- 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 8:58:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will pick up where my colleague ended, which was recognizing the fragility of democracy and freedom.
Many of us have lived in this country our whole lives. I have as well. We have never known anything other than the kinds of freedoms we have in this country. That struck me especially when I visited Ukraine in 2016 for its 25th anniversary. Of course, it is more acute now, the sense of the fragility of freedom, but even then, many people over a certain age remembered a time when they did not have their freedom.
We have to always keep in focus that the liberty and sovereignty we have as a country is not automatic and not inevitable. The biggest threat to our freedom, sovereignty and security is not the possibility of direct invasion, but what Sun Tzu describes as the attempt to swallow us whole and the loss of meaningful freedom through escalating foreign interference. We have seen in other countries how the gradual process of foreign interference has eroded the ability of free people to make decisions about their own futures.
The member is right. Our freedoms are fragile and are under direct threat by foreign interference. We see those threats as members of Parliament, but we also hear about and know about those threats targeting everyday citizens and other institutions. We are already seeing certain institutions that have modified their behaviour in response to the preferences of foreign stakeholders. This is a demonstration of a loss of sovereignty.
I hope we all hear this clarion call, especially coming from the diaspora communities, to stand up for Canada, to stand up for our institutions, to stand up for our freedom and to stop this foreign interference.
290 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/6/24 10:07:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member has spoken a lot about this tonight already. I know one of the key issues the Iranian community in Canada has been highlighting is foreign state-backed interference. The most pressing security threat to our country right now is foreign states interfering in Canadian affairs. Of course, the Iranian regime is a major player, and there are many other players we have discussed over recent months and years in the House. We have seen interference in our democracy through foreign state interference. What is much more pernicious are the threats of violence toward Canadians, especially targeted at members of diaspora communities.
A few years ago, the Iranian regime was responsible for shooting down a flight, PS752, with many Canadians on it. Many in our region of Edmonton were impacted by this in particular. One young man, whose wife was killed, spoke out about what happened, and he faced threats here in Canada. Imagine someone speaking out about their wife being murdered by this regime and then facing threats here in Canada. This underlines how critical it is that more action be taken on foreign state-backed interference to protect the Iranian community and many different communities facing attacks from beyond our shores.
206 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
- May/9/23 11:31:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in terms of ensuring that these things do not happen again, we have to recognize the reality that we are going to see attempts at this kind of interference. We are going to see interference in the lives of members of Parliament, but also in the lives of other figures in our society, such as elite figures, university officials, people at other levels of government and everyday citizens.
We are going to continue to see these kinds of events, because this is the new reality. It is a reality in which there is intensified competition, but also a much higher degree of mutual penetration, between the different blocs than existed in the last Cold War. We are going to see these challenges intensify, so what do we do in response to that?
We need to undertake many of the measures that have been proposed, and many more, to make our societies stronger and more resilient against these kinds of threats. It is not just a matter of policy. There are policy changes that are required, the foreign influence registry and others, but we need to build a kind of social mentality that is resilient to these kinds of threats.
On the issue of misinformation, for example, government regulation is not the solution to misinformation. The solution is an informed, engaged and aware citizenry where the government is being frank and honest about those kinds of interference. It is something we all need to collectively respond to together.
We are going to continue to see these threats. We are going to have the struggle. This is a critical challenge that Parliament must meet in the days ahead, and we can meet it together, but the government has to step up and lead.
The other thing that is frustrating is that we hear members of the government complain about partisanship, yet they are doing nothing. It is our job to challenge them to take action, and when they take action, we will celebrate that action, absolutely. It was far too late, but it was a small step in the right direction to declare the diplomat in question persona non grata, but there are so many more steps that are required.
370 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:20:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.
This is a critically important debate. We are debating a question of privilege, which means that we are debating an instance in which the rights and privileges, and the ability of a member or members of this Parliament to do their job, were threatened.
In particular, we are dealing with a situation where, incredibly, a member of Canada's Parliament and his family were threatened by a foreign government. We have to contend with the reality that a member of Parliament was threatened by a foreign government, the People's Republic of China, Beijing's Communist Party. Why was he threatened? He was threatened because he stood with victims of the Uyghur genocide.
As the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, this is deeply personal for me. I grew up hearing stories from my grandmother not only about the persecution she and her family faced, but also about the stories of politicians, everyday leaders, church leaders and everyday people in Germany and throughout the world who were willing to stand with her and stand with other victims of that genocide. Their courageous witness for justice, for universal human dignity, is part of what contributed to my grandmother surviving the war, and to me being alive today and able to give this speech.
I honour and recognize the member for Wellington—Halton Hills for, just like courageous those heroes of the past, being willing to stand with victims of genocide in our own day and bearing the costs of that. He has faced threats. He has faced intimidation from the government of China, a loss that I think is challenging for all of us to understand. There is now an inability, for instance, to safely visit his ancestral homeland and show it to his family. These are real sacrifices, and the member has shown significant courage in taking this stand.
The fact that the government of a foreign state would presume to threaten a member of Parliament here in Canada should underline the new reality we are facing in the world today. It is the reality, sadly, of a new kind of cold war where we have fierce ideological, economic and other forms of strategic competition between a free democratic bloc, on the one hand, and a group of autocratic revisionist powers that seek to reverse and undermine the international rules-based order on the other. In particular, it seeks to overturn the idea that borders should be set through agreement and through the sovereign will of the people, not by force.
These revisionist powers seek to overturn that long-standing consensus. They do not have any respect for national sovereignty, which is why they presume to not only dictate other countries, such as in the case of Russia's actions to invade Ukraine and the cases of the PRC's action to threaten Taiwan and the sovereignty of various other countries in the area, but also intervene and try to stealthily control and direct our institutions here. This is the reality of the world today. It is one of intense strategic competition that I think could be appropriately and honestly described as a new kind of cold war.
The outcome of this competition between free democratic values and this emerging authoritarian revisionist bloc is not certain. We cannot presume the triumph of the values of democracy and liberty. We must struggle, work hard and make the sacrifices necessary to preserve our way of life and spread the cause of freedom to expand the space of freedom to more people around the world. This is something we can hope for, but we cannot presume will happen unless we fully commit ourselves individually and collectively to the pursuit of this end.
I believe the system of free democracy is superior. It harnesses the energies and the creativity of more people and it will prevail under the right circumstances. A critical part of that circumstance is that we summon the courage required to meet the challenge.
I want to speak specifically tonight to the virtue of courage. Courage, quite simply, is the virtue of being willing to risk important and valuable things in pursuit of greater things, in pursuit of things that are good, true and beautiful. It is a willingness to risk our own safety, security, comfort or economic well-being to pursue greater and more important goods. That is the preservation of democracy and of liberty, and a system that recognizes universal human rights and the rule of law. It requires courage and a willingness to sacrifice, if we are going to prevail in the midst of this.
This story of what happened with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, with the threats he faced and the stance he has taken, is about courage. It is about a contrast in courage, sadly, between the stand he took and the positions the government has taken.
The member, in working with other parties, especially other opposition parties, put forward a motion to recognize the Uyghur genocide. It was telling the simple truth that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in China are victims of an ongoing genocide. That motion passed because the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all members of the opposition and some members of the government were prepared to stand up and say it was true and that Canada has obligations under the genocide convention to act for and stand with victims of this genocide. Cabinet did not show the necessary courage. It showed cowardice. Its members remained in their seats and abstained on that all-important vote.
That took courage, because it involved sacrifice. It led directly to threats made against the member and his family, but it also led to legislatures around the world following Canada's example and recognizing this genocide. It was a crucial step in helping people everywhere understand what the CCP is really all about and what its agenda is: The CCP is using the latest technology to inflict a campaign of genocide against an ethnic and religious minority.
That vote was a crucial moment. It took courage and it had consequences: challenging consequences for the member and his family, but positive consequences in terms of advancing awareness and action in response to the still ongoing Uyghur genocide.
I think the response by the government to the threat also tells an important story about courage and cowardice. Because the government did not act, the member was not informed, and when he was informed this past week, when the information was out on the news, the response from the government was to say that it cannot take certain actions, or that it at least has to be very careful to take certain actions because there might be retaliation.
It is the old logic of appeasement, the logic of Neville Chamberlain, to say we do not want to annoy our adversaries in this global reality of competition because they might do things back to us. We will therefore tolerate such outrages as threats to members of Parliament, and we will not take action in response.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs at committee said that we have to consider this very carefully because China might retaliate. We should have the courage to say it is a fundamental point for us here in Canada that we will not tolerate threats made against our citizens, whether or not they are members of Parliament, and we will expel diplomats who engage in that behaviour, period, full stop. That takes courage. That takes a willingness of the government to draw a line. If this was a government of courage, we would not have gotten this far in terms of the vulnerability to these threats.
If the government had courage, we would have had our government recognize the Uyghur genocide. We would have taken strong measures to combat foreign interference, including bringing in a foreign agent registry. We would have taken those measures years ago. However, the government, in a pretense of sophistication, says it cannot do that because we have to think about it carefully and they might retaliate and so forth.
This is fundamentally the logic of weakness, and I think it is so important for us to reflect on this issue of courage and what strength or weakness looks like in the challenge in front of us. I think we will face in the years ahead an ongoing competition between free democracies and revisionist authoritarian powers. We can win this struggle if we collectively have the kind of courage that has been shown by my colleague on this side, and if we have the kind of courage to say we will make the sacrifices required, we will stand up for what is right, we will tell the truth about genocide, we will protect our country and we will protect our citizens.
If we have, collectively, the courage to take that stand and to make the sacrifices associated with it, we will preserve freedom and democracy for generations to come. If we do not, if we buy into the logic of appeasement that refuses to act and that is calcified in faux sophistication, then we will not prevail.
1536 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 11:06:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate that my colleague put an emphasis on the reason why the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was threatened. He was threatened because of his leadership in standing with victims of genocide.
Through the motion that he put forward, the motion that was adopted unanimously, though with cabinet abstaining, Canada's legislature was the first in the world, but it started a global movement of other legislatures recognizing the Uyghur genocide. This was a consequential moment of leadership for that member and this Parliament, in spite of the inaction of the government. The threats this member has faced underlines just how consequential that moment was.
I want to thank the member for raising that issue and just invite her to add additional measures, perhaps, that the House needs to take and the government needs to take, to stand with the Uyghur people. The House has spoken on this multiple times, but the government has been far behind.
163 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/8/23 11:36:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a critical point for me in the development of this discussion was when we had the foreign affairs minister before committee on Thursday last week. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills was asking her about the expulsion of diplomats. What she said back is that we have to weigh the possibility of countermeasures, retaliation, economic measures and other things.
To me, that just underlined the fundamental problem with the government's mentality that keeping Canadians safe from foreign interference is being weighed in the calculus against other things, when it should be the fundamental point. The Prime Minister has repeated those comments. They project a kind of weakness by saying we might not act against foreign interference because there might be some retaliation.
The bottom line for us should always be protecting Canadians full stop and standing up against those kinds of threats of intimidation. This demonstrates the weakness and flaw in the government's mentality and how it responds to these kinds of situations.
I wonder if the member has a response to that.
178 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
- May/4/23 12:45:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this gravely serious issue today, the threats to our beloved country’s sovereignty and security presented by foreign, state-backed interference, especially such interference originating in Beijing. This is the primary defining security threat of our country in this time. Foreign state-backed interference seeks to undermine our sovereignty by co-opting and dominating our institutions through a variety of means, both carrots and sticks.
People of all ethnocultural backgrounds can be impacted by foreign interference, but members of diaspora communities are particularly vulnerable to threats from foreign powers if they have close friends or family members living in the state that is seeking to influence or intimidate these Canadians. We should stand together, stand with all victims of foreign interference and implement the effective measures required.
The government has been profoundly weak in its response to foreign interference. It has been worse than weak. In certain cases, members of the government have been complicit. I recall the time John McCallum spoke publicly to say that, in his view, the Liberal Party was better for relations with the PRC. Therefore, the PRC should take certain actions, or not take certain actions, that would be useful to the Liberal Party in a lead-up to the election. Those were explicit comments made by the former ambassador to China, the former immigration minister, speaking on the record. The reality is that many of those conversations, I am sure, happened behind closed doors. We have heard so much about the frustration within our intelligence agencies about the weak response from the government.
This is not a new issue. When I was first elected in 2015, I started engaging with members of different communities in different parts of the country, and foreign, state-backed interference was top of the list of concerns. This was not just from one community, but from many communities. They were very concerned about threats within their communities coming from foreign governments and how they undermined their security. They often involved threats to family members in other countries.
The problem of foreign interference requires us to change the way we think about national security threats. There are many ways of framing the new understanding we need to have, but at this point, it is both honest and illuminating to describe the challenges we face in the world today as something of a new cold war. Although different in many respects, our current reality has many of the same features as the Cold War. We greet this reality with no relish, but this new era of global tensions and conflict is one we must, with sadness, recognize.
The world has now two clear blocs of nations that are engaged in both strategic and ideological conflict, each in hopes of creating a world that is more inclined to its own kind of political system, and we have varying degrees of non-alignment within those blocs.
If I were to describe those blocs, on the one hand we have the community of free democracies that believe in, though perhaps do not always perfectly practise, the ideas of freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The largest of these countries is of course the United States, but Canada is a key part of this community of free democracies, and this community includes other nations on various continents and of varying income levels.
On the other hand, we have a community of revisionist neo-imperial powers. This community of nations does not have the same ideological clarity around its objectives as the free democratic world does, or even what the old Communist bloc did, but what unites this revisionist neo-imperial community is its collective rejection of the core ideas championed by free democracies. The revisionist bloc challenges the idea that freedom, human rights, democracy and the rule of law are essential for political communities. It especially rejects the international rule of law, the idea that states should not be able to acquire territory through the force of arms and without the consent of the people affected.
Beijing’s Communist Party is the primary player in this bloc, but it includes other players, most notably Moscow and Tehran. These other powers of course exercise individual agency and have distinct objectives, but they share a common antipathy to western democracy and oppose the idea of an international rule of law binding neo-imperial powers. They are also increasingly working together. Between these two blocs of nations, we see many of the dynamics of cold war competition have re-emerged.
While I want to focus on the issue of foreign interference, I want to parenthetically say that one key area of cold war-style competition is the area of international development and engagement with countries, more broadly, those in the global south. A sad reality of western engagement in Africa is that the memory of western colonization is still very fresh, and the claims of western nations to represent rule of law and respect for national sovereignty can sometimes sound very hollow in light of that reality.
This is one of the reasons Beijing and Moscow have had success building influence in Africa, but this is not the only reason. Many African nations face serious challenges that require immediate solutions. They desperately respond to the overtures of those who offer even short-term solutions in areas such as infrastructure and security.
In the long run, the neo-imperial powers have imperialist designs in the global south as well. They are, in fact, using the old imperial tool kit to establish their control, but those long-term considerations can end up taking a back seat to short-term needs, especially when elites in the global south are also subject to influence operations.
Western engagement with the global south needs to grow in this context, and it needs to emphasize collaboration on solutions to real-world problems that African nations and other nations in the global south identify with. Strengthening the hand of freedom and democracy in the world today requires us to win the hearts and minds of the in-between nations that are deciding whether to align with the community of free nations or to align with the revisionist neo-imperial ones.
Our efforts to win over the swing states of this new cold war must involve building substantial and mutually beneficial relationships based on mutual understanding. They must be based on a will to genuinely live out a commitment to freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. That policy will make us friends, if not with governments everywhere, then certainly with ordinary people everywhere.
On the issue of foreign interference here in Canada, though, ideological influence operations have always been a part of warfare, but they escalated during the Cold War and have escalated since. During the last Cold War, nations which sought to represent certain ideas would seek to convince people elsewhere to buy into those ideas and then be helpful in the advancement of those ideals.
Today, the ideological competition and influence operation dynamics are different because of the lack of ideological clarity within the revisionist neo-imperial block. They have become both more sophisticated and more crude. They are more sophisticated in the sense that they try to use a variety of different, and even contradictory, arguments to try to advance their strategic objectives. However, they are also more crude in the sense that, without a unifying ideology, neo-imperial revisionist powers often resort to effective bribery and threats much more than persuasion.
We see the reality in this new global context. The multiplication of foreign interference operations here in Canada through the designs of revisionist neo-authoritarian powers are not geographically limited. They are not just limited to their so-called mere periphery. Indeed, the comprehensiveness of influence operations here in Canada underlines that the threat to free democracies is direct and existential.
The bottom line for Canada then is that we cannot put our head in the sand to pretend that these realities do not exist. We need a comprehensive and principled response to this new reality that includes military spending, strengthened engagement in the global south and, most crucially, a comprehensive plan to combat foreign, state-backed interference right here on our own soil.
Our motion puts forward concrete tools for doing this, such as creating a foreign agent registry, similar to the United States and Australia; establishing a national public inquiry on the matter of foreign election interference operations; closing down the police stations run by the People's Republic of China that are operating in Canada; and expelling all foreign diplomats, particularly those from the PRC, responsible for and involved in these affronts to Canadian democracy.
This has been a long-running issue, but since it has arisen in public discussion, we have seen no action by the government in expelling foreign diplomats who are involved in these threats. We know the names. In the case of the threats against the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, we know the name of the person involved in that interference.
We had the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the foreign affairs committee today. She was asked why she has not expelled the diplomat. Essentially, she said that they are still studying and considering this issue. She went on to say that they have to consider possible retaliation. The implication of that is that the government is cautious or reluctant to hold accountable the foreign diplomats who are threatening Canadians because they are afraid there might be some kind of response. To think that, to say that and to be so behind the eight ball in its response projects such weakness and increases our vulnerability.
The government has failed to act. It has failed to inform people who are being victimized, not just the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but others as well. It has failed to create the systems that allow victims to have the support they require. It has failed to expel diplomats. It has failed to establish the kinds of legal frameworks we need to protect the victims of this practice.
That leaves us wondering why. Why has the government failed to act? I think there are three possible explanations. One is naivety. It just does not know. Another is infiltration. The government is compromised, which prevents it from actually responding to a problem. The third is a philosophical weakness that makes it unwilling to confront the authoritarian threats we are facing in this emerging new cold war.
Naivety could have been an explanation for a lot of the lead-up time, but it is too late to plead naivety. It is too late to say it did not know. “You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know”, as Wilberforce put it, because the facts are on the table now. The government was too naive for too long but it is too late for it to claim naivety. Now, it knows that it knew two years ago, in the case of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, and it failed to act.
We know there have been issues of infiltration, but there is also a profound philosophical weakness, an unwillingness to project the kind of strength that is required to stand up to the threats we face in the world today. It is a refusal to take action that it knows is necessary by standing up to the PRC, expelling diplomats, expelling those involved in foreign interference and undertaking the measures that are required. The government needs to act, or the government needs to change.
1957 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 10:55:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I meant to say that when my kids misbehave, I play speeches from the member for Kingston and the Islands as a punishment. I did not mean to say his name in this place.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: It sounds like a reward to me.
Mr. Garnett Genuis: Madam Speaker, we will see about that.
I want to return to one issue that has been in the news lately and is in another area where I would challenge the government to do more when it comes to modernizing processes. This is about how our institutions respond to the issue of foreign state-backed interference. Many Canadians are deeply concerned about foreign state-backed interference, as they should be.
We are dealing with an instance here in the House where, as we found out, a member of the House of Commons had his family threatened by a foreign government, and those threats involved the actions of an accredited diplomat here in Canada. That diplomat continues to be an accredited diplomat, and the government has not dealt with this. The government did not, for a number of years, inform the member about these threats to his family.
These are issues we are raising in question period and elsewhere. The Conservatives have been calling on the government to take action to expel diplomats involved in foreign interference in Canada, and to respond to a broad range of challenges associated with foreign interference, including to have a foreign agent registry and other such actions.
When it comes to government structures and processes, one of the challenges we see is that various institutions are charged with keeping Canadians safe in various ways. It is not always clear for Canadian victims of foreign interference, or for institutions that feel they face these kinds of threats, where to engage or how to get support. What I have heard in conversations with those who have been victims of this kind of foreign state-backed interference is that very often they feel they get the runaround. They might go to the RCMP, they might go to the local police, they might go to CSIS or they might go to Foreign Affairs, and then they might be directed between different institutions.
What we now have is a proposal from the government to create an office for foreign interference, or an office against foreign interference. In effect, the proposal from the government is to say it is going to put aside a few million dollars and create another office, which is ostensibly another institution dealing with a problem that has not been dealt with.
I do not really blame these other institutions. The problem has often been political will. I suspect that in many cases, things have been brought to the attention of the government and the government has not been willing to take the appropriate action. That has led to a great deal of frustration on the part of some of these institutions. Clearly, we see a lot of frustration on the part of CSIS.
On this point, the government needs to take a serious look not only at its own failures, but also at how to strengthen our institutions and strengthen our structures in terms of how we respond to these issues of foreign interference. It should make the kind of substantial legislative and other changes that are required to move us forward.
Overall, Bill S-6 is better than nothing. I will be voting for it, but needless to say, the country is still piled in red tape, there are still far too many gatekeepers and there is still much more work required.
606 words
All Topics
- 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
- Oct/24/22 7:44:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the other aspects of context for this motion is that Uighurs who have fled from China and are in other countries are increasingly facing threats and pressure because the Chinese Communist Party seeks to exert influence beyond its borders and is, in fact, putting pressure on some of these other countries around the world. Sometimes we see efforts to co-opt international organizations and co-opt international mechanisms such as Interpol that are designed for pursuing criminals internationally. Authoritarian powers want to use these mechanisms to harass dissidents internationally. This is a big challenge we face, and part of the push to have Uighurs come to Canada is recognizing that they are no longer safe in places where they may have sought refuge.
I wonder if the member has further thoughts on how we can respond to these challenges, try to prevent the negative repurposing of some of these international mechanisms and try to encourage our partners in other countries not to succumb to the pressure to send Uighurs back to China, where they may face persecution.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 12:07:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech, which I think underlined the importance of the debate we are having.
One important point that the member alluded to is maybe the folly of presuming some kind of “end of history” and that in the 21st century we are dealing with the same kinds of problems that reflect the human condition that we have been dealing with for a long time previously. In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, there was maybe some of this, in retrospect, folly of “end of history” presumption in that we were going to have this peace dividend when we actually should have been preparing for the reality of new threats always emerging.
The member spoke about sanctions. I think it is fair to say that the government could continuously make announcements of sanctions, adding more and more people to the sanctions list. There is probably an extremely large number of people we could sanction. The key point is this: Are we having the right sanctions consistently applied and effectively enforced?
In that vein, as the member knows, we are very disappointed on this side of the House to see the exception granted with respect to energy sanctions for Gazprom. I wonder if the member has a comment on the exception granted for the export of Gazprom turbines and how that was widely criticized by Ukraine as being a negative in terms of their efforts.
245 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
- Sep/22/22 11:14:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Smith posted the following comments on Twitter yesterday: “Genuis tries to includes lyrics from ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ in his question, and I cannot adequately tell you how lame it is. When horses are this lame, you shoot them. #QP.”
Mr. Smith said he thought I was lame, and that when horses are lame, we shoot them. This is not normal political discourse, and I ask how I should respond to a comment like that. Some would say, “Oh, surely he was joking.” However, the problem with so-called jokes implying threats toward public officials is that as the target of these comments, I am somehow supposed to understand and be okay with a threat on the basis of someone's presumed intentions. I am just not okay with this.
If there is context to such a threat, not everyone is going to understand that context. Mr. Smith has 26.3 thousand Twitter followers. His tweet about me has, at the moment, 122 retweets and 824 likes. The process by which violence is incited against public officials is one in which comments are made that do incite violence that may or may not be serious, but then others pick up on them.
Furthermore, I do not think I should have to explain to my wife, my five young children or my parents what level of risk is associated with a violent comment like this. The plain language is going to be interpreted a certain way, especially by those who are close to me.
In the current climate, we should all know the risks associated with explicitly inciting violence against public officials. There is significant precedent for recognizing threats against members as constituting a violation of privilege. Page 198 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada tells of an incident in 1758 when the Nova Scotia House of Assembly proceeded against someone who made threats against a member.
In a ruling on September 19, 1973, Speaker Lamoureux, at page 6709 of Debates, stated that he had “no hesitation in reaffirming the principle that parliamentary privilege includes the right of a member to discharge his responsibilities as a member of the House free from threats or attempts at intimidation.”
On February 6, 1984, the member for Peace River rose on a question of privilege arising out of a telephone conversation between a member of his staff and an official in the office of the president of Canada Post Corporation. The member alleged that the official had been abusive. The official complained that the member for Peace River's office had not cleared questions asked by the member in the House with the president's office and warned that if this was not done in the future, the member could expect little co-operation from Canada Post.
The member for Peace River argued that this was an attempt to inhibit his freedom of speech, influence his actions in the House and hamper him in his role as spokesman for the official opposition. The Speaker, on February 20, 1984, ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege.
On March 24, 1994, at page 2705 of Debates, Speaker Parent described the seriousness of the issue of intimidation this way: “Threats of blackmail or intimidation of a Member of Parliament should never be taken lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no Member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.”
All of these past cases involved a threat from a person who did not have parliamentary access. Mr. Smith is currently an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, which gives him relatively unfettered access to the Hill. He may be up in the press gallery some time today. He may follow me in the halls or hang around outside our caucus room waiting for me. I should not have to consider whether or not I will encounter someone who has made a threat to me in the halls of Parliament. That current reality of access impacts my ability to perform my functions as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Smith is an accredited member of the parliamentary press gallery, and the gallery has its own policies and its own responsibilities. The press gallery's own website says the following regarding “Generally Accepted Journalistic Principles and Practices”:
Misuse of this access by any one member or member organization could erode the professional relationship that exists between the institution of Parliament and the Parliamentary Press Gallery, leading to negative consequences for the ability of members to perform their work.
As a result, accreditation is a privilege—not a right.
Madam Speaker, you have a responsibility to protect the rights of members, and I have no doubt that you will discharge that responsibility promptly and properly.
The press gallery also has responsibilities, and I would like to see the gallery take swift action to revoke Mr. Smith's privileges. This is an opportunity for the gallery to show that they do take seriously the issue of threats made against public officials. At the very least, Mr. Smith's privileges should be immediately suspended pending further review. I do not want to see a person who has made threats against me in the gallery anytime today or in the future.
I note that today, Mr. Smith is doubling down on his comments and accusing those who raise concerns about this behaviour of so-called rage farming. He has made it clear that he does not see his behaviour as wrong and that he will not relent.
I hope that all members of the House, along with the many principled and thoughtful members of the press, will be able to stand together in denouncing these kinds of threats and in defending our democracy and the security of public officials from these kinds of statements.
While in this case it is my privileges that have been violated, I know that politicians and journalists receive these kinds of threats in other contexts. This case is fairly unique because of the prominence and position of the person making the comments. When people like Mr. Smith make comments like this, it gives other people a feeling of licence to behave in the same way. Under these circumstances, and for the good of all members, the press gallery and the House must take a clear stand.
Madam Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
1106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
