Debates of May 8th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Manning is absolutely correct. The message the government basically sends to the diaspora communities, to former political prisoners whom we meet with and to people in civic organizations in Canada is that they do not matter. They will not be protected by the government. It is a free-for-all, with foreign agents and foreign hacking. It is not just their physical health they have to worry about; it is also their digital health. The government will not protect parliamentarians, and the message it is sending is that people are on their own; this has been heard loud and clear. There is a lot of fear out there in the community.

Conservatives do not have to raise anyone's anxiety. We are just raising voices and pointing out what has been done. The government had a moral and ethical responsibility to act and inform the 18 parliamentarians, and it failed to do so.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one issue I did not have a chance to talk about during my speech, and I am glad the member spoke about it, is the nature of APT31 itself. Part of this discussion needs to be the appropriate response to a foreign state attacking members of Parliament. Of course, we need to talk about what the government should have done, what we can do differently and processes within Canada.

However, we also need to talk about accountability for the people who perpetrated the attack. One call to action that the IPAC suggested is sanctions against those who target legislators in our country. This seems to me like a no-brainer. When a group controlled by a foreign state is targeting and attacking members of Parliament in our country based on their parliamentary activities, we should be sanctioning the individuals involved in the attack.

This is something that is within the jurisdiction of government, not within the jurisdiction of Parliament. Could the member comment on that call to action for the government, calling on the government to sanction those involved in this cyber-attack?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. As with many things with the Liberals, they are not leaders on anything. They are followers on where other governments have gone. The U.S. State Department has already listed seven of these intelligence officers connected with APT31.

Let me just read some of the targets mentioned. It goes to why we should list them, why we should penalize them and why we should sanction this group. It reads:

APT31 has targeted a wide range of victims linked to U.S. national security including staff at the White House; the U.S. Departments of Justice, Commerce, Treasury, and State; members of the U.S. Congress, including both Democrat and Republican Senators; the United States Naval Academy; and the United States Naval War College’s China Maritime Studies Institute.

It goes on to include the industrial base, telecommunications, energy and financial sectors. It is very specific in what has been targeted.

The fact that it would now broaden its interests to 18 Canadian parliamentarians is just the beginning. What I did not mention before in my opening speech and some of the responses is that I am also the vice-chair of the Canada-China select committee. There is a reason we would be targeted for the work we do, both at the IPAC and in Parliament.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that response. It is notable, as it relates to sanctions in general involving the PRC, that there have been various calls for sanctions from parliamentary committees.

For instance, the member mentioned that he is involved in the special committee on Canada-China relations. In the last Parliament, we had a very detailed report on Hong Kong in which we called for sanctions against those involved in the human rights violations that are taking place in Hong Kong.

The government has not taken up that call, despite the fact that it came from a unanimous report of members of Parliament on that committee, including a parliamentary secretary. There has been a reluctance to apply these sanctions. I do wonder, also, if the issue of our not being informed and the issue of sanctions are related in this sense, that if members of Parliament had been informed they were being targeted by a foreign state, they would have expected the government to respond to hold those who were attacking them accountable.

However, if the government had decided, for whatever political reasons, that it did not want to impose consequences on those involved in hacking, that it did not want to impose sanctions on foreign actors involved in both human rights violations and foreign interference, it would then be easier for them to avoid taking those actions that it, for whatever reason, did not want to take if as few people knew about it as possible. I wonder if members—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. It is possible that one of the reasons the government chose not to inform us, those 18 of us who were targeted, is not just because the attacks did not succeed but also because there would have been an expectation from us, and calls by us, for sanctions on the people, organizations and governments that were doing this.

This is, again, not something new. The government of Beijing has targeted Hong Kong democracy activists in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and Canada as well. There are many Hong Kong diaspora community members who are fearful even of taking pictures with us. I have been to community groups. I have been to community meetings where people jump out of the photo.

It is not for partisan purposes because they are not voters in this country. It is not that they have friends who are Conservative or New Democrat or Liberal. That is not the case. They plainly tell me that they are worried about a picture being posted online, with me specifically, it being distributed out there, and people seeing that they are both in Canada and hanging out with this particular Conservative politician.

I am sure the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan gets the same treatment. That is a worrying trend. The government does not seem to be taking the protection of these people seriously.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this issue merits proper examination. At this hour, we have heard from many speakers that this must be taken seriously.

Will the member agree that this should be referred to PROC as soon as possible? Obviously, we gathered here to debate Bill C-59, which has issues of great importance to the citizens we represent. Will the member agree to speeding up the process and moving this to PROC as soon as possible?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would never tell members not to rise in the House when it is their opportunity to speak on a particular issue. Second, I think every single member who was targeted should get an opportunity to rise in the House and explain exactly how this impacted their work. Third, I note that it is after 11 o'clock. I doubt PROC will be meeting tonight.

The debate should continue until every single member who wants to speak to the issue and how it has impacted their work is given the opportunity to do so.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate arising from your ruling earlier this evening of a prima facie breach of privilege involving 18 members in the House who were targeted by the Beijing-based Communist regime as part of a hacking operation, a progressive reconnaissance attack, due to their affiliation with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, or IPAC.

This attack occurred in early 2021, and for three years, these members were kept in the dark, which is completely unacceptable, so I welcome your ruling, Mr. Speaker, because here we go again one year later.

One year ago, we were having a very similar debate in the House based upon the ruling of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, of a prima facie breach of privilege concerning the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. That was referred to the procedure and House affairs committee through which a report was recently tabled in the House finding that indeed the privileges of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills were violated, and for the very same reason that those of the 18 members of Parliament who were subject to the matter of your ruling were, which is that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was kept in the dark that he was being targeted by Beijing and that his family in Hong Kong was being targeted by the Beijing-based regime.

This hacking attack did occur in 2021. It was reported by the U.S., by the FBI, to the Communications Security Establishment, to this government, in 2022. However, like the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, many of the 18 members first learned that they were being targeted by Beijing not through a briefing but through a report in The Globe and Mail. It raises serious questions as to why it is that this came to light because of The Globe and Mail reporting on it, and not based upon information from this government but from the U.S. government.

Indeed it was an unsealed indictment of the justice department earlier this year that resulted in the IPAC secretariat becoming aware that members of IPAC were targeted, and not only Canadian members of Parliament but parliamentarians from around the world who were part of IPAC. That, in turn, led IPAC to ask questions of the Department of Justice in the U.S. as well as the FBI as to why members were not informed.

The FBI, in effect, said that due to jurisdictional issues, it could not communicate directly to them and could not directly brief them, but it did, as soon as possible, provide that information to the Government of Canada, more specifically to the Communications Security Establishment. From there, that information went into a black hole, just as it did with respect to the targeting of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

What is also disturbing is that, once again, the excuse being offered by the government is that it is not its fault; it is someone else's fault.

When The Globe and Mail reported that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was being targeted by the Beijing-based regime, the Prime Minister first claimed that he learned about it in The Globe and Mail. Then, he said that it was the fault of CSIS. He said to the media at the time, “CSIS made the determination that it wasn't...needed [to] be raised to a higher level because it wasn't a significant enough concern”.

Then, it was revealed that what the Prime Minister said was not true, that the information had in fact been passed on to the Prime Minister's department, the PCO, to the Prime Minister's national security and intelligence adviser and that the information was not acted upon and was not shared with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. Nothing was done.

Again, the Prime Minister was very quick to blame someone else, to blame CSIS. The same is true of the Minister of Public Safety. It was learned at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, during the study we undertook on the question of privilege, that in fact CSIS had sent an IMU to the Minister of Public Safety, to the deputy minister of public safety and to the Minister of Public Safety's chief of staff, alerting them about the fact that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family were being targeted by Beijing.

When the Minister of Public Safety came to committee, he, just like the Prime Minister, said that it was not his fault, that it was the fault of CSIS and that somehow CSIS had made an operational decision not to inform him. He said that repeatedly and unequivocally. It was not a misstatement. Those were carefully selected words by the Minister of Public Safety that were patently not true. How could CSIS have made an operational decision not to inform the Minister of Public Safety when it sent to him an IMU, addressed to him, his deputy minister and his chief of staff? It is patently absurd.

When the director of CSIS came before the procedure and House affairs committee, I asked him what the significance of an IMU was. He said that it was a matter of high importance. It was not just any memo that was sent, it was sent specifically to get the Minister of Public Safety's attention. Not only did the minister not act upon the intelligence concerning the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, not only does he bear responsibility, along with the Prime Minister and the government, for keeping that member in the dark, which led to a breach of that member's privilege, but also the minister may not have been entirely forthcoming with all the facts, in a desperate and pathetic effort to blame someone else.

The Liberals and the Prime Minister are not responsible, and that is true. They are not a responsible government. However, when it comes to taking responsibility, it is always someone else's fault. Here we go again with another instance. This time, 18 members of Parliament were kept in the dark for two years. It was three years from the time of the attack, but two years from the time that the government was informed by the FBI. What is the excuse offered by the Liberals? It was a decision of House of Commons administration. Somehow it was the House of Commons administration's fault, not the government's fault.

I say that is completely unacceptable in terms of an excuse for keeping members of Parliament in the dark about something as serious as a progressive attack against them. It was an attack that, yes, began at a low level, but it was an attack aimed at gathering information about them, information that could have impeded their ability to do their work as members of Parliament and that could have threatened their safety and security and that of those with whom they meet, including members of the diaspora communities that are targeted by the Beijing-based Communist regime.

For the Liberals to simply pass the buck to the House of Commons administration on something like this is a complete abdication of responsibility. At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility lies with the government and, in that regard, the government completely failed. I would submit that it was more than just a failure; for the Liberals, the information that had been passed on to them by the FBI was inconvenient.

The Liberals did not want to pass the information on to members because it could have resulted in members' putting pressure on the Liberals to actually do something, to take action in response to the Beijing-based regime, which, I will remind members, the Prime Minister said was a dictatorship he admired. He admired its basic dictatorship. The Prime Minister extended his hand, time and again, to the Beijing-based regime and who turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference in our democracy because, as he saw it, it was benefiting the Liberal Party.

Therefore we need to get to the bottom of what happened, who learned what, where the information went and why members were left in the dark. Why was it information from the U.S. Department of Justice, in an unsealed indictment, that led to IPAC's raising questions that in turn resulted in members of Parliament being informed in some cases by IPAC and in other instances through the report in The Globe and Mail?

Let me observe it more broadly. When it comes to foreign interference, and specifically interference by the Beijing-based regime, which is the largest threat when it comes to interfering in Canada, targeting diaspora communities and interfering in our democracy and our sovereignty and impacting the safety of Canadians, the current government's record is an abysmal one. It simply cannot be trusted to stand up to the Beijing-based regime.

The current government is a government that turned a blind eye to Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister had been repeatedly briefed about that interference. He covered it up when Global News and The Globe and Mail first reported on it in the fall of 2022 and early 2023. He tried to downplay it. He is not able to downplay it now that the first report of Madam Justice Hogue was issued last week, which is a damning indictment on the Prime Minister in many respects.

Under the government's watch, police stations have been operating in communities across Canada, targeting Chinese Canadians. At least two of those stations remain open. The government was actually funding some of the organizations that were operating the police stations.

There was a major national security breach at the Winnipeg lab, Canada's highest-security lab, in which agents of the Beijing regime transferred sensitive materials to PRC institutions, including the transfer of two of the most deadly pathogens, Ebola and Henipah, at the direction of one of those scientists. That happened even after PHAC's fact-finding report indicated that the scientist had breached multiple security and intellectual property policies of PHAC and that the individual had collaborated with Beijing on an unauthorized basis. Nonetheless, under the government's watch, Henipah and Ebola were sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

At the Winnipeg lab, a military scientist had access to the lab, someone who was working with Beijing's foremost expert in bioterrorism and biodefence. The list goes on and on.

It is pretty incredible. It is what happens after nine years under a Prime Minister who is not serious, does not take foreign interference seriously and does not take these threats seriously. The Prime Minister's chief of staff said at committee that the Prime Minister reads everything put on his desk and that he is frequently briefed. Then we learn, when the Prime Minister appears at the foreign interference inquiry, that he actually does not really read anything at all. We have a Prime Minister who, at best, is asleep at the switch and, at worst, has turned a blind eye, at times, and even been willing to go along with Beijing's interference if it benefits the electoral interests of the Liberal Party.

In closing, the facts underlying this prima facie question of privilege that the Speaker has ruled on are a matter that should never have happened. The government can point blame at everyone else all it wants, but a directive was finally issued in 2023 to inform members of Parliament. It should not have taken until 2023, but it was issued then. Still no action was taken and the members were kept in the dark. Why were they not informed, at the very least, after that directive was issued? These are among the questions that need to be answered.

There needs to be accountability for this very serious breach. I believe that it was not just a prima facie breach but that the privileges of those 18 members were violated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would really encourage those who might be following the debate to read what the Speaker's ruling stated. It is very clear that, over the last number of years, we have seen the Prime Minister deal with the serious issue of international foreign interference, whether it is in legislation surrounding elections in Manitoba years ago, the directive the member just referred to, the legislation with regard to the registry or something more.

Let us contrast that with the previous prime minister. Foreign interference not only happens around the world and by more countries than just China, but it has been happening since 2011-12, when Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing, nada. However, the member has the tenacity to say that the Prime Minister has not done anything. That is a joke.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the record of the government has been an abysmal one. The member spoke of the May directive in 2023 to inform MPs. Why was that directive issued? It was after the Prime Minister and the government got caught not informing the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. It was only then that all of a sudden they said they were going to issue this directive. They did not take any responsibility, of course. It is about lessons learned, they always say.

The member spoke about the foreign influence registry. This is the Prime Minister who opposed a foreign influence registry when the former member for Steveston—Richmond East introduced a private member's bill. Not only did the Prime Minister oppose the foreign influence registry, but, based upon evidence that came at the ethics committee, the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party actually amplified Beijing's disinformation targeting the member for Steveston—Richmond East at the time, Kenny Chiu, which contributed to his defeat. In other words, the Prime Minister and the Liberals did not just turn a blind eye or stand by as Beijing launched a disinformation campaign against Kenny Chiu; they actually amplified it and were, therefore, participants in it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard earlier from the government member that there was no mistake made by the government, implying that the government was right not to tell this member and other members that they had their personal, private emails potentially hacked by a foreign power. Does the member agree with that?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

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.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

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?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

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.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

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—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

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.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

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.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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.)