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]

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: 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:

[English]

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

[Translation]

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.

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]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: 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.

[English]

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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?