Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2024

[Michel Bédard]

The concept of parliamentary proceedings will exist whether you participate in proceedings through virtual means, through Zoom, with the video conference as authorized by the House. The jurisdictions that have applied harassment to all conduct will have carved out the parliamentary proceedings. I gave the example of the Senate, but there are other examples in Canada that have carved out parliamentary proceedings from the application of their code of conduct or policies when it applies members to members.

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

I don't differentiate—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Calkins, we'll have to wrap up right away.

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

I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Thanks very much.

Ms. Romanado, it's over to you for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here.

As you mentioned, it was recommended to PROC almost 10 years ago that this be looked at. I don't want to say that I'm delighted we're actually getting to it, because it took us 10 years, but....

I have a list of questions. Mr. Calkins actually got in a few of them, so that's good.

Right now, as you mentioned, the current members of the House of Commons workplace harassment and violence prevention policy does not cover harassment between members. What would be the recourse for a member of Parliament who is undergoing harassment by another member? What would be their recourse at this point?

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

Thank you for the question.

As it stands today, we're always encouraging.... We really review it case by case. You are able to come forward and actually speak to us, and it really depends on the situation. We also work very closely with the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure from a safety perspective. That's our first line of defence: reviewing every case and making sure the environment is safe from a physical safety perspective. Then what we do is, should it be, under the code of conduct, sexual harassment, then we go that route. If it is not, then we actually refer you back with the whip, and—

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

I'm going to cut you off because I have lots of questions. My apologies.

Not dealing with sexual harassment and not physical safety, what I'm talking about is, say, psychological harassment. My home province of Quebec was one of the leaders in bringing forward legislation to prevent workplace psychological harassment.

Right now, there is no recourse really available and, from what I understand, there is no mediation even available to members of Parliament who are undergoing psychological harassment. Is that correct?

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

There's always an opportunity for the members HR team to actually provide any type of support. There are external resources. There's coaching available for you. It's just that the recourse is not there, as you mentioned.

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

Okay.

You mentioned that in the event of a situation, a member can go to their whip. Do whips and deputy whips of caucuses receive basic human resources training or harassment prevention training? If not, would you recommend that they do so?

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

Yes. Thank you.

Every member of the House of Commons actually does receive the training, and it is available to them, including the whips.

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

Okay.

My colleague mentioned how you would define the workplace of members of Parliament because of the multiple jurisdictions in which we work. Right now, would we fall under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act, or because of the multiple jurisdictions, where would we fall as members of Parliament? We could be at an event. We could be travelling. We could be in our constituencies. We could be here on the Hill. What jurisdiction do we fall under?

[Carolyne Evangelidis]

I'm going to refer that to Michel.

[Michel Bédard]

As a member of the federal Parliament, your workplace will be governed by the Canada Labour Code, part II. That's the authority.

Now, on travelling, it's possible that there might be some other health and safety regime that will kick in depending on if you have an event in another workplace, but you as an employer and your workplace, the constituency office, are governed by the labour code.

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

Okay.

I have a weird question. It may sound a little weird, but I'm going to give you some context.

In May 2015, the Reform Act amended the Parliament of Canada Act, and it requires that in the first caucus meeting after an election four votes must take place, including a vote on the expulsion of a caucus member. Has a legal opinion been sought to ensure that this is in line with labour laws?

For instance, if a member is undergoing harassment and/or is a victim of harassment, what's to say that, if their caucus has passed the Reform Act to allow caucus members to kick out a member of caucus, essentially with 20% of their caucus.... How could this amplify harassment or actually even prevent a member from coming forward out of fear of reprisal and of being thrown out of caucus?

[Michel Bédard]

Indeed, that's a very interesting question.

The Reform Act came into force and was implemented before the labour code was put in place. I will say my preliminary opinion is that they govern different things.

As you know, caucuses have to decide which portion will be applicable to their caucus. It applies to the membership and expulsion of members, and leaders may be subject to a vote by their caucus. I would not qualify the exercise of a power under the Reform Act as a potential act of harassment, as members are exercising their rights under the Parliament of Canada Act. It's the same thing when they are participating in proceedings in the House and voting.

I'm afraid that's all I can offer today, but that is, indeed, a very interesting question.

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

Do I have any more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Unfortunately not.

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

Maybe I'll get another round.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. Merci.

Ms. Gaudreau, go ahead for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Janse, I have a feeling that we'll get there. I'm glad we're able to discuss our concerns. The role of a member of Parliament is indeed very broad and there are a lot of grey areas. A lot of sparring matches take place, and I think this is a great opportunity for us to define what is fair and what can hurt. That's where we're at. I hope that we will quickly agree on criteria similar to those of the Senate or the Quebec National Assembly, as I don't think we can set this aside.

I understand that, when it comes to member-to-member relationships, we are in the right place to make recommendations. I was going to ask you what the role of the Board of Internal Economy is in that respect. I'm reassured.

You also talked about procedure. I would like to know what steps need to be taken to draft the report that includes our recommendations and to adopt it in the House quickly.

[Eric Janse]

I can understand the desire to do that quickly. On the other hand, everything has to be taken into consideration.

As Ms. Evangelidis mentioned, last time, a subcommittee prepared the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members. That could be an option. Perhaps the committee would like to strike a subcommittee that could take the time to look at these issues and that we could help, of course. Then the subcommittee would present its work to the committee, which would then table its recommendations in the House.

Mr. Bédard, do you have anything else to add?

[Michel Bédard]

The process described by Mr. Janse would apply if the committee were to recommend changes to the code of conduct on sexual harassment, which falls under this committee's mandate. It can, therefore, ultimately present its recommendations on the matter to the House. The last time, it was felt that a subcommittee was a more appropriate forum for this kind of a discussion.

As for the Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy, it was adopted by the Board of Internal Economy. So it is not up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to change it, as I said earlier.

Should the committee decide that changes to the policy are necessary, it could invite the Board of Internal Economy to review the matter.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What I understand is that we have to do our job when it comes to member-to-member relationships, but we also have to work in co-operation with the Board of Internal Economy, of course. The harassment prevention policy is very well thought out. We've received training on this as employers. I understood that. What is missing is a part on conduct in member-to-member relationships.

[Michel Bédard]

I know that the code of conduct for members of the House of Commons currently applies to sexual harassment. It would be very tempting to say that we will simply remove the words “sexual” and “sex” wherever they appear in the code and that this will solve the problem. However, that would only be the beginning of the work. If there were a political will to make all forms of harassment subject to the code of conduct, we would have to do that work, but we would also have to look at the other exceptions in parliamentary proceedings, as I mentioned earlier. It's slightly more complex than removing the words “sexual” or “sex” when they appear in the code. Other consequential amendments must also be made.