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.