Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
Motion in Amendment--Debate Adjourned
February 27, 2020
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That the report be not now adopted, but that it be amended:
1.by replacing paragraph 1 with the following:
“1. (a) That the revised Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Senate Workplace, appended to this report, be adopted;
(b) That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to study and recommend amendments to the Policy adopted pursuant to paragraph 1(a), when and if the committee is formed;
(c) That the papers and evidence received and taken, and work accomplished, by the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights in relation to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, during the first session of the Forty-second Parliament, be referred to the committee for the purposes of its study of the Policy pursuant to paragraph 1(b);
(d) That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights submit its final report on its study pursuant to paragraph 1(b) to the Senate no later than 30 days after the adoption of this report or the formation of the committee, whichever comes later; and
(e) That the content of any report from the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights presented to the Senate in relation to its study pursuant to paragraph 1(b), if the report is adopted by the Senate, be deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, and the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators for the purpose of their respective studies pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3;”;
2.in paragraph 2, by:
(a)adding the words “,when and if the committee is formed,” after the word “Parliament”; and
(b)by replacing the date “April 30, 2020” by the words “60 days after the adoption of this report or 60 days after the formation of the committee, whichever comes later”;
3.in paragraph 3, by replacing the date “April 30, 2020” by the words “60 days after the adoption of this report or 60 days after the formation of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, whichever comes later”; and
4.by adding the following new paragraph 6:
“6. That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, and the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate, any reports authorized by this report, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the reports be deemed to have been presented in the Chamber.”.
In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hartling, that the report be not now adopted, but that it be amended — may I dispense?
On debate.
Thank you, Senator McPhedran, for your speech. I wasn’t going to speak, but I must say, I share your concern about the third party oversight of the harassment policy.
First of all, it’s a tremendous improvement. Like you, I want to compliment everyone who worked on it. I know the Senate Administration and staff have been in a difficult position over the years with some of the problems we’ve had, but the third party has to be beyond reproach and beyond independent. You indicated in your comments that there is a concern they’re going to be accountable or somehow overseen by the Senate Administration. Quite frankly, that’s a major problem. You’re an expert in this area, not me, but we need to find a way to give that group complete independence, in other words, a one-time contract of 10 years non-renewable, so they have no perception of influence by the Senate Administration.
We’ve had a problem here. We’re all talking about recent events, but I’ve been here a while and we’ve had this problem for a long time, unfortunately, in the Senate. A number of years ago, I was on Internal Economy. An employee approached me about someone going around the Victoria Building making inappropriate comments. The person came to see me because I was on Internal. What should they do? I said, of course, you go to the human resources department, the administration of the Senate, and it will be resolved.
I did not think to check back because I believed what I was telling the person was correct. It went around in circles. That employee of the senator was eventually charged with very serious crimes in Toronto and went to jail. However, various employees in the Victoria Building had put up with the person’s behaviour for a long time with no action being taken.
The heart of the problem, in my opinion, is that the governance model is wrong. Senate employees work for senators. They complain to the Senate Administration. I don’t call into question the motives of the Senate Administration at all in my comments, but they’re in a conflict because they report to senators.
We must have a strong outside group that is completely independent. Given what has happened here in recent years, I’m amazed most employees, when looking for rights and protection, have not formed either an association or a union. Many employees in the Senate would come to the conclusion that they’ve seen the enemy, and it is us. If I was a Senate employee, I would be looking for an association or a union, in addition to what we’re doing on this harassment policy, to protect themselves. Their rights have to be protected collectively.
One of the groups in the House of Commons has unionized employees. We may want to consider an association. However, that’s up to the employees of senators to decide. We need to solidify the rights of the employees so everyone is protected, so nobody goes through what has happened in the past. I share your concern that we have to strengthen that particular area as well. Thank you, colleagues.
