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.