Evidence of meeting #4 for Subcommittee on a Code of Conduct for Members in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mps.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
I'm going to go back to the line of questioning of my colleague again, in terms of the definition. I've put it in terms of defining our reach.
We've heard from many of our witnesses about the challenges we have because we're dealing with members of Parliament, peer to peer. We've heard about some other jurisdictions that have made definite decisions and how far they are going to go.
Professor, I think you've alluded to contempt of Parliament. I'm assuming that's what you're talking about when you're talking about the ability to remove a member from the House. There's already a structure in place for dealing with a member of Parliament whose actions are unbecoming and bring down the reputation of the House of Commons.
What I'm looking for from you today is: what would you recommend? How far would you go in defining our reach when it comes to reaching into the personal lives of members of Parliament? Even when we've cited the Senate policy or the House of Commons policy, we're still looking at policy that's definitely dealing with employer-employee or employee-employee, but not member of Parliament to member of Parliament.
I'm looking for a recommendation on defining our reach. Then, where do we start when it comes to taking a look at what's already in place and how we fill in the gaps?
February 23rd, 2015 / 5:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I understand the struggle you're having, and all I can say is that I'm glad I'm on this side of the table rather than the other.
It really does depend on how you are viewing this code. Is this a workplace code intended to create a healthy work environment? If it is that, then the gamut and the tools of discipline should be fairly limited.
If this is really, truly, a code of conduct for members, period, that covers a whole range of harassment, from verbal harassment, discriminatory harassment, sexual harassment, and so on, and the concern is that ultimate forms of this really do undermine the member's capacity as a member of Parliament, and ultimately the House should be able to discipline members, then it is a different kettle of fish. You need some way to transition from the normal human resources, healthy environment, anti-harassment process through to a House of Commons disciplinary process.
That is where I have trouble, and I know you do too. If third parties are involved in the human resources dimension of it—let me call it that—how can they be put in the position of, say, we think this is serious enough that the House should consider it as a disciplinary matter?
Partly it depends on who you have involved. If it's someone like the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who is usually a former judge, that person has reputation and status, and one might say the informal authority to take an informed opinion as to whether this is really serious. That person may be better suited to do that than, say, the human resources officer in the House of Commons, who could do well with a mediation issue.
You may want to have a hybrid system whereby if something is deemed really serious, it's passed up to another level of consideration and investigation and information gathering. You might have an initial process that determines some of the facts. If it can be dealt with through conciliation and mediation, terrific. If it really exposes some pattern of egregious behaviour or even a single egregious behaviour, then it might be passed up to someone with a higher level of authority and prestige who could then make the recommendation back to the House that this be investigated.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
Sorry.
The one thing I wanted to add in there is that there needs to be a process to keep track of complaints. You need to be able to find out if someone has been repeatedly complained about. I'll leave it at that. Sorry, thank you.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay.
Do you want to add a little to that? Then we'll have to suspend and move into a session that the committee needs to do tonight before we leave at 5:30.
5:15 p.m.
Partner, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, As an Individual
Of course.
I agree with the advice that Professor Heard just gave, including the last point that you certainly need to have a limited number of initial points of contact in order to be able to keep a record of all complaints in relation to a particular individual. It may be that in many cases the issue can be resolved through mediation completely confidentially and in a way that results in an apology or some limited measure of discipline.
However, if a formal investigation is needed, I think you do want to have that done by someone with external expertise with a significant amount of gravitas, whether that's a retired judge or experts who regularly investigate these kinds of complaints. I think you do want to have an appeal process available as well and to ensure that the appeal panel is chosen with input from both the complainant and the respondent, and that it includes people with sufficient sensitivity to the special nature of the House of Commons.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you. I'm so sorry about the shortness of our time together today, because I know we could have confused each other even more if we went on longer.
I thank you both. We will suspend for just for a moment while we go in camera to do some committee planning.
[Proceedings continue in camera]