The last week’s revelations about NDP MP Christine Moore have rocked Parliament Hill again in what seems to be a regular occurrence in the last several months. And they’ve raised new questions about how to deal with such allegations. CBC columnist Neil Macdonald last week broke the story in the mainstream press that Afghanistan veteran Glen Kirkland accused Ms. Moore of using her authority as an MP to take advantage of him in while he was in a vulnerable state. He said she wanted a romantic relationship and pursued him even when he indicated he wasn’t interested. He suggested that if the shoe were on the other foot, and she were a man and he a woman, it would be treated differently. For her part, Ms. Moore held what seemed to be an unprecedented press conference on May 14 that ran live on TV to explain her side of the story. She went into intimate detail, saying that she believed she and Mr. Kirkland were lovers, the relationship was consensual, and that she did not act inappropriately. The whole thing was shocking, not the least because of the details made public about Ms. Moore’s sex life. The NDP is contracting a third-party investigator to look into the situation and recommend a response, but it seems to boil down to a he-said-she-said story. The incident has raised new questions about how to handle misconduct allegations against MPs. For one, this is a case of a committee witness accusing an MP of bad behaviour. Until now, we’ve seen cases largely of staffers accusing MPs or MPs accusing other MPs. Mr. Kirkland has indicated he’ll take part in the NDP investigation. But what if he decided not to? Are the internal parliamentary and party policies now being developed or revised due to the #MeToo movement revelations taking into account potential accusers or victims off the Hill? The Moore case is also unique in that it’s played out very much in public, whereas other recent cases have played out largely behind closed doors. Whereas NDP leader Jagmeet Singh could be criticized for not releasing more details about the recent Erin Weir case, such as more about what specifically Mr. Weir was accused of, Ms. Moore and Mr. Kirkland have gone into detail telling their stories. How public should accusations of misconduct be? Does the public have a right to know it all? Or does the public airing do more harm than good for the parties involved? One thing’s for sure: every case is different and presents new challenges to the political parties and Hill administration staff dealing with them. The last few months have seen the government table Bill C-65, to extend harassment regulations to Hill staff, and a review of the MP-to-MP harassment policy. This is necessary. Parties and Hill human resources staff ought to take a long look at how they’ve been responding to such cases, and what situations might come up in the future that they’ve never thought of until now in order to ensure their policy revisions are as comprehensive as possible. We’re living in a new era, and constant reflection on how to manage cases of alleged MP misconduct is necessary.