OTTAWA — NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has a report in his hands that says three claims of “sexual harassment” made against one of his MPs were supported by evidence collected by a third-party investigator.

But that MP, Saskatchewan’s Erin Weir, takes issue with the investigation itself — from the way it began, with a “vague” email accusation, to his contention that the party “solicited” anonymous complaints about him and then did not provide details so he could defend himself, such as who accused him of harassment.

Weir also isn’t sure the conduct he acknowledges — standing or sitting too close to women, and speaking to them longer than they want him to — fits with “what most Canadians” would consider sexual harassment.

Read more:

Opinion | Chantal Hébert: The curious case of Erin Weir

Ousted NDP MP Erin Weir says his behaviour is ‘far from what most Canadians’ would consider harassment

New Democrat MP Erin Weir suspended after colleague raises harassment concerns

Regardless, the 36-year-old MP from Regina is out of the NDP caucus, after Singh ruled that he did not take “appropriate responsibility” for these actions.

Is this fair punishment in the wake of the harassment investigation, or has Weir’s reputation been unduly tarnished?

In the era of #MeToo, Weir’s case is the latest to highlight how political parties are trying to balance demands for justice in the face of harassment allegations with due process — and the appearance of it. Tensions emerge when high-profile political figures get embroiled in workplace investigations, which by their nature are private, meaning there is rarely going to be a full airing of the details of the complaint.

And so the public and the media are left to wonder about the true nature of the allegations involving elected officials, and whether the punishment fit the crime.

That’s especially so when the sanctions appear to vary from one party to the next. For example, while Weir is out, Calgary MP Kent Hehr remains in the Liberal caucus as an investigation continues into allegations he made sexually suggestive comments to women.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has bluntly admitted that he and other politicians are wrestling with how best to deal with complaints of sexual harassment and abuse from within party ranks.

“I don’t have a rule book that’s been handed down to me from Wilfrid Laurier as leader of the Liberal party on how to handle these situations,” Trudeau said, referring to his predecessor of more than a century ago. “We are doing the best that we can on a case-by-case basis.”

Cindy Viau, an expert with the Montreal-based Help and Information Centre on Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, said it’s hard to be completely confidential about harassment investigations, even when they involve nonpublic figures. But for politicians being investigated, she said there is the added dimension of ensuring that voters know a proper, fair investigation was carried out.

“The population wants to be reassured, they want to know a minimum of what’s going on,” Viau said. “It’s important to state a clear message and to at least give a brief vision, or view, of how it was dealt with.”

When faced with troubling allegations involving one of their own, the current remedy favoured by political parties is to hand the investigation over to an external expert. The Green Party, for instance, asked Toronto lawyer Sheila Block to probe accusations from three former staffers of workplace bullying by longtime Leader Elizabeth May.

The Liberals did something similar in Hehr’s case when they hired Christine Thomlinson, a Toronto employment lawyer whose firm has expertise in workplace investigations. Hehr resigned his cabinet post as minister for Sports and Persons with Disabilities in January when the accusations first emerged. That investigation continues, but Trudeau was noncommittal in January when asked if the results would ever be made public.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

And the Conservatives have asked Toronto employment lawyer Carol Nielsen to examine how the party handled a sexual assault allegation made against former MP Rick Dykstra during the 2015 federal election campaign.

Academic Paul Nesbitt-Larking notes that politicians face an added complication when dealing with harassment complaints — the public spotlight and with it, a clamour for details and a push for a speedy investigation.

Any political party facing a formal complaint of harassment, or even the suspicion of wrongdoing, must respond “in a very quick, a very serious and a very sensitive way” or risk being perceived as not caring about the issue, said Nesbitt-Larking, a professor of political science at Huron University College in London, Ont.

And he said politicians themselves are operating under new expectations of their conduct, “required to be not just above reproach but to be seen to be above reproach.

“Their behaviour and their conduct has to be absolutely exemplary in every situation,” Nesbitt-Larking said in an interview.

In the last year, the #MeToo movement has toppled leaders in entertainment, media and politics. But Parliament Hill had its own awakening of sorts in 2014, when Trudeau tossed Liberal MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti from caucus for alleged “personal misconduct” involving two NDP MPs.

That incident exposed the lack of a formal process to deal with complaints of inappropriate behaviour by one MP against another. The Commons’ committee on procedure and house affairs was tasked with developing a “member-to-member sexual harassment code.”

Its report laid out processes to report and resolve harassment complaints, recommendations that were adopted as new rules in the Commons. The committee stressed that “confidentiality is of the utmost importance” due to the “personal nature” of the complaints and the “potential negative consequences of confidential matters being made public before all facts are known.”

It conceded that once a complaint is resolved, some information may have to be disclosed “but no more than is sufficient for the public to understand the circumstances and consequences of the resolution.”

The investigation into Weir unfolded under a different process. But in the wake of the NDP’s decision to eject him from caucus, the lack of details has led to dispute about the actions that landed him hot water.

Weir said the report suggested he had missed social cues and made people uncomfortable, “and now we have this term ‘sexual harassment’ being used to describe what everyone seems to agree are quite minor incidents.”

A party official later called Weir’s description a “mischaracterization,” but would not elaborate.

Read more about: