Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the subcommittee. It's a pleasure to be here today.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you and to provide some assistance in your study of the consideration of policy options for addressing complaints of harassment between members of the House of Commons, and the possible implementation of a code of conduct for members.
I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. Pierre Parent, Chief Human Resources Officer for the House of Commons, who will also be able to greatly assist, considering his wide experience with the drafting, the implementation and the application of harassment policies. He contributed to the implementation of the policy on the prevention of harassment in the workplace for the House of Commons Administration and was recently involved in the development of the House of Commons Policy on Preventing and Addressing Harassment adopted by the Board of Internal Economy on December 9, 2014.
Through your clerk and the analyst, we were able to get a general sense of the questions that your committee is faced with. I will admit that these are complex issues and that any proposed solution to a question such as harassment requires thoughtful consideration, particularly in the parliamentary context.
In our preparations for today, we looked at what is done in other jurisdictions, as well as at how the House itself has handled perceived situations of harassment that have occurred on the floor of the House during past debates.
My presentation will outline the legal issues that may be taken into consideration when dealing with allegations of harassment between members, the main one being the unique work environment of members of Parliament by reason of their constitutional role, and the application of parliamentary privilege.
In the parliamentary environment it is not possible to have a single regime to address harassment issues. As you know, many groups of people are present on the Hill every day: members of Parliament, senators, employees of senators, employees of members, Senate personnel, House of Commons personnel, media, and the public at large. I also point out that in the case of employees of senators, they are employees of the Senate, whereas employees of members are employed by each member individually. All these people interact on a regular basis in an environment that can easily cause stress, friction, or difficult situations.
In the case of the House of Commons, there are at least three distinct groups of individuals who share the same work environment: first, the employees of the House administration; second, employees of individual members, House officers, and research officers; and finally, members themselves.
Two distinct employment regimes currently apply, one for the House administration and one for members' employees. Therefore, two distinct harassment-prevention policies have been adopted.
In the third case, now before you, between members themselves, one particular concern is how any code or policy could apply to or interact with proceedings in Parliament without curtailing or placing limits on the privilege of freedom of speech of members during debates.
To begin with, members are not employees of anyone in a legal sense. But, of course, they are accountable to their electors.
The House of Commons is a body of 308 individually elected individuals, who are summoned to form the House of Commons for a particular parliament. Therefore, any process to address harassment between members must be premised on, and respect, the unique constitutional role, functions and status of members of Parliament and the House of Commons itself, since members are equal among themselves.
As members of the subcommittee know, the House of Commons is separate and independent from the Senate, the executive and the courts. The Constitution Act, 1867, and the Parliament of Canada Act recognize that the House of Commons and its members hold, enjoy and exercise certain privileges, immunities and powers.
By virtue of parliamentary privilege, the House itself has exclusive control over its membership and the discipline of its members. This exclusive jurisdiction to discipline members includes the ability to regulate their behaviour or to limit what can be said or done in the Chamber. Here you can think for example about how certain rules of debate come into play, what is considered to be unparliamentary language, the use of cell phone or props in the House, etc.
Constitutionally, the House and its members are not subject to oversight by any outside person or entity. The House as a whole is the only body with the legal authority and responsibility for policing its membership. Since these rules are self-imposed by the House as a whole, their application cannot be considered to be a breach of the privilege of free speech.
The same would be true for a regime to address potential harassment between members. Any member who feels they are subject to unparliamentary or unacceptable behaviour or language on the part of another member may rise on a question of privilege and ask the Speaker to rule on the issue. Often the Speaker will be able to deal with the issue right away, but at other times the Speaker will find a prima facie case of privilege and open the matter to the House for debate. More often than not, such matters are referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which will look into the matter and report back to the House for adjudication. The House then has access to a range of penalties for dealing with those situations, including suspension or, in extreme cases, even expulsion.
In the development of a code of conduct to address potential harassment complaints between members, it is therefore up to the House, if it so desires, to decide what type of conduct it considers improper, offensive, or otherwise reprehensible and would qualify as harassment, and which process should be used for raising these issues.
Finally, the development of a code of conduct for members or any other process for dealing with harassment should ensure that: the claimant and the respondent have the right to a fair process; issues are resolved at the earliest opportunity; independent third parties are available to assist the members involved, and the House if necessary, with finding a satisfactory solution; and finally, confidentiality is protected throughout the process.
Thank you for your attention.
We look forward to your questions.