SoVote

May/8/24 11:31:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that it was CSIS's fault, that CSIS had not prioritized it. That was the line that was used by the Minister of Public Safety, as well, with respect to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Of course, we know that the government was briefed, that the minister was briefed and that the Prime Minister's department was briefed. Ultimately, responsibility fell on the Prime Minister and the government for why the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had been kept in the dark. Similarly, in this instance, the government had the information. Just because it was passed on to the House of Commons administration, that does not mean that, at the end of the day, it is not up to the government to inform members. Further, I should note that the other excuse that is offered is that it was unsuccessful and, therefore, it is no big deal and members should not know. I think every member would like to know if they are being the target of a hostile foreign state like the PRC.

183 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

May/8/24 11:33:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are now at 11:30 p.m., eastern time zone. We have all acknowledged that this is a serious matter and PROC is the best-placed body to deal with this matter. I am hearing a lot of Conservative talking points that we have heard before with respect to their position on China, and tonight we heard references to Israel and Iran. This seems to be a real show of political talking points from the Conservative Party. Would it not be in all of our best interests to have this dealt with by PROC as soon as possible? Will the member agree to send this matter to PROC as soon as possible, so that we can actually move on this?

123 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/8/24 11:34:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am the vice-chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, and we will deal with the matter when it is referred to us, but, in the meantime, there is a debate in this House. It is important that we have this debate, and it is certainly important that every member who was targeted, every member who was impacted, have an opportunity to put on the record how this impacted them and to make submissions in this House.

81 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

May/8/24 11:34:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North talked about your ruling, so I did want to read a bit from it. I did quickly read it over one more time, and you actually did not praise anything the Liberal government has done over the past nine years to try to offset the amount of foreign interference in our country or said that the government has succeeded in somehow protecting parliamentarians, because it has not. In your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said: 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. In the comments made by the member for Winnipeg North, he implied that other foreign governments do this all the time, that it is like a common occurrence that could be happening. The implication is that there are other parliamentarians who could have been attacked by different foreign governments, but those attacks were unsuccessful so they were not told before the new regulations came into force in 2023. Can the member comment on that?

196 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/8/24 11:35:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question, and it really does raise questions as to whether other members have been targeted. Have other members been targeted in other cyber-attacks by the Beijing-based Communist regime or by other hostile foreign states, of which this government is aware and has not informed members? If that is the case, then it is incumbent on this government to do what it has failed to do up until now, and that is to follow the directive, which seems to be a hollow directive, a meaningless directive, a directive that is not acted upon, and inform all members affected.

105 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/8/24 11:36:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt my colleague, but in the middle of it, the member opposite shouted across “Where is the tin hat?” Aside from the fact that I think he meant “tinfoil hat”, the point is that I think that is unparliamentary. We are trying to have a serious conversation about foreign interference, and he is dismissing real facts, real experience and history about this. Frankly, it is typical of the Liberals that they try to claim it is a conspiracy when we are pointing out real—

103 words

The Speaker

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

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

May/8/24 11:38:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are four possible reasons for this government's response: ambivalence, unseriousness, just incompetence or willful inaction. I am wondering if my hon. colleague can opine as to what the driving force is for this government's response, or lack of response, to this example of foreign interference.

50 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/8/24 11:38:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that it is an instance that is a part of the pattern of a government that has not taken these threats seriously. The Liberals have turned a blind eye, they have downplayed it and they have been reluctant to take measures to counter foreign interference. It was only after Madam Justice Hogue's first report was issued, for example, that they finally introduced legislation to introduce, among other things, a foreign influence registry. To be charitable to them, it is ambivalence and it is a lack of seriousness, but it could be much worse than that. It could be that this is, frankly, a government that has, at times, sort of welcomed Beijing's interference and at the very least, for political and other reasons, has been unwilling to stand up to Beijing.

138 words

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

May/8/24 11:39:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my voice to what is an incredibly important discussion. There are, of course, a host of issues that this place is seized with on a regular basis. However, for those who might be watching, “privilege” is a word that has quite a few definitions, especially in the world in which we live. It speaks to something very specific when it comes to the parliamentary context. It is the ability for a member of Parliament to do their job well. Mr. Speaker, in your ruling earlier today, you outlined how the actions of a foreign state actor impeded the ability of 18 parliamentarians to be able to do the job that they were elected to do, or in the event that included senators, to do the job they were sent to the respective Houses to do. I think it is key to outline that because it is not simply a matter that can be taken lightly; it is something that needs to be treated with the utmost seriousness. I will try to outline a few reasons as to why that is such an important aspect to the debate we are having on the ruling made earlier this evening. As parliamentarians, there are a host of things that happen beyond simply the debates in this place. The Speaker's ruling noted how the actions of the cyber-attack were directly related to the larger duties that members of Parliament have, although this did not necessarily have the direct implications for debate. For many people, this is what they see on television. It is the clips from this place. It is the press conference outside the doors not far from us. However, it speaks to the bigger issue about what our democratic infrastructure is, and I think that is absolutely key. I will use myself as an example. I know that many others in this place, in our support for our ally Ukraine, were sanctioned by the Putin regime in Russia. It was for our strong stance in support of our democratic ally, and that is a consequence of the actions we undertake in this place. Although it is not a universally held opinion, I am proud to be a strong supporter of the state of Israel and its right to exist. I know, especially since the happenings of October 7, 2023, there have been a host of developments around that. I am talking not just about the conflict itself but also about the international conversations and some of the geopolitical dynamics associated with that. We have heard about the issue that we are speaking about today, more specifically how the organization known as APT31, affiliated with the Communist dictatorship in Beijing, targeted certain members of Parliament. However, it is part of the larger conversation around the geopolitical influence of the Communist dictatorship in Beijing. Many of us in this place have made strong statements. I know that my colleague who just finished speaking has brought a number of bills forward throughout his career in Parliament about support for Taiwan and how Taiwan can be treated on the international stage. It is important context because it is some of the work we do as parliamentarians. We have to be free to be able to do that work well. We have seen over the last number of years how there have been significant attempts by hostile foreign regimes, and not simply to engage in the political discourse. Even when it comes to Russia's sanctioning me and many of my colleagues in this place, it has gone beyond that to trying to use fear and intimidation tactics, or some of the tactics that would be more familiar from spy movies, like espionage or spyware on computers. I am a member of the ethics committee, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you spent a long time on that committee, where there have been a host of conversations around on-device surveillance tools, whether during the pandemic or the use of tracking information from cellphones. There is a host of information available in the digital age. Not to get into a conversation about AI, although some of those developments are essential parts of what needs to be included in this conversation, but we have a hostile foreign regime that has a very specific political agenda attempting to use tools nefariously to possibly influence and manipulate what Canadian parliamentarians are doing within the scope of their duties in this place. I appreciate this finding of a prima facie breach of privilege. I am hopeful, and from what I have heard throughout the debate tonight, I am optimistic that, when this important debate comes to a vote, we will be able to send this to PROC. The committee will be able to propose solutions, some of which, I would suggest, will complement this. You noted in your ruling how this is different than one of the previous instances where the member for Wellington—Halton Hills had brought forward a question of privilege. There was another member, the former member for Durham, Erin O'Toole, the leader of the Conservative Party in the 2021 election, who had brought forward a similar motion. However, because of the timing, in part, and some of the developments at that point, his case was not found to be, but I believe the Speaker had encouraged PROC, which was seized with the issue, to include that in its study. Certainly, there have been a host of developments that have taken place since that point in time revealing truly the extent to which specifically Beijing, but other foreign state actors as well, has attempted, and has been seen to have the ability, to influence what we do here in this place. Specifically, with Justice Hogue's report, we have seen how there was a potentiality of impact in the last election. This is one thing where we have to be seasoned. I was quite frustrated with how the government responded initially to some of the accusations about foreign influence in the elections. Part of my frustration was around the fact that it simply declared that it was not an issue and therefore would not have changed the result of that election. There was certainly much debate in the media and among parliamentarians, even in this place, as to what that exactly meant. Justice Hogue made what I think is an important contribution to highlight how Canadian elections are not simply one election, like with the U.S. presidential election, but rather, in the case of the current Parliament, 338 individual elections, and there is evidence that suggests that there could have been a substantial impact. For the former member for Steveston—Richmond East, it had a significant impact, and hearing before the ethics committee some of the ways in which, even though he is a Canadian of Chinese descent, his integrity was impugned by an absolutely horrific thing that was said about his personal character and his Chinese background. That was spread often in a language that is not one of Canada's official languages, which led to it having a significant impact. We heard specifically how the candidate who ran for the Liberal Party and ultimately defeated Kenny Chiu in the 2021 election did not separate himself or fight back against what was clearly disinformation. There was a clear attempt to take what Mr. Chiu had brought forward, specifically a foreign agent registry in the form of a private member's bill, which would have really taken this whole conversation a giant leap forward, and see that stalled or stopped. The impact was what very well could have been the change of an election result. That has had the impact of causing Canadians, ultimately, to see an erosion of trust in their institutions. When we see some of those issues surrounding it, that is one example that has brought a whole host of opportunities for us to debate within this place, and of course, different committees are doing good work on that. I know the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has also had that chance. I would suggest there is an important dynamic here that cannot be lost in the midst of it. While there is the impact that it has upon the privileges we have in this place, and the Speaker highlighted that within his ruling, but beyond that, it has a specific and very significant impact on diaspora communities who might be impacted. Take the three examples I listed earlier, when it comes to my personal connection. Whether it is supporting Ukraine, being a supporter of the state of Israel or taking a strong stance in support of Taiwan, those are things I can do as a parliamentarian, and I willingly take those positions and present that to the Canadian people. Certainly, it is justified to make sure that I can do that freely and fairly within this place. However, I would encourage the Speaker and all those participating in this debate to consider the impact that has on regular Canadians, those who are not protected by the same rights and privileges we have in this place, those of Chinese origin, those of Ukrainian origin, and those who are connected with Israel and who might be Jewish. I would suggest that part of the reason we need to take this so seriously and to make sure all Canadians, whether they take a seat in this place, which I am proud to be doing, or whether it be a new Canadian who deserves to be protected and to have their government take it seriously, is that there is the potentiality and a real significant threat that they would try to be influenced, manipulated or coerced by a hostile foreign state actor. My colleague who spoke earlier talked about this, and we have heard this a number of times this evening. There has been a host of examples of that, and one example would be those police stations, some of which may still be operating. At first, when I started receiving correspondence based on some initial media reports, I thought that this cannot be real. I thought that this cannot be happening in our country, yet we have learned not only that it is happening, but also that there was an unserious response to it. When it comes to some of the foreign election interference, again, one thinks that we guard our democracies. That is key to who we are as Canadians. We are proud of that democratic legacy, and I talk often about this, that dates back to the foundation of the Westminster system. We see that over the last two elections, there was a concerted effort by hostile foreign states to impact the results of the election. Again, we see a government that did not take that seriously. There is the potentiality of threat to Canadians' personal information, and that impacts every segment of our society, our economy and the ability for Canadians to go about their daily lives. In fact, I would encourage members in this place to consider some very developing news from Premier Eby of British Columbia. He made an announcement earlier this evening that there was a sophisticated cyber-attack levelled against the B.C. government. While there are not extensive details yet, I am sure we will learn those in the coming days. The fact is that we have one of 10 Canadian provinces facing a cyber-attack and that it was called “sophisticated” by the Premier of British Columbia. It sounds like, and I hope, certainly, that British Columbians' data was protected. We see that these are very real and present threats to how Canadians live their daily lives. In light of the privilege debate, which is very important because it is key to our ability to operate as a democracy, I would encourage us to take seriously how this impacts regular Canadians who are not given the same rights and protections that we are as MPs, who do not have the infrastructure or the ability to appeal to a Speaker, to see the issue studied in a report and brought back. It is a regular Canadian who may now be questioning the email they sent criticizing the regime where a family member may still live and what that impact might have on them or whether somebody could be listening. There are so many unanswered questions. What I have been frustrated with since being elected to Parliament is how the current government does not seem to take that seriously. In the few minutes that I have remaining, I would suggest that the trend of the government only responding to serious issues when pushed to the point where it has become public is simply not good enough. We see this time and time again. We see this with the example of my former Conservative colleague, Kenny Chiu. He brought forward a private member's bill on a foreign agent registry. It was criticized significantly by other parties. They said it was unnecessary. It was a significant and maybe the contributing factor to his electoral defeat, yet now we have a bill brought forward by the government, after there has been so much scrutiny, that is functionally very similar to what Mr. Chiu proposed more than two years ago. I think that this is a clear example of how not treating seriously the demands of government is leading Canadians to not only lose trust in their institutions but to lose trust in the government's ability to keep them safe. As was highlighted in some of the conversations surrounding the fact of how we learned about this, there is no question that the American intelligence infrastructure is probably the most sophisticated and well funded in the history of the planet, but that does not excuse our need, whether it is as a Five Eyes partner, a member of NATO or a G7 country, to be at the front of ensuring that not only are we protecting Canadians but that we also are doing everything we can with the tools available to us to make sure that MPs, senators, in the case of the prima facie breach of privilege, and, further, all Canadians can trust that they will be protected by their government. What I would suggest is that we need a very serious response to this. What Conservatives have advocated for all along, and this goes back long before I was elected, is to make sure that we take these threats and concerns very seriously and to treat them with the gravity that they deserve, so that parliamentarians are freely able to do their work. I know I heard my colleague from Calgary Midnapore talking about the questions she was asking as soon as she learned about when this attack might have taken place. There was a host of questions: What was she talking about back in January 2021 and all of these things? To find out almost two years later about these things speaks to a trend that is very concerning and one that shows, certainly, a lack of trust in the current government, the Prime Minister and the security process. It was highlighted earlier how there is conflicting testimony from the Prime Minister himself, who says that he does not read reports and just gets high-level briefings, and his chief of staff, who says that he reads everything. These are the sorts of things that Canadians may not be seized with on a daily basis, but it speaks to a trend of how concerning the lack of response is. As I close my speech, I would simply say this: I would encourage all members of this place to vote in favour to ensure that this goes to the procedure and House affairs committee and gets the attention that it deserves, not simply for MPs and senators and parliamentarians, but to show all Canadians that the pinnacle of Canada's democratic institutions takes our security and their security seriously, because we have not seen that thus far under the Liberal government.

2702 words

The Speaker

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 311