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?