Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 13-3, Senator Plett gave notice of a question of privilege. Pursuant to rule 13-5(1), I now call upon Senator Plett.

Honourable senators, questions of privilege have always been taken very seriously by this chamber and for very good reason. If parliamentary privilege is breached as Senate rule 13-1 states, it impacts not only one senator but “the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions.” Consequently, the rule goes on to say:

The preservation of the privileges of the Senate is the duty of every Senator and has priority over every other matter before the Senate.

Colleagues, the nature of the breach before us today concerns the leak of a confidential document outlining the agreement reached by Senate leadership after private negotiations between myself and the following: Senator Harder, the Leader of the Government in the Senate; Senator Larry Smith, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; Senator Pau Woo, the Leader of the Independent Senators Group; and Senator Joseph Day, the Leader of the independent Senate Liberals.

You will recall, colleagues, that we were experiencing some difficulty conducting the chamber’s business last week after the Leader of the Government in the Senate tabled a unilateral, heavy-handed motion which was met with objections and resistance from senators on both sides of this chamber.

In an attempt to resolve the impasse and ensure the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions in a timely and orderly manner, these four individuals, along with myself, entered into negotiations on the morning of Thursday, April 4, 2019.

Colleagues, allow me to note that this was no small thing. I have noted in this chamber on many occasions that there is no obligation on the part of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to negotiate with anyone on Senate proceedings regarding government legislation except for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. However, in the spirit of compromise and collegiality and in an effort to protect the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions, the Leader of the Official Opposition in the Senate and I agreed to a meeting where all four leaders would sit down to collaborate on a way forward.

We arrived at an agreement by noon which covered 13 pieces of legislation. This agreement was subsequently signed by all four leaders. Both the detail of the negotiations and the terms of the agreement were to remain strictly confidential in order to protect the integrity of the process and of future negotiations.

However, by 2 p.m. that afternoon — two hours after the agreement was reached, as I noted in my letter of notice to the Clerk of the Senate — the full details of the agreement had been leaked to the media. Less than two hours after our meeting adjourned, a copy of the signed document had been posted on Twitter by Dale Smith, a freelance journalist with the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery.

Senators, it is not Mr. Dale Smith who is guilty of a breach of privilege, however. On the contrary, it is the person who was in the meeting who provided a copy of the agreement to one or more — perhaps 58 — individuals not present at the negotiations.

As I stated earlier, there were only five people present in the room. The agreement and the details of the negotiations which led to it were strictly confidential and were not to be shared outside of the most immediate advisers of each leader. Under no circumstances was it to be broadly shared with other senators and then released to the public. Yet this appears to have been exactly what has happened.

Colleagues, I have reason to believe that it was Senator Pau Woo who distributed copies of the agreement and, in doing so, breached both confidentiality and violated the privilege of myself and others in the negotiations.

As a facilitator/leader of the Independent Senators Group, I am aware that Senator Woo was appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau less than three years ago. But, senators, this is not simply a matter of unfamiliarity with how the Senate works. The intentional leaking of a confidential agreement is not only a breach of privilege, it is a major breach of trust which would be met with severe sanctions if it happened in any business environment. There is simply no excuse for such an action.

I am very troubled by this, not only because it is the duty of this chamber to ensure that privilege is carefully protected, but because trust is not built overnight and can be easily shattered.

Collaborative consultations and confidential negotiations between the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the leaders of the Senate caucuses serve a crucial role in determining the pace and efficiency with which legislation moves through this chamber. Efforts to ensure that this process operates smoothly are critical to the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions. Impeding that process by breaking trust, distributing confidential documents and releasing them publicly is clearly crossing a line which should never be crossed. Yet that is exactly what happened.

In fact, the entire agreement has now been published in the April 8 edition of the Hill Times. While some ISG senators may prefer negotiating through the media, such actions are an affront to the dignity of this place and a breach of parliamentary privilege.

Colleagues, in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada defined parliamentary privilege in the case of House of Commons v. Vaid as follows:

Parliamentary privilege in the Canadian context is the sum of the privileges, immunities and powers enjoyed by the Senate, the House of Commons and provincial legislative assemblies, and by each member individually, without which they could not discharge their functions . . . .

The Subcommittee on Parliamentary Privilege of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament in their 2015 report entitled A Matter of Privilege: A Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21st Century noted the following:

Parliamentary privilege, an essential component of parliamentary democracy, exists to enable Parliament to function effectively and efficiently without undue impediment. . . .

. . . to properly and effectively perform parliamentary and representative functions, a member must be able to operate without fear of undue interference or intimidation.

The leaking of this agreement is undeniably interference. And in as much as it creates a climate of uncertainty and mistrust in future negotiations, it constitutes intimidation as well. Negotiating in bad faith can be seen as nothing less.

Senators, I fear that we are beginning to see what some ISG senators mean when they refer to a modernized Senate. Clearly, it includes not only disrespecting 152 years of Senate rules, procedures and conventions, but it also means ignoring all common sense and decency in the process.

There is a clear shift taking place in the culture of this chamber. Disguised with slogans such as a new, independent Senate, such catch phrases merely cloak a loss of honourable conduct, true sober second thought, and an undisguised desire to facilitate and even promote the Liberal government’s agenda.

We saw this illustrated at our recent clause-by-clause committee meeting on Bill C-71. After the committee decided to defeat a number of clauses and amend others, Senator Pratte was of the view that an observation should be appended to the report noting the committee’s failure to concur with the government’s agenda. On the one hand, the ISG believes we are supposed to exercise sober second thought and bring forward amendments, but on the other hand, it does not believe that such amendments should venture beyond the parameters of what the government approves.

Colleagues, I digress. There is no question about the fact that the matter before us is a very serious one.

Your Honour, regardless of whether you rule in my favour and find that a prima facie case of privilege has been established, I believe there has been a trust broken — a trust which we have spent 152 years building in this chamber.

That trust is being eroded and broken down by the careless and reckless conduct of a few ISG senators, which is extremely disappointing. We can have heated debates and strong disagreements, but when we make deals, we do not break them.

Order, please.

If a question of privilege is found in this case, I am prepared to move a motion that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament for examination, report and remedy.

Thank you, colleagues.

Honourable colleagues, vexatious as this point of privilege is, I’m pleased that it draws attention to the fact that the leaders of all parliamentary groups and caucuses came to an understanding on the timing of reports and votes on 13 government bills, thus obviating the need for a programming motion. I would like to start, therefore, by thanking leaders for their cooperation in making this happen.

It puzzles me that Senator Plett would raise a point of privilege, when we should be raising a glass of his favourite beverage to toast this breakthrough in Senate cooperation.

Colleagues, the crux of Senator Plett’s question of privilege is that I leaked details of the leaders’ agreement to the media. I did no such thing. If he has evidence showing that I did, he should produce it. As it stands, he has made a wild and unsubstantiated allegation.

Let me comment on the timeline that he has provided, and his theory of how the agreement was leaked. As he points out, the leaders came to an agreement around noon. The document was not signed by all four leaders until after the Senate sat, as I recall, because I did not have a copy of the document until I was in my seat.

The said journalist who received a copy of this document and tweeted it did so at 2 p.m. Senator Plett insinuates that the journalist got a copy of the document through one of the ISG members to whom I did, in fact, send the document at 4 p.m. Two hours, colleagues, after said journalist published the article on his Twitter feed.

Ah, the plot thickens. At 2:03, what did we see? A retweet from one of my members? No. From one of the independent Liberals? No. From the government? No. But from a Conservative staffer — three minutes after it was posted by the journalist. Who knows where he got it from? A Conservative staffer retweeted information that you believe to be a breach of privilege. Perhaps you will raise that point with your staffer as well.

Colleagues, let me tell you what transpired. I did share information about the agreement with members of the ISG. I did so in the most transparent way possible, which is by sending to ISG members the actual signed document listing the various bills and the timelines associated with those bills. That document contains a list of the bills and dates for committee reports or votes, and it contains four signatures, nothing more, nothing less.

It goes without saying that an agreement on dates would be useless if those dates were not made known to all senators. I have reason to believe that the leaders of other groups shared the same information, or very similar information, with members of their caucuses — again, for the obvious reason that their members needed such information for the conduct of their work. If they did not, I can categorically say that ISG members needed the information on the projected dates for reports and third reading votes in order to carry out their vote.

I shared the document in good conscience and in the belief that it was an agreed course of action among the individuals at the meeting of leaders and with Senator Plett.

Now, I cannot say more about what happened at that meeting, because that would in itself be a breach of a confidential discussion, which is why I am astonished and troubled that Senator Plett has raised this issue of confidentiality in the chamber. It puts him and me at risk of divulging other confidential information that was shared at that meeting.

If he is trying to protect the confidentiality of a conversation that was had by a small group of individuals, he should not be doing so by bringing it up with 100 other individuals who were not at that meeting, and at a session that is broadcast live to the general public. The proper place to raise any concerns about any alleged breach of confidentiality is with the small group that had the discussion in the first place.

Colleagues, I can confirm we had that conversation this morning at the leaders’ meeting. I can confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the issue has been clarified and put to rest.

Your Honour, this question of privilege is frivolous, because no privilege of the Senate or senators has been breached. I might even argue, colleagues, that to not share information with 57 senators in my ISG group on the timing of 13 bills is itself a breach of their privilege. But let’s not waste any more time on procedural posturing and instead get down to the very point of the agreement that leaders have reached, which is to work diligently on the review of the bills in question according to the time frames that have been agreed to.

While I am disappointed that Senator Plett has pursued this action, I want to conclude by saying that it does not deter me from continuing to seek consensus on programming issues through a process of negotiations among all recognized groups in the Senate. This is preferable to time allocation, not only because of the collegiality it engenders, but also because it provides us with flexibility in adjusting dates as circumstances might dictate.

I look forward to a continued spirit of cooperation in the Senate. I want to assure all members that the ISG will play its role in fostering this approach.

It seems to me that Senator Woo has as much knowledge about the question of privilege on the floor as he does about programming motions in the Westminster model of Parliament.

It is also quite clear, Your Honour, that this is not just a regular breach of privilege. This is the most severe breach of privilege we have, because this is not a breach of one senator’s privilege, but this is a breach of the government’s and the official opposition’s privileges in this chamber.

It’s one thing when information is disclosed from steering committee meetings and from in camera meetings. It is a whole other game when you have negotiations between the Government Leader and the Opposition Leader where they’re discussing operations of the chamber and legislation and how we’re going to deal with that legislation, and somebody takes it upon themselves to leak that information after the fact, or during the fact, to the press.

Senator Woo is preoccupied with his defence, and I guess at some point in time, Your Honour, there will be an appropriate time and place for him to make his defence, as will be the case for the government and the opposition, because my understanding is there are only three parties that were privy to this information. If we include the Government Leader, there are four parties that were privy to that information. I don’t see the benefit of why the opposition or the Government Leader would have leaked this information after they agreed that it would be confidential, as are all negotiations between the government and opposition sides.

In my decade of being in this chamber, Your Honour, I can’t recall a breach of this nature of negotiations between the government and opposition where you would have this information leaked, regardless of which political party was in government. I can’t recall in my 35 years of politics any negotiations on the House of Commons side between the political parties where information and discussions were leaked out to the public.

This is a first, just like the chamber has had a first where we have had a member of the Senate divulge in camera meetings on Twitter and think it’s normal behaviour. I guess this is what Justin Trudeau’s new Senate is all about: doing politics differently.

I guess we’ve learned our lesson that at the end of the day, if you want to have privileged discussions, it has to be by one representative of the government and not two. Right now, this government has two negotiators at the negotiating table with leadership. They have the summoned Government Leader, who is summoned constitutionally and receives a stipend to represent the Government of Canada despite the fact, of course, that when Canadian citizens follow this chamber, what do they see under his name? They see “non-affiliated.” I guess that’s also the new Justin Trudeau chamber: his Government Leader won’t own up to the title that the head of government has given him.

We have another negotiator right now who speaks on behalf of a caucus that is made up of a majority of senators — you’re right, it is a group, Senator Tkachuk. They’ve taken it upon themselves to bring themselves into negotiations between the government and the opposition, and if there’s also a privilege of the breach of information, there’s a privilege of process here, and the privilege is the negotiations between the government and the opposition.

Why do we have negotiations going on between the government, the opposition and another group made up of government-appointed senators? Do they not have faith in the leader that the government has appointed? We have faith in the senators that the government has appointed, but we don’t have faith in the Government Representative that the government has appointed to negotiate in good faith.

All of this has become a cocktail because of some Prime Minister’s willingness to unilaterally reform the Senate unconstitutionally and who has launched us into this particular situation.

I know about breaches of privilege and leaked information. I was accused once upon a time of leaking important information, and I was accused by an organization and an outfit and anonymous sources. They were baseless accusations, but at least I had the decency to get up in this chamber, Senator Woo, and refer the file to the Standing Committee of Rules, Procedures and Rights of Parliament. That’s what I did.

Who leaked the document?

I urge you to read the report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. There was a thorough study done. There were witnesses who were brought before it. All I’m saying is that, at the end of the day, there is a serious breach here and all of us should be concerned. Instead of being so blind as to give a standing ovation to a colleague who has gotten up to defend himself on the chamber floor, we should just ask ourselves the following questions: Why did that breach take place? And what will we do to study that breach so it never happens again?

Your Honour, those are the questions that need to be addressed, and I call upon His Honour to rule in favour of this question of privilege.

I want to make two very brief points. I note that Senator Plett said he has “reason to believe” that Senator Woo is guilty of this leak, and that’s all we heard; nothing else. So the senator has reason to believe that Senator Woo is guilty of that, but there is no evidence. And Senator Housakos provided no evidence whatsoever, just a reason to believe. This is a serious charge. It is a very serious charge.

I will leave you with this thought: I’m wondering whose privileges are really breached by that. I tend to think that accusing someone of a serious behaviour without the smallest figment of proof is an attempt to intimidate that senator from doing his or her job, and this is a breach of privilege, in my view. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I think questions of privilege are enormously important, so I want to briefly address the argument that Senator Plett provided, because in my respectful opinion, Your Honour, the question raised by Senator Plett fails to satisfy the four criteria established in Rule 13-2 for Your Honour to determine whether a prima facie case has been established.

But I cannot help but comment that some of the language used in the presentation of the question of privilege and in subsequent interventions included words and phrases like dishonourable, reckless, irresponsible, lack of knowledge and lack of decency, by comparison with the decency claimed by one of the honourable senators in this debate. It is directed, of course, at the ISG senators and does not really add to the debate or satisfy or even speak to the issues of what is or is not a prima facie case.

It does, however, satisfy the highly evident and partisan agenda which is increasingly tedious, dare I say, of the honourable senators who have brought this question forward, but I digress.

There are four criteria. The first is that the question of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity and it was, so there is no debate about that.

However, the next criteria is one that this question fails to satisfy. The matter must be one that:

. . . directly concerns the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator;

Senator Plett’s question of privilege does not satisfy this criterion. Our own publication, the Senate Procedures in Practice, discusses various definitions of privilege in chapter 11, and at page 225 it outlines the collectively privileges of the Senate as follows:

 . . . the regulation of its proceedings or deliberations, which includes the right to exclude strangers, to debate behind closed doors, and to control publication of debates and proceedings; the power to discipline or punish breaches of privilege or contempt; the maintenance of the attendance and service of its members; the authority to institute inquiries, to summon witnesses and demand papers; the administration of oaths to witnesses; and the publication and distribution of papers free from civil liability (defamation).

On the following page, page 226, Senate Procedure in Practice outlines our individual privileges as members of the Senate:

. . . freedom of speech in Parliament and its committees; freedom from arrest in civil cases; exemption from jury duty and from appearance as a witness in a court case; and freedom from obstruction and intimidation.

None of these privileges, whether collective or individual, is affected by the issue raised by Senator Plett. The agreement to which Senator Plett refers is not a parliamentary document. It is nothing more than a private agreement among four senators.

It’s not a draft committee report. It’s not a bill. It’s not a motion for use in this chamber. Its disclosure does not engage any of the privileges I have just listed. No one’s privileges have been breached, nor could they be breached by the existence or the disclosure of such a private agreement amongst senators.

The third criterion is that the matter must be raised to correct a grave and serious breach. Of course, if no actual privilege has been breached then this criterion cannot even be triggered. However, should His Honour disagree with me and find a prima facie case, I would still maintain that there is nothing grave or serious about the matter raised, notwithstanding the high rhetoric to which honourable senators on the other side have risen to.

Finally, 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. Here, Your Honour, I submit that there is no genuine remedy that would satisfy Senator Plett. Even if Your Honour finds a prima facie case, the Senate has no remedy to rectify the situation. The journalist’s tweets cannot be untweeted, neither can the retweets that Senator Woo pointed out followed three minutes after the so‑called journalist released it.

Therefore, any process that we might follow on this question is futile, and a waste of the Senate’s time. That is why this fourth criterion is, in fact, included in the rule. That’s why the question raised does not pass muster.

Your Honour, the question raised by Senator Plett fails on three out of the four criteria set out in our Rules. If it only failed on one, as we all know, it could not be proceeded with under rule 13.

Honourable senators, I’m asking the Speaker to rule that no prima facie case has been established.

Honourable senators, this question of privilege is based on an assumption, regrettably because it assumed a senator has provided information, and that was the letter we received in our notice. However, Your Honour and colleagues, both Senator Plett and Senator Batters accuse all 58 independent senators of that breach in this chamber.

For the first time that I can recall in regard to the media publication submitted to a question of privilege has there been an assumption toward a senator — provider of information to media for Rules to investigate and report following a prima facie case.

This is a grave and serious finger pointing, as if the entire conservative Senate caucus and their staff had not received agreed upon the bill process agreement. It seems to me that most of Senator Plett’s question of privilege is worded as to not seek a prima facie, but more to target one senator and the senator’s reputation and good name in this chamber. That target is a complete assumption, as he does write in his letter. I have been led to believe that it was Senator Woo who distributed copies of the agreement.

Senator Plett does not offer evidence that a Conservative senator or any of the Conservative staff have not leaked the information. There was no affidavit presented in this chamber in regard to any other groups leaking the information.

I would question why a document indicating the different phase and the time frame to reach those phases for bills should be a great secret which responsible senators in this chamber should not see. We should not see this great secret. Oh, the grave dangers of senators having information. It’s a big pitfall, wouldn’t you say, Senator Housakos? It’s a big pitfall, not having information for senators.

It reminds me of the time, not long ago, where partisan caucuses’ deputy leaders would attend scrolls and only the three caucus leaders would know what is expected to happen in the Senate that day. That’s not so far away.

Senators not in leadership roles were kept in the dark. It was again a big secret. ISG senators argue that it was and is no longer acceptable, and now all senators receive via e-mail scrolls for the day along with anticipated votes.

Your Honour, secrecy is no longer acceptable in these chamber processes. All senators should know what may occur with the Order Paper.

Your Honour, this chamber should take offence with the finger pointing of one senator or 58 senators, as has just been said, among 100 that were probably informed about the said legislative process arrangement.

Your Honour, in the interests of all senators, this chamber does not belong to a selected few but to all senators and to all Canadians. I cannot agree that informing senators of legislative process is a breach of privilege. As a senator in a modern Senate, I fully expect that transparency and disclosure will ensure the effective discharge of our collective and individual functions within this chamber.

Your Honour, the document providing a time frame for bills is not a parliamentary document. It is a process document. There is no grave or serious breach, except that I find the assumption towards Senator Woo an unparliamentary statement. And, Your Honour, the remedy has already occurred in respect to a process document. The remedy is an open, transparent and independent Senate.

Your Honour, I would also add that the media article cited by Senator Plett is not related to the proceedings of the Senate, and therefore is seeking to create a new privilege that the Constitution has not yet bestowed upon this Parliament. Your Honour, I believe there is no prima facie point of privilege and I thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Your Honour. The benefit of going later on the list is that much has been said and I won’t repeat it. I agree completely with the comments offered by Senator Gold and Senator Ringuette. I had intended to go through the same arguments with respect to the four criteria to be met. I think that has been more than adequately covered so I will leave that. And I think that Senator Ringuette spoke to some very important issues to include there.

That leaves me with a couple of comments that I want to make. I will ask you, Your Honour, in your review of the points that honourable senators have raised, would you please look to what I will call unparliamentary language that has been used by Senator Plett and Senator Housakos. I do not believe that Senator Batters did that but you may as well take a look because sometimes they are buried in those comments, but at least for those two senators.

There has been a range of accusatory, stereotyping and demeaning remarks about all ISG senators. Senator Plett, Your Honour will note on some occasions in his presentation, made reference to some ISG senators and at other times to all ISG senators.

Senator Housakos, as he is wont to do on occasion after occasion, took the opportunity to stand on a soap box to proclaim a complete lack of credibility among ISG senators. There are many honourable senators here who are hard-working, who are diligent, who are making a great contribution.

I would note that most of the time in the last number of weeks the bells have rung because of some disagreement that the opposition has with procedural or speed of dealing with bills or not dealing with bills, which quite frankly takes away my parliamentary privilege of working on behalf of Canadians.

I take a look at the timelines that have been established and I know that Senator Housakos, across the floor in discussion, is trying to convince me those timelines are incorrect and that the articles came after Senator Woo’s email. That’s incorrect. In fact, the tweet by a Conservative staffer was in such a timeline as to show once again that it was not from the email that was sent to ISG senators informing us of the protocol that had been reached with respect to programming. I think that should be taken seriously. Before senators stand up and point fingers, they should look to getting evidence.

I would say to Senator Housakos, who makes the point that we should read the report of the Rules Committee with respect to the allegations of a breach of privilege against him personally, when the report of the Auditor General was leaked, and when there were witnesses who publicly spoke about seeing him with his assistant actually providing that information to reporters, the Rules Committee that he refers to —

Your Honour, I rise on a point of order. It’s grossly unacceptable again for a member in this chamber to besmirch my reputation by going forward and quoting a newspaper article which clearly had anonymous sources. The people that she is referring to who saw me doing the things she claimed in that article were anonymous sources. I want to highlight again in public and for the record that those accusations were dealt with. They were referred to a standing committee of this chamber over a long period of time. There was investigation, there were witnesses, including the Auditor General himself, and they were dealt with thoroughly. And I also want to put on the record that the number one victim of those leaks was yours truly.

If you are making innuendo and character assassination attempts without knowing the facts, continue doing it, but the facts are what they are. Again, I welcome anyone to read the report of the Rules Committee. It is detailed. And just to do a drive-by smear campaign attack like that, Senator Lankin, is really beneath you.

Thank you, Your Honour.

I understand the frustration with you rising on a point of order, Senator Housakos, but it really is not a point of order. But you have clearly set out that you would ask that the report be reviewed.

Therefore I would ask Senator Lankin to avoid comments with respect to that until the report is actually reviewed.

Senator Lankin?

Thank you very much. I would like to go to Hansard and to clip what Senator Housakos has just said because it is exactly what I’m accusing him of doing with his drive-by smears, on a constant basis, in making allegations about a total group of senators. We can revisit that.

I will say also in relation to the Rules Committee, of which I was a member at the time, I cannot talk about what went on because we had that conversation in camera. You will see that the report does not point a final finger or clear. Therefore, I ask you to review the report too, honourable senators. It is not a vindication.

Your Honour, so as not to test your patience, I will close with saying that in order for us to establish trust it’s a two-way street. There have been multiple times where that trust has been broken and there is a job to do to restore the trust. I think there are many of us who are willing to work on that, but we have to have willing partners across the floor. I don’t see evidence of that to date, but I hope that we will see evidence of that in future.

Threats that continue to happen from time to time, whether it’s about this deal or other deals, and any other action that might happen subsequent to that, the threat is held, “Well, I’m going to renege on the deal.” I will say, Your Honour, if there is an honourable approach that we can agree to in this chamber we should, because we are not serving Canadians in the way that this chamber could aspire to. Thank you very much.

Honourable senators, I am prepared to hear from more senators on this matter. I know Senator Dupuis has risen a number of times. But I caution senators that rule 6-13(1) asks all senators to avoid personal or taxing comments in debate. It’s of no value for me to hear such comments. I want senators to please contain your comments to the point of privilege that has been raised.

Senator Dupuis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dear colleagues, I would like to come back to the text of the letter that was distributed by the Clerk and that raises the question of privilege before us this evening. There are two things in that letter that lead me to rise on a point of order pursuant to rule 6-13(1) of the Rules of the Senate, which states:

All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and are out of order.

I repeat:

All personal, sharp or taxing speeches are unparliamentary and out of order.

Apart from the fact that I do not think that the four criteria required for a question of privilege have been met, I find it troubling that the letter raising the question of privilege states the following, and I quote:

I’ve been led to believe that it was Senator Woo who distributed the agreement and, in doing so, breached both confidentiality and violated the privilege of myself . . .

What is even more troubling is that a connection is being made between that sentence and another in the next paragraph, which states, and I quote:

This intentional breach of confidentiality compromises future negotiations and therefore directly interferes with the work of this institution.

I do not think that the work of senators in the Senate of Canada is to use a question of privilege in this manner. Questions of privilege are used to defend oneself as a senator, not to attack, and certainly not to attack another senator on the basis of I don’t know what insinuations, because insinuations are all we have before us. What is more, when the letter states:

I’ve been led to believe it was Senator Woo who distributed . . .

This is a breach of his privilege, a direct attack on his character and legitimacy. I find this unacceptable — and this is what I’ll ask you to consider — because if we accept questions of privilege on the basis of insinuations, without any evidence, that could undermine my privilege, your privilege, and the privilege of all senators and the entire Senate. Thank you.

I’ll have a few very brief comments. I need to address a few things.

I find it rather rich of senators opposite who are constantly telling us that we are making accusations, and we are besmirching their reputation. Then they stand and do the very thing they are accusing us of doing. But, as I said in my speech, this chamber has digressed into something that it shouldn’t be. Whether it’s the fault of the ISG, the fault of the Conservatives or the fault of the few Liberals left in this chamber.

Colleagues, Senator Pratte got up and said that somehow what I said wasn’t legitimate because I said “I have reason to believe.” The reason “I have reason to believe” is because I don’t break confidentiality. I know. I don’t have reason to believe; I know. But because I don’t stand here and say how I know — that’s a confidentiality that I won’t break. Because I don’t break confidentiality agreements, as has been done here today or yesterday.

Senator Ringuette says I have accused all senators. No, I didn’t. I didn’t accuse all senators. I said Senator Woo had, in my opinion, broken an agreement. He gave a document to 58 people, who might have decided to share it with 58 more. I don’t know. But as I said, I don’t think the journalist did anything wrong. He went and put out what he got. If Senator Woo didn’t tell the 58 senators that he gave the document to, “You can’t give this to anybody else,” then I’m sure you have done nothing wrong by sharing it. And if he told all of you not to share it, and one of you shared it with Dale Smith instead of Senator Woo, then you have done something wrong.

I don’t know. All I know is we had an agreement — an understanding — among five people that the document was not to be shared with others.

What the process was — whether Senator Woo got his document five minutes later than we got ours is absolutely irrelevant. He then shared it with people he shouldn’t have shared it with. That did not prevent Senator Woo from saying, “We have an agreement, and here are some of the guidelines.” But he shared a signed document, Senator Pratte. He shared a signed document. That’s the document that was out there. He was not to do that; none of us did it, because we understood. Four out of five people understood exactly what the agreement was.

It is not about whether that’s a confidential, secret document. We understand it’s going to be shared here in the chamber over a period of time. We wanted a document to be kept among five people, because we did not want the Conservatives to be patting themselves on the back, saying, “We are the good guys. We made the deal.” We didn’t want Senator Harder to say, “I brought in this motion, and now I’ve got you all.” We didn’t want Senator Woo to say, “Finally, they allowed me into the room, and now we’ve got a deal,” which was clearly insinuated by one of the tweets from the one of the ISG members.

There was a reason why we wanted a confidential document. It’s not that it was a highly secret document. That was irrelevant to us.

But colleagues, I think somebody said that the media article was not related to the Senate. How is that article not related to the Senate? The only thing that article was about was the Senate and this agreement.

Senator Lankin didn’t say it, but I got the feeling at the end that she was somehow saying, “Well, somebody was threatening to renege on a deal.” That’s the first I have heard of it; that’s the first I have heard of it. If you have an accusation to make, make the accusation.

In the past, senator. In the past, senator.

Stand up and raise that question of privilege. Nobody is reneging on the deal, because we don’t renege on deals.

Your Honour, whether you rule in my favour or not, my life’s going to go on. Tomorrow, hopefully, Lord willing, I will roll out of bed again, and I will be in here tomorrow as calm as I am today, because I’m wearing my bracelet. I’ll put a little more of that juice on there, and maybe that will help a little more.

But colleagues, we have digressed into something we shouldn’t have. This is one of the reasons: There is no trust. The way we have trust is if we all keep our word. Let me commit myself to trying to be the first one to do that. But I have heard nothing over there. I have just heard “I did nothing wrong.” Yes, you did something wrong, Senator Woo. You did something wrong when you shared a document with at least 58 people you weren’t supposed to share the document with.

I’m going to hear from Senator Woo. After that, I may have heard enough.

Frankly, Your Honour, I have as well. I feel a certain obligation to make a few closing comments in response to Senator Plett. I want to start by picking up on the most positive of his comments, which is that we need to rebuild trust. I said in my rebuttal that such is my intention, despite this question of privilege. I know my colleagues in the ISG want us to work together with all groups in this chamber, and to continue to have a consensus arrangement on programming and other issues. That is the mandate I’ve been given by my group. I intend to continue with that.

The crux of the matter, Your Honour, as I mentioned previously, is the allegation that I leaked this document to the media. The theory of the case that has been put forward is that while I did not leak it directly, one of my ISG colleagues — one of the 57 other than me — shared it — this is the theory of the case — with Mr. Smith so that he was able to post this document on his Twitter account. I have already expressed how this is an impossibility, because Mr. Smith tweeted at 2 p.m. and the ISG did not get it until 4 p.m. Furthermore, if there is any question as to where it came from, one has to wonder about the retweet that took place just three minutes after Mr. Smith’s tweet at 2 p.m.

So the fundamental allegation that I leaked it to the media has not been proven. I am saying categorically to all of you, colleagues, that I did not do it. If you want to call me a liar, say that, but I am categorically saying: I did not leak this document to the media. I have been upfront that I shared it with my colleagues for good reasons.

That was wrong.

We can differ on that.

As it stands, Your Honour, this question of privilege rests on the allegation that I leaked the document. I am stating very clearly that I did not. There is no evidence presented to suggest that I did. In fact, I put forward that it is an open question as to who provided this document to the said journalist, and there should be no presumption that it came from the ISG. On that basis alone, there can be no case of privilege. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I thank Senator Plett for raising this issue and I thank all senators who have participated in the debate. I will take the matter under advisement.

Resuming debate on the motion of Senator Sinclair for second reading of Bill C-262.