Yes, there have been lots of situations. I'll start with inside the House. As you can imagine and easily remember, we did go over the debates going back 20 years, and we found all sorts of situations for members in terms of altercations or threats or comments that were felt to be unacceptable. On all sorts of behaviour members rose on points of order and asked the Speaker to see whether or not there were prima facie cases. In most of the cases, there were not. Sometimes there would be, but most often these issues were either dealt with right away by the Speaker or else members would talk to each other and come to resolution. Apologies were made, situations were clarified, and things moved forward.
In terms of householders or outside the precinct, there have also been situations where members have said things in their householders. The famous one was Mr. Pankiw in a householder. That went to court. The decision was made, however, that the Canadian Human Rights Act did not apply because a householder was not considered to be a service according to section 5, I think, of the act, and therefore the courts had to intervene to look at it. In this case there was not a specific case of harassment
My point is that, as you yourself will know, there is a wide range of things that members can do or say that might not be acceptable to some but will be acceptable to others. What you're faced with is a situation where the House itself has to look at these cases, which is what you're doing right now, and ask what it is we're talking about. You started with this definition of sexual harassment versus harassment versus what could be other things. What do we do about it? Do we need a definition? How far do we want the House to go in dealing with it, as well? There are other ways.