Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank the committee for inviting me to appear today to discuss this important issue of harassment at the House of Commons.
You have already heard from House officials on this complex matter. I understand that they spoke to you in detail about the policies in place in the House of Commons to address issues of workplace harassment relating to employees, as well as harassment issues between members of Parliament.
As committee members know, it has been my objective to improve the atmosphere in the House. Decorum is an issue that has been raised with me not only by members, but also by the general public. How members treat each other in our workplace is, of course, of interest to all of us.
The House of Commons is one of the oldest institutions in our country. The way it conducts its proceedings is even older. The House must find ways to balance these deeply rooted traditions with the expectations of modern workplaces. These measures exist to foster a work environment where everyone feels safe and confident.
As Speaker, I play a key role in the management of the House of Commons, as I am the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, the body responsible for the administrative and financial affairs of the House. I am also responsible for presiding over parliamentary proceedings, and my remarks will focus on this latter area of responsibility.
The anti-harassment measures, detailed by officials earlier, cover employees who work on Parliament Hill. That includes staff of the House of Commons and staff working for members of Parliament. Employers of these categories of staff are subject in various ways to the provisions of these measures.
However, other than the code of conduct dealing with sexual harassment between members, there are currently no workplace measures in place to address other forms of harassment that might occur between members of Parliament within the context of proceedings in the House and committees. The House is not unique in this regard, as many other assemblies do not apply internal codes of conduct to their proceedings. While there could be instances of harassment that are physical or sexual in connection to the proceedings in Parliament, generally, the likeliest form of harassment in this context would be through the spoken word when members are participating in debate in the chamber or in a committee meeting.
As we know, freedom of speech is one of the most important privileges that members enjoy in carrying out their parliamentary duties, either in the House or in committee.
On April 29, 1977, the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members presented its first report, which can be found on pages 720 to 729 of the Journals for that day. The report says that, for members of Parliament, freedom of speech is “a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents”.
It affords its members the ability to engage in debate in a robust and frequently pointed fashion. This is an age-old feature of our House, and is the cornerstone of our Westminster-style parliamentary tradition. It ensures that a member has full latitude in pursuing any matter of public interest or of importance to them. As such, this is an immunity that is fundamental to our proceedings. I must emphasize, however, that this does not mean that members have no protections in the chamber or committees from inappropriate comments from other members.
Another ancient principle of our tradition is found in the rights enjoyed by the House as a collectivity, catalogued in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 119 to 141. Chief among them is “the regulation of its own...affairs”. This refers to the House's exclusive authority to control “its own debates, agenda and proceedings as they relate to its legislative and deliberative functions”.
Related to this is the House's exclusive right to discipline its members. Through these powers, the House has tools to hold any member accountable for any actions that may be viewed as conduct unbecoming and misbehaviour, including in the exercise of their individual right to freedom of speech. The House has exercised these powers in the past to address cases of inappropriate behaviour by a member.
The concerns that have arisen for some time about unparliamentary language in the House, more specifically language of a personal nature used to attack, denigrate or intimidate, are ultimately matters of decorum. One of the things we can do to improve the decorum of our proceedings is to remove those aspects of debate that seek to personalize political criticism.
As we have seen in the past, personal attacks and criticisms often provoke strong reactions. Not only do they cause chaos during our proceedings, but they can actually be perceived by the subject as a form of harassment.
A carrot and stick may be required. Members' goodwill can be appealed to to voluntarily improve the atmosphere in the House. However, stronger measures may be needed on rare occasions. In this respect, if the power to enforce proper decorum rests in my hands, broader disciplinary tools are properly the purview of the House.
I would suggest that the House be prepared to use its power to discipline in those rare cases where statements may cross the line, bordering or reaching the threshold of serious misconduct. While the House has effective disciplinary tools and a strong commitment from the chair to make improvements to decorum, it cannot be done without the co-operation of all members.
The second point I'd like to address is whether stronger rules are needed to address instances of harassment amongst members. As the committee knows, contained in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are two appendices. The first is the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, which deals with obligations of members to avoid conflicts of interest of a pecuniary nature when carrying out their parliamentary functions. The second, the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members, defines sexual harassment and sets out a dispute resolution mechanism when complaints arise.
Neither code contains rules for other forms of harassment between members. Some see this lack of rules as a shortcoming. I would simply remind you that any attempt to expand the scope of these codes of conduct should be done in a way that respects the privileges of the House and its members.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would like to talk to you about another subject, social networks. Members of Parliament are well aware of this subject because, unfortunately, they are often the target of despicable and sometimes criminal comments made about them on various platforms. These comments are conveyed by cowardly individuals through anonymous accounts. Their anonymity makes it very difficult for the security services or the police to investigate.
While never to the same degree, there have been instances of members posting comments regarding fellow members on social media that some would qualify as inappropriate or even harassment. While obviously a serious matter, it is not one that the Speaker has jurisdiction over. It is a long-standing practice that the Speaker does not comment on statements made outside of the chamber.
I am grateful to the committee for their attention to this matter. It is important work, and it is timely.
Those are my thoughts on the issue. I hope my testimony will help the committee in its work in considering this matter.
I very much look forward to the recommendations that this committee might be able to offer the House. I remain at your disposal to further assist the committee as it moves forward on this study.
I thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions.
