MP harassment allegations fall through cracks of Hill's murky rules

Amid the shocked speculation swirling around Wednesday's incendiary revelation by Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau that veteran MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti had been suspended from caucusbased on harassmentcomplaintslodged by two unnamed New Democrat MPs,one question kept coming up:How is it possible that there is no establishedprocess inplace on Parliament Hillfor dealing with such a situation?

As Trudeau himself put it to reporters after delivering his announcement: "Look folks, its 2014. Its time that this workplace, like other workplaces across the country, had a process whereby these issues can be aired and dealt with."

But is itentirely accurate to say that there are no mechanisms in place to deal with disputes between MPs, including allegations of harassment?

First, a quick reminder: Not only is Parliament a self-governing jurisdiction, exempt from virtually all federal and provincial laws, including the labour code, but MPs are as the title makes clear members of the House of Commons, not its employees.

While there are some avenues of appeal for Hillstaffers and employeesdealing withconflicts within the workplace,only the House has the authority to intervene in disputes between its members.

Thatwas what ledLiberal whip Judy Foote to initially approach her New Democrat counterpart, Nycole Turmel,in order to set up meetings with the two MPs.

'Clear process' needed: Liberals

Shortly afterthose meetings had taken place, however, Footefiled a formal requestthatHouse of Commons Speaker AndrewScheer take overthe investigation.

"I do not believe it is possible, nor indeed appropriate, to attempt to properly deal with these complaints any further at the level of the whips," she wrote.

"I believe a process that continues to deal with these allegations in a serious manner will require the involvement of a neutral third party trusted by all concerned."

Foote also urged him to take steps to ensure a "clear process for possible future cases where members are alleging misconduct of other members," and noted that the Senate already has such a policy in place that covers both senators and employees.

"It is time the House of Commons did the same," she wrote.

In a sense, though, it already does.

Asretired parliamentary law clerk Rob Walsh pointed out in an interview with CBC News Network's Power &Politics host Evan Solomon earlier this week,every MPhas theright tobring suchconcerns to the attention of theSpeaker and theHouse as a whole by rising on a point of privilege.

"That process that is available to all members, if they feel that the behaviour of a third party including another member has impaired their ability to do their job," he noted.

Should the Speaker agree that a prima facie breach of privilege exists, the matter would be sent to the procedure and House affairs committee for further study which could, in turn, result in a report recommending what, if any, sanctions should be considered.

"It stems from the fact that the House has the power to discipline its members," Walsh noted.

"if you actually want to take action, you have to go to the House not the [Board of Internal Economy], by the way, and not the Speaker individually, but the House."

Confidentiality complications

Such an approach would, however, require the MPs making the allegations to do so in a very public way which according to the New Democrats, wastheexact opposite of how they wanted todeal with the situation.

Speaking to reporters the day after the story broke, New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair said the party's "numberone concern" was tosupport the two MPs, which included respecting their wishes.

"Their wish was not to be revictimized, andto make sure that what they were telling us was confidential," he said."We respected that."

(Indeed, the New Democrats have been highly critical of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's decision to go public with the fact that such allegations had been made, if not any specific details thereof.)

So, given the desire of the complainant MPs tohandle the situationbehind closed doors, were there any official channels available to resolve the dispute in a more discreet manner than the name-and-shame of a point of privilege?

According to the Speaker's office, they could have taken the matterdirectly to House of Commons chief human resources officer PierreParent.

"Any individual who wants to bring forward allegations of harassment may request a confidential meeting with the chief human resources officer (CHRO) of the House of Commons," the Speaker's office spokeswoman Heather Bradley told CBC News.

At that point, the CHRO"will meet with the individual to determine appropriate next steps," she added.

"All meetings remain strictly confidential."

What's not clear, however, is whether the CHRO has any power to take actionin response to such complaints when the parties involved arealso sitting MPs.

Jurisdiction issues

In fact, it's not even certain that the all-partyBoard of Internal Economyto which the allegations are expected to be referred is authorized to investigate and, if necessary, sanction the conduct of individual MPs.

"I don't think the board has any jurisdiction in this matter, because the board doesn't have power to discipline its members other than for breaches of the board's bylaws," Walsh told CBC's Power &Politics.

"There isn't, to my knowledge, a bylaw regarding harassment between members."

The members' by-laws govern the use of parliamentary resources, including office budgets and salaries, but are silent on issues of conduct and behaviour.

Meanwhile, theparty caucuses themselves have a free hand to manageinternal complaints amongtheir own members, but noreadily availabletools or mechanismstohandle disputesthat involvenon-caucus members.

That is, unless the leaders of the parties involved decide to work together.

"Mulcair and Trudeau should get together, and make an agreement to engage an independent third party to investigate and report back, and that report made public," Walsh told CBC News.

"Then the twomight try tosort out what the remedy would be."

If unsuccessful, he says, the NDP could always rise on a point of privilege although that, once again, would likely mean identifying the MPs behind the complaints.

Either way, Walsh believes thatit will set a precedent "that will put all members on their best behaviour" even if nothing changes as far as the letter of the law.

"I don't think youneed new rules everyone knows sexual harassment, if that's what it is, is not appropriate," he noted.

"This processmay show what remedies are available, and how it could become public, to the great detriment of many members."