Honourable senators, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional senator who graced the senate with her passion, poise and rigour— a great woman who showed intelligence and courage in her parliamentary work.

As many have said before me, Lillian Dyck was a trailblazer in the Senate. As an accomplished academic and neuroscientist, she brought science and evidence-based policy to Parliament. She also set the tone for a more inclusive and respectful Senate. She constantly brought to light Indigenous issues, especially concerning women, and she fought adamantly for the rights of Indigenous people.

Right up until she left the Red Chamber, Senator Dyck worked tirelessly to make it a respectful, harassment-free and truly honourable space, notably through her last inquiry. She launched this inquiry after her harassment complaint against a senator was rejected by the Human Resources Directorate under the advisement of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate because parliamentary privilege trumped the anti-harassment policy from 2009, even though the policy was silent on the matter.

Colleagues, this is quite relevant, as the new policy proposed by CIBA goes even further in this direction of providing no specific recourse for harassment, even for staff who are not senators, where harassment occurs during parliamentary proceedings, which is “broadly defined.”

In February of this year, Senator Dyck explained that there is no adequate way for a senator to bring up a complaint of harassment by another senator during Senate proceedings, and that the application of parliamentary privilege in the context of the current harassment policy, which was repealed before, was heavily biased. Allow me to quote the following:

. . . the application of privilege in the Senate harassment policy is one-sided. 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.

The unacceptable harassment Senator Dyck had to endure during parliamentary proceedings and the handling of her complaint both raise serious ethical, procedural, administrative, legal and, most importantly, parliamentary issues that this chamber must address.

Colleagues, harassment problems and violence against women, especially in politics, are nothing new. Women have historically been victims of harassment in every aspect of their lives, including their career. For many years now, movements such as the #metoo movement have been exposing the harassment experienced by women. Just recently, serious allegations and concerns of harassment by a senator made the headlines across Canada. The Senate is not immune to harassment, not even by its own peers.

It was confirmed in this chamber a few months ago that the Human Resources Directorate blocked more than one harassment complaint in 2019, each one concluded by the recourse to the infamous parliamentary privilege, which seems to excuse senators of any behaviour that would be unacceptable anywhere else.

The United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australian parliaments have managed to modernize their definition of parliamentary privilege to bring it in line with a more contemporary vision.

Are we content to remain complacent about the harassment our Senate colleagues are facing? Is it acceptable that in this upper chamber, a place where senators review legislation and consider matters of national importance, we tolerate a professional environment of inequality and verbal and mental abuse?

In 2019, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which Canada is a member, presented its Guidelines for the Elimination of Sexism, Harassment and Violence against Women in Parliament. According to this publication, 82% of female MPs who took part in a study said that they had experienced psychological violence during their time in office. What is worse, only 21% of the participating parliaments had a policy on sexual harassment against MPs, although the Senate of Canada is proof positive that the existence of such a policy does not ensure the protection of employees or senators.

During its comprehensive study on the matter, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls has demonstrated the following:

First Nations, Inuit, and Métis women, girls . . . live with an almost constant threat to their physical, emotional, economic, social, and cultural security.

Not only does this need to be eradicated across the country, but it has no place in one of its highest institutions. Lillian Dyck will be honoured if the Senate tackles boldly and stops all kinds of violence against women. I believe that the vast majority of you, colleagues, want to improve respect, collaboration, trust and decorum in this chamber. I know this is a priority for the ISG, as revealed by a recent vote.

For a period of time this year, the Senate again reached gender parity, a first in a major national institution in Canada. This comes as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the report on gender equality by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada.

We are equipped more than ever to understand the issues of harassment and to address them with adequate and efficient tools that include both a changing culture and a solid anti-harassment policy.

The February 2019 report on modernizing the Senate anti-harassment policy from the CIBA Subcommittee on Human Resources recognizes this necessity to modify to account for parliamentary privilege in four different places in the report, but it does not provide the details of how to do so. The sources provided also do not provide details on how to do so. I note with concern that, unlike our previous anti-harassment policies in the Senate and the brand new harassment and violence prevention policy approved today, we’re silent on the matter of parliamentary privilege. Yet, it is our choice as a whole to waive parliamentary privilege in the case of harassment. It’s our choice as a whole to embed harassment with our code of ethics, as harassment is an ethical issue.

The new policy explicitly proposed to exclude all parliamentary proceedings from the process because of parliamentary privilege. Colleagues, as Lillian Dyck will say, if we are taken out of the decision, then our parliamentary privilege has been breached.

How can we explain this to the public? Both houses of Parliament have to implement Bill C-65. One did so with a policy that does not explicitly exclude parliamentary proceedings from its application, while ours explicitly leaves victims during parliamentary proceedings without recourse except calling out harassers on the chamber floor if they are lucky to be senators.

Forging ahead without change would not bring justice to our former colleague. To truly honour Senator Dyck’s trailblazing legacy, we must act on this important issue that she had the courage to bring to our attention.

Colleagues, Senator Dyck has been a pioneer, teacher, mentor and friend who deserves all the praise for her exceptional contribution to Canada. I already greatly miss her insight, intellect and her professionalism. Thank you for all that you have done, Lillian. Now that you have passed the baton to us, may you enjoy your well-deserved retirement from the Senate. Thank you. Meegwetch.