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.