Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Motion to Repeal the 2009 Senate Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace Adopted

March 30, 2021


Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain [ + ]

Pursuant to notice of March 15, 2021, moved:

That the Senate Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace adopted by the Senate in June 2009, and the 2019 interim process for the handling of harassment complaints currently in effect, be repealed upon the appointment of the designated recipient provided for in the new Senate Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy, provided that if that person is appointed before the adoption of this order, the 2009 policy be repealed upon the adoption of this order.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to this motion to repeal the Senate Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace that was adopted in 2009. This moment is the culmination of almost three years of work at the CIBA Subcommittee on Human Resources.

The subcommittee took on the issue of harassment in 2018 in response to a highly publicized case, but first and foremost it was motivated by the duty to act to protect employees and senators by preventing harassment and violence in the workplace. Since then, 23 meetings of the Subcommittee on Human Resources and 15 meetings of CIBA have been held on this matter. A total of 19 witnesses were called, including the representatives of all Senate employees and of senators’ offices, union representatives and labour relations and harassment management experts. Four members of this chamber also took part in the consultations.

In response to this broad consultation, the Internal Economy Committee published its 37th report in March 2019, entitled Modernizing the Senate’s Anti-Harassment Policy: Together let’s protect our healthy worklife. This report contained 28 recommendations and laid the foundation for the new Senate Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy.

This new policy was also developed in accordance with the requirements of the Canada Labour Code regulations published in June 2020, following the passage of Bill C-65, with a focus on preventing harassment and engaging with employees.

The Senate has been subject to these regulations since January 1, 2021. The prompt implementation of this policy is vitally important to our credibility.

We wouldn’t have been able to unanimously adopt this policy were it not for the remarkable cooperation of all senators, representing all of the groups and caucuses in the Senate that had worked on this issue over the years. I want to commend Senator Scott Tannas, who co-chaired the Subcommittee on Human Resources during the consultation period, and Senator Judith Seidman, who has been in this position since the beginning of this Parliament. Thanks are also in order for Senators Larry Campbell, Dennis Dawson, Tony Dean and Lucie Moncion.

This new policy innovates and will place the Senate as an example for other Canadian institutions to follow. It proposes a drastic change to the current policy that will be repealed by this motion. Colleagues, allow me to outline some of those key elements that make up this new, robust policy.

First and foremost, the policy is based on the principles of independence and external oversight. This will be ensured by the role of the designated recipient — in other words, the independent third party. Notices of occurrences will be submitted directly to this independent third party at the very beginning of the process in order to inspire the needed transparency and credibility to all parties. The role of the independent third party will go beyond responding to complaints; it will also act as an information source for all questions related to this policy and to its process.

The policy will also focus on timeliness and ensure greater respect for delays. All matters will be addressed promptly. The resolution process will have to be completed in a strict six-month time frame. This requirement goes further than the obligations to the Canada Labour Code. Timeliness is truly a guiding principle of this policy and was put in place to avoid the repetition of a situation like the case whose management seriously damaged the Senate’s reputation.

Additionally, a new updated, modern definition of what constitutes harassment and violence will be, henceforth, the reference. This benchmark definition is in conformity with the Canada Labour Code.

In comparison to the current 2009 policy, the new policy also provides a wider scope of application. The measures will not be limited to Senate buildings and will now adequately represent the realities of working for this institution. This policy will apply, without ambiguity, to any work-related place and any work-related event, including on social media. At any place and at any time, employees and senators will be protected.

The policy will focus on prevention from harassment and violence. This will include mandatory training for everyone. This training will have to be completed within three months of employment. It will be specific, adapted to the Senate workplace environment and wide-ranging, and aimed at recognizing, minimizing and preventing harassment and violence in our workplace.

Members of the subcommittee insisted on the importance of having this policy implement an ongoing collaboration with Senate employees. Both the policy committee and the workplace committee, composed of a mixed representation of Senate employees, will have important roles to play going forward. These responsibilities will include conducting, jointly with the HR subcommittee, the review process and the workplace assessment.

Now that I have highlighted some of the assets of this policy, I also have the responsibility to set the record straight and to correct misinformation related to the media. I do so in the name of the right of senators, Senate employees and the public to fair information. It is also, for me, a matter of respect for the media who have been misinformed, in this case, to the point that CIBA had to issue two formal substantial corrections. It is essential to recall the facts for the sake of transparency, truthfulness and out of respect for the Senate of Canada.

First, let me address the issue of confidentiality and the alleged use of non-disclosure agreements, more commonly known as NDAs. Let me make one thing very clear: under this new policy, it is out of the question for complainants or respondents to sign non-disclosure agreements. The only time NDAs are mentioned in the policy is in the case of a representative accompanying a person involved in the resolution process, and even then it is not a norm but merely an option.

The distinction between the non-disclosure agreement for representatives and the confidentiality obligations under the policy is subtle but important. In many cases, representatives will not be subject to the policy because they will not be senators, Senate employees or contractors. Because the Senate must ensure respect for the privacy of the parties to the resolution process, representatives must have an obligation placed upon them in some way. The only way the Senate can bind third parties, if required in the circumstances, is through an agreement.

Of course, it will have to be done on a case-by-case basis. As an example, who would seriously and in good faith imagine that such an agreement would be required of an Indigenous elder because of the recognition of their role and their essential and fundamental credibility in conflict resolution?

It is true, however, that strong confidentiality measures have been included in this policy for the people to whom this policy applies. These measures were chosen because they align with what expert witnesses have told us, with what staff and employees insisted on, with what is suggested as good practices by numerous countries and international organizations and, last but not least, because it is in conformity with the requirements of the Canada Labour Code and its regulations. These choices were not made due to a lack of consultation or research by the subcommittee.

It was also reported that the conclusions of the process described in this policy would not be made public and that even senators would not be made aware of them.

This information is also misleading. It is important to point out that a person will be free to speak publicly before and/or after taking part in the process described in this policy.

Furthermore, some of the measures, notably in the case of disciplinary ones involving senators, will have to be imposed by the Senate further to the recommendations of the Conflict of Interest for Senators Committee. As such, they will be made public by nature, because the debates of this chamber are public. Let’s not forget, colleagues, that other recourse is available outside of this policy under applicable terms and conditions. They are listed under article 1.9.3 of the policy, and I want to remind you that we are currently working within the purview of the Canada Labour Code and its regulations.

If a situation occurs in the Senate that would require a referral to the Criminal Code, please call the police.

Another outstanding issue debated in the media is the sensitive topic of parliamentary privilege. What this policy established is a clear and precise definition of what constitutes parliamentary proceedings in which parliamentary privilege applies. Everything outside of this definition is covered by the policy. This even includes actions that take place inside the Senate Chamber or in a committee room. I believe that this is a big step forward from the 2009 policy and even the policy of the House of Commons.

Clearly, neither parliamentary privilege nor this policy gives senators the right to harass or to conduct themselves badly. Other recourses may be used by senators during parliamentary proceedings to ensure respect, order and decorum. These measures are described at length in the Rules of the Senate as well as in this new policy.

We have to recognize the importance of parliamentary privilege for parliamentarians and that it is not within this policy’s mandate — or within CIBA’s mandate — to rule on the application of parliamentary privilege. It is, however, the mandate of the Rules Committee, and I would refer my colleagues to their 11th report entitled Parliamentary Privilege: Then and Now, a report that refers to the issue of parliamentary privilege and was published as recently as June 2019.

In conclusion, colleagues, I would like to state that what we have here is a robust, modern and overall exemplary policy that will more than adequately protect employees and senators and give credibility to the Senate as a healthy workplace environment. We should all be very proud of it.

Let me also remind all of us that the content of this policy is never final and can always be subject to improvements and suggestions. Lessons will be learned in order to make our process better, if so needed. The policy is subjected to a continuous review process that must be completed every three years or sooner — once again, if so needed. This review will be done in consultation between the human resources subcommittee and the policy committee ensuring that both senators and employees have their say in improving it.

But colleagues, in order to have all of this, we must begin by repealing the old, 2009 policy. This is what this motion is about. The 2009 policy is obsolete and does not have the confidence of the employees. Every passing day under this current policy poses a risk for the safety of employees and senators and a victory for harassers. We have a responsibility to offer better, and we have the obligation to do it now.

Colleagues, let’s protect our working environment together and vote in favour of Motion No. 78. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker [ + ]

Senator Saint-Germain, there are a couple of senators who would like to ask questions. Would you take them?

Senator Saint-Germain [ + ]

Absolutely.

The Hon. the Speaker [ + ]

Your time has expired, however. Would you like to request five more minutes?

Senator Saint-Germain [ + ]

If my colleagues would agree.

Colleagues, I rise to speak to Motion No. 78, not to encourage anyone to vote against it but hoping that you will agree that something as important as repealing or adopting a harassment policy should be a matter of energetic debate in this chamber.

To attain a workplace free of harassment, we need both a dramatic change in culture and the implementation of policies and codes that are grounded in strong ethics. If we succeed, we will honour our promise to contribute to a real modernization of the Senate.

Those who have read the new policy with attention will remark that, for the first time, a Senate policy explicitly states that the process provided to deal with harassment will not apply during parliamentary proceedings where parliamentary privilege applies. The other chamber, in answering the same request imposed by Bill C-65 to amend the Canada Labour Code, did differently.

Former Senator Dyck had initiated an important inquiry into the question of senator-to-senator harassment after her complaint against the chair of a committee was rejected by the Senate Administration. We then learned that other complainants had complaints rejected. In launching her inquiry, then Senator Dyck stated — and I agree with her:

While the parliamentary privilege of the harasser is taken into account to protect them, that of the victim is overlooked. The victim too should have their privilege taken into account so that they can carry out their parliamentary activities free from any undue interference or obstruction caused by harassment.

This new policy does not resolve this problem but only further specifies that staffers without parliamentary privilege have fewer remedies for harassment occurring during parliamentary proceedings.

How did we end up with a blanket exclusion of parliamentary proceedings from the application of this policy? This exclusion is of benefit to whom? This question has not been answered but, for external eyes, and we worry about the public impression, it is clear that senators appear to be shielded.

In a recent information session given by the Law Clerk, he has stated that parliamentary debates were excluded from the policy application, but it is common that committee chairs invite analysts and clerks to committee debates for clarification, to remind us of rules, to state consensus or even contradiction. Are they protected by parliamentary privilege? Of course not. Yet on page 2, line 5 of the policy we read:

Individuals taking part in parliamentary proceedings are covered by parliamentary privilege in order to enable the Senate and senators to fulfill their constitutional role without undue interference, obstruction or fear of external retribution.

This sentence seems to be there to protect individuals participating in parliamentary proceedings. Are the clerk and analysts not individuals?

The Law Clerk’s office gave seven categories of privilege that includes a set of freedoms and rights, the main one being — and it appeared in both — exclusive control over parliamentary proceedings, including freedom of speech.

Section 1.4 of the new policy is called “Definitions.” It would have been extremely helpful to include the Law Clerk’s definition in the policy for clarity and transparency. Indeed, it appeared contradictory that the policy does not, in fact, adopt a pre-existing definition of parliamentary proceedings but made its own broad definition within its introduction.

Conduct that forms part of the proceedings is broadly defined as words spoken on the record during a Senate sitting or a committee meeting, action taken pursuant to an order of the Senate or a committee and certain actions in furtherance of Senate or committee work.

Conversely, it will be entirely possible for the Senate as a whole to adopt an anti-harassment policy that would apply to parliamentary proceedings following in the footsteps of the U.K. House of Lords. This would require a change to the Rules.

The revised policy proposed by CIBA for adoption by the Senate in February 2020 did not mention parliamentary proceedings or parliamentary privilege. CIBA’s third report of the last parliamentary session, which introduced the revised policy, also proposed to have the Rules Committee examine amendments to the Rules of the Senate and the Ethics Committee examine amendments to the ethics code, both by April 30, 2020, but it never happened.

Then the pandemic upended our work and made the dysfunction of our institution even more acute. The revised policy and its adoption process died on the Order Paper. Maybe limited sittings and the Order Paper plagued with delaying tactics made the former process seem unlikely to unfold in a timely fashion, and a simplified process of adoption by CIBA without changes to the Rules was favoured.

The downside is that it had to be tailored to the jurisdiction of CIBA, which cannot regulate the proceedings of other committees. Had the policy been adopted by the Senate as a whole, we could have decided to make the policy applicable during parliamentary proceedings and protect everyone from harassment at all times.

Colleagues, I fear that the price to pay for the timely adoption of this new policy was a very limited application of it. This is problematic, given the ordinary Rules of the Senate are ill-fitted to effectively deal with harassing or violent behaviour.

The rules of conduct only prohibit unparliamentary language or conduct that reflects adversely on the position of a senator or the Senate. The tools available — points of order and questions of privilege — have not stopped bullying in the Senate so far and have caused further delays to our important parliamentary work.

The new policy fails to recognize that bullying behaviour must be stopped when it’s used as a deliberate and effective partisan tactic to delay business on the Senate’s Order Paper. It has become very obvious that creating delays is the ultimate power tool. Taking time away from debate on bills can indeed kill bills. What we have observed is that those who oppose progressive initiatives — from laws to recognize the rights of Indigenous people, laws to protect the environment or debates to deal with the harassment problems of the institution itself — will use bullying as part of their tactics to delay and defeat. Requiring victims of bullying to raise points of order or questions of privilege further adds to the Order Paper — which we rarely get through — and to delays, keeping the institution in an almost dysfunctional state and ensuring the victory of bullies.

What happened to Lillian Dyck is a prime example of this. Senator Dyck could not turn to the chair as proposed by the policy; she was the chair, and her protests could not end the problematic behaviour. Had she raised a point of privilege in the chamber, she would have only added to the delays which were plaguing the end of the Forty-second Parliament with many bills waiting in line for adoption, ensuring the victory of her harassers.

The UNDRIP bill died on the Order Paper due to dilatory tactics as Senator Dyck’s harassment complaint was rejected by the administration due to parliamentary privilege, as it was reported by the media, like The Hill Times.

Leaving questions of privilege and points of order as the only recourse is unfair, unworkable and actually quite cruel in that it forces the victim to narrate and to relive, in public, extremely private, difficult and demeaning experiences. The policy ignores the traumatizing effect of bullying which can interfere with the ability to think clearly.

How can a victim argue one’s case effectively before the cameras immediately after a trauma, as is required by the Senate’s Rules, only to have it debated between senators and likely denied by the would-be harasser?

If the victim of abuse during parliamentary proceedings happened to be an employee, they have no recourse except to ask a senator to speak on their behalf. Would the victim want such a personally invasive and upsetting matter to be broadcast across the nation on SenVu? Obviously not.

Without meaningful change in culture, bullies will win on all counts, whether they successfully bully their victims into silence or apathy or whether a victim chooses to stand up for herself.

The way parliamentary privilege is invoked in the new policy protects only one aspect of parliamentary privilege — freedom of speech — but very poorly protects our privilege to be free from intimidation. Yet, in 2015, a report from the Rules Committee, under Senator White’s chairing, entitled A Matter of Privilege: A Discussion Paper on Canadian Parliamentary Privilege in the 21st Century recognizes harassment can be a form of obstruction and concluded that:

. . . Parliament should proactively re-evaluate and reconsider parliamentary privilege in the Canadian context . . . .

And that:

. . . the need for such a review in Canada is accentuated by the constitutional entrenchment of the Charter, a unique feature among fellow Commonwealth countries.

Why did we not follow these recommendations where 11 male senators participated in this study? I agree with their conclusions.

I think a number of us, if some didn’t fear the consequences, would rise to say that bullying in this chamber has hampered our ability to debate issues fearlessly. How can we solve the harassment problem if we don’t know the extent of harassment in the Senate?

Colleagues, finally, in conclusion, March was Women’s History Month. It is worth remembering that, according to a recent Inter-Parliamentary Union report, 82% of women parliamentarians experience psychological violence. This is the time that we should rise and be brave, to give the right example to our daughters and our sons so that they don’t fear speaking out and defending their rights and freedoms. Thank you.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran [ + ]

Honourable senators, as an independent senator from Manitoba, I acknowledge that I come from Treaty 1 territory and the homeland of the Métis Nation and that the Parliament of Canada is situated on the unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabek First Nations.

At the end of my statement, I will propose a simple amendment to this motion, an amendment that does not in any way change the content of the new CIBA harassment policy but would return us to the previous practice of CIBA bringing it back to this chamber if and when CIBA decides that major changes to its harassment prevention policy are recommended.

Allow me to remind you of our past practice. In June 2009, the current Senate harassment policy was tabled in the Senate by the then chair of CIBA, the Honourable George Furey, and placed on the Order Paper as also had happened when the previous policy was introduced to the Senate. In 2009, all senators present on the day of the vote had the opportunity to ask questions and contribute to debate and to vote to adopt the new policy.

Senators voted to adopt the new policy and they signalled to the people of Canada: We have paid attention. We know what is in this policy, and we are showing our trust in the process by accepting the new CIBA policy.

The message from us today will be different given the procedure used by CIBA to present its 2021 policy as a fait accompli unless this amendment receives your support.

Let me be clear. This new CIBA policy has undoubtedly been crafted by good intentions in good faith, and I thank the creators of the new CIBA harassment prevention policy for those good intentions and their hard work that resulted in some definite improvements. These creators are not the only senators who speak their truth. What we have here is differences in analysis. There is no need to attack those who hold a different opinion.

Overshadowing the improvements is the increased capacity for imposing stricter and punitive — to complainants, primarily — secrecy requirements in the resolution process that move the Senate of Canada in the opposite direction from thoughtful complainant-centric laws — some enacted, some in development — in a number of jurisdictions in other countries.

Colleagues, this is not an easy statement to make, nor will it likely be easy to hear because, by proposing this amendment, I’m essentially asking you to try not to be influenced by whether you like the senators expressing concerns about the procedure more or less than the senators who are primarily the stewards and promoters of the new CIBA policy of harassment.

Quite simply, those sentiments have no place when considering our parliamentary duties to practise due diligence when such a major policy is introduced, and, to a large extent, individual senators are not at the heart of the issue. I am encouraging each senator, in considering this modest amendment to a motion from the Senate’s most powerful body next to the Senate itself, to get beyond trepidation — which may perhaps be unconscious — that they may feel about CIBA’s massive power and what can happen when a senator is targeted by way of the CIBA machinery for punishment.

This is not a misplaced fear given the clear evidence of devastating consequences forced upon certain senators by the exercise of unfettered discretion with few to none of the safeguards to which all other self-regulating professions, courts and quasi-judicial bodies in this country must adhere.

I acknowledge there are times when such obedience is needed for protection from power, but surely such compliance is not necessary for an amendment advising CIBA to bring back to this chamber its recommendations for a new harassment prevention policy. Certainly the new CIBA harassment policy will affect senators, Senate officials, and the credibility of the institution of the Senate itself, but it will also reach way beyond into the lives of Senate employees and volunteers and their circles for a very long time.

The new CIBA policy does not have an external, independent review mechanism, so it is likely to be self-perpetuating far into the future, perhaps with some tinkering along the way, never required to be returned to this chamber, according to the motion before us. Adopting the motion without this amendment will mean that the majority of senators will just not know, and in all likelihood, those senators on CIBA who will know will be silenced because the policy will have been dealt with in camera for the most part.

Senators, I’m not asking this chamber to engage in a thoughtful inquiry into the content and implications of what is actually in the new CIBA harassment policy, but I am proposing this amendment as to procedure, in the name of due diligence on the part of every senator, and out of respect for the values of transparency and accountability in our deliberations as a publicly funded institution.

This amendment comes to each of you as an invitation. Actually, it’s a plea for every senator not to delegate their agency to CIBA, not to give up the opportunity to at least be able to discuss when CIBA decides to change the policy. The procedure used this time by CIBA does not allow for an open debate and vote in the Senate on its new policy, and I am informed that this is the will of all the leaders, of all the parliamentary groups in this institution at present.

It is disheartening to see that the procedure used by CIBA will also not allow for prior consideration of its new policy by any Senate committees, as had been proposed when a previous iteration of the new policy was tabled in February 2020 by CIBA with a motion that did allow for debate. On that occasion, I and some other senators expressed concerns about lack of transparency and accountability in that draft policy, and I’m pleased to say that some of these concerns were addressed. And it was proposed that the policy be reviewed by the Senate Human Rights Committee, as well as by the Senate Rules and Ethics Committees, as had been proposed by CIBA at that time. CIBA has decided that no such reviews are going to happen now.

Senators, before you rush to adopt the motion before you, to repeal the 2009 policy and thereby usher in the new CIBA policy, please give the following points about keeping some of your agency as senators by amending the CIBA motion: although the percentages differ somewhat across various poll results, public trust in public institutions is eroding; on January 13, the 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer results, based on an online survey sample of more than 33,000 respondents, which include 1,150 general population respondents across 28 countries, revealed people don’t know where or who to turn to for reliable information. A majority of respondents believe that 57% of government leaders, 56% of business leaders, and 59% of journalists are purposely trying to mislead people.

In Mark Carney’s new book, Values, he notes repeatedly the need to develop and embed comprehensive and transparent approaches in our leaders and our institutions. This amendment in no way impedes the will of CIBA to activate its new policy. Supporting this amendment is an indication that senators who are not CIBA members are choosing to demonstrate their due diligence, in at least being given the opportunity to be informed and ask questions when CIBA uses its unique and extensive authority to bring in a new policy that has such profound potential impact on the lives of Senate staff, volunteers, officials and senators.

To support this amendment is not to be soft on harassment prevention. This amendment in no way changes the content or the implementation of the new CIBA policy except, to be clear, that senators show their commitment to harassment prevention by demonstrating that it is important to this publicly funded institution as a whole, and so when changed it is to be brought back to the Senate in a transparent and accountable manner.

While I am not loading onto this modest procedural amendment the details of my extensive reservations on the content of the new CIBA policy, I do wish to draw to your attention that the more closed and secretive nature of the 2021 CIBA policy is not required by Bill C-65. There are measures in this new policy that go beyond the privacy protections of Bill C-65.

For this reason, this amendment urges all senators not to give up their agency and authority, held by each and every senator, to receive fulsome reports from CIBA on this crucial aspect of Senate culture and accountability, and to be able to ask questions on the public record as part of fulfilling our parliamentary duty to ensure that public funding of such Senate processes is being used fairly and effectively.

Honourable colleagues, some of you have explained that you will give up your agency in this regard at this time because you choose to “trust in the process.” To you I say, “We are the process,” and in the end, if and when deficits in the 2021 CIBA harassment prevention policy are exposed to the public, eyes will turn to every senator to see how each of us fulfills our parliamentary duty — a duty of accountability funded by public dollars.

This is why I briefly bring to your attention, as you consider how you are going to vote on this simple procedural amendment, the significant differences in approach to demonstrating transparency and accountability in governmental responses to what as one senator’s staffer — who survived harassment by a senator — has named as the weaponization of confidentiality. This new CIBA policy, undoubtedly crafted by good intentions, moves in the opposite direction from thoughtful complainant-centric laws — some enacted, some in development — in a number of jurisdictions in other countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New York State in the United States, just to mention some.

Time only allows for one comparison and that is with CIBA’s new policy 1.6.1, which states:

All matters under this Policy (e.g., notice of an occurrence, conciliation, investigation etc.) are to be treated confidentially. Information in relation to matters under this Policy may only be disclosed in accordance with this Policy or as required by law. Unauthorized disclosure of information may be subject to disciplinary action.

Disclosure of any information that is likely to reveal the identity of a person involved in an alleged occurrence (principal party, responding party, or witness) outside of the resolution process and without that person’s written consent is prohibited unless required by law. . . .

As a lawyer who has listened to, represented and supported complainants in a wide range of harassment cases in many different venues for almost four decades, as someone who has contributed significantly to drafting new laws and policies designed to reduce harassment and exploitation, I can tell you unequivocally, secrecy more often protects perpetrators.

Time does not allow me to cite from all the jurisdictions, but let me end with a quote before introducing the amendment, which is from the sponsor of the new law in New Mexico that is entitled “An act relating to employment law; providing that nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation cases are unenforceable.” And before quoting, let me just note that there is different terminology used here. It might be nondisclosure, it might be privacy, it might be confidentiality, but it comes down to the same thing and that is mandated required enforced secrecy.

At the sole request of the employee, a settlement agreement subject to this section may contain a confidentiality provision that prevents the disclosure of factual information related to the underlying sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation claim. The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to prevent disclosure of information that is the subject —

The Hon. the Speaker [ + ]

Senator McPhedran, I apologize for interrupting you, but your time has expired. Are you asking for more time?

Senator McPhedran [ + ]

Your Honour, I have my timer on and I’m at less than 14 minutes. Could someone please check the timer?

The Hon. the Speaker [ + ]

Yes, I will do that immediately.

The table has checked the timer. You are past your time, senator.

Senator McPhedran [ + ]

I’m past 15 minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker [ + ]

Yes, senator, according to the table you are past 15 minutes.

Senator McPhedran [ + ]

May I ask to propose my motion?

The Hon. the Speaker [ + ]

You would need the leave of the Senate to continue.

Senator McPhedran is asking for leave to propose her amendment. Is leave granted?

The Hon. the Speaker [ + ]

I hear a “no,” senator.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker [ + ]

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division.)

Back to top