Debates of May 8th, 2024

Report Stage

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I really do not think that is an appropriate point of order. I would like the hon. member to be a little more prudent in the way he accuses colleagues of where they are or are not.

The hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be from Simcoe North.

As I was mentioning, at a time when Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, the government's stated policy objective is to make energy more expensive. We are the only country on the planet that has increased the cost of energy through direct carbon tax increases and now also through an indirect increase by imposing additional taxes on public utilities, which is commonly referred to as the EIFEL restrictions. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I speak to this bill tonight, especially on the short title.

I think we can think of many better titles for this bill, including “the Government of Canada wants people to pay more”, “the Government of Canada does not think people pay enough for energy” or “the Government of Canada is just out of ideas”. Those would be far better titles for the bill.

There were some competition provisions in this bill, which also raised some concern. The government has made very significant and substantive changes to competition policy in the last three budget bills. Each time, interestingly enough, it says that these provisions are monumental and that it has made these great changes to the competition policy that have never been seen before, but only a few months later, it brings in some more changes. I say that because it has had a lot of time to think about what it would do with competition policy.

The government proposed a number of substantive changes, and I have to give my NDP colleague credit, who is now the new member of the finance committee. He sliced up and diced up the government's competition provisions in this bill like never before. In fact, the government should be embarrassed that the competition provisions it put forward in Bill C-59 were completely redrafted by its coalition partner. It had multiple months and years to think about the provisions it wanted to change. When it finally said that it had the best changes, it got absolutely railroaded by its supply and confidence partner. That should be embarrassing for the government.

That is why we are here debating this bill and debating the title. If members want another title for the bill, as this is a government that is out of ideas, how about, “we think people can pay just a little more”. That is what the bill should be called because energy bills are going up for people in Nova Scotia with this bill.

In addition, the number of drafting errors in this bill are significant. There was a provision called the dividend deduction rules. As soon as the budget bill was tabled, some smart individual did not think that the government understood how it was going to affect individual life insurance policyholders and that maybe somebody should call it and give it a lesson. It took eight months for it to explain how a particular life insurance product worked when participating in whole life insurance. It eventually brought in a significant amendment to fix it. This bill was delayed because of all the drafting errors in it and because the government did not even understand how these significant changes would affect the cost to Canadians.

These are the reasons for which we are trying to delay the bill. The government does not have a sweet clue about what some of these amendments do.

Now the government is saying that it has to pass the bill because the market is asking for the investment tax credits. Guess what? We can pass the bill tonight if the government wants to, and no one can use the investment tax credits because the CRA and Natural Resources Canada still have not put out the guidance required for companies to take advantage of the investment tax credits. If the government was so serious about getting this bill passed, it would have had all of its homework done, but it does not. Maybe the dog ate it. I do not know what the excuse is, but the Liberal government is not ready. It is out of ideas. It chose to delay this bill until now. It was the government that had drafting errors in the bill. It decided to make energy more expensive in the bill.

The government tried to indirectly make life insurance products more expensive in this bill, but then it realized that five million Canadians would have to pay more for their life insurance products because they were trying to find revenue somewhere and tax the big banks more and tax financial institutions more, not realizing that those costs for that product are passed directly to consumers.

I was very pleased to speak against the short title of this bill, if that means we can keep energy costs lower for some Canadians for just a little longer. I welcome the wonderful questions from the member for Winnipeg North, as I know he always has a zinger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to disappoint the member, but I am sure that he could imagine how this might seem, to people following the debate, as though the Conservatives are acting like fish out of water, flipping and flopping all over the place.

The member said that they want to hold up the bill and that they do not want the bill to pass. He seems prepared to admit that the Conservative Party just does not want the bill to pass, which is why they are holding it up, yet the person who moved the motion that he was actually debating said that the government cannot pass this legislation.

Does he not see the inconsistency in the discussions that Conservatives, or the reformers across the way, are having with their collective Conservative mind?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what happens in the Liberal caucus, but we have a lot of individual members here who have individual aspirations, individual reasons for how they vote and individual reasons for why they feel compelled to speak.

The reason I am speaking tonight is that the energy bills of the people of Nova Scotia are going to go up as soon as this bill passes. I think it is irresponsible to do anything but try to prevent that from happening just a little longer.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. He always has a thorough knowledge of the issues and makes constructive suggestions.

I want to ask him about the amendment to the Competition Act. He referred to it in his speech. For years, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been announcing a comprehensive reform. However, the reforms have come in bits and pieces, in Bill C‑56 and Bill C‑59.

The commissioner of competition told us it was not enough, that it would take this and that. Public officials replied that if we did such and such, it would affect something else that was not in the bill. In fact, we were supposed to have a bill to reform the entire Competition Act.

Does my colleague think that doing things this way amounts to incompetence on the part of the government?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed working with my friend at the finance committee. I think he asked a very relevant question. The short answer is that, yes, it definitely shows the incompetence of the government because, every few months, the Liberals see a shiny new bauble and decide they are going to change the Competition Act.

One would think that the Liberals have had enough time, after being in power for nine years, nearly a decade some might say, to do things properly, yet they chose piecemeal amendments, which they say are monumental every single time, but the amendments do not actually hang together. One wonders what is really going on over there.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather shocked to be here tonight debating a Conservative amendment to change a short title. As this is costing Canadian taxpayers $70,000 an hour, the Conservatives will be wasting $420,000 tonight to change a title.

I ask my colleague if this is how he is going to manage public finances if, by some misfortune, his party ever comes to power.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member likes to talk about wasting money, but the NDP members are supporting the government for incredible amounts of corporate welfare. The NDP has chosen to support this bill with tons of corporate welfare in it and has chosen to support a budget that has tons of corporate welfare in it, but it has only a pittance for those with disabilities. They are turning their backs on a primary constituency for themselves and then trying to lecture us about spending money properly. Members of the NDP are supporting an incredible amount of corporate welfare and are turning their backs on one of their primary, normal constituencies.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I see the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is on his feet, but unfortunately he is not in his seat to ask a question. I am terribly sorry.

To be honest, colleagues, we are now about 15 seconds over the time for questions and comments. It was going to be a particularly short question.

Notification of Members Following Foreign Interference—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 29, 2024, by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan concerning cyber-attacks targeting members of Parliament by a foreign state-backed group known as Advanced Persistent Threat 31.

In his intervention, the member alleged that he, along with several other parliamentarians, were the targets of progressive cyber-attacks on their emails in 2021 by a group with ties to the Chinese government. He argued that members were targeted because of their association with the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, or IPAC. He and other affected members of the House learned of the attacks through a recent news story.

The member noted that, contrary to a ministerial directive issued last year, members were not notified of this by the government. He stated that this situation was akin to the prima facie question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, where a foreign state had also sought to interfere with the duties of a member. He also indicated that he could not assess the extent to which, as parliamentarians, they were impacted, through the disruption of communications or through the monitoring of their activities, but that their parliamentary work was under attack.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan further intervened on the matter on May 1, 2024. He added that the cyber attack in question was aimed at his personal email account rather than his parliamentary account. He further posited, following media reports which stated that House of Commons IT thwarted the attack, that the House Administration is not a security agency and therefore not responsible for informing members of threats made against them.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader mentioned that the Communications Security Establishment, or CSE, was advised by the FBI on June 29, 2022, of cyber threats targeting Canadian parliamentarians who are members of the IPAC. Citing the separation between the executive and legislative branches of government, he noted that the CSE believed it appropriate to share all relevant technical information with security officials of the House of Commons and Senate administrations for their action. This was done on June 30, 2022. The parliamentary secretary also pointed out that, given the evolution of security procedures and in consideration of the concerns of members, a ministerial directive was issued in May of 2023 requiring the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, to inform parliamentarians of threats to their security where possible. He concluded by stating that, had the threat occurred following the imposition of the ministerial directive, security agencies would have proactively informed the affected members of the situation.

Finally, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and the member for Humber River—Black Creek, also presumed targets of the attack, rose in support of the question of privilege from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and expressed their concerns on the matter.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan brought forward two specific concerns. First is the attempt by the People's Republic of China to interfere in the work of parliamentarians, and second is the lack of notification provided to members of this attempt. The Chair will deal with these two issues separately, starting with the latter.

In accordance with the processes in place at the time, the House administration was advised by relevant Canadian security agencies of the risk associated with potential attacks and appropriate measures were taken to ensure that they would not impact our systems, more specifically our parliamentary network.

Members will appreciate that the processes and the protocols to manage the cybersecurity of the House, by its administration and by the government, have evolved considerably since then. The Chair has no reason to doubt the commitment of the government, through its ministerial directive of May 2023, that members will be advised of threats by CSIS as much as is reasonably possible to do so, bearing in mind various security considerations. It should be noted that the attempt in question and the sharing of the relevant technical information occurred well before the directive was in place, and that the matter was dealt with in accordance with the processes and protocols in effect at that time.

It is important to reiterate that the House of Commons cybersecurity systems in place were successful in preventing a breach and negatively impacting the members' ability to conduct their day-to-day business with their parliamentary email accounts.

However, the member noted in his submission that his personal email was the target of the attempted cyberattack, and the Chair appreciates the concerns of members with regard to being made aware about matters concerning their cybersecurity.

In its 63rd report, presented to the House on April 10, 2024, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs echoed the ministerial directive in recommending that CSIS directly inform members about specific foreign interference threats, including providing a briefing on the mitigation measures taken to ensure members' safety. It also recommended the Speaker oversee the creation of a protocol within the House administration establishing a threshold for informing the whips of the recognized parties of foreign interference threats. The report has yet to be concurred in.

The Chair will now turn to the matter of the attempted interference by the PRC. As the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan noted in his submission, the matter bears similarities with the question of privilege raised by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills on May 2, 2023. That case involved various alleged acts of intimidation, linked to the PRC, towards the member and his family. Those acts came in retaliation for political positions taken by the member in the course of parliamentary proceedings. The matter was found to be prima facie. Indeed, as my predecessor stated in his ruling on May 8, 2023, at page 14105 of the Debates:

The Chair agrees that the matter raised by the member, that is that a foreign entity tried to intervene in the conduct of our proceedings through a retaliatory scheme targeting him and his family, squarely touches upon the privileges and immunities that underpin our collective ability to carry out our parliamentary duties unimpeded.

At the time, the matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Had the question of privilege by the member of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan been raised while the study was under way, the Chair would have been inclined to suggest the committee consider it as part of that study. This is exactly what occurred when the former member for Durham raised a question of privilege alleging intimidation. At the time, my predecessor stated, on May 31, 2023, at page 15066 of the Debates:

Given that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has already been instructed to investigate the matter of foreign interference, the Chair believes that it is the appropriate forum for further discussion of this issue.

In the case currently before us, it is clear to the Chair that an attempt to hack parliamentary emails of several members by a group with ties to the PRC occurred. This is of great concern to the Chair and, indeed, should be to all members. While the attempt was thwarted, it is understandable that a lingering effect on impacted members remains.

Indeed, as my predecessor noted in his ruling on May 8, 2023, a threat, whether successful or not, may still be seen as interfering with a member in the discharge of their duties.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 109, I quote:

In order to find a prima facie breach of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied that there is evidence to support the Member's claim that he or she has been impeded in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions and that the matter is directly related to a proceeding in Parliament....Speaker Jerome observed in a 1978 ruling that society demands much of Members but not all demands strictly impose a parliamentary duty. While every Member has duties as a representative of the electorate, a Member may claim the protection of privilege relating only to his or her parliamentary functions, though the line distinguishing these duties might blur.

While the work of IPAC is not, strictly speaking, part of our parliamentary proceedings, it does seem clear to the Chair that the members were targeted due to their parliamentary work. Even if the attack was directed against the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's personal email account, it seems that this was an attempt to interfere in his and in other members’ parliamentary duties and that such interference could have the effect of impeding members.

As the procedural boundaries of parliamentary functions can evolve over time, the Chair, and all members, might appreciate guidance respecting these matters.

While the Chair is bound to consider this question of privilege based on its own merits, it must also bear in mind broader considerations.

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. Not every attempt to interfere with or hack into our systems will necessarily be the subject of a question of privilege, as this is unfortunately a recurring problem. However, there might be a benefit for the House to decide how to tackle this issue more generally in order to clear the air and establish a way forward.

On this basis, the Chair finds there to be a prima facie question of privilege.

Accordingly, I invite the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to move his motion.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

moved:

That the prima facie contempt concerning the People's Republic of China's cyber attack against Members of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am always grateful for the opportunity to address the House. This is indeed a very grave matter. It is grave for me personally, for the members affected and, obviously, in terms of its substance.

We are living through a time when there is a proliferation of foreign threats in a context that can only be described as a new cold war. There is intensifying competition between the free, democratic world, of which we are a part, and the authoritarian, revisionist world, which threatens our democratic values and seeks to overturn the established international rules-based order. The core tactic used by our strategic adversaries in this new cold war is foreign interference. It is an old tactic, but one that has particular relevance and can be done with much greater ease in the modern world.

Speaking of foreign interference, I wanted to start with perhaps one of the oldest texts on the subject. This is from The Art of War by Sun Tzu, which states:

In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not good. So, too, it is better to recapture any army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment, or a company entire than to destroy them.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

It later states:

Therefore the skilful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their city without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

With his forces intact, he will dispute the mastery of the Empire and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete.

This is the method of attack by stratagem.

It is a very old text, but it underlines what foreign interference is all about. It is the attempt to take control of other societies and other countries without fighting, but nonetheless to take away their sovereignty, their independence, their freedom and to be able to direct their affairs.

Sun Tzu points out, of course, that for a country that wishes to take over or occupy another place, it is preferable to be able to do that without fighting. I think we have seen, throughout the history of warfare or conflict among nations, the attempt to swallow nations whole without having to fight. Of course, this avoids the carnage of war, but it is nonetheless destructive to the freedoms of the people who lose their sovereignty as a result.

Threats to our country manifest themselves not only in terms of violence and carnage but also in the attempts of foreign powers to take away our freedom and our sovereignty without fighting, and to paraphrase Sun Tzu, to swallow us whole. This is what foreign interference is all about, to gradually take control and shape the directions of decisions in our businesses, our academic institutions, our schools, and at the municipal, provincial, territorial and national levels. We see this time and again. This has been the subject of much discussion, in this place and beyond, with interference in elections, as well as attacks and intimidations against diaspora communities. They have come here seeking freedom but continue to face threats from authoritarian governments beyond our shores that are trying to take over our country through the indirect, subtle means of gradually taking control of the direction of our institutions.

This is why we have to take foreign interference fundamentally seriously to preserve our sovereignty and security for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. Sadly, for some politicians, the temptation has been to see this through a partisan lens instead of as a vital threat to our national interest. I think we have seen this over the years from the government. The perception has been, and rightly so, that particular foreign governments prefer Liberals to Conservatives. As a result, the Liberals have been reluctant to take action, particularly on interference by the PRC. That interference manifested itself in the last election in particular as trying to prevent Conservative candidates from getting elected.

We know that Liberals chose not to share vital information with members of Parliament. They chose to fail to act on critical issues around foreign interference because they saw this issue through a partisan lens.

Former Liberal minister John McCallum effectively invited foreign interference. He admitted that he told leaders associated with the Communist regime in Beijing that they should modify their approach in a certain way. If the approach they were taking hurt Liberals in the election, it would lead to Conservatives getting elected, which would not be in their interest as much. He effectively invited the government of a foreign state to prefer a certain outcome in our elections and therefore act in a way that was more likely to produce that outcome.

We know that foreign interference is a grave threat to our national security in the context of this cold war we are living in. Foreign interference is a primary weapon in this new cold war. We have seen, time and again, how Liberals have been reluctant to take this issue seriously. A big part of it has been the reality that the Liberals have benefited politically from foreign interference. However, I think we are now seeing an awakening in our country around this issue. This issue is not new for some, but it is for others.

When I was first elected, in some of the first conversations I had with members of different multicultural communities from various parts of the world, at the top of their list was concerns about foreign interference. When members of our Canadian family have family members who are overseas, or when they travel overseas for various reasons, they can feel these threats to their families, to them and to other aspects of their lives much more acutely than do people who do not have the same kind of connections in other places.

We were warned. I know that, if I was hearing those things, then members of other parties were hearing those concerns as well. Diaspora communities warned us about the grave, ongoing threat of foreign interference, yet the government has failed to act on it after nine years. This is the context that brings us to this important question of privilege.

The material facts are on the record. I will review them and comment on some further aspects of this particular case, because this is what brings us to this question of privilege that the Speaker has ruled on. I hope it will now go to the procedure and House affairs committee for further study.

I was targeted, along with 17 other Canadian parliamentarians, in 2021. I was targeted because of my involvement in an organization called the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. This is a global network of legislators. It includes people from the left, from the right, from other places that are not on the spectrum and from everywhere in between. It includes legislators in most, if not all, of the world's continents.

We work collaboratively in the context of this new, global cold war to protect democratic values and the things that, despite our political and geographic differences, we share in common. It is a commitment to freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It has been a great honour of my career to be a co-chair of IPAC. It is, in a way, an honour to the work being done by the IPAC that it has been marked out as a target by the PRC.

I can share a particular anecdote. I remember the first meeting I participated in at IPAC. We received a presentation with demographic data relating to what was happening in East Turkestan. This is a place where, we have now recognized, people face genocide; however, this was at a time when that recognition had not yet taken place. When I saw the data, it was clear to me that this had all the hallmarks of genocide.

Using the information I received from IPAC, I was able to work with colleagues to facilitate hearings that took place at the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, which led to the determination by that subcommittee that Uyghurs were subject to genocide. Subsequently, in response to a motion from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, without the cabinet, parliamentarians voted unanimously to recognize that Uyghurs were and continue to be subject to a genocide.

Subsequent to that, again driven by these relationships among legislators that exist around the world through IPAC, different other countries and other legislators took up this call that had been started by the current Parliament and also recognized that Uyghurs have been subject to genocide. I believe that Uyghur genocide recognition played a crucial role in the international movement towards seeing the real threats associated with the PRC. We can see this in the response from the regime in Beijing.

The Beijing regime targeted IPAC legislators and those involved in pushing for the recognition of the Uyghur genocide, especially the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. While Uyghurs face horrific, systematic violence that is genocide, this reality truly exposes the evil of the CCP regime. Now that we have seen this, as Wilberforce said, we may choose to look away, but we may never again say we did not know. However, exposing that reality to the world, exposing the horror of CCP crimes, was something that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China played a crucial role in.

As we would expect, and this is what happened, the CCP sought to interfere in other countries, to intimidate and threaten legislators who played a role in that process and to try to steer countries away from taking clear, principled stands in favour of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The CCP has no respect for national sovereignty at all. In the very early days of IPAC, a cyber-attack was launched against members of the network, which included 18 Canadian parliamentarians. That attack, in most cases, targeted parliamentary accounts. In my case, and I believe in the case of a number of other members, my personal email was attacked, and the Government of Canada knew about this. It knew that members of Parliament were being targeted. It was told by the FBI. The government has admitted that it knew. At first, government members said nothing, and then they admitted that they knew, but they said, “Well, we told House of Commons administration.” Why did they not pass on the information?

Anybody who knew should have told. If I am being targeted by a foreign state, especially when there are tools I could use to protect myself to a greater extent, I definitely should be told; the other 17 members of our Parliament should have been told. However, the responsibility primarily falls on the government. The government had a responsibility to inform us, and it did not.

Last year, as the Speaker's ruling mentioned, there was a ministerial directive about more information being shared with parliamentarians. However, members of the government continued to sit on this information about parliamentarians who were targeted. It would have been logical, at least once that ministerial directive was issued, for them to then choose to share information that went back a number of years but still had relevance to me as a continuing member of Parliament and a continuing co-chair for IPAC. However, they chose not to share that information.

Imagine the surprise I experienced, along with the member for Scarborough—Guildwood and others, upon finding out that we had been targeted, but not from our own government, not from Canadian security agencies. We found out through the IPAC Secretariat, which had been informed by the FBI. This is clearly not how the process should work. It is a grave problem that the government did not have our backs.

I can only see in this that the government has looked at these issues of foreign interference through a narrowly partisan lens, not wanting to share information with either members of the opposition or members of the government backbench, who may challenge the government on precisely these issues from time to time. The government did not want to share information that might lead to more political questions. It wanted to keep that information secret, and I think it also wanted to downplay concerns about foreign interference. Those questions about foreign interference inevitably come back to uncomfortable questions about the government, about things the government has done or tolerated, about relationships the government has allowed to persist and used in pursuit of its own political advantage.

We need to step back from this narrow partisan lens the government has brought to this issue and talk about the critical global fight we are in and the national interest. The national interest would be that we all work together to fight against foreign interference, that we take attempts to subvert our democracy very seriously and that we work together to combat them regardless of who that target is. If the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, a member of the government or a member of another party were to be targeted by foreign interference, we would nonetheless all stand together and use all of the tools available to protect our country, so whatever the outcome of a Canadian election, it would be Canadian people who are deciding.

Foreign governments and foreign ambassadors should not be stakeholders in Canadian domestic elections. Canadian domestic elections should be decided by Canadians. We know this is a problem. We know there is abiding concern in many cultural communities that the perspectives of ambassadors, consul generals and foreign governments have an effect on the outcome of elections here in Canada. We need to work together to firmly slam the door on that.

This is a question of privilege about members of Parliament, and as the term suggests, we do have privileges as members of Parliament. This is where I want to conclude. When my email is attacked, we have an opportunity, as we should, for a debate in the House. Part of that is because I have privileges as a member of Parliament.

However, I think about other cases. I think about the case of Chemi Lhamo, a Tibetan activist. She is a student leader who faced a barrage of horrific threats after she was elected to student government because she was a Tibetan leader who had spoken out about justice for Tibet. I think about other leaders. I think about a student group at McMaster, Muslims for Peace and Justice, which faced foreign interference threats because it wanted to have an event highlighting the violence the Uyghurs were facing.

I think about the many people whose names we will never know, our fellow Canadians, who are not able to speak out, whose voices are not heard, whose pain is not understood because of foreign interference threats that prevent them from speaking about political issues and participating in the political process. They worry about what will happen to their family members.

I am far more concerned about the impact on members of diaspora communities. I think about Mr. Nijjar and his family. I think about people from a variety of different communities who have faced violence and threats as a result of intimidation, violence and foreign interference.

We need, in this debate, to stand up for the privileges of Parliament, for the integrity of our democratic system and for the rights of every citizen in this country, regardless of where they were born and regardless of where their family lives. It has been nine years. I have been hearing concerns the entire time I have been a member of Parliament, and they are escalating concerns. Indeed, this problem has been escalating, and it has been getting worse.

We have seen brazen foreign interference in this country from foreign actors who increasingly know that we know and do not care because they do not think we will take it seriously. I hope we will finally take this seriously. I hope we will be able to come together and, if not, that we will have a new government that will take these threats seriously.

In the context of this new global cold war, the national interest, the building of a strong multicultural democracy, requires us to ensure that democratic decisions in Canada are made by Canadians and that legislators and everyday citizens are free from foreign interference.

I thank the Speaker for his ruling. I look forward to this debate, the issues it will raise and the work that will be done at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to note that we have some incredible civil servants that perform amazing work in protecting our interests. I am thinking of the Communications Security Establishment, which, from what I understand, shared the information with House of Commons officials shortly after receiving the information back in June 2022.

I think it is important that we do not try to give the impression that no one knew about this, that the issue was, in fact, being addressed, at least in good part, with true and good intentions.

The member was on the committee, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. I do not know how often the committee meets or anything of this nature. Did the committee ever discuss the issue that the member raised as a privilege?

Maybe one can just give us some background on the feedback he has had from other committee members because I believe it is a certain number of countries. I am not too sure about the association. Maybe one can tell us a little bit more about the association and what discussions they have had on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, there are two parts to what the member said. On the government's assertion that House of Commons officials were informed, what I can say is that there were 18 members of Parliament who were targeted by a foreign hacking attempt, which the Government of Canada knew about, and at no point, until the last few weeks, did the members of Parliament who were targeted find out about it.

The government's defence is to say that it told some other people. That is great, but it did not tell the people who were affected. We had a right to know that we were being targeted by a foreign state, and it is not the responsibility of the House of Commons' IT department to be informing us about these security threats. It is the responsibility, I believe, of the government. What I can say for certain is that the government did not inform us, did not insist that we were informed and provided no assurance that we would get the information. That is fundamentally unacceptable.

If I become aware of something that is very significant to the life of the member for Winnipeg North, and I do not tell him about it, but I go tell the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South about it, and then later it comes out that I did not provide this vital information, so I say, okay, I did not tell the person affected, but I told somebody else about it, I think we would all understand that this would be ridiculous.

What was crucial here is that the 18 members of Parliament who were targeted by a foreign state did not receive information that the government had about threats to us. We could have used that information to protect ourselves and to challenge our system on further steps that needed to be taken to protect our—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment. I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for the question of privilege that he raised. I commend the Speaker on his ruling and I welcome the motion that is being debated here.

As the hon. member said, 18 elected members of Parliament, himself included, were targeted by foreign powers because they are elected members of the House. Foreign powers are interfering through questionable practices, and that is unacceptable. Second, I understand that the hon. member and the other members who were affected were not immediately informed when official authorities and the government obtained the information, and that is unacceptable. We need to ensure that we have a mechanism so that this vital information gets to the members involved, whether it be through the government, the official authorities or the whips' offices.

I would like to remind my colleagues of something that CSIS is always reminding us of, and that is that Canada and the provinces have one of the worst records in the world when it comes to foreign interference. That has to change. Obviously, we will support the motion. We want this matter to be examined as soon as possible and to be given priority by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In closing, I would like to remind members that democracy is fragile. We need to protect it, take care of it and allow it to thrive.

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

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where my colleague ended, which was recognizing the fragility of democracy and freedom.

Many of us have lived in this country our whole lives. I have as well. We have never known anything other than the kinds of freedoms we have in this country. That struck me especially when I visited Ukraine in 2016 for its 25th anniversary. Of course, it is more acute now, the sense of the fragility of freedom, but even then, many people over a certain age remembered a time when they did not have their freedom.

We have to always keep in focus that the liberty and sovereignty we have as a country is not automatic and not inevitable. The biggest threat to our freedom, sovereignty and security is not the possibility of direct invasion, but what Sun Tzu describes as the attempt to swallow us whole and the loss of meaningful freedom through escalating foreign interference. We have seen in other countries how the gradual process of foreign interference has eroded the ability of free people to make decisions about their own futures.

The member is right. Our freedoms are fragile and are under direct threat by foreign interference. We see those threats as members of Parliament, but we also hear about and know about those threats targeting everyday citizens and other institutions. We are already seeing certain institutions that have modified their behaviour in response to the preferences of foreign stakeholders. This is a demonstration of a loss of sovereignty.

I hope we all hear this clarion call, especially coming from the diaspora communities, to stand up for Canada, to stand up for our institutions, to stand up for our freedom and to stop this foreign interference.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate both the motion and the interventions my colleague made when he initially brought up this question of privilege and in the speech he just made.

I think this has an impact on law-making and legislative authority, but what signal does it send? There has been a lack of response. Appropriate awareness was not brought to parliamentarians. What message does that send to the diaspora communities, especially when it comes to the actions of the PRC, the communist dictatorship in Beijing and how that affects some incredibly sensitive issues that certainly transcend political parties in this place?

This is not simply a Conservative issue, but something that has affected members from multiple political parties, from the diaspora communities and their ability to be free and active players in Canadian democracy.

I wonder if my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan could expand on that impact.

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

Madam Speaker, what message does it send? These events suggest, yet again, that when people are victims of foreign interference, the government does not have their backs. Sadly, this is something that I have heard time and again from talking to Canadians who are impacted by foreign interference outside of this place.

We had a vote today on listing the IRGC as a terrorist organization. I can recall a press conference we hosted on Parliament Hill with a young man whose wife was murdered when flight PS752 was shot down. He faced threats from the IRGC when he started to speak out about these events. I have spoken to many others who have been affected by foreign interference who have been frustrated by trying to report what they have experienced and being passed back and forth between different agencies, given the runaround and not given the information they need. This is a case where people who have the privilege of being members of Parliament were not told about threats to themselves, so I think they should be informed about threats.

I also think we should be, whenever possible, unless there is some compelling security reason not to, seeking to inform anybody about foreign interference threats against them or the institutions they are involved in so they can take appropriate steps to protect themselves. We need to have their backs, whether they are members of Parliament, student leaders or everyday citizens who are afraid of going to a protest. We need to have the backs of our citizens who are worried about foreign interference so that they know they can speak and advocate based on their own convictions, regardless of what a foreign state thinks about it.

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

Madam Speaker, first, to be very clear, the Prime Minister and the government, from day one, have taken the issue of foreign interference very seriously. The responsibility of governing and doing whatever we can in a co-operative way is something we have been doing now for years. Let me give some very clear facts in terms of the incident that is being referenced today.

With regard to the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, allow me to provide some really clear lines. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, part of the Communications Security Establishment in Canada, generally does not comment on specific cyber-incidents or affected organizations. However, CSE can confirm that it shared actionable technical information on a cyber-threat with the House of Commons and Senate IT officials in 2022. This included sharing information that included the names of targeted parliamentarians.

The House of Commons and the Senate are independent and its officials are responsible for determining when and how to directly engage with MPs and senators in situations like this. CSE takes its mandate and its legal obligations very seriously. Pursuant to the Communications Security Establishment Act, intelligence and information are shared with government clients, including appropriate authorities in Parliament and any appropriate partners.

To support parliamentarians, the Centre for Cyber Security, part of CSE, provides a 24-7 hotline service offering direct support in the event of a cyber-incident. The cyber centre has provided cyber-threat briefings to political parties, as well as a dedicated point of contact at the centre for assistance with cybersecurity matters.

The Communications Security Establishment's 2023-24 national cyber-threat assessment highlights “how online foreign influence activities have become a new normal, with adversaries seeking to influence elections and impact international discourse related to current events.” CSE has published four unclassified reports on cyber-threats to Canada's democratic process, highlighting that cyber-threat activity targeting elections is on the rise worldwide, and cyber-threat activity is more likely to happen during Canada's next federal election than it was in the past; Canada remains a lower-priority target for cyber-threat activity than some of its allies, like the United States or the United Kingdom; cyber-threat actors are increasingly using AI to create, spread and amplify disinformation, and it is very likely that foreign adversaries or activists will use and generate AI to influence voters ahead of Canada's next federal election.

There is a lot more I could say with respect to that, but the primary concern I have after listening to the presentation by the member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the issue is that I question the member's and the Conservative Party's motivation on the issue. All one needs to do is reflect on his comments and how he tried to blame.

[Corey Tochor]

You're a traitor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The person who is the traitor is looking at me, as opposed to accusing me of being a traitor.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There is a point of order on both sides. The traitor accusation started on one side and there was an answer by the person who had the floor.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will stop the hon. member right away because I actually have very good hearing. I do hear very well. I did hear the attacks coming from one side to the other. They should not be allowed on either side.

I would ask both members to withdraw the statements made, the hon. member for Saskatoon—University and the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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