Subcommittee on a Code of Conduct for Members Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2015

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure that I'm going to take the four minutes.

Just to recap, I think I heard you say that the perception of harassment or being offended is somewhat subjective. What I may consider to be perfectly respectful or certainly within my rights as a parliamentarian to say to another.... It depends on how that other person may receive it. You've also said that the absence of a single figure of authority is an issue when it comes to how we might go about dealing with those who contravene any kind of harassment policy or code of conduct we have in place. Also, there's a gap in regard to contempt of Parliament when it comes to defining the reach. How far can a policy or a code of conduct reach into a person's personal or private life?

Given some of these challenges you've highlighted—and maybe I don't have them completely right, or not all of them—where would you suggest be a starting point for this committee moving forward with the work we need to do?

[Richard Denis]

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, one thing that probably everyone could agree on is the process we should put in place if a complaint of harassment comes up.

The definition is a starting point. You might not have to have a final definition, but there are certain things you could all agree on, that you accept or do not accept, as your working definition. If the issue is raised, if harassment has happened, how do we want it to be dealt with? Do we want a third party appointed, someone who, with the agreement of all the parties, will do the investigation? Maybe you can agree on that. How do we find that person? What do we expect from this person—a recommendation? What do we do with the recommendation? Then where does it go? There are probably a few things that you can start building on.

Then you get into this question I was touching on earlier, which is whether the recommendation would go to the whips, and be kept confidential. Do we escalate it to the House? If so—I was talking about the risk of making the facts public—is there a way around it, for example, that we manage somehow to vote without having all the facts? I'm not sure.

Then again, I think you can put some building blocks. There's probably a base of things that you could at least start working with, and go from there. I understand this is a process that's evolving and you just started looking at it.

As I say, the more you think about it and talk about it, the more it raises questions. This is certainly a difficult one.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have a minute left.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Then I do want to just go back to something I thought I heard you say. In the drafting of the policies we've been looking to use as the basis for defining “harassment”, I thought I heard you say that this might not be the right definition because it was developed to identify the process between employer and employee.

Do you have any recommendations in terms of a definition, a starting point for us, where we could begin to put a definition together for members of Parliament?

[Pierre Parent]

Yes. Probably step one would be to define what you are trying to fix. For instance, if you exclude open parliamentary debate and private life to a certain extent, there is a zone in the middle that needs to be defined. Once you know what remains and what you are trying to fix within that zone, there might not be a lot because we've had that debate among ourselves. If you exclude private life and parliamentary debate, what's left? There's probably little left for interaction but it's what you are trying to fix.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Ms. Freeman, you have four minutes, please, and then we'll finish.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On this topic, we really have to talk about real things. We aren't talking here about what goes on during debates in the House of Commons. We are not talking about the language that is used there, because there are already rules in place to govern these matters.

Would it be possible to have rules regarding what we do in the exercise of our parliamentary duties? Would that make any sense? Could this come into conflict with the existing rules that apply to us?

[Richard Denis]

Mr. Chair, I would say that we could have such rules.

I am thinking, for example, of a Senate policy on conflict of interests.

In schedule B, there is a guide on what constitutes harassment. Questions are asked to help you identify what represents an unacceptable situation. Is someone's behaviour inappropriate or offensive? Would a reasonable person consider that behaviour inappropriate or offensive? Does that behaviour diminish, undermine, humiliate or embarrass someone else? There are a series of questions like that. It is a tool to help identify those situations.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If we talk about what goes on in the exercise of our duties, would that make sense?

[Richard Denis]

Yes, indeed, such rules could discuss the context or framework of the duties of a parliamentarian.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

They would also apply when we travel with a committee and are not in Ottawa.

[Richard Denis]

Yes.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You offered to help us with drafting the definition. Would you be able to submit something to this committee on the definition of harassment, and sexual harassment, more specifically?

When more studies have been carried out on this matter, I would also like you to come back to verify whether what we have prepared does not come into conflict with existing rules.

[Richard Denis]

I would be very happy to do that, Mr. Chair.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I think that would be very good.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if I have enough time left, but I would like to speak to Mr. Parent.

These situations are complex. We are talking about behaviours that can be perceived in a negative way, and when we are in a very political context, that is, of course, even more complex.

Can you tell us to what extent it is appropriate for experts to manage such a situation, and understand the importance of avoiding the political angle? I think this goes hand in hand with the confidentiality aspect. What are your positions in that regard?

[Pierre Parent]

In any organization, when we face situations like this that involve human resources and are complex, it is always good to get advice, since we do not face these situations on a regular basis. So I think it is appropriate to do so.

This was included in the other policy regarding how members should behave as employers. The human resources service may provide advice to members as employers. I think that in such cases it is a good thing to have access to internal or external resources that can provide advice.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Denis, do have something to add?

[Richard Denis]

This also gives the process credibility, because these are neutral, competent persons who deal with these situations on a regular basis. We can rely on them and we know that we will be getting the best advice. Since the result of the investigation can sometimes be difficult to accept, it is important to have a process you trust.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Yes, indeed, all of the members have to have confidence in the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Denis and Mr. Parent, thank you for coming and helping us today.

I thank Madame Freeman for helping us with that last question. I was going to ask you for your gracious help in making definitions for us. Even if there are other working documents we can go from—you said it—we should define first and move forward. I'm with you on that one. That's what we tried to do.

Please, if you can give us a little help on that and get it to us it would be helpful even in another case. I also loved that you offered to return to help us with our work as we near its completion. We've got a little ways to go on it yet, but we thank you.

Committee, we're going to go in camera to discuss our next route.

[Proceedings continue in camera]