It is now 8 p.m. Pursuant to rule 13-6(2), debate on the motion of Senator Saint-Germain, seconded by Senator Clement, concerning the case of privilege will now begin.

Before calling on Senator Saint-Germain, I wish to remind you that pursuant to rule 13-6(3), the speaking time for all senators is 15 minutes, and there is not a right for final reply. Debate is, pursuant to rules 13-6(4) and (5), limited to a maximum of three hours, which may normally be spread over several sittings. If, however, the debate is still under way at midnight today, it cannot, pursuant to rule 13-6(6), be adjourned, and the sitting continues.

If the debate extends beyond midnight, any standing vote requested once the debate ends shall automatically be deferred, pursuant to rule 13-6(8).

Pursuant to the order of September 21, 2022, it will take place on Wednesday at 4:15 p.m.

Once debate has ended, the sitting will continue, pursuant to rule 13-6(10) of the Rules until the earliest of the following:

(a) the end of Orders of the Day;

(b) the adoption of a motion to adjourn;

(c) the hour beyond midnight which is equivalent to the duration of the debate on the motion.

Your Honour, I want to begin my intervention by saluting you for this solid and rigorously supported decision, a decision that will guide our doctrine for decades to come and, I am confident, will have a positive influence on our behaviour in respecting the principle of restraint.

Honourable colleagues, as the senator who initiated this question of privilege, and in accordance with rule 13-6(1), I have moved a motion seeking a remedy to this question of privilege. I propose in this motion that the remedy should be for this case to be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators.

Now that this motion is being debated by this chamber, allow me to explain why I have proposed this remedy, which I believe to be the most efficient and the most appropriate way to deal with the situation we have before us.

In her decision, the Speaker was clear in establishing a breach of privilege. Hence, neither privilege nor any of our rules in this case need to be studied, interpreted or amended. This is not the root of the issue, and it is not the remedy this chamber needs. Rather, we are faced with a question of ethics and behaviour.

As we all know, colleagues, the Ethics Committee has the mandate, the expertise and the experience to deal with these kinds of issues. They have done so many times in the past when the conduct of a senator had not been up to the standards of this institution. Members of the Ethics Committee are appointed to this committee by their group precisely because they are trusted to deal with matters that are sensitive in nature.

In my opinion, the best way to address the decision we have received today is to let the trusted members of the Ethics Committee establish the appropriate redress. The aim of this corrective action is to adapt the instruments that govern our conduct to today’s higher expectations and demands. We need to ensure a working environment conducive to debate, which, however rigorous and passionate, must never impede our freedom of expression.

I also believe that the Ethics Committee must study and, if necessary, suggest changes to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators in light of this decision. It is very plausible that the study of this case generates improvements to our code regarding aspects governing our conduct in the chamber and in committees. We need to clearly address what conduct is acceptable and what conduct is unacceptable.

As I stated in my closing remarks to this question of privilege on November 23, I believe that part of the answer resides with the example of the House of Lords and the changes that have been made to their own code.

The committee should study the following articles of the code that are in direct relation to the established breach of privilege: articles 7.1(1) and 7.1(2) on general conduct, article 7.2 on conduct during parliamentary duties and functions, as well as article 7.3 on harassment and violence. Should inappropriate conduct happen again, this is the best way to ensure that we are equipped to deal with it efficiently and in a sustainable manner.

According to its mandate, the Ethics Committee is responsible for:

. . . all matters relating to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators . . . including all forms involving senators that are used in its administration, subject to the general jurisdiction of the Senate.

It is, in fact, only logical for them to be given this important mandate. It is, in fact, the only authority that could be trusted with this mandate.

Colleagues, when we are sworn in as members of this chamber, we are given, for the remainder of our lives, the title of “honourable.” This means that we are held to the highest standards of conduct and decorum. This is vital for our own benefit in order to correctly conduct our duties, but, more importantly, it is vital for the confidence of the Canadian public in the upper chamber of their Parliament. The Senate needs to be an example Canadians can look up to with pride.

If I may now speak for my other colleagues impacted by the events that unfolded on November 9 and in the following days — Senator Bernadette Clement and Senator Chantal Petitclerc — I would simply express how important it is for us to have a healthy working environment. As such, we extend a hand to our colleagues involved in this situation. We hope that despite some differences of opinion, we can work together constructively and that this unfortunate event can be a wake-up call that contributes to us working together with respect for one another.

This event was regrettable and difficult for everyone. I acknowledge Senator Plett’s apology, which Senator Clement accepted, even publicly, and I welcome it as an olive branch. I want to make it clear that I’m not seeking personal sanctions by this motion. Rather, I want to work for the future.

In the Senate, the work we do is demanding. It means we must leave our regions and our families, suffer long travel delays, often sit for long hours, sometimes well into the night, scrutinizing important and complex legislation. We have no control over that, but if there is one thing that we can control, it is the way we treat each other and the climate in which we all work together as esteemed colleagues.

In conclusion, I would also say that the worst behaviour that could be added to the one of November 9 is to play the Rules in order to avoid this debate, to drag out this decision in the hope that it will die on the Order Paper. The honourable thing to do is not to evade the issue but to work toward a solution.

Colleagues, let’s ensure that this question is addressed by the right authority and give the mandate to the Standing Senate Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators to provide us with a remedy so that we can move forward together from these events and ensure that, as honourable senators, we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards of conduct.

Thanks again, Your Honour. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Colleagues, in the words of the Speaker’s ruling that was delivered today, and I will quote from a passage on page 3:

 . . . nothing could justify such a disproportionate reaction in a chamber that normally prides itself on its role of sober second thought .

The decision states the following at page 11:

The events of November 9 involved a disproportionate reaction to a motion to adjourn debate .

On page 3, once again, it states the following:

The exceptional chaos continued while the bells were ringing . . .

On page 7 we read as follows:

Senators have recognized the importance of the issue . . .

On page 7, it states the following:

Senators told us about troubling effects flowing from the events of November 9. I am sure you were all disturbed to hear of these.

On page 8, we can read the following:

 . . . as many senators noted, we must be mindful that social media can be especially harmful towards women, racialized Canadians, and other equity-seeking groups, who are often disproportionately targeted.

On page 9, it states the following:

 . . . we cannot lose track of how words and acts are understood by the recipient, and how they are perceived by other third parties . . .

On page 10, it states the following:

The composition and culture of the Senate have changed, and several colleagues spoke eloquently about the interweaving of issues of gender, ethnicity and physical ability in the events of November 9.

On page 11, we read as follows:

We must adapt to the fact that behaviour that may once have been tolerated is no longer acceptable.

On page 12, it states the following:

All these events can be understood as attempts to intimidate colleagues and to unduly constrain, or even to extract retribution against them in the performance of their duties as parliamentarians.

On page 12, it also states, and I quote:

Assaulting, threatening, or insulting a [parliamentarian] during a proceeding of Parliament, or while the [parliamentarian] is circulating within the Parliamentary Precinct, is a violation of the rights of Parliament.

On page 13, it states the following:

As the definition of privilege in the Rules notes, “freedom of speech in the Senate and its committees … and, in general, freedom from obstruction and intimidation” are core rights necessary for us to perform our duties as members of this house.

Again on page 13, it continues as follows:

Senators should not have to fear for their safety or about any retribution for the simple act of moving a motion or voting.

On page 14, we read the following:

When people are treated in a demeaning way, it can have lasting effects in ways that may not always be anticipated by others. In brief, intimidation is intimidation when it is attempted; the intimidation does not have to be successful to be unacceptable.

Again on page 14, it continues as follows:

Senators, in the Senate Chamber, felt threatened and insulted and intimidated.

On pages 14 and 15, we read the following:

Even if senators did not intend to intimidate or threaten in their words or actions that day, that is how these actions were received and how they were understood by others. This situation must be corrected so that we can carry out our responsibilities in Parliament.

On page 15:

 . . . actions touching on the intimidation of senators relating to the performance of their parliamentary duties. There was an extremely tight nexus of cause and effect that clearly relates to privilege. Senators, acting within the framework of the Rules, were made to feel intimidated.

On page 16:

The right to vote and decide issues, free of intimidation and threat, is perhaps the most essential privilege afforded to senators, allowing us to collectively reach considered decisions.

That is why, colleagues, I support the motion to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators for examination and report, with a view to obtaining its recommendations on the following elements.

For the Senate as a parliamentary institution: an amendment to section 7.3 of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators providing that harassment and intimidation constitute serious breaches of sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the code; an amendment defining any conduct contrary to sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators as covered, regardless of the means of expression or communication used to propagate it, including social media; an amendment to the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators providing that gestures of intimidation in front of the Speaker’s chair and in front of the person occupying the chair constitute breaches of section 7.11 of the code.

For the women senators who were directly targeted, intimidated and harassed: appropriate redress in the circumstances, consistent with the gravity of the breach of their privilege; measures providing for at least one legal consultation concerning their rights and remedies in the circumstances where the merits of the question of privilege are recognized; measures that take into account the fact that they are exercising duties of authority on behalf of a recognized parliamentary group, which increases the gravity of the breach of privilege.

For all other senators and for the entire Senate community, and even outside the Senate: measures to address the systemic aspect raised by the question of privilege that has now been recognized.

Thank you.