Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:27:42.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canada's Member-to-Member Code of Conduct on Sexual Harassment in the House of Commons: Progress or Regress?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2018

Cheryl N. Collier  and
Tracey Raney
Cheryl N. Collier*
Affiliation:
University of Windsor
Tracey Raney*
Affiliation:
Ryerson University
*
Dept. of Political Science, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor ON, N9B 3P4, email: ccollier@uwindsor.ca
Dept. of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, JOR 713A Victoria St., Toronto ON, M5B2K3, email: traney@politics.ryerson.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 2015, the Canadian House of Commons passed a new code of conduct governing non-criminal sexual harassment between members of Parliament becoming the first of its kind in any Westminster system in the world. Using a feminist institutional and violence-against-women-in-politics approach, we assess how the code challenges, legitimizes and upholds traditionally gendered norms and institutionalized sexism within Canada's parliamentary system including parliamentary privilege, party cohesion and party discipline. Despite its novelty, we argue this code fails to enact positive gender-friendly institutional change and may do more harm than good in its efforts to curb sexual harassment.

Résumé

En 2015, la Chambre des communes du Canada a adopté un nouveau code de conduite en matière de harcèlement sexuel non criminel entre élus, le premier du genre au sein du système de Westminster au monde. En utilisant une approche féministe institutionnelle et de la violence faite aux femmes en politique, nous évaluons comment le code remet en question, légitime et maintient les normes traditionnellement sexospécifiques et le sexisme institutionnalisé au sein du système parlementaire canadien, y compris le privilège parlementaire, la cohésion et la discipline de parti. Malgré sa nouveauté, nous soutenons que ce code ne parvient pas à mettre en œuvre des changements institutionnels positifs favorables à l'égalité des sexes et qu'il peut faire plus de mal que de bien dans ses efforts visant à réduire le harcèlement sexuel.

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 795 - 815
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors would like to thank the journal's editorial team and the anonymous reviewers of our manuscript for their helpful and supportive suggestions.

References

Blatchford, Christie. 2015. “Liberal MPs accused of sexual harassment treated less fairly than VIA plot terrorists.” National Post (Toronto). March 21. (March 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Canada. Parliament. 2015a. Report 38 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Ottawa: Supply and Services. (June 20, 2017).Google Scholar
Canada. Parliament. 2015b. Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Subcommittee on a Code of Conduct for Members, Meetings. May 11. (November 25, 2015).Google Scholar
Canada. Parliament 2017. Report 42 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Ottawa: Supply and Services. (February 23, 2018).Google Scholar
Chappell, Louise. 2006. “Comparing Political Institutions: Revealing the Gendered ‘Logic of Appropriateness.’” Politics & Gender 2 (2): 223–48.Google Scholar
Chappell, Louise. 2014. “‘New,’ ‘Old,’ and ‘Nested’ Institutions and Gender Justice Outcomes: A view from the International Criminal Court.” Politics & Gender 10 (2): 572–94.Google Scholar
Chappell, Louise and Waylen, Georgina. 2013. “Gender and the Hidden Life of Institutions.” Public Administration 91 (3): 599–615.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2004. “A Feminised Style of Politics? Women MPs in the House of Commons.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6: 3–19.Google Scholar
Collier, Cheryl and Raney, Tracey. 2016. “Everyday Sexism in the Elected House: A Comparative Study of Westminster Parliaments in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Calgary. June 2.Google Scholar
Crewe, Emma. 2014. “Ethnographic Research in Gendered Organizations: The Case of the Westminster Parliament.” Politics & Gender 10 (4): 673–78.Google Scholar
CTV News. 2016. “Reports into sexual misconduct allegations against 2 MPs finds new complaints: source.” (October 14, 2016).Google Scholar
Dekker, Inez and Barling, Julian. 1998. “Personal and Organizational Predictors of Workplace Sexual Harassment of Women by Men.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3 (1): 7–18.Google Scholar
Edwards, Katie M., Turchik, Jessica A., Dardis, Christina M., Reynolds, Nicole and Gidycz, Christine A.. 2011. “Rape Myths: History, Individual and Institutional-Level Presences, and Implications for Change.” Sex Roles 65: 761–73.Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2016. “Sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians.” Issues Brief. (March 28 2017).Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena. 2017. “Violence against Women in Politics.” Journal of Democracy 28 (1): 74–88.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena and Restrepo Sanin, Juliana. 2016. “Gender and Political Violence in Latin America: Concepts, Debates, and Solutions.” Política y gobierno 23 (1): 129–64.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 2014a. “Prime Minister's Questions as Political Ritual at Westminster.” In Democracy in Practice-Ceremony and Ritual in Parliament, ed. Rai, Shirin M. and Johnson, Rachel E.. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 2014b. “The institutionalization of sexism in politics.” Political Insight 5 (2): 16–19.Google Scholar
Macdonald, Paula. 2012. “Workplace Sexual Harassment 30 Years on: A Review of the Literature.” International Journal of Management Review 14 (1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Mackay, Fiona. 2014. “Nested Newness, Institutional Innovation, and the Gendered Limits of Change.” Politics & Gender 10 (4): 549–71.Google Scholar
Marleau, Robert and Montpetit, Camille, eds. 2000. House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Parliament of Canada, Ottawa, Canada. (March 9, 2016).Google Scholar
Moore, Terry and Robertson, James. 2001. “An Introduction to Parliamentary Privilege.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 24 (3): 19–25.Google Scholar
Murphy, Rex. 2015. “Sexual misconduct scandal involving Liberal MPs should have a full and open hearing,” The National Post online. March 20. (March 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Nash, Chelsea. 2017. “Educate new Senators on how to report sexual harassment: Sen. Hartling.” The Hill Times online. April 12. (April 12, 2017).Google Scholar
National Democratic Institute. 2016. #NottheCost: stopping violence against women in politics: a call to action. Washington DC (Dec. 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Ontario Human Rights Commission. 2013. “Policy on preventing sexual and gender-based harassment.” Last modified May 2013. (Nov. 27, 2015).Google Scholar
O'Brien, Audrey and Bosc, Marc. 2009. House of Commons Procedure and Practice. 2nd edition. (March 29 2017).Google Scholar
Payton, Laura. 2017. “Liberal MP Iqra Khalid reads threats she's received over Motion 103. CTV News online. Feb.16. (March 30, 2017).Google Scholar
Puwar, Nirmal. 2004. Space Invaders—Race, Gender and Bodies Out of Place. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Rana, Abbas. 2018. “House developing in-person training for MPs on sexual harassment, but not all agree they need it; ‘everyone understands unacceptable behaviour’.” The Hill Times online. Jan. 8. (Feb. 23, 2018).Google Scholar
Russell, Andrew. 2017. “Opposition MPs urge Trudeau to ‘step up’ over Liberal MP's allegedly sexist comment.” Global news online. March 24. (March 28, 2017).Google Scholar
Russell, Brenda L. and Trigg, Kristin Y.. 2004. “Tolerance of Sexual Harassment: An Examination of Gender Differences, Ambivalent Sexism, Social Dominance, and Gender Roles.” Sex Roles 50 (7/8): 565–73.Google Scholar
Ryckewaert, Laura. 2018. “Liberal MP Mendes wants a Hill ‘harassment watch,’ after CP survey finds 58 per cent of female MPs subject to sexual misconduct while in office.” The Hill Times online. Jan. 8. (Feb. 23, 2018).Google Scholar
Samara Institute. 2015. Cheering or Jeering? Members of Parliament Open Up About Civility In The House of Commons. Toronto, Canada: The Samara Institute.Google Scholar
Thompson, Elizabeth. 2011. “The 106 things you can't say in Parliament.” iPolitics. Wednesday, Dec, 14. (March 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Thompson, Elizabeth. 2015. “MP's new sexual harassment policy still keeps bad behaviour in the dark,” iPolitics. Monday, June 8. (March 25, 2017).Google Scholar
Trimble, Linda and Arscott, Jane. 2003. Still Counting—Women in Politics across Canada. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Waylen, Georgina. 2008. “Transforming Global Governance: Challenges and Opportunities.” In Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives, ed. Rai, Shivin M. and Waylen, Georgina. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Waylen, Georgina. 2014. “Informal Institutions, Institutional Change, and Gender Equality.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 212–23.Google Scholar
Westmacott, Martin. 1983. “Whips and Party Cohesion.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 6 (3): 14–19.Google Scholar
Wright, Bernard. 2007. Patterns of change–Parliamentary privilege. Deputy Clerk. House of Representatives. Australia. (June 27, 2017).Google Scholar