Evidence of meeting #3 for Subcommittee on a Code of Conduct for Members in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I'm certainly looking forward to, if possible, working with the committee and at least exploring it in detail.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
I've identified that we work in a unique jurisdiction. I think that lawyers in a courtroom would have a similar responsibility to conduct themselves in a debate.... But really, there are very few workplaces where the fundamental privilege of free speech is necessary, and also the ability to continue to maintain all of the provisions of free speech. The only jurisdictions we can really look at that would be comparable would be other Westminster parliaments. You've spoken generally about the possibility of different provisions in different jurisdictions. Is there anything you know of that we should look to?
4:15 p.m.
Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Are you talking about the definition of harassment or just the—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Chris Warkentin Conservative Peace River, AB
Harassment policies, or if it's not a harassment policy, the provisions within a standing order that would ensure that there would be comfort that issues surrounding harassment can be dealt with in a different way than what we do already.
4:15 p.m.
Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
We have looked at quite a few other jurisdictions in Westminster's model. They're quite general, in the sense that their codes of conduct don't deal specifically with harassment. Certain policies do, but not in a specific code of conduct. Westminster has a policy that deals with harassment, but again, it's subject to parliamentary privilege. It's clearly said that whatever is developed is subject to privilege.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
It seems that a lot of this hinges on the whole notion around free speech. Again, to go back to O'Brien and Bosc, on page 89, they talk about free speech. In part, they're talking about members not raising “trivial matters as matters of privilege or contempt” and they say that members “should not use the privilege of freedom of speech to be unfairly critical of others in debate”.
As well, on page 62, O'Brien and Bosc talk about the dignity of the House and say, “Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House.”
The reason I raise this is that on the one hand there is a parliamentary right around freedom of speech, but I also would argue that there should be parliamentary responsibility around freedom of speech. It seems to me that there is a responsibility around freedom of speech. In part, we need to be conscious of the fact that when we speak, we could well impede a member's ability to do their duty because the comments are so outrageous, or harassing, or sexually harassing that they do impede that member's ability to do their job. In part, that may be subjective, but there's also some language in some of the harassment guidelines that have been developed about “should have known” or the intent behind a particular comment.
In your view, is there anything to limit us in terms of looking at the dignity of the House and whether or not the language is so over what a Canadian norm would be? There is nothing to limit us from coming up with a definition that looks at that, is there?
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
No, there is not. In fact, what you're talking about here specifically is free speech, but it falls a little bit into this debate about decorum in the House right now that we've seen happen lately in terms of how people behave. Certainly, it touches on what people say and how they conduct their business. We've seen attempts to define and deal with it. This might just be another way by the House itself to try to come up with something.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
And although we are in unique situations, in terms of.... I mean, there is a hierarchy here, whether we acknowledge it or not. There are people with different positions of power, but they are not an employer-employee relationship, so it doesn't make it easy to deal with.
In harassment codes, there are provisions for employee-on-employee harassment. My understanding is that the complaint is usually filed against the employer, but it will be in the context of employee-on-employee harassment, so there are mechanisms to deal with that.
Monsieur Parent.
4:20 p.m.
Chief Human Resources Officer, House of Commons
It's because the responsibility rests on the employer to provide a workplace that is free of harassment, so if there's employee-to-employee harassment, it's filed with the employer. It's the responsibility of the employer to investigate and then to take any action that the employer requires.
That's why it's a little different, because, again, you have the single figure of authority who can actually take action.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
The only reason I raised the point is that harassment doesn't just take place in hierarchies. The mechanism is different, and I understand that, but it's just to raise the point that it does take place among equals.
Mr. Chair, do I still have time?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I just want to point out there were a number of reports going back to 1974 and 1976 that raised the issue around parliamentary precinct and suggested that we needed to expand the definition because House of Commons committees travel.
There's probably not a response to that; it's just a comment.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Great.
Do you have a short answer to that, Monsieur Denis or Monsieur Parent?
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Quickly, precinct is essentially where parliamentary business is conducted, so it could be anywhere where you have parliamentarians. Travelling committee proceedings are part of the precinct.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think what we're really trying to come up with is a 2015 workplace in an organization that has maybe not dealt with these kinds of issues before.
We want this process that we're coming up with to be one that despite the occupations we have as MPs, which I think are inherently adversarial—that's what politics is all about.... In fact, we call this exchanging attacks every day. That is somewhat different than the public have in their normal context, or that is in the normal context of most workplaces.
We want to protect people, especially women, from harassment or sexual harassment. That's particularly important to me because I want to see more women in politics. We have an onus here.
When we look at the Westminster system that you have talked about, I think it specifically excludes one of the main areas we need to get into, which is what happens in your personal or private life.
I wonder if you could comment on how you see a harassment policy extending beyond the workplace into your private life, and whether MPs actually even have a private life.
4:20 p.m.
Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It's a difficult question to answer, but it's also difficult to say that the definition of harassment would expand to the private life of members because of all of the permutations in situations that could arise. It could probably still be considered by the committee, but you have serious implications in going that far. Typically what we're dealing with is between members in their parliamentary context, parliamentary work.
If you want to extend that to any kind of behaviour outside that would not be considered acceptable for parliamentarians, you would have to be pretty specific about the circumstances, first of all, to identify the facts. Then you have to have some sort of reporting mechanism that would allow for a fair evaluation of the situation and be able to listen to the parties involved. You would also have to look at what kind of process to analyze, and then what kind of recommendations, who would implement them, and what kind of sanctions you would have.
Again, if that's the wish of the House, it could be done, but when you look at other jurisdictions specifically, probably for that reason, they totally exclude it. Yet, they still have codes of conduct that reach or touch on all of the things that members have talked about today, about behaviour and establishing standards and principles of conduct, and rules that deal with respect for each other, and how certain behaviours are unacceptable.
But there's a line there between the personal and the professional that is probably risky to cross.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joan Crockatt Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
One other part you've touched on, and I think deserves more exploration—probably a lot more, but I'll just ask you one question—is the idea of there needing to be an employer or some authority to whom these things are reported, and who has an opportunity to rule on them.
How do you see parties as being employers in the political context, or do you not?
February 2nd, 2015 / 4:25 p.m.
Chief Human Resources Officer, House of Commons
It all depends on the level of authority. Again, we've had these debates in the drafting of the other policy. I think the whips are key to a certain extent, because they're already responsible for the discipline within their party. It does raise the question of what to do when it's an independent member or an unrecognized party.
I think the key is to have a figure of authority who actually can take sanctions. We know that the party can exclude members from the caucus, so that is a sanction. The bigger piece is if it's bigger than the party. What if it's between members of different parties? Then you get into a bigger debate.
I think the key is who will be the person who will make the decision and have the power to make a sanction against a member.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
We'll move to Ms. Block for four minutes, and then Ms. Freeman will finish this off.