Senator Plett: Leader, in October 2018, the House of Commons was told by Ralph Goodale, parliamentary secretary at the time, that officials had begun their assessment of the IRGC to list them as a terrorist entity. Yet, just last week, we were being told — or implied — by you and Public Safety Minister Mendicino that it wasn’t a job for the government.

Which one is it? Are we supposed to believe that Department of Justice officials have been working on this report since 2018? Was a report produced, and if so, did the Minister of Public Safety or anyone make a recommendation to cabinet?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, last week I could not help but be reminded of a department that the Trudeau government put together when it first came to power named the Results and Delivery Unit, which was based on the “deliverology” approach. Your government said it was adamant on keeping focused on its priorities and delivering what was promised to Canadians.

I was reminded of this thanks to an answer that you gave in this chamber last week to a question posed by my colleague Senator Martin on reconciliation efforts. You said:

This government has begun the work. In the tradition that I am part of and I’m proud to embrace, it is said that we are not obligated —

— this is interesting —

— to finish the work, but we are not permitted not to start it. This government has started it.

Leader, is that what your government meant by “deliverology” back in 2015, that it was not obligated to finish the work it started? Senator Gold, without shaking your head, please answer the question.

Senator Plett: The answer was a very direct answer to a very direct question. Senator Gold, your response from last week, in fact, rings truer than your government’s “deliverology” mandate at the start of its term.

This Trudeau government has a long track record of broken promises to Canadians, which are brought up week after week in this chamber: electoral reform, fixing the housing crisis, clean drinking water for Indigenous reserves, planting 2 billion trees and the budget that was supposed to balance itself. I can go on and on, leader. These are all promises that your government has not delivered on.

Leader, did your government ever have the intention to fulfill these promises; and, if so, when? Or was it always more about appearances, as it often seems to be with this government?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, my next question is maybe somewhat of a supplementary to what Senator Housakos already spoke about.

Last week, you will recall that I asked you twice about your government’s reluctance to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist organization. In your answer, you spoke about the separation of powers, implying that it is not your government’s responsibility to decide whether to designate or not to designate — a bizarre response considering that the decision on whether to list an organization as a terrorist entity is taken entirely within the executive branch.

In fact, in 2018, the House government leader’s parliamentary secretary at the time outlined the process for listing the IRGC under the Criminal Code. A criminal or security intelligence report is drafted which documents the entity’s activities. The report is then reviewed by an independent council at the Department of Justice to ensure that the entity meets the legal threshold for listing. If the Minister of Public Safety agrees that this is the test that is to be met, he may make a recommendation to cabinet that the entity be listed.

Leader, the procedure is clear, so is it that your government can’t list the IRGC or that it won’t? Which begs the same question I asked you last week, leader: why?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Will Senator Cordy take another question?

Senator Plett: Senator Cordy, you mentioned in your speech that regulations around this vary from province to province. It is actually quite simple as to why they do. It is because private ownership of exotic animals falls entirely under provincial jurisdiction. Senator Omidvar already asked about part of this.

Do you have any concerns that Bill S-241 may be encroaching on provincial jurisdiction? Have you spoken, Senator Cordy, to any of the provinces to see how they feel about this legislation? Because clearly, we are considering passing legislation here that doesn’t fall under our jurisdiction.

Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Cordy, for that. I guess some of us believe that this would be the tail wagging the dog, so to speak. Maybe we should go to the proper jurisdictions first. Nevertheless, I will leave that, and I will leave it for my speech.

You alluded a fair bit to elephants. Have you visited any establishments that have elephants? Have you seen these elephants crammed into small cages? Have you seen them freeze in wintertime? If you haven’t, are you aware — and I don’t want you to answer for him — whether the sponsor has made some of those trips to these places? Has he informed you that, in fact, these elephants are being mistreated — elephants that have never been in the wild; they have always been in captivity? Most elephants in our country have been bred in captivity and have never been in the wild. Have you collaborated? Is there anyone who has visited any zoos, any wildlife establishments that have elephants?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): 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.

[Translation]

Senator Plett: 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.