Honourable senators, with regard to the recent question of privilege raised by Senator Saint-Germain, as announced on Tuesday, I will now hear further arguments. As I indicated on Tuesday, I would ask senators to be as brief as possible with their interventions and to raise new points only.

First, Your Honour, I want to thank you for having given me the opportunity to review the issues that were raised on Tuesday, and to do some research and prepare my remarks. I want to first provide context for the events that are at the heart of Senator Saint-Germain’s question of privilege.

Second, I would like to point to some elements that I think should guide you in your decision.

Finally, I would like to close with some personal considerations on this.

I will apologize ahead of time, Your Honour, that I may speak a little longer than you suggested, and I hope that you will indulge me.

I will return later to the actual facts that happened on November 9 — which had been raised on Tuesday — but I want to start by giving you, Your Honour and colleagues, the reasons why opposition senators were frustrated and, many would say, angry when the debate on Bill C-234 was adjourned.

First, we were of the impression — I was of the impression — that an agreement between groups had been reached to complete the debate on Thursday, November 9. This, as far as we were concerned, had been agreed upon 10 days earlier. It is, of course, the purview of all leaders or groups to change their mind. One could have expected that, but one would have, perhaps, expected that the other leaders — if they had changed their mind — would have given me notice that debate on Bill C-234 would not conclude that evening. They did not.

The different groups and their leaders have every right to enter — or not — into deals to move legislation, or on the timing for the debate. They have every right to change their mind. I believe it is, however, common courtesy to advise the other groups when there is a change after a deal is made, and that usually is the case; it was not on November 9.

Second, we were somewhat surprised when Senator Moncion moved an amendment. I remind you that, Your Honour, in our mind, the debate on the bill was to close that day, so, to our surprise, a senator moved an amendment. Senator Moncion, like any other senator, has the absolute perfect right to move an amendment on any bill regardless of the substance of that amendment, and we certainly appreciate and respect that.

Senators will know that, most of the time, notice of an amendment is given at the scroll meeting. On November 9, no such notice was given to the other groups — or, at least, certainly not to us.

As I said, a senator has every right to move an amendment. It is, however, common courtesy to advise the other groups. There was no such common courtesy.

Finally, Senator Clement moved the adjournment of the debate before a single senator had a chance to speak on the amendment. As it was pointed out on Tuesday, the adjournment is usually moved after senators who want to enter debate on that day can do so.

We never said that we did not want senators who were not in the chamber on that day — as Senator Woo suggested the other day, because he hadn’t been able to be here — to enter debate at a later date. What was unusual was that the adjournment was moved before the list of people who — those who were in the chamber and, indeed, who were standing — wanted to intervene was exhausted or, in this case, actually even started.

Imagine, colleagues, in her haste to adjourn the debate — to allow senators who were not in the chamber to enter debate at a later date — Senator Clement may have prevented the entering of debate for a senator who was present on November 9, and who wanted to enter debate, but who could not be here at a later date. That person would have had the right to enter the debate.

A senator has every right to adjourn the debate on a motion or an amendment. Again, it is common courtesy to let senators — who are in the chamber — who want to intervene to do so before moving the adjournment. It is in this context that the adjournment was moved, and a standing vote was called, and I then went over to Senator Saint-Germain, who was sitting next to Senator Clement. I will deal with that later on in my remarks regarding the events that happened there.

Before I delve into the specific facts that were brought up and discussed regarding if the privilege of a senator was indeed breached, let me point out what the definition of “privilege” is. The classic definition of “parliamentary privilege” is found in Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament:

Parliamentary privilege is the sum of certain rights enjoyed by each House collectively . . . and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. . . .

The Senate Procedure in Practice, on page 224, says the following:

The purpose of privilege is to enable Parliament and, by extension, its members to fulfill their functions without undue interference or obstruction. Privilege belongs properly to the assembly or house as a collective. Individual members can only claim privilege if “any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House.”

On page 226, it states:

The individual privileges that senators enjoy include the following:

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.

To Erskine May, the privileges of Parliament are rights “. . . absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers . . . .” Privilege is not just something nice to have; it is a strict minimum for parliamentarians to do their jobs.

From the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, only one of those privileges has allegedly been breached: freedom of obstruction by intimidation.

The fifth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders from May 6, 1993, and quoted in the Journals of the Senate on pages 2052-53, says the following:

An adverse reflection upon a Senator or the Senate can constitute breach of privilege, but only if it impedes the Senator or the Senate from performing parliamentary functions.

So for a senator’s privilege to be breached, there must be proof of obstruction and intimidation, and there must also be proof that such obstruction and intimidation impeded the senator from performing their parliamentary functions.

Senator Saint-Germain said on Tuesday, “The events in question affected numerous senators and had a negative impact on the Senate as an institution . . .” This may be true. But one or more senators being affected or a negative impact on the Senate does not constitute a breach of privilege. Privilege is very narrowly defined. This is normal, as parliamentary privilege is “. . . an immunity from the ordinary law . . . .” as former Speaker Furey said on March 1, 2018, or powers “. . . which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. . . .” as Erskine May said in the definition I quoted earlier.

With all due respect, privilege does not protect the Senate from a negative impact or senators from being affected. Privilege does not insulate senators and the Senate from anything negative that can be said to or about them. It protects them from being impeded from performing their parliamentary functions.

What are the facts about what happened on November 9 that were raised by Senator Saint-Germain? She said that: I violently threw my earpiece; I stood in front of Senators Saint-Germain and Clement and yelled and berated them; I pointed fingers at Senator Moncion; Senator MacDonald shouted the word “fascist”; and that threats were made that business in committees chaired by the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, senators would be blocked. Senator Saint-Germain also accused Senators Batters and Housakos of having retweeted a post made by Andrew Scheer, inviting Canadians to phone the offices of two senators. She also took offence at the tweets from Senator Wells, accusing the ISG leadership of working in concert with the Speaker of the Senate.

Senator Saint-Germain never explained how any of this constitutes an obstruction of the parliamentary functions of any of the senators. She never alleged that her or any other senator’s ability to debate and vote on Bill C-234 or any other Senate matter was impeded. In fact, Senators Saint-Germain, Clement and Moncion all voted on the adjournment of the debate on Bill C-234 on November 9. So was the parliamentary privilege of one or more senators breached on November 9 or through the tweets and retweets? You will note, Your Honour, that none of the senators who rose to speak on Tuesday quoted a former Speaker’s decision or an author to support their case that there was a breach of privilege. There is a reason for this, Your Honour. There was none.

There are, however, several precedents where the issue of breach of privilege was studied and decided upon that I think might guide you through your decision, Your Honour. Let’s see what the precedents tell us.

Number one: Privilege does not cover everything. On March 1, 2018, former Speaker Furey ruled on a question of privilege raised by Senator McPhedran and stated that:

The purpose of privilege is to enable Parliament and its members to fulfill their legislative and deliberative functions, without undue interference. Not all activities undertaken by senators in the course of their work, no matter how valuable or commendable, are always covered by privilege.

A senator does not enjoy parliamentary privilege for everything. There must be undue interference in their legislative and deliberative functions for their privilege to be breached.

Number two: Personal, sharp and taxing language in the chamber is not an issue of privilege. On April 21, 2009, former Speaker Kinsella had to rule on a question of privilege raised by Senator Harb regarding some language used during debate. Here is his quote.

On the second criterion, that the matter must directly concern privilege, Senator Harb felt that the remarks affected him personally, seeing them as an attempt to silence him. In point of fact, however, nothing actually prevented the senator from continuing to speak in debate. If there was any problem with the remarks, it was more as to whether they were “personal, sharp or taxing,” to use the language of rule 51. As such, the issue may have been one of order, but was certainly not one of privilege.

A senator being attacked, even if the language used is personal, sharp or taxing, does not constitute a breach of privilege of a senator, especially if the senator was not prevented from participating in debate.

In fact, freedom of speech is the right protected by privilege, not freedom from speech. In a ruling made on October 5, 2010, former Speaker Kinsella said:

The basic privilege in this case is freedom of speech. As noted in the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 89 and 90, this is:

By far, the most important right accorded to Members of the House . . . a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.

According to page 96 of the twenty-third edition of Erskine May, this means that:

Subject to the rules of order in debate, a Member may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by his privilege from any action for libel, as well as from any other question or molestation.

Number three: Attacks in the media and on social media are not an issue of privilege.

While some senators may feel they are unfairly attacked in the media or on social media platforms, this does not constitute a breach of privilege. Let me again quote former Speaker Kinsella from his ruling on December 14, 2009:

As the English philosopher John Stuart Mill pointed out in On Liberty more than 150 years ago, it is not our role as parliamentarians to suppress the liberty of the citizen, particularly in the exercise of free speech.

We now understand that public engagement in national affairs is to be fostered and nurtured. It is part of the vibrant democracy we enjoy in Canada. Good debate inside Parliament, and therefore good legislation and policy, is helped by informed criticism from keen observers and the general public.

With useful criticism, however, we must all too often be willing to accept ill-informed, indeed harsh and offensive, comments. We need not like it at all, but no one occupying a position in Parliament, at the heart of public life, can claim exemption from being exposed to sometimes unmerited or ignorant criticism. Those are not my words. That is a quote.

For privilege to be breached, the threats must be serious. Again from Speaker Kinsella’s ruling:

It may also be of interest to note here that, when Beauchesne refers to threats attempting to influence members, it appears to envision more than merely uninformed or disagreeable commentary. Citation 99 explains that normal practice is now to turn investigation over “to the ordinary forces of the law.” This suggests an entirely different type of matter from mere words in a press release. It implies direct threat and menace, even physical intimidation.

The fourth point is that a senator or the Senate must not be able to perform their duties. As I said before, to invoke privilege, a parliamentarian must prove not only that they received what could be perceived as a threat but that they were obstructed in the performance of their duties — not that they were troubled or affected by these perceived threats.

Speaker Furey ruled on November 1, 2017, on a question of privilege that I raised regarding a letter from Senator Lankin. Here is what he said:

Parliamentary privilege relates to the privileges, immunities and powers enjoyed by the Senate and each of its members without which they could not discharge their legislative and deliberative functions. In addition, as noted at page 228 of Senate Procedure in Practice:

If senators are to carry out their parliamentary duties properly, it is only logical that . . . they be protected from interference in the performance of their duties. For example, any attempt to prevent senators from entering Parliament or to intimidate them in carrying out their duties would constitute a breach of privilege.

And then:

While I understand that some senators might be troubled by Senator Lankin’s letter, there is nothing that would impede senators from continuing their work on Bill C-210. The bill is still on the Orders of the Day and is called each sitting day for debate according to our usual practices. Senators remain free to deal with the bill as they see fit — the independence of the Senate and senators is not affected by this letter.

I submit to you, Your Honour, that several other decisions from your predecessors are saying the same thing. Speaker Molgat ruled on November 7, 1995, that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability of members of Parliament to do their job properly:

An adverse reflection upon a Senator or the Senate can constitute breach of privilege, but only if it impedes the Senator or the Senate from performing parliamentary functions. As such, it has a very narrow application, and is to be distinguished from actions for defamation, which are available to all citizens and are pursued through the civil courts. It is extremely difficult to bring oneself within the protection offered by this aspect of parliamentary privilege. There must be a link or nexus between the alleged defamation and the parliamentary work of the Senator.

Speaker Hays on May 8, 2003, said that while the language used in a formal message from the other place may seem harsh or stern, it does not constitute a breach of privilege.

Again, Speaker Kinsella on February 12, 2008, ruled that absent some form of a threat, a message from one house to another cannot be treated as a point of order or breach of privilege.

Speaker Kinsella also said on December 14, 2009, there cannot be a breach of privilege if the senator raising the issue and the Senate as a whole were able to perform their duties:

Senator Cools can speak freely on the bill, subject to our rules and practices. Other senators can do the same. Neither her right to speak, nor that of any other honourable senator, has been infringed. Eventually, at a time determined by the Senate, it will make a decision on second reading of Bill C-268.

No matter what happened on November 9 or what was said on social media, there was no proof given that a senator was not able to speak or vote freely on that day or since. There is no proof that any of this affected the Senate’s right to deal with Bill C-234. In fact, everything that has happened that evening and since points to the contrary. So let me answer the question of whether there is prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege.

First, I would like to reiterate the point I made on Tuesday about the fact that notice given by Senator Saint-Germain was insufficiently detailed, and that means her question of privilege cannot be considered. As to the facts that Senator Saint-Germain laid out Tuesday, I do not question them. I may have experienced some of them differently, but they are what they are.

But the decision you will have to make, Your Honour, is the following: Was there on that evening or since a breach of privilege? The answer, in my opinion, is clearly no. Unless we want to reinvent the notion of parliamentary privilege, there was no breach.

What happened in this chamber on November 9, and what some senators did on social media, offensive as those actions may be, is not covered by privilege. As I said, parliamentary privilege is very narrow. It does not protect senators from being troubled by their behaviour of a colleague. It does not protect senators from sharp language. It does not shield senators from attacks in the media or on social media. However uncomfortable that may make them, it does not mean that Canadians cannot come in front of the Senate Building to voice their opinion. It does not make the Senate, as we debate and vote on legislation that affects the daily lives of all Canadians, into a comfortable ivory tower insulated from the noise and the fury of the political arena.

As said by your predecessors, Your Honour, in the rulings I mentioned, receiving political pressure is an integral part of the job of senators. The issue is whether they are threats and whether they obstruct the work of senators.

This week, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the House of Commons voted a resolution asking the Senate to adopt without amendments Bill C-234. Does anyone feel threatened by this? Will the fact that the elected representatives of Canadians express once again their wish to see this adopted be an impediment on the Senate doing its job? I don’t think so. I don’t think anyone here could argue that.

And if the facts that were presented to you, Your Honour, were covered by privilege, no evidence was presented that the work of a senator or the Senate was impeded. In fact, none of the senators who spoke on Tuesday made reference to the fact that a senator was or is unable to perform their functions. This is the essence of privilege.

From the decisions of your predecessors, Your Honour, it is clear that the facts presented to you by Senator Saint-Germain do not constitute a breach of privilege.

If there were a breach to the decorum or the use of sharp language, it should have been raised as a point of order. That was the appropriate remedy.

And when a senator is threatened, they should never hesitate to report the threat to our security service and to the police. Senator Clement did that, and I commend her for that.

Your Honour, I just have a few minutes left, and I think it’s important for you in taking your decision to look at how this place functions not just on one evening but on a regular basis.

You all know I have been here for quite a while, and not that I think this should be a competition on who gets more maligned in the chamber or in the media, but I think it’s important to share some of my experience since I’ve been a senator.

Some senators sent letters to the leader of the Conservative Party sometime ago asking him to do what they thought I should do. I already talked about Senator Lankin’s letter as it was the subject of a question of privilege I raised when she wrote that letter to our leader.

On October 15, 2020, Senator Dalphond wrote a letter to Erin O’Toole and copied some other Conservative MPs, asking them to pressure me to end Senate obstruction on private bills. Isn’t it somewhat ironic, colleagues, to see that same Senator Dalphond participating in the delaying of Bill C-234?

I have stopped counting the number of ministers, parliamentary secretaries, MPs and senators who have gone on social media to tell me what I should or should not do or to invite followers to contact me.

I will give you just two examples. First, Liberal Parliamentary Secretary Mark Gerretson tweeted this in May, “I am calling on Senator Don Plett to stop stalling and get tough on crime by passing Bill C-21.” He had every right to send this tweet, although the fact that he was accusing me of stalling a bill that we did not yet have in this chamber at the time made him look a little ridiculous.

Senator Klyne has gone on Twitter several times to ask me to speed up passage of Bill C-241. I took no exception to this. He was doing his job. I’m fine with that.

I don’t think any senator receives more personal shots in this chamber than I do, and I’m okay with that. I cannot remember a speech from Senator Woo or Senator Dalphond that did not contain a swipe at either me or our caucus. Are these two ultra‑partisan senators bullies toward me, my colleagues and our staff? Probably, but they are who they are.

May I remind you, Your Honour, that Senator McPhedran insulted me in her maiden speech. She had been here only in a few days and said something that she was forced to retract.

A few years ago, there was a protest right here in front of the Senate building — people calling me names, carrying signs with my picture on it. I could not get through the main door. I had to be escorted to the back door. These protesters were here at the behest of other senators. I don’t recall anyone here calling them out on this — I didn’t.

Just a couple of weeks ago, a group of pro-Palestinian protesters surrounded my car, jumped on my car, beat on the roof of my car and tried to prevent me from driving. It was reported in the media. Part of a daily routine of a senator.

After a committee meeting in 2014, in one night I received 1,300 emails. The Legal Committee was studying the prostitution bill. Let me tell you, none of those emails were kind to me. There were threats; there were doctored pictures of me.

I have been involved in a lot of controversial pieces of legislation over the years. I received tons of messages on dolphins, on conversion therapy, on transgender rights, on prostitution, on the Canadian Wheat Board, on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and on elephants, among others — not all fan mail, I assure you.

Again, I don’t want to diminish in any way what happened on November 9, senators. What I am saying is that violence in public discourse is, sadly, neither new nor specific to the Senate or to some senators. It can be a cancer on our democratic life. For sure, something must be done about it, but there is no simple solution to this. Crucifying one senator over one incident will not change anything about it. Parliamentary privilege is not the tool to change the behaviour of parliamentarians and ordinary citizens.

Now, Your Honour, I will just take a few minutes to reflect personally on what I did Thursday, November 9.

I have reflected on this for some time. Again, Your Honour, thank you for giving us the extra days. I have sought wisdom and advice in hopes of better understanding the situation before us.

What I did Thursday, November 9, did not constitute a question of privilege. But, Your Honour, I conducted myself in a way that I cannot hold myself to. I hold myself in higher regard than how I conducted myself that day.

I never intended to cause harm or discomfort. I acknowledge that I lost my cool. I spoke too loudly — many would say yelled. My wife, when we speak at the dinner table, says many times, “Don’t yell at me.” I have a hearing impediment which causes me, first of all, to talk loudly at the best of times. Then when I raise my voice, that is yelling. And I did. I did get much too loud. My intentions were never to be mean-spirited, and I recognize that I didn’t conduct myself in a manner that I would like.

I have, on occasion, quoted Scripture, and I will quote just one short verse, the Apostle Paul at Ephesians: “Be angry, but do not sin.”

I was angry and I sinned. I was angry and I lost my temper. But being angry is not wrong. I believe I had the right to be angry because I believe we were treated wrong, but I did not have the right to conduct myself the way I did with that anger.

I tell myself countless times, “Count to 10 before you do anything.” I said to my deputy leader today, “When things get heated and I get up, put your hand on my arm which might cause me to just think before I speak.” Unfortunately, our deputy leader has gone through some difficult times and she wasn’t here beside me when this happened. I’m not blaming her. I would like to, but it’s not her fault; it’s mine.

There were real emotions here. I came across to you, Your Honour, and I was much too vocal with you. I didn’t respect your position the way I should have. I apologize to you for that, unreservedly.

I stood in front of Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Clement and I was loud — much too loud. I apologize to both of them for that sincerely and humbly. It was wrong of me.

Quite frankly, I didn’t think that Senator Moncion and I had gotten into a mean-spirited exchange, but it was said in one of the comments that I had. If that was the case, Senator Moncion, thank you.

So, colleagues, I promise that I will try to do better. Will I succeed? I hope you will forgive me if I don’t, but I will try. What I did was wrong. It was unprofessional. It was unbecoming. Mostly, it was unbecoming.

Colleagues, I thank you for your time. I thank you, hopefully, for your understanding.

Your Honour, you will, in due course, come back with your ruling. I do not believe that there is a question of privilege, but, Your Honour, I want you to know that I want to support you going forward. I want to support this chamber going forward, and I will respect your decision. Thank you very much, colleagues.

Thank you, Your Honour, for the opportunity to address this question of privilege, given the fact I was absent on Tuesday and I was named in this question of privilege. Without a doubt, I do not believe this is a question of privilege, as properly highlighted by my colleagues, and I won’t relitigate the procedural aspect of this, but at the end of the day, colleagues, we all know that Senator Clement and Senator Petitclerc were not in any way impeded from carrying out their parliamentary duties.

The only breach of privilege that took place last week on November 9 was clear, and that was the breach upon the rules and procedures of this chamber. And it is incumbent, colleagues, that if we want democracy to function and in order to maintain credibility, those rules have to be supported and defended at all costs. The only privilege that was breached during that particular debate was that we had a colleague get up and move an amendment on a bill, which is well within her right, and it is well within this chamber’s right to demand we ask questions of that amendment and well within the member’s right to take or not take those questions. But it is our fundamental right to be allowed to engage in debate, and that was the only thing breached that particular evening. The adjournment motion was not breached. We exercised that demand on the part of Senator Clement, and the outcome, of course, was never in question.

Colleagues, I have gone back and forth with myself about discussing whether this question is a privilege issue based on procedure, but I think we are beyond that process. That’s not to say I don’t have strong feelings on the importance of following proper procedures, conventions and precedents, which I believe are sometimes either discarded or, in the process of errors, we forget about the importance of them. That was part of our frustration on November 9 and has been for many years in this place. I know a lot of you are also frustrated and that you have grown tired of our tone from time to time, of what some would call our chirping and heckling and what have you. That certainly seemed to be at the core of the debate that took place last Tuesday on the matter.

I can certainly relate there is plenty we’re tired of as well, colleagues. It’s not one side in a debate or in a parliament. My good friend Senator Cardozo, you don’t like to be called a Liberal. We don’t like to be deemed and told we are unable to think and act for ourselves and that we are just here to raise money for political purposes and that, somehow, belonging to a national caucus makes us second class and that, somehow, our work is less meaningful or less important than yours.

I can assure you that my work is just as important and vital as yours is, and the people for whom I speak will tell you that their voice and perspective are also as imperative and important as those of the people for whom you speak. We’re tired of being told otherwise, and it has been going on, colleagues, for eight years, which, unsurprisingly, wasn’t included in your revisionist history, Senator Cardozo. Nevertheless, here we are.

Regardless of who appointed us and why they thought we were worthy of appointment, we are all parliamentarians with the same rights and privileges, which takes me to the substance of the question of privilege as it pertains to my actions, as I have been named. As parliamentarians, we are regularly called upon to answer to Canadians. It’s called accountability and transparency. I have said it before: Even though we’re an appointed chamber, we are no less accountable than the other house.

In our particular instance, as a Conservative caucus, we actually have direct accountability to the democratic house. Public emails and public telephone numbers are part and parcel of that accountability. I assume that’s how we arrive to conclusions of supporting motions and bills and so on and so forth and what positions we take on debate. It is based on the input we get from our citizens. That’s why if you go to the Senate of Canada website, the telephone numbers and your emails, colleagues, are posted. That’s not a breach of privilege. That’s a requirement and, I feel, an obligation that we all have. Our office numbers and emails are there for a reason.

However, I want to be abundantly clear that doesn’t mean Canadians should feel free to use their resources and those particular numbers and emails to bully and intimidate anyone in this chamber or anyone, period. But to reiterate: Whether it is a tweet or a retweet or an interview in the media, an op-ed or a speech at an event or it is being done by stakeholders, we are regularly called upon to answer for our votes and our actions and our speeches or lack thereof in this chamber, as we should be. That is part and parcel of our democracy, it is part of our privileges, and it is part of our obligations.

I feel terrible that in so doing in this case my colleagues were made to feel unsafe. That should never happen, and it is inexcusable. But, colleagues, that has nothing to do with the question of privilege. It seems to me this whole debate we are having is about a comportment and behaviour in this chamber when things get out of hand, as they sometimes do in democracy.

Democracy gets to be messy. It is not always clean, but, colleagues, it is far better than the alternative. We see what’s going on in other countries around the world, and God forbid we ever get to that. It is sometimes better we engage in lively debate and use words sometimes that are above and beyond what we might find acceptable, but in the heat of the moment, that is part of the democratic process.

If we need to have a discussion about enlarging the list of vocabulary that is acceptable or not acceptable in the chamber, well, let’s have that discussion. If we feel that social media and other forms of communication are somewhat reaching into the bounds of hate speech, well, we have laws in the Criminal Code in order to deal with those things. That has nothing to do with privilege, colleagues. But we do have the right to open up those debates and reopen the Broadcasting Act and reopen hate laws in this country if we think they are not efficient and effective.

We can also debate the design merits of the original social media post. Although I’m not a graphic artist, colleagues, I didn’t at the time and still don’t see it as a “Wanted” poster, as Senator Batters pointed out. If I thought that was the case, I can assure you I wouldn’t have liked it or retweeted it. But I do appreciate that others did, and that’s important.

Senator Clement, I thank you for acknowledging that you didn’t believe it was our intent to elicit the response that you endured, and you are absolutely right. It wasn’t at all. But impact often negates intent. I know that. I do feel terrible for what you have endured and perhaps continue to endure, and for your staff as well.

My own staff a few years ago had to reach out to Corporate Security and the Ottawa Police when our office number was published with a close-up picture of my staffer. A subsequent post included a graphic of a headstone with her name, her date of birth and a date of death that was the next day. Tweets calling my staff a “Conservative cum dumpster” — that’s some of the stuff that we unfortunately endure from the public.

Senator Petitclerc, your story also struck a chord with me. I know what it feels like to have to explain awful things to your young son. I had to do it with both of mine early in my Senate career. I remember the terrible bullying my young kids got because of precipitated debate that was happening in this chamber, and the phone calls we used to get, me and my wife, to go pick up our 9- and 12-year-old kids from school. So I know it isn’t fun.

I’m not saying that in any way to diminish what either of you felt or are feeling. On the contrary, I empathize with you and your staff, and I empathize with all my colleagues right now. We are probably all feeling a little more rattled than usual as we see continuous protests on our streets, shots being fired at schools, Molotov cocktails being thrown around. That is, unfortunately, the era of disruption that we are living in, and we bear the brunt of that as parliamentarians.

I do empathize with Senator Clement and Senator Petitclerc. I have worked with both of you. I have the utmost respect for both of you.

With that said, colleagues, I won’t apologize for encouraging Canadians to engage with us and to hold us to account. That’s our job. It’s our job to hold ourselves and each other to account when we disagree with each other, and the only tool we have is through public discourse, communication through the various platforms we have available to us. I caution against introducing mechanisms to dissuade or penalize such calls for accountability, which is the bedrock of our system. Free speech is the most essential part of our democracy.

However, what I can and will do right now is use my position and platform to strongly urge Canadians to engage in a respectful, civilized manner. Holding us to account doesn’t mean anyone in this chamber should be intimidated or subjected to racist or misogynistic language. Again, I feel terrible that happened in this case to Senator Clement and Senator Petitclerc. I don’t and never will condone such behaviour against them or any other parliamentarian or, for that matter, any other Canadian. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the question of privilege relating to the events that occurred after the November 9, 2023, sitting of this chamber and the subsequent developments inside and outside of this chamber.

Specifically, I want to rebut arguments that this question of privilege is out of order because it appears in some way procedurally deficient. I will also rebut the argument that what happened after the sitting on November 9 inside and outside of this chamber, including on social media, is out of order. I will do so using principles relevant to courtrooms, multi-party negotiations and the adjudication of human rights complaints. I will draw on my knowledge and experience as a human rights commissioner because human rights issues are at play in this debate.

I will begin by telling you that I always told complainants, lawyers and investigators that where rights issues were at play, listen carefully, look for and agree to reasonable compromise and, above all, act with the end goal in mind.

With respect to the issues at hand, our hard work today will and must positively shape the tone and tenor of this chamber of sober second thought. I suggest, honourable colleagues, that we begin with the end in mind, that we consider what we do want as senators as opposed to what we do not want. I will offer a short list as a start, and I invite others to add to that list.

First, I believe that we want to enter this chamber each and every day, every time we sit and in every meeting we have as colleagues — from Latin, collega — which is “a partner in office.” Whether we agree or disagree on an issue, we partner in stride to find the best outcomes for Canadians.

The second is that we act with restraint, as our late colleague Senator Shugart asked us to do. He stated that for each of us, for parties and for institutions, restraint may begin with acknowledging that our point of view, legitimate as it is, is not the only point of view.

The third is that we act with honour in every act or action that we take. A month ago, I stood in this chamber to offer my inaugural address. I spoke about the honour of the Crown, that in every action and decision, the women and men who represent the Crown in Canada should conduct themselves as if their personal honour and their family names depended on it. Why? Because the actions of legislators and policy-makers actually shape the actions of the Crown. The principle of the honour of the Crown demands that we, as senators and as Canadians, operating in a mature, democratic society, act with principle from the highest moral standard.

When I speak of the honour of the Crown and I refer to the components of honour, I think of integrity, honesty, empathy, transparency, understanding and respect. We do not need to search for a standard or a line to cross. That is the standard. That is the line. It is a very high standard. Yes, we must rely on and implement the Rules of the Senate and follow the Senate Procedure in Practice — such rules are guardrails against behaviour that we do not want.

Through my tenure as the Chief Commissioner of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, I found that dialogue was far preferable than relying on guardrails if restorative outcomes and healthy workplaces was the desired goal. To be clear, this chamber is our workplace. There are behaviours, actions and words that we do not want to hear or see in our workplace. They have been noted. I won’t speak about them. These issues have been decided in numerous workplaces and in numerous court cases that have spanned the course of the last 50 years. Courts, arbitrators and human rights commissions have spent the better part of the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and well into this current century fine-tuning what is and is not allowed in a Canadian workplace environment.

As a human rights commissioner, I oversaw hundreds of complaints every year for more than 13 years, complaints from large and small businesses, including national corporations and mom-and-pop shops. Canada’s workplaces continue to respond to all the “isms” — ageism, ableism, sexism and racism. It is an unfortunate though reliable truism that where there is one “ism,” all will be present. Where there is ageism, there will be ableism. Where there is sexism, there will be racism, and so on.

If you want to provoke a strong reaction in another person anywhere, whether in a mediation or even on the street, you only need to call out their discriminatory behaviour. Telling a person that their behaviour is racist, for example, elicits a swift, sure and frequently hostile response. No one wants to be told that they are racist. It has been said accountability feels like an attack when you are not ready to acknowledge how your behaviour harms others. No one wants to be confronted with their words, actions or behaviours. Sometimes, however, it needs to happen, because the risk of not doing so invariably foments long-standing acrimony within relationships. Long-term consequences of acrimonious relationships are costly, including damaged morale and productivity.

To be more specific, Senators Clement and Petitclerc have told us that they experienced both verbal and physical bullying and intimidation, online verbal attacks and doxing using their photos and contact information in a way that encouraged and promoted harassment of them personally in their offices, their homes and their personal lives, by extension.

To be clear, there are many ways to define doxing. Doxing is not a law, a rule or a social norm. It is social abnormality. The exercise of parliamentary privilege requires safety in the chamber and in pursuit of the work of senators in this chamber. Fundamentally, doxing is antithetical to the legitimate debate that we need in a free and democratic society.

The concept of doxing was born on the internet. It is fluid. There is not one agreed-upon, lasting definition. Researchers have found widespread evidence of doxing, the act of broadcasting private or identifying information about an individual for the purpose of harassment, particularly racial and gender-based harassment. This release of information is designed with the intent to shame, harm, influence or intimidate a person. That is its fundamental purpose. That is at its core. It is to invite at one’s behest others to do that in one’s stead or as one’s agent.

Some of our colleagues have already spoken about the disproportionate gender-based impacts of this kind of behaviour. Senators, I am not so bold as to speak for the women in our groups or across the chamber. Senators Saint-Germain, Clement, Petitclerc, Dupuis, Miville-Dechêne, Moncion, Pate and McPhedran have made that case very well.

I will offer one insight and one experience from my time serving as a human rights commissioner. I believe one of the main distinguishing features of the issue before you, Your Honour, is the intersectionality of gender, race and disability.

First, women are disproportionately affected by workplace harassment, and this harassment is exacerbated by the intersectionality of identities, including race, perceived race and disability.

Second, this is not random or infrequent. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission was fortunate to partner with academic, legal and business communities in an ongoing campaign to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. At one of the first meetings of that group, held at the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan and around a table filled exclusively by women who were lawyers, educators, experts and all leaders in their fields, each person relayed the first time they were harassed, and each person relayed the most recent time they were harassed. These events, and every event in between, is etched permanently in their memories. That was very clear. These are no small matters. They must be taken seriously and must be considered in the light of apparent intersectionalities.

Colleagues, we can, if we want, have our human resources specialists and our legal advisers provide us all with guidance, as they regularly do at the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. We will certainly benefit from the wisdom of the Speaker — I say to you, colleagues — as she is now required to do.

There has been a big change in the context of what has happened here, and there has been a big change in the context — over the last decade — on these very issues. Based on experience, I would observe that often meaningful, compelling and durable solutions arise from dialogue, and that we can ensure durable and ongoing accountability through debate, and that we can respond effectively to any harms that arise. As Senator Gold stated concerning the events of November 9, it was not our finest hour; that is true. Is there a silver lining to be gleaned? I believe there is.

Two days ago, on the evening of November 21, in this chamber, we witnessed a dialogue between Senator Moncion and Senator Wells. I invite you all to review the recording of that exchange. Our colleagues mediated and resolved their concerns in our presence. In many ways, this was akin to many family group conferences and sentencing circles that I have witnessed, and akin to effective conflict resolution mechanisms used by human rights commissions to settle complaints; used by unions to settle labour disputes; and used by international negotiators. That night, facts, perceptions and feelings were exchanged in this chamber. Their dialogue led to what — in the world of mediation — is called a “resolution.” We all witnessed restorative justice in action that night. It was compelling. I, for one, felt relief. I commend Senator Wells and Senator Moncion for their courage, their empathy and the respect that they obviously have for each other and their colleagues here in the Senate.

Honourable senators, debating these issues defines us, as well as what we do as senators. It is, if you will, our bread and butter. At its best, debate is healthy and constructive. I believe that we all deserve and desire a workplace where our relationships with our colleagues — regardless of affiliation — as well as with our advisers and with the professionals that we rely on, enable this chamber to function effectively. It is incumbent on us, as senators, to never counsel, aid or abet bullying, intimidation or harassment — not in this chamber, not in our Senate offices, not in the streets and not in our communities. Above all, it is our responsibility to demonstrate respect, and uphold our individual and collective rights and best interests.

Honourable senators, we are Canadians tasked with the privilege of serving our fellow citizens. Our service must, in all ways, reflect partnership, restraint and the honour of the Crown in order to uphold the honour of the Senate. Thank you.

I want to sincerely thank the senators for their contributions. Before taking the matter under advisement, I will follow general practice by asking Senator Saint-Germain, who raised the question of privilege, if she has any final remarks to make.

I sincerely thank you, Madam Speaker, for respecting this general practice and giving me this opportunity to speak. I appreciate it. I want to reiterate the importance of your decision for our institution and for the future of our work.

First, allow me to reiterate that any threat or attempt to influence the votes or actions of a member is a breach of privilege. According to Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, “Direct threats which attempt to influence Members’ actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege.” You could refer to this, Your Honour, in my brief, which I presented on Tuesday.

I have one additional element to argue about, and it relates to the standard against which alleged violations of parliamentary privilege should be measured. In his statements on Tuesday and again today, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate observed that he is passionate in his work and commitments, and true to his own values. I truly respect that, and I will add that I have the utmost respect for Senator Plett’s dedication to fulfill his parliamentary duties.

I’m also surprised by Senator Batters underestimating the link between the original tweet from the Conservative MP and what both Senator Clement and Senator Petitclerc had to go through. When we share a tweet, we obviously support and contribute to promoting its content unless we state that this is not the case. Senator Batters’s retweet did not state that.

However, if passion, commitment and a personal value framework — on their own — are used to justify a senator’s behaviour, it then constitutes a subjective standard against which alleged violations of privilege would be measured. The resulting approach would be that an institution’s expected standards would have to bend to the individual senator’s personal sense of what is acceptable. If this is the approach adopted in this chamber, it leads to anarchy. Any senator could plead good faith as a defence of his or her actions, however egregious. Indeed, this approach cannot be allowed to govern these questions. The standard must be an objective one. While this is not explicit in our governing documents, it is obviously the right and necessary approach.

The House of Lords — a chamber with which we share so much and draw inspiration from — has addressed this question of personal honour argued by Senator Plett. Let me quote the code from the House of Lords:

. . . the term ‘personal honour’ is ultimately an expression of the sense of the House as a whole as to the standards of conduct expected of individual members . . . members cannot rely simply on their own personal sense of what is honourable. They are required to act in accordance with the standards expected by the House as a whole. ‘Personal honour’ is thus . . . a matter for individual members, subject to the sense and culture of the House as a whole.

Your Honour, I respectfully submit that this is what our approach should be. To put it quite clearly, the conduct of some senators, which I described extensively in my speech on Tuesday, grossly failed this standard, hence breaching the privilege of members and bringing dishonour to our honourable institution. Your Honour, it is with the utmost respect that I am now deferring to you and will wait for your ruling. Thank you.

Thank you, again, to everyone. Pursuant to rule 2-5(1), I will take this question of privilege under advisement.