Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Good morning, everyone.

As always, it's a pleasure for me to be here.

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting 115 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I will just remind you, colleagues, that we do have new protocols in place in regard to our audio devices. I think we've been through this enough times now that we know the appropriate step is to place the piece on the sticker when it is not in use out of respect for the health and safety of our translators as they do their important work.

Colleagues, I have a couple of housekeeping things before I introduce the topic of conversation for today. We currently have bells planned at about 10:45. We will have to decide at that point in time what we want to do as a committee. We are scheduled to be here for three hours this morning and into the early afternoon. I will be calling a few health breaks, as we have done in the past, to allow witnesses and staff and others the opportunity to move around a little bit.

Colleagues, we are here today to begin our study on a review of the members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy.

We have a number of familiar faces with us here as witnesses today. I would like to welcome Eric Janse, Clerk of the House of Commons; Michel Bédard, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel; and Carolyn Evangelidis, chief human resources officer. We also have Patrick McDonell, who is the Sergeant-at-Arms and corporate security officer; as well as Jeffrey LeBlanc, the deputy clerk of procedure.

You will have up to 10 minutes, witnesses, as a group for an opening statement, after which we will proceed to questions from committee members.

Before we begin, I understand that Ms. Romanado wanted to speak to something briefly.

Ms. Romanado, if that's still the case the floor is yours.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to make sure of something. I know members received a briefing note—thank you so much—from the analysts that the study we're starting today is on the harassment policy and not on sexual harassment. I just want to make sure it's very clear what the scope of the study is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Analysts, did you want to speak to this, or are we okay?

Colleagues, are we good on that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Excellent.

With that, Mr. Janse, the floor is yours and the 10-minute opening remark period begins.

[Eric Janse, Clerk of the House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to testify.

I understand that you’re interested in knowing about, and in improving, the regimes currently in place for preventing and addressing situations of harassment and violence in the workplace—where members of Parliament, their staff, House administration employees, and members of the public and of other parliamentary institutions work together.

The study of the committee is aimed at ensuring that members of Parliament, employees of members or of the House administration, as well as members of the public who participate in the day-to-day activities of the institution are protected from violence and harassment. This is certainly an objective that we all share as senior House officials, and we trust that our testimony today will assist the committee in its important deliberations.

We will begin by providing a jurisdictional overview of the harassment and violence policies currently in place for employees of the House of Commons administration and of members, along with governing legislation and regulations. We will also overview the code of conduct for members of the House of Commons on sexual harassment. We will outline the roles that the Board of Internal Economy and the the procedure and House affairs committee have played in their development. Thereafter, we will present the members of the House of Commons harassment and violence prevention policy in its current form, as well as the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment.

We will then provide the committee with recent developments and address any questions that members may have.

I will now invite our law clerk to provide a jurisdictional overview.

[Michel Bédard, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons]

There are various policies and codes that are aimed at preventing and dealing with harassment and violence in the workplace at the House of Commons. The motion adopted by the committee for this study mentions one, namely the Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy, which was adopted by the Board of Internal Economy, or BOIE.

There is a similar harassment policy adopted by the Clerk of the House of Commons for administration employees, and parliamentary partners are also legally required to adopt such policies. In addition, as members of this committee know, there is the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members, which comes within the purview of the committee pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

The Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy, was, as I mentioned, adopted by BOIE under its general authority over administrative matters involving the House and members. The policy is also part of the conditions of employment and supports members in their role as employers of their staff.

In early 2021, the policy applying to members and their staff was replaced by a new, and the current, policy after the Governor in Council adopted the new Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations. This came after the Canada Labour Code was reformed to include harassment as a health and safety matter and was made applicable to parliamentary employers, including members of Parliament. The policy was recently reviewed by BOIE, but no substantial changes were made.

As for the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members, it resulted from a study of this committee following an order of reference from the House instructing the committee to examine policy options for addressing complaints of harassment between members and make recommendations for a code of conduct for the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace. As its title indicates, the code of conduct ultimately recommended to and adopted by the House is limited to sexual harassment.

Following the 2018 review of the code of conduct on sexual harassment, it was contemplated that PROC would undertake a study on non-sexual harassment, but it did not begin such a study before the dissolution of the 42nd Parliament. The code of conduct on sexual harassment constitutes an expression of, and is rooted in, the parliamentary privilege of the House of Commons to discipline its members, similar to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Both codes are appended to the Standing Orders.

Going back to the members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy, it does not fall, as I said, within the mandate of this committee. That said, it's not the first time that the board and PROC are both interested in the same matter.

For example, in the 42nd Parliament, the issue of maternity and parental leave was studied by the board. However, as it did not have jurisdiction over the subject, the board referred the matter to this committee, which examined the subject and made recommendations to the House that were later adopted as the regulations respecting the non-attendance of members by reason of maternity or care for a newborn or newly adopted child.

Inspired by this example, PROC could, should it determine that changes to the policy are required, write to the board to suggest the desired amendments to the policy. I note that Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i) contemplates such a collaboration between BOIE and PROC, in that PROC can, as part of its mandate, review and report to the Speaker and the board on matters related to the administration of the House of Commons.

To conclude, whether a harassment prevention or resolution proposal comes within the jurisdiction of the board or the House, acting on the recommendation of PROC, will depend on the circumstances. Harassment prevention as a health and safety matter in the workplace will generally come within the purview of the board as an employment matter. In contrast, regulating member-to-member conduct will be a matter for PROC and the House to decide.

I will now invite the CHRO to provide additional context respecting the content of these policies and the code.

[Carolyne Evangelidis, Chief Human Resources Officer, House of Commons]

Thank you.

As outlined by the Clerk, I'll begin by providing the committee with a brief overview of the harassment and violence policy creation and development, its current state and the distinctions from the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members.

The Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy was approved by the Board of Internal Economy, or BOIE, on January 28, 2021, to replace the one approved by the House of Commons on December 9, 2014. The new policy is intended to help members of Parliament meet, as employers, the new legislative requirements of the Canada Labour Code that came into effect on January 1, 2021, and to foster a healthy, respectful, and harassment and violence-free work environment. The policy was recently updated and then approved by BOIE on February 15, 2024.

For your information, in accordance with the policy’s requirements, I’ll present to BOIE, on May 30, the annual report on the Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy for the 2023–24 fiscal year.

The harassment and violence prevention policy governs the behaviours of members as employers. However, it does not encompass member-to-member interactions. As mentioned by the law clerk, the House adopted a motion instructing the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to explore policy options for handling complaints of harassment among members on November 27, 2014.

At that point, a subcommittee of PROC was created to (a) examine policy options for addressing complaints of harassment among members of the House of Commons; (b) propose a code of conduct to prevent and address workplace harassment, with a clear definition of “harassment”; (c) make recommendations concerning a fair, impartial and confidential process, including options for the role of an independent third party for resolving complaints made under the code; and, finally, (d) to make recommendations concerning training and education initiatives to ensure compliance with the code.

On June 9, 2015, the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment was adopted by the House, following a study and report presented at PROC.

In 2018, the code of conduct was revised. On May 31, 2018, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted the revised draft report entitled “Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members”. The revised version of the code was then introduced and adopted in the House of Commons on June 20, 2018.

Improvements include aligning the code of conduct with the Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy at the time, adopting a limitation period, and implementing an investigation process.

The code currently allows members to confidentially raise concerns of sexual harassment by other members to the chief human resources officer or their whip, and provides a process for mediation and investigation. Following an investigation, a report may be sent to this committee, PROC, for further action, which in turn may bring it to the House's attention if discipline against the member is contemplated. Any changes to the code would originate through PROC and would ultimately have to be adopted by the House. Currently, there is no regime that addresses harassment of a non-sexual nature among members.

Finally, the House of Commons has a policy on harassment and violence prevention which governs the House of Commons administration. This policy of harassment prevention and resolution in the workplace was first approved by the Clerk of the House on the advice of the Clerk's management group on April 1, 2015.

Following legislative changes to the Canada Labour Code, part II, our current policy was approved on March 24, 2021 by the Clerk of the House of Commons, again on the advice of the Clerk's management group. The legislatively required review of the policy is presently ongoing and will be presented—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Ms. Evangelidis, I'm sorry to interrupt. We're a minute over. Can you wrap up, please?

Thank you.

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

Yes.

I would conclude our opening remarks by emphasizing that the House administration is dedicated to fostering a safe, healthy and positive workplace.

We're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we will now begin the first round. As you know, each party will have six minutes.

Mr. Calkins, I believe you're the first up. The floor is yours.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for always coming to this committee whenever we need to hear from them.

I will let you decide who is best positioned to answer the question after you hear it, based on the nature of the question.

I want to be clear about understanding jurisdiction here.

What is the jurisdiction of the members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy?

[Eric Janse]

The jurisdiction for that is largely members as employers, so it targets largely the employees of members.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

It does not deal with member-to-member interactions, just so we're clear.

[Eric Janse]

That's correct.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Who would have jurisdiction to make a decision about anything that happens between members? Where is that jurisdiction?

[Eric Janse]

I'll turn this one over to Michel, but I think that's where there's a bit of a void.

[Michel Bédard]

The House will unquestionably have jurisdiction over governing member-to-member conduct and putting in place a regime, as it did for sexual harassment. For such matters, the House will oftentimes act on the recommendation of PROC. Actually, the first order of reference to this committee in 2014 contemplated that the study and the ultimate code would cover all forms of harassment, but ultimately the report only covered sexual harassment.

If BOIE were to put in place a regime that was intended to apply member to member, it could work in a certain way, but BOIE's authority is limited. For example, any disciplinary measures would have to be confirmed by the House if we were talking about a suspension or any other sanction that would require a decision from the House.

Unquestionably, though, this committee has the authority to make a recommendation on member-to-member harassment.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

That's a bit of a challenge, obviously, because the chamber, the House, is designed to be adversarial. Can any of you offer members of this committee any advice on the definition of “adversarial” versus the definition of “harassment”? It's designed to be that way, and members of Parliament do feel uncomfortable. We're made to feel uncomfortable by our constituents. We're made to feel uncomfortable, and we shouldn't feel comfortable in our jobs. This is the nature of our democracy.

In the delineation of feeling uncomfortable because of the duties in the adversarial environment that we're in by design, how do we rationalize feeling uncomfortable because of harassment or feeling uncomfortable because of the political pressure that is placed on us in an adversarial system?

[Eric Janse]

It's a very good question, Mr. Calkins, because you're right. The House of Commons is a very unique workplace with a very unique mandate, as you just described. Any definition of the acceptable roles of members in the House, either on the government side or opposition side, versus what falls into the area of harassment is something I anticipate this committee would want to reflect on if it decided to go that route. Any regime, if one were to be put into place, would have to take into account the fact that proceedings in the chamber and in committee are overseen by parliamentary privilege.

Michel, do you want to expand a bit on that?

[Michel Bédard]

Yes.

There are some jurisdictions that have adopted codes of conduct that apply to all forms of harassment, but they carve out parliamentary proceedings. For example, the Senate has a policy that applies to conduct between senators, but it does not apply to all actions that take place during parliamentary proceedings. Everything that takes place during parliamentary proceedings will be addressed through the procedural means that are already available, be it a question of privilege or a question of decorum, which are usually enforced by the chair or the Speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You have one minute left.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My last question, then, is just for clarification. What constitutes the parliamentary area? The House of Commons obviously does, as do committee spaces, our offices and any places in the parliamentary precinct. What about our constituency offices?

[Eric Janse]

Normally, in terms of parliamentary proceedings and privilege, it's just the House, the chamber and committees.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

We can attend the chamber from our constituency offices, and we can attend the chamber from our homes. We can attend the chamber from anywhere in Canada as long as we have an adequate Internet connection. This needs to be clarified.