Earlier today, honourable senators, pursuant to rule 13-3, Senator Tkachuk gave both written and oral notice of a question of privilege. According to rule 13-5(1), I now recognize Senator Tkachuk.

Honourable senators, Senate rule 13-1 states:

A violation of the privileges of any one Senator affects all Senators and the ability of the Senate to carry out its functions. The preservation of the privilege of the Senate is the duty of every Senator and has priority over every other matter before the Senate.

We take this rule seriously, senators, and we should. We also take seriously the inviolability of our in camera proceedings. As Beauchesne’s makes clear, the publication of the proceedings or reports of committees sitting in camera is a breach of privilege.

The senators on the Transport Committee are very well aware of that. They know that discussions during in camera proceedings are to remain in camera, and they are particularly aware of that because the committee had a discussion very recently about making public the in camera proceedings that took place at their meeting on February 19. While the motion to make these proceedings public was generally agreed to by the senators present, a few of the senators who took part in that in camera meeting were not present to give their approval. In the end, those senators did not give their permission, so the proceedings remained in camera.

Some senators were not happy, but as we and the clerk explained, those are the rules.

Enter Senator Simons, who was at that meeting. She was aware that the proceedings had to remain in camera and yet still saw fit to publish on Twitter and Facebook portions of our in camera discussion related to travel on Bill C-48. As I did in my letter to the clerk, let me elaborate on what she wrote. On Twitter, first, she began by writing:

So. I got off the plane to see heated allegations on line that I have betrayed Alberta re C-48 and that I voted against committee travel. That’s not precisely true. Allow me tell you what actually happened, if I may.

By way of explanation, she then wrote:

The Conservatives proposed that we travel to Norway, the Netherlands, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Such a trip would have cost well over $1 million, and I opposed it. I thought it was an unjustifiable expense. I wouldn’t ask taxpayers to stand for it.

She then wrote:

Next, the Conservatives suggested we travel to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Again, I couldn’t see how that applied to getting information about a west coast tanker ban.

In the tweet following that, she wrote:

Some of the rest of us on the committee countered with a plan to visit Prince Rupert and Terrace, where we could hear pro and con arguments and see the area in question for ourselves. . . .

All of the discussions referenced in these tweets took place in camera and should never have been revealed publicly.

Furthermore, Senator Simons did not confine herself to Twitter in revealing the content of in camera proceedings but availed herself of a lengthy post on Facebook, where, in regard to the same in camera discussion that took place on February 19, she wrote:

Some people on the committee had what you might call very ambitious travel visions. We came back from our break to find a proposal before us for a huge international trip, with stops in Norway, the Netherlands, the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. To me, that was going to be a very dubious use of our time and money. I pushed back pretty hard against that plan. Others on the committee questioned whether we should travel at all. They argued that we could hear all the witnesses we needed to hear in Ottawa or via video conference. Since the committee had never travelled in the past, they could see no reason, no justification, for us to travel at all. Others of us on the committee, myself included, looked for a compromise. To us, it made sense to travel to the coast in question and to hear from the people most directly affected — people who might not otherwise have the chance to make their voices heard.

This portion of her post on Facebook was also the publication of committee proceedings that took place among senators in camera.

Senator Simons seems to believe that, while it is the duty of every other senator to preserve the privilege of the Senate, that does not apply to her. I say this because she is very clear about why she felt the need to violate the sanctity of in camera proceedings. As she wrote, she got off the plane to allegations that she had betrayed Alberta. Any concern about the privileges of other senators was cast aside in order to burnish her own image. What is most egregious about this breach is that it leaves other senators unable to defend themselves without violating the in camera nature of the discussion that took place.

I’m particularly concerned by Senator Simons’ tweet quoted above that:

The Conservatives proposed that we travel to Norway, the Netherlands, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Such a trip would have cost well over $1 million, and I opposed it. I thought it was an unjustifiable expense. I wouldn’t ask taxpayers to stand for it.

This leaves the impression, first, that Conservatives were being blissfully frivolous about the use of taxpayers’ dollars and, second, that Senator Simons bravely led the charge against such unjustifiable expenses.

While I do not want to violate the confidential nature of the discussion Senator Simons is referring to, I can tell you this: I and I alone, without consulting any colleagues and in my capacity as chair, asked the library to prepare a draft travel proposal, and that proposal was intended as nothing more than a document to stimulate the very discussion that took place. As for it being a Conservative proposal, I would ask His Honour to take a look at the in camera transcripts and pay particular attention to an exchange between the chair and another senator over the origin of the travel proposal, as well as the comments of other Conservative senators present regarding international travel.

Honourable senators, this breach of privilege is made worse by the self-serving, self-ennobling interpretation of the in camera discussion that Senator Simons portrayed in her tweets and on Facebook. It is made even worse by the mischaracterization of the views and the opinions of others during that discussion, knowing full well that unless they, too, were willing to breach other senators’ privileges, senators who participated in that discussion could not defend themselves.

Honourable senators, 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.

Honourable senators, I would like to add a few words to what Senator Tkachuk has said. I was at the meeting in question, and I, too, am quite alarmed and concerned with Senator Simons’ tweets when they were brought to my attention.

Colleagues, whether due to inexperience or the flouting the rules, I do not know, but in my opinion, a breach of privilege is clear and concerning.

The particular committee meeting included both an in camera portion and a public portion. The transcript of the public portion shows quite clearly that the debate was contentious; there is no question about that. However, that does not excuse Senator Simons’ flagrant violation of the rules. As Senator Tkachuk has very ably said, all the references in these tweets took place in camera and should never have been revealed publicly.

As I said, I was there. We have no means of defending ourselves, because by defending ourselves, we have to commit that same breach of privilege. We have to say that what Senator Simons said isn’t correct, because it was an in camera meeting. So not only did she breach a privilege; she prevents us from defending ourselves.

In camera meetings, as senators know, allow for frank discussions because it is an environment which is understood to be confidential. If this confidentiality is breached, it is not only a serious breach of privilege, but it also impacts the confidence of senators to speak openly in future in camera meetings. This was not a simple slip of the tongue. Senator Simons provided a blow-by-blow, detailed account of what happened in an in camera meeting, and this, colleagues, is outrageous.

Furthermore, Senator Simons’ public comments were not only a breach of that confidentiality but, as Senator Tkachuk has indicated, they also misrepresented what took place in the meeting. And I can’t tell you what took place in the meeting.

But it doesn’t end there. Senator Simons’ breach of privilege included information, again, that is simply not true. She said in one of her tweets:

Since the committee had never traveled in the past, they could see no reason, no justification, for travel at all.

As senators know, the Transport Committee has travelled in the last few years on its study on automated vehicles and its study on pipelines. The Finance Committee did a thorough travel plan.

Senator Simons is a senator who has quite a following. For those of us who read articles in The Hill Times this week when they reported on senators of influence, they listed Senator Simons as one senator who has a lot of influence in the independent side of this chamber.

Senator Simons has more Twitter followers than the entire Senate. She has 47,000 Twitter followers that read what we discussed in an in camera meeting. This is not just a simple slip of the tongue where a dozen or two dozen, even a hundred people read it; 47,000 people know what we discussed in an in camera meeting and the conversations we’ve had there.

Colleagues, I say this with the highest degree of respect. When Justin Trudeau appointed many of the people opposite to this chamber because he wanted to reform the Senate and make this a better place, is that making this a better place? I’m partisan and I admit to it, and I will fight for my beliefs, but I hope I will do that with integrity.

As I said earlier, I try to be a man of my word. Maybe I slip occasionally. As Senator Lankin pointed out, I might have, and I’m sure I have over the years. But this wasn’t a slip. This was a flagrant violation of our rules, Your Honour. I sincerely hope that you will find clearly that our privilege was compromised, where we will no longer be able to properly speak in an in camera meeting if you do not rule in favour of Senator Tkachuk’s motion of privilege. Thank you, colleagues.

It’s normally not in order in this place to draw attention to an honourable senator’s absence from the chamber, but with Senator Simons’ agreement, I want to inform the chamber that she is absent dealing with planned medical matters. Senator Tkachuk, I believe you are aware of this, as she sent you a letter a few weeks ago informing you of this in your role as committee chair.

In speaking with Senator Simons today, she has asked me to relay the following to all of you. She wants to clearly state that Senator Tkachuk’s assertions are correct. She agrees with him, given what she now understands, that she incorrectly revealed some parts of what took place in an in camera session of the committee.

Of course, there is, as always, context to what happened, but she does not rely on that as an excuse. Senator Simons wishes to offer her unreserved apology to her committee colleagues and to every one of her honourable colleagues in this chamber.

I understand that on the question of whether or not a prima facie case has been made, the Speaker may rule immediately or may take this under advisement in order to consider the four criteria that must be met. I also understand, according to Appendix IV of the Rules of the Senate, matters of this specific nature are usually taken up first with the committee in question. Nothing, of course, prohibits an individual senator from raising a point of privilege, as Senator Tkachuk has done. But again, according to Appendix IV of the Rules of the Senate, if the Speaker were to rule immediately that there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege, any subsequent motion would be deferred until the committee in question first dealt with the issue.

Your Honour, if you make such a finding this evening, and if Senator Tkachuk proceeds with his intended motion regarding sanctions, or process, as he has indicated the motion would be, it would be my intent to move adjournment of the debate to allow Senator Simons to be here in person to respond to his suggested approach.

Your Honour, as only one of her Senate colleagues, I personally accept her sincere apology and wish her well with her medical matters. Thank you.

I too want to rise in support of my honourable colleague Senator Tkachuk’s point of privilege today. I think, colleagues, it’s a point of privilege that is so fundamental and goes to the core of our parliamentary system. Nothing is more sacrosanct than our parliamentary privilege as parliamentarians. And nothing is more important in our day-to-day toolbox in order to be able to conduct our work in this place.

My concern, colleagues, is not the fact that we have undoubtedly had a breach, but the question I have is why? In my decade of service in this august chamber, I don’t recall ever such a breach of privilege by any of my colleagues. I believe the reason for that isn’t that some senators are more merit and others are non-merit appointments. I believe it’s simply due to the fact that when we all came to this chamber, we all came to understand that we had something to learn about this institution. It doesn’t matter how much political experience you had or didn’t have or from which walks of life you came; you came here with the understanding that this is the upper chamber, the Parliament of Canada. It has rules. It’s based on the Constitution and on the Parliament of Canada Act.

We have procedures, precedents and rules that have to be respected. Some are rigid and some are intentionally malleable depending on the circumstance. Just because someone can come in here and think they’re innately more knowledgeable or innately more merit-based doesn’t give them the right or the belief they can change those rules on a whim because they know better.

But to be as egregious as to basically trample on the privilege of in camera meetings of committees is very serious. We have in camera meetings for a variety of reasons; some are technical, some are questions of confidentiality, particularly in the case of Internal Economy; some of them are very sensitive political issues. But at the end of the day, whichever side of the debate you’re on, you respect the privilege of your fellow parliamentarians. You don’t put them in the predicament that Senator Simons put her colleagues in.

We have experimented over the last few months with some new approaches to Parliament, and we’ve trampled upon some of those fundamental privileges of the Parliament of Canada Act, of privilege, and we do it on a regular basis, and it’s becoming very disconcerting. We saw it earlier this evening, something that was unprecedented. And we saw recently something again on the part of Senator Simons, which is also unprecedented. I don’t know where this is going and where this will end, but at some particular point in time I think those of us who come to this institution as new arrivals should look at the veterans of this place and learn from them the way I did.

When I arrived here, there were people like Senator Comeau, Senator Cowan and Senator Fraser on both sides of the chamber. I learned from and worked with veteran senators on both sides of the chamber, including Senator Tkachuk. I had the privilege of working closely with His Honour the Speaker, Senator Furey, in various capacities. Before you learn how to sprint, you learn how to walk and run. I think we have to be respectful of this institution, the Constitution and the foundations we stand on.

I believe, Your Honour, that this is clearly a breach of privilege. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I would like to make a few points to support this question of privilege by Senator Tkachuk. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan. I am not a member of the Transport Committee, but I am deputy chair of the Internal Economy Committee. Our Internal Economy Committee dealt with the Bill C-48 travel budget at our last meeting. And at that meeting, I and others raised significant concerns that the Transport Committee would not be travelling to Alberta or Saskatchewan on a bill which so dramatically affects the oil and gas industry in our provinces.

Then, being a senator who has been active on social media, I watched this debate play out on social media when I got home a day or so later. Many people who follow my Twitter account expressed serious concerns that this committee was not going to Alberta or Saskatchewan, and then there was Senator Simons trying to justify that she was standing up for Alberta with her vote on this, and justifying it with those particular reasons that have been enunciated by Senator Tkachuk. Then I find out that she improperly used in camera discussions to do this.

This affects, Your Honour, a broader range of senators other than just those on the Energy Committee. It also affects those of us from the Conservative side, from Alberta and Saskatchewan, who could not defend the actions of our caucus colleagues on that. In addition, Your Honour, Senator Simons has 47,000 followers on Twitter. She also has an additional 8,000 on Facebook. What I’m wondering is, how many of those 55,000 people who follow her on social media will ever find out about this? Thank you.

I want to add a few closing comments on some of the issues that were raised. Yes, I did know that Senator Simons was at home, but I had to raise it now because it was the first opportunity. I understand that. But also, she has some of the same issues I have so I sent a note to her and wished her well, and I still wish her well.

I’m asking for a prima facie case here and hopefully that it will be moved to the Rules Committee. People who have been around a while know that if you’re found guilty of something, we don’t flog anybody. If His Honour finds in my favour and we’re able to move this motion to the Rules Committee, it’s an opportunity for that committee to examine why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again. There will be other senators who will be appointed, there will be new senators and this thing will happen again, and that’s not a good thing. This was not a good thing that happened. It was not.

I was sitting there, Senator Plett was sitting there, Senator Manning and Senator Boisvenu. We know that’s not what happened, but we can’t talk about it. This is not something that can just be sent away with an apology. This is something that has to be examined. This is something that has to be looked at and then hopefully the Rules Committee will come up with some ideas to prevent this from happening again. Perhaps senators should take the time to learn from their own caucus whip and their own people as to how this thing all works.

With that, Your Honour, I hope you find in my favour.

Honourable senators, I was there in that meeting, too. In your reflection about what happened and in your ruling, I want you to consider this: That meeting was a little bit confusing. We were in camera and then all of a sudden we went into public. Then there was a request to move from in camera to public. We voted and it was agreed. But then the next day we were told that two persons who were there didn’t vote and that they couldn’t vote. So therefore it couldn’t be public.

I think it will be important to read all of the transcripts and talk to the people who were there, because it was pretty confusing.

Your Honour, I think it’s very telling that Senator Simons has not tried to weasel out of this and that has apologized unreservedly to the Senate and has learned a lesson. I was quite moved by Senator Housakos’ remarks about privilege and how important and sacred it is here. I would encourage my colleagues to read the Huffington Post from December 1, 2015, when they reported that the Auditor General’s report was selectively leaked by Senator Housakos, who was then the Speaker. And those leaks damaged the reputation of a whole series of members of this chamber. So before we take any lessons, I think we should read the Huffington Post.

Your Honour, I would like to draw to your attention that while it is touching to hear that Senator Simons has offered an unreserved apology for the disclosure of confidential comments made in camera, the tweets in question remain on her Twitter feed. The Facebook post in question remains on her Facebook page right at this minute.

So thank you, Senator Lankin, for conveying an apology for a leak and a breach that is still happening as of this moment.

I believe there was a breach of the Rules, and I understand that, and apparently the culprit has pleaded guilty to it. So before sentencing normally the judge will hear about the consequences of what was done. What are the consequences? What is the harm suffered? Can somebody tell me what is the real harm for the public?

Honourable senators, I believe I have heard sufficient argument. I want to thank all honourable senators who participated in the debate. I will take the matter under advisement. However, as has been done in the past, I leave open the possibility, if I feel it is appropriate, to call for further argument on the matter. This has been done in the past, as I said, and it may be done in the future.

I also wish to remind colleagues of the provisions of Appendix IV of the Rules. Paragraph (a) notes that “If a leak of a confidential committee report or other document or proceeding occurs, the committee concerned should first examine the circumstances surrounding it.” Paragraph (c) then goes on to state as follows:

The committee investigation of the leak would not prevent any individual Senator raising a question of privilege in the Senate relating to the matter. As a general matter, however, and in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, it would be expected that the substance of the question of privilege would not be dealt with by the Senate until the committee has completed its investigation. Thus, if the Speaker finds that a prima facie case exists, any consequent motion would be adjourned until the committee had tabled its report.

Paragraph (e) makes clear that, if the committee does not deal with the matter in a timely way, the issue could be taken up at a future time in the Senate.

Nothing, therefore, prevents the Transport and Communications Committee from dealing with the issue, and, if appropriate, reporting to the Senate.