SoVote

May/1/24 3:49:46 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for raising this point.

9 words

May/1/24 3:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unfortunately, the member for London West's photo did not show up, so I do not believe her vote can be counted at this time.

34 words

The Speaker

May/1/24 3:49:59 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion lost. I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a question of privilege.

42 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/1/24 3:50:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I rose on a question of privilege related to foreign interference. I have come across—

20 words

The Speaker

May/1/24 3:50:31 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the member. I will ask all members to please carry their conversations out into the lobbies. The hon. member as the floor.

44 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

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

The Speaker

May/1/24 3:53:43 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, and I do invite him to share all information he would judge important for the Speaker to know before making a ruling on a prima facie case of privilege. I now recognize the hon. member for Lethbridge, who has given notice of a question of privilege.

57 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

May/1/24 3:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege today regarding a significant discrepancy between what was published in the blues and what was published in Hansard yesterday. The question of privilege I raise also has to do with how I was treated by the Speaker of the House and how I was further portrayed publicly. The discrepancy between the blues and what was published in Hansard involves the omission of two very important, documented words, an exchange between the Speaker and me during question period yesterday. The blues recorded the following statement by the Speaker: “If the hon. member for Lethbridge has problems with the Chair, she should challenge the Chair in a respectful way, but as the hon. member knows, challenging the Chair is against the rules of this House. I ask the hon. member to please withdraw her remarks.” I replied, rising in my place to say this: “Mr. Speaker, I stated that the Chair is acting in a disgraceful manner. I withdraw.” In the Hansard recording, two words are missing: the words “I withdraw.” That said, it should be noted that it is reported in Hansard that at least one member did point out to the Speaker that these words were in fact spoken. It says the following: “An hon. member: She withdrew it.” In the audio recording, many other members were heard drawing attention to this fact, asking for the Speaker to do the same. These words are significant, because they demonstrate that I complied, Mr. Speaker, with your request to withdraw. It demonstrates that my withdrawal was not conditional; rather, it was proper and textbook. Therefore, it ought to have been accepted. However, I was kicked out of this place for the remainder of the day as if I had not withdrawn those words. To put it another way, it is as if the Hansard recording of the event were accurate and true, when, in fact, we know it is not. If one checks the audio recording, one finds that it clearly picked up the two words that are also recorded in the blues. It is worth noting that chapter 24 of Bosc and Gagnon states, “The Chamber is equipped with cameras operated from a control room, invisible from the floor of the House. The recording of the proceedings is governed by guidelines, intended to preserve the concept of the electronic Hansard, as adopted by the House.” The two words that were edited out of Hansard essentially rewrote history, making the Speaker's actions and procedure appear proper and mine improper. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was removed from the chamber for the remainder of the day and prohibited from being able to participate in debate or vote on behalf of the constituents who sent me here. Therefore, the constituents of Lethbridge were robbed of having a presence and a voice in the House of Commons, which is their democratic right. This was especially egregious given the fact that there was a scheduled vote immediately following question period that day. If one goes to the House of Commons site, unfortunately, the blues are no longer available. That is interesting; it makes a person curious as to why. If one attempts to access the blues today, one will get this message: “Blues are available while the House is in session until the Hansard is published.” The blues are taken down. Luckily, though, I kept a copy of the blues that were sent to me at the end of the day yesterday, and I have them available to submit to you here, Mr. Speaker. I will just point out that, if we flip through them, on this page here, my words are kindly highlighted. Furthermore, we are fortunate to have access to the audio recording, which still exists and does not lie. At pages 1228 to 1229, the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: The unedited in extenso transcriptions of the Debates, at one time produced on blue paper, continue to be known as the “blues”. Parliamentary Publications staff send to each Member who speaks in the House the transcription of the Member’s intervention. The blues are also published on the House of Commons’ internal website.... The availability of the blues on the House of Commons’ internal website permits Members and their authorized delegates to use the web page or email to submit suggested changes for Parliamentary Publications editorial staff to consider. Members may suggest corrections to errors and minor alterations to the transcription but may not make material changes to the meaning of what was said in the House. I am going to read that part again, because it is really important: They “may not make material changes to the meaning of what was said in the House.” It is interesting, then, that the blues said one thing, but Hansard said another, and that I did not ask for those changes to be made. The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice goes on to say this: It is a long-standing practice of the House that editors of the Debates may exercise judgment as to whether or not changes suggested by Members constitute the correction of an error or a minor alteration. The editors may likewise alter a sentence to render it more readable but may not go so far as to change its meaning. Editors must ensure that the Debates are a faithful reflection of what was said; any changes made, whether by Members or editors, are for the sole purpose of improving the readability of the text, given the difference between the spoken and written word. Clearly, I did not suggest any changes to the officials with regard to Hansard. Bosc and Gagnon state that the editors can make alterations but cannot make changes that go so far as to change the meaning of what was said. In the case I have raised today, the difference in meaning without these two words, “I withdraw”, being published in Hansard is obviously very significant. On pages 1229 to 1230, House of Commons Procedure and Practice goes on to say, “When a question arises in the House as to the accuracy of the record, it is the responsibility of the Speaker to look into the matter.” In this case, the edit, with the deletion of two very significant words, is far more noteworthy than simply improving the readability of a sentence. I believe you will agree, Mr. Speaker. The justification used by the Speaker to admonish and remove me from the chamber does not match the evidence presented in the blues and by the audio recording that we may also access. The Speaker's actions do, however, fit very nicely with the altered text published in Hansard. On page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon is a list describing items to be considered contempt. On that list is “falsifying or altering any papers belonging to the House”. At page 248, Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, states that “the House of Commons of Canada remains prepared to entertain legitimate questions of privilege where false...or perverted reports of debates or proceedings are published.” While this passage refers to inaccurate media reports of what was published in Hansard, it is no less offensive and, in fact, perhaps more offensive that this happened right here in the House of Commons. At pages 81 to 83, Bosc and Gagnon states: Throughout the Commonwealth most procedural authorities hold that contempts, as opposed to privileges, cannot be enumerated or categorized. Speaker Sauvé explained in a 1980 ruling: “…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred”.... Just as it is not possible to categorize or to delineate every incident which may fall under the definition of contempt, it is also difficult to categorize the severity of contempt. Contempts may vary greatly in their gravity; matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts. It cannot be debated or disputed that someone deliberately removed two words from the blues and that these words have great significance. This changed the meaning of the events yesterday and the way they would be interpreted, resulting in an inaccurate, negative reflection of me, which was then broadcast to my constituents and to all people across Canada. Furthermore, this inaccurate account of events resulted in my wrongful dismissal from this place by you, Mr. Speaker, robbing me of the right to represent the constituents of Lethbridge here in the House of Commons and to cast a vote on their behalf, again robbing them of their democratic right. That leads to another aspect of privilege: improper reflections upon a member. On October 20, 1966, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona rose on a question of privilege that came out of an article in Le Droit of October 14 by Marcel Pepin. He argued that the article imputed an improper motive to him and was a gross distortion of the facts of something that occurred in the House. The Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege on October 24. In my case, it is Hansard that has recorded a gross distortion of the facts, an act that can be substantiated by the blues and the audio recordings of the procedures I referred to from yesterday, April 30. I will give another example. On March 22, 1983, Speaker Sauvé ruled on a question of privilege relating to false and libellous accusations against the member for Lincoln that had been published in the Montreal Gazette. The Speaker felt that a reflection upon the reputation of an hon. member is a matter of great concern to all members of the House and said at that time: “It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the Members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit there. An allegation of criminal or other dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the Member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.” The matter I am addressing today is grave in nature and calls for your utmost attention. In summary, the matter I am bringing to your attention has three components: the Speaker's ruling to expel me from the House, the improper alteration of Hansard and the inaccurate reporting as to the role that I played here in this place. If you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion today.

1828 words

The Speaker

May/1/24 4:07:15 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for raising this question of privilege. I encourage her to share all the information that she would like to have the speakership evaluate. Certainly, we take this question as having extreme importance. I see the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on the same question of privilege.

57 words

Mr. Peter Julian

May/1/24 4:07:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to the question I raised last night just prior to adjournment. There is a ruling from the former Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is now the Conservative House leader, dating back to September 24, 2014. I will read it for the record. It states: Another of our time-honoured traditions is that of respect for the office of Speaker. O'Brien and Bosc, at page 313, states that: Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker--an allegation of bias, for example--could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly. The Speaker at the time, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, continued by saying: I wish to conclude with an appeal to members on all sides. Needless to say, the kind of unsavoury language or expression that we heard yesterday does little to assist the Chair in managing question period proceedings, and I urge all members to be judicious in the expressions they choose to use. Yesterday, I raised the issue of the tweet that was put out by the member for Lethbridge, who said the following: “How did partisan hack [the Speaker] respond?!” This is inappropriate and a very clear contravention of all of—

219 words

The Speaker

May/1/24 4:09:20 p.m.
Watch

I thank the chief opposition whip. The hon. member is clearly not rising on the issue that was raised by the member for Lethbridge, but on a point of order he is raising. An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, you recognized him, and he asked to speak on the same question of privilege. It even says it up on the screen. The Speaker: This is clearly an error I made in presuming that the member was rising on the serious question of privilege that was raised by the member for Lethbridge. If there are other members who would like to comment on the question of privilege first, I will go back to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby afterwards.

119 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/1/24 4:10:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to keep track. On the question of privilege, I was very distressed by the additional information provided by the hon. member for Lethbridge. I am sure all of us in this place know how critically important it is that we have no question in our minds as to the accuracy of Hansard. I want to stop for a moment to thank the various staff members who make it possible to have verbatim transcripts of everything we say in this place and who give us a chance, if we absolutely have been misunderstood, to correct the record between the blues, which is, for those who might be watching on CPAC, the unofficial transcript, and the publishing of Hansard. It is critical that there never be any question as to the accuracy of Hansard in recording our remarks in this place. The hon. member for Lethbridge, who happens to be a friend of mine, which is neither here nor there, said there could be no other explanation for the changes between what she said she said, and I accept her word on that, and what appears in Hansard. I always leave open the possibility for an innocent explanation of somebody making an error, but I do not think we can leave this matter where any assumptions are being made about what happened. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to investigate this thoroughly to ensure that none of us can have any doubts in our minds that Hansard is an accurate reflection of what members have said and that there is no possibility of any interference, from any quarter, in the words spoken and the printed Hansard, that they are one hundred per cent in alignment with the truth.

290 words

The Speaker

May/1/24 4:12:32 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and I share her perspective as well. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is also rising to comment on the question of privilege raised by the member for Lethbridge.

42 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

May/1/24 4:12:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to first point out that I sit in rather close proximity to the member for Lethbridge, and I clearly heard her say that she withdrew her comment. I really am disturbed by the fact that someone went to the effort of withdrawing “I withdraw” from the Hansard itself. As a long-serving member, as someone who wants to make sure the historical record is correct, I think that should be reflected in the Hansard. I encourage your office, Mr. Speaker, to dig down and find out who made that change. That type of edit does change intent. I can understand, with the raucousness that occurred yesterday in the House, that you may not have personally heard the comment “I withdraw”, but that does not excuse the fact that somebody edited out those comments, which had appeared in the blues, to not appear in the official Hansard. That undermines our freedom of speech here, as well as our privilege as parliamentarians, and in my opinion, was done with intent. There is definitely a contempt of Parliament.

183 words

The Speaker

May/1/24 4:14:08 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member. I want to assure members that I have heard the issues that have been raised. I would encourage the next member to speak to please raise a new matter, if possible, because I do think this is extraordinarily serious. I will pass the floor to the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock to make an additional intervention.

64 words

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC)

May/1/24 4:14:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the chief opposition whip, I would like to add that I canvassed members on this side of the House this morning and at least eight members of Parliament heard the member for Lethbridge say the words “I withdraw”. I can provide that list to your office to look into this matter. Otherwise, I concur with the members who have spoken so far that it is a serious matter, one where the intent has been changed and one that must be looked into.

87 words

The Speaker

May/1/24 4:15:16 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock as well as all other members who participated. I do agree with the member that this is an important and serious matter.

33 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/1/24 4:15:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order about the same issue that I raised last night about comments that can only be considered as impugning the character and actions of the Speaker and an allegation of bias. I referenced earlier the September 24, 2014, ruling of the former Speaker, who is now the current member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Conservative House leader. That ruling indicated that respect for the office of Speaker is one “of our time-honoured traditions”, and he then quoted from O'Brien and Bosc, which says: Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker--an allegation of bias, for example--could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly. The tweet that was put out last night by the member for Lethbridge is a clear reflection on the character and actions of the Speaker. There is no doubt that referring to the Speaker in such a disgraceful way is inappropriate. It appears that the member for Lethbridge has now erased that. I believe that she would need to confirm to the House that she has indeed erased or deleted that tweet, which clearly contravenes the rules of this place. She should apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for having issued that tweet, which very clearly reflects on a series of decisions that have been made by Speakers over time in this place, to ensure that the office of the Speaker is respected at all times. I would come back to what I raised last night. I will not take the same time of the House in raising this issue, but it is very clear that this is a breach of privilege. It can be, I think, dealt with by having the member for Lethbridge fully and fulsomely apologize for having issued that tweet and confirming that she has deleted that tweet as well.

319 words

The Speaker

May/1/24 4:17:39 p.m.
Watch

On the same point of order, I see that the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising to his feet. Colleagues, this will be the last intervention on this matter.

33 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/1/24 4:17:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last night at 6:45 p.m., the NDP House leader rose in his place and said exactly the same thing that he just said now. Perhaps he was not happy with his performance last night or wanted another opportunity to try to get a clip. The fact is that I do not think it is in accordance with the rules for a member to be able to rise again and state the same point of order when he is perhaps not happy with how it sounded. I understand that the member would have felt embarrassed last night because I responded to his point of order by pointing out that the NDP House leader has repeatedly used the word “wacko” in the House, in committee and, no doubt, in various other places. I encourage the member, rather than repeating the same argument, to consult his own conscience, to reflect on possible feelings of guilt he is experiencing. If he has decided that it is wrong to say “wacko” in the House, I invite him to reflect deeply on his own—

187 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 306