44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/15/24 10:04:50 a.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Privacy Act, a report of the Privacy Commissioner entitled “Special Report to Parliament: Investigation of the RCMP's collection of open-source information under Project Wide Awake”.
Pursuant to Standing order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee to Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
It is also my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Privacy Act, a report from the Privacy Commissioner, entitled “Special Report to Parliament: Investigation of unauthorized disclosures and modifications of personal information held by Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada resulting from cyber attacks.”
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:11:02 a.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
The House has heard the terms of this motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:11:55 a.m.
- Watch
I remind members when we are presenting petitions, it is to provide a summary of what is on the petition. I am convinced that was not the wording used on the petition. I will ask all members to please exercise discretion in that regard.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:13:15 a.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order by the hon. member for Milton.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:13:30 a.m.
- Watch
Although the hon. member is reading from the petition, we do have a firm rule in the House that we only refer to members by their riding names or the executive position they hold. Therefore, I will ask the hon. member to rephrase his presentation of the petition.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:14:31 a.m.
- Watch
Now we are raising another issue. I am going to ask the hon. member to withdraw that point. The Chair had made it very clear that members cannot make a reference to other members of Parliament. It is a good tradition to have because any member could be a victim of that kind of statement and might not be in the position to defend themselves. Therefore, I ask the hon. member to please withdraw that last sentence.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:15:05 a.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member.
The hon. member for Abbotsford.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:22:46 a.m.
- Watch
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:22:58 a.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 6 by the House leader of the official opposition concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the Prime Minister about invitations during the visit to Canada of the President of Ukraine.
In his intervention, the House leader argued that the Prime Minister offered misleading responses to questions in the House about the invitation offered to Mr. Yaroslav Hunka for President Zelenskyy's joint address to Parliament. The member referred to several exchanges where the Prime Minister reiterated that neither he nor his government had any knowledge of the invitation that was made to Mr. Yaroslav Hunka.
He pointed to recent media reports establishing that an invitation was sent under the Prime Minister's name to the same individual for a separate event to honour President Zelenskyy. This, according to the member, demonstrated the Prime Minister was, in fact, aware of this individual.
The House leader of the official opposition claimed that this constituted contempt of Parliament, in the sense that the Prime Minister's statements were misleading, that he knew that they were misleading and that he delivered them with the intention to mislead the House. The House leader asked the Chair to find a prima facie case of privilege so that a motion could be moved to deal with this matter. His comments were later echoed by the member for La Prairie.
The Government House Leader, for his part, disagreed with the premise of the question of privilege, arguing it was based on speculative assumptions. He argued that the House leader of the official opposition was conflating two separate events, leaving the impression that these events were planned together by the Prime Minister, his office, or both.
The Government House Leader stressed that only the former Speaker had knowledge of the invitation to Yaroslav Hunka to Parliament, and that there were no facts presented that would suggest otherwise. In his view, this was a matter of debate and not a question of privilege. He also reminded the House that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was currently examining the matter of the invitation of the individual by the former Speaker, and he suggested that the House should allow the committee to complete its work.
In the past, members have raised questions of privilege alleging that other members made misleading statements to the House. As was referenced in the various interventions pertaining to the present case, the Chair considers three essential conditions before making a positive determination that a member has deliberately misled the House: It must be proven that the statement was misleading; it must be established that, when making a statement, the member knew it to be incorrect; and finally, it must be demonstrated that the member intended to mislead the House.
As one of my predecessors stated on February 26, 2015, at pages 11707 of the Debates, and I quote:
The conditions are admittedly and deliberately not easily met. This is because, as Speaker, I must take all members at their word. This underscores the way we function every day in our proceedings; all members rely on this and draw advantage from it.
I assessed the facts that were brought to this House through the lens of our stringent three-part test.
The Chair is mindful of the recent media reports about another invitation sent to Yaroslav Hunka for a separate event, a government reception in Toronto. While that provides additional information to the general controversy from last September, it was not referenced during the exchanges in the House between different members and the Prime Minister last fall.
On January 31, 2008, Speaker Milliken made a useful point about what the Chair can consider for such disputes. He said, at page 2435 of the Debates:
...any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of a minister’s response to an oral question is a matter of debate; it is not a matter for the Speaker to judge. The same holds true with respect to the breadth of a minister’s answer to a question in the House: this is not for the Speaker to determine.
Based on the evidence that has been presented and my own review of the proceedings last fall, the Chair has not been able to establish that the statements made by the Prime Minister were in fact deliberately misleading. Accordingly, I do not find there to be a prima facie question of privilege.
The Chair does note that the issue of the second invitation has surfaced in public debate, which offers members many opportunities to raise it in the House, in the context of debate, in any number of ways, including through additional questioning of the Prime Minister during question period.
There is also an ongoing study of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the issue surrounding Yaroslav Hunka's invitation to and recognition in Parliament on September 22, 2023. Both the House leader of the official opposition and the government House leader referred to this study in their interventions. It might also offer members an opportunity to raise these new issues that have recently come to light.
I thank all members for their attention.
872 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 10:29:13 a.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 13, 2024, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-62 at third reading stage.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 2:59:43 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask all members to keep quiet when it is not their turn to speak. I am referring specifically to the member for Alfred-Pellan.
The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 3:04:31 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
The hon. President of the Treasury Board.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 3:06:04 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
I stood up a couple of times because I had difficulty hearing the answers from the hon. members. I am going to ask hon. members to hold their comments back until they are asking a question.
The hon. minister has 12 seconds, if he chooses.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 3:11:00 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for La Prairie on a point of order.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 3:11:33 p.m.
- Watch
I listened carefully to the point of order raised by the hon. member for La Prairie. It seems to me that this is more a matter of debate, which is acceptable here in the House.
The hon. member for La Prairie.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 3:12:27 p.m.
- Watch
The request was made to the Chair, and the person who was in the chair at the time said that they would come back to the House if necessary.
The Chair has looked into the issue, and it is also a matter of debate.
The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup is rising on a point of order.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 3:13:26 p.m.
- Watch
I appreciate the clarification, but it is a matter of debate.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
