Honourable senators, I rise to respond to the comments made by Senator Don Plett yesterday in what he said was a point of order. I will address two things, first to say that this is not a point of order, and second to explain clearly why my name is connected to this letter.

Before I get into the details, let me say this: This letter was not anonymous by any stretch. I was asked by a friend, Mr. Carl Nicholson, to help draft a letter, which I did. I assumed he made any changes he wanted to and sent it to the committee members in the House as his letter, with his name and email address clearly stated, sent by him from his computer. The metadata shows my name because I wrote the first draft, but the letter remains that of Mr. Nicholson.

I do not see that this is a point of order, as I cannot identify a Senate rule that has been breached by any action in the Senate. Page 215 of Senate Procedure in Practice defines a point of order as follows:

A point of order is a complaint or question raised by a senator who believes that the rules, procedures or customary practices of the Senate have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during chamber or committee proceedings. . . .

Nothing raised by the senator relates to the supposed incorrect application of the rules, procedures or customary practices in the chamber or committee proceedings. The allegation that I helped someone write a letter to express their view is something I readily confirm. This is not a point of order. It is an expression of opinion from the senator, inappropriately framed as a point of order.

Your Honour, I would say a little by way of context. As a Canadian patriot and nationalist who is deeply proud to serve in the Parliament of Canada, the election of the Honourable Greg Fergus as Speaker in the other house was a source of great pride and happiness. After over a century and a half of existence, by popular vote, the first Black Canadian Speaker of one of our houses of Parliament was elected. I’m sure every Canadian had some sense of pride in this. I was happy to see the images of both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, dragging Mr. Fergus to his seat, as is the custom in that place.

Your Honour, you will be glad that you did not have to endure the indignity of being dragged to your seat when you became Speaker of this house of sober second thought.

I also revelled to see the images of Speaker Fergus in the Speaker’s robes with the three-pointed hat and a great big, proud smile, all in place with one new and exciting factor — that it was a Black person in that uniform.

So when there was a major attempt to drag him down a bare two months later, it hit many Canadians like a punch in the gut. To be frank, it felt like it cut right into my soul. It was deeply concerning. Colleagues, I want you to understand that this attempted political takedown cut deeply into the very being of many of us who are people of colour and, I would add, many people who have dedicated their lives to racial equality, whatever their background.

Over the last weekend, many of us were talking to people as the Procedure and House Affairs Committee was about to undertake their review at high speed, leaving no room for Canadians to formally participate. For many, this kind of swift process can breed cynicism and distrust in our political system, something I want to see avoided whenever possible.

To some, this might seem like a minor internal issue. I ask you to see the different paradigm that other Canadians were seeing — that it was a major national issue that spoke to who we are as a people. Who gets to participate, and who doesn’t? With all due respect, including to Mr. Fergus — and my guess is that he understands this — him becoming Speaker and then this role being threatened was less about him as an individual and more about the symbolism, message and history of this country that is being written here and now.

To many of us, it was a great moment in Canadian history when he was elected — and would be a terrible moment in our history if he were taken down so fast for what we now see other Speakers have done before. This is why people ask: Why do Black people face a different standard of justice than White people?

Those of us who felt sick over this were deeply concerned about this negative campaign and what it means for our beloved country. It was a historic wrong that was about to happen in real time, and Canadians had no way to participate.

When a good friend, who was deeply troubled about the affairs in Parliament, asked me to help draft a letter, I was pleased to do just that — draft a letter, which he finalized and sent in his name. There was nothing anonymous about it. This was perfectly acceptable in my role as a Canadian and a Canadian senator.

I am left wondering if there’s a pattern. First, there is an attempt to marginalize a Black person who occupies one of the most senior positions in our democratic system, and then the writer of a letter, who even identified himself as a Black person, is marginalized as not worthy of signing his own name to the letter. Instead, his letter is attributed to the person who suggested the first draft.

Senators, consider this irony: To ignore Mr. Nicholson’s ownership of this letter he sent is to deny the ownership of every letter that every senator has ever signed that he or she has not drafted themselves. This institution, according to this definition, has produced thousands of anonymous letters throughout the history of Canada. We never refer to senators as sending anonymous letters, so why do so here?

As the kids say, “Hmm. Interesting.”

You may not know Mr. Nicholson, but let me say a few words about this Canadian who has made major contributions in Ottawa and elsewhere. His earlier career was in international development in Africa, and over the last two or three decades, he’s been the executive director of the Catholic Centre for Immigrants, which is where I met him and was impressed with his accomplishments for that venerable organization. He has served on the Police Services Board and received numerous awards. He is a husband, father and grandfather, as well as a thoughtful and strategic thinker in advancing equality who has helped and mentored many young Canadians.

His wise counsel has been sought by mayors of Ottawa and immigration ministers of all parties, so he deserves the dignity of having his name and identity recognized. And for your information, this letter was drafted on my personal laptop, clearly, over that weekend.

Senator Plett made another comment, saying:

I’m pretty sure Senator Cardozo would be the first to jump up if Pierre Poilievre sent a letter to members of the Senate Ethics Committee asking them to go easy on a Conservative senator. . . .

That is, of course, completely gratuitous. It only speaks to the senator’s partisanship, not mine. Indeed, a few days ago, Mr. Poilievre and another party voted to send us their views about Bill C-234 and tell us what to do. I welcomed that intervention, because I believe interaction between our two chambers is a good thing.

You will know that I am a strong proponent of this and have organized meetings between our two chambers. You will be aware that a few days ago, when two ministers were here, as I asked a question, I welcomed them here and asked them to increase their interaction with us. I did the same with Minister Guilbeault in this chamber a couple of weeks ago. In June, I hosted a very nice gathering in my office for the Honourable Erin O’Toole, who was about to retire, and it was attended by members of Parliament and senators of all affiliations.

So, Senator Plett, here is my request to you: that you and I co‑organize a conversation with Mr. Poilievre — in my office or yours — and I’m happy to take a shot at drafting the letter of invitation.

I want to talk about one other issue that the senator mentioned. He said, and I paraphrase: “What I do take issue with is that the letter was written by a senator who is not Black.”

I don’t know what the answer is to that question, but let me share a couple of things with you as to how I come to my approach to this life.

I think all of us who have kids or young people in our lives learn from them. I recall my son, when he was about four or five years old, was getting into trouble in the schoolyard. I remember trying to work through it with him. The reason he was getting into trouble was because he played with a bunch of friends who would pick on a couple of other kids. My son would stand up for those kids and stop the bullying, and ultimately he would get into trouble because he would be in some kind of fight.

I had to talk to him about that. The only thing I could think of saying to him was, “You weren’t bullied. Leave those kids alone and turn the other way.” I never said that to him. He wouldn’t have tolerated it at his age, but at his little age of 4 or 5, in his little mind and his little conscience, he knew he had to do something.

My daughter educated me about gender diversity and gender expression, even though it’s an issue that does not affect her personally. My kids have educated me about these issues, and I appreciate that.

Look around this room. Senator Wells, who, as far as I know, is not a farmer and not from the grain drying industry, educated us about grain drying because he believed it was important. Senator Moodie, who is not from the child-care industry, educated us about national child care.

When I went across the room a few weeks ago when there was a kerfuffle, and three women senators were under threat, it seemed, I didn’t do that because I was a woman or because I was a member of the Independent Senators Group. Senator Loffreda sponsored the Hellenic Heritage Month Bill, even though he’s not a Greek Canadian.

In response to the good senator, I would only say that I really hope that it is not only Black Canadians who stand up for Black people, and for that matter, not only Maritimers who speak up about the Chignecto Isthmus. As senators, we have a duty to care for each other.

Colleagues, I really appreciate your time this Friday morning as I respond to this attempted point of order that was brought in almost under the cover of darkness yesterday. Expect me to always stand with Canadians who seek justice and look to parliamentarians to be fair, considerate and just. If I stop doing that, I don’t deserve to take a seat in this Parliament.

Your Honour, I think you will agree that this is a frivolous allegation and not a point of order by any stretch. Thank you, colleagues.