Point of Order
Speaker’s Ruling Reserved
June 6, 2019
Your Honour, I apologize for the confusion. But as you know, there are only certain times when we can raise a point of order. I am raising one today, Your Honour, in regard to some social media again. You have warned us in the past about social media and sowing seeds of discontent. I want to speak briefly about a few tweets that Senator Sinclair sent out that I read, one last night and one this morning.
Before I read the exact tweets, I want to reiterate some of what I said in this chamber a week ago about an agreement that I felt I had with Senator Sinclair on a piece of legislation, Bill C-262. And, of course, Senator Sinclair at that time said that wasn’t a deal, but he did agree it had been a condition of my agreement.
Yesterday Senator Dyck asked for leave for the Aboriginal Peoples Committee to sit while the Senate was sitting. I think all honourable senators know that I have been fairly consistent in my beliefs about committees sitting when the Senate is sitting.
Yesterday our caucus, a caucus of 30 people, had for a two-hour period of time 17 senators out of this chamber because they were at committee meetings. That left us with 13 senators if everybody is in the chamber. Many times that creates a problem where we are down to eight or nine. I’m a firm believer in dealing with government business as much as we can, and so it was not with any ill intent, other than that I pretty much have done that, as other senators, as I’ve said, have noted that I am fairly consistent. I did deny leave yesterday to Senator Dyck.
Yesterday evening, in response to a tweet that Chief Perry Bellegarde sent out, Senator Sinclair responded. I don’t need to read the chief’s tweet. I had a very cordial conversation with the chief this afternoon, and we certainly were largely on the same page on a number of issues.
Senator Sinclair responded to that, and this is only the first of two tweets. The second one I find more offensive than the first. But Senator Sinclair said:
Senator Don Plett used his authority as Conservative Whip to deny leave to the Aboriginal Peoples Committee to sit and finish Bill C-262 tonight. Delayed again.
Senator Sinclair knows very well I did not use my authority as a whip to deny leave.
Today, one of my colleagues denied leave. Any senator in this chamber can deny leave. You do not have to be a whip. So I most certainly did not use my authority as the whip, even though I may have denied the leave. The honourable senator is well aware of this.
The second tweet I find much more troublesome, Your Honour. It is a tweet in response to a tweet from the CBC, which reads as follows:
Former Harper-era minister doubles down on calling MMIWG inquiry report ’propagandist’
In response, Senator Sinclair tweeted:
Shameful....but social Conservatives have a long history of antagonism towards Indigenous people, and an equally long history of homophobia, transphobia and misogyny. That has a found —
— I suppose that might be a typo —
— its way into the Conservative Party of Canada.
Misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and antagonism towards Indigenous peoples by social conservatives. Honourable colleagues, I am a social conservative. I am not antagonistic towards Indigenous people. I have spent most of my adult life working with Indigenous people. I have relatives, brothers-in-law, nephews and nieces who are Indigenous. I have had many employees, wonderful people, working for me that were Indigenous. I had an Indigenous lady manage an office for me in northern Ontario.
I spoke to Senator Sinclair about emails I was getting on Bill C-262 from Mennonites. And you all know that I am from the Mennonite community.
Hear, hear.
My cousin Harder.
I’m proud to be from the Mennonite community. I will not read these letters, but I will read excerpts of some letters that I have received. They are letters supporting Bill C-262 and people that Senator Sinclair has, in all likelihood, worked with, because he said, “I get copies, Don, of all the emails that you get on this. So I’m well aware of the pressure that is being put on you in our own community on Bill C-262.”
I will read a short piece of the first one, Your Honour and honourable senators:
Dear Honourable Mr. Plett. I am a White Mennonite woman from Winnipeg. I live in the heart of the city. I am here to ask you, as many others are, why do you want to stop Bill C-262 for the rights of Indigenous people across this incredible nation?
Another one:
As a lifelong Conservative supporter, I wish to add my voice to those who are contacting you to return this legislation to the House of Commons where it can be passed into law.
Of course he’s speaking about Bill C-262. He goes on for a while, but I won’t read the rest of it.
Thanks for your work and your service. Herb Sawatzky, Pastor. Bethany Mennonite Church.
I suspect Pastor Sawatzky is a social conservative, if he is a conservative, and he says he is. Is he misogynistic? Is he antagonistic towards the Indigenous community? I don’t think so.
Senator Plett, I write to appeal to you to pass Bill C-262 immediately. The tactics your party are using to delay the passage of this bill is offensive to many Canadians.
I’m sorry he feels that way.
Stop playing political games.
Tim Thiessen, another Mennonite, likely a social conservative and another supporter of Bill C-262 and, I’m sure, Senator Sinclair.
This is the last one. I have many.
Dear senators, I am a carpenter and a father of three children living in Winnipeg, Manitoba. I am writing to you to express my support for Bill C-262 and my strong desire to see it passed into law.
He goes on. It is signed Jeffrey Thiessen. He is another Mennonite and likely a social conservative.
These people probably didn’t know what Bill C-262 was a year ago, but Senator Sinclair has made them well aware of it.
I have no issue with that. But I’m wondering whether Senator Sinclair is calling all of his supporters that have a social conservative value misogynistic.
Your Honour, I don’t know whether this is a point of order. You will decide whether it is.
Thank you. There you go, Your Honour. You have some advice. Senator McPhedran is happy to advise you on this.
I am offended, and I am in this chamber because Senator Sinclair says it’s shameful. The most shameful part was the tweet. I am calling on Senator Sinclair to stand and apologize not to me but to every social conservative that he has offended — Christian people that support the Indigenous community that are working with Senator Sinclair to get Bill C-262 passed. That is the appreciation that Senator Sinclair has shown them? I call on Senator Sinclair to apologize to them.
Do any other senators wish to speak on this point of order?
Honourable senators, I want to reflect on whether or not this falls in the area of a point of order. I’m sure the table officers will advise you, and you will take it under advisement and determine.
I think the issue that Senator Plett raises about social media and the kind of commentary that takes place on social media by members of this chamber and staff of members of this chamber that we can all look to and read and see is entirely inappropriate commentary and brings disrepute on the Senate. I believe that this type of commentary arises from the language used in this chamber in defining others, their motives and needlessly diminishing other honourable members of this chamber. And there has been a trend.
I have raised this in points of order before and I have spoken to you, Your Honour, and suggested that perhaps it is time for Senate leadership from all groups to reflect upon how we conduct ourselves in this place and to call to order members of their caucuses for the kind of language that is used in this chamber, because I believe much of the rancour created here spills over into the world of social media which someone referred to today as the “hate-o-sphere.” There is much good that comes from multiple lines of communications and multiple media, but there is danger too. I think we have contributed to it.
I leave it to others to resolve a dispute or a difference of opinion that has taken place outside this chamber. Here in this chamber, I would say we have much to do to repair our behaviour. There are certain senators whom I have, on a number of occasions, stood up and raised points of order about their language. I have not heard one apology or one retraction of a statement from any of them. I think it’s an opportunity for reflection for all of us. Thank you very much.
I have a few points, honourable senators and Your Honour. I’m not on Twitter. I was, but I’m a digital immigrant and there was a time a few years back when something mushroomed and went in many directions and it scared me a little bit, so I removed myself from that platform.
What I noticed with all social media and what is sent out into the public sphere about what happens in the Senate, be it in this chamber or in committee, is a misrepresentation that may be based on a misunderstanding of what really is allowed under the Rules of the Senate and how we conduct our business.
As deputy leader, sometimes, if certain sponsors or critics are not in the chamber, we take an adjournment. It’s a pro-forma move and so our names are attached to many bills.
I have received emails from constituents who are angry at me and they are directing that anger, but we can clarify that.
Regarding the Twitter message about Senator Plett wielding some power, he represents us to a certain extent, along with the other leadership members, and he at times may be the one person to say no, but there may have been a discussion, and I had a discussion this morning with him.
In the moment, there is a reason that we may deny adjournment and deny leave, and Senator Plett has explained his reason, but any person in this chamber can say no. Asking leave of anything within our rules is something that the entire chamber must agree to. Every single senator in this room has that right.
I too am a social conservative. I will say that. I don’t think I have said those words per se in this chamber. People may already assume that based on the way I vote and the things that I say.
When I was first seeking public office, as an ethnic Canadian, people assumed I was, perhaps, with one party. I was a member of the teachers’ federation and others assumed I should be with another party. When I read the policy of the Conservative Party for the first time when I was contemplating my entry, I felt myself very much aligned, not with everything, but with the policies of the Conservative Party.
I want to stand in support of Senator Plett to say I feel that the social platform and what we say publicly, and potentially misrepresenting what happens in this chamber based on our differences — and perhaps you had a misunderstanding of the rules — leads us to these types of moments. I wanted to stand in support of Senator Plett, who I know cares very deeply about what happens in this chamber and in our country, and stands very strongly.
He does it quite often and very well. Today I stand with him to say that I do believe that what he read into the chamber on what was on social media is something that also offends me.
Honourable senators, I’m not sure if it is a point of order either. Obviously, the Speaker will make that decision.
I think it’s important, as we consume more and more time about comments made not only inside but outside the chamber. It slows down the procedures here.
I’d like to relate a couple of things from my personal experience. When I first came to the chamber, the Speaker at the time used to indicate to us that the carpet here is red, not green, meaning we are less partisan and less sharp in our attacks than the House of Commons. That’s how I understood it.
Second, when I came here as a new senator and looked around — and I throw this out for others to consider because we’re all responsible for our own conduct — I came from a highly partisan background. I realized those who opposed what I was saying were not terrible people, they just had a different point of view. When I came to that realization, I looked closely at other senators who were here, and I liked the style at the time of Senator Rompkey, who always talked about the policy and not the person, and always talked about the issue and never the personality.
When he was attacked, he would defend himself in the most useful way. I remember once, of all people, when Senator Segal was heckling him, and he rarely heckled, and Senator Rompkey said, “I can’t hear you, Senator Segal, because I’m reading my speech.” That was the end of that.
I think we all have to be careful about our tone and concentrate on what we’re doing. There is no doubt many were hurt and offended on all sides with what happened the other day, but this is a place of great success and great disappointment. Senator Munson and those who worked on the accessibility bill had great joy a couple of weeks ago when that passed, but there are all kinds of disappointments.
My bill on overseas tax evasion was defeated in the House of Commons, notwithstanding that the Senate sent a message urging the House to do its job. That’s the nature of the chamber. Am I finished? Of course not. I will pick it up after the election and carry on and I’ll look for your support.
There are setbacks and advances but we have to be conscious that it’s a long road. The reason we’re here for a long time is we have a corporate memory and can do ongoing things. These individual slights slow that down because we’re all human. We all resent when something happens to us. We just have to set that aside and focus on the greater good. That’s what Senator Rompkey taught me, and I pass it on to those who want to consider it.
I would like to raise three points. The first has to do with bullying. The Senate implemented a harassment policy, but I believe it doesn’t go far enough when it comes to the bullying on various social media platforms. In your deliberations I would like you to study the issue of bullying as well as the motives and intentions of the people who use these platforms.
Lastly, I find it extremely disruptive that sometimes when we are in committee, there are people listening to our deliberations and tweeting while we are discussing matters that are not yet finished because we are in public.
I would therefore like you to look at these issues and possibly establish guidelines on how we should proceed in this chamber. When I say platforms I mean Twitter, Facebook and also YouTube. There are some senators who used information and posted offensive things on YouTube.
I would therefore ask you to address these issues. Thank you.
I am pleased that Senator Downe spoke first because he shortened my speech.
I think we learn from each other. When we come in here we have been given good advice. We should follow it. Senator Downe has talked about one senator who came to him. Senator Rompkey and I had our conversations, but so did so many others who taught me caution. That’s really what they taught me. Don’t speak until you’re absolutely certain you can defend it.
I usually take a night off and, therefore, you don’t see me tweeting because I think about whether I really need to say it. I want to restrict most of what goes on here in this chamber, because I think that’s the important debate, so that we can hear each other and enter into debate.
But thank you for that, Senator Downe.
Your Honour, I’m sure you and I have had those conversations about decorum here. The point that I would wish you to consider is something I have raised over and over again and that the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee has struggled with, and that is the platforms that we have here. We had traditional ways of communicating through letters, correspondence and debate here, and we knew the rules.
The question is that we have our personal equipment and we have Senate equipment. I wanted the Internal Economy Committee to look at to what extent, when we speak using Senate equipment, do we taint or support the Senate? I think that it would be timely somewhere, though perhaps not in this judgment but elsewhere, that we consider, when we receive a BlackBerry, an iPhone and the capacity to use servers within the Senate, that we have an obligation and that we are, in fact, somehow speaking on behalf of the Senate.
We knew the rules as to what we say here and we knew that when we wrote outside there was no parliamentary privilege. On the House of Commons side, you can hear that they will say, “Step outside and say the same thing,” because the rules are different. I’m not sure we’re clear on what the rules are. I think there is collective corporate responsibility to address whether we are using our personal devices or Senate-given devices. I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to say that. Perhaps this is not the right time. But I think it will lead us into a lot of problems if we don’t take some corporate responsibility.
I rise as somebody who considers myself a digital native. I spend a great deal of my time on Twitter and Facebook. They are extraordinary vectors for us to reach out to Canadians to explain the work we do in the Senate. I think, used responsibly, they can be a powerful tool for us to make the Senate relevant to younger Canadians who don’t understand the work of this assembly.
My colleague Senator Frum, for example, does an excellent job on Twitter of being both an outspoken advocate for her own point of view, but of also engaging Canadians in conversation. I would greatly regret if a few intemperate remarks from some of us in this chamber would forever taint the reputation of the platforms and the capacity they have to do real good for the Senate and for democratic discourse in this country.
I am proud of my Mennonite roots. Most of the Mennonites I know would not define themselves as social conservatives but as social progressives. I think of the extraordinary work done by the Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers, which has been at the vanguard of sponsorship, not just of Syrian immigrants in this latest round, but of Vietnamese immigrants before them, and of my Mennonite relatives who would count themselves as social justice warriors long before the term was prevalent.
While I’m aware that Senator Plett took some offence to Senator Sinclair’s comments, which I don’t think were designed to invoke that response, I would offer to the senator the opportunity that he might have to apologize to me for a tweet in which he said that I was selling out my province and that my actions were shameful. It took 20 hours for that tweet to come down. There has never been any apology tendered for the allegation that I was selling out Alberta or that my actions in defence of my province — in the full-throated defence of my province — were in any way shameful. I do not apologize for my vote on Bill C-48, and I stand here proudly as an Albertan. I am greatly offended at the bold-faced statement that I am a sellout to my province.
Also remaining online is Senator Plett’s retweet of a prominent, well-known Twitter troll who accused me of taking payment to vote for the way I did on Bill C-48. The tweet ends that it’s time for me to vote or resign.
I don’t know if it’s a typical protocol for senators to call for one another’s resignations. I’m not the only senator who is a member of the ISG who has been targeted by Senate staff. Others here have had Senate staffers call for their resignation for the most ridiculous and flimsy of reasons.
I say again to all of you here, it is a waste of an extraordinary opportunity that we have with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram to show the Senate at its best, to demonstrate democratic discourse at its best. If we cannot model good behaviour on social media, how can we model proper democratic behaviour for the country?
It’s like Prometheus with fire. It is a great tool. Used badly, it can be immensely destructive, but it has extraordinary potential for creative outreach. I call upon us to embrace the better angels of our nature and to make the best possible use of the 21st century technology we have, because returning to a world where we only answer paper letters with envelopes and stamps is not appropriate going forward in the 21st century.
Honourable senators, I want to make a brief comment on this matter in support of Senator Plett’s point of order.
I want to draw the attention of this particular tweet to you, Your Honour. Senator Sinclair also retweeted a very offensive remark regarding this matter in the same time frame. There was a tweet sent out in response to Perry Bellegarde’s tweet from last night and then a man — I’m assuming you never know online — Darth Shwa @Blaiserboy made a comment:
Obviously the Conservative Senators are working in tandem to enable genocide...... and this needs to be an issue in the forthcoming election! #cdnpoli
That was tweeted out last night and Senator Sinclair unfortunately retweeted that. I would ask you to consider that post as well in your deliberations on this matter, because obviously that is highly offensive to all of us on the Conservative side.
I must admit that I believe the problem is not Twitter but our conduct. We must remember that, as senators, we have certain obligations under the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. The code states that “a Senator’s conduct shall uphold the highest standards of dignity inherent to the position of Senator” and that a senator “shall refrain from acting in a way that could reflect adversely on the position of senator or the institution of the Senate.” The code also states the following:
A Senator shall perform his or her parliamentary duties and functions with dignity, honour and integrity.
Once again I would say that it is not necessarily the tool that is to blame, but our conduct. I urge senators to be civil and respectful of our colleagues in this chamber.
I wasn’t aware that there was going to be a point of order today. Certainly I wasn’t prepared to speak on it, but now I am.
I’m a proud member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I’m offended at the suggestion of antagonism towards Indigenous people by not those in our party but by our party, because that’s what the reference is, not just homophobia, transphobia and misogyny which is equally offensive, but towards Indigenous people.
Many people don’t know my personal history. I know Senator Sinclair knows my direct link with the Peguis First Nation because he and I have talked about it. To suggest there is antagonism towards Indigenous people is highly offensive.
If you are on social media, and perhaps even if you’re not, you get trolled. I’m not on social media a lot and I don’t attack at all. When I am attacked, I take it for what it is when it’s the trolls.
Senator Simons mentioned the trolls and she is correct: “@wellsdavid I sincerely hope you have a miserable summer filled with pain and misery.” There is a hashtag with a couple of things I wouldn’t mention in this chamber. “@wellsdavid You are the worst of what the Senate has to offer.”
When we hear from trolls, we accept it because they are trolls and we know what social media is. But honourable senators must be held to a higher standard. When I see what Senator Sinclair has written, I am far more offended than what @chrishall says about me.
I really don’t have much more to say on that, just that I find it highly offensive.
I want to address what Senator Simons said. Let me take the lead on something here.
First of all, Senator Simons, I was absolutely of the belief that the tweet had been taken down within 2 hours, not 20 hours. Trust me, I already texted and you are correct. I found out that it was within 20 hours. That is to some extent neither here nor there.
Let me take the lead on this, Senator Simons, and unequivocally apologize to you for sending the tweet.
I would like to thank all honourable senators for their input into this very important subject. I will take the matter under advisement.
We will now return to Orders of the Day. Senator McInnis, due to the long interruption for which I apologize, we will reset the clock if you wish to restart your speech.
