44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2024 10:00AM
- May/2/24 11:36:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on Monday. He and I, and my hon. colleague here, belong to a group called IPAC. It is an international group, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and it appears we have attracted some unwanted attention.
Last Wednesday, the member and I were on a call with IPAC in London and were advised of this form of cyber-attack. I am at an age and stage when I do not pretend to understand exactly what they were talking about, but I am given to understand that a group called APT31, or Advanced Persistent Threat 31, was conducting cyber-attacks against some colleagues here and indeed around the world.
The only reason we found out about it was that the FBI was conducting a surveillance operation a couple of years ago, and we were caught up in that surveillance operation. That was a couple of years ago, so the question becomes this: Why did we not know about it? IPAC contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and asked why we did not know about it.
The U.S. Department of Justice did notify the relevant nations, sovereignty to sovereignty. IPAC then compared the FBI list with its own list, and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, myself and my colleague here were on that list. The question becomes this: How come we did not know about it?
Since then, we have been advised that the FBI did notify the Canada Security Establishment, or CSE, and CSE, in turn, notified Parliament, or the IT service that runs Parliament. A security check was run in a timely fashion, and the good news is that the system we have here was not breached. In that respect, it worked.
However, at that point, a decision was made to not notify the affected members of Parliament and the affected senators; I think there are about 13 of us in total. That is a bit more problematic, so this is why I support the member's privilege question because I do think this needs to be investigated.
I am given to understand that there are literally hundreds of thousands of attacks on our IT system on a daily basis, literally a massive volume, and it becomes difficult to know, when attacks are unsuccessful, when and how and if members should be notified because our inboxes could be literally filled on a daily basis with notifications of attacks.
On the other hand, if I, as a member who is interested in security matters and defence matters, have an unusual volume of attacks or if other members, for other reasons, have unusual volumes or patterns of attacks, then that seems to be quite relevant to the interests of those individual members.
The reason I am supporting the hon. member's question of privilege is that we need to start to review these protocols, and do it sooner rather than later. I want to make the point that this is not a government issue; this is a Parliament issue.
The government did its job, so to speak, in that CSE reported it to our security services and the people who run them. However, I believe that PROC needs to look at this. It needs to review the sequence of events to make sure that, as I am describing it to the House, they were correct; to examine the decisions that were made when the information became available to Canadian authorities; and to review whether this is the kind of information that should be shared with members and, if so, in what format, how frequently, etc.
I do not think we can take this very lightly. The analogy I have drawn in the past has been that it is like somebody looking at one's mail in the post office. I think we would all be pretty upset with somebody examining our mail. It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that, but it gives the sense in which the emails that are coming into our offices need to have security not only for ourselves but also for our correspondents and our constituents. These are significant volumes of emails.
I just want to raise what I believe is a question of privilege. I hope the Speaker finds it to be a question of privilege and asks the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to move the relevant motion.
As I said, this is a significant issue. The chamber needs to deal with it in a timely sort of way; I hope PROC ultimately does as well.
782 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 7:12:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what does the member think needs to happen before the Liberal government finally takes the security of our nation seriously?
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 8:31:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a straightforward question that I posed to the Liberals recently during question period and did not get an answer to. That question is this: Which top Liberal broke the law by leaking classified CSIS information?
In an explosive story, The Globe and Mail reported, based upon a top national security source, that during the 2019 election, the member for Don Valley North was tipped off that he was being monitored by CSIS. Recently, at the public inquiry into foreign interference, it was confirmed that three top Liberals, all connected closely to the Prime Minister, received a classified CSIS briefing during the 2019 election that Beijing interfered on behalf of the member for Don Valley North to secure the Liberal nomination.
One of the top Liberals briefed, then briefed the Prime Minister's top adviser and the then national Liberal campaign director Jeremy Broadhurst about the contents of that classified briefing. It is important to note that Mr. Broadhurst had the appropriate security clearance to receive that information. Broadhurst then briefed the Prime Minister.
We know that five top Liberals, including the Prime Minister himself, either received a classified CSIS briefing or were informed about the contents of that classified briefing. It follows, therefore, that it is almost certain that one of those five Liberals, perhaps the Prime Minister himself, leaked the classified information that led to the member for Don Valley North being tipped off that he was being monitored by CSIS.
The leaker within the Prime Minister's inner circle committed something that is very serious in terms of what they did. They compromised CSIS's sources and methods, undermined an intelligence operation into Beijing's interference in our democracy, violated their oath of secrecy and committed a serious offence for which they could be punished and sent to jail for up to 14 years under the Security of Information Act. Someone in the Prime Minister's inner circle broke the law by putting the partisan interests of the Liberal Party ahead of Canada's national security.
Which top Liberal broke the law? Who is the criminal leaker? I would like a name, please.
363 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 8:35:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have all been closely following the proceedings of the public inquiry into foreign interference in Canada's democratic institutions. As members of the House will recall, in fact, our government convened the inquiry with the support of every party leader in this very House, and we all recognize how important it is to maintain the integrity of our democratic institutions.
This week we heard from the Prime Minister and his staff, as well as senior public servants and intelligence officials, as they outlined the various ways intelligence is shared and used within the government to keep Canadians safe.
The story here is quite simple. As the director of CSIS outlined on Friday, CSIS has been talking about foreign interference and foreign threats for many years, both inside and outside government, to officials, to ministers and to Canadians. It has always been clear that foreign interference is a serious threat to Canadian democracy. In response to those warnings, the government has taken several decisive actions, beginning with a plan to protect democracy before the 2019 election.
Over the course of the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, the security and intelligence threats to elections task force coordinated efforts against foreign interference by assessing threats, sharing intelligence and briefing the panel, the ministers and political parties.
Most recently, our government has been consulting Canadians on possible legislative amendments to ensure that we have the right tools and authorities to keep Canadians safe. To ensure that the measures we have taken are the right ones, we convened the public inquiry and asked Canada's national security review bodies, NSIRA and NSICOP, to look into the matter.
Our government has supported an unprecedented level of transparency about sensitive national security issues. As members know, however, the protection of classified information is of the utmost importance.
On Friday, the director of CSIS noted that an intelligence service must be able to protect the information it collects in order to succeed in protecting Canadians. Therefore, any leak of classified information is dangerous and something the government will never tolerate.
Members also know that it would be inappropriate to discuss national security investigations in the House. That is not how we will ensure the protection of sensitive information. The government has confidence in security services, and we must let them perform their work.
Foreign interference in Canada has not been a secret. The government and our intelligence officials have been telling Canadians about this for years, and we have taken decisive action to counter it and to continue to bolster our response. We are being as transparent as possible with Canadians about this challenge. The public inquiry and national security review bodies are ensuring our responses are appropriate.
All Canadians have to play a role in countering national security threats, such as foreign interference. That includes members of the House, and I look forward to continuing to work together accordingly.
485 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 8:39:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the seriousness with which the government is addressing the threat of foreign interference.
We have great confidence in the work of the government agencies and departments charged with protecting our democratic institutions. Their intelligence and the information they collect and share have enabled us to have a good understanding of the challenges foreign interference poses to Canadians.
I will also reiterate how important it is that CSIS and the security and intelligence community are able to protect that sensitive information. Our national security, the safety of sources, the advantage from our trade craft and the future of our partnerships depend on it.
At his previous appearance at the foreign interference inquiry, the director of CSIS spoke about how unauthorized releases of classified information are dangerous in several ways. Not only do they make it difficult for intelligence services to do their work, but the release of specific pieces of information does not paint a complete picture. This leads to misinterpretations or incorrect conclusions.
Members know it would be inappropriate to discuss media allegations and unsubstantiated information in the House, and I would urge them to keep this in mind.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
