- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $170,231.20
- Government Page
- May/8/24 9:58:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate, I posed a question to the parliamentary secretary, and I was quite disturbed by the response. We all know governments make mistakes. Every government makes mistakes. I asked if he acknowledged that it was a mistake for the government to not inform members of Parliament that they had faced a cyber-attack from a foreign state. He said no, he did not think it was a mistake. He said that protocols and processes can change, but when I asked if it had been a mistake to not tell me and 17 other parliamentarians that we had been targeted by a foreign government, he said no, it was not. I find that very disturbing.
I hope we can work toward a consensus on how to move forward, but it should be acknowledged at a basic level that failure to inform parliamentarians about these threats to themselves, their cyber-presence and their offices is wrong and unacceptable. The government should be willing, at this point, now that it has been caught not sharing that information, to acknowledge that.
I would like to ask the NDP for its perspective. Does it think the government erred in not sharing this information?
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 9:01:46 p.m.
- Watch
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.
286 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 8:54:36 p.m.
- Watch
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—
316 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/24 3:50:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Monday I rose on a question of privilege related to foreign interference. I have come across some important additional information that I believe is critical to share with you and with the House as you undertake your considerations and prepare to make a ruling.
Stories have appeared in multiple media outlets quoting a person in your office, Mathieu Gravel, director of outreach and media relations. The statement includes the following:
The House of Commons' administration investigates all incidents brought to its attention by security partners. In this case, it determined that the risk-mitigation measures in place had successfully prevented any attack.
There were no cybersecurity impacts to any members or their communications....
I do want to observe that it is highly unusual for a media spokesperson of the Speaker's office to speak to the media about a question of privilege, when a ruling has not been made. When no follow-up inquiries have been made with members affected, it feels a bit like a judge sending a statement to members of the media in the middle of deliberations.
However, as you deliberate, I think it is important to take note of one additional piece of information.
The cyber-attack against me from APT31 did not target my parliamentary email account. While in many cases parliamentary accounts were targeted, in my case the cyber-attack targeted my personal non-parliamentary account. I have no idea how APT31 came to access my personal non-parliamentary account, because it is not publicly available.
I was attacked at my personal account because of my parliamentary activities in order to access information about and disrupt my parliamentary activities.
Fundamentally, the government has a responsibility to inform members of threats to them by foreign powers. It has said it would share such information, and it has not. If it is true that House of Commons IT blocked the attack, it remains true that House of Commons IT is not a security agency and is not itself responsible for informing parliamentarians of threats against them. Rather, it is the responsibility of the government to inform parliamentarians of threats against them.
Parliamentarians still need to know about targeted threats against them, even when those threats do not succeed. If someone tries to hurt me but their attempts are thwarted, I would still like to know I have been targeted in order to plan to protect myself going forward. Moreover, your office is not at all able to say that these attacks were thwarted, because they evidently targeted members on both parliamentary and non-parliamentary emails.
We need to know so that we can take action to protect ourselves in all places and all situations. House of Commons IT, which is not an intelligence agency, clearly does not have eyes on cyber-attacks against us through personal accounts and does not have the same responsibilities as the Government of Canada.
Parliamentarians were under attack. The government now admits that it knew. The government did not tell us, and the government cannot say if the attack was successful or not.
Mr. Speaker, I am available to provide you with additional information as required so that your ruling, and any subsequent comments to the media, are informed by all of the relevant facts.
547 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 3:52:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be loath to claim that the member was intentionally misleading the House. However, in the interest of informing him, I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, specifically, in extremely strong terms, denouncing the very organization that the member mentioned.
Do I have unanimous consent to table that statement?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 7:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise a point of order at the earliest possible opportunity regarding the response I received to Question No. 2155, if you would allow me to briefly explain my concern about its accuracy and completeness.
My question was respecting development assistance projects in Israel and Palestinian territories and projects aimed at supporting Palestinian refugees in other countries. I asked for information about all projects since 2016. That includes all the organizations involved in delivering a project, with the clear implication of both implementing and sub-implementing partners. The initial response describes the fact that there are implementing and sub-implementing partners, which are screened. It says that all funding goes through trusted partner organizations.
Subsequently, in reviewing the list of projects, I found that none of the projects mentioned identify sub-implementing partners. They speak about the large organizations; for instance, they speak about $100 million going to UNRWA. However, they do not identify sub-implementing partners. The implication is that either there are none or the government did not wish to provide that information, despite the clear ordering of that information as part of Question No. 2155. That makes the response inaccurate and incomplete.
I do not know if the government is intentionally trying to hide information about the development assistance in this regard. However, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the government needs to provide a complete and accurate response.
236 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/15/23 5:36:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I think the member is onto something, that people should be able to access information about the risks the products present to them. I also wonder if we need to have a broader conversation about labelling and how that information is presented.
I can recall various debates where people wanted all kinds of information and more detailed labels, but that can present certain challenges and barriers when those labels are not read in detail anyway. Therefore, we would need to have a conversation about QR code labelling and other tools where people can access that information easily, but it does not require the constant reprinting of labels in response to new information. That is a broader conversation, but it is an important area to discuss.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have just a simple question for the parliamentary secretary about the discussion around spreading misinformation and disinformation.
Is “spreading misinformation” simply a fancy way of saying “telling a lie”? Does it mean the same thing as telling a lie, or does it mean something different?
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:31:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to work with my colleague on the foreign affairs committee, and it was a pleasure, in the previous Parliament, to work with him on the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
There has been a lot of discussion about the role of misinformation, and in particular there are concerns about RT. It is important to note some of the content we heard in the last Parliament. There are various so-called media outlets that are state-backed coming out of Russia and China that push misinformation and that also sometimes feature atrocities as part of their programming. There are instances, for example, of forced confessions and human rights abuses that are happening in the context of TV production, yet they are licensed to operate in Canada.
I wonder if the member could comment on the need, as many members have said, to address the issue of RT, but also to look across the board at state-backed misinformation and propaganda coming into Canada and whether those entities should have privileged access to our airwaves. Of course, they still exist on the Internet, but in my view they should not have the privilege of broadcasting licences and access to our airwaves.
206 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for giving the calibre of speech that members of the House have come to expect from him, with many trumped-up comments. As a Conservative, I am not at all ashamed or embarrassed about the fact that our party champions freedom, freedom of speech and the freedom of individuals to make their own choices.
I want to ask the member a specific question about misinformation. We have heard a lot in this House today about RT and the problems with it, and I share those concerns. However, I have similar concerns about state-backed misinformation coming from news channels that are controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. We should not forget that the issue of state-backed misinformation, even of torture and forced confession happening on air, is not just an issue coming out of Russia. It is also an issue in China. Should we not be dealing with that as well?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
