- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Lethbridge
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $131,565.29
- Government Page
- May/28/24 11:35:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the bigger question here is how Canadians can maintain confidence when half of that is true and half of that is not. There was a mix of truth and mistruth in that statement.
In this place, we have a responsibility to hold the government accountable. That is our job as the official opposition. For us to move a question of privilege with regard to the Speaker of this place functioning in a highly partisan manner five times in the last few months is absolutely not just our prerogative as the official opposition, it is our duty to the Canadian people. I will make no apologies for that.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 3:17:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege raised by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
The question of privilege concerns a clear and potentially intentional omission of facts from a recently answered Order Paper question known as Question No. 1445. It would appear the government has acted irresponsibly and violated parliamentary procedure, therefore breaching trust.
In a question I sent to the government, I asked the Prime Minister's Office to outline when the government asked social media to take down content. This is commonly referred to as censorship. The government sent me an answer on the many times it had done this, but apparently this was only partially true, because there were omissions made.
On Friday, April 5, Allen Sutherland, an assistant secretary to the cabinet in the Privy Council Office, testified at the public inquiry on foreign interference. During his testimony, Mr. Sutherland revealed that in 2019 the Privy Council Office had asked Facebook to take down a post about the Prime Minister from the Buffalo Chronicle. He also mentioned that Facebook had honoured the request, leading to the removal of the content from the platform.
This is why I add to the question of privilege. This request for a takedown was not reported in the answer to the question I sent to the government, which means that there was clearly an omission made. I asked the government to report on its content takedown requests from 2016 onward, and I listed Facebook as one of the platforms I wanted to know about.
There was a clear omission from my Order Paper question and the answer I received, which has failed to satisfy its purpose in providing the truth based on what I had asked. This is a major concern, and it undermines trust in the institution in which electors place their confidence. How can we operate as a parliamentary democracy if the government cannot be trusted to answer questions from the official opposition, especially on matters of censorship?
Mr. Speaker, it is awfully loud in here. I have put up with it for quite some time, but perhaps you could bring that down.
360 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 10:53:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Red Deer—Mountain View.
Today, we are discussing this question of privilege. It is interesting that we use this term around privilege because the privilege that we speak of is for a member of this place to exist and do his job without any fear or intimidation from a foreign entity. That is the question of privilege. That seems like something we should be able to take for granted, something that we should just be able to count on, day in and day out, not only as members of this place but as members of the general Canadian public. Why should we be able to count on that? Why should that be our reality? It is because we belong to the country of Canada.
As citizens of this fine country, we should have a government in place that prioritizes the safety and security of Canadians. Why? Because the safety and security of Canadians is the foremost job of any government, no matter its political stripe. If it does not keep its citizens safe, if it does not secure our borders, which are not just land borders but borders as in the security and safety of persons, we have little else as a country.
Without safety and security being achieved, we are not able to pursue economic well-being or prosperity. We are not able to dream of a vibrant future and what is possible. We are not able to implement environmental policies. Without the very basics of safety and security it is impossible to be the prosperous nation that it should be. It is interesting that we are talking about this as if it is a privilege when in fact the safety and security of members of this place and all Canadians should simply be their right based on citizenship.
What prompted this debate today? It is because a member of this House, a colleague, has come under fear and intimidation from Beijing. We know about this because the government informed this member of Parliament, though it knew about it. We know about this because of a journalist who released the story. The journalist knew about it because of a brave whistle-blower who released CSIS documents into the hands of the media, and from the media into the public. That is what has allowed us to become aware of this.
As a side note what is interesting to me is that the Liberals just met this last weekend to talk about policy at a policy convention. During that convention they put forward a policy that would require journalists to give up their sources in order to be published online. If journalists chose not to give up their sources then they would not be publishable. That is a direct attack on the freedom of the press. That is a direct attack on journalistic independence. That is a direct attack, therefore, on Canadians because Canadians rely on journalists to tell stories. They rely on journalists to tell the truth, to reveal things that the government might want to hide or that other corrupt actors in this country might not want Canadians to know. When the government wants to hinder the ability of journalists to tell the stories that need to be told, that is very disconcerting not only to me as a member of this place but to Canadians at large because it concerns their freedom, their ability to access information that is then put at stake.
We are here today because we found out that this colleague of mine, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, was the target of intimidation tactics and threats, as well as his family. These attacks came from Beijing. We know that the Prime Minister knew about this two years ago. We know that because intelligence documents told us that, yet the Prime Minister chose to remain silent and did not give the member a heads-up. When did the member find out? The member just found out about a week ago, when a journalist gave him a call wanting him to comment on this news. We can imagine how shocked my colleague was finding this out from a journalist. As time has gone on, more of the story has been revealed. The reality is that we know this is not the whole of the story. We know that this is actually only one part of Beijing's larger interference plan, with silence and inaction by the government.
With regard to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, what might be the reason Beijing would target him? Well, we suspect it is because of a position he took on a motion that declared the Chinese government's attack against the Uyghur people, a minority group in China, a genocide. Members of this place voted for that motion, with the exception of cabinet. Cabinet stayed silent; they stayed mum. I wonder why they failed to take a stand for this repressed group.
When I say “repressed”, I do not mean a bit hard done by. When I talk about the Uyghur people of China, I am talking about a minority group that essentially lives in enslavement. They live in prison camps. I am talking about a group whose human spirit the Chinese government is looking to destroy. I am talking about a group that is forced into mass sterilization. That is genocide. I am talking about a group whose children are separated from their families. I am talking about a group that is physically tortured, mentally tortured and sexually abused. Women are raped. I am talking about all of this being done at the hands of Beijing while these individuals are huddle like cattle in these concentration camps, these encampments.
This place debated this motion, and out of that, my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, took a very strong stance calling this oppression against the Uyghur people what it is: a genocide. Now, of course, from there these threats ensued.
Again, I come back to the fact that the government knew for two years that this was happening and said nothing. However, it gets worse, because it is not just my colleague who came under this pressure or these threats from Beijing. We know that many Canadians reported coming under similar sorts of threats.
We also know that Beijing donated $144,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. We know that the Prime Minister's brother, Mr. Alexandre Trudeau, to be clear, was the one who signed off on that donation, yet the Prime Minister claims to have no affiliation whatsoever.
Further to that, we know that the Prime Minister was actually briefed through our intelligence agency in this country with regard to Beijing's interference in our 2019 and 2021 elections. We know that money was filtered illegally from Beijing businesses into Liberal campaigns in Canada. We know, again based on CSIS documents, that it was the intent of the Beijing government to make sure the Liberals won the election.
I wonder why they would be silent. I wonder why they would do nothing. After all, it is the government's responsibility to keep Canadians safe and secure. However, members sat on their hands. Perhaps it was a $144,000 donation to the Trudeau Foundation. Perhaps it was the fact that Beijing was funnelling money into campaigns, hiring interns and putting them in campaign offices. Perhaps it was because Beijing was actively working to suppress candidates from other parties. Perhaps that is why the government forgot its first promise, which is to keep Canadians safe and secure and to make sure that the citizens of this great country are respected and that our democracy is upheld. Perhaps it was simply worth a piece of silver.
1306 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
