1. Gendered Institutional Change or More of the Same
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

2. Outline Background and Wider Project
Code’s uniqueness and main questions
Theoretical Framework – FI/Nested Newness – transformative or not?
Analyzing the Code
Conclusions

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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?
Myth of neutrality
Adversarial political debate
Parliamentary privilege

6. 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

8. 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

9. Conclusions and Future research
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