- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Conservative
- St. Albert—Edmonton
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $119,185.60
- Government Page
- May/29/24 5:27:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think our allies have increasingly become concerned that this country has been subjected to interference by the Beijing-based regime. In fact last week the U.S. Congress was scrutinizing the alarming national security breach at the Winnipeg lab, where agents of Beijing infiltrated our highest-security lab under the current government's watch. It was a massive national security failure that has drawn international concern.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 8:31:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a straightforward question that I posed to the Liberals recently during question period and did not get an answer to. That question is this: Which top Liberal broke the law by leaking classified CSIS information?
In an explosive story, The Globe and Mail reported, based upon a top national security source, that during the 2019 election, the member for Don Valley North was tipped off that he was being monitored by CSIS. Recently, at the public inquiry into foreign interference, it was confirmed that three top Liberals, all connected closely to the Prime Minister, received a classified CSIS briefing during the 2019 election that Beijing interfered on behalf of the member for Don Valley North to secure the Liberal nomination.
One of the top Liberals briefed, then briefed the Prime Minister's top adviser and the then national Liberal campaign director Jeremy Broadhurst about the contents of that classified briefing. It is important to note that Mr. Broadhurst had the appropriate security clearance to receive that information. Broadhurst then briefed the Prime Minister.
We know that five top Liberals, including the Prime Minister himself, either received a classified CSIS briefing or were informed about the contents of that classified briefing. It follows, therefore, that it is almost certain that one of those five Liberals, perhaps the Prime Minister himself, leaked the classified information that led to the member for Don Valley North being tipped off that he was being monitored by CSIS.
The leaker within the Prime Minister's inner circle committed something that is very serious in terms of what they did. They compromised CSIS's sources and methods, undermined an intelligence operation into Beijing's interference in our democracy, violated their oath of secrecy and committed a serious offence for which they could be punished and sent to jail for up to 14 years under the Security of Information Act. Someone in the Prime Minister's inner circle broke the law by putting the partisan interests of the Liberal Party ahead of Canada's national security.
Which top Liberal broke the law? Who is the criminal leaker? I would like a name, please.
363 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-377, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
This legislation would amend the Parliament of Canada Act to specify that when a member of Parliament or a senator requests a secret security clearance, that the member would be treated as being deemed to need to know the information for which the security clearance is sought. This is important because, as it presently stands, it is highly unlikely that any individual member of Parliament or a senator would receive a security clearance.
Unless a member or a senator already has a security clearance as a result of their profession prior to being elected or appointed, or has served as a member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, the chances of a member of Parliament or a senator successfully obtaining a security clearance are almost zero. That is because security clearances are issued on a need-to-know basis. Essentially, the policy of the Government of Canada is that members of Parliament and senators do not need to know.
That may come as a surprise to Canadians. I would submit that it is problematic, which I will get into momentarily, but that is the policy. This bill would change that; it would amend the Parliament of Canada Act such that, for the purposes of processing security clearance applications, members of Parliament and senators are deemed to know. In short, it provides a presumption that when a member of Parliament or a senator applies, they be granted a secret security clearance. That is what Bill C-377 would do. That is all Bill C-377 would do.
It is important to note what this bill would not do. It would not guarantee that a member or a senator would be granted a security clearance. They would have to be vetted, just as any Canadian who applies for a security clearance must be vetted. If they are deemed untrustworthy, or if there are security issues or other red flags associated with the member or the senator, pursuant to the security clearance review process, they would be turned down. They would not obtain a security clearance. This bill would not change that.
Moreover, this bill is targeted insofar as it applies specifically to secret security clearances, and I emphasize “secret” security clearances. It does not apply to, and will not create, a presumption of issuing a top secret security clearance to members of Parliament and to senators. Further, it is important to note that just because someone has a security clearance, it does not mean they have the unfettered ability to obtain whatever information they want. Obtaining a security clearance merely gets one's foot in the door.
I would further note that this bill would importantly establish a certain level of uniformity with respect to how applications for security clearances involving members of Parliament and senators are dealt with because, at present, the process has been one that is ad hoc in nature. Members of NSICOP have security clearances, quite appropriately so. However, if members of NSICOP have security clearances, would it not also make sense for members who serve on committees such as the national defence committee, the foreign affairs committee and the public safety committee to also have security clearances, provided they are properly vetted?
The government has established, for instance, a special committee to review the classified Winnipeg lab documents. Members on that committee were granted security clearances. Similarly, with respect to reviewing the Afghan detainee documents, the Harper government established a special committee in which members again had security clearances. Therefore, there is no consistency and no uniformity, with the granting of such clearances being done on an ad hoc basis. I would submit that this is not desirable and can be improved; this bill would improve it by providing greater certainty and transparency around the application process.
As I noted at the beginning of my speech, I find it problematic that, as a general rule, members of Parliament and senators are unable to access security clearances. After all, Parliament deals with matters of national security and intelligence, which fall within its purview.
It is the responsibility of Parliament to hold the government accountable and to provide meaningful oversight on these matters. It follows that not having a security clearance and, therefore, not having the ability to access what may be pertinent information around national security and intelligence matters impedes the ability of members of Parliament and senators to do their jobs, to hold the government to account and to provide proper oversight and accountability.
In addition, there is value in members having security clearances, insofar as this enables them to better understand national security and intelligence matters. It creates a culture of greater awareness and enables a member to, in certain areas, perhaps fill in the blanks and have a better context with respect to national security and intelligence issues that they might be dealing with as, for example, a member of a parliamentary committee or a shadow minister.
In that regard, I cite the ruling of Speaker Milliken in April 2010 concerning the Afghan detainee documents. Speaker Milliken said the following: “In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.” He quoted, “The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.”
With respect to members of Parliament and senators being trusted with sensitive information, Speaker Milliken said:
The insinuation that members of Parliament cannot be trusted with the very information that they may well require to act on behalf of Canadians runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials and which members require to act in their various parliamentary capacities.
I concur wholeheartedly with Speaker Milliken. This bill is an important step in the right direction to enhance transparency and accountability around national security and intelligence matters, as well as from the standpoint of better empowering members of Parliament and senators to fulfill their oversight responsibilities.
1073 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:43:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what a disgraceful answer from the minister.
A national security culture begins at the top with the Prime Minister. This is a Prime Minister who said that he admires Beijing's basic dictatorship. This is a Prime Minister who, over the past eight years, has repeatedly ignored Beijing's interference. In the face of that, is it any wonder that, under the Prime Minister's watch, top Beijing military scientists had unfettered access to some of Canada's most sensitive biological secrets?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:03:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if we had a competent Prime Minister and a competent government that took national security seriously, two things would have happened following that July 21 CSIS assessment. First, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills would have been immediately informed that a Beijing diplomat was targeting the safety and security of his family and threatening his ability to do his job in this place on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of Canadians. Second, that diplomat would have been sent packing to Beijing immediately, and not two years after the fact.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:01:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have every reason to believe that the Prime Minister did know. After all, the Prime Minister's national security adviser informed the member for Wellington—Halton Hills that the national security adviser to the PCO and all relevant departments had been briefed and similarly that this information absolutely would have made it to the Prime Minister.
Given the fact that the Prime Minister is responsible for the machinery of government and that he has special responsibilities for national security, if something as significant as this did not reach his desk and if he had set up a government that shielded him from being informed about this, that is no excuse. That is an indictment on this Prime Minister and underscores what I said in the conclusion of my speech, which is that he is completely unfit for the office that he serves and he is completely unfit to protect the national security interests of Canadians.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/22 11:39:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals awarded a contract to protect sensitive RCMP communications systems from espionage to the subsidiary of a company charged with espionage. No security review was undertaken. No consideration was given to Beijing's ownership of the company.
The Liberals claim that vigorous security processes are in place. Where were those security processes when this contract was approved?
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 2:55:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety repeatedly claimed that vigorous security processes were in place, except that is not true. Government officials are on record saying that security issues were not considered when this contract was awarded, a contract that affects our national security directly.
When will the Liberals finally accept responsibility for this complete failure on their part to protect our national security?
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/22 11:50:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly cited national security as a pretext to avoid answering basic questions about Beijing's election interference. This is exactly the opposite of the advice he received from CSIS, which said that the government's policy in combatting foreign interference should be grounded in transparency and sunlight and that foreign interference should be exposed to the public.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to follow the advice of CSIS?
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/22 2:57:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the media that he has directed his security officials to share all the information they can with PROC about Beijing's election interference. However, at PROC, the Liberals gutted our Conservative motion for the production of documents by removing expressed mention of the PMO.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that his office will hand over all relevant documents, or does he have something to hide?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
