Honourable senators, pursuant to the written notice I provided to the Clerk of the Senate yesterday afternoon and pursuant to rule 13-3(1), I rise this evening on a question of privilege related to the attempts of intimidation of senators that occurred within the Senate Chamber and the Senate of Canada Building on Thursday, November 9, 2023.

This is my earliest opportunity to raise this question of privilege in conformity with the first of four criteria needed for a question of privilege to be given priority, since the Senate adjourned a few minutes after the vote.

As one of the Senate leaders, I feel that it is my duty and obligation to bring this very concerning matter to the Senate’s attention and request that it be dealt with diligently. Parliamentary privilege allows us to conduct our business free from obstruction and intimidation. To quote 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.

Unfortunately, this unalienable right was breached on Thursday, November 9, following a routine motion to adjourn debate on an amendment. The events in question affected numerous senators and had a negative impact on the Senate as an institution, as requested by the second criterion, which states that a question of privilege must “. . . be a matter that directly concerns the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees or any Senator . . . .”

After Senator Bernadette Clement moved to adjourn debate on an amendment to Bill C-234 in an effort to preserve the rights of some independent senators from various groups who wished to speak and participate in the debate, some Conservative senators demonstrated physical and verbal intimidation directed at members of my group and myself.

After violently throwing his earpiece, the Leader of the Opposition stood before Senator Clement and me as we sat at our desks, yelling and berating us for proposing this routine motion that would see debate resume the following week, when we returned.

Facing such aggression for this ordinary practice that would extend debate — routinely used by the opposition, I might add — demonstrated the intense pressure to pass the bill that day and infringed upon senators’ right to do their job properly.

Senator MacDonald shouted the word “fascists” at the Independent Senators Group, the ISG. This is not the conduct and language expected of honourable members of the upper house and is yet another aggravating factor in this affair, going far beyond the required order and decorum in this chamber.

Threats were made that business in committees chaired by ISG senators would be blocked as retaliation for seeking adjournment of the debate — simply to enable debate to continue beyond the 40 minutes after which it had started.

Senator Plett pointed fingers at Senator Moncion, Chair of the Internal Economy Committee. As a member of that committee and Chair of its Human Resources Subcommittee, I consider this an attempt to block important work done on behalf of Canadians.

These threats were extended to the Government Representative, warning that the legislative agenda would stall as a result of this adjournment.

And even when the time came to vote on the adjournment motion, another threat was made to a senator from another group that the bill he sponsored would be in danger if this senator voted according to his convictions.

Your Honour, colleagues, this threatening behaviour did not stop inside the chamber. At least two Conservative senators — Senator Batters and Senator Housakos — retweeted a post made by a member in the other place that not only spread misinformation about the proceedings but encouraged members of the public to call and harass Senator Bernadette Clement and Senator Chantal Petitclerc about what had transpired. The tweet in question — which resembled a “Wanted” poster from the 1800s Wild West — elicited high volumes of threatening phone calls and emails to these independent senators. It got so out of control that one of our senators had serious reasons to fear for her physical safety and was forced to leave her private residence and spend her weekend elsewhere in a secure location.

It got so out of control that the Senate security team, together with local police, is still working on this case.

The fact that a social media post retweeted by Conservative senators welcomed and encouraged this behaviour is, quite frankly, reprehensible. These senators are now limited in their accessing the Senate of Canada Building and, notably, were limited today because of the risk caused by the protest that occurred.

Not only is this completely unacceptable and abhorrent, it is also ironic. Senator Plett raised a point of order on June 6, 2019, regarding a social media post from the Honourable Murray Sinclair, who, he felt, misrepresented a procedural move.

In his ruling on June 13, former Speaker Furey reminded senators:

. . . when you are using social media, please take your time before you send out tweets. If it is something you think will be offensive and you are not really sure whether or not it is something that is appropriate, I suggest you do not send, because it reflects poorly, not just on the people who are doing it, but on the whole chamber.

We have the enormous privilege of being members of the Upper House of the Parliament of Canada. With this enormous privilege comes enormous responsibility. . . .

Again, on social media, Senator Wells accused the ISG leadership of working in concert with the Speaker of the Senate — a baseless claim which cast a negative shadow on my group and on the institution represented by our Speaker.

Independent senators, along with all senators, as members of the chamber have the right to speak, to move motions and to participate in debate. The physical and verbal threats, bullying and harassment experienced by members of our group and members of other groups that day by Conservative senators could have the intended consequence of curtailing the business of senators out of fear.

Senators should not be afraid to move motions. They should not be threatened with retaliation and delay and obstruction for participating and following the Rules. All these facts seem to demonstrate quite clearly that a grave and serious breach was committed and needs correcting, as is required by the third criterion.

The majority of the upper chamber acts with humility, respecting the rights and privileges bestowed upon us and representing minority interests of Canadians in a way that upholds the highest standards and decorum. Our work is too frequently at the mercy of a small partisan group which is awarded with a disproportionate amount of power because they are connected to a partisan group in the House of Commons. This group has access to a large research budget and, apparently, the time and energy to bully and spread misinformation about honourable senators who are doing work on behalf of Canadians and the communities they represent. If the behaviour of November 9 continues, the important parliamentary work we are all here to do is in jeopardy.

Honourable senators, we are all here to act honourably. That is not done through intimidation, doxing and online lies. We are not doing that when we shout and scream in this chamber across the aisle because a motion was moved that we disagree with. We are not doing that when we intimidate our members and obstruct them from participating freely in this chamber.

As a remedy for this breach — the fourth criterion — one option could be a referral to the Senate Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. I would like to flag, however, that four senators implicated in this breach are members of the Rules Committee: Senator Batters, as Deputy Chair, Senator Wells, Senator MacDonald and Senator Plett, as an ex officio member. I would suggest that you explore other options.

Your Honour, I would also ask for a diligent response. A line has been crossed, and your decision on this matter will influence our doctrine for decades to come. We are at a tipping point, and action must be taken.

I will close my remarks with a relevant quote from Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition for your consideration:

It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a Member, is a breach of privilege. Direct threats which attempt to influence Members’ actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege.

Your Honour, a handful of bullies must no longer be allowed to make this house dysfunctional. Let’s not wait until it’s too late and we’re blamed for letting ourselves be intimidated. The time to act is now. Let’s stop accepting this behaviour. Let’s stop being afraid to express ourselves without hindrance for fear that the escalation and reprisals will be even worse.

Your Honour, I respectfully ask that you consider this question of privilege so we may get back to honourably serving Canadians in a chamber free from obstruction and intimidation.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I’m rising to speak on the question of privilege raised by Senator Saint-Germain. Let me say at the outset that disagreement is acceptable and expected in civil discourse and in a parliamentary chamber of debate, so is being upset. That is also to be expected. We’re human. However, being upset and disagreeable to the point of intimidation is simply unacceptable.

Let us be clear as to what occurred in strictly procedural terms. Senator Clement was recognized on debate, and she proposed to adjourn the debate on the motion in amendment related to Bill C-234, a motion that is entirely in order under rule 5-7(g) and rule 6-10(2). As former Speaker Furey noted on May 2, 2019, when a motion to adjourn debate was recognized despite others who had wished to intervene on debate:

I’m going to recognize that and it is the right of the House to reject that if they so wish.

Just like the events of Thursday, November 9, the Senate had their right to decide whether the debate would be adjourned or not. Subsequently, on Twitter at 5:03 p.m. that same day, which was the same time that the vote took place, Senator Wells tweeted 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.

Furthermore, Senator Wells quickly answered to his own tweet by drawing distinctions of character between certain members of the Independent Senators Group:

Correction to my original tweet: I should have referred to ISG LEADERSHIP, not many of the ISG senators, many of whom support Bill #C234 and are fair dealers.

In the chamber, those of us who stayed throughout the evening witnessed what followed, and what followed were displays of intimidation, angry finger pointing and inappropriate outbursts. On November 15, the Member of Parliament for Regina—Qu’Appelle then tweeted out the photos and phone numbers of two senators, accusing them of shutting down debate.

Colleagues, let’s be clear as to the context of what occurred. The adjournment motion was moved on the first day of third reading debate. There is nothing that is irregular about this. As the Government Representative, I accept the adjournment of government legislation each and every day. It’s, quite frankly, a regular occurrence in this chamber. This is a chamber of critical reflection, of sober second thought. It is our job to debate legislation. It is our job to suggest improvements. I’m not always happy about it. You know that from my interventions both in committee and in the chamber. But I accept that it happens. If I disagree with it, I will ask the full chamber to make a decision.

Page 226 of Senate Procedure in Practice states that with respect to the collective and individual privileges of senators, “The individual privileges that senators enjoy include . . . freedom from obstruction and intimidation.”

Pages 230 to 231 of the second edition of Maingot also state:

Members are entitled to go about their parliamentary business undisturbed. The assaulting, menacing, or insulting of any Member on the floor of the House or while he is coming or going to or from the House, or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament, is a violation of the rights of Parliament. Any form of intimidation . . . of a person for or on account of his behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament could amount to contempt.

As Speaker Parent noted in a decision on November 4, 1999, concerning the intimidation of a Member of Parliament:

. . . if a member is subjected to threats and intimidation, he or she is clearly hindered in the fulfilment of the parliamentary duties . . . .

Let me also refer you to a ruling by Speaker Furey on June 13, 2019, based upon a point of order that was raised by Senator Plett regarding insinuations and accusations that were levelled at him by another parliamentarian on social media:

I, therefore, ask senators to focus on the substance of the issues we are addressing, and to avoid criticizing individuals or groups. By all means question and challenge policies and positions, but this should be done without undermining and attacking others who advance a particular point of view. This applies in the Senate, in committee, and outside proceedings.

Colleagues, this was not our finest hour. Let me remind you of the great import of the work we conduct here in this chamber. However, just as important as the work we do is the way in which we do it — the way in which we conduct ourselves in a manner that fits the elevated status of this chamber.

Therefore, Your Honour, I would ask you to take this matter under advisement, based upon the events that have unfolded, to determine whether a breach of privilege has occurred under rule 13-2(1) and provide guidance to this chamber as to how we ought to conduct ourselves as a responsible, respectful parliamentary chamber.

Your Honour, obviously I want to speak to this issue. I want to take a couple of minutes to intervene on the question of privilege by Senator Saint-Germain. I do not have remarks for the substantive issues she raised, and I’m going to ask your indulgence and your permission, as is normal in situations where somebody has been accused of things. In this case, a number of people have been accused of things, and some of them are travelling on parliamentary business and, for those reasons, can’t be here.

I’m going to ask your permission to present my thoughts on this at a later time, Your Honour, and I hope that you will accept that.

But I want to immediately raise the issue of the notice that Senator Saint-Germain sent. Section 13-3(1) of the Rules of the Senate of Canada states:

. . . a Senator wishing to raise a question of privilege shall provide the Clerk with a written notice, indicating the substance of the alleged breach . . . .

The notice must contain some details and some substance of the alleged breach.

I think, Your Honour, if you will read the notice carefully, it does not fulfill that obligation.

In a ruling he made on October 26, 2006, Speaker Kinsella said this about notices of questions of privilege:

. . . I feel that the proper reading of the rule demands that the notice be sufficiently explanatory and comprehensive. In other words, the notice must clearly identify the matter that will be raised as a question of privilege.

Speaker Kinsella quotes another ruling, this time by Speaker Molgat on June 21, 1995, where Speaker Molgat said the following:

. . . The purpose of giving notice is to enable Honourable Senators to know what is coming so that they can have an opportunity to prepare. . . .

I have hardly been given an opportunity to prepare on this, Your Honour.

Why else would there be notice? They must have an opportunity to get themselves ready for the discussion. It is not meant to delay the work of the Senate. It is simply meant to bring order.

I submit that Senator Saint-Germain’s notice did not provide sufficient details on the incidents she is referring to in order for other senators to prepare. Just like Speaker Kinsella ruled in 2006, I think that this failure to provide details in a notice means that the question of privilege cannot proceed.

Your Honour, should you not agree with that ruling and should you think that the question of privilege can be raised, even if the notice lacks the details that are quite clear in the Rules here, I reiterate that it did not allow us time to fully prepare, and I would therefore ask your permission to present additional remarks at a later date so that all senators named have sufficient time to prepare as well. Thank you, Your Honour.

I will now continue, and we’ll come back to your question, Senator Plett. I will ask Senator Clement to please — I have you on the list, Senator Wells.

Honourable senators, I was going to let this issue go. I have lots of other work to do, but it’s important for me to speak. After I adjourned debate on an amendment to Bill C-234, there was significant reaction. A senator came and stood over my desk and yelled at me and Senator Saint-Germain in very close proximity. I froze. A million things go through your mind in a moment like that because, sadly, you question yourself and how you are to blame for the anger. You tell yourself to stay quiet until it’s over, until you can just get back to work. There was no fight or flight; it was a freeze. It’s remarkable that your brain can question whether you are to blame in that moment.

Colleagues told me they were taken aback by what they saw. We know menacing conduct makes the chamber unsafe and tarnishes the reputation of this institution. We know that no member should be bullied into silence.

We heard in this chamber an earlier reference to bullying, and I want to provide a different perspective. Bullying is not passion, and cannot be excused as such. I’ve been down this road before. One example of many that comes to mind was around the council table many years ago after a fellow councillor yelled at me. His behaviour was excused as passion, and when I gently asserted in response, I was told that I must be tired and in need of a vacation.

Bullying is not passion. And while this isn’t the first time I’ve had an angry man yell at me, this is the first time I’m taking such a very public stand. If not here in this place from my seat as a senator, then when?

Earlier, it was also mentioned that questions of privilege existed 160 some-odd years ago, for as long as the Senate has been here. There was a reference to the good times when senators took it on the chin and then went out for a beer instead of raising a question of privilege. I want to point out that 160 years ago — even 100 years ago — the Senate didn’t look like this. I have respect for this institution — trust me — for its history and for its role in democracy, but it wasn’t until 1930 that women were allowed to be here in this chamber as senators. Perhaps passion took a different form when everyone in this chamber looked the same. Times have changed. Bullying is not passion, and no one should have to take it on the chin. Experiencing this type of aggressive behaviour here in my workplace was jarring. But it didn’t end when I walked out of the Senate. Senators took to Twitter and one of them said, “Friends, the fix is in.”

Listen, I can appreciate disagreement. I live in spaces where respectful disagreement is the norm: in courtrooms, council chambers and communities. I understand that some senators were disappointed that Bill C-234 didn’t breeze through on November 9th. I get it. But a tweet like this that questions the integrity of both myself and our respected Speaker gave me pause. I even Googled “the fix is in” just to see if I correctly understood the implication made by my colleague. Sure enough, “the fix is in” means the outcome of an event or process has been covertly manipulated.

Let me be clear, there was nothing covert and no manipulation in my adjournment. The implication of collusion undermines all the work that we do in this chamber. I am trying to do my job. My colleagues at scroll have heard me say so many times that it’s my job to ensure my colleagues have an opportunity to speak, and when folks weren’t ready to speak during that last sitting, it was my job to ensure that they had a chance at the next. We heard speeches tonight from Senator Woo and Senator Arnot on opposite sides of the issue debating, which is what we’re supposed to be doing. We continued to debate today.

I told you earlier that the attempts at intimidation didn’t end when I left the Senate building. When a tweet was posted with my photo and the photo of Senator Petitclerc, asking Canadians to call us about Bill C-234, the consequence was a threat to my safety, made to the staff answering the phone. I’m sure when colleagues in this chamber reposted that photo they didn’t expect that it would leave me feeling unsafe. I know that. I went to social media to defend my honour and to explain my job, but the tone had already been set by tweets that lacked nuance and failed to explain how we do things here.

These posts led to confusion, frustration and unkindness. I was subjected to anger, outrage and hate. I won’t repeat the words I read or the words my staff read. No one should be subjected to the racism and misogyny embedded in those tweets. This online toxicity is a reflection of the toxicity in our political system and vice versa. Careless communication on social media can hurt democracy and can lead to mistrust.

The tone had already been set by tweets that lacked nuance and failed to explain how we do things in this chamber. These posts led to confusion, frustration and unkindness. I was subjected to anger, outrage and hate. I won’t repeat the words I read or the words my staff read. No one should be subjected to the racism and misogyny embedded in those tweets. This online toxicity is a reflection of the toxicity in our political system and vice versa. Careless communication on social media can hurt democracy and can lead to mistrust.

Canadians deserve to know that adjournment doesn’t mean a bill is being nixed, but that nuanced explanation wasn’t offered by people pointing the finger at me.

Canadians should be told the truth. As a member of the Independent Senators Group, I vote my conscience. My vote is not whipped. I do not answer to any minister. The ISG Charter is quite clear on that front.

Canadians deserve to know that senators treat each other with respect. Most days, that’s true, but what took place in the chamber on November 9 was unacceptable.

I stand today because I have spent so much of my time encouraging young women to run for office and to take up public office — young women, people with diverse backgrounds and voices — and I must raise my voice when women in this chamber are not spoken to respectfully and with decorum.

I hesitated to speak, but if hostility and aggression silence me in my position of leadership, then what am I supposed to say to the young women I mentor? I have to be able to tell them that we’re paving the way for them, the way Jean Augustine did, the way that Mary Mack did, the way that Daurene Lewis did, and Huguette Burroughs and Cairine Wilson.

We are leaders. Our words matter. Our actions matter.

Thank you, nia:wen.

Honourable senators, I rise to participate in the debate on this question of privilege and offer a few points for the Speaker’s consideration. I’m not going over any of the key points of order or process. I just want to give you some atmospherics to take into account.

Colleagues, civility is an important part of debate in Parliament, as we’ve heard. I mentioned earlier today that the Senate is a place for sober second thought and civil discourse on issues that matter to all Canadians. We not only speak to each other, we also have to listen to each other. But for our debates to be effective, they must occur in an atmosphere of civility and receptivity. Civility is not just about being polite. It should encompass the importance of restraint. We often have differing views on issues here, and how we respond is important.

I’d like to remind all senators of the words of our late colleague, the Honourable Senator Shugart, who said the following in this place:

Honourable senators, whether it is what we say to or about each other, or how we learn again to listen and dialogue with others who don’t share our outlook, or how we guard the health of our institutions — we need to relearn the virtue of restraint.

Canada is a big, diverse country — geographically, socially, culturally, economically and philosophically. 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.

We have benefited from restraint in this country, and, in these times, we need it again. May we all find it within ourselves to practise restraint.

As someone who has worn a uniform for over 34 years of service to Canada, I’ve seen first-hand what the ultimate extreme of lack of civility and restraint can do and the impact it has on the body politic. I can assure all of you that Senator Shugart’s words were as conscientious now on this question of privilege as when he spoke them.

Your Honour, as you review the arguments presented today and prepare your findings, I hope you will address the need for civility between colleagues and the importance that our rules and processes are followed in the interest of fairness and equity.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I don’t have prepared remarks, but I do have very specific things I’d like to say about some of the things that occurred and some of the things that were said tonight.

First, Senator Gold and Senator Clement, you tell part of the story, but what I would like to do is read from Hansard from that night just so everyone knows exactly what happened and, perhaps, motivated some of the actions. I don’t condone many of the actions that happened, but I think it’s important to have that context, because we’re having the discussion.

After Senator Moncion presented her amendment, which was fair — we all understand that that’s fair — it says:

The Hon. the Speaker: On debate, senator — honestly, Senator Clement?

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Was it a question?

The Hon. the Speaker: It is on debate.

Hon. Denise Batters: I have a question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Leave to permit questions? Usually after an amendment we go on debate.

That’s important, colleagues, to remember.

Senator Clement: Okay.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is there leave to allow questions?

Will you take a question, Senator Moncion?

Senator Moncion: Yes, I will.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Wells, do you have a question?

Hon. David M. Wells: No, I was going to go on debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Clement, you have a question?

Senator Clement: I do not.

Senator Batters then asked her question of Senator Moncion, and Senator Moncion answered.

I had already indicated that I was ready to go on debate. I had stood. Then Senator Clement, who had also stood, I believe, after me, said, “Your honour, I move adjournment of the debate.”

Then a lot of discussion continued from that:

Hon. Donald Neil Plett: On debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: I recognized Senator Clement.

There was a lot of back and forth.

Senator Plett put forth a point of order. Senator Housakos spoke on it, and then the Speaker said, “I will say that I did recognize, first of all, Senator Clement. She was going to adjourn debate. . . .” That was even though I had told you, Your Honour, long before Senator Clement wanted to adjourn that I was on debate.

That was the first signal that I had that perhaps something was amiss, and I think it was legitimate. I stood up in the chamber. I said, “on debate,” before any suggestion of adjournment, and you recognized it. You answered me. You answered by saying, “Senator Clement, you have a question?” I don’t know why, if I’m up on debate, you would ask another senator if there was an intervention to be made.

Colleagues, it went on. On the point of order, I spoke. I asked the Speaker if we were still on the point of order. The Speaker said, “No. I can hear the arguments.”

Senator Wells: Thank you. From where I stand, I can see you and I can see Senator Clement. I know that I was standing, and I also saw that you struggled to remember my name. I understand that; that’s not an issue personally with me at all. It was then that you deferred to Senator Clement. But I know clearly, Your Honour — and I guess you can choose whom you wish to recognize, but I know that I was standing up on debate with respect to Senator Moncion’s —

— amendment.

You answered me, saying, and correctly:

Senator Wells, you were not actually — you interpreted my — reading my mind. But I must say that I did remember your name. I recognized Senator Clement, and she has the right to adjourn the debate.

And this is even though you had already heard me say I was on debate, long before Senator Clement asked for adjournment. That was the other item that concerned me. It’s in the transcript. It’s not hearsay. It’s not from my foggy memory. It’s in the transcript.

You recognized me. There perhaps was an out if you didn’t recognize me and you went to someone whose name you recalled, but you clearly said, “Yes. No, I recognized you.”

Further, I’m the sponsor on debate. It’s not unexpected that I would want to speak right away on an amendment, which I was prepared to do without notes. I know the file well.

We often quote the rules of procedure and state what those rules are here; where there is no rule, we often say, “and with usual practice.” It is usual practice, colleagues, that if there are senators up on their feet, ready and willing to debate — this doesn’t stop other senators who may not be ready to debate or in chamber — but as I said, in my years here, I’ve never seen debate quieted with an acceptance of an adjournment motion when the request to go on debate happened prior to that adjournment motion. Of course, I was the subject of it and frustrated by it, but it was another indication to me that maybe something was amiss. I think it’s fair for me to say that.

With respect to my tweet, I’m glad Senator Gold read it out. If anyone follows or wants to follow me on Twitter — and many people are highly engaged in this debate, as we all know, colleagues — when I send a message out, I tag the Canadian Cattlemen, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Agriculture Carbon Alliance and a bunch of other people who want to know about the processes of the Senate. That’s not unusual for me. I don’t do it frequently, but I do it from time to time. I’ve done it in regard to this bill as the sponsor, knowing that people want to know what’s happening — and people wanted to know what was happening that Thursday evening.

I wasn’t permitted to go on debate after clearly indicating I wanted to before the adjournment motion. That frustrated me, and I think that frustration was valid. It’s up to others to decide if I’m a bully, but I made no bullying comments in my tweet. It was a process tweet, which I frequently make. It was a message that contained the tags that I made. I made no threats and no bullying occurred from me. Bullying is not something I do or something I condone or ever will from my colleagues, children or friends. I will stand up in opposition to it and speak on it when I see it happen.

Colleagues, as I said, I have no prepared remarks, but I feel very strongly about this. I don’t think our process was followed. I think that’s clear from the reading of the transcripts. I reacted to that with a process tweet that I believed was accurate, based on what I saw in front of me, based on what everyone — all those who were listening and paying attention — saw in front of them.

Thank you, colleagues.

Colleagues, I didn’t expect to rise today in the Senate in support of a question of privilege. However, I think we should not let impunity prevail in this chamber.

It is very important to clarify that the parliamentary privileges that senators enjoy are not, in fact, absolute. I will start with addressing the object of the question of privilege. The Companion to the Rules of the Senate, at page 361, defines privilege as follows:

Privilege The rights, powers and immunities enjoyed by each house collectively, and by members of each house individually, without which they could not discharge their functions . . . . Privileges include: freedom of speech in the Senate . . . and, in general, freedom from obstruction and intimidation.

Rule 13-1 states the following:

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.

This is why I feel it is my duty to support the question of privilege raised by Senator Saint-Germain as facilitator of the Independent Senators Group, of which I am a member.

The events that unfolded in the Senate chamber during the debate on Bill C-234 during the sitting on Thursday, November 9, and even more so immediately after the suspension of proceedings leading up to the vote on Senator Clement’s motion to adjourn the debate on the bill, seriously call into question our collective and individual responsibility to maintain decorum in our proceedings. Furthermore, the impugning of motives that we heard did not go unnoticed.

The shouts directed first at the Speaker, literally in front of the Speaker’s chair in this institution, and then directed at the facilitator of the Independent Senators Group, the ISG, and at least one other member of the ISG leadership team, over a period of time long enough to leave no doubt as to their nature, constitute what the Canada Labour Code, human rights legislation and jurisprudence qualify as harassment and intimidation. They are attacks on the very authority of the institution of the Senate and on women senators in their capacity as members of the leadership team of a recognized parliamentary group, in addition to being personal attacks aimed directly at them.

What’s more, not only the people targeted by this behaviour, but also the other members of the Senate who were present, myself included, suffered the adverse effects of this abuse of power. That’s not to mention the accusations of collusion between the chair and the Independent Senators Group that were made in the media. These are very serious accusations against the institution of the Senate itself and a recognized parliamentary group. The very credibility of the institution is at stake, in addition to its members who were personally targeted and other members, senators who were present in the chamber on Thursday, November 9 when these events took place.

We know that the Canada Labour Code Part II was recently amended to extend workplace harassment and violence prevention to both houses of Parliament. According to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, workplace intimidation and harassment constitute violence that may take various forms, including swearing, insults, anger-related incidents, inflicting psychological stress. Intimidating behaviour includes disputing decisions made by colleagues and leadership.

The term “harassment” is defined as treating a person in such a way as to undermine their dignity or physical or emotional health. Harassment includes offensive, belittling, hostile or undesired words or behaviour. The term “intimidate” is defined as using one’s strength or authority to make someone feel afraid.

We now know that those who engage in harassment or intimidation can no longer use their intentions as a pretext for their offensive behaviour. After years of fighting discrimination, particularly against women, we are finally weeding out those who claim that they never intended to offend anyone. The impact on the person who is being harassed or intimidated is the determining factor. The verbal attacks that we witnessed against these women senators are a form of sex-based discrimination, and we cannot allow it to go unchallenged. The question of privilege is therefore well-founded, at least from that perspective. The protection against intimidation afforded by the Rules of the Senate has to mean something and measures must be taken when that protection is attacked. It is the duty of the Senate to ensure that all of its members are protected, whether male or female.

For all these reasons, I believe that the question of privilege raised by Senator Saint-Germain should be accepted, because it meets the four criteria mentioned in rule 13-3.

I want to quickly conclude by addressing the issue of the notice given by Senator Saint-Germain. Here is what rule 13-3 states regarding the fact that the notice must indicate the substance of the alleged breach:

Just to be clear, the substance is defined as the essential meaning.

In that sense, since the notice explicitly mentions that the senator wants to address intimidation tactics that took place in this chamber, it precisely indicates the substance of the alleged breach.

Before I conclude, I will say that during what others called the “good times,” there were no women here. Well, there are women here now, and they are not going anywhere. They are going to stay right here and keep fighting, including for their granddaughters, like my own.

Thank you.

Tonight is difficult for me, because it reminds me of an incident involving Senator Duncan and me when we were debating the bill on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples three years ago. I thought at the time that we should have raised a question of privilege to put an end to this toxic environment, but we decided not to bother. We accepted the situation and let it go.

It is time to draw a line in the sand and ensure that this never happens again.

Colleagues, I wholeheartedly agree with the eloquent words of Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Dupuis and especially Senator Clement. There is no place for bullying in this chamber, in our society, within our families, with our friends or anywhere. Enough is enough. Bullying has gone on long enough, and anyone who does not understand this needs to do some soul‑searching and perhaps think about a career change.

I would, however, like to focus on one specific point, the technical point raised by Senator Plett to the effect that the notice was out of order. I’d like to add to what Senator Dupuis said so eloquently before me. Like her, I’d like to draw your attention to rule 13-3(1), which reads as follows:

Except as otherwise provided, a Senator wishing to raise a question of privilege shall provide the Clerk with a written notice, indicating the substance of the alleged breach . . . .

I will say that again:

. . . a written notice, indicating the substance of the alleged breach . . . .

The written notice is the first notice. However, that is not all. Rule 13-3(4) states, and I quote:

The Senator who has given written notice of a question of privilege shall be recognized during Senators’ Statements for the purpose of giving oral notice of the question. The Senator shall clearly identify the subject matter that shall be raised as a question of privilege . . . .

Let me repeat that last part:

The Senator shall clearly identify the subject matter that shall be raised as a question of privilege and indicate a readiness to move a motion . . . .

There was a written notice that we all received yesterday, and we received a three-minute oral notice during Senators’ Statements today. What did we learn from reading the notice we received last night? Honourable senators, there is a saying in the courts that goes something like, “When the facts are bad, plead matters of procedure.” That is what is happening today.

I will prove to you that this matter of procedure does not hold water. The notice is very short and includes 15 or so lines; I will indicate the points that Senator Saint-Germain covered today that are found in the written notice.

First point:

 . . . at the next sitting of the Senate, I will raise a question of privilege concerning attempted intimidation of senators . . .

Second point:

 . . . that occurred on Thursday, November 9, 2023 . . .

Third point:

 . . . within the Senate chamber and within the Senate of Canada Building.

Fourth point:

 . . . that immediately before and during the time provided for the ringing of the bells to call a vote on a motion to adjourn until the next sitting of the Senate . . .

Fifth point:

 . . . a motion in amendment to Bill C-234 . . .

The only item of information that is missing is the one Senator Plett raises: He was not mentioned by name, he did not recognize that he was being referred to, and he was taken by surprise.

I think it is indicative of the problem with bullies, which is that they do not recognize when they are being bullies.

This question of privilege is specific and detailed enough to be perfectly admissible. As for the other three criteria, I have no doubt that they have been met.

Thank you.

Your Honour, first of all, I will require additional time to prepare remarks because, just as Senator Dalphond outlined in his remarks, there’s a pretty sizable amount of detail that is missing: Anything that pertained to me or Senator Housakos about the retweet of a tweet occurred days later, the following week, and nowhere in the written notice that was provided. The written notice specified only Thursday, November 9 as the date, in this building, and the time frame of immediately following the bells.

I would submit this, with respect to what Senator Plett was mentioning earlier: Not only did Senator Saint-Germain’s written notice last night lack the adequate notice required for a question of privilege, but Senator Saint-Germain’s Senator’s Statement today, early this afternoon — hours ago — also lacked the adequate notice required for a question of privilege. With the written notice, there were no senators specified and no behaviours specified. It simply listed Thursday, November 9, as the date, and this building being the location.

It was the same in the Senator’s Statement early this afternoon — hours ago — which would have afforded those of us who were named tonight to be able to prepare some sort of defence. No senator was specified and no behaviour was mentioned. It simply listed Thursday, November 9 as the date, as Senator Dalphond just mentioned. There was nothing about anything during the following week. There was only a brief reference to social media, and this is how I wrote it down at the time: “. . . which also had a follow-up on social media.” There was a definite implication that it had occurred that day in the immediate time frame of the bells on Thursday, November 9, and not later than that.

When looking at the Companion to the Rules of the Senate, it states, “Notice must include some content indicating the subject being proposed for debate and decision.”

In a ruling on June 21, 1995, Speaker Molgat reiterated the explanation for notice:

. . . The purpose of giving notice is to enable Honourable Senators to know what is coming so that they can have an opportunity to prepare. Why else would there be notice? They must have an opportunity to get themselves ready for the discussion. It is not meant to delay the work of the Senate. It is simply meant to bring order.

Obviously not having any opportunity whatsoever to prepare for this tonight, I would request that I have additional time to prepare some further remarks to respond to these allegations, which I take very seriously.

I would like to say just a few very brief things: First of all, it was a retweet; it was not my primary tweet. As well, it was certainly not doxing. Doxing would be retweeting —

Senator Batters, you have the floor.

Thank you.

It was certainly not doxing. That post that was put out did not contain anyone’s personal emails or phone numbers. The emails and phone numbers on that tweet are from those two particular senators’ offices — their Senate office emails and their Senate phone numbers. I certainly in no way intended to harass anyone or provide any venue to do anything like that. I hear from farmers every day who are extremely upset about this bill not being passed. They wanted to know who was holding up this bill. This tweet gave them the Senate office phone numbers — which, of course, are funded by taxpayers — in order to be able to contact these senators if they so choose.

I ask for additional time to prepare additional remarks. Thank you for your consideration.

I am going to have to briefly suspend the session due to a technical problem with the television audio. We will resume as soon as the issue is fixed.

The problem seems to have been resolved.

I’m wondering if Hansard will have picked up my remarks. Senator Wells said that you couldn’t hear until the end of the remarks.

Yes, it was transcribed. It was only the sound.

Madam Speaker, in light of my other colleagues’ speeches, I don’t have much to add to the discussion, other than to say that the four criteria for parliamentary privilege have been met and that my colleagues’ eloquence speaks for itself. My own speech would not measure up.

I thank each and every one of my colleagues who spoke tonight; let’s move on to the next speech.

There are still a few senators who wish to speak. I am wondering whether you have any comments to add or any new arguments to make to help me make my decision regarding this question of privilege. If any senators have any new points to make, I’d be happy to hear them.

It is with great sadness that I rise on this matter about the events that took place on November 9. As we adjourned, I was in the area of my seat — sitting or standing, getting up to move out — and I noticed a kerfuffle on the other side of the chamber, primarily one senator yelling at three other senators very loudly and at very close quarters. I walked over to that area to be a witness to what was happening — to be a present but silent witness and to intervene, if necessary. Too often in society, when we see things that are wrong, we look the other way, and I chose to be a witness.

Today, I have listened carefully and closely to the remarks of Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Bernadette Clement and Senator Chantal Petitclerc, who were the three senators seated across at this incident.

What I want to add to this evening is to say that, as a silent witness, the events that they have painfully described — that took place on November 9 — were 100% as I observed them. To me, this was a very shocking and very sad event to take place in this august chamber.

I will be brief, because it is true that a lot has been said already.

I want to come back to the minutes after the events, once the cameras were turned off. I was on the other side, a bit farther away, but I had no trouble recognizing the intimidating body language and looming stance of a furious man. Getting angry is normal, especially in politics, but using that anger as a weapon to intimidate colleagues is unacceptable. That goes beyond “passionate” behaviour, as Senator Plett called it earlier.

Both inside and outside this chamber, some have impugned the competence and integrity of our colleagues, Senators Clement and Petitclerc. Such tactics have no place in the Senate or anywhere else. They have no place in our society. They belong to a macho political culture that we don’t have to tolerate anymore. Several of us female senators have been subjected to intimidation tactics from other senators over the past few years. We took it on the chin and didn’t dare call it out.

I want to thank Raymonde Saint-Germain et Bernadette Clement for speaking up and saying that this was not unacceptable.

I will close with a quote from Senator Housakos. On November 9, he said the following:

 . . . they need to be debated in a spirit of confidence that this institution respects rules and procedures. At the end of the day, if we have difficulty with those rules and procedures, I think it makes it very difficult to arrive at strong conclusions that the public, stakeholders and Canadians across the country have faith in.

A bit later, he added this:

That is how a democracy works in a credible way.

I agree with Senator Housakos. A credible democracy functions in a climate of trust and respect for rules and procedures. However, the intimidation we saw in the ranks of his party on November 9 falls far short of this standard. It clearly justifies the question of privilege raised today by my colleague Senator Saint-Germain.

I hope this will be experienced as helpful by colleagues here in the chamber.

I would like to place this debate this evening in a larger international context. I’d like to ask all of us affected by this — and I mean, all of us — to bear in mind that there have been tremendous setbacks the world over in every country in terms of the quest for gender equality. It’s partly COVID; it is partly changes in governments.

The point I wanted to make tonight is that the research in every single country, including Canada, indicates that women in public life — women holding public office — are targets much more often. The effect — and we are seeing it, again, from the research — is an increase in the number of women who say, “I can’t go on. I can’t have my children subjected to this. I can’t have the loss of my own freedom as a result of being targeted.” I’m not addressing intent here necessarily. I’m addressing the impact and consequences. I’m also addressing Canada’s leadership the world over in gender-based analysis.

When we apply that, we have to take into consideration the men and the women who were involved. We also have to put it in the modern context of social media. I would reference the International Development Research Centre, or IDRC, and the National Democratic Institute as the two that I’m most familiar with, which are active right now; the research clearly demonstrates that it’s partly what happens inside legislatures and parliaments the world over. It is also enormously exacerbated by the use of social media.

I also want to note what I think is a fact: Much of what has been described to us tonight happened after the microphones were turned off — when there was no longer a record. As helpful as Senator Wells may have felt that he was being by quoting from Hansard, we need to look at the entire situation because it isn’t only what happens in the formality of our proceedings.

I will close by saying that I was honoured to be brought to Jordan by our Canadian embassy a few months ago in order to work with women in public, political life — many of them were parliamentarians, from five different countries in that region. The focus of that meeting was the following: What is causing the loss of women in public life? That is where the research to which I’m referring was laid out. The truth of the matter is that it’s happening everywhere. It’s potentially happening here in this chamber right now.

Part of gender-based analysis is to remember that we have to pay attention when we are looking at racialization and gender identity, as well as the targeting of women holding positions of authority. Yes, it is because I am a feminist activist, but it is also because there are procedures here that predate the circumstances we’re discussing tonight. They were put in place to create an environment of fairness and courtesy. I believe that everyone in this chamber believes in that as a core value of what we do and how we do it.

We have lost our way, it would seem. I would ask that we bear in mind gender-based analysis as part of the process of re-establishing the core values of why we’re here, what we do and how we do it. Thank you very much.

There are three senators who wish to speak. Again, please share additional arguments because I’ve heard a number of good arguments around this question.

I did prepare something; I will share it. I was witness to this when it happened.

Honourable senators, it is with some hesitation that I rise this evening to take part in this debate on the question of privilege raised by Senator Saint-Germain. However, I feel the need to participate, because what I witnessed last Thursday both surprised and disturbed me.

The Rules of the Senate remind us that:

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. If one senator’s privilege is breached, every senator’s privilege is breached.

Senators will also know that, according to the appendix in our Rules, the privileges we all enjoy as Senators include “. . . freedom from obstruction and intimidation.” What I witnessed in the chamber and beyond the official proceedings could certainly be considered intimidation. What transpired last week was, in my view, unacceptable.

We all have a right to work in a safe and healthy environment. Canadians are watching us. We must be exemplary in our behaviour. We should have zero tolerance for intimidation in this chamber. I will not repeat what Senator Saint-Germain said earlier. I think she eloquently explained and convincingly defended her question of privilege.

I will not comment today on the procedural matter that took place either. I believe that the Speaker was in the right to recognize Senator Clement when asked for the adjournment of the debate on Bill C-234. We heard some colleagues argue that what transpired was wrong; however, the fact that the debate adjourned gave us an opportunity to further debate the bill earlier today and gave other senators an opportunity to participate. We know this is a hotly contested bill, and it is only fair to allow other senators to share their views. Indeed, I very much appreciated the debate we had not long ago, and I look forward to our ongoing discussions on this matter as we contemplate the merits of this bill. In the end, I think we will gain more insight into this piece of legislation and give the bill the attention and consideration it rightfully deserves without expediting its passage. We need to get this right.

Colleagues, any question of privilege deserves our utmost consideration. It is a crucial moment that calls for our collective attention, collaboration and adherence to our rules and procedures. In this esteemed chamber, let us always prioritize collaboration and working together toward common goals. Respect for each other’s perspectives is paramount as it fosters an environment where diverse ideas can flourish, enriching our discussions and decisions.

While navigating this question of privilege, let us not forget the importance of following proper procedures. Established protocols ensure fairness, providing a framework within which we can address issues with clarity and impartiality.

It is disheartening to witness the unintended consequences of recent events, including threats made against a staff member. This underscores the importance of fostering an environment where our discourse is characterized by respect and understanding rather than hostility.

In my previous life in the realm of business, we engaged in discussions about ideas and strategies without undermining the authority of our industry or established institutions, recognizing that doing so would essentially be detrimental to our own standing. I think it’s no different in the Senate. We must always respect each other as we debate and disagree on matters of national importance.

It is equally important to respect our presiding officer and her authority. As Senator Shugart reminded us in his maiden speech, which I repeat because it is important:

. . . whether it is what we say to or about each other, or how we learn again to listen and dialogue with others who don’t share our outlook, or how we guard the health of our institutions — we need to relearn the virtue of restraint.

Out of respect for our former colleague and, above all, out of respect for one another and the Canadians we humbly serve, I think we ought to take note of Senator Shugart’s wise counsel. Of course, this does not prevent us from debating or disagreeing with one another or arguing respectfully for or against the bill. Our former Speaker the Honourable George Furey said:

Argue and debate loud and clear, but please never fall victim to ad hominem or personal attacks, no matter how subtle they are. And never assign motives to the decisions and debates of others. You belittle yourself with such attacks, and the Senate in general.

Moving forward, I hope for a more informed and constructive dialogue. Let us focus on the merits of the bills before us, engaging in debates that enrich our understanding and contribute to the betterment of our nation.

In conclusion, let this moment be a testament to our commitment to collaboration, respect and procedural integrity. By upholding these principles, we strengthen the foundation on which our collective success is built.

Your Honour, I hope you will take into consideration my comments as you consider Senator Saint-Germain’s question of privilege and whether or not a prima facie question of privilege has been established. Colleagues, thank you for your attention.

Honourable senators, I want to thank my colleagues for raising this issue. From the moment I walked into this chamber, the sorts of things we’ve heard about tonight that have previously happened became evident. Perhaps because of the work I’d been doing or the times I’d been before committees, many people who worked in this chamber — both as senators and as staff — approached and talked to me about many of these issues.

What became very clear is that often the focus was on “gotcha” moments, avoiding responsibility, delaying, denying, deflecting, defending the indefensible, or going on the offence if you needed defence. This struck me as I heard my colleagues today.

I want to point out that we have a moment here today. This is the first time these issues have been raised in this way. What I would like to contribute to this, Your Honour, is to say that we’ve all worked in different ways, whether as parents, mentors or teachers — in whatever capacity — to try to help model the types of behaviours we want to see in the world and the ways we want to treat other people.

I want to encourage us to rise to this moment, and I ask you to consider this in your deliberations. I think it’s clear a prima facie case has been made. When you see and hear the impact, that is the moment, that is the issue. When you witness an attempt to blame the very people who’ve experienced that impact or to avoid responsibility, we must all think about who benefits from that perspective.

None of us benefit from that perspective. When we make mistakes — because we all make mistakes — if we each encourage ourselves to take responsibility for them, try to remedy them as best we can and move on from them in a way that honours all of us, then we honour not just ourselves and this institution, but the entire work of this country. Thank you.

Your Honour, I take your point that we should only speak when we add arguments, and I wish to very briefly do that. I was not in the chamber on November 9 because I was recovering from surgery, but I did watch the debate online. I could not, obviously, see on SenVu what transpired immediately after the debate, but I have sort of got a sense of what happened from all the speeches and the comments.

The three senators who have spoken — Senators Petitclerc, Saint-Germain and Clement — were all leaders before they came to the Senate, and they are leaders here today. In addition, Your Honour, Senator Clement is a Black woman. Senator Petitclerc graces us in this chamber every day with her wheelchair. Even though I don’t see them in these lights only, these things are very much part of their identities and presence here, and I would ask you to take that into consideration as you make your ruling on the question of privilege.

Thank you, senators.