Rose pursuant to notice of December 12, 2019:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the Senate Ethics Officer’s Inquiry report under the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators concerning former Senator Don Meredith, dated June 28, 2019.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to initiate the required discussion and reflection about the inquiry report of the Senate Ethics Officer, Pierre Legault, concerning former Senator Don Meredith, which was released on Friday, June 28, 2019.

This document was released more than six months ago, on the eve of the Canada Day long weekend and the start of summer vacation.

This report was yet another episode in the deplorable and overly long saga that continues for the victims and our institution. That said, it finally shed light on the scope of the despicable actions and behaviours repeatedly perpetrated by Don Meredith.

Truth be told, the only bits of information that we were able to obtain in advance came from the media, including the Hill Times and the Huffington Post Canada. In April 2017, the latter published a devastating and lengthy article by journalist Zi-Ann Lum, which reported the first victim testimonies that were revealed to the public.

The report also raised serious questions about our institution’s ability to quickly intervene and put an end to this situation, protect and support the victims and, lastly, to act with haste and transparency to support the investigation of the Senate Ethics Officers which, I remind you, took almost four years.

Honourable senators, first of all, I would like to briefly remind you of the observations and conclusions of the Legault report. For the record, I will be referring to the French version of the document when quoting specific passages.

The genesis of this report came from an internal initiative launched by the late senator Pierre Claude Nolin in February 2015, after his appointment as Speaker of the Senate.

According to reports by CTV News, The Canadian Press and the Hill Times in June 2015, Senator Nolin asked a private accounting firm, Quintet Consulting, to conduct a workplace assessment of the office of former Senator Meredith. He was worried about the high employee turnover in short periods of time.

On July 16, 2015, Senator Leo Housakos, who had just become Speaker of the Senate, issued a press release confirming that the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration had received the private firm’s assessment report.

The members of the steering committee concluded that it was imperative that the matter be formally referred to the former Senate ethics officer, Lyse Ricard.

On August 18, 2015, Ms. Ricard informed Senator Housakos that the steering committee’s request did not contain reasonable grounds to justify a formal investigation into a possible breach of our code of ethics.

By way of a letter dated August 25, 2015, Senator Housakos replied to Ms. Ricard with clarifications concerning his reasonable grounds and reiterating his request for an inquiry. On page 2, the Legault report states that the letter provided specific page references in the Quintet report for each of the allegations substantiating the request.

The former ethics officer found that the letter contained sufficient detail to proceed with an inquiry. After a preliminary review, she informed Mr. Meredith in December 2015 that she intended to conduct an official inquiry.

Nearly four years later, the Legault report revealed that the events in question in the inquiry had taken place over a period of slightly more than two years, from December 2012 to February 2015.

The inquiry involved six former employees of Mr. Meredith and a Senate security constable. At page 38 of the report, Mr. Legault states that he has no reason to doubt the credibility of these seven people. He generally found them to be open, honest, forthright and balanced in their presentation of the evidence.

His analysis of the facts led him to conclude that former Senator Meredith violated sections 7.1 and 7.2 of our code of ethics especially because he exhibited behaviours toward his victims that could be described as psychological harassment, sexual harassment or both. I would add that in light of what we read in the Huffington Post, he also committed sexual assault.

The report’s findings are damning, as the former senator repeatedly exhibited behaviours that undermined, denigrated, and humiliated his victims in a work setting described as “toxic.”

Honourable colleagues, many of us, including me, have lamented how long it took for the investigation’s findings to become known.

On pages 11 and 12 of his report, Mr. Legault responded to these criticisms by invoking a series of factors that made the investigation, and I quote, “extremely long.” He talked about the confidentiality of the Quintet report, the resignation of Ms. Ricard, the resignation of Don Meredith, the police investigation, and the use of parliamentary privilege by some senators and by the steering committee of Internal Economy.

We can agree or disagree with these reasons. However, after reading the report, I think that the way this played out raises some troubling questions about our institution. We will need to find answers to these questions before we can hope to move on, as many senators in this chamber would probably like to do.

It would be important to hear some senators and former Senate Administration employees talk about why our existing administrative procedures failed to protect and support the victims, and also to provide swift responses to our employees and to Canadians.

That was the goal of a motion I moved in the Internal Economy Committee on September 5, 2019. Unfortunately, a majority of committee members rejected my proposal.

I therefore think it is essential that I raise some questions here today, to start the discussion and reflection on behalf of senators, our employees and the victims of Don Meredith.

My first question has to do with the management of the harassment cases between December 2012 and February 2015 that are referenced in the Legault report. The Senate had the Senate Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace, which was adopted in June 2009 to deal with these types of situations.

How is it that the higher authorities in the Senate, including the Speaker at the time, the leadership of parliamentary groups and Internal Economy, did not intervene promptly and, above all, systematically to help the employees and stop Don Meredith’s conduct?

For example, on page 29 of the Legault report, we learn that an employee met with the former Director of Human Resources in the Senate, Darshan Singh, in January 2014 to inform him of incidents of a sexual nature that took place between October and December 2013.

Mr. Singh suggested that she file a formal complaint, which she refused to do because, and I quote:

. . . she was afraid of reprisals, including being terminated. She said that she did not feel that the Policy was robust enough to protect her.

After this meeting, Mr. Singh informed her that he had spoken with the then Speaker of the Senate, the Honourable Noël Kinsella. However, no one knows if any action was taken.

In an article published on April 30, 2017 in the Huffington Post Canada, journalist Zi-Ann Lum had reported that she obtained emails indicating that the Conservative caucus and the Senate Human Resources Directorate had been informed of the situation in Don Meredith’s office in the spring of 2014.

Interestingly, the case of the Protective Service constable who was a victim of sexual harassment in late 2012 and early 2013 was managed much more efficiently, by both her superiors as well as the former Conservative caucus whip, the Honourable Elizabeth Marshall, as mentioned on pages 30 and 31 of the Legault report.

It does not appear to me that the same haste was shown for Don Meredith’s employees, given that the revolving door of staff persisted in his office until the beginning of 2015.

This leads me to another question. Why did a victim tell Mr. Legault that she refused to file a complaint despite the recommendation of Darshan Singh and, more importantly, why was she afraid of reprisals, including being terminated?

This statement comes after the one reported in the Huffington Post Canada on April 30, 2018, indicating that a victim was facing the same dilemma.

The article states, and I quote:

She knew enough about Senate policy . . . that filing an official complaint with human resources didn’t guarantee job security or protection against Meredith.

I also have concerns about the confidentiality of the Quintet report and the double standard that was applied to former Senator Meredith and his victims.

Why did the Internal Economy Committee’s steering committee not allow the victims to consult this report in January 2016 during the Senate Ethics Officer’s inquiry, given that the same committee had already granted Don Meredith that very access? It would have been completely fair for the victims to know the report’s conclusions.

This major inequity was detrimental to the victims because, as Pierre Legault points out on page 13 of his report, and I quote:

. . . the various parties participating in the inquiry did not have the same information available to them.

Also, at page 5 of the report, Legault states that Senator Housakos, who was then chair of the Internal Economy Committee, justified this decision by saying that the Quintet report formed part of, and I quote:

. . . in camera proceedings of the Committee and that any unauthorized disclosure . . . could be treated as a breach of parliamentary privilege.

This decision had a negative impact on the victims and meant that not all the information in the Quintet report could be used in the investigation.

Mr. Legault and his predecessor therefore had to once again gather all the necessary evidence, with the risks that involved in terms of the accuracy of the testimony and the victims’ confidence in the process. This gives us a better understanding of why the inquiry slowed down.

Honourable colleagues, another question relates to the infamous parliamentary privilege. Why was it invoked so often by Internal Economy, by its steering committee and by some senators throughout the investigation?

This is an important question, as the Legault report reveals that parliamentary privilege was invoked by the steering committee of Internal Economy, which meant that the Senate Ethics Officer had to wait weeks, or even months in some cases, to get documents, some not until June 2019, and to receive the last pieces of information that allowed him to conclude his inquiry.

According to Mr. Legault, this situation, and I am quoting page 15 of the report:

. . . caused a number of unnecessary delays . . . but it also raised issues concerning the independence of the Senate Ethics Officer in relation to the Senate.

In addition, page 7 of the document indicates that two former members of the Committee on Internal Economy and its steering committee refused to meet with Mr. Legault due to claims of parliamentary privilege.

I admit I was shocked to read this and I strongly believe that we must find out why these two senators behaved in this way.

The sixth report of the Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators — published on July 29, 2019, after the tabling of the Legault report — rightly recalls the following. It states, on page 4, and I quote:

It should be recalled that subsection 48(7) of the Code requires that “[s]enators shall cooperate without delay with the Senate Ethics Officer in respect of any inquiry”. All senators, in all roles, must cooperate expeditiously with the SEO . . . .

On page 7 of the same report it states, and I quote:

. . . there exists a distinction to be drawn between the privilege held by the Senate as an institution and the privileges held by individual senators.

That being said, one last question has to do with the fact that Mr. Legault had reasonable grounds to believe that Don Meredith may have committed a crime, which led him to hand over the file to the Ottawa Police Service in November 2017. As mentioned on page 7 of the report, the police conducted and concluded their investigation in April 2018.

This is very serious information. Why did the Senate parliamentary or administrative authorities not take such action, based on information that was likely highly similar?

Honourable colleagues, I’ll stop here for the time being. The questions I raised today, along with the Legault report show that we failed as an institution and as an employer.

We even had to ask the Senate Ethics Officer in 2015 not only to enforce our ethics code, but also to do what we should have already done ourselves on the issue of harassment within the Senate.

Mr. Legault gave us a clear warning on page ii of the annex to the report. I quote:

In all future such cases, if the allegations of harassment have not been substantiated by the Senate, the . . . [o]fficer will not consider that reasonable grounds have been established under the Code, and so the matter should not be referred to him.

The recent release of our new policy on harassment in the workplace should not be used as an excuse to avoid having this necessary discussion in the Senate and getting answers to our questions about this shameful case.

In the meantime, we must apologize to the victims and offer compensation to Don Meredith’s former employees, since they will not be covered by this new policy once it is implemented. This is about the reputation of our institution and the trust of our employees.

Thank you.

Will the senator take a question?

Senator Verner, your speaking time has expired but some senators are wishing to ask questions. Do you wish to ask for five more minutes?

Yes.

Thank you, Senator Verner, for that information. I did want to make a couple of comments on what you were saying because you did mention me when you were running through your dissertation of events. I would like to comment on that, and then I’ll ask you a question.

For the incident you mentioned in relation to me, I would like to let everybody know that I was aware of the incident. The employee’s director approached me and had told me of the incident, that the employee did not want to make a big issue of it and that they wanted it to stop.

I spoke strongly to Senator Meredith about what he had said and what he had done. After that, I went back to the director and informed him that I had spoken to Senator Meredith. Then about two weeks later, I followed up just to make sure that everything was okay.

I would just like to make it clear to all of my colleagues that with respect to the incident you mentioned, I most definitely did act appropriately. And I would also like to add that with regard to Mr. Legault and his investigation, I cooperated with him. I had numerous personal notes that I had made, which I voluntarily gave to him because he didn’t know I had those notes. Whatever I had, I provided. I gave him everything that I had. I met with him. I had an interview. And I did the same for the Quintet report.

I just wanted to make that clear. In your speech, it left the impression that I was negligent in performing my duties and I feel that with regard to Senator Meredith, I did act appropriately and I did everything that I could.

One of the issues that still remains unresolved is that of the formal complaints; people have to make a formal complaint, and if they don’t, it seems like hands are tied.

People’s names are being bandied about. I know for myself that I realize the victims are very important, but because I was the Conservative whip at the time, I sort of feel like I’m incriminated by association. And I feel that at the time, I did everything I could. In fact, for some employees, I felt that I did help them.

But people have to be aware that this is like putting a puzzle together. I wasn’t aware of all of this. I’m sure there are things now that nobody knows, but I would ask you to be very careful when mentioning people’s names because you’re giving the impression that they are guilty of something.

I would like a commitment from you that you would be aware of that and be conscious in your remarks. I do appreciate the work that you have done on this.

Senator Marshall, I did not really hear a question in what you said to me. It seemed more as though you were suggesting corrections you would like to see made, and I appreciate that. When I spoke about what happened, I clearly said that you were involved in resolving the problem that occurred between Mr. Meredith and the special constable. I clearly indicated that, and it is also clearly indicated in the Legault report that you cooperated with the investigation. I was not talking about you when I mentioned two former members of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, unless you were part of that committee at the time and you invoked parliamentary privilege, but I don’t think that remark applied to you since you cooperated with the investigation.

You raised another very important point. You said that formal complaints have to be made in order for them to be addressed. You said that didn’t happen. This morning, a victim came to my office and showed me a formal complaint that she filed in February 2015. For reasons that I do not know, you were not kept in the loop, but I saw the complaint that was filed in February 2015 by this former employee of Don Meredith.

I’m sorry, Senator Housakos, but Senator Verner’s five minutes have expired.

I’m on debate.

On debate, Senator Housakos.

Honourable senators, I want to take a few minutes — I won’t be long — to clarify a number of things and put some things into context. As I said, I do appreciate Senator Verner’s attempt here, of course, to find justice for the victims. We all do. I can tell you all that those were some pretty horrible times we experienced in this institution.

But I want to say that I, for one, was in a position of leadership where, unfortunately, I had to take this particular sad story to the finish line rather than being there in the initial stages. I was only named Speaker in 2015, and I unfortunately replaced the Chair of Internal Economy at the time, Senator Nolin, due to his death.

I’m very proud of Speaker Nolin and the action he took. I’m very proud of the steering committee of Internal Economy at the time, that in the absence of a formal complaint from the victims — and now I hear for the first time there was a formal complaint filed in February 2015. By then, there was a full investigation.

So the point of the matter is, colleagues, the Chair of Internal Economy, the steering committee of Internal Economy at the time, in the absence of any formal complaints from any of the victims, took it upon themselves to bring in an outside investigator because they found the high turnover in then Senator Meredith’s office very suspicious. And Senator Nolin, with the steering committee at the time, took the unprecedented step to bring in an outside investigator, similar to the harassment policy that is being proposed and was tabled today. And that’s what we had, colleagues. We had an outside investigator come in. We did this, of course, in respect of the request of the six victims to protect their anonymity, which made it very difficult. In the absence of a formal complaint in the court system, with the police or with our own formal investigative system, we still went forward. We brought in an outside investigator. He thoroughly investigated, and he provided a report to Internal Economy.

Colleagues, when Senator Verner and others say that we used parliamentary privilege and give some kind of veiled impression that we were trying to hide something, the only thing we were trying to hide is respecting the demand of the six victims to respect their anonymity. That’s what we did.

When you invoke parliamentary privilege of Internal Economy — because we took that report and, yes, in a closed-door meeting behind complete respect of the rules, the committee decided to give a briefing to members of Internal Economy of that report in confidence, again respecting the wishes of the victims. That’s the only reason we invoked parliamentary privilege.

By the way, somehow the impression is given that the chair did it. I can’t invoke parliamentary privilege. As we all know, committees in their deliberations determine if you do an in camera meeting. Colleagues, when you’re doing a review of a report from an outside investigator about issues of this nature in HR, I think we all agree, those deserve to be deliberated in camera.

I also want to go a step further because somehow the Ethics Officer gave the impression that it prohibited his investigation. If it wasn’t for that in camera privileged report, which we sent to the Ethics Officer, he wouldn’t have had a report himself. He wouldn’t have anywhere to start.

And the only reason Don Meredith is no longer legitimately before this august place today is because unprecedented steps were taken, colleagues. Maybe we haven’t had a perfect past, but I can tell you the intentions of Internal Economy, of all senators at that time, was to get to the bottom of it. Yes, it took a little bit of time because, to this day, we respected the wishes of those victims.

I just wanted to put that context on record, honourable senators, because many of you were not here at the time. But I can tell you, the intentions were only noble, and we did the best we could in the interests of the complainants.