Gendered
Institutional Change
or More of the Same?
Assessing Canada’s New Sexual
Harassment Code of Conduct for
Members of Parliament
Cheryl Collier (University of Windsor) and Tracey Raney (Ryerson University)
“Resisting Women’s Political Leadership: Theories, Data, Solutions’ Conference
Rutger’s University, New Jersey, May 22-May 26 2017
Outline
 Background and Wider Project
 Code’s uniqueness and main questions
 Theoretical Framework – FI/Nested Newness – transformative or not?
 Analyzing the Code
 Conclusions
Background and Wider Project
Background to Current Study
 2014 Sexual harassment charges against Liberals – Massimo Pacetti and Scott Andrews
 Jian Ghomeshi and heightened VAW awareness
 Introduction of New Code of Conduct for MPs
Wider Project
 Violence against Women in Politics in Canada project
 Westminster systems in comparative context
Code’s Uniqueness & Research Questions
2015 MP-to-MP Code of Conduct on Sexual Harassment:
 First one ever to be enacted in a Westminster system
 One of only four countries to have protections for MPs on sexist remarks, harassment or threats
of violence worldwide (South Africa, Costa Rica and Thailand) IPU 2016
Research Questions:
 How does the Code respond to problems of sexism/sexual harassment?
 Does it challenge existing gendered norms in Canada’s parliament?
 Will it help facilitate gendered change?
Method:
Qualitative analysis of Code, deliberations leading up to Code and related available data
Theoretical Framework
Feminist Institutionalism/Nested Newness
 Examining the potential to re-gender already gendered institutions (Chappell 2014;
Mackay 2014)

Note the impact of older legacies/rules/practices that can constrain ‘new’
institutions/codified sets of rules – multi-layered approach
Does the Code challenge or reaffirm these “androcentric” Westminster norms in particular?
1.
Myth of neutrality
2.
Adversarial political debate
3.
Parliamentary privilege
The 2015 MP-to-MP Code of Conduct on
Sexual Harassment
 Drafted by All-Party Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
 Amended to the Standing Orders of Parliament – permanent change
 Aims to facilitate a sexual-harassment-free environment/safe workplace
 MPs sign a pledge
 Education on sexual harassment available to new and existing MPs
 Resolution process for sexual harassment complaints
 Report to CHRO or Party Whip
 Mediation by either of above or Formal complaint filed/outside investigator report
 Disciplinary Action , if necessary
 Confidentiality for all parties in most cases
Figure: MP Code of Conduct on Sexual Harassment – Resolution Process (Complainant-Driven)
Step 1:
Report sexual
harassment
to Whip or
CHRO
Step 2:
Informal
discussions
with
Whips/CHRO
Step 3:
Voluntary
mediation
with all
parties
Step 7: PROC
Report
referred to
the House for
Vote
Step 6:
Referral to
PROC for
second
investigation
Step 5:
Referral to
Whip for
Discipline
Step 4:
Formal
investigation
led by thirdparty
If claim is
substantiated OR
found frivolous/
vexatious:
If no
findings,
process
complete.
FI Analysis
Symbolically, the Code may appear to be good for women, but major problems remain:
 Scope, Definitions and Stereotypes
 Role of Party Whips
 Confidentiality and Parliamentary Privilege
 Androcentric norms unchallenged
 Limited review procedures
Conclusions and Future research
Conclusions:
 While it appears to provide rules to govern MP behaviour and to curb sexual harassment, may actually just
hide it behind a veneer of positive change for women
 Code fails to challenge androcentric rules of Canada’s Westminster parliament
 Adversarial parliamentary debate – freedom of speech vs. sexist language
 Party Whips/ party discipline and cohesion
 ‘rape’ myth acceptances/ weak definitions
 Old Actors/New Institution (codified set of rules)/old dominant overarching rules
 Impact isn’t visible; not transformative; hard to know if it’s being used at all
Future research:
 Interviews with MPs and Committee members re: Code and VAWIP