Evidence of meeting #114 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was interference.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
We will have a continuation of the debate on this motion. Mr. Cooper has asked for the floor again.
Mr. Calkins, is it a point of order?
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Absolutely. There's no problem.
Just for clarity, folks, I'm going to respect Mr. Cooper's continuation because he had presented it. Then Mr. Duncan, Mr. Calkins, and Madam Mathyssen would be our speaking order.
Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.
Colleagues, I would remind you that we are still in debate on Ms. Romanado's motion, on the subamendment.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It is extremely disappointing to once again see the Liberals, with their cover-up coalition ally the NDP, blocking the work of this committee to get to the bottom of a matter that is about as serious as it gets and that must take priority. That is the prima facie question of privilege involving 18 members of Parliament.
Mr. Chair, for two years 18 members of Parliament were kept in the dark that Beijing had launched a cyber-attack against them—a progressive reconnaissance attack.
There is only one reason that they found out, and they found out notwithstanding that for two years the government had that information; they found out because the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China had seen an unsealed indictment from the U.S. Department of Justice in March of this year. That prompted IPAC to ask questions of the Department of Justice, as well as the FBI, as to why members of Parliament—not only the Canadian members of Parliament, but parliamentarians around the world and members of Congress who were targeted as part of a cyber attack—were not informed.
The answer provided by the secretary of IPAC is that with respect to parliamentarians outside of the United States, they had not directly been informed by the FBI or the Department of Justice due to jurisdictional issues. The FBI indicated to the IPAC secretariat that in early 2022, that information had been passed along to each of the governments of those countries that those members of Parliament were from. That included the Government of Canada being informed by the FBI in the early part of 2022. It was more specifically the Communications Security Establishment that had received the information that 18 sitting members of Parliament had been targeted, all of whom were members of IPAC.
That resulted in IPAC then briefing certain Canadian members of Parliament that they had been the target of this cyber-attack and that the Government of Canada had not informed them of that fact. It was subsequent to this that there was a report in The Globe and Mail a few weeks ago.
What we have is a situation of the government knowing for two years that members of Parliament were the target of foreign interference by the Beijing-based Communist regime. Those members—unacceptably—found out about it either through IPAC, as a result of an unsealed indictment of the U.S. Department of Justice, or they read about it for the first time in The Globe and Mail.
This is part of a pattern. We on this committee just completed a study on another prima facie question of privilege that was reported to this House almost exactly a year ago, involving the member of Parliament and our colleague Michael Chong, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.
Just as these 18 members of Parliament were kept in the dark that they were being targeted by the Beijing Communist regime, Michael Chong was kept in the dark. Just like these 18 members of Parliament, he was kept in the dark for two years.
Just like these 18 members of Parliament, Mr. Chong did not find out by way of a briefing or as a result of any transparency on the part of this government to alert him that he and his family were being threatened by none other than an accredited Beijing diplomat at Beijing's Toronto consulate, one who had been accredited and continued to be accredited by these Liberals across the way and their government. No, he found out about it by speaking with Steven Chase or Robert Fife on the eve of a report that they wrote for The Globe and Mail.
What we have seen in this instance—just like with what happened to Michael Chong—was this Liberal government and this Prime Minister refusing to accept responsibility. They're the government, but somehow they're never responsible. They're never responsible for anything, according to them. They blame. They always talk about lessons learned—
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm sorry.
Mr. Cooper is speaking about a motion we are not on. I would suggest that he get back to the topic of the motion at hand, which is about harassment.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
I'm sorry, Mr. Cooper. Wait one moment. I'll address that.
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
Mr. Cooper, I think we went through this in the last meeting. I'm sure you're getting to things that are relevant to this. I'll turn the floor back to you.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It is relevant to the motion because it's relevant to the issue of prioritization. That is the heart of the subamendment I put forward to Ms. Mathyssen's amendment.
As I was saying, this government, in this instance, with respect to their failure to inform members of Parliament and to what happened to Mr. Chong.... The response from these Liberals is that they're not responsible, even though they are the government. It's always someone else's fault.
In the case of Mr. Chong, it was asserted that it was CSIS's fault. In fact, the Prime Minister even went so far as to claim he had no idea until he saw it in The Globe and Mail. He first said he learned about it in The Globe and Mail and doubled down on that, saying that CSIS had made a decision not to brief him on it because CSIS deemed it not important enough to bring up to the Prime Minister. That turned out to be false, because it was then revealed that CSIS had provided the warning that MP Chong and his family were being targeted by the Beijing-based Communist regime to the Prime Minister's department, the PCO.
Of course, we later learned that CSIS had sent an earlier IMU, an issues management note, to the Minister of Public Safety, his chief of staff and the deputy minister of public safety, the current Minister of National Defence, Bill Blair. Then the Prime Minister actually tried to blame Michael Chong himself, falsely claiming that Michael Chong had been briefed when he had not been briefed. The briefings Michael Chong received from CSIS were of a general nature.
As far as I know, there has never been an acknowledgement by the Prime Minister or Bill Blair that there was a failure on their part in terms of intelligence warnings from CSIS, which were about as serious as they get and ought to have taken priority. This was supported by the testimony of the director of CSIS, David Vigneault, who said that when CSIS sends an IMU, it's because it is a matter of high importance. They send it because it's a matter they want them to have on their desk. It's something they need to see.
Well, in the case of MP Chong and his family being targeted, I can see why CSIS would have prioritized that—
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
We're getting so far away from examining Mr. Cooper's subamendment, the topic at hand, that I can't even remember what that subamendment is.
Would it be possible to remind us so I can understand it?
I think we're getting really far off topic.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Notwithstanding the fact I just heard instructions given to Mr. Duguid from the Liberal Party whip to call points of order to try to move my colleague off of his game, I will say this: The issue that's before us is the work plan of the committee. This is committee business.
We're basically talking about what this committee ought to be studying, whether on the main motion, the amendment, or the subamendment. Great latitude is always given for members of Parliament to discuss any of the priorities in a work plan that this committee would have.
I think my colleague Mr. Cooper is completely in order in his discussion, not only within the context of his subamendment but the broader overall agenda of the work plan of this committee. Frankly, I'm not going to fault anybody for using whatever strategies or tactics they want to use, as long as everybody is following the rules. You're doing an excellent job so far, Mr. Chair, in administering the rules, given that we're in our second meeting.
I would hope that colleagues would have enough respect for the general traditions and practices of this place, within the context of the rules, that we can talk during committee business about the scheduling and planning of this committee. This would include any of the motions, generally speaking, that would be a priority as we try to triage our way forward and come to a solution as to what this committee will study next.
I think everything is fair game in that context, Mr. Chair.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
Mr. Cooper, if you're willing to oblige, I think I heard Madame Fortier asking if you could repeat what your subamendment was for the purposes of clarity on the part of the committee. If you're open to that, Mr. Cooper, perhaps it would be helpful, and it will help us move along.
Of course, you maintain the floor and you can continue to talk on this as you wish.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Members should have my subamendment before them, because it has been distributed through the clerk to all members.
It would amend Ms. Mathyssen's amendment to Ms. Romanado's motion in two ways. First, it would prioritize this committee's study on foreign election interference before taking up the study proposed in Ms. Romanado's motion. Second, it would remove the requirement that the study proposed by Ms. Romanado be completed and reported back to the House by October 31, 2024. It would remove that date.
That is what my subamendment provides for, yet with regard to the subamendment and to the broader issue of prioritization, what happened last evening and what has happened in the House moments ago would also have to be part of the discussion in order to appropriately deal with the motion before us, the subamendment. More broadly, it would deal with the motion put forward by Ms. Romanado from the standpoint of prioritization.
In that regard, I would note that in the case of MP Chong, there was a study by this committee, and we did find that Mr. Chong's privileges had been breached.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Cooper, I'll ask you to pause for a moment.
Colleagues, I'm trying to focus on what Mr. Cooper is saying, and that's difficult with conversation happening across the table. I would ask that members simply meet in person while someone is speaking and has the floor. It would be very helpful for me as the chair, as well for the person speaking and the interpreters. If we can please have those conversations in person, away from the microphones, it would be helpful.
Madame Fortier and Madame Gaudreau, I'm trying to make the point that we don't do this, please. Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Just as the Prime Minister and these Liberals refused to take responsibility of any kind for what this committee in its report determined was in fact a breach of the privileges of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, Mr. Chong, we see the same posture from this Liberal government in respect of the failure of this Liberal government to inform the 18 members of Parliament, even as the Speaker has now found a prima facie question of privilege in regard to that failure.
The position taken by the Liberals since it came to light that these MPs were targeted is that this was something that was referred to the House of Commons administration. Therefore, it was a failure of the House of Commons administration that these 18 members of Parliament were not informed. That is a completely unacceptable response. That does not excuse the Liberals at all from this failure. It is fine and well that the House of Commons administration was informed about this progressive reconnaissance attack targeting these 18 MPs, but it's not up to the House of Commons administration and it's not up to the IT department in the House of Commons to brief MPs that they are the target of a hostile foreign state. It is the responsibility of the Liberal government.
That didn't happen. That is a significant failure. It would never have happened but for the fact that there was an unsealed indictment of the Department of Justice and a report in The Globe and Mail. Otherwise, those members of Parliament would continue to be kept in the dark.
Why is it important that they be informed? I would submit that members of Parliament should be informed when they are the target of a hostile foreign state and when their own government has that information. Members of Parliament need to know. It has or could have a serious impact on our ability and the ability of our colleagues to do our jobs. It could impact our safety, and not only our safety. It could impact the safety of our families, our staff, our constituents and others we interact with, including human rights activists and members of diaspora communities who have been targeted, intimidated and threatened by hostile foreign states like the Beijing-based Communist regime.
Given the nature of the cyber-attack, it was a fairly low-level attack, but it was one that was designed to get key information about the 18 members. It was progressive in nature. If members had been informed, they could have taken steps to work with the government and to work with the security and intelligence establishment to take measures to protect themselves, their families and so on. But that didn't happen. They had no idea.
The second excuse offered as to why they were not briefed, after blaming the House of Commons administration, was that the attack was not successful.
With respect, Mr. Chair, that ought not to be the standard: that the attack was not successful. Again, all members ought to know whether they are being targeted by a hostile foreign state or any foreign state when our government has that information. It's good that the attack wasn't successful, but that doesn't in any way negate or limit the rights of those members to be made aware.
I would make the observation that, if a member knew that they were the target of a cyber-attack by the Beijing-based Communist regime, one that wasn't ultimately successful, it certainly would cause me, if I were one of those members, to take extra vigilance, recognizing that clearly I had a target on my back by the Beijing-based Communist regime.
I would want to know that, because if they had targeted me once, it would be quite logical that they would target me again and quite logical that they would target those members again. That begs the question. If this is the approach this government has taken—to keep members in the dark, blame everyone else when they get caught keeping members in the dark and then say, by the way, it wasn't fully successful so therefore we can wash our hands clean of any responsibility—it begs the question: How many other cyber-attacks by hostile foreign states, such as the Beijing-based regime, such as the Iranian regime, have been targeted at members of Parliament and maybe members in this committee room?
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Mr. Cooper, I'm sorry to interrupt.
I think I alluded at the last meeting to the fact that I'm a big believer in health breaks and the necessity for people to stretch their legs. Of course, you don't lose your slot on the floor should you or whoever else still be speaking in five minutes. May I suspend just for five minutes to let people stretch their legs? We will absolutely resume debate with whoever has the floor at that point.
I apologize for the interruption. I just wanted to give you a heads-up on that. At about 12 o'clock, I'll do a health break. Is that okay?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
How many members have been targeted, whether it be by way of a cyber-attack or in other ways? We know that, ever since President Xi took office in Beijing, there has been a significant escalation in cyber-attacks, in the targeting of diaspora communities, of interference activities and, in broader terms, in the aggressive posture taken towards Canada, the United States and our allies.
In that context, it is also troubling that members were kept in the dark, in light of the nature of the regime that we are dealing with here. It's a regime that interfered in our elections and illegally set up police stations that violated our sovereignty and threatened the safety and security of Chinese Canadians. It's a regime that infiltrated Canada's highest security lab in Winnipeg, which resulted in the transfer of sensitive materials to Beijing-based institutions, including the transfer of two of the most deadly pathogens: Ebola and Henipah. It's a regime that arbitrarily arrested two Canadians—the two Michaels—Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, a regime that threatened the safety and security of 300,000 Canadians living in Hong Kong and a regime that imposed a series of punitive trade measures against Canada.
Not to mention, it's also a regime that is committing genocide against its own people, including Uyghur Muslims, and that has, for more than 20 years, targeted Falun Dafa practitioners because they dare to stand for the principles of compassion, tolerance and forbearance. I could go on, Mr. Chair, but I think it is important to highlight these things to capture the significant threat posed by the Beijing regime. It is a regime that poses a threat to our democracy, our sovereignty and the safety and security of our people.
In the face of that, and with the government being fully aware of that, how is it that 18 members of Parliament were kept in the dark? How is it possible that the 18 members of Parliament were kept in the dark, notwithstanding the cabinet directive, issued in May 2023, that members of Parliament be informed? Why were they not informed, at the very least, following the issuance of that directive?
We know the Liberals issued that directive only after they got caught keeping Michael Chong in the dark, for two years, that he and his family were being targeted by the Beijing regime, including by an accredited diplomat—a diplomat who remained accredited for two years, intimidating Chinese-Canadians, when this government knew of his activities. It was damage control, and it raises the question of whether the directive is just a piece of paper. What good is a directive if it isn't followed and implemented? It seems that the directive wasn't implemented.
When we speak about prioritization, which is the heart of the subamendment, I find it astounding that the NDP would join the Liberals this morning—after the House referred this prima facie question of privilege to our committee and after the member for Vancouver East, who herself was targeted, gave an impassioned speech in the House an hour ago—in blocking this committee from prioritizing and taking up that prima facie question of privilege.
I spoke in the House last evening around 11 o'clock. The member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski asked me and the member for Calgary Shepard, Mr. Kmiec, who was one of the 18 members targeted, whether we would just end the debate in the House, so that we could get it over to PROC, so that PROC could get down to work and commence a study.
Mr. Chair, I know you want to have a health break. If I may just conclude, I will continue my remarks after the break.
That happened this morning. The House voted unanimously to refer it to the procedures and House affairs committee. I attempted, at the first opportunity upon the motion being referred to this committee, to do what the NDP asked last night, which was for this committee to prioritize and immediately take up the motion that had been referred to this committee.
What did the NDP do? They voted against that. They joined the Liberals, who have every intention of covering up this massive failure that occurred under their watch. It's absolutely shameful. It demonstrates that the NDP is all talk and no action. At the end of the day, they are complicit in the cover-up efforts of this government. It's just disgraceful. They're going to have to answer for that in the next election and for the number of times that they have worked to collaborate with this government, which is causing enormous damage to this country.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you, Mr. Cooper. I recognize that you will maintain the floor.
Colleagues, as mentioned seven minutes ago now, and as we're reminded by my watch, it's time to stretch.
We're going to take a quick break for everybody's mental and physical health. We're going to suspend briefly. We'll come back in five minutes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Colleagues, we're going to resume.
Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Cooper to resume his debate on the motion, I just want to point out that, as members, we have the luxury of being able to stand up, walk around and talk in the hall if we need to. Not all of the House administration staff have the privilege of doing that. They have to stay in their seats and be attentive to what's happening. The health break is in part for them as well. I think it's important that we are mindful of the fact that there are not just members in the room but others as well. This will be something that is not uncommon if we end up in long periods of time without breaks.
With that, Mr. Cooper, the floor resumes for you.