- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Scarborough—Guildwood
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 62%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $111,926.23
- Government Page
- 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/8/23 5:32:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is nothing like an existential threat to focus the mind. In Taiwan that is very true. It is under constant intimidation, with a million cyber-attacks a day. When we arrived, the PRC brought its greeting party with warplanes and warships, so they live in a different threat environment than we do.
Having gone to Taiwan for a number of times over the last 20 years, I know that the nature of the threat of the PRC to Taiwan was not entirely unanimous. A number of years ago, President Ma was much more friendly with the Chinese government and had even gone to China just before we arrived.
As for us, I think we do not realize the threat. We have not quite figured this thing out, and we have the luxury of partisanship, which I do not think we will always have.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 5:00:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question, which is a good one: Why are we here?
The larger answer is that we as a nation, we as parliamentarians and even we as a government are flummoxed by how to deal with the way in which China intervenes routinely, regularly and massively in the fabric of our society. We have never, ever in the history of our nation faced such a threat. That is why we are here. I want to stress how important this motion is and it is symptomatic of our somewhat chaotic response to the threat to our democracy.
Again, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have asked myself “why?” a few times myself.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 9:41:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I consider myself a friend of the Hon. Andrew Leslie, whose service to the nation is well respected.
In some respects, as my speech indicated, we do not get the seriousness of the threat that Putin-ism presents to us. Ukrainians are fighting for us as well as for their nation. Where we need to get our act together is in supporting them in a real and material way. I like to think, and I take note, and maybe the hon. member would not appreciate it, but the Ukrainian defence minister, in his presentation, noted Canada's defence minister and appreciated her contributions to the fight.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 4:45:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I chair the national defence committee. We have just done a threat analysis study. I think it will be an excellent report. However, we were distracted. The distraction was, naturally, to Ukraine, Europe and NATO. The threat of the Indo-Pacific was not dealt with nearly as well as it should have been.
I am assuming that your committee is much like our committee, challenged for time and challenged for resources, and not able to deal coherently with some pretty important issues.
That is the reason that I think this is not a bad idea.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:24:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I usually start by saying that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak here. However, it is the first time in 24 years that I needed a police escort to enter this chamber, and it is likely that all of us will need police escorts to exit this chamber. That is the state of emergency affairs in Ottawa as we speak.
Sedition, by definition, is “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state”. Emergency, by definition, is “a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.” There is a further definition in the Emergencies Act that largely supports this notion:
threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve...sovereignty [and] security
Over the last three weeks, we have seen a ragtag convoy of truckers, apparently here to protest mandates, morph into an anarchistic challenge to legitimate authority, seriously impairing the life, economic well-being and safety of Canadians from coast to coast: from Ottawa to the Ambassador Bridge, to the Ambassador Bridge times two and times three, to Toronto protests, to Quebec protests, to the Blue Water Bridge, to the Emerson, Manitoba, closures, to the Coutts, Alberta, closure and to closures in British Columbia. There has been billions of dollars's worth of economic disruptions and broken supply chains. Citizens have been rendered hopeless and fearful. Citizen have been threatening each other and threatening to take the law into their own hands in the face of police impotence or their refusal to act.
I do not know what else we could possibly want before declaring a state of national emergency, with the possible exception of violence in the streets. Some seem to think that should be part of the debate and is a necessary precondition. It is also equally clear some insurrectionists would be pleased if that happened, if anarchy and lawlessness prevailed and legitimate authority were undermined. All the while, these “brave anarchists” are hiding behind children in bouncy castles and waving Canadians flags, sometimes right side up and sometimes not.
The protest has migrated from misguided complaints about mandates to sedition. Most of the mandates are from provincial authorities and are being cautiously lifted with the guidance of public health authorities. The blockade, if it was ever about mandates in the first place, should be in provincial capitals. The sole mandate within the federal jurisdiction is at the border and can only be lifted in conjunction with the American government. They should take their protest to Washington, assuming they can get across the border.
What is this seditious blockade really about? I am sure members have heard about campaigns of misinformation and disinformation. As my hon. friend mentioned in his speech, at the public safety committee and the defence committee we heard a lot of testimony about misinformation and disinformation campaigns by state and non-state actors. I do not have any personal or direct evidence of the attempted destabilization of a G7 NATO country in opposition to Russia on the verge of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but I have to think that works to the advantage of President Putin. Any destabilization effort that erodes national consensus works to the advantage of our two major adversaries, China and Russia.
Russian TV has been promoting alternative theories of the utility of vaccines and paranoid theories about implanting chips. It also questions the effectiveness of mandates, sowing doubts in the minds of those looking to express their frustration and anger. At this point, it is directed at Parliament, the government and the Prime Minister.
The evidence of non-state actors is a bit more clear. Funding from the U.S. is blatantly obvious and is from sources in the U.S. associated with the most odious elements of American society. The Conservatives have been saying for weeks that all we need to do is talk to these people, so I started returning telephone calls and responding to emails. I cannot help but observe that I have become quite popular in Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. All of these non-constituents want to help me vote for my constituents. Just today, we received 1,300 emails, and we had 600 the day before.
To these non-constituents, I offer an insincere apology for ignoring them. My constituents, on the other hand, I do not ignore, and have not for nine elections and 24 years. There is more of a mix among those who want me to vote against the legislation, and they are more vociferous this week. However, last week others wanted me to end it. The conversations with those who want me to vote against the bill exhibit a belligerence, coupled with a substantial amount of misinformation and disinformation, that makes one despair.
When the conversation starts with, “I have never voted for you and I never will”, we know we are off to a bad start. For nine elections and 24 years, there must have been a great deal of frustration for this individual caller. When the conversation is peppered with the Prime Minister's last name in conjunction with what the Speaker would rule to be unparliamentary language, all seemingly starting with the same letter, we know the conversation is not going to go well. Also, trying to carry on a conversation with a blowing horn from an 18-wheeler in the background is indeed an impediment to civilized discourse.
What is so discouraging when we get through all of this is the dissonance of fact. Minimal understanding of civics and science must be the basis for civilized discourse, but the “alternative facts” narrative, perpetrated by that notorious Trump acolyte, has taken hold here. That is ultimately what is so discouraging. By one means or another, this insurrection will end, but the damage to political discourse will linger. It is difficult to have conversations with horns blaring, engines revving, diesel fumes in the air, a commitment to alternative facts and certain politicians giving aid and comfort to sedition.
I therefore support, wholeheartedly, this initiative as a measured, scaled, charter-consistent response to the blatant disregard for the rule of law. If revocation of licences, revocation of insurance and freezing of bank accounts will not do it, I support the police cordoning off areas and arresting those who refuse to leave, which they are doing as we speak. I have been very impressed by the measured and careful response of the police in the last couple of days.
I condemn the lawless thugs hiding behind children. I condemn violence. This legislation should serve as a warning to lawless brigands, especially to the organizers, both foreign and domestic. We are a nation where the rule of law prevails in all matters. This misinformation and disinformation campaign, whether from foreign or domestic sources, is deeply settled in the minds of these insurrectionists, who see conspiracies everywhere and seem to be incapable of adjusting deeply held preconceptions of certain basic facts. It takes us, as a nation, into a very dark place.
1182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
