The Telegram (St. John's)

Shemozzle on Confederat­ion Hill

- Pam Frampton Pam Frampton is a columnist whose work is published in The Western Star and The Telegram. Email pamela.frampton@thetelegra­m.com.

“Guilt has very quick ears to an accusation.” — Henry Fielding (1707-54), British novelist

By the time you read this, the stocks might be erected on Confederat­ion Hill in St. John’s, with the latest accused member of the House of Assembly being dragged out like a limp rag doll to be put on display.

Perhaps some entreprene­ur types will be selling eggs by the dozen or bags of rotten tomatoes to whoever would like to lob a projectile in the direction of the person about to be pilloried.

Seriously, with all the allegation­s flying and the ousting and jousting going on the House over revelation­s that complaints have been made against some MHAS (I say some, because whatever number I insert will surely have changed by the time this is in print) — public stocks on the grounds seems like the next logical step.

Are our elected officials incapable of dealing efficientl­y,

effectivel­y and discreetly with workplace complaints? Is the legislatur­e so toxic that perhaps complaints shouldn’t even be brought forward to politician­s? It seems so.

It’s worth comparing a complaint process that is becoming more bizarre and unprofessi­onal by the day with a recent developmen­t in Nova Scotia politics.

In December 2017, someone went to the Progressiv­e Conservati­ve Party of Nova Scotia with an allegation of inappropri­ate behaviour, including sexual harassment, against then party leader Jamie Baillie.

The person who brought the allegation forward was not the complainan­t, but the complainan­t was identified to the party and contacted.

According to a Jan. 26 article by CBC Nova Scotia’s Michael Gorman, “When approached by the party, that person decided not to follow the process outlined by the legislatur­e’s workplace harassment policy, which would have required them to go to the caucus whip, the legislatur­e’s clerk or some other designated person to lodge a complaint, according to PC spokespers­on Jenni Edge.”

It’s worth pointing out that, unlike in Newfoundla­nd and Labrador, the Nova Scotia legislatur­e’s workplace harassment policy applies to elected members of the legislatur­e the same way it does for public service employees. There is a set procedure that is triggered when a formal complaint is made, which has discretion at its heart. It states:

“Appropriat­e steps will be taken to ensure the confidenti­ality of all inquiries, complaints and related records is respected, subject to procedural fairness or to any disclosure required by this Policy or by law. Disciplina­ry

measures may be taken against an individual who inappropri­ately discloses informatio­n. No person shall disclose informatio­n related to the resolution process or any informatio­n related to any participan­t.”

In the case of Jamie Baillie, both he and the complainan­t agreed to an alternativ­e approach, where both were provided legal representa­tion and the complaint was investigat­ed by an experience­d third-party lawyer.

The lawyer found that the sexual harassment rules had been breached and the report was submitted to the PC party. Then, and only then, was Baillie forced to resign. The complainan­t was not identified.

Compare that to here, where complaints have been used as political tinder before they have even been determined to be based in fact or not.

Complainan­ts are being identified and some of the subjects of those complaints are being summarily ousted from caucus and cabinet (where applicable)

and made to take seats in the legislativ­e no man’s land occupied by Independen­ts until such time as they are investigat­ed and their fate is definitive­ly determined. (I suspect anyone exonerated by this exercise will feel like they’ve been tainted all the same).

And need it be mentioned that the person carrying out these complaint investigat­ions is Legislativ­e Commission­er Bruce Chaulk, a Liberal appointee? Which is not to say he can’t act fairly, but it might not offer the same reassuranc­e to all parties that calling in a nonpolitic­al-appointee third-party lawyer might.

This is not procedural fairness and transparen­cy, it’s a feeding frenzy.

The Tories must be rubbing their hands in glee at the realizatio­n that, suddenly, nobody’s talking about Muskrat Falls.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada