SoVote

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

May/9/24 10:08:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we had this debate last night. This is an important question of privilege. We have seen information that has come forth in the preliminary report from the Hogue commission that the NDP pushed hard to have set up as a public inquiry. We saw that, at that time, as clearly documented cases of foreign interference came forward, whether in terms of the member for Vancouver East or the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, members of Parliament were not informed. Now we have this question of privilege, where 18 members of Parliament were victims of a cyber-attack but were not informed by the government. Is it ever appropriate for the government to withhold important information such as that when members of Parliament are involved? Is it ever appropriate that it does not put into place protocols so that the members of Parliament who are targeted by this foreign interference are actually made aware of it?

158 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/9/24 10:11:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. There is a chilling effect, and it is not limited to the circumstances that we are debating in this privilege motion. Time and time again, we see a government that has refused to act, has been unwilling to act and, in some cases, we learned, has not acted because it would not have been in its political interest. We need to make sure that individuals coming to our constituency offices; parliamentarians, who need to be able to do our jobs effectively, including advocating for those most vulnerable around the world; and all Canadians are safe. This includes those in diaspora communities, who might also face repercussions for their political activities in Canada in terms of their family members and whatnot back home. This is so serious, because freedom of expression and the freedoms associated with our democracy have to be guarded at all costs.

150 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

May/9/24 3:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to add to the question of privilege I raised on May 1, concerning the removal of my words from the Hansard. The question I submit to you today is the following: Is it appropriate for the Speaker of this place, the House of Commons, or those authorized to speak on his behalf, to comment publicly on a question of privilege that is before him for adjudication? I would like to explain why I put forward this question. It has come to my attention that the office of the Speaker did, in fact, comment to the media regarding my question of privilege. In fact, multiple articles, including one I have here on the front page of the National Post—

123 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

May/9/24 3:21:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, multiple articles, including one on the front page of the National Post, as I just showed the House, were published using an official statement provided by the Speaker's official spokesperson, which means it required his sign-off. This is particularly concerning to me and to Canadians when the matter is before the Speaker for a decision to be made. When the Speaker was asked to provide comment to CTV News on May 1 concerning why he kicked out the leader of the official opposition, he rightly governed himself in that moment and he said, “It would be unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House”. However, that same day, the Speaker's official spokesperson released a statement concerning my question of privilege. It is curious to me, then, that the Speaker would deem it appropriate to comment on one matter before the House but not another. In many ways, mine is more severe, because mine is an official question of privilege requiring adjudication, while the matter the Speaker refrained from speaking to actually did not require a ruling at all. On the front page of the National Post of May 2, the day after I moved my question of privilege, the following statement was issued by the Speaker's office, again signed off by the Speaker. It says, “The blues are unofficial and it is not unusual for changes to be made during the editing and revision process. Sometimes comments are left out when there is a lot of noise, and it is not clear what was said”. This is from the Speaker's office spokesperson, Mathieu Gravel. In the Speaker's own words, and I will repeat them, he said it is “unfair for the Speaker to comment on things that happened in the House,” yet his office released an official statement. The question I leave with the Speaker for consideration today is this: Why was an official statement concerning my question of privilege issued to the media? I look forward to receiving an answer when the Speaker makes his official ruling concerning my question of privilege.

362 words