SoVote

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/8/24 8:56:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment. I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for the question of privilege that he raised. I commend the Speaker on his ruling and I welcome the motion that is being debated here. As the hon. member said, 18 elected members of Parliament, himself included, were targeted by foreign powers because they are elected members of the House. Foreign powers are interfering through questionable practices, and that is unacceptable. Second, I understand that the hon. member and the other members who were affected were not immediately informed when official authorities and the government obtained the information, and that is unacceptable. We need to ensure that we have a mechanism so that this vital information gets to the members involved, whether it be through the government, the official authorities or the whips' offices. I would like to remind my colleagues of something that CSIS is always reminding us of, and that is that Canada and the provinces have one of the worst records in the world when it comes to foreign interference. That has to change. Obviously, we will support the motion. We want this matter to be examined as soon as possible and to be given priority by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In closing, I would like to remind members that democracy is fragile. We need to protect it, take care of it and allow it to thrive.

243 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/8/24 8:58:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where my colleague ended, which was recognizing the fragility of democracy and freedom. Many of us have lived in this country our whole lives. I have as well. We have never known anything other than the kinds of freedoms we have in this country. That struck me especially when I visited Ukraine in 2016 for its 25th anniversary. Of course, it is more acute now, the sense of the fragility of freedom, but even then, many people over a certain age remembered a time when they did not have their freedom. We have to always keep in focus that the liberty and sovereignty we have as a country is not automatic and not inevitable. The biggest threat to our freedom, sovereignty and security is not the possibility of direct invasion, but what Sun Tzu describes as the attempt to swallow us whole and the loss of meaningful freedom through escalating foreign interference. We have seen in other countries how the gradual process of foreign interference has eroded the ability of free people to make decisions about their own futures. The member is right. Our freedoms are fragile and are under direct threat by foreign interference. We see those threats as members of Parliament, but we also hear about and know about those threats targeting everyday citizens and other institutions. We are already seeing certain institutions that have modified their behaviour in response to the preferences of foreign stakeholders. This is a demonstration of a loss of sovereignty. I hope we all hear this clarion call, especially coming from the diaspora communities, to stand up for Canada, to stand up for our institutions, to stand up for our freedom and to stop this foreign interference.

290 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/8/24 9:00:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate both the motion and the interventions my colleague made when he initially brought up this question of privilege and in the speech he just made. I think this has an impact on law-making and legislative authority, but what signal does it send? There has been a lack of response. Appropriate awareness was not brought to parliamentarians. What message does that send to the diaspora communities, especially when it comes to the actions of the PRC, the communist dictatorship in Beijing and how that affects some incredibly sensitive issues that certainly transcend political parties in this place? This is not simply a Conservative issue, but something that has affected members from multiple political parties, from the diaspora communities and their ability to be free and active players in Canadian democracy. I wonder if my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan could expand on that impact.

150 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/8/24 9:01:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what message does it send? These events suggest, yet again, that when people are victims of foreign interference, the government does not have their backs. Sadly, this is something that I have heard time and again from talking to Canadians who are impacted by foreign interference outside of this place. We had a vote today on listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization. I can recall a press conference we hosted on Parliament Hill with a young man whose wife was murdered when flight PS752 was shot down. He faced threats from the IRGC when he started to speak out about these events. I have spoken to many others who have been affected by foreign interference who have been frustrated by trying to report what they have experienced and being passed back and forth between different agencies, given the runaround and not given the information they need. This is a case where people who have the privilege of being members of Parliament were not told about threats to themselves, so I think they should be informed about threats. I also think we should be, whenever possible, unless there is some compelling security reason not to, seeking to inform anybody about foreign interference threats against them or the institutions they are involved in so they can take appropriate steps to protect themselves. We need to have their backs, whether they are members of Parliament, student leaders or everyday citizens who are afraid of going to a protest. We need to have the backs of our citizens who are worried about foreign interference so that they know they can speak and advocate based on their own convictions, regardless of what a foreign state thinks about it.

286 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/8/24 9:03:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, to be very clear, the Prime Minister and the government, from day one, have taken the issue of foreign interference very seriously. The responsibility of governing and doing whatever we can in a co-operative way is something we have been doing now for years. Let me give some very clear facts in terms of the incident that is being referenced today. With regard to the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, allow me to provide some really clear lines. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, part of the Communications Security Establishment in Canada, generally does not comment on specific cyber-incidents or affected organizations. However, CSE can confirm that it shared actionable technical information on a cyber-threat with the House of Commons and Senate IT officials in 2022. This included sharing information that included the names of targeted parliamentarians. The House of Commons and the Senate are independent and its officials are responsible for determining when and how to directly engage with MPs and senators in situations like this. CSE takes its mandate and its legal obligations very seriously. Pursuant to the Communications Security Establishment Act, intelligence and information are shared with government clients, including appropriate authorities in Parliament and any appropriate partners. To support parliamentarians, the Centre for Cyber Security, part of CSE, provides a 24-7 hotline service offering direct support in the event of a cyber-incident. The cyber centre has provided cyber-threat briefings to political parties, as well as a dedicated point of contact at the centre for assistance with cybersecurity matters. The Communications Security Establishment's 2023-24 national cyber-threat assessment highlights “how online foreign influence activities have become a new normal, with adversaries seeking to influence elections and impact international discourse related to current events.” CSE has published four unclassified reports on cyber-threats to Canada's democratic process, highlighting that cyber-threat activity targeting elections is on the rise worldwide, and cyber-threat activity is more likely to happen during Canada's next federal election than it was in the past; Canada remains a lower-priority target for cyber-threat activity than some of its allies, like the United States or the United Kingdom; cyber-threat actors are increasingly using AI to create, spread and amplify disinformation, and it is very likely that foreign adversaries or activists will use and generate AI to influence voters ahead of Canada's next federal election. There is a lot more I could say with respect to that, but the primary concern I have after listening to the presentation by the member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the issue is that I question the member's and the Conservative Party's motivation on the issue. All one needs to do is reflect on his comments and how he tried to blame. Mr. Corey Tochor: You're a traitor. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: The person who is the traitor is looking at me, as opposed to accusing me of being a traitor.

503 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 9:07:44 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order on both sides. The traitor accusation started on one side and there was an answer by the person who had the floor. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

37 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/8/24 9:07:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what remarks were made that were not recorded or on the microphone, but the member for Winnipeg North accused other members of this House of being traitors while he was standing—

38 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 9:08:09 p.m.
Watch

I will stop the hon. member right away because I actually have very good hearing. I do hear very well. I did hear the attacks coming from one side to the other. They should not be allowed on either side. I would ask both members to withdraw the statements made, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University and the hon. parliamentary secretary.

62 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/8/24 9:08:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the comment. It was a response to a member calling me a traitor to Canada. That automatically upset me, so I called him a traitor.

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 9:08:43 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member withdrew his comment. I would like to invite the hon. member for Saskatoon—University to do the same.

22 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

May/8/24 9:08:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my comment.

6 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 9:08:52 p.m.
Watch

Perfect. The hon. parliamentary secretary can proceed.

7 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/8/24 9:08:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to what the member across the way actually said as he addressed this issue. That is why I started off by saying that as a government we take this issue very seriously, and our actions over the years clearly demonstrate that. On the other hand, it appears that we have a Conservative member trying to use this issue to make it look as if the government did not fulfill its responsibility. From his seat, he says that we did not. The Conservatives are trying to make it more political. That just reinforces what we just listened to in the member's presentation. He said, for example, that foreign governments around the world do not want the Conservatives in government here but want the Liberals in government, implying that this is the reason why we get foreign interference. At the end of the day, foreign interference is not new. This has been happening for a number of years already. Truth be known, Stephen Harper was the prime minister when it was first raised in an official fashion in the form of a report. The current leader of the Conservative Party was a part of that government. What did they do to deal with international foreign interference? I will tell the House: absolutely nothing. They chose to ignore the issue of foreign interference. Even though they were aware of it, they made a decision not to take any action to protect Canada's democracy from the things that were taking place. This is not just about China. The Conservative Party consistently brings up China. China is not alone. There are other countries out there that are players, in regard to foreign interference. That is one of the reasons why we have taken many actions, such as having a special individual brought to the House to investigate and report back, to ultimately having a public investigation into the matter with a report back. We have had numerous debates on this issue. We have had standing committees deal with the issue in many different ways, even with regard to the issue the member brought forward. I did not know about the existence of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China until that issue was brought up in the form of a matter of privilege. I took the member at his word when he raised that issue. I know members of the Liberal caucus also did, because we even had two of our members, from what I can recall, who also stood up to express their concerns. I would think that all members would be concerned about any form of foreign interference into Canada. I would think that it would cross all political lines that have been drawn here in the House of Commons. However, I can tell colleagues that I have not witnessed that, based on the questioning on the issue and the manner in which the Conservatives are more determined to try to portray a government that is not taking action than to try to depoliticize the issue and recognize it for what it is, and ultimately come up with ideas and thoughts about how we can actually prevent it. I listened to the Speaker's ruling. I had provided a comment before, when the member first brought forward the issue, and the Speaker came back and made reference to it. Here is what the Speaker said, in terms of what I reported representing the government: The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader mentioned that the Communications Security Establishment, 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. That is what I had said in addressing the issue. The Speaker went on to say: 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 2023 requiring the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 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. That is very clear. The House of Commons was in fact provided notification back in June 2022. When the issue of foreign interference came to the floor, and after a great deal of discussions and thoughts, there was a very clear directive given to security agencies in terms of informing members of Parliament. We changed, in part, the process. The members know that. There is no doubt, if we continue with some of the reports in regard to the People's Republic of China interfering in the work of parliamentarians and the impact not only of China but of other countries in the world, that we have to work collectively. When we had the heated discussions and debates over the foreign interference allegations that were taking place in the last election, we had many independent agencies say that it did not affect the outcome of the election. It is important to make reference to that. At the end of the day, the Conservatives, who chose to do nothing years prior, now believe that we, as a government, should have taken more action, when in fact we had already started that shortly after being elected in 2015 in changes to the Canada Elections Act. We recognize how important it is to protect our democratic system. We have seen legislative measures and policy directives to ensure there is a higher sense of security. When I was first elected, in the eighties, the Internet, at least in the way we see it today or have witnessed it in the last 20 years, did not exist. It did not exist to the degree to which does today, and not to the degree to which we have the types of computer hacks and the malicious software that are out there. Today, sadly, with things such as AI, we do have to be on guard and look at ways we can protect the integrity of our system. Let us remember that as things change, there is a need for change in policy. I saw that in the Speaker's ruling, where, again, he stated, “In accordance with the processes in place at the time, the House Administration was advised by relevant Canadian security agencies of the risks associated with potential attacks and appropriate measures were taken to ensure they would not impact our systems, more specifically our parliamentary network.” We had a system in place. The Speaker said, “It is important to reiterate that the House of Commons cybersecurity system 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.” If the Conservative Party really wants to be able to deal with the issue at hand, I would suggest its members need to dial down the politicization of the issue and stop trying to blame the government for not taking actions that the Conservatives believe in, when in fact we have taken tangible actions to protect the interests of our democracy and the rights of individual members. That is what we have consistently seen. I do not get the opportunity to attend very many standing committee meetings, but I often hear feedback, and that feedback is not very positive, even on issues of questions of privilege. Often in committees, filibustering takes place. I suspect that what we are going to see is as it should be. Let us give the benefit of the doubt and say the Conservatives are going to change their ways and recognize this is important, this institution is important and it is important we work collectively at making a positive difference in supporting individual members and our rights to protect the institution. I suspect it will be going to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and I support its going to PROC. At the end of the day, I hope the Conservative membership on the committee will dial down on the partisanship and the rhetoric they constantly use on the issue in the name of trying to do the right thing, and look at ways in which we can improve the system. Things change. Conservatives talk about our P9 accounts. Parliamentarians also have other types of accounts. There are many different ways in which foreign interference can take place, as was pointed out. This is happening around the world, not just in Canada. It has happened in some countries a whole lot more than in Canada, as has been cited, whether in the United States or the United Kingdom. We are one of the Five Eyes countries, and I think we should be looking at ways in which democracies around the world can protect the integrity of the principles of democracy. In order for Canada to be able to step up to the plate, it would be nice if we had all political parties of the House of Commons onside, as opposed to trying to make it look as if there were some sort of institutional problem that we cannot overcome, or that our government has been negligent on—

1598 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 9:24:51 p.m.
Watch

We have to go to questions and comments. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

17 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/8/24 9:24:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite does seem to be inherently uncomfortable with the idea of members of the opposition's criticizing the government. If we are going to talk about preserving our democracy and our democratic values, maybe a good place to start is to say that it is legitimate, normal and right for the opposition to challenge the government over its failures. I do not really care what the member thinks of my motives, but I am going to continue to do my job in the House, the job of standing up for our country, for our freedoms and for our sovereignty. The fundamental point here is that the hon. member is not willing to admit that something wrong happened. That is a big problem. The government had information that was crucial to our national security and to the personal security of individual members of Parliament. The government chose to sit on that information. It would show a lot more humility and maturity for the member to simply acknowledge that this was a mistake. The information should have been shared, and it was not. Will the hon. member acknowledge that the government erred in not sharing information with members of Parliament that was extremely important to our national security, to their personal security and to their ability to do the job as members of Parliament? Would he not expect to be informed if the shoe were—

238 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/8/24 9:26:28 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/8/24 9:26:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear: No, the government did not err. The member should read the statement from the Speaker. One has to take a look at the process in time. It is interesting. Here is the difference. I asked the member a question, and what did he do? He avoided the important part of the question when I told him to tell me something about the association. Did the member know anything about it? Were there any other parliamentarians who talked about it? He avoided that aspect of the question. He asked me a question; I gave him a direct answer. The challenge for the Conservative Party is that, at the end of the day, Conservatives see this as a political shot at the government, even if it is justified, or not. In this case, it is a “not”.

144 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/8/24 9:27:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at what my colleague is saying. I just want to give a little reminder. Two years ago, his Prime Minister and the entire cabinet were saying that there was no problem with interference. In the end, because of pressure from all sides, the government appointed a special rapporteur, David Johnston, who tabled a report that nobody was happy with. Now, we have Marie-Josée Hogue, who seems to be doing a great job. Could I remind him that what is being said right now is that interference is one of the biggest strategic threats to national security?

105 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/8/24 9:28:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much can recall the debate regarding the special rapporteur who was appointed, an incredible Canadian. There are members who decided to throw that particular individual under the bus. At the end of the day, I can say that, as a government, it was great to see political parties come together to agree to a new name, someone who would ultimately provide a report. I would hope that members of all political parties will support that particular report. At the end of the day, I believe that the government, virtually from day one, has been taking proactive steps, legislative measures in particular, to ensure that our democracy is healthy. I only wish it had started when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, but he chose to do nothing.

131 words

Harper

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/8/24 9:29:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always listen attentively to my colleague. I think, in this case, it is very clear, as we have seen with Justice Hogue's preliminary report, which points very clearly to some things. There is a real shortcoming in terms of how the government and past governments have dealt with the information around foreign interference. We have seen repeatedly, from the 2019 election and the 2021 election, that information was not communicated to candidates. In this case, addressed in the question of privilege, information was not communicated to members of Parliament. There is a lack of protocols and a lack of organization, not necessarily around the obtaining of the information but in actually communicating that information to people who might be impacted. This may be members of Parliament or, as we saw in election campaigns, candidates. We need to ensure that action is taken to prevent further interference of this type. Whether the foreign government is Chinese, Indian, Russian or Iranian, we have certainly seen enough examples to know that we need to put protocols in place and we need to put in place an action plan. My question to my colleague is very simple: Why has the government not moved to put into place that action plan and those protocols so that the information is communicated and members of Parliament do not find out from a Globe and Mail article information that should have been given to them years ago?

243 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 311