Sexual Exploitation, Drinking At The Office Supported By Brazeau, Former Employee Claims
BILL CURRY
Globe and Mail
January 7, 2009
OTTAWA — New Senator Patrick Brazeau - who is facing a sexual harassment complaint before a human rights tribunal - condoned a work atmosphere at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples in which sexual exploitation and drinking on the job was common, according to a grievance filed by a second former employee.
Jade Harper, now 25, worked on contract as an events co-ordinator in late 2007 and early 2008 and said she was so troubled by the atmosphere in the office that she filed a three-page grievance directly with Mr. Brazeau, the organization's national chief.
"There was a lot of drinking at the office," Ms. Harper said. "Once I put my grievance in, I would get the dirty looks in the office. No one would talk to me. Patrick wouldn't ... They just totally shut the door on me completely."
In Ms. Harper's grievance, which she submitted last March, she claims she was exploited by an older, senior employee with whom she had a personal relationship, and that Mr. Brazeau allowed employees to drink in his office.
"I feel that the people I trusted most to advocate and stick up for what's right and wrong have let me down," Ms. Harper wrote in the March 5 letter. "I believe that alcohol and sexual exploitation are both issues that we are trying to fight as an organization, meanwhile both issues continue to be supported at the CAP office."
Ms. Harper said she decided to speak publicly about her experience after a story in yesterday's Globe and Mail. In that report, Mr. Brazeau and other board members rejected claims in a sexual harassment filing from an unidentified former employee. That complaint, which covers the same period as Ms. Harper's allegations, is currently before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
Mr. Brazeau and a majority of the congress board said this week that they hired an outside mediation firm to investigate the original complaint, and the report found Mr. Brazeau did not breach the organization's harassment policies.
When contacted yesterday about Ms. Harper's allegations, a spokesman for the congress said Ms. Harper's grievance was also taken seriously and was "resolved to the satisfaction of the board."
Spokesman Al Fleming said Ms. Harper's allegations are false. "This is viewed as a part of a purposeful and unsuccessful attempt to try to discredit the national chief," he wrote in an e-mail, which was copied to congress lawyer Michael Chambers. Mr. Fleming said that both women were offered mediation services.
"However, by the time the matter was concluded, both involved parties had left the congress as their contracts had ended, coinciding with the end of the fiscal year for which funding for their services had been provided," he wrote.
Mr. Brazeau is seeking to remain national chief of the congress, a group that advocates for off-reserve natives, even though he was appointed last month to sit as a Conservative Senator.
The complaint before the Human Rights Tribunal claims Mr. Brazeau sexually harassed a female employee in late 2007 and early 2008.
That woman's name is not being released by the tribunal, but Ms. Harper said she supports her allegations.
If Mr. Brazeau is successful in his bid to stay on as national chief while sitting in the Senate, he will be drawing two six-figure salaries, both at taxpayers' expense.
The congress's financial statements show Mr. Brazeau's salary was $100,170 in the last fiscal year, plus $5,422 for expenses. His new job pays $130,400, with the possibility of further compensation for duties such as chairing a committee or caucus.
The congress's annual revenue of $5.5-million comes largely from seven federal departments.A spokesman for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said holding both jobs appears to be an obvious conflict and would also amount to double dipping in the public purse.
"At the end of the day, if the money's coming from taxpayers, it's double dipping of a kind," he said. "To actually be a member of the government that he's advocating to would strike me as inherently conflictual."
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
More on Senator Patrick - in the Globe and Mail - Don't convict him yet - these are allegations
Posted by MetisMama at 4:03 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
First off, I think both of these matters should be investigated. That being said, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not the proper place for such an inquiry.
Secondly, Brazeau cannot be both a Senator and the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. It's a conflict of interest waiting to happen.
If you read the articles, it is clear that both allegations have been investigated, by independent third party investigators. That the investigators did not substantiate the complaints suggests that there is another side to the story (there usually is).
The complainants have the luxury of knowing that CAP cannot release these reports without the consent of the complainants themselves, so they get to make their unfounded allegations public without having to have their own motives and actions examined.
I notice that the G&M has not allowed public on-line commentary for either of these stories, which suggests that they are already aware they are on thin ice with defamation and slander.
Also interesting to note that these issues were part of the smear campaign against Chief Brazeau leading up to his reelection in November. Given an opportunity to oust him, the delegates resoundingly endorsed his leadership. Perhaps they recognized a politically motivated hatchet job for what it was...
Post your name anonymous.Lets see you work in that office. If this was to happen to a white girl it woould have been taken care of by now.
i don't think the article was saying that there was a third party investigation. i think that it more likly that CAP hired someone with tax payers dollars to investigate and i am not sure how third party or objective this process was and i didnt see anyone reporting that the complaintents didnt want the reports released. Maybe someone should ask them. And Minard said that it was board who voted not to releSE THE REPORT
Surely the Globe and Mail editors would have their legal staff review the article for possible defamation/slander before publication.
Why wasn't this thoroughly investigated before Patrick Brazeau was appointed a senator? How do you keep this secret Someone must have known of these allegations, problem is, they weren't part of Stephen Harper's administration?
It seems the Harper government were the last to find out about this.
I still stand firm on the fact that we can not prosecute this man or any man in the media ... but in saying that the following insert was a part of a CBC interview...
"But Will Menard, one of Brazeau's former board members from Manitoba, told CBC News that the board voted not to release the final investigators' report, but the executive summary said there was inappropriate behaviour.
"In my mind, he's not cleared at all," Menard said.
Menard added it is true Brazeau's behaviour didn't breach CAP's sexual harassment policy, but only because the policy is so weak."
We are not sure of what Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario powers are but in most cases the award of the review would assess money. If the complaints are substantive I believe they should be put in the court. Much like the allegations that are being made about the third party mediation - what are the terms of their authority? What power does the Executive Committee or the mediator have even if there was evidence of irregularities. etc. etc. etc.
The part of the article though that I find more interesting is the situation of his evident conflict of interest - Does he represent the people of Quebec in the Senate or does he represent the off - Reserve Aboriginal people he claims to.
Often the knowledge of being considered for a Senate position is known long before the announcement is made ... Did he know this was a possibility when he ran for re-election in November? Did he produce the "Third Party" mediators report to the people who had to cast a vote in his election in November? Many more questions then answers ... Where is the accountability when you won't disclose the report? It does make one start thinking...
I was hoping this site would offer some insight to what Aboriginal people are thinking however I noticed that what I bloged yesterday as been removed from this site which is to bad I publised the facts on this site and was hoping for some feedback.
To the last Anonymous:
I am not sure what you think did not get posted - but after reviewing all comments yesterday - nothing was edited out.
Maybe your comment was not received.
Not only is Patrick Brazeau holding two diametrically opposed jobs simultaneously a conflict of interest but how can he adequately perform both unless he works 20 hours a day?
Obviously he wasn't thoroughly screened prior to the appointment. Maybe he should have been asked what he planned to do with his CAP position if given a senatorship?
Look at the example of Barack Obama. Candidates being considered for a Cabinet position were given a 12 page questionnaire. Did the Harper government do anything approaching that with these appointments?
OK thats it - get rid of Patrick and appoint MetisMama. Put in someone who will work for our "rights" )))))
Best suggestion of the day! Now you're making sense.
I find it rather ironic that a year or so ago Patrick released a statment to leaders of the First Nations communities asking where is the accountability yet he would not release the full report on the allegations of sexual harrassment. I know for a fact that he knew about the senate appointment since July. That is why he fought so hard to keep Mr. Menard away form the Nov CAP AGA. He knew Mr. Menard was going to raise the issue there. As well Jade Harper was going to be representing Manitoba as their Youth delegate.
A CAP employee
Post a Comment