Pursuant to notice of February 25, 2020, moved:

That the workplace assessment report commissioned by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration during the second session of the Forty-first Parliament, entitled Report of Evidence Relating to the Workplace in the Office of Senator Don Meredith, dated July 13, 2015, be referred to the committee during the current session for the purposes of its work on related issues, subject to normal practices relating to confidential documents.

He said: Honourable senators, in many ways, today’s Senate is a very different institution than the one that I was appointed to more than a decade ago.

I do not wish to be political. Politics has no place in this issue that we’re about to discuss. I’m not referring to the changes that have been implemented over the last four years; I’m talking about the much-needed changes that started almost seven years ago. These are changes that were made through leadership cooperation and the willingness on the part of all senators.

Honourable colleagues, none of what I am about to say is intended to be self-congratulatory or defensive. It’s not meant to discount mistakes that were made in the case of Don Meredith or what was felt and is still being felt by the people he treated so very poorly.

On the contrary, I want to take this opportunity to explain to those of you who were not here at the time a bit of what was happening and the enormous change in culture this institution has undergone as a result, which, of course, is for the better.

At the time this institution was hit with the Don Meredith harassment scandal, we were already fighting for credibility and relevancy in the midst of expense scandals. We knew it would not be enough to deal with either of these matters in the old way. We knew that remedies to these issues would put us in uncharted waters.

While it may be easy now to look back in hindsight and criticize and second guess, I assure you that at the time the Senate took the steps it did in a genuine effort to do the right thing and bring this institution in line with modern principles and practices. That is an effort that is ongoing and evolving.

It may surprise some of you to know that the Senate’s Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators that we have today is a relatively new document. Prior to 2004, most conflict of interest rules for senators were encompassed in legislation and the Rules of the Senate.

Changes to the Parliament of Canada Act in 2004 first created the Office of the Senate Ethics Officer and required the Senate to adopt the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. While there were various versions of such a code that were adopted through the years, it wasn’t until 2014 that it became the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code that was further strengthened and substantially changed in 2015. Up until 2014, the section on Rules of Conduct did not include anything about ethical behaviour or conduct unbecoming. The only actions covered under the section were those pertaining to items like furthering private interests and use of influence.

I won’t read the whole clause of section 7.1 of the code, but I will start by quoting this:

7.1(1) A Senator’s conduct shall uphold the highest standards of dignity inherent to the position of Senator . . . .

(2) A Senator shall refrain from acting in a way that could reflect adversely on the position of Senator or the institution of the Senate.

Colleagues, that section was added as recently as 2015 under then government leader Claude Carignan and opposition leader James Cowan and the Internal Economy leadership of the time. It was under their leadership in 2014 and 2015 that the Ethics Committee overhauled the code and gave us the robust ethics code that we have today. It was that particular clause that Don Meredith was eventually found to be in breach of.

That wasn’t the least of the reviews and subsequent changes that were made under the leadership of Senators Carignan, Cowan and Speaker Nolin and his colleagues on steering. Two of those colleagues are still in this chamber. We had the audit of the Auditor General taking place at the same time at the Senate’s own invitation. We embarked on other reviews by independent outside bodies to help us identify and address deeply ingrained deficiencies that we knew we had.

For one, we realized that senators had all but abdicated our authority and responsibility in overseeing the Senate’s administrative operation. We also recognized that our administrative rules and policies were rife with redundancies and inefficiency. We knew that it was time for the Senate to pull back the curtain on what it was to do in terms of procedure and operationally.

The then Speaker Pierre Claude Nolin and his colleagues on Internal Economy took the decision to become more hands-on in the day-to-day operations of the Senate. A new management structure was put in place that ensured administrative staff were accountable to senators rather than to the Clerk of the Senate.

We undertook an extensive review, an amalgamation of rules and policies governing our office expenses that eventually resulted in the Senators’ Office Management Policy. We also undertook a functional review of various directorates within the Senate starting with the Senate Communications Directorate. Later, we did a review of the Senate Human Resources Directorate, which, given what we now know about the handling of the Don Meredith case, we clearly needed to do.

Internal Economy started holding meetings in public and eventually broadcasting those meetings. That was unheard of at the time, but it needed to be done. We adopted a new proactive disclosure model and posted it online, along with attendance and rules governing the Senate. Imagine, that wasn’t being done prior to 2015.

Colleagues, I’m telling you all of this because it is very important to note that we knew we had problems here and we knew we had to take unprecedented steps to address them.

That brings me, of course, to the case of Don Meredith. I was first told about the workplace assessment briefly in my capacity as Speaker pro tempore under Speaker Nolin. As Pierre Claude became increasing ill in 2014, early 2015, I began taking on more of his responsibilities as Speaker. When I became Chair of Internal Economy following Pierre Claude’s passing, I received a full briefing on all matters before Internal Economy, including the matter of his workplace assessment.

At some point in 2014, something had Senator Nolin concerned enough about the staffing in Senator Meredith’s office that he and his steering colleagues felt it wise to take the unprecedented step of hiring an outside firm to conduct a workplace assessment.

Taking that step wasn’t written anywhere at the time, colleagues. There was a harassment policy in place that required the filing of a formal complaint before any action was triggered. That remains the case with the new draft policy that’s currently before the Senate for consideration. A formal complaint is required before any investigation is initiated.

So absent a formal complaint, the Senate’s hands were tied. We now know that at that time staff didn’t feel comfortable filing a formal complaint because they were concerned that the Senate’s Human Resource Directorate wouldn’t act appropriately.

Knowing Speaker Nolin as I did, colleagues, I feel safe in assuming that’s why Pierre Claude and his fellow senators on steering took the sage decision they did in hiring an outside investigator. I can’t speak to what they knew. I just know that they clearly felt something had to be done.

At some point, CTV news reported that this investigation was taking place, and it was the news report that apparently prompted a teenage girl to go to another media outlet and tell the story of an inappropriate relationship Senator Meredith had been having with her.

Colleagues, it was that report in the Toronto Star that formed the basis of the first complaint that I sent to the Ethics Officer about Don Meredith. While these new allegations came as a complete surprise to us, we did not hesitate to ask the SEO to investigate. When the workplace assessment was complete, we didn’t hesitate to file a second complaint with the Senate Ethics Officer.

This is where I want to make a few things abundantly clear on the record because there appears to be a great deal of confusion. This is also where I can speak with authority on the subject because I was the Chair of Internal Economy at this particular point.

First, the report was tabled in camera with steering as a privileged document because witnesses and victims wanted it that way. Many had cooperated with the investigation only under the condition of anonymity and confidentiality, much like the conditions of confidentiality and anonymity that were rightfully provided to the two people involved who went before Internal Economy and gave testimony last week.

That is what needs to be made clear. This was not done to protect Don Meredith. This was done to protect the victims and the witnesses. Remember, they weren’t willing to file a formal complaint out of fear of reprisal. They certainly wouldn’t have cooperated with an investigation if they weren’t provided safeguards. The way to do that was to table the report with steering. Once that was done, there was no question that it warranted a second complaint to the SEO. That letter of complaint was written.

The other thing that seems to be causing confusion is because of lack of information. It was not just that the letter was sent to the SEO, the report in its entirety was also provided immediately to the SEO. I want to repeat that on the record: The workplace assessment report was provided in its entirety to the SEO within days of the Senate receiving it. It not only formed the basis of the complaint, but actually provided the office of the SEO with a road map with which to conduct their investigation.

Colleagues, I can’t speak to who did or didn’t invoke privilege as individual senators. I can only speak for my own actions, and I certainly didn’t invoke such privilege. The workplace assessment had privilege attached to it by way of it being tabled at steering in a simple effort to protect the victims and witnesses who made the report possible. Privilege was not mine to invoke, colleagues.

This is a very important point that bears repeating because a lot of people wrongfully assume that the privileged nature of the document was an impediment to the SEO’s work and that’s just not the case. I understand that is cited by the SEO as something that added to the delay, but I think that is being misinterpreted. I will say it again: The report was an invaluable tool to the SEO, without which he couldn’t conduct his investigation.

The SEO also noted several other causes of delay, including parallel investigations by the police which froze his investigation, one of which I believe was initiated by the SEO himself. There is no doubt that the many delays in this matter were unfortunate, to put it mildly. But it would be inaccurate and unjust to many people, including the victims, to characterize the delays as a deliberate attempt to stand in the way of getting at the truth. The Senate so strongly believed that these victims and witnesses deserved to see this matter come to a right and proper conclusion that even when, in accordance with the code, the office of the SEO ceased their investigation upon Don Meredith’s resignation, the Senate asked the SEO to continue their work on this particular complaint. I’m not sure most people realize that we, as an institution, had to do that.

Don Meredith resigned after the first report of the SEO that dealt with the matter of his inappropriate relationship with a teenager. Under the code, once a senator resigns, all investigations cease. However, senators felt very strongly that these victims deserved not only to see Don Meredith no longer sitting in this august chamber, they deserved to have their stories told and to be heard. That’s what happened. It was left to the Senate’s Ethics Committee to explicitly ask the SEO to continue the second investigation into Don Meredith based on the workplace assessment.

Colleagues, I’m not saying any of this to make excuses or to attempt to mitigate the pain and frustration felt by the victims. I don’t know that I could ever truly understand the impact this has had on their lives. I just wanted to take the opportunity to address some of the confusion and inaccuracies about this matter that have been perpetuated by colleagues who, without being in possession of all the facts and context, continue to speak to the media and each other as if they are authorities on the subject matter.

I am moving this motion because it is clear that the current committee will be continuing its analysis of the decisions that were made and actions that were taken at the time, as is their prerogative. I can certainly empathize with the victims and understand their desire to fully air all of this out. In so doing, it is not only appropriate but imperative that the current committee have in its possession the same information that we had available to us at the time when we made the decision to file the compliant with the SEO.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but out of respect for someone who is no longer here to defend his decisions, in closing I want to say that I’m not surprised that the Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin would have taken the action he did in commissioning the workplace assessment into the office of Don Meredith. It was unprecedented. It required leadership, and that is what Speaker Nolin did.

I knew Pierre Claude for most of my adult life. He was a deeply principled man. He would have never let a flawed process stand in the way of doing the right thing and he certainly didn’t do that here. I believe that he and his colleagues on steering at that time did the right thing. Despite not having guided policy for what they did, they instead allowed their principles to guide them. I know that Speaker Furey was on that steering committee and he needs to be commended for the leadership that was provided.

Don Meredith is no longer in this chamber as a result of the actions that were taken not only by the Senate, but more importantly by the victims themselves and the witnesses. They are all to be commended for stepping forward and telling their stories. We had to make sure that we provided the proper environment and a vehicle through which they felt safe enough to get it done.

That’s one of the lessons we appear to have taken from this. Our policy at that time didn’t allow that environment or vehicle, so members of steering went outside the policy and took the unprecedented steps of hiring that outside investigator. That is something that is now enshrined in our new proposed policy, which is a good thing. It will now be up to the new committee to deal with this by way of what they feel is the best path forward. In order to do that properly, they should have all the information available to them, have it in a timely fashion and have all the context as well.

For the victims of Don Meredith, I sincerely hope for some form of peace and knowledge that your voices have finally been heard and justice has been served to some degree. If sharing the report with the current committee can help in achieving that in any way, I certainly won’t stand in the way. I hope, colleagues, all of us lift privilege in an expeditious fashion and provide this report to members of Internal Economy. That is why I want and I hope all of you support this motion. Thank you.

Senator Housakos, I believe Senator Moncion would like to ask a question, but your time has expired. Do you wish to ask for more time?

I will ask for five more minutes. I would be happy to take the question.

It only recently came to my attention, senator, that there is a call to have this document. You’re absolutely right, Internal Economy could be well served by having this document. Once you receive the document and members of Internal Economy read it, you’ll realize there’s nothing famous about it and there’s nothing in that document that in any way, shape or form was designed to hide anything.

That’s why I’ve taken this step. I’m no longer on Internal Economy. If Internal Economy wanted this document all they had to do was move a motion, as I’ve done now this week in the Senate, because the Senate, of course, is the only chamber that has the authority to remove privilege on a document. What we’re essentially doing is returning that document to Internal Economy for perusal and review, as we had it back then. Of course, you’re free to do with it whatever you wish.

One of the things that drove this initiative is that there were victims, through their lawyers in the papers who were complaining about the fact that they had never seen the report.

If Internal Economy deems it appropriate and they feel it would be helpful to the victims to provide them the report, that’s for Internal Economy to determine. You can ask yourselves why it hasn’t been done, because every member on Internal Economy could have come to this chamber, moved the motion as I have now. If we vote in favour of this today, you will have the document at your next Internal Economy meeting. It’s as simple as that. I can’t be held responsible if members of Internal Economy did not know they had the privilege, right and capacity to lift privilege through this chamber. I’m letting everyone know that any privileged document of any committee, if you feel it needs to be lifted, move the motion. This chamber is the authority of all committees.

If I understand your explanation correctly, the motion that we are adopting here gives the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration access to the Quintet report. It also gives the committee the authority to share that report with other people, if the committee deems it appropriate.

The Standing Committee is free to do what it wants with the document. Once we vote in favour of this motion, the document will be at your disposal. Then you can do whatever you want with it, yes, absolutely.

Senator Housakos, you heard and read the victims’ testimony in the media. My question is this: Why did you deny them access to a document that was about them at the time the Senate Ethics Officer, Pierre Legault, was conducting the investigation?

When we received this request, we wanted to protect the identity of all the victims. Indeed, you are right, we had the opportunity back then, and Internal Economy has the opportunity now, to decide whether to divulge the victims’ names or not. The victims will be able to understand the testimony in the record and to know who said what. However, at that time, the only reason for deciding not to give this information to the victims was, once again, the reflex to protect the identity of all the victims.

Senator Housakos, your time has expired. Are you going to ask for more time?

Could I ask for five more minutes?

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

No.

I hear a “no.”