The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, earlier this day Senator Tannas gave notice of a question of privilege. I now call upon Senator Tannas.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 13-4, I give oral notice of a question of privilege I intend to raise later this day.

When witnesses appear before Senate committees, parliamentary privilege is accorded to them and gives them certain immunities and protections, including protections against threats, intimidation and harassment. I became concerned with the timing and content of an article in The Globe and Mail dated September 27. It spoke of a complaint filed with the Commissioner of Lobbying against a witness who was scheduled to appear the following day before the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

Later today, I will present my views, this being a potential question of privilege and contempt of Parliament.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): 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.

[English]

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:

[Translation]

 . . . 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.

[English]

Hon. Brent Cotter: 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.

Senator Dupuis: Senator Mockler, Senator Woo’s question is extremely important. I don’t want to make this a question of privilege, but would you be willing to share your written response to Senator Woo with the rest of the senators?

Hon. Leo Housakos: 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.

[Translation]

Hon. Fabian Manning: 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.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: 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.

[Translation]