44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 23, 2021 12:15PM
- Nov/23/21 4:07:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your role.
I would make this argument. Allegations have come to light about somebody who is serving in this room's capacity to serve the House. Those allegations speak to our privilege as members, in that some of the allegations that I believe my colleague will address speak to investigations that did not come to light. These did not happen at the Board of Internal Economy. The allegations that have also come to light since the dissolution of the last Parliament relate to the ability of the House to address sexual harassment issues, including from former members of staff.
At the start of this Parliament, it is imperative that we understand if the House has the ability, under the leadership of this person, to conduct appropriate investigations and ensure that sovereignty is maintained. This is not just a breach of a staff member's privilege, but it is a breach of my privilege.
On the 100th anniversary of the first woman being elected to the House of Commons, I would argue that systemic misogyny and the inability of the House to adequately address sexual harassment issues is in fact a breach of privilege. I believe what my colleague is about to do is to explore and give you, Mr. Speaker, evidence to consider whether or not this is the case.
The time to do this is now, at the start of the first Parliament. The allegations that have come to light over the last several weeks deeply suggest that something is wrong and something is amiss, and that the typical processes through the Board of Internal Economy, in which someone in this room has a significant role, are not able to function. That in and of itself is a case of privilege.
On this point of order I would say, respectfully, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for this institution, as well as a note to my colleague to be concise in his arguments, that this is something we absolutely must address in this place, particularly for the people at home who cannot speak here and who have been impacted by this. You were very right in saying that there are people here who do not have a voice and this place is for us to give a voice to them.
Mr. Speaker, respectfully, and again to my colleagues, I ask that they bring these matters up in fact-based, non-partisan facts. We are dealing with the ability of the House to function in this Parliament. I am deeply troubled by it. I am also tired of having to stand up and give the same speech in the same iteration over and over again. I would ask respectfully that my colleague be allowed to continue. I will probably add to his argument. I would ask my colleague to be concise in his argument, but this must be addressed. Light must be shone on it. It is only to be done in this place.
497 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/21 4:17:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order.
For what it is worth, I think you may have a point on perhaps not reiterating the entirety of the allegations that have been reported to the CBC. However, I would ask that you understand that these are material to the case that is about to be made. I am not a member of the Board of Internal Economy. I would like to speak to this point of privilege from a different angle than perhaps my colleague will, but I think it is important that you hear him speak to what he believes the breach of privilege is. This is the time to do it, at the start of this Parliament. I am acutely aware, personally, of the ramifications I might have in my role because of questioning someone in a position of power such as the person we are discussing. I understand what that might mean for me given the import of his role in the House of Commons.
I would not be doing this lightly if I did not feel it material to the functioning of the House going forward. I would ask you respectfully to allow my colleague to continue. I would perhaps strongly agree with you that my colleague keep his argument tight to the matter at hand and only refer to the allegations and assumptions as we know them, but we are allowed to make the case of privilege.
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/21 4:27:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to my colleague's argument with additional evidence. It is not allegations, but additional rational. I would like to argue that the Board of Internal Economy is not, in fact, the place to have this happen.
Adding to the argument of my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, I would argue that my privilege as a member has been breached here, because it is arguably not safe to work here. The allegations that have surfaced could be put into two silos. There are other silos, but these are the ones I want to address.
The first silo is that there is a toxic workplace culture in House administration, and there was no appropriate vehicle by which to air that problem and have appropriate human resources' actions taken. That is very clear by the CBC report. Given that, moving that review into private under the auspices of the person by which the allegations are levelled is completely inappropriate by any human resources standard. The process that we have to deal with a circumstance like this, respectfully, would be PROC, or referred to a committee for study.
The second silo that I would argue with respect to it not being safe to work here is that there were serious allegations that came to light about a former staff member against a former member of Parliament wherein she stated in reports that House administration steered her toward mediation when she felt that a full complaint was warranted. That flies directly in the face of the Board of Internal Economy's policy on workplace harassment. In fact, members can find it on page 12. House administration should never have steered a complainant toward an example.
Given the fact that there are allegations of toxic workplace culture within House administration that the human resources department is part of—
310 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/23/21 4:31:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not feel the Board of Internal Economy, which is largely a closed-door process, is appropriate to deal with the breach of privilege that I am raising today. My privilege is breached because it is not safe to work here by virtue of other people not finding it safe work here. Frankly, I have raised this issue in numerous forms over the entirety of my decade in this place. A decade into working here, I still do not feel like it is safe to work here.
With respect, I do not think shunting this issue into a closed-door committee, when there are people at home who have not had justice, is appropriate. I just cannot stress this enough.
I would argue that should an open-door process find it appropriate to review personnel decisions or new processes in House administration through the Board of Internal Economy, that this is a route we should take. However, at this point in time, be it within political parties of all stripes in this place but certainly now within the House itself, there are no assurances for anybody coming forward with harassment that this will be taken seriously. This has to be done not in a closed-door committee, but in an appropriate parliamentary committee. That is the only way this will be addressed.
My privilege, and all our privileges, are breached, because we are doing the emotional labour of dealing with unwanted touching, sexual harassment and workplace harassment instead of doing our jobs, and that is the definition of privilege being breached. It has to be done outside of the Board of Internal Economy, and light has to be shone on this.
I do not want to be doing this. I want to be talking about other things today, but I am tired of this. Therefore, on the 100th anniversary of women being elected in Parliament, we should not shunt this to a closed-door committee. We should put it out in public. I beg that of you, Mr. Speaker.
342 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
