- 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 9:24:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite does seem to be inherently uncomfortable with the idea of members of the opposition's criticizing the government. If we are going to talk about preserving our democracy and our democratic values, maybe a good place to start is to say that it is legitimate, normal and right for the opposition to challenge the government over its failures. I do not really care what the member thinks of my motives, but I am going to continue to do my job in the House, the job of standing up for our country, for our freedoms and for our sovereignty.
The fundamental point here is that the hon. member is not willing to admit that something wrong happened. That is a big problem. The government had information that was crucial to our national security and to the personal security of individual members of Parliament. The government chose to sit on that information. It would show a lot more humility and maturity for the member to simply acknowledge that this was a mistake. The information should have been shared, and it was not.
Will the hon. member acknowledge that the government erred in not sharing information with members of Parliament that was extremely important to our national security, to their personal security and to their ability to do the job as members of Parliament? Would he not expect to be informed if the shoe were—
238 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
- Nov/1/23 4:20:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is clear the member does not want to talk about listing the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization. It is clear he does not want to talk about the important work that needs to be done around supporting European energy security.
I can tell members that our party strongly supports free trade. We want to have strengthened trade on energy. We believe there is an urgent need for Canada to do more to engage in energy partnerships in co-operation with other countries.
I think it is also clear that the government's priorities, when it comes to international engagement, have not actually been on leveraging the opportunity and importance of energy security. It likes to say the word “trade”, but it does not believe in the opportunities that come with trade in natural gas and other commodities that Canada is blessed with and has an opportunity to use to advance global security.
Our party stands with Ukraine. We stand on the side of strong free trade that recognizes the opportunities and benefits to all countries. I think energy security is a key part that the government is missing, which is why this report is so important.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there have been many failures from the government in defending our security, as this debate demonstrates. The evidence is there in terms of how our stature in the world has not been helped by the government; however, we should not be looking at our stature in the world as an end in and of itself. We should be recognizing how strengthening our real contribution to the advancement of freedom of democracy is going to both build our stature but also advance and protect our security.
What jumps out at me most in this context is the signing of the AUKUS agreement. The United States, the U.K. and Australia are coming together and saying that they are going to have an intelligence-sharing agreement, where they are going to work together and collaborate. It is great for them to be collaborating, but that intelligence sharing is supposed to be happening at the Five Eyes. We have three of the Five Eyes coming together, apart from the other two.
This should raise important questions for Canada. Why is Canada not at that table? Why is Canada not engaged in these important discussions? Why is Canada not more engaged with the Quad? Again, it is not engagement as an end in and of itself, but as a means to effectively standing up for our democratic values. The government's focus in the world has been trying to send signals and look good, but not to actually achieve concrete results, and it shows.
252 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:33:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that may be the only time my friend from Lac-Saint-Jean is ever on the government's side, but I know there was a lot of space over there he was doing his best to fill.
I want to ask about the Hong Kong national security law, because this is an important aspect of the issue of foreign interference. Many flights transit through Hong Kong, of course, and Hong Kong's national security law effectively claims a universal jurisdiction. If I get up and give a speech in this House and say certain things about the democracy movement in Hong Kong, theoretically that law claims the right to arrest and prosecute me if I transit through Hong Kong. It is really an incredible disregard for national sovereignty in other countries shown through this law and is an explicit in-statute claim to interfere in the affairs of other states.
We heard during previous testimony at the Special Committee on the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship how indeed this national security is a threat to members of Parliament in every part of the world as it is in particular a threat to the people of Hong Kong. What should we be doing to respond to this law and to stand up for the freedom of people in Hong Kong?
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 9:53:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to work with the member on the special committee on Canada-China relations in the last Parliament. We got a lot of important work done. In particular, we began a study, which was interrupted by the election, highlighting the national security threats that were associated with Canada's relationship with the PRC. What struck me about some of the work we did at the time was how many everyday Canadians are impacted by these threats, these instances of foreign interference.
The member for Wellington—Halton Hills has recognized as well that, as he faces these threats, he has a position that allows him to bring attention to them, but many people have suffered in silence. There are many stories we have heard, but there are many stories we will never hear, of people who have been victims of foreign interference and have not been able to bring the attention to the situation that should have been brought to it.
I wonder if the member has thoughts and reflections, as we address this privilege issue involving members of Parliament, on how we can stand with everyday Canadians who face worse threats and do not have the same opportunities.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:59:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.
Clearly, in areas of national security, not everything can be shared publicly, but that should not be a carte blanche for the government to be able to call anything “national security” when it might not actually pose a risk, or to keep secret whatever information it, for its political interests, wants to keep secret.
Again, we clearly have a problem here of foreign interference and a lack of government action. Let us have a public inquiry where we have a leadership structure that all parties can agree on and a competent outside person investigating what the government is doing. It could make public what it could, of course, not making everything public, but that would provide an accountability function that the government wants to avoid right now. The government wants to keep the sharing of any of this information out of the public eye, not just because of national security, but also, I think, primarily because the motivation is that it does not want to be accountable.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:57:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the critical tools we have in the fight against foreign interference is sunlight. When we expose the efforts of foreign powers to influence this country, not in every case but in many cases, it undermines the ability of those efforts and that interference to be effective. This is well established. In fact, many other countries intentionally choose to declassify swaths of information with the objective of undermining that foreign interference. The problem here in Canada is that, we not only see the use of sunlight in this strategic way, but we also see the government using national security as an excuse to not share information, when in reality that information would be about holding it accountable.
We have a major crisis of public confidence in this country around the issue of foreign interference. We had the foreign affairs minister telling the committee today that she only found out about threats against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills through the news. Apparently, Bob Fife and Steven Chase are getting better information about our national security from our intelligence agencies than our ministers.
We clearly have a problem. This is why, from time to time, as a nation we have used the tool of national inquiries to get to the bottom of serious crises in public confidence to allow us to get to the bottom of issues and propel forward the kinds of solutions we need.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point. I did not have a chance in my remarks to talk specifically about the transparency issues. Again, we need to support this bill through the second reading stage out of agreement with the general principle that we need to do more on cybersecurity, recognizing how far behind the government has been.
However, there are significant issues with respect to ensuring transparency. There are significant issues on whether the bill is clear and specific enough about the steps that are required, instead of just leaving it, as we see often with the government and legislation, and giving an open-ended blank cheque to the government.
There are definitely issues. This requires a detailed committee study. I hope Conservative proposals will be adopted and we will be able to strengthen the bill as a result.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member asked what we would do if we were in government. We would make the right decision on every one of those.
With respect to the particulars the member raises with respect to what powers the federal government would have in intervening with provinces, this is an important issue for the committee to look at. I am supporting this legislation because we need to have a cybersecurity framework in Canada. It is important that this goes through to the committee and that those issues be looked at there.
I did not have time to go into it, but there are a significant number of problems in the legislation that do have to be worked out by the committee. No doubt there has to be a role for federal leadership around security, but it has to be a constructive, collaborative relationship, because there are steps for other levels of government. We see foreign interference at the very granular local level, so that collaboration across levels of government is really important.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is correct that this is not a new issue. That is precisely why I think the government is very late in coming to the table. The issue of foreign interference, which is part of the context of the cyber-threats we face, is also not a new issue. Again, we have been calling for action from the government, but we have not seen other action from it. The member says that the Liberals have done all these other things, such as maybe giving some money over here or over there, but he evidently could not articulate specific measures that the government had taken.
We are behind when it comes to defending our security. We are behind what we should have known much earlier. We are behind our allies. We were the last of the Five Eyes and very late to step up on recognizing the risks associated with Huawei.
When it comes to foreign interference, I will challenge the government on one point: Why has the government not expelled foreign diplomats involved in interference and intimidation in Canada? That would be a simple step and the government has not taken it.
195 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
- Oct/18/22 11:21:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a follow-up question for my colleague on something he was discussing earlier. He was speaking about diplomacy and dialogue. At the same time, we know there are security threats to Canada that are associated with the presence of the Russian embassy here in Ottawa.
There was an incident, for instance, where a bike painted with Ukrainian colours was in front of the Russian embassy and was destroyed by what appeared to be people with links to the Russian embassy. There are concerns about cybersecurity issues. There are concerns about other kinds of foreign influence operations that are likely being run out of that embassy.
There is always a tension that I think we have to navigate: Are we open for potential discussion, or are we, at the same time, opening ourselves up to potential security threats when there is the presence of hostile actors in this country? I wonder what the hon. member's reaction—
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 10:29:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canada has a lot of work to do when it comes to strengthening our cybersecurity response and our response to foreign state-backed interference in general, recognizing the complexity of that. Sometimes it is state actors and sometimes it is state-backed actors. We are being told by our security agency that we need to improve our sophistication there. This is one of many examples where human rights defenders from Russia and from other countries can significantly contribute to Canada. We talked about that in the context of the government's program for Hong Kong, where it was said that one had to be a new graduate and meet other criteria.
What we said at the time, and I believe the member's party was in agreement with us, was that the people who had stood up, who had stuck their necks out and fought publicly for human rights against an authoritarian regime, regardless of any other potential qualifications, those who had shown that level of courage and readiness for sacrifice, would make great Canadians and could significantly contribute to our country.
Of course, many of these dissidents will bring particular information that will reflect their own expertise or their own area of work. Regardless, those who have been resistors to authoritarianism, those who have been brave human rights defenders, would make great Canadians. We should be putting in place programs to, in particular, recognize and welcome these brave human rights defenders.
244 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/3/22 3:49:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that there is so much more we need to be doing here in Canada on cybersecurity.
There is more that we need to be doing to combat efforts by various foreign states that interfere in Canadian affairs. We see these efforts take various forms, with cybersecurity, hacking and other kinds of infiltration. The Russian government is doing this. We know there are other countries that are doing it.
On the public safety front, I think the government is behind in recognizing that the primary threat we face to our security now, here in Canada, is foreign state-backed interference in the various forms it takes. Yes, there is much more work that needs to be done.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 5:00:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a week before the war we of course thought pipelines were necessary, and a week before that, because we were right then and we are right now. This is a critical issue of security. I am sorry, but I just cannot accept the implication of the member that we should put out nice words of solidarity but not actually talk about practical solutions. He is free to disagree with our proposals on practical solutions. That is what the House of Commons is for. It is to debate those things.
However, now is the time to talk about what we can do concretely to address the energy security challenges that have fed this crisis.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:58:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think my view is well known in the House. It is that I do not think it should take 10 years to move these kinds of projects forward. We need a process in this country that allows us to build critical infrastructure more quickly, and we have presented proposals along those lines.
I have to disagree with the implication of the member's question that energy security is not a problem. The European Union has said repeatedly that energy security is a problem. Different politicians with different perspectives in Europe would have different proposed solutions, but I think there is an agreement across the political spectrum that energy security is critically important. It is easy to take that security for granted here in Canada, but in places around the world that do not have the same domestic capacity to produce energy resources, it is a huge problem.
As for saying that Europe can rely on countries in the Middle East as opposed to Russia, there are multiple potential security challenges. For Canada as a free democracy with high environmental standards to be exporting energy resources to relieve our European friends' dependency on countries that are not democratic is a smart move for global security and is good for the environment.
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
