Question of Privilege--Debate
November 21, 2023
Honourable senators, I rise today to bring to the Senate’s attention a serious breach of the Senate’s collective rights and privileges. I also wish to say that I take no pleasure in doing so.
According to rule 13-1:
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 privileges of the Senate is the duty of every Senator and has priority over every other matter before the Senate.
As required under rule 13-3(1), written notice of this question of privilege was given to the Clerk of the Senate this morning and was circulated to all senators. As you all heard, I gave oral notice earlier today during Senators’ Statements, pursuant to rule 13-3(4).
As senators will also be aware, in order to raise a question of privilege and to determine whether or not a breach has occurred, the conduct in question must meet certain criteria, as outlined in rule 13-2(1):
In order to be accorded priority, a question of privilege must:
(a) be raised at the earliest opportunity;
(b) be a matter that directly concerns the privilege of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator;
(c) be raised to correct a grave and serious breach; and
(d) be raised to seek a genuine remedy that the Senate has the power to provide and for which no other parliamentary process is reasonably available.
Senators, the conduct to which I’m referring occurred at the end of our sitting week, on Thursday, November 9, the last day the Senate sat before the break week, so this is the earliest opportunity I have to raise this question of privilege.
Colleagues, now let me go through the events of that Thursday, which, to my mind, have given me no other choice but to raise this question of privilege. In relating to you these events, I’m sure you’ll see that, in turn, the remaining criteria for raising a question of privilege have also been fulfilled.
As you may recall, on that Thursday, Bill C-234 was debated in the chamber at third reading. Following debate, an amendment was put forward and the debate was adjourned. There was some disagreement on the floor as to who should have been recognized on debate, given our usual practice of allowing debate to continue, at which point either the question would be called or the debate would adjourn.
A point of order ensued and it was decided that a one-hour bell would take place. As the Senate Chamber was suspended and prior to the vote, Senator Moncion walked over from her seat and accused me of bullying. I was shocked and chose not to respond. Out of respect for my colleague and those around my seat in the chamber who witnessed the accusation, I did not engage with her in the heat of the moment lest it pour fuel on the fire. I turned to my left and walked away without saying a word.
Honourable senators, the Senate is a place of decorum, and senators who know me see how I conduct myself inside and outside this chamber. I speak respectfully, I attack no one personally and I abide by the rules, which is why I’m raising this question of privilege. If by behaving the way I do I can be accused of bullying, then anyone can; and if anyone can, then the only alternative is silence in debate.
Senators, parliamentary privilege exists to permit Parliament to conduct its duties without interference. According to Senate Procedure in Practice, on page 226, the individual privileges that senators enjoy in order to fulfill their responsibilities include “freedom from obstruction and intimidation.”
It further states that:
The privileges of Parliament are immunities conferred in order to ensure that the duties of members as representatives of their constituents may be carried out without fear of intimidation or punishment, and without improper impediment. . . .
This is a matter that directly concerns a senator. Senator Moncion crossed the chamber, and with people all around me, accused me of bullying. As I mentioned earlier, I said nothing and walked away. At worst, honourable senators, you can interpret an accusation like that as an attempt at intimidation. At best — and I prefer to interpret it this way — it appeared to me as imposing an improper impediment to the performance of my duties. It may not have been intended as such by Senator Moncion. I doubt very much it was a premeditated accusation, and I’m willing to concede that it may have been a result of the heat of discussion on the chamber process of her amendment.
But the Senate has no place for heat-of-the-moment accusations, if that’s what it was. We are the chamber of second thought, which means we deliberate before we speak. We are the place of sobriety in thought, which means we are clear-headed and contemplative. The accusation against me was neither of these. As such, I’m raising this to correct what I consider a grave and serious breach. The accusation made by Senator Moncion has an impact on me as a senator and on my work in this chamber.
As Marleau and Montpetit wrote on privilege:
The unjust damaging of a Member’s good name might also be seen as constituting an obstruction. . . . the unjust damaging of a reputation could constitute such an impediment.
Colleagues, especially in today’s society, this sort of unfounded and unjust accusation is serious and should not, under any circumstances, be present in any workplace, much less in this chamber. This action, and any future actions such as this, directly impedes my and our ability to freely do our jobs. It also affects how I and others may debate in the future, or even worse, creates an atmosphere that may hinder any senator from even contemplating engaging in free debate, lest they be accused of bullying.
Honourable colleagues, in my third reading speech, I mentioned that I wanted to be the sponsor of this bill because it seemed like advocating for fairness was the right thing to do. You may recall I closed my speech with the following:
The debate on this bill has been vigorous, contentious, affects significant public policy and has forced me to do my homework. It has included not just honourable colleagues but sparked an important debate among farmers, ranchers and growers, public policy-makers and consumers. It’s an excellent example of what the Senate does best, and it has been an honour to be a small part of it with you. . . .
Colleagues, this is how I speak and this is how I conduct myself, not just in my almost 11 years in the Senate but all of my life.
Which brings me to the final criteria mentioned in raising a point of privilege — to seek a genuine remedy. I’m not interested in besmirching the important work we have done here, including the amendment by Senator Moncion, which she has every right to do, and the vigorous interventions made by Senator Woo and Senator Dalphond. I appreciate their comments. All the arguments presented deserve debate, according to our rules and usual practices, and that challenge function is built into the Westminster system. Should a breach of privilege be found in this case, I can only speak for myself, but I would be satisfied if Senator Moncion were to stand up in this chamber and simply acknowledge the remark that she made and withdraw it. That would be the end of it.
Still, I think it’s important for all of us to agree on the type of decorum that should be applied in the Senate. We are the current caretakers of this institution, but it is here for all Canadians. We must ensure that our custody includes it being a respectful workplace. We have processes to deal with disagreements among us, even serious or heated ones. However, an open, unsubstantiated and false charge on the floor of the Senate is not one of them. It directly impacts not just me, but all of us, and not just now, but in the future if we don’t address such issues when they arise. We regularly talk about the rules of debate, and by any metric or boundary, this falls outside.
If we permit senators to be intimidated or impeded in their duties, what does that say about us? This is not only a revered institution, but it is also our everyday place of work. It is necessary for us to honour both aspects. We must have a safe workplace, and that must include from the injudicious use of words and serious and false accusations. To be accused of being a bully these days is a serious charge, one that carries with it an onerous stigma. It is something that is taken very seriously by this entire institution and our society. It is absolutely critical that no senator feels impeded or silenced for fear of being accused or negatively labelled. Thank you, colleagues.
Honourable senators, I rise today on the question of privilege raised by Senator Wells on the issue of the conduct of a senator on November 9, 2023.
The notice that Senator Wells sent to the Clerk of the Senate says the following, and I quote:
While the sitting of the Senate was suspended for an hour to the call of the bell, the senator in question approached my seat and made a serious accusation.
Since Senator Wells’ allegations concern me, it is understandable that I would feel the need to speak to the issue.
Let me say, at the outset, that my speech seeks to correct the alleged facts, as well as giving some context to inform the Speaker of the Senate’s deliberations on the prima facie merits of this question of privilege.
Here is how the events went down. I saw a post on X that read, “The Speaker @SenGagne of the Senate in concert with the ISG leadership has shut down debate.” I went over to speak to Senator Wells before the end of the bell and told him:
“David, I was not expecting bullying from you.”
No other words were exchanged, and my body language was not threatening, I can assure you of this. Senator Wells did turn around and did not answer. I was not threatening. To provide context, the post from Senator Wells I am referring to is the following:
BREAKING C-234 Friends, the fix is in. The Speaker @SenGagne of the Senate in concert with the ISG leadership has shut down debate on the critical piece of legislation. The Speaker failed to fairly allow debate on an amendment that already failed at committee. There were speakers ready to speak on the frivolous amendment and they were on their feet to speak and the Speaker deliberately did not recognize those ready to speak. In my eleven years in the Senate I have never seen a speaker shut down debate when speakers were ready and willing and asking to speak. A shameful day for our chamber and the practice of sober second thought.
I viewed this post as an attempt to impede senators and the Speaker in the discharge of their duties. The allegation of collusion between senators and the Speaker are what I call “a serious accusation,” to use the words of my colleagues. For those reasons, I decided to go to Senator Wells to let him know how I felt about this post. I have a cordial relationship with Senator Wells, and this was my way of letting it be known that I was not expecting this kind of behaviour from him. I’ve always considered Senator Wells a gentleman. I have always had the utmost respect for Senator Wells.
You were kind to me, senator, when I had COVID in France. You were the only one who really cared. You called me during the day; you even brought me food because I was alone in my room. I’ve always cherished this part of our relationship. When I went to see you, I was not aggressive, just disappointed.
I do not consider it relevant to conduct a comprehensive analysis to determine the applicability of each criterion for establishing the prima facie merit of a question of privilege.
On November 9, respectfully, to conclude a prima facie case of privilege had been made in relation to the situation described by Senator Wells would create a dangerous precedent for three reasons.
First, to say that this amounts to a grave and serious breach as per rule 13-2 is unreasonable. The threshold to meet and demonstrate a breach that is grave and serious must be higher than this. To recognize a breach for our purposes would risk encouraging frivolous privilege claims and be disruptive to our parliamentary work.
Second, in light of the recent debate on Senator Saint-Germain’s question of privilege and the behaviours I personally witnessed in the chamber on November 9 toward the Speaker and some Independent Senators Group senators, it seems obvious to me that this subsequent question of privilege is being raised as an attempt to deflect attention from the events that truly transpired on that day. This question of privilege aligns with the behaviour we have observed, which is hindering senators from fulfilling their duty.
Third, to recognize a breach when efforts are made to prevent the harassment of colleagues and the Speaker on social media would go against our Senate policy on harassment and violence prevention. I would like to underline the word “prevention” in the title of our policy.
The Senate Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy applies to all senators and applies to conduct occurring within the Senate precinct as well as in any other place or context where a person to whom this policy applies is engaged in work for the Senate or is otherwise representing the Senate, including in social events and on social media.
Given that inappropriate or unwelcome conduct that forms part of parliamentary proceedings, as well as questions of order and decorum, does not fall within the purview of this policy, a question of privilege may be the first course of action. However, the application of parliamentary privilege is not unlimited. The harassment policy applies to all conduct that does not form part of those proceedings even if it occurs in the Senate Chamber or in a committee room.
I do not expect the Speaker to rule on this, however I make this point to explain why not only was my intervention justified, but also to say that to conclude that this amounts to a breach of Senator Wells’ — or any other senator’s — privilege would lessen the very foundation of the policy we have adopted and would go against progress that has been made so far to provide senators and Senate staff with the tools to prevent harassment in the workplace.
It is crucial to emphasize that true instances of workplace harassment and violence are unequivocally unacceptable. All senators have a responsibility in ensuring a culture of respect in the Senate.
To conclude, I believe that a ruling recognizing a breach in relation to the question of privilege raised by Senator Wells would create a dangerous precedent for the Senate, but, most importantly, it would send a message that it is okay to be passive when we witness concerning behaviours.
I can assure you that Senator Wells’ question of privilege will not discourage me from doing what I believe is right and fair in the future. We must contribute to a work environment that is respectful and one in which we treat each other with dignity and respect. It is our collective duty to do so.
Now, Senator Wells, you said in your speech that you would accept an apology from me if I withdrew the comment. When we came back this week, I would have gone to you and spoken to you about this specifically. Receiving a point of privilege was disappointing, but I understand where you’re coming from. You want an apology from me, I apologize Senator Wells, and I apologize in front of this whole chamber, but I would have —
Like I did with other senators in this room, when I have done something wrong or when I believed that people had been offended, I went to them, we spoke about the situation and things were settled. Doing it this way is a more public way — and I don’t think your point of privilege is adequate — but I am providing you with the apology. Thank you.
I want to at least put on the record a few comments and I’ll kind of start at the back end.
Senator Moncion inferred, I believe, that Senator Wells’ question of privilege was a result of a notice that we got last night from the Speaker’s office, or wherever it came from, about Senator Saint-Germain’s question of privilege. I want to state here, on the record, that at about 7 or 7:30 p.m., Senator Wells and I were on a significantly lengthy phone call because Senator Wells texted me and asked if I could speak. He called me because he wanted to let me know that he was raising a question of privilege.
I think — and I’m not going to put words in his mouth here — Senator Wells told me that he had already checked with our interim clerk about some of the procedures on how he needed to do this. He was informed he needed to have his letter in by ten o’clock this morning, and so on. For Senator Moncion to suggest that Senator Wells did this as a result of that is incorrect. None of us had seen what Senator Saint-Germain was going to do, that hers was going to come out.
As a matter of fact, after I hung up from Senator Wells, about 15 minutes later, he texted me the letter that Senator Saint-Germain had in fact supplied. I had not yet seen it. I then opened my email, and, of course, it was there as well. But I had not looked up my email, and so there was no correlation between these two. Senator Wells had determined he was going to do this. He told me what it was about, and we discussed it.
I, as you know, colleagues, Your Honour, gave a lengthy speech earlier today where I made some comments at the start of my speech in explaining myself. I had decided — and of course, this is all somewhat immaterial because anybody can say, “Well, you’re saying that now to get off the hook.” I don’t need to do that. I think I’m proud enough of a person that I can take it on the chin and I can take whatever is handed to me, but my caucus colleagues will know that I had wanted to offer an apology for my conduct last week.
The reason I didn’t — and maybe I’m even hurting it now — was because of the question of privilege. I did not want a senator to be able to say, “Look, Plett apologized, so that means he admitted what he did was wrong.” Because there are senators here who would use that. Unfortunately, there are senators here who speak very nicely, don’t use bad language, but they are as biting as somebody who raises their voice.
So I was encouraged not to do that, so I didn’t do that. Now I’m saying that it was my intention, and you can take it for what it’s worth.
None of us are very happy with what happened on Thursday, and we all have our reasons. Senator Moncion said she simply went over and said — and maybe I’m paraphrasing — “You are bullying.” She said she hadn’t called him a bully, but “you are bullying.” Senator Moncion called me a bully. I didn’t raise a question of privilege, and I didn’t use Senator Moncion’s name earlier, because I didn’t think it was necessary. She called me a bully — not in front of a lot of people. I don’t know if anybody heard, and I don’t care. We had words, we discussed.
Senator Moncion said she has a cordial relationship with Senator Wells. I would like to believe I’ve had the same cordial relationship with Senator Moncion in the last number of months, and so I actually took her calling me a bully as, “Don, start checking yourself a little bit.” I took it as an admonition. I didn’t argue with her. As a matter of fact, the reason I was over there was because I was talking to her about her amendment, and she said, “I have every right to make this amendment.” I said, “Absolutely, you do.” There is no question about it. We do it; I was accused of doing it earlier today, and, of course, we have done it. I’m the first one to admit that I have used the rule many times in this chamber. And I said to Senator Moncion, “I have no issue with that. My issue is that you’re not admitting why you’re doing this,” but it was a conversation between us. Senator Moncion then said to me that I was a bully. That’s okay.
But, Your Honour, what you’re going to need to determine here as you deal with both of these questions of privilege is what the correct word is. Is just calling somebody a bully okay, but speaking loudly at somebody, not calling them anything, is not okay? You have a tough job, Your Honour. I don’t relish the position you’re in, but I don’t think there’s a whole lot of difference between these two, other than maybe the magnitude of one versus the other. But you can’t be a little bit wrong. Either you’re wrong or you’re right.
Senator Wells has a perfectly legitimate case that calling him a bully in front of other people is a question of privilege. Your Honour, I just again want to reiterate that we don’t need to do things because others have done them. We do them on our own. Senator Wells did it on his own. I made my speech on my own. I made it again today, but, Your Honour, I think if there is a prima facie case in one, there is a prima facie case in the other. Thank you.
I just have a quick question to Senator Plett.
We are in a question of privilege. I’m here to hear arguments.
I understand. This is about what he was saying about bullying.
This may help conclude the issue I have. I’ve never in my life asked for an apology, and I didn’t in this case, so I just want the record to be clear. I recognize Senator Moncion perhaps misheard me. I just want to repeat what I said. Should a breach of privilege be found in this case, I can only speak for myself, but we would be satisfied if Senator Moncion stood up in the chamber and simply acknowledged the remark she made and withdrew it. For me, that would be the end of it. I recognize, Senator Moncion, that you’ve apologized, and I didn’t ask for that. That’s not what I do, but I do appreciate the sentiment.
I’m going to ask Senator Wells: Do you wish to pursue this matter in light of Senator Moncion’s apology?
Given the debate and the open discussion we’ve had as well as my professional and personal regard for Senator Moncion, I consider this issue closed.
We will now resume where we left off at 6 p.m.
Senator Arnot has three and a half minutes remaining.
