will stop or even diminish. Not every attempt to interfere with or hack into our systems will necessarily be the subject of a question of privilege, as this is unfortunately a recurring problem. However, there might be a benefit for the House to decide how to tackle this issue more generally in order to clear the air and establish a way forward.
On this basis, the Chair finds there to be a prima facie question of privilege.
Accordingly, I invite the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to move his motion.
1644 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 9:42:47 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for Simcoe North for raising this question of privilege. I would appreciate it if he could share all documents and, of course, the Chair will endeavour to secure all the information to make a proper assessment and come back to the member on this question of privilege. I will take it under advisement.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 11:06:26 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 11:37:18 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate that the hon. member raised an issue on something that the Chair did not hear. However, I would ask all hon. members to please conduct themselves in a way that encourages more comity, especially on an important issue. I will ask hon. members that if there is an issue for them to take the discussion behind the curtains to try to work that out.
I am reluctant to continue on this point of order. In reference to the same point of order which was raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the Speaker has heard enough on this issue, and I will encourage members, please, to take the conversation beyond the curtains.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/24 12:00:07 a.m.
- Watch
It being midnight, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
