- Member of Parliament
- Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
- Liberal
- Winnipeg North
- Manitoba
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $110,821.77
- Government Page
- May/8/24 10:20:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to respond to the previous question, let us be very clear: The Communications Security Establishment published four unclassified reports of cyber-threats to Canada's democracy process. It highlighted this: “Cyber threat activity targeting elections has increased worldwide.” It is not just Canada, and I think it is important to recognize that. It also says that Canada remains a “lower priority target for cyber threat activity than some of its allies, such as the US and UK.”
I think it is important. The government, from the get-go, has been very proactive in dealing with the issue of international foreign interference. That is the reality, and our actions show that.
I am surprised the member would bring up human rights, given their position on the notwithstanding clause.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 9:03:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, to be very clear, the Prime Minister and the government, from day one, have taken the issue of foreign interference very seriously. The responsibility of governing and doing whatever we can in a co-operative way is something we have been doing now for years. Let me give some very clear facts in terms of the incident that is being referenced today.
With regard to the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, allow me to provide some really clear lines. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, part of the Communications Security Establishment in Canada, generally does not comment on specific cyber-incidents or affected organizations. However, CSE can confirm that it shared actionable technical information on a cyber-threat with the House of Commons and Senate IT officials in 2022. This included sharing information that included the names of targeted parliamentarians.
The House of Commons and the Senate are independent and its officials are responsible for determining when and how to directly engage with MPs and senators in situations like this. CSE takes its mandate and its legal obligations very seriously. Pursuant to the Communications Security Establishment Act, intelligence and information are shared with government clients, including appropriate authorities in Parliament and any appropriate partners.
To support parliamentarians, the Centre for Cyber Security, part of CSE, provides a 24-7 hotline service offering direct support in the event of a cyber-incident. The cyber centre has provided cyber-threat briefings to political parties, as well as a dedicated point of contact at the centre for assistance with cybersecurity matters.
The Communications Security Establishment's 2023-24 national cyber-threat assessment highlights “how online foreign influence activities have become a new normal, with adversaries seeking to influence elections and impact international discourse related to current events.” CSE has published four unclassified reports on cyber-threats to Canada's democratic process, highlighting that cyber-threat activity targeting elections is on the rise worldwide, and cyber-threat activity is more likely to happen during Canada's next federal election than it was in the past; Canada remains a lower-priority target for cyber-threat activity than some of its allies, like the United States or the United Kingdom; cyber-threat actors are increasingly using AI to create, spread and amplify disinformation, and it is very likely that foreign adversaries or activists will use and generate AI to influence voters ahead of Canada's next federal election.
There is a lot more I could say with respect to that, but the primary concern I have after listening to the presentation by the member from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on the issue is that I question the member's and the Conservative Party's motivation on the issue. All one needs to do is reflect on his comments and how he tried to blame.
Mr. Corey Tochor: You're a traitor.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: The person who is the traitor is looking at me, as opposed to accusing me of being a traitor.
503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/24 6:24:45 p.m.
- Watch
I submit that the facts of the situation clearly demonstrate that the government acted without delay to notify the House and Senate of suspicious spearphishing activity that targeted parliamentarians. I would also state that, since this incident occurred, the government has given clear direction to intelligence agencies that when there are threats of interference, influence or intimidation against any member of the House or the Senate, these agencies are to engage the affected member in an expeditious manner.
I will now draw the attention of members of the House to the facts and chronology of events that occurred respecting the matter raised by my colleague across the way.
In January 2021, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security informed the House of Commons administration about suspicious spearphishing activity targeting individuals with parl.gc.ca and senate.gc.ca email accounts, beginning on January 22, 2021, and continuing into March 2021.
A series of reports were shared with the House of Commons about the activity. Only technical details were available and shared at this time.
On June 29, 2022, the FBI shared a report with the Communications Security Establishment, detailing cyber-threat activities targeting members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, including parliamentarians.
On June 30, 2022, the Communications Security Establishment shared all relevant technical information about the cyber-threat activity with security officials in both the House of Commons and the Senate, including the names of the impacted parliamentarians.
As there is a separation between the executive and the legislative branches of government, the Communications Security Establishment determined that it was appropriate to defer to the House of Commons and the Senate, as owners and managers of their IT networks and parliamentary email addresses, to address the threats. At the time this took place, it was felt that this was the appropriate procedure to follow in order to respect the independence of the legislative branch from the executive branch.
I cannot speak to what the House of Commons or Senate administration did with the information provided to them by the Communications Security Establishment, as this is for them to explain. I can only explain the actions of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada. I would therefore assert that there is no prima facie question of privilege in this instance, as the Communications Security Establishment properly shared the information that they were provided, including the names of the parliamentarians, with the House of Commons and Senate administrations.
I would like to point out that, since that time, procedures have evolved, and MPs have made it clear that they would like to be notified directly when they are targeted. Therefore, in May 2023, the then minister of public safety issued a ministerial directive requiring that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will, where possible, inform parliamentarians of threats to their security.
As stated in my opening remarks, had this threat been raised today, I can assure members that the directive would have been followed and that security agencies would have proactively provided information on the threat to parliamentarians.
With a view to protecting our democratic institutions and representatives, our government takes matters of foreign interference and foreign influence extremely seriously. I can assure the House that our government will continue to take serious steps to address threats against our beloved country and the institutions that serve and represent our citizens.
559 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 7:14:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to start off by indicating very clearly that an attack of foreign interference in any fashion on one member is an attack on all members of the House. I said this last week too. Maybe not in those exact same words, but I said it last week, and I have reinforced it.
As a parliamentarian, I do very much understand the issue we are debating today. I understand the importance of dealing with the issue at hand. I want to cover a few different areas that I have been listening to and highlight some of the things I also said last week.
The issue of foreign interference is something that is not new in Canada. This is something that has been going on for many years. There are a couple of things people should recognize. Number one, when we talk about foreign interference, influence and intimidation in any fashion, it is important to recognize that it is not just one country causing the problems. There are a number of countries that have been causing the issues we should all be concerned about. It is not one country causing the problem, and it is not one country receiving the intimidation. I would like to think that countries within the Commonwealth, allied countries, countries that have the same sort of values we have here in Canada, would be equally upset and would want to deal with the issue in a very significant and tangible way.
On several occasions, I have had the opportunity to highlight a report that came out for 2022 from CSIS. The report highlighted some very interesting issues. One page talks about the intimidation of members of Parliament, and I have made reference to the numbers. What we are talking about is CSIS briefings to elected officials in 2022. In that year alone, CSIS made the determination that it would give what I believe to be general briefings to 49 members of Parliament. I was not one of those members of Parliament, but what I do know is that there were 49 in 2022.
The content and the degree to which information is released to those individual members of Parliament are determined by CSIS. CSIS is the authority that ultimately makes the decision as to the seriousness of the potential threat and the circumstances around why there is a need to meet with the member of Parliament.
It is not just members of Parliament. The same report states that there were 26 provincial briefings. I assume “provincial” means members of a provincial legislature. Not only did it hit provincial, but it also went municipal. That could be anyone from a councillor to a mayor or a reeve. There were 17 of those, and again, that was in 2022 alone.
The report from CSIS states:
In an increasingly dangerous and polarized world, Canada faces multiple threats to our security, sovereignty, national interests, and values. CSIS is committed to keeping Canada and Canadians safe from all threats to our national security.
In doing so, CSIS investigates activities that fall within the definition of threats to the security of Canada, as outlined in the CSIS Act. Specifically, CSIS is authorized to investigate espionage and sabotage, foreign interference—
I underline “foreign interference”.
—terrorism and extremism, and subversion. Importantly, CSIS is prohibited from investigating lawful advocacy, protest or dissent—except when it is carried out in conjunction with activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada.
The next part is what I would like members to appreciate:
In undertaking its work, CSIS reports on these threats by providing advice to the Government of Canada, including through the production of intelligence assessments and reports. In 2022, CSIS produced over 2,500 intelligence products.
There are 2,500 reports. We know there were 49 members of Parliament, 26 members of provincial legislatures and 17 mayors, councillors or reeves, based on the report. What we do not know is the context of what was conveyed to those individuals. To that end, we have to respect what we are being told.
We often say that all members are honourable members. There does seem to be a double standard that comes from the opposition. They feel that they can say anything they want and they can mislead all they want and there is no consequence because, after all, they are in opposition. How many times have I used the words “character assassination”, coming from Conservatives toward government members? We never ever hear apologies from the other side when they make these bogus claims of misinformation, even when they know there is no merit to what has been said. They do not have qualms about doing that.
We have been very clear that the official opposition has chosen to make this a political issue. All one needs to do is look at the questions the official opposition has been asking and some of the statements that have been made today. There is no problem at all in terms of attacking the integrity of members on this side of the House, but when practical issues are raised about members on the other side, how defensive they get. Talk about a double standard.
As I said to one member, sometimes it is not advisable to throw a stone in glass houses, and that really needs to be applied.
Mr. John Brassard: You made that up.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, no, I did not make it up. It came from the Manitoba legislature, and I thought it was a very good point. I was in opposition at the time. I can say that, at the end of the day, there are a lot of Conservatives throwing rocks in glass houses. I suggest that they need to dial it down, that there are alternative ways.
We were the only country out of the Five Eyes countries that did not have a parliamentary review standing committee. One of the first things we did was establish that committee. There are parliamentarians on each side, all political parties, who get to participate in that group. This is a group of MPs who can listen and hold accountable organizations like CSIS. We do not know what is being said at that committee, but every party has representation on that committee and I suggest that they too, as a committee, are looking at this issue.
One member stood and said that PROC is a wonderful committee. Yes, it is a wonderful committee. I sat on it for a number of years. Nothing prevents the opposition parties and the government from saying that, at the procedure and House affairs committee, they would like to look at foreign interference and study x, y and z.
Today we saw that there is a great deal of support to have studies of that nature occur at standing committees. In particular, PROC has all sorts of mechanisms with which it can ensure a study takes place. We could be looking at the broader picture there because an attack on one is an attack on all, and it even goes beyond this chamber. I understand the dynamics of the large communities and the foreign interference that takes place within them.
Not that long ago, I was at a local restaurant where some members from one community were so fearful of being caught meeting with me that they did not want to see anyone taking pictures because they were scared for their family members at home. We are not only talking about this country with respect to this issue. We need to realize that it is more than one country. We need to understand and appreciate that there is not one member in the House who would, in any fashion whatsoever, tolerate international interference, whether it were the Prime Minister, the leader of the official opposition, the leader of the Bloc, the leader of the NDP or any other member. I believe that to try to imply that is not the case would be dishonest.
The Prime Minister found out about this for the very first time last week. Conservatives would know that if they listened to the questions and answers. Imagine the misinformation some are putting out there trying to give the false impression that he knew about it. Then they say that, if he did not know about it, he should have. It is as though they are somehow trying to justify it that way. They will say that it is a failure of the government to protect us. There were 49 cases just last year. Are they that naive to believe that 2021 and 2022 were the only years this happened?
My colleagues raised the issue of what took place while the current leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The Conservatives were told about it. They knew about it. Could any members on the Conservative side stand up today, with their integrity intact, to tell the House that, under no circumstances whatsoever, was there any intimidation or interference respecting a member of Parliament during the Stephen Harper era? I suspect not.
Does that mean that Harper was an absolute failure? Does it mean that he was dishonest? I am attributing some of the incredible comments that have been coming from the official opposition toward the Prime Minister to Stephen Harper. As the prime minister at the time, he decided to not do anything. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate to heckle or raise those types of comments toward the Prime Minister, especially given the actions we have taken to date. As a government, we have moved on a number of files to recognize this issue, so the Conservatives should not try to give the impression that there is a member inside this chamber who is not sympathetic to the impact that foreign influence has had on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. We are all concerned about it, each and every one of us. I would like to see this as a possible agenda item so we can think about it and talk about it.
Members can think about what the purpose of foreign interference is, at least in part. It is to cast a shadow of doubt to make it look as though we have lost control of the issue.
We can take a look at the Conservative Party's contribution to making a lot of those foreign actors happy when they see what is taking place in the chamber and in the media. There is a phenomenal amount of false information and misinformation being espoused by members of the House on such an important issue. We have recognized that.
I will point out a few of the things the government has done. I made reference to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. As I indicated, members of all political stripes sit on that committee. They get to hear everything, and I understand foreign interference is one of those things they are hearing about. Are members saying that those members of Parliament do not know how to do their jobs? Are they going to reflect on that?
Maybe they want to reflect on CSIS as an organization that has the decision authority. The Conservatives say that they do not know what it is doing when it has those general briefings by not explaining more. We do not know what they are saying because we have confidence in those general briefings. They are giving a general briefing because there is a need. Something has happened to cause them to provide that general briefing. We are all afforded the ability to ask questions, I suspect. I do not know for sure because I have not had one, and I am grateful that I have not.
Reinforcing confidence in CSIS is also important. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, made up of the top independent experts, strengthens independent scrutiny and accountability of the national security agencies in Canada. These are incredible individuals who are there to ensure that the best interests of not only members of Parliament, but also all Canadians, are being taken into consideration and, in fact, acted upon.
This government established the critical election incident public protocol, a protocol that is administered by a panel of the most senior federal public servants. They work with national security agencies and are responsible for communicating with Canadians in the event of an incident, or a series of incidents, that threatens the integrity of a federal election.
We created the security and intelligence threats to elections task force, which is composed of officials from the Communications Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Global Affairs Canada. The SITE task force works to identify and prevent covert, clandestine or criminal activities from influencing or interfering with the electoral process in Canada. Because of a lot of the work we have done in the last number of years on this issue of foreign interference, we established a rapid response mechanism, the RRM, at the G7 summit to help G7 countries identify and respond to diverse and evolving foreign threats to democracy.
In his speech, the leader of the Conservative Party was critical, saying that we do not care about a foreign influence transparency register. On March 12 of this year we announced the launch of a consultation to guide the creation of a foreign influence transparency registry in Canada to ensure transparency and accountability from people who advocate on behalf of a foreign government.
At the end of the day, this is a government that has acted on the issue. We are suggesting that it impacts each and every one of us, and it is time to dial it down to make it less political in its partisanship. Let us wait until we get the report from the former governor general, and then we can follow the recommendations, even if it means having that public inquiry.
2349 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/23 6:09:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the last time the member stood up on this issue and commented on it, I raised it and then he walked across the floor and threatened me. The member said to me that he was going to continue to rise on this issue until I apologized for something I do not believe I have to apologize for. I do not believe a member crossing the floor and making those types of verbal threats is appropriate. I would ask that the Speaker look into the matter, as I indicated earlier, about what actions members are taking to try to intimidate members of the government.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/4/23 12:06:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East gave a very passionate speech, as we have all attested to. We very much value and appreciate her comments. It is not just about China. There are other countries.
An attack on one member is an attack on all members of the chamber. When death threats are made against members, all members universally acknowledge that we have to do what we can to fight for our democracy.
Does the member believe that the special rapporteur has any role at all in looking at this and reporting back to the government?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, when look at Bill C-26, I want to assure the member that the government has made very clear the importance of privacy rights. In fact, it was a Liberal administration that brought in the Charter of Rights, understanding and appreciating just how important privacy rights were. The legislation, which the Conservative Party is voting in favour of, and I grateful for that, is there to protect the integrity of the system. As we move more and more into that digital world, cyber-threats are very real and can have a profoundly negative impact. That is why we have to bring forward the legislation.
Given the potential threats to things such as the delivery of health care services to interactions on the net by Canadians, would the member not agree that it is important that legislation of this nature continue not only to deal with the threats but to build confidence in the system with Canadians?
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the Bloc's tentative support of the legislation to go to committee, recognizing that this legislation empowers the minister to take direct, specific actions to protect Canadians and businesses. As the member pointed out so accurately, there is a very real cyber-threat out there. It also ensures that there can be financial penalties.
Would the member not agree that this is just one step? We have had literally tens of millions of dollars invested in cyber-threats over the years. We have had all sorts of group discussions and meetings to make sure that the government is keeping up. There are a number of stakeholders with the responsibility of fighting cyber-threats today.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, within the legislation there is consideration given to how financial penalties would empower the minister to take strong action to ensure that providers are keeping up with what they need to keep up with.
My question to the member is this. Would he agree that when we take a look at the issue of cyber-attacks, they are not something unique to Canada? It is happening around the world. We are working with allied countries and others. This is one part. It does not stop here. There is a need to continue, as we have for the last number of years, investing tens of millions of dollars and putting people to the task of protecting us against cyber-threats.
Could the member just provide his thoughts in terms of the broader picture of cyber-threats?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is encouraging when we get support for legislation. This legislation goes a long way in recognizing that cyber-threats are something on which we do need legislation to come forward and be voted upon. This legislation would allow for financial penalties and for the minister to take direct action. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the importance, once we get into committee stage, of listening to what presenters have to say. I understand there are some concerns with regard to the legislation.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would just correct the member. Yes, this legislation is very important and we hope to see it get to the committee stage where it will no doubt be well discussed and debated. There will be presentations where members can digest information and see if there are ways in which we can improve upon the legislation. However, to try to give an impression that this is the only thing the government has done on the issue of cyber-threats is a bit of a false impression.
Not only have we been seeing a great deal of dialogue and actions from different departments to date in the form of formalized advisory groups, but we have seen literally tens of millions of dollars, not to mention the other incentive programs that were there, for the private sector, for example.
I wonder if the member would not agree that this issue is not new and this is just one very important aspect in taking a step forward.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone in society who does not recognize the potential harm of cybersecurity. The issue is how do we ensure we are well positioned to address vital threats to our critical infrastructure. The member opposite says her concern is that we are giving too much power to one individual.
Does the Conservative Party have an alternative to ensure that particular issue is addressed in the form of an amendment? Does the member have any suggestions on that point?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
