Honourable senators, earlier this day Senator Tannas gave notice of a question of privilege. I now call upon Senator Tannas.

Honourable senators, I rise, albeit briefly, in response to the point of privilege raised by Senator Tannas to offer some perspective that may assist you, Your Honour, as you come to a determination. I have full confidence in your ability to come with sound judgment on this issue.

At this point in the process, we are to address the narrow issue of whether there is a prima facie case of a question of privilege using the four criteria set out in rule 13-2(1). The four criteria listed in rule 13-2(1) begin by underlining the urgency of the matter. It must be raised by a senator at the earliest opportunity.

I respectfully submit that the question was not raised at the earliest opportunity. The article in question was published Tuesday, September 27, with the witness in question scheduled to appear Wednesday, September 28. The Senate sat on both Wednesday, September 28, and on Thursday, September 29. Although I acknowledge Senator Tannas’s claim that more details were required before proceeding, there was an opportunity to raise the question of privilege on any of those two days. In fact, a point of privilege on this matter was, indeed, raised in the other place by the Member of Parliament for Perth—Wellington on Wednesday, September 28.

On September 16, 1994, the Speaker ruled that even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in our proceedings.

Second, rule 13-2(1) provides that the matter must directly concern the privileges of the Senate, any of its committees and must relate to a grave and serious breach, which has been defined as something that “would seriously undermine the ability of committees to function and would even jeopardize the work of the Senate itself.”

Clearly, colleagues, this bar is set very high. I would note in that regard, at least at first blush, that the case brought forward by Senator Tannas involves more than its fair share of conjecture and indeed rests upon a large measure of speculation. To state the obvious, colleagues, it is newspapers who are in control of what they publish and when they publish.

At the crux of Senator Tannas’s argument is the notion that a newspaper report containing information around a complaint to the Commissioner of Lobbying is tantamount to a form of intimidation that has jeopardized the Senate’s work.

Now, assuming for argument’s sake that we accept all of the speculation and conjecture, Senator Tannas seems to be making the case that a journalistic source is engaging in a form of witness intimidation rising to the level of a breach of the Senate’s privileges.

To be frank, there’s something chilling about the idea that the Senate would embark upon inquiries around journalistic sources based upon conjecture alone. Indeed, this chamber has pronounced itself firmly in favour of freedom of the press and the need to protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources.

The point of privilege raised today engages broader questions of principle that, unfortunately, cannot be addressed adequately in this forum today, which I would invite you, Your Honour, to address: How do our privileges interact with freedom of the press in a context such as this? May we rely upon the Senate’s privileges to interfere with the confidentiality of journalistic sources?

I would also submit that, notwithstanding the speculative nature of the point of privilege, the record plainly shows that the committee’s ability to function has not been jeopardized or undermined by media coverage of Bill C-11. Setting aside the conjecture around the content and timing of the news story — which I would again note is entirely within the purview of the news outlet — did this newspaper story impinge upon the ability of parliamentarians to do their jobs properly?

For my part, I fail to see how this story undermined the ability of the committee to receive true and factual evidence from the witness. And, indeed, I would further submit that the individual in question did appear before the committee on Bill C-11 and was able to fully advance his views on the bill, as is, of course, appropriate.

Finally, it strikes me that for Senator Tannas’s argument to be valid, one must necessarily first conclude that the complaint made to the Lobbying Commissioner was, itself, a form of intimidation. However, let us be clear that the Member of Parliament for St. Catharines was perfectly entitled to contact the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying if he believed that there was a bona fide allegation of conflict of interest with respect to a witness appearing on a bill and having a financial interest in doing so.

Your Honour, I look forward to your ruling on the matter.

Honourable senators, I have just a few words in support of Senator Tannas’s question of privilege, but first I wish to address at least two of the issues that Senator Gold raised.

Senator Gold raised the issue of Senator Tannas not raising this at the first available opportunity. The fact of the matter is, Your Honour, that Senator Tannas, although he views the newspaper article as having flagged something, I didn’t hear in his remarks that his question of privilege was based upon the newspaper article. It was something that was flagged. His question of privilege is based upon testimony by a witness at a committee and, indeed, written complaints about that.

We look at newspaper articles, and we say, “This needs to be investigated,” and we investigate. That is what Senator Tannas did and rightfully so.

Senator Gold says that Senator Tannas could have raised the question of privilege a little earlier. The fact of the matter is that the chair of the committee rightfully asked the witness, Mr. Benzie, for written confirmation of what had happened. That was on Wednesday evening. Mr. Benzie sent that information to the clerk on Thursday morning, September 29, and I believe the clerk did not receive it until about 11:30 a.m. First of all, that is a half-hour after the deadline for raising notices.

Plus, that particular letter was in English only and had to be translated, which only happened as late as yesterday. So, indeed, there is no way that Senator Tannas could have raised this question of privilege earlier than yesterday because that’s when he and the clerk received the translated version of the entire issue.

First of all, Your Honour, I think what Senator Gold has said insofar as timing is concerned is completely out of line and needs to be dismissed.

I do want to support the position of Senator Tannas. I do not want to repeat everything that he has said, but I will try to add some arguments.

As Senator Tannas has said, Mr. Benzie in his testimony at committee clearly stated that potential witnesses refused to appear in front of our Senate committee because of Member of Parliament Bittle’s conduct. Let me quote Mr. Benzie again:

Digital creators were attacked in a way that we’ve never seen before, to the point where, I’ll tell you, a lot of digital creators have refused to come forward and speak because they’ve seen the treatment that we’ve received.

That, colleagues, bears repeating, and that’s why I did that. It is egregious that witnesses are intimidated to the point where they are afraid to appear at our committees.

His testimony is clear. At this stage, this undisputed testimony must be considered on the face of it by you, Your Honour, deciding whether there’s a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

Second, let me add to the list of cases that Senator Tannas mentioned in support of his arguments. There was a similar incident raised in the House of Commons in 1992. The CBC threatened a lawsuit against a witness because of evidence she presented at the committee. The Speaker ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege, so the threat of legal repercussions made to the witness was considered by the Speaker as an intimidation of the witness.

In the case of Mr. Benzie, we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the sponsor of Bill C-11, who did not only make a threat; he actually sent a letter to the Commissioner of Lobbying, and he made sure that this fact would be made public on the day before Mr. Benzie was due to testify in front of our Senate committee.

On page 267 of the twenty-fourth edition of Erskine May it states, “Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.”

Similar statements are made on page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon, which explains that witnesses are protected from threats or intimidation.

Paragraph 15.23 of Erskine May, twenty-fifth edition, states:

Both Houses will treat the bringing of legal proceedings against any person on account of any evidence which they may have given in the course of any proceedings in the House or before one of its committees as a contempt.

Finally, I must say that this matter causes me considerable concern, largely from what I fear may be a systemic effort on the part of the government to intimidate and shut down not only broader debate on Bill C-11 but also contributions from people and groups we do not often hear from in these debates.

In this regard, let me go back to Mr. Benzie’s testimony when he appeared before our Transport and Communications Committee. Mr. Benzie’s reference to testimony of Mr. Darcy Michael, again, was before the House Heritage Committee but he appeared before that committee on a completely different bill: the Status of the Artist Act.

Mr. Benzie paraphrased Mr. Michael as saying, “I feel like I am being bullied” in the middle of his testimony on the Status of the Artist Act.

When one goes back and examines the specific testimony in question, this testimony occurred on March 21, 2022. What Mr. Michael actually said was, “. . . I’m feeling a little on edge here.”

Why did Mr. Michael say that? It was, again, related to the questioning of witnesses by MP Chris Bittle. What was Mr. Bittle questioning Mr. Michael about? Mr. Bittle specifically questioned Mr. Michael about an answer he had given to another member of the committee about Bill C-11.

Remember that the meeting of the House Heritage Committee on March 21 was on the subject of the Status of the Artist Act. However, Mr. Michael was nevertheless asked about Bill C-11. When he answered that question, expressing his concerns as an online creator about Bill C-11, it apparently triggered Mr. Bittle to go on the attack.

Mr. Bittle demanded to know what section of Bill C-11 Mr. Michael was concerned about. When Mr. Michael’s answer was deemed unsatisfactory, Mr. Bittle became more belligerent, until a point of order by another member of the committee brought an end to this hostile questioning. This was when Mr. Michael stated, “. . . I’m feeling a little on edge here.”

It is hardly surprising he was, since he was not even appearing before the committee to speak about Bill C-11. To quote Mr. Michael’s own words when he appeared before the committee on March 21:

I’m speaking to you as a proud queer digital creator with content that celebrates conversations around mental health, body positivity and human rights. . . .

I’m here in front of you as an artist, as a Canadian, and as a marginalized voice asking all of you not to omit us from this conversation any longer.

Colleagues, what I fear is that the parliamentary secretary for the government’s purpose was ultimately to ensure that, as far as Bill C-11 is concerned, Mr. Michael, and any voices speaking on behalf of digital creators, be excluded from the conversation.

If one considers this incident in the context of the broader pattern, then I submit there is strong evidence that there has been a deliberate attempt to intimidate witnesses from appearing before any parliamentary committee on this matter. Many digital creators were unable or unsuccessful in appearing before the House Heritage Committee on Bill C-11. Fortunately, and despite the efforts of the government, they are now having a much greater voice as they appear before the Senate Transport and Communications Committee on this bill.

A few weeks ago, when the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Marc Miller, appeared before the Senate, Senator Housakos asked him a question about why, in the context of the promises made in relation to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the government had failed to consult adequately with Indigenous people who might be impacted by Bill C-11. The minister responded at that time by stating, “. . . I know you’ll appreciate that the government doesn’t dictate who appears at committees, and who doesn’t.”

However, I believe that, contrary to the minister’s assertion, there is considerable evidence that, when it comes to Bill C-11, the government has been seeking to do precisely that. Not only has it sought to stage-manage proceedings in the House of Commons and to ignore any witness who might cause a problem for the government’s agenda, it has also sought to deter opponents of the bill from speaking. The fact that many of these witnesses speak for marginalized communities should be particularly concerning for all senators. The Senate exists, in large measure, to speak for political minorities.

In that regard, I believe that it is essential that you, Your Honour, put your foot down and say enough is enough. If the Senate is to be independent from the government, the first thing to do is to make sure that our committees can hear witnesses who come here freely and speak their truth. We need to have witnesses other than government-approved ones who come here to repeat government talking points.

The issues Senator Tannas raised are serious and extremely important. Anyone in this chamber who takes these allegations seriously could not possibly condone such an attitude were it to be displayed. What you’re talking about is contempt of Parliament, which is very serious and has consequences.

Having said that, given the seriousness of the matter raised, I reviewed the September 28 meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications at which Mr. Benzie appeared. I noted that Senator Housakos asked Mr. Benzie questions that gave him an opportunity to say he felt intimidated in the other place. However, during his testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, he clearly felt quite confident.

Senator Tannas, to prove that you brought this question of privilege before this chamber by the deadline, you referred to a letter that Mr. Benzie provided to the clerk on September 29, the day after the Transport Committee meeting. I have the letter here. Mr. Benzie received it at 11:26 on the morning of September 28, which was before his appearance at the committee. The letter is from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying. It confirms that he has no obligation to disclose any funding received from parties other than a government. I will read it in English:

“. . . from any domestic or foreign government, at any level – federal, provincial/territorial/state, or local.”

At the time of his appearance, Mr. Benzie knew that he had not violated the Lobbying Act. He knew this when he was appearing before the committee, and the committee had no reason to question it.

The connection you are making with receiving this letter the next day and even later, because it had not been translated, does not, in my opinion, justify the notion that this complaint could have been filed immediately, on September 28. In my opinion, you therefore did not meet the deadline.

Something else that seems important to me is to separate what falls under the privileges and Rules of this chamber, and therefore falls within the purview of our Speaker regarding potential violations of the Parliament of Canada Act or the Rules of the Senate, from what falls within the purview of the other place.

The alleged elements are the responsibility of the other place and have been for some time. After all, Mr. Benzie’s appearance before the House of Commons committee took place four months before his appearance last week before the Senate committee. By his second appearance, he knew what this question was about and what to expect.

You also alluded to the allegation that witnesses who testified before the House of Commons on this same issue were intimidated, and that allegation was made by Mr. Benzie. Now, the important thing is to determine whether these witnesses were intimidated to the point of refusing to come testify before the Senate.

The Clerk of the Transport and Communications Committee has confirmed that no content creator who may have been intimidated at the House of Commons withdrew or declined an invitation issued by the Clerk on behalf of the Transport and Communications Committee. This information, in my opinion, has therefore not been documented.

What concerns me most about this question of privilege is not only the allegations, but the conflation being made between an MP, members of a House of Commons committee who are doing their job and questioning witnesses — rightly or wrongly, I don’t want to be the judge — and the fact that a member of Parliament was able to file a complaint with an officer of Parliament. To me, this is a fundamental issue.

Filing a complaint with an officer is not in itself an act of intimidation and certainly does not mean that the commissioner or officer of Parliament will complete the investigation in a non‑objective manner. If there are legitimate grounds, the officer of Parliament will investigate and come to a conclusion in an objective manner. We have confidence in those officers, whose appointment is endorsed by both houses of Parliament.

The other point that really concerns me is the fact that, once again, there is confusion between the Speaker’s authority over our work and the conflation with what may have happened in the House of Commons. I think that we all care about respecting the independence of both chambers. In my opinion, this misconception fails to respect that independence.

My last point — and I do not want to dwell on it because Senator Gold stressed this point — is that it is also a misconception to assume that any media outlet would cater to the government, an MP or anyone, and that it would choose to publish a news article on a particular day of the parliamentary calendar that would make it possible to somehow influence a witness or even abuse or harass them. It is a misconception to state that the situation is being created by members of Parliament or their employees.

Let me say that it has been stated with great certainty that a complaint filed with an officer of Parliament would be known to only a few people. With my six years of Senate experience, I could comment at length on the breaches of confidentiality that occur in the hallways and even in this chamber.

For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the conditions for finding that the question of privilege is in order have not been fulfilled. Thank you.

I want to add to what Senator Saint-Germain said. Yes, the allegations are serious, but as Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, I was there in person at the September 28 meeting during which the witness, Scott Benzie, appeared.

My colleague, Senator Housakos, did indeed ask questions about the content of the article in The Globe and Mail, and the witness, Mr. Benzie, answered directly, although he said he did not want to spend too much time talking about it. He said that the timing of the article in The Globe and Mail was suspect, but all the attacks on content creators that he referred to occurred in the House of Commons, not the Senate. He talked about attacks that had taken place several months before.

I would note that, during the meeting, I heard Mr. Benzie express his views on Bill C-11 freely and at length, several times, without hesitation. He has major concerns about the bill.

I must add that we are set to hear from about 10 content creators, people commonly called “YouTubers,” all of whom have major concerns about Bill C-11. Not one of them decided not to show up or refused to testify. They have been coming, we have spent several meetings hearing from them, and they have been telling us exactly what they think of Bill C-11.

I do not wish to comment on the merits of the case, as that is for you to do, Your Honour. By merits, I mean the information reported by The Globe and Mail. However, I do not see how the publication of this article violated my privileges, prevented me from doing my job, or otherwise impeded the committee’s work. Not to mention the fact that, as a journalist, I am concerned that an article is being used as the basis for this question of privilege, when this is an example of freedom of the press, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Honourable senators, I can tell you that in the 14 years that I have served in this chamber, I have heard a number of questions of privilege. None have gone to the core of what we do here more than this one. I want to thank Senator Tannas for, in a very thoughtful way, bringing up this question of privilege and arguing it factually.

When I first heard of this, it was just before our committee meeting on Wednesday — I believe it was — which I chaired. It raised a number of flags, and I want to address them all.

First, in response to the arguments from the government leader in the Senate, no one is attacking the journalist, their right to maintain their sources or operate and run whatever stories with whatever narrative they feel free to do so.

The story just raised a red flag. It didn’t actually lead to any conclusions — I don’t think — on the part of Senator Tannas hearing his question of privilege, in Senator Plett’s case or in my case. But what that flag did do, it asked questions. And the questions, Senator Gold, it asked were to get some more information from the witness himself, who in testimony before a Senate committee at this chamber said that he felt intimidated and bullied. Those were his words, and he invited us to look at the testimony in the other house in order to confirm that.

Furthermore, your argument, Senator Gold, about questioning the question of privilege on technicality and procedure, about it being brought forward at its earliest opportunity — in itself on an issue so important — is shameful because the government, and you as government leader, should be really concerned about the nefarious nature of these accusations far more than trying to shut them down using some procedural tool.

I will reinforce — because I happen to be the chair of the committee — that, again, in good faith, after the article that raised the flag — after the comments, Your Honour, of the witness before our committee — the committee asked him to table the document that he had from the Commissioner of Lobbying, which he did. That document came to the clerk — at least to my attention — at around quarter to 12 on Thursday. Thus, based on your argument, it was not the earliest opportunity. He wouldn’t be able to make the deadline three hours before that sitting, but, more importantly, the document wasn’t bilingual. I asked the clerk to have it translated, and it was officially tabled with the committee on Monday. I suspect that’s when Senator Tannas saw it, and that in itself raised a lot of questions for me.

That’s in regard to your feeble argument today in defence of this question of privilege.

Now, in terms of my colleague Senator Saint-Germain — I thank you for your arguments, Senator Saint-Germain, because it reinforces how important this question of privilege is. You’re absolutely right; the witness came before us, and he said what he said. You say that in itself shows how he was comfortable; he came before this house of Parliament.

But the truth of the matter is, he was intimidated and bullied to such an extent that as a witness — as an individual Canadian — he felt compelled to go before an officer of Parliament — the Commissioner of Lobbying — a few days or weeks before his testimony to get security of allegations that were made by two parliamentarians. Why were those allegations made? Senator Saint-Germain, when a parliamentarian tells a witness — a Canadian citizen — that they’re a liar and a lobbyist, when they’re before the committee or outside the purview of that committee, that is outrageous.

We have privileges here. We are guardians of this institution, but an individual Canadian citizen who wants to come before a committee and is then attacked by two members of Parliament about lying and being a lobbyist — to the point where he felt compelled to go to the Commissioner of Lobbying to get a letter in order to justify, “Hey, I’m safe,” is inexcusable. That in itself is the argument that there is something deeply nefarious going on here, and we need to get to the bottom of it.

Colleagues, the truth of the matter is that Parliament and the Senate are the custodians of democracy and freedom, and it should be concerning on our part when the executive branch of government overreaches and, at some point in time, feels they can intimidate testimony just because they don’t agree. This is our ultimate job.

Like I said, I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but we have an obligation to get to the bottom of why this individual felt the way he did now more than ever.

Also, if you go to the House testimony, you realize it wasn’t a one-off. There were a couple of people who were bullied to the point where parliamentarians had to be called to order by other colleagues to stop that bullying.

All stakeholders and all individuals need to feel secure when they come before their parliamentary bodies. They need to feel they can come and express themselves without intimidation — without bullying — regardless of which side of the debate they are on. It’s only normal. We expect that courtesy amongst ourselves in this chamber. It doesn’t matter if it’s the opinion of 2 senators versus 103, or whatever the case may be. I think that’s ultimately important.

The fact is that Mr. Benzie, in particular, is not a lobbyist. He is a Canadian content producer who is trying to articulate on behalf of his livelihood and his industry vis-à-vis a bill. The fact that he cannot afford high-priced lobbyists to come to the corridors of power in order to articulate himself is even more reason that we need to make sure these voices are protected more than anyone else’s. We all know the business in this town. High‑priced lobbyists come here — they’re paid to be combative, they send us emails and chase us down the corridors, and they have friends of friends who call us in order to get a hearing. But when, again, a single individual — and that’s what Mr. Benzie is — comes and testifies before our committees, it is incumbent on us to make sure they’re heard.

Colleagues, let’s keep in mind that in 2015, this government promised more transparency, accountability and democracy than ever before. Tampering with a witness and tampering with testimony, either through media or at committee itself, should raise a lot of red flags.

Unlike Senator Saint-Germain, I can tell you — as the chair of a committee who is in constant contact with the clerk — there are a number of witnesses who expressed an interest, at the beginning of our study back in June, in appearing before our committee but who are currently not answering our calls. It’s one thing for witnesses to say, “Sorry, we heard enough testimony, our issues have been addressed and we don’t want to come before the committee.” It’s a whole other situation where I know of a couple of witnesses who were vociferous about coming before our committee in June and are currently no longer responding.

Honourable senators, I will terminate by saying that I think the remedy in the past was to send this to the Rules Committee for review and to have a thorough inquiry, but now, as a chair, I am very uncomfortable, and I question — we should all question — the contamination of this study. We know what happened on the House side. We took measures to make sure it doesn’t happen on this side — that every witness is heard and that we take the time to do a thorough study. But when I start hearing witnesses say they’ve been intimidated, I think there is nothing scarier than that. Our judicial and parliamentary systems have to be transparent, clear and fair.

Your Honour, I leave this to your wisdom to determine.

I have a few points to make. The first point is in response to Senator Plett’s and Senator Housakos’ comments that this question of privilege is not based on the article. I would just like to quote the letter from the Honourable Scott Tannas to Gérald Lafrenière, Interim Clerk of the Senate.

The letter reads:

The timing and content of an article in the Globe and Mail on September 27, 2022, entitled “Critic of Bill C-11 should be investigated for failing to disclose funding from YouTube, say Liberal MP” may constitute intimidation of a witness appearing before a Senate Committee.

So that is at the heart of the matter.

Another point I would like to make is that I would like to put on the record, as it is somewhat germane to the present debate, that the Speaker in the other place has ruled against the point of order raised in relation to this issue. In so ruling, the Speaker said the following:

 . . . the Chair has reviewed the facts submitted that are within its purview. It is not immediately apparent that the conduct in question was intended as an attempt to intimidate the witness or an act of reprisal for his appearances before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The Chair would also remind members of the importance of choosing their words carefully when discussing the conduct of other members.

Nevertheless, I hope that the Speaker of the Senate will take this into account when he comes back to us with an answer.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the very important question of privilege that has been raised by Senator Tannas today.

Let me begin by noting that I have served in the Senate for a considerable period of time — now in my fourteenth year. I have also had the privilege to serve as a member of Parliament for Newfoundland and Labrador and to serve in the provincial house of assembly. I have to say that, after nearly 30 years in politics, I have rarely witnessed a more blatant attempt by a member of the government to intimidate a witness appearing before a legislative committee or, more broadly, to potentially deter other witnesses from coming forward.

I believe that is what we are witnessing in this case. The facts that my colleague referenced are compelling, in my view. For one, my colleague has confirmed what the witness, Mr. Benzie, told our Senate Transportation and Communications Committee, which I am a member of. Mr. Benzie was very clear in stating that he felt personally attacked in the House of Commons Heritage Committee because of the views he had expressed before that same committee on Bill C-11 this past spring.

Mr. Benzie went on to state that the effect of this attack in the House of Commons Heritage Committee has led other digital creators to conclude that they too were being singled out in a manner that made it inadvisable for them to appear before any parliamentary committees that might be examining Bill C-11.

If one goes back and examines the exchange that took place between Mr. Benzie and Chris Bittle, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I believe it is difficult not to conclude that Mr. Benzie was gratuitously attacked. I would like to quote from part of that exchange. At the May 30, 2022, meeting of the House Committee for Canadian Heritage where Mr. Benzie appeared, as soon as it was his turn to raise questions, Mr. Bittle began as follows:

Mr. Benzie, when you appeared before our committee a little while ago, a couple months ago, you were asked if you had received any money from tech companies. You denied that allegation. Today when you appeared you said, “we have received some funding from our industry partners, including platforms and private industry involved in the success of digital creators.”

Was that statement untrue when you testified before us the first time, Mr. Benzie?

After several attempts by Mr. Benzie to point out that what Mr. Bittle was alleging was misleading, Mr. Benzie was finally able to state the following about the allegation made by Mr. Bittle:

I have had conversations with your department, with the minister’s department, with Canadian Heritage, and I have been very open about the fact that we received some funding from our platform partners. . . . Eighty per cent of the revenue in Digital First Canada comes from Buffer Festival, which is our money.

Mr. Bittle responds to that very accusatorially with the demanding question “Which tech companies are you receiving money from?”

Mr. Benzie reiterated what he already apparently told the Department of Canadian Heritage: that he received funding specifically in relation to the Buffer Festival. Mr. Bittle feigns dissatisfaction with that answer and says, “This is really shocking to me.” He then immediately asked, “. . . were you lying to this committee when you first appeared?”

Colleagues, I submit that, for people who rarely interact with government or with a parliamentary committee, this level of hostility from a member of the government is clearly designed to have a chilling effect. However, what is more damning is the fact that Mr. Bittle follows up on these attacks by formally asking the Commissioner of Lobbying to launch an investigation into Digital First Canada, the very organization Mr. Benzie is the executive director of.

Mr. Benzie has since received written confirmation from the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying that he was not in any way in violation of the Lobbying Act, illustrating how groundless the accusation really was. Colleagues, we need to ask what the purpose was of Mr. Bittle’s actions.

One can only conclude that the action was designed not only to intimidate Mr. Benzie but also to deter other creators who might be thinking of presenting their views on Bill C-11 to a parliamentary committee. In my view, this was an attempt at intimidation, and if we permit it to go unchecked, it will be repeated. If this becomes systemic, then our parliamentary committees will cease to be an effective voice for the public. For that reason, we must hold those who attempt this blatant intimidation to full account.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Tannas for bringing this forward, and I want to thank all of the speakers. There have been some very eloquent arguments put forward.

At the basis of this, though, as Senator Gagné pointed out, the actual wording of the letter appears to say that it’s the timing and content of the article in The Globe and Mail that may constitute intimidation of a witness. I’m willing to read into that what Senator Tannas has argued before us, but technically the letter is something very different than what we’re talking about here.

I have heard no proof that the parliamentary secretary or, as Senator Tannas said, the second member of Parliament who was aware of the complaint to the Commissioner of Lobbying provided any information to The Globe and Mail. It doesn’t matter how many times a senator opposite asserts that; that does not make it true and that does not provide evidence.

I could assert that those who are opposed to this bill, who have been part of a campaign of writing tons and tons of letters and who work closely with certain parliamentarians, decided that this was a way to discredit the government by bringing forward the fact that this Commissioner of Lobbying complaint had been filed.

I could assert that. I have no evidence of that. I have no evidence that the chair of the committee, who created the time and space to ask the questions of the witness and bring it forward, did that for any other reason. I have no basis and no evidence to suggest that the chair of the committee, who is very familiar with the Rules of the Senate and knows his way around these things, didn’t do that or did do that. I have no evidence. I’m saying to you there is no evidence to proceed.

Is it a serious issue? If true, would it be serious? It’s very serious. There is no evidence.

I also want to say that the fact that there is aggressive — and I agree with the words — sometimes bullying questions of witnesses is something that should be seen as abhorrent. It should be seen as egregious in that chamber as well as in this chamber and in our committees. I have seen and participated and heard and talked to senators afterwards about their way of dismissing opinions of witnesses that come before us. That in and of itself is a matter that I think we should be very clear about: that, as a collegial institution, we will not support or allow that to continue, but it is not evidence of what is being alleged here.

I believe you don’t have the grounds for a prima facie case on this, and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to this question of privilege with some trepidation. I don’t mean to belittle the seriousness of the concern raised by Senator Tannas, but my brother is a retired golf pro at a golf club. He describes everything in terms of how big or small a handicap anybody has. Higher numbers are worse. When it comes to questions of parliamentary privilege, I am about a 30 handicap, and I apologize for my limited knowledge on that point.

Nevertheless, I do think there are some issues that are worthy of consideration by the Speaker here, and I would like to refer to them ever so briefly.

I agree, in particular, with the observation that Senator Lankin made about the importance of dignity and decorum in the Senate and in Senate committees, and let me share with you my own personal learning experience on that.

In the debates in the committee and the questioning of witnesses during the consideration of medical assistance in dying, there was a stretch of time when I was fairly aggressive with respect to a witness. Senator Plett upbraided me for my conduct. I was troubled by that, but on reflection concluded that he was right, and I had, at least, overreached. He didn’t bring the matter here, but he provided an opportunity for me to learn the point that Senator Lankin made. I don’t always agree with Senator Plett, but I appreciated that assistance and intervention. I think it’s fundamental for us to think in those terms, and in that respect, Senator Tannas’s angst about this — if I could call it that — is not ill placed.

There are two concerns I think you have here, Your Honour. One is the point Senator Lankin made, which is a lack of evidence, and, quite frankly, based on the nature of the complaint, in my view, it is inaccessible to you because it would require you to be able to dig into the question of that story and how it came about. Who knows? The allegations of deviousness here might be legitimate, but there is actually no way to know. The first question, I think, is evidence.

The second point is jurisdiction. Much of the concern that’s expressed here — and I don’t mean to diminish it, but much of it is rhetoric — focuses on the way in which some people behaved in the other place. I think that is beyond your jurisdiction.

The second problem with jurisdiction is exactly the point that was raised with respect to Senator Tannas’s letter, and if I can take a second to call it up — I don’t quite have the research resources of others — the language of the complaint is that “the timing and content of an article may constitute intimidation of a witness.” It is with respect to this issue of what the press did that could intimidate a witness.

With the greatest respect, wandering into that field invites you to reflect on what I will call the privileges of the press vis-à-vis the Senate, and I would be, with respect, very uncomfortable going there to chastise The Globe and Mail for having published this article as a compromise of how we do our business in the Senate.

Indeed, on reflection, it might invite you to read every newspaper every morning to see if somebody has written something that could be conceived as intimidating a witness at some committee, and, ultimately, quite frankly, that would only be speculation.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak to this issue in the bifurcated view of being both a member of the Transport and Communications Committee and a journalist who spent 30 years working in the trenches.

I want to start first by talking about Scott Benzie and the excellent work he has done in highlighting some of the challenges of Bill C-11.

I have been speaking with Scott about this bill on and off in the course of my own research for months now. I have found him to be a thoughtful person with a strong point of view about Bill C-11, not all of which I necessarily share, but I think he is a good-faith witness who speaks passionately and with knowledge about the nature of his industry.

He has been a credible voice because he is not just one single individual. He is the executive director of a lobby group that speaks on behalf of digital creators and he is the artistic director of the successful Buffer Festival.

The issue which arose with Mr. Benzie was a question of whether or not he had revealed soon enough — because he certainly did acknowledge the fact — that his festival and his organization received funding from YouTube and TikTok. They provided cash funding and also goods in kind, providing transportation for artists and filmmakers who were displaying their films at the Buffer Festival.

The question is whether that was a breach of anything. Mr. Benzie has provided us with letters that demonstrate that the lobbyist registry assured him that he was in breach of no protocols. I’ve seen copies of that correspondence.

So whether or not you think Mr. Benzie is correct about Bill C-11, I put it to you that he is a good-faith voice on the issue and that he has not hidden or denied the fact that he has received funding from YouTube and TikTok, nor have YouTube and TikTok denied that they had provided that funding, which was not given to him as a lobbyist but in support of the artistic festival for which they were the underwriters.

The question is not whether Mr. Benzie has done anything wrong, but how suspicious we ought to be about the timing of this leak.

I acknowledge that the timing stinks of what one might call dirty pool, that it is convenient timing that this article came out the day before Mr. Benzie was to testify. Is that, however, a violation of any Senate rules? In the first place, as Senator Lankin has so eloquently said, we have absolutely no idea where this information came from and how it came into the possession of The Globe and Mail reporter.

I want to tell you from — I don’t want to say my vast experience — but from my 30 years of experience as a journalist, you might be surprised how information gets to journalists sometimes, and sometimes it’s not from the most obvious source.

I had a number of scoops in my career in which people had provided me leaks, and people would call and say, “It must have been so-and-so who leaked to her.” “This person should be fired because they must have leaked to her.” I would sort of smirk to myself because that person had not, in fact, been the source of my information.

So although one might induce or intuit where this information came from, we have absolutely no idea what this reporter’s sources were, and it would be a grotesque violation of our whole understanding of freedom of the press to ask the reporter to reveal her sources. Did her sources come from someone in the Department of Canadian Heritage? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. Did they come from a politician? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else.

So who exactly created this breach?

Then we come to the article itself.

I read it on the day it came out, and I have read it subsequently. It is a perfectly fair and balanced news story. It is not a vicious attack on Mr. Benzie. It quotes Mr. Benzie at length defending himself, and it quotes both TikTok and YouTube defending their funding of Mr. Benzie’s festival.

I grant you that the timing smells fishy. I would also suggest that sometimes our friends in the other place are blissfully ignorant of the timing of what we’re doing here, and we would need to presuppose that somebody plotted knowing precisely when Mr. Benzie was going to be testifying to get this information to The Globe and Mail reporter to have it come out at just the right time.

I worked in newspapers 23 years. They don’t work that way. For all we know, Ms. Woolf could have filed this story a week beforehand, and it was stuck in the queue waiting to be printed.

Journalists can scarcely conspire to hold a staff picnic, much less conspire with the government to attack an artist and creator.

I grant you, when I saw the timing of the article, my back was up because I did not think that Mr. Benzie deserved to be placed in this very awkward situation, but I would caution us: Against whom are we supposing that we would be sanctioning here? We have no idea what the source of the leak was. We have no idea what the timing of the article was meant to be, and we have no evidence that this journalist wrote this piece with any kind of malice. It is a straight-up piece of good journalism that describes this issue and then accurately describes the testimony that we had heard in the committee earlier.

I agree that Mr. Benzie seems to have been the target of perhaps some unfair dealing and I’m grateful to Senator Tannas for raising this issue, but I don’t think you have the prima facie case here.

I rise today to speak on the point of privilege before you, Your Honour. Honourable senators, I stand today to say a few words on the intimidation of witnesses during a committee meeting.

As Chair of the Human Rights Committee, I want to share my concerns and some personal experiences with you. I believe it is important to ensure the safety and mental well-being of witnesses. We deal with very sensitive topics, and it is very concerning to hear about a witness being intimidated and it becoming a national story in the media.

I think of the recent hearings that the Human Rights Committee had in Edmonton where two women had to stop very difficult testimony to share with us. Senators Busson, Arnot, Martin and Jaffer were all present during this emotional testimony. Senator Jaffer and I consistently reassured the witnesses and helped them through this testimony. I shudder to think of the outcome had we not been sensitive.

We heard similar stories during our visit to the Quebec mosque. Survivors shared their harrowing ordeal, and the shock from the shooting was still clearly painted on their faces. We were sympathetic and encouraged them to share their stories. Can you imagine if we had been insensitive in our line of questioning?

Senators Gerba, Oh, Jaffer and I found it incredibly difficult to hear, and I can only imagine how painful it was for them to recount.

I also think of the study we just completed on forced and coerced sterilization. Survivors opened their hearts to us and shared their trauma with us. Some shared details they had never spoken out loud before. They told us how difficult it was for them to speak and that they had never spoken about this to anyone. We made them feel comfortable. We assured them they were in a safe space.

We need to remember that witnesses often put themselves at risk when they consent to share their stories with us. It is our privilege to hear often intimate and difficult life experiences, especially in the context of our current study on Islamophobia.

Recently we met with students who spoke of their experiences of Islamophobia. There were about 30 students. It took some time for them to be comfortable enough to share their stories, and we gave them the necessary space to feel safe.

Can you imagine if they had heard reports of intimidation of witnesses by parliamentarians? It is essential for us to build trust. These are the Canadians whom we represent.

In order to continue doing our work, we must treat our witnesses with respect and compassion. We must create a safe space where witnesses’ voices will be heard and respected. I worry now that there are accusations of intimidation that it might make it increasingly difficult for us to have witnesses in the future and make the work of our committees very difficult. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I would like to follow up on something the Chair of the Human Rights Committee said.

You will understand that we didn’t have as much time to prepare as the people who made the proposal, but what strikes me in this case is that, in the documentation that was given to us today, if I’m reading the letter correctly, both the French and English versions read as follows:

The timing and content of an article . . . may constitute intimidation of a witness appearing before a Senate Committee.

The letter is not stating that it is intimidation, just that “it may constitute” intimidation.

Could you help us clarify what the nature of a question of privilege is? If we are citing the publication of an article, I am guessing that your decision will deal with the article, the timing of its publication and its content.

I would like to come back to the minutes of the Transport and Communications Committee. I see nothing in that document that would lead me to agree with what the Chair of the Human Rights Committee stated. In other words, it seems to me that the question of privilege is the responsibility of individual senators, Senate committees and the entire Senate. Therefore, we have the responsibility of ensuring that witnesses can come to a safe space to present their arguments. That is not the experience we have always had at Senate committees or in the Senate of Canada.

The senator who chairs the Human Rights Committee raised an extremely important issue. I would like you to give some thought to this. In this specific case, what measures did the committee, its officials and its members take, if they were that worried about what they consider to be intimidation, to ensure that the witness in question felt completely safe in coming to testify before the Senate committee?

When I read the minutes, I see nothing to suggest that any measures were actively taken to correct what the other place considered to be intimidation or that highlights the fundamental difference between how the two chambers treat witnesses.

I would like you to spend some time reflecting on that, and I would also like you to enlighten us more specifically about what is involved in the requirement for senators on committees to ensure that witnesses who appear before us . . .

As we know, it is extremely difficult. You said it yourself, and I will say it again: It is extremely difficult for witnesses to appear before a Senate committee, because that alone is intimidating. People may not have experience testifying, and even those who do tell us that it’s always a challenge. I think we have an obligation to make sure we create a safe environment for these witnesses. Thank you.

Senator Plett, did you wish to speak before Senator Tannas?

Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I have a simple, brief statement. I do not want to get into a debate here.

However, I do want to briefly address the comments that Senator Gagné made in regard to what the Speaker of the House of Commons had done. I apologize to the senator if I did not understand everything she said because I’m sure that she would never want to leave out any part of the ruling that the Speaker of the House of Commons made. In fact, the first part of the ruling the Speaker of the other place made was very clear that this was in reference to a Senate committee and that he did not have jurisdiction in this place. That was the main reason why the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled against the question of privilege in the other place.

Therefore, Your Honour, I think that you need this information at least — the Speaker in the other place did not rule that this wasn’t a question of privilege. Rather, he ruled it wasn’t a question of privilege over there, and he did not have the right to declare one in this place. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Tannas for raising this very important question, and I want to thank all senators who took the time to participate in the debate. I will take the matter under advisement.