- 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 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
Mr. Speaker, my answer would be that investments in international peace and security, if we make the comparison to domestic life, are like the investments that individuals make in an alarm system. When someone invests in peace and security in protecting themselves, it gives them greater peace of mind and is a way of protecting them from possible threats that may come. The threats may never manifest themselves, but those are still often wise investments to make.
In the case of supporting Ukraine, we are talking about a threat that will potentially come to us and to our other partners in NATO, but Ukraine is on the front lines of that threat. Ukraine stands between us and those kinds of threats. Therefore, investments in international peace and security are not charity; they are, in fact, very much in our own interest. There are several conversations we could have about things that are more in the category of pure charity, but this is clearly a case of our investing in our own collective security with like-minded countries, with Ukraine being on the front line of that battle.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 9:48:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just heard the leader of the Green Party propose that perhaps Hamas could be eliminated by another international force. I would speculate that, if other countries volunteered to do that, Israel would be happy to have that occur. However, in the absence of having other countries commit troops to defeat Hamas, Israel is obviously on the front line and committed to protecting itself.
My grandmother was a Holocaust survivor and, as a result, I reflect a lot on the meaning of “never again”. Part of what this means for Jewish people or their descendants is that, during the horrific period of the Holocaust, other people and other nations did not step forward to prevent and stop the Holocaust. As such, Jewish people realized the need to protect themselves and develop the military capacity to defend themselves. If it were necessary to stand alone, they would have to protect themselves and make sure that something like this would never happen again. Could the member comment on that?
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/23 11:24:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his work on this important subject. I know he previously served in the military and spoke about the responsibility to protect.
I wonder if he can share with the House some more thoughts on how we can give life to this idea of responsibility to protect, because it seems to me that, as we develop these doctrines, we make these promises, these bold ideas about international crimes, responsibility to protect, outlawing genocide and so forth, and we continually see cases of failure to respond to it. It seems that the more doctrines are created, the more we back away as an international community from recognizing crimes when they are happening because they would create an obligation to act.
How do we really give life and meaning to the responsibility to protect? What can we concretely do to strengthen its effect?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my short answer would be that, no, we should not trust the government.
My slightly longer answer would be that over the last few years, we have seen various actions through COVID and various other actions contemplated by the government. In all of these actions, there is a great deal of concern about people's privacy. Because of the way the government has acted in the past, there is concern and distrust any time the government says not to worry, that it is going to protect our information and that it will not use systems in such a way. The current government has undermined trust in government and institutions because it has not been worthy of that trust.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House today to a very serious subject, cybersecurity and the security of our country in general.
I will say, on a lighter note, that my friend from Peace River—Westlock spoke about snowmobiling companies and cyber-attacks. I have some personal experience with snowmobiling at his house, and I would say that the government's approach to security is the equivalent of driving a snowmobile over a four-foot retaining wall, which may or may not have happened the last time I tried to drive one of those machines.
The situation of security in this country is very much worth the House taking note of. For much of the time that I have been engaging with and following politics, the primary area of security we would talk about would be concerns about our readiness for and our response to the threat of terrorism. However, it is important to take stock of how things have changed and the fact that, while there are still concerns about terrorism and how we respond to potential acts of terrorism, the primary security threat we face as a country, and indeed that the western world faces, is the threat of foreign state-backed and directed interference in our national affairs. Our abiding concern should be the reality that various foreign states are trying to shape and interfere with our democratic life to try to bend not only our government institutions, but also our civil society institutions, toward their desired objective.
Members of the government have said that the purpose of this interference is to cause total chaos and confusion. We should acknowledge that there are some cases of foreign interference that are aimed at causing chaos, but very often it is about simply trying to subvert and control the direction of institutions toward the will and the interests of that particular foreign power. We have discussed how the Chinese Communist Party is the biggest player when it comes to foreign state-backed interference, but it is far from the only player.
We have seen reports about Chinese government interference in our elections. There have also been recent reports about death threats from the Iranian regime targeting individuals in Canada. There are various other countries that CSIS and other organizations have identified as being involved in this activity of trying to interfere with, subvert and direct Canadian institutions, government really at all levels, as well as civil society organizations, universities and the like, toward their objective.
This kind of invisible, or sometimes a little more visible but often hard to detect, interference in the direction of our national life toward objectives that are not consistent with the objectives Canadians have established is a great threat to our security and our sovereignty. It is something that we should all be seized with and working to respond to.
Part of the context as well is that we are in what some analysts have described as a second cold war. Of course, there are many features of the current conflict between democratic and authoritarian values that are different from the last Cold War, but we have this reality of intensifying global competition between two different value systems that are represented by different countries at different times, and we have countries that are in the middle that are being pulled in different directions.
I tend to think that kind of cold war frame is a reasonably useful way of understanding the current tensions we face in the world. In the context of those tensions, we see how powers with political values that are fundamentally different from ours, where governments are trying to protect their own position, are trying to project their influence around the world. Again, this requires vigilance. It requires a strong response from Canada.
I have been struck by some of the recent comments from the Prime Minister on these matters. I think he has been showing a real lack of transparency around acknowledging what he knew when, and refusing to answer direct questions from the opposition about foreign interference, but he has also stated quite openly the reality that we have a serious problem with foreign interference. This is a reality that opposition members, in particular in the Conservative Party, have been raising for years. We have been asking the government to do more. We have been calling for strong legislative frameworks to respond to the problem of foreign state-backed interference.
We have also sought to elevate the voices of victims of foreign interference, people who have faced threats and intimidation from foreign state actors to try to silence their advocacy, which those foreign state actors see as contrary to their interests. It has been widely reported some of these victims really struggle to actually get proper support. They often get the runaround.
They go to their local police force, which does not necessarily have the capacity to handle a foreign state-backed organized campaign of threats and intimidation. Do they go to Global Affairs? Do they go to CSIS? Do they go to the RCMP? There can be a bit of confusion and passing of the buck concerning support for these victims of foreign state-backed interference.
We have a lot of work to do in legislation and policy, and our preparedness in general and our understanding of these issues. It is critical that we step up to strengthen our understanding of and response to the threats facing our country.
One thing we need to see more from the Prime Minister and the government is transparency because being transparent about this reality can help to counter the impact of that foreign interference. If we know it is happening, if we know what it is directed toward, then we can respond more effectively.
This is not only a responsibility of the federal government to respond to. Provincial and municipal governments need to be aware of the issues of foreign interference. Our universities need to step up as well. Private companies need to be aware of the risks around interference, theft of technology and the ways in which certain things may have a dual military use. There needs to be a broader awareness of this threat to the national interest, a threat to our values across all sectors of society, and a broader response to it.
The government has an important role to play in leading the response and making changes at the national level. We have been far behind, as far the national government goes, in responding to these threats. The Conservative opposition has been calling for a response to foreign interference for years. Now we are seeing the government start to talk about it a bit more.
I noted in some of the language in the Indo-Pacific strategy, for example, the government is starting, or trying, to sound a bit more like Conservatives in the way it talks about some of the challenges confronting us and the steps we need to take in the Indo-Pacific region. While the government is adopting some of that language, it is failing to substantively adjust its approach.
We have a bill in front of us today that deals with one avenue where we need to be engaged with and responding to the problem of foreign state-backed interference, and that is the issue of cybersecurity. I will be supporting this legislation at this stage to see it go to committee, mainly because we clearly need a new cybersecurity bill. We clearly need a new framework. The committee study will identify some of the significant gaps we see in the legislation right now, the ways the legislation needs to be improved and possibly the many additional steps required. I will just note that it is far past due that we have some kind of proposal for a framework on cybersecurity that, in a way, gives the committee the opportunity to add to and build on what the government has initially put forward.
This is really the first time we see any kind of legislation proposed by the government that substantively touches on this emergent problem of foreign state-backed interference. We need a much broader range of responses from the government. We need so much more to be done to counter this major security threat.
This is about preserving our country. It is about preserving the integrity of our institutions. It is about defending the principle that the direction of our democracy and the direction of our society should be shaped through the open deliberation of Canadians, not by foreign powers who have particular interests that may be contrary to our interests who are trying to push and pull that discussion in their preferred direction.
Having this framework that opens the door for the committee to discuss further, fill in some of the gaps and try to push the government to have greater specificity in the framework around what they are going to do provides us with the opportunity to do that. This is late, lacking in detail and really a small piece of the much broader picture that is required.
The government has been so delayed. I mentioned the decision around Huawei. We were way behind all of our allies in making the decision. It is important now, finally, at this late stage where the government is starting to mention the problem, that we actually see concrete action. Conservatives will be pushing the government to act in line with some of the words it has been saying.
1591 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 6:34:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition is with respect to the travel mandate. The petitioners note that the Government of Canada is requiring all domestic travellers to be fully vaccinated, yet travellers who test negative and wear a mask while travelling are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus. An estimated 0.5% of COVID‑19 cases in Canada occurred through travel exposure, but that was prior to the imposition of any testing requirement for travellers. The petitioners note that mobility rights are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that freedom can only be limited when those limitations are demonstrably justified, as there are other mechanisms, such as regular rapid testing and tracing, that can be used as alternatives for those who choose not to be vaccinated.
Petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to allow any Canadian who has tested negative for COVID-19, and who is prepared to wear a mask, to travel by air, sea or rail. They also call on the government to ensure that rapid testing is affordable and accessible in order to ensure the effective protection of public health.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
