44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 1, 2024 02:00PM
- May/1/24 2:34:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, you have been too generous with the Ritalin.
We are definitely talking about different sorts of bridges. I am talking about the bridges Ms. Elghawaby is supposed to be creating between communities. As Guy Rocher used to say, one person's privilege is another's injustice.
With her attitude and measures like Islamic mortgages, Ms. Elghawaby will ensure that groups like the Haitian community, the Vietnamese community and the South American community will lack the same privileges as those of the Muslim community, which, I would point out, we welcome with open arms.
How does the Prime Minister explain this?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/1/24 6:24:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the question of privilege raised on April 29 by the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan regarding the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. I would like to offer some clarification as it is critically important that members have the facts about and chronology of this matter.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
