Confronting Violence and Harassment in Westminster Parliamentary Workplaces: Lessons for Canada

This entry is part 6 of 11 in the series Vol 48 No. 4 (Winter)
Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint/ Imprimer

Confronting Violence and Harassment in Westminster Parliamentary Workplaces: Lessons for Canada

Once heralded as a leader in tackling gender-based violence and harassment in a parliamentary workplace, Canada’s House of Commons (and, to a lesser degree, its Senate) have fallen behind other large Westminster parliaments when it comes to implementing strong guidelines, reporting mechanisms, and penalties for misconduct. Parliaments in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand have all taken steps to establish public-facing independent workplace reviews and to employ a broader recognition that institutional cultural change is required throughout parliament to address gender-based violence and harassment. In this article, the author traces Canada’s internationally lauded pathbreaking initiatives to target harassment within parliamentary workspaces, explains why other Westminster parliaments have surpassed our federal parliament’s current practices and offers suggestions for how Canada can learn from the experience of others in order to strengthen the systems in place on Parliament Hill and in parliamentary spaces beyond.

Tracey Raney

Tracey Raney is a professor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at Toronto Metropolitan University.

Introduction

While the 2025 federal campaign resulted in some surprises on election night, one aspect of Canadian politics remained unchanged: the representation of women in the House of Commons.1 Canada’s 45th general election resulted in no seat gains for women or gender-diverse candidates, with gender representation in the House of Commons remaining stagnant at approximately 30 per cent. With this result, Canada now ranks 70th globally for women elected to a lower house, trailing behind the United Kingdom (41 per cent), New Zealand (45 per cent) and Australia (46 per cent). In terms of upper houses, the Senate of Canada compares much more favourably, with 55 per cent women senators, ranking it third in the world.2

One factor contributing to the stagnation of women’s representation in Canada’s elected chamber is gender-based violence. In the lead-up to the 2025 election, several women MPs announced they would not be seeking re-election, citing threats, harassment, and safety concerns as key reasons for their departure from public office.3 These concerns were underscored by alarming data released by the House of Commons’ Sergeant-at-Arms in 2024, indicating that threats against MPs from members of the public had risen by nearly 800 per cent over the last five years.4 While many of these safety concerns come from members of the public, women politicians have also shared their experiences of sexism, racism and harassment inside parliament. Former MPs Mumilaaq Qaqqaq and Celina Caesar-Chavannes, for example, have spoken out about their experiences of racism and tokenism inside parliament. In response to growing political incivility and toxicity, in 2024 the Canadian Association of Feminist Parliamentarians (which includes MPs and Senators), developed a cross-partisan “Civility Pledge” intended to end workplace harassment and foster greater civility in parliament. After the 2025 federal election, the pledge was relaunched with more politicians signing on to it.

The goal of this article is to examine how four Westminster parliaments (Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia) have confronted the problem of gender-based violence in the parliamentary workplace. I ask two questions: first, how has gender-based violence been addressed in Westminster parliaments and second, what comparative lessons can the Canadian Parliament draw on to strengthen its response to this problem? Although Canada’s lower house was a global pioneer in developing an MP code of conduct on sexual harassment in 2015, this comparative research demonstrates that it now lags other Westminster parliaments in tackling this issue. To prevent falling further behind, I argue that the Canada’s response to gendered violence and harassment in the parliamentary workplace can be strengthened by examining, and potentially adopting, similar measures implemented in other Westminster-style parliaments.

First, I provide an overview of the problem of gender-based harassment and violence in politics, with a focus on the parliamentary workplace. This overview is followed by a comparison of how these four Westminster parliaments have responded to this problem. The article concludes by offering some recommendations on how parliamentarians in the 45th Parliament can better address this issue in Canada.

Gender-Based Violence in the Westminster Parliamentary Workplace

Violence against any political actor is a threat to the democratic process, but when it targets women specifically because of their gender, its impact is particularly harmful. Women’s low representation in the political realm is reinforced by violence and harassment, which serve to silence and punish those who challenge traditional gendered (and racial) expectations about who should hold public office.5 Indigenous, Black, racialized, and 2SLGBTQ+ political actors—including elected officials, political employees, and volunteers—face disproportionately higher levels of threats, intimidation and harassment.6

In 2024’s Gender-Based Violence in Canadian Politics in the #MeToo Era, my co-editor Cheryl N. Collier and I define gender-based violence in politics (GBV-P) as: “harmful actions that are directed at an individual because of their gender, gender expression, gender identity, or perceived gender and which are designed to discourage or restrict them from being active in informal (for example, movement, advocacy, online) or formal (for example, elections, political parties, legislatures) political spaces.”7 Academic research demonstrates that GBV-P is harmful to women’s political representation and democratic processes. When confronted with threats and violence, women are more likely than men to alter their political speech, to spend more time and resources on security and to contemplate leaving politics.8 While violence and harassment in politics are not exclusively about gender and race, their effects are deeply shaped by both. Therefore, solutions to this problem must place gender, race and other intersecting factors at their core.

Comparing Parliamentary Rules on Gender-Based Violence

How have Westminster countries dealt with this problem in the parliamentary workplace thus far? To begin with, over the last decade all four parliaments have introduced new rules on violence and harassment inside their legislatures within a relatively short timeframe. The Canadian House of Commons led the way in 2014, followed by the British House of Commons in 2018, New Zealand’s Parliament in 2019, and the Parliament of Australia in 2021. The fact that each parliament acknowledged this issue through various new rules and policies signals, at a minimum, a collective symbolic acknowledgment that the Westminster model must become more inclusive and that meaningful reforms were required beyond any pre-existing policies or rules.

At the same time, there are significant differences across the Westminster world, with Canada’s Parliament being a notable outlier. A key distinction lies in how the bicameral legislatures have addressed the problem. In the British and Australian parliaments

—both bicameral legislatures—decisionmakers have taken a more integrated, “whole-of-parliament” approach, engaging both houses through shared policies, joint bodies, or task forces. In contrast, the Canadian House of Commons and the Senate of Canada have developed separate, independent responses.

In 2015, Canada’s House of Commons was lauded internationally when it became the first legislature in the world to adopt and append a Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment Between Members to its standing orders. The code lays out a process for members to file a complaint of non-criminal sexual harassment against another member, and it includes provisions for mediation and resolution processes as well as for independent investigations. A key strength of the code is its focus on prevention, as all members are required to sign a pledge committing themselves to contributing to a work environment free of sexual harassment.

After a 2017 review, some changes were made to the code. Among other things, these include an update to the definition of sexual harassment to align it with a house policy discussed below, allowing the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) of the House of Commons to screen out complaints when the alleged conduct does not clearly meet the definition of sexual harassment, allowing complainants/respondents access to legal counsel/support person, and the addition of an explicit provision that prohibits retaliation.9

In 2014, a year before the Code of Conduct was appended to the standing orders, the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy approved the House of Commons Policy on Preventing and Addressing Harassment. This policy applies to all Members of Parliament, staff employed by members, house officers, research offices and parliamentary interns and volunteers. In 2021, the policy was updated (and renamed) to comply with the regulations of Bill C-65; it now covers all instances of harassment and violence in the workplace as defined by law.10 Although the MP code was updated in 2017, similar updates (i.e. aligning it with Bill C-65) were not made, and it continues to cover sexual harassment only (and not other forms of violence or harassment) between members.

In 2024, the Board of Internal Economy updated the policy again. The most recent updates include the addition of language that encourages employees, interns and volunteers to report any occurrences of violence and harassment, and the scope of the workplace was broadened to include work-related communication platforms like email, videoconferencing, social media and telework. The roles and responsibilities of the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and Corporate Security were also added to policy; these include assisting members and their staff in navigating risks in the office, fostering physical safety and addressing incidents or threats of violence and providing security awareness training. Like the code, a strength of the policy is its emphasis on prevention, with provisions for workplace assessments to be conducted to help identify risk factors that might contribute to violence or harassment in the parliamentary workplace, including in members’ offices. The policy also requires all new members and employees to receive training within three months after the day they start their position, to be updated once every three years.

Separately, the Senate of Canada has its own policy, the Senate Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy, which came into force in March 2021. This policy was updated from an earlier, 2009 policy that covered a narrower range of misconduct (harassment, sexual harassment and abuses of authority). The updated policy aligns the Senate’s response to Bill C-65 and covers non-criminal violence and harassment more broadly; it applies to all senators, Senate employees, people employed by senators, and to students, interns and volunteers. Compared to the 2009 policy, the updated policy offers more impartiality as it allows for the appointment of an impartial third party (ITP) to receive complaints and negotiate a resolution between the complainant and respondent, rather than involve partisan actors. If a complainant or responding party do not agree to a conciliation process, the ITP is to select from a list of investigators who must have previous training and experience in handling such cases. The Senate also added a new provision in its Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, which explicitly prohibits harassment and violence (section 7.3).11

When compared to Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand have anchored their efforts to confront violence and harassment with public-facing independent workplace reviews and a broader recognition that institutional cultural change is required throughout parliament. Following the “Pestminster” sexual misconduct scandals in late 2017/18, the British Parliament established a working group comprised of members from both houses, as well as representatives from various parliamentary groups and staff associations. Tasked with responding to the problem of sexual violence in British politics, the working group concluded that a broader change in workplace culture was both “urgent and essential” to effectively addressing the problem.12 A new behaviour code was subsequently adopted by the House of Commons and the House of Lords.13 The code sets out guidelines on how people should be treated in the parliamentary workplace, including the need to respect and value everyone, to always act professionally towards others and to speak up about any unacceptable behaviour when you see it. It applies to everyone who visits or works in parliament.

In 2018, the British Parliament further introduced an independent mechanism to address a range of misconduct in the parliamentary workplace. The Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) allows for any member of the parliamentary community, including current or former MPs, Lords, employees and witnesses, to file a complaint that relates to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. These developments arose in conjunction with three independent reviews into violence and harassment in parliament, with one focused on the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff (the “Cox” Report, 2018), one on the bullying and harassment of past and present MPs (the “White” Report, 2019), and another on bullying and harassment in the House of Lords (the “Ellenbogen” Report, 2019). Since its introduction, the ICGS has similarly undergone three independent reviews that rely on internal and external benchmarking data, with the latest review conducted in 2024. All of these reviews are publicly available on the parliamentary website.14 Unlike the Behaviour Code which applies at all times to all members of the parliamentary community, the ICGS does not apply to the formal proceedings of either house.15

In the Parliament of Australia, a 2021 independent review (“Set the Standard”) led by Kate Jenkins (Australia’s former Sex Discrimination Commissioner), identified systemic issues related to bullying, harassment and sexual assault in commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. In response to the Set the Standard review, Australian parliamentarians in the House of Representatives and the Senate committed to implementing all 28 recommendations, with a cross-party, joint body established to lead the implementation, the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce. In 2021, three Behavioural Standards and Codes endorsed by both houses of parliament were introduced. They are intended to create “long-term cultural transformation” in parliament.16 They include the Behaviour Standards for Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces, the Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians and the Behaviour Code for staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. The codes cover a comprehensive range of misconduct, and include that everyone must: act respectfully, professionally and with integrity, recognize their power, influence, and authority and not abuse them, uphold laws that support a safe workplace. They also state that bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, assault or discrimination in any form based on race, age, gender identity, disability, sex or religion will not be tolerated, condoned or ignored.17 Together, the Behavioral Standards apply to all parliamentarians, staff and anyone who enters the parliamentary space.

Similarly, a 2019 independent review of New Zealand’s unicameral legislature noted systemic bullying and harassment in the parliamentary workplace and provided 85 recommendations for change (the “Francis” Report, 2019). Among other things, its recommendations included stronger sanctions for poor conduct by members, a more streamlined human resource structure, improving workforce diversity,and the adoption of a new Parliamentary Workplace Code of Conduct.18 As part of its response, New Zealand’s Parliament subsequently developed several “Behavioural Statements.” These statements include that all people working in parliament must show that bullying and harassment are unacceptable, foster an environment where people feel safe and valued and use their positions of power to help others and avoid harm. However, these statements have not been codified in the standing orders and are voluntary.19 In a follow-up review of the parliamentary workplace in 2022, Debbie Francis noted that while the cultural health of New Zealand’s parliamentary workplace had improved significantly since her first review, there had been resistance to a more transformative approach.20

Impartial/Non-Partisan Resolution and Sanctioning Processes

Compared with the other three parliaments, the Canadian Parliament’s rules addressing violence and harassment offer less impartiality, particularly in the lower house. While certain aspects of independence exist in the policy and MP Code, such as the use of an external investigator, partisanship is embedded both formally and informally in both, reducing their overall effectiveness.21 While the 2024 policy no longer requires that party whips receive complaints (as the 2014 policy once did), the updated policy does not establish a fully impartial resolution and sanctioning process. Under the policy, when a members’ employee experiences harassment or violence, they may report the occurrence to either their employing member or to a designated recipient within the House Administration. Under either option, when a claim is filed the relevant party whip is to be informed of any complaint concerning members or employees of their own caucus. While mainly confidential, whips can further be informed of a complainant’s identity if it is deemed necessary for them to take “appropriate measures”.

Although this process is intended to allow members’ employees a pathway to report to a non-partisan office (for example, the Chief Human Resources Officer of the House of Commons), the partisan nature of the House of Commons is likely to discourage members’ staff from filing a formal complaint with an external actor, where their party may become aware of their complaint (and potentially, their identity) anyway. In some instances, the House’s highly partisan context may prevent members’ employees from formally reporting to anyone at all. This reality is particularly relevant when the respondent belongs to the complainant’s own party and when reporting the misconduct could harm either the MP or the party’s reputation generally. Reporting could also be detrimental to a political staffer’s career, should they be labelled a “trouble-maker” by their party. Unlike other workplaces, job security is an especially acute concern for political staffers, whose employment is contingent on maintaining a good relationship with their employer (their hiring MP) and on the MP winning the next election.

Sanctioning procedures are also not fully impartial in either the Canadian House of Commons or the Senate. Under the policy, in the event that an alleged occurrence is either fully or partially substantiated, the CHRO is to present a redacted full report to the Board of Internal Economy to determine whether further action is needed. Such actions may include referring the matter to an appropriate parliamentary body for consideration of remedial or disciplinary measures. Although the House retains ultimate authority over disciplining its members, it is important to note that these decisions are being made by members judging the conduct of their partisan peers, the majority of whom are white men. As discussed below, other Westminster parliaments have chosen to remove full decision-making authority in cases of violence and harassment from politicians’ hands, delegating it instead to third-party, independent actors.

The code similarly does not sufficiently address the House of Commons’ partisan context. In cases of member-to-member sexual harassment, a complainant may report the allegations to the CHRO or, if the complainant and the respondent are members of the same caucus, to the whip of their caucus. If brought to the whip, it is the whip who is responsible for facilitating any initial discussions about the allegations or for “encouraging” mediation between the parties. In cases where a sexual harassment complaint has been substantiated, the respondent’s whip is to propose a course of disciplinary action, with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) serving as an appeals body and the House as the final authority on whether to impose any sanctions (by concurrence in the PROC report). Since the PROC committee and the House are comprised entirely of partisan actors, this sanctioning process means that members are essentially “policing” themselves in cases of sexual harassment. Further problematic is that the code stipulates that if a complaint is found to have been made vexatiously or in bad faith, the whip can propose disciplinary action against a complainant. Together, these provisions do little to address the partisan environment of the House of Commons and are likely to reduce the likelihood that an MP will choose to report to a third party or to their party whip. The possibility of being punished for filing a vexatious/bad faith claim is an added disincentive to file a report.22

Concerns that partisanship could deter complainants from reporting harassment and violence were raised in PROC in 2024, when a woman MP committee member highlighted potential issues with the Reform Act, 2014. Under the Act, if a party chooses to adopt its provisions after a general election the caucus can hold a secret ballot to expel a member, provided that a majority of caucus members approve. The MP queried whether this provision might amplify harassment in parliament or prevent a member from coming forward out of fear of reprisal and potentially being thrown out of their own caucus.23 Another woman MP serving as a committee witness suggested that whips and deputy whips require specialized training to address these issues, which they currently do not receive.24

In the Canadian Senate’s formally non-partisan context, party whips are not referenced in the 2021 policy. At the same time, senators are the final arbiters of sanctioning decisions in instances when the responding party is either a senator’s employee or another senator. In cases where the responding party is a senator’s employee, when an investigation is required, the investigator is to prepare two reports: a summary and a final report. The summary report is used to prepare recommendations on how to eliminate or reduce risks of a similar occurrence, which is helpful for prevention. The final report provided to a Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration (CIBA) steering committee is used by senators to determine whether any remedial, corrective or disciplinary action is required. The steering committee has also been given the authority to “accept or reject the investigator’s final report in whole or in part.”25

In cases where the responding party is a senator, the Senate Ethics Officer (an independent, non-partisan officer of the Senate) is to receive a copy of any final report detailing the nature of the allegations. While the SEO may recommend disciplinary measures to the Senate’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Conflicts of Interest (CONF), they are not empowered to impose such measures. Instead, CONF, which is comprised of senators, is to determine whether (or if) it will recommend any disciplinary measures for consideration by the Senate, such as suspension or expulsion. CONF may also confidentially refer the matter to a subcommittee to consider the imposition of remedial or corrective measures.

In contrast to the Canadian Parliament, all three other Westminster parliaments have established independent standards bodies to manage grievance procedures and impose sanctions in cases of violence and harassment. In 2018, the powers of the existing British Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (for the House of Commons) were expanded to impose lower-level sanctions against MPs, such as informal resolutions or giving words of advice. In 2020, the House of Commons created an Independent Expert Panel (IEP) to determine appeals and sanctions in cases where complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct are brought against an MP. The IEP is comprised entirely of lay members and can recommend the withdrawal of services or facilities that affect an MP’s “core functions” to the House.26 The IEP can additionally recommend that an MP who has engaged in bullying or gendered violence be suspended.27 In 2024, the British House authorities were given additional powers to exclude an MP who has been arrested on suspicion of committing a violent or sexual offence from entering the parliamentary estate or accessing domestic or foreign travel funded by the House. This measure was established after concerns were raised, primarily by parliamentary staff, that MPs who are under investigation for sexual misconduct were continuing to attend parliament.28

In 2024, Australia established a new Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC). The IPSC will conduct independent investigations and, if a respondent has engaged in conduct that breaches the behavioural requirements, an IPSC decisionmaker will decide whether to impose or recommend a sanction. Sanctions might include a written reprimand or a requirement to undertake training. In more serious cases, the IPSC decisionmaker can refer a finding to the Privileges Committee of the relevant House of the Parliament. Although not fully independent, the Privileges Committee may recommend to the House a range of sanctions, including suspending the member for a period of time, discharging them from a parliamentary committee, or imposing a fine of between two to five per cent of their annual base salary.

In New Zealand, a new independent Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards was appointed in 2023. The Commissioner’s role is to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints that MPs have breached the Behaviour Code.29 One potential barrier to reporting in New Zealand is that a complaint can be made with the Commissioner only after other avenues of recourse are exhausted. The Commissioner has the added function of reporting to the House matters that come to their attention which include those that relate to a specific complaint or in respect of a pattern of complaints. To oversee implementation of the new rules, the New Zealand Speaker further established a Parliamentary Culture Subcommittee which includes “party champions” to help ensure cross-party support.

In contrast, the Canadian House of Commons’ approach to sanctioning violence and harassment lacks a clearly defined range of disciplinary measures that are proportionate to the severity of the misconduct, especially in more serious cases. Canada also has no independent standards body to oversee sanctioning processes and instead, has allowed committees of MPs (or senators) to review investigator reports, with either house serving as the final decisionmaker. The rights of either house to regulate their own internal affairs and discipline their members derive from their parliamentary privileges, which ensure parliament’s fundamental rights and immunities to exercise its legislative duties free from external influence. However, as this comparative study reveals, both the House of Commons and the Senate could move away from self-regulation to shared or even full external regulation to better address violence and harassment in the parliamentary workplace, closer to what other Westminster parliaments have enacted. 30

In the absence of external oversight, Canadian MPs (and to a lesser extent, senators) continue to be responsible for overseeing disciplinary measures against their members, effectively allowing them to “grade their own homework.” Since women have never comprised more than 31 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, disciplinary decisions related to violence and harassment in the parliamentary workplace are being made by a decision-making body dominated by (white) men acting as “adjudicators,” raising additional concerns about equity and procedural fairness in this chamber.

Key Lessons for Canada’s 45th Parliament

This comparative study reveals how four Westminster parliaments have addressed the problem of violence and harassment in the parliamentary workplace. Once considered a global leader on how to address sexual harassment in politics, Canada’s response to GBV-P is now outdated compared to other Westminster parliaments — its closest institutional peers. One immediate step parliamentarians can take is to continue the work of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee in its review of the Members of the House of Commons Workplace Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy from the preceding parliament, when committee witnesses also addressed potential changes to the code. Like other Westminster parliaments, this review should be expanded to include a comprehensive examination of parliamentary workplace culture, and undertake an analysis of how gender, race and other intersecting factors amplify the experiences of harassment and discrimination in both houses. Drawing on lessons from other Westminster parliaments, Canada’s House of Commons in particular should consider adopting a new behavioural code for MPs that addresses a wider range of behaviours, including incivility, bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. A new, independent body to enforce a new behavioral code, with a range of meaningful and proportionate sanctions, should also be put in place.

While this article focuses on violence and harassment inside parliament, the wider external threat environment faced by parliamentarians also requires urgent attention. Parliament should consider introducing new tools or legislation to protect political actors from harmful behaviour that does not meet the Criminal Code’s threshold for harassment, as was suggested by the RCMP Commissioner in 2024.31 Decisionmakers could look at countries like Bolivia and Mexico for potential legal remedies. The ongoing threat of violence on social media must also be dealt with through legislation that tackles online harms. Collectively, these actions would signal to concerned Canadians that politicians are committed to protecting our parliamentary institutions and those who work inside them. Combined with stronger measures that curb violence and harassment inside parliament, such measures might encourage more women and gender-diverse individuals to step forward and run for public office in the future.

Notes

    1. My thanks to the anonymous reviewers of the editorial board and parliamentary staff who provided additional information and commentary on an earlier draft of this article.
    2. Inter-Parliamentary Union monthly ranking of women in national parliaments as of October 1, 2025: URL: https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking/
    3. These include MPs Jenica Atkin, Pam Damoff, Jennifer O’Connell, and Carla Qualtrough.
    4. Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (House of Commons). Witness Testimony. May 28, 2024. URL: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/PROC/meeting-115/evidence
    5. Krook, Mona Lena. Violence Against Women in Politics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).
    6. Rebecca Major and Cynthia Niioo-Binee-Seh-Kwe Stirbys. “Blurred Lines: Boundaries and Consequences for Indigenous Women in Politics in the Era of #MeToo,” in Gender-Based Violence in Canadian Politics in the #MeToo Era, ed. Tracey Raney and Cheryl N. Collier. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2024), 151–69.
    7. Raney, Tracey and Cheryl N. Collier. Gender-based Violence in Canadian Politics in the #MeToo Era. (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2024), 7.
    8. For example, see Sandra Håkansson. “The Gendered Representational Costs of Violence against Politicians.” Perspectives on Politics, (July 2023): 1–16. URL: https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1537592723001913 and Karina Kosiara-Pedersen. “Single Ladies and Freedom of Speech: Gendered Explanations for, and Effects of, Violence in Politics.” European Journal of Politics and Gender 7, no. 2 (2024): 221–38. https://doi.org/10.1332/251510821X16777808903018
    9. House of Commons (Canada). Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. 2018. Report 64: Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment between Members. URL: https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/PROC/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=9651001
    10. Bill C-65 strengthens provisions to address harassment and violence in all federally regulated workplaces, including Parliament. The policy was updated again in 2024 to apply to work-related communication platforms, such as email, videoconferencing, and social media.
    11. For a more detailed explanation of the Senate’s policy, see my chapter, “Fixing the Upper House: A Gender and Intersectional Analysis of the Canadian Senate’s 2021 Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy,” in Raney and Collier (2024).
  • United Kingdom Parliament (Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy Programme Team). 2018 (July). Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Delivery Report.
  1. United Kingdom Parliament. 2025. Behaviour Code. URL: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/ conduct-in-parliament/ukparliamentbehaviourcode.pdf. The behaviour code is in addition to codes of conduct that were already in place in both houses.
  2. Kernaghan, Paul. 2024 (May 13). Independent Complaint and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) – Independent Review of the ICGS,. URL: https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/icgs-review-2024—final-copy.pdf
  3. There are exceptions where matters that take place in the House or a Committee would not be exempt from the ICGS. For example, these include bullying/harassing another person via whispering or passing notes, or sexual misconduct in the form of unwanted touching of another member, clerk, employee, witness or visitor. See United Kingdom Parliament. “Parliamentary privilege and the ICGS.” URL: https://www.parliament.uk/about/independent-complaints-and-grievance-scheme/parliamentary-privilege-and-the-icgs/.
  4. Jenkins, Kate. 2021. Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces. Australian Human Rights Commission. See also Marian Sawer, “Dealing with Toxic Parliaments: Lessons From Elsewhere.” Australasian Parliamentary Review 36, no. 1 (2021): 7-22.
  5. Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (Australia). 2025. Behaviour Code for Australian Parliamentarians. https://www.pwss.gov.au/hr-advice/safe-and- respectful-culture/behaviour-codes-and-standards/behaviour-code-for-australian-parliamentarians
  6. Francis, Debbie. 2019 (May). External Independent Review. Bullying and Harassment in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace. URL: https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019-05/apo-nid239146.pdf
  7. Marian Sawer and Maria Maley. Toxic Parliaments and What Can Be Done About Them. (London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan, 2024), 93.
  8. Francis, Debbie. 2023 (June). Culture in the New Zealand Parliamentary Workplace. A future excellence horizon. URL: https://www3.parliament.nz/en/footer/about-us/parliaments-workplace-culture/culture-in-the-new-zealand-parliamentary-workplace-a-future-excellence-horizon
  9. As specified in the policy (but not the MP Code), independent investigators must also have knowledge, training, and experience relevant to workplace harassment and violence and have knowledge of the Canada Labour Code and Canadian Human Rights Act, as well as any other legislation related to workplace harassment and violence.
  10. See Cheryl N. Collier and Tracey Raney. 2018. “Canada’s Member-to-Member Code of Conduct on Sexual Harassment in the House of Commons: Progress or Regress?” Canadian Journal of Political Science 51(4): 795-815.
  11. Canadian House of Commons. Procedure and House Affairs Committee. 2024 (May 28). No. 115 44.1 Parliament. URL: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/PROC/meeting-115/evidence
  12. See discussion in the PROC committee on October 22, 2024, URL: https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/PROC/meeting-128/evidence
  13. Senate of Canada. 2021. Senate Harassment and Violence Prevention Policy, 13. URL: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/432/CIBA/reports/CIBA_ RTP5_POL_HVP_E.pdf
  14. The House of Lords maintains its own standards system which is overseen by the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards.
  15. If a recommended sanction of over 14 days is approved by the House, a recall election is triggered in the MP’s riding. For example, after MP Peter Bone was found to have engaged in bullying and sexual misconduct in 2023, the IEP recommended, and parliament voted in favour of, a suspension of six weeks thus triggering a by-election in the riding.
  16. House of Commons Library (United Kingdom). 2025 (January 7). Risk-based exclusion of MPs. URL: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9812/
  17. Sawer and Maley, 93.
  18. For a discussion about external oversight in the context of parliamentary privilege and gendered violence, see Tracey Raney and Cheryl N. Collier. “Privilege and Gendered Violence in the Canadian and British Houses of Commons: A Feminist Institutionalist Analysis.” Parliamentary Affairs 75, no. 2 (2021): 382–99, URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsaa069.
  19. Bronskill, Jim. 2024 (May 12). “Politicians keep getting more threats. The head of the RCMP says new tools might be needed to protect them.” CBC News online, URL: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-new-law-possible-politician-security-1.7202016
Top