Honourable senators, I rise today to raise a different question of privilege. I rise this evening following our two-hour recess due to seeing the clock at 6 p.m.

In accordance with rule 13-4, I feel I have the right as a senator to rise on this question of privilege, as I have become aware of a matter during the sitting of the Senate, and therefore, I do not need to provide written notice.

Your Honour, let me begin by stating clearly that I am raising this question on my understanding that when a senator hires a staffer, then that staffer is representing that senator, and they are both representing the institution of the Senate. It is my understanding, in law and in reviewing the ethics code for staff, the ethics code for senators, as well as our rules, that freedom of expression for senators and their staff is not absolute, that commentary within the parameters of employment is to be consistent with standards of fairness, accuracy and propriety envisioned in our rules and codes.

My question of privilege is regarding the use or misuse — that will be for you to determine — of social media platforms, particularly Twitter, by some of our Senate colleagues, including, in some circumstances, postings by their representatives, their staff, which in turn have been retweeted by their employer senator.

My question of privilege this evening has been in development for some time. This is not the first time this has happened to me or to other senators in this chamber, but at 4:59 p.m. Eastern time today, yet another nasty and inaccurate tweet was made by the Director of Parliamentary Affairs, employed by Senator Leo Housakos, which he then retweeted, thus demonstrating the employer-employee interconnection for which a senator, who is the employer, is responsible. It is part of that responsibility for us as senators to ask ourselves whether we are encouraging a form of harassment and bullying through social media.

In order for you to rule on this question of privilege, Your Honour, I will outline how the four criteria under rule 13-2(1) of the Rules of the Senate of Canada have been met.

First, the question is being raised at the earliest opportunity. The most recent tweet attack was posted, as I said, at 4:59 p.m. today in reference to a tweet by J.P. Tasker of CBC. His tweets were a series of updates with regard to this morning’s Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-262. The employee of Senator Housakos selected one of the tweets in particular and wrote:

Imagine. A Senator calling for the removal of another Senator because she doesn’t agree with his position on something. Let that sink in. She wants him removed from the committee because he doesn’t share her opinion. Diversity is our strength?

It’s not accurate. That’s not why I was asking that Senator Tkachuk be asked to leave the room. I was asking for that because, as was very accurately described by other senators — I would say in particular Senator Lovelace Nicholas — there was bullying, there was constant interruption and obstruction to the point where I now have to say, in many circumstances, I look at my colleagues across here and I do not see the Official Opposition; I see the official obstruction.

In addition to the tweet sent by the employee of Senator Housakos —

 — in response to an article in The Globe and Mail —

There’s a point of order, Senator McPhedran.

You’re stopping me from doing —

Thank you, Senator Plett, for raising that point. Obviously, not very long ago I mentioned to all senators that words are very important. When we rise on a question of privilege or a point of order, it’s important that we not use inflammatory language. It does nothing for the point of order or the question of privilege. I again caution senators to refrain from using unnecessary, inflammatory language.

On the issue of whether or not there is a question with respect to an employee of a senator, obviously, that will form part of any consideration on the question of privilege.

Thank you very much, Your Honour.

The tweets to which I’ve referred are a mischaracterization of this morning’s proceedings, where I replied to Senator Tkachuk’s tactics and attempts to disrupt by challenging and disrespecting the decisions of the chair. At several moments throughout this morning’s meeting senators were shouting over Senator Dyck as she chaired the meeting according to the Rules, having checked repeatedly with the experts who were available and provided the advice as to what was appropriate.

This was not about a difference of opinion, as was suggested by Senator Housakos and his staffer. This was about a lack of respect, dignity and unparliamentary conduct in committee this morning.

Second, according to rule 13-2(1)(b), the matter must directly concern the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any senator. This is a matter of personal privilege due to the nature of the repeated personal attacks on me and, incidentally, other women senators.

On May 2, 2019, I engaged on Twitter with the employee of Senator Housakos, after having tweeted about the motion on the Rohingya genocide. Could there be anything less partisan than the Rohingya question? It was set to be called for a vote that evening; that was my understanding. I tweeted to update the many concerned members of the public who were waiting for the results, that it was already 9:30 p.m., and, due to delays, the vote would likely not take place that evening. The employee for Senator Housakos tweeted very soon thereafter to me:

You mean you got ahead of yourself by sending out that tweet and news release and now proper procedure has done you in. Oops.

That’s a quote.

I’m sorry for interrupting, Senator McPhedran, but, as you properly pointed out in your opening remarks, in order to raise a question of privilege without proper notice, it has to abide by one of two conditions. You rightly named the condition that you were rising on, a matter that arose during the sitting, so your remarks should pertain to a matter that arose during the sitting for your question of privilege.

Thank you, Your Honour, but I would submit that you consider this part of a pattern and that therefore there is relevance.

It baffles me, quite frankly, that a senator’s staffer would take it upon themselves to mock any senator, even worse, on a public forum. This is of direct concern to me, as it implies that I am unable to understand or follow Senate procedure. This claim leads the public to believe that I am unable to perform my parliamentary functions and makes a mockery of it.

Furthermore, Your Honour, this is a matter of concern for the Senate as a whole. It is a matter of privilege for this Senate, as it hurts and tarnishes the image of the Senate as an institution.

Senate staff represent their senators and the Senate of Canada as an institution. We all, as senators, including our staff, have a responsibility to uphold courtesy to each other.

Only last week, Senator Housakos stated in the chamber: “I hate to remind you, but Twitter is on the record.”

I’m sorry, Senator McPhedran, but again I see senators rising on what I presume will be a point of order because, as I said earlier, as you correctly pointed out when you rose on your question of privilege, the question of privilege has to relate to something without notice that occurred, in your case, during the sitting. So please contain your remarks on your question of privilege to what arose during the sitting.

It’s my understanding, Your Honour, that I can make references to sources of information that support my argument, and that is the nature of the quote that I just raised from Senator Housakos, pointing out that Twitter is on the record.

Just give me a moment, because that caused me to lose my place.

Your Honour, on May 16, 2019, you stated:

“I remind” —

Sorry, Senator Plett. Let’s hear —

The Speaker stated —

Senator McPhedran, please.

Thank you, Your Honour. You stated, sir:

. . . I remind honourable senators that in a previous ruling I did mention the use of social media. I caution that when you are using social media, please take your time before you send out tweets. If it is something you think will be offensive and you are not really sure whether or not it is something that is appropriate, I suggest you do not send, because it reflects poorly, not just on the people who are doing it, but on the whole chamber.

The image of the Senate as an institution is tarnished by online attacks of this nature. How can a senator endorse, encourage or let their staff establish a pattern of attacking other senators on a public social media platform? Where is the collegiality and respect that we say we must uphold in this place? Decorum and respect for one another must be extended to social media, as Your Honour has ruled.

Fourth, according to rule 13-2(1)(d), the matter must be raised to seek a genuine remedy that the Senate has the power to provide and for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available. Therefore, I ask, Your Honour, with all due respect, that Senator Housakos apologize on behalf of his employee, his Director of Parliamentary Affairs, whom he retweets, and that senators no longer allow their staff to use Twitter or online platforms or for senators not to use social media to decimate each other and to distribute and perpetuate false claims about other members of this institution.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Thank you, Your Honour. I will be very brief. In regard to Senator McPhedran’s claim of question of privilege, this is anything but a question of privilege. There has been an ongoing debate in this chamber about social media and its place in public discourse. I think at some particular point in time we have to appreciate we’re a public institution and what we say in this chamber, what we say and do at committee is in public and you have to face the consequences of it.

I have absolutely no problem in defending the tweet my employee put out this evening. I retweeted it and I retweeted it quite carefully. It’s quite factual and it’s consistent with what transpired this morning, disgustingly so, at one of our Senate committees where we had a colleague of ours get up — I don’t understand the context. I wasn’t there. But I’m going on the basis of a credible journalist, a credible source — CBC — who put out a story that said:

Senate committee passes UNDRIP bill, Tories warn of an Indigenous veto.

It goes through a very elaborate story which goes about reporting the essence of what happened. This journalist put the tweet out. I didn’t:

Amid the fracas at committee today, independent senator Marilou McPhedran suggested Conservative Senator David Tkachuk, a strongly anti-UNDRIP advocate, should be removed from the committee’s proceedings.

That’s what was reported by the CBC, your news outlet of choice. All my employee did was retweet that and say:

Imagine. A senator calling for the removal of another senator because she doesn’t agree with his position on something. Let that sink in. She wants him removed from a Senate committee because he doesn’t share her opinion. Diversity is our strength?

That’s what was tweeted. I retweeted it and I stand by it.

Colleagues, if you do not want this kind of humiliation in public, think twice about the way you behave in public at committees. When you call for a colleague to be expelled from a committee for whatever reason, that in itself is the biggest breach of privilege in this place. The biggest breach that took place this morning is asking the dean of the Senate, an experienced senator of 25 years, who has chaired committees successfully for two and a half decades to be vacated by who? By another colleague? By the chair, by another colleague, that’s unheard of in this place.

So colleagues, I think at the end of the day the lesson here that should be learned is if you can’t take the heat on social media and the public, stay away from it at the end of the day. I have made a list myself of egregious tweets I’ve seen from ISG — not senators, but employees — and I have a file. I’d be happy to bring it to committee if we ever have a study on this and see whose tweets are more egregious or more offensive. Needless to say, if you’re sitting on the Conservative side, your tweets will be determined to be very egregious by us. Obviously if you’re sitting on your perch, you’re going to say, “Oh, these terrible Conservatives on the other side, they’re offending us on a daily basis.”

I think what we should be more careful about is our behaviour as senators in this institution, this chamber, and on committees and do our job in a diligent, prudent and dignified fashion. Thank you, colleagues.

Honourable senators, I know other senators want to enter the debate on this question, but I have heard both sides of this issue and I will take the matter under advisement. Thank you.