CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 144 Ï NUMBER 009 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 40th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, February 5, 2009 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 409 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, February 5, 2009 The House met at 10 a.m. any way, condone terrorist organizations. Anyone could end up on the member's site. Millions of people around the world can surf their way to it. People from other countries can visit the site, where they can see the member's name and her riding. They might not Prayers understand how our parliamentary system works, so they might think that the text and the links on the site represent Canada's Ï (1000) position, even though parliamentarians in the House of Commons have always refused to support, in any way, shape or form, terrorist [Translation] organizations. PRIVILEGE Imagine someone in Asia finding the member for Ahuntsic's site USE OF INTRAPARLIAMENTARY INTERNET on the Internet. That person would see all kinds of sad things, as well Mrs. Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, as videos encouraging certain forms of terrorism that we have February 1, I forwarded to my fellow parliamentarians a news condemned. bulletin intended to update them on the latest military operations in Gaza. My intention was to show the horrors of the war, since That is important to understand. Parliamentarians in the House of innocent civilians can be the victims, as well as the destruction it Commons must always support Parliament's policies. If a member causes. However, before forwarding the bulletin to all members, I thinks that it is okay to flout the rules of Parliament, how can we did not consult all the links included in the email, as I should have. expect citizens to respect the laws that we pass? It would be Some of those links lead the reader to sites with videos containing impossible, and that is very serious. It makes it look as though hate propaganda, which I do not support in any way; in fact, I Canada is adopting the position of this distinguished member of our condemn it. Parliament who is known in her region for her opinions. In fact, this is not true, and this is not Parliament's position. In fact, we here in I wish to offer my sincere apologies to this House and to my Parliament have decided to work for peace and not in support of fellow members for having forwarded such an email. Please be terror. assured, Mr. Speaker, that I will be extremely vigilant and exercise greater care in the future, and that this kind of mistake will not When a member uses the means at her disposal, it is paid for by happen again. the taxpayers from both east and west. We have constituency offices Mr. Daniel Petit (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of and offices here on the Hill; our computers were bought with Justice, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have heard the hon. member for taxpayers' money. How can a member promote the things that we Ahuntsic's apology. However, I would like to raise a few points in have condemned here in Parliament? connection with this situation. Citizens cannot do this, and the members of this House are also A member of Parliament's privilege is based on two things: the citizens. We must respect the decisions of Parliament. That means rights and privileges granted by Parliament. In the course of our that in no way, directly or indirectly, should we be supporting duties, we use items provided for the exclusive use of parliamentar- terrorist movements. This is serious. I defer to your judgment, Mr. ians for the purpose of carrying out the mandate we have been given Speaker. by our fellow citizens. Ï (1005) Various documents and emails were sent to our BlackBerries, prompting me to take a look at what the member for Ahuntsic However, we must send the right message. If a parliamentarian wanted me to see. I received several mentions of photos and texts, does not respect the rules of Parliament, how can we expect a citizen and I consulted them. Also, links to groups considered by Canada's to respect them? Parliament to be terrorist organizations had been inserted into the member's material, either by her or by the employees she is Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, responsible for. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am the one who rose in this House yesterday to raise this matter of privilege. I spoke briefly on it These links can be considered very serious. The Parliament of at that time and I would just like to acknowledge the statement by the Canada's policy is clear: ours is a peaceful nation that does not, in hon. member for Ahuntsic. 410 COMMONS DEBATES February 5, 2009 Privilege The hon. member admits in this House that she has failed in one of Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute- the fundamental duties of a member of Parliament, which is to act Côte-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We planned for an and to work with diligence and care and to make use of the human opposition day on a very relevant issue that was raised by our and material resources allocated to us by the House so that we may colleagues in the Liberal Party. I am convinced that all the members fulfill our responsibilities as members. Each of us, therefore, has a of this House are anxious to get to the debate planned for this duty to ensure that the resources of the House are used, as I said, opposition day. with diligence and in such a way as not to violate the privilege of either our other colleagues in the House or the House itself. I would like to start by saying very respectfully that my two We have heard the admission, the statement by the hon. member colleagues who spoke previously, the member for Charlesbourg— for Ahuntsic. In it she admits that: first, she did indeed distribute all Haute-Saint-Charles and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce— this information by email to the members' personal Blackberry Lachine, were guilty of verbal overkill. Allow me to explain. addresses; second, that some of the information and images contained in the material she distributed incited hatred toward a My colleague from Ahuntsic quite obviously committed an error religious group, namely the Jews, and glorified certain organizations in good faith. Mr. Speaker, you know procedure inside and out, and that have been declared legally by legislation passed in this House as you are the guardian of parliamentary privileges, but we are of the terrorist organizations; and third, that she has been remiss in her opinion that in determining whether or not there was a breach of duties as a member of Parliament. This breach of her duties is at risk, parliamentary privilege, you should ask yourself whether the first of all, of being prejudicial to all other members but also—and member acted deliberately or knowingly. even more important—of discrediting the House itself. On January 29, 2003, another independent member, Jim Pankiw, Yes, an email was sent and forwarded. When my colleague from who was at the time representing Saskatoon—Humboldt, raised a Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles refers to the member's own site, question of privilege. He alleged that his privileges had been violated he is guilty of verbal overkill, because that is not the issue. The by deputy ministers of various departments because they had given member for Ahuntsic acknowledged in her speech that she had directives to their staff not to respond to an email he had sent to forwarded a news bulletin to her fellow members. She does not deny everyone—in excess of 200,000 public servants—and in fact to it. We all received a copy on our BlackBerrys. The question is simply delete the message. His messages in fact were blocking the whether she did so deliberately and maliciously. computer operations of those departments. Mr. Pankiw claimed this was in violation of his rights. She further acknowledges that she neglected to check certain links in the email. In her statement, she said, “I did not consult all the links Mr. Speaker, you yourself brought down a ruling at that time included in the email, as I should have”. What more does the indicating that the sending of spam using resources—such as member have to do? My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce— computers, Internet service and so forth— provided to members by Lachine pressed the point. What more does she want the member to the House to enable them to assume their responsibilities and do do? The member for Ahuntsic said, “I wish to offer my sincere their job as members of Parliament constituted a violation of apologies to this House and to my fellow members”. She is referring privileges. It was indeed spam that the hon. member was sending. to all of us, regardless of party. She is apologizing to all 308 You gave the directive at that time to all members to use these members who received the email. resources with diligence and care and said that if a member persisted in acting in such a way, the House would sanction him by Lastly, she is looking to the future. She said that “I will be disconnecting his computers and Internet service.