Status of Women Committee on Nov. 1st, 2012

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be sharing my time with my colleague.

Good morning. We noticed that the survey questions did not provide any details on the type of harassment public servants encountered.

So I would like to know how the survey questions were selected, and how we can obtain more detailed information on the type of harassment public servants are subjected to.

[Geoff Bowlby]

It's a very good question, and thank you for asking it. It's one of the things I wanted to address during the presentation.

The type of harassment is not asked in the 2011 PSES. It has not been asked in previous versions of the survey as well, although it was tested as possible content when we were preparing for the 2008 survey. This focus group testing that I described earlier is a process that we engage in at any time we run a survey.

That focus group testing showed that we could actually measure type of harassment. We proved then that we could do it.

The concern at the time was that any addition of any new questions could affect the time series, the comparability of the data from one year to the next. So the client at that time decided that they didn't want to risk that break in the series, in the history, with the addition of the type of harassment questions.

So the short answer is, yes, it could be done, and we would do it if it was asked of us by the client. But it hasn't been done for that reason: because we were concerned that the introduction of any questions could affect the other questions in that suite of questions on harassment.

There are two caveats to the fact that we did not ask it in the 2011 survey. We, in fact, did for one department, and that was the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA. We had a capacity to add up to five questions for any department that had department-specific concerns they wanted us to ask on the survey, and 13 departments said they were interested in such services. ACOA focused their five questions on the issue of harassment and discrimination within that organization.

A similar approach was taken in 2005 when the Public Service Commission had its supplementary questions for their organizations that were tagged with the public service employees union.

[Sana Hassainia, NDP, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you.

[Geoff Bowlby]

My pleasure.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

It was interesting to note that some departments have seen this as an important area to focus on. Certainly in this committee there is no doubt that we view sexual harassment as a very serious issue. We're very challenged by the fact that there is no documentation of how much sexual harassment takes place.

One of the things we've heard from other witnesses is that looking at the question of culture and looking at hiring practices, the more hierarchical the organization, the more chances there are for harassment. It really brings us to the point of asking why this information isn't there, as well as information to assess the kind of culture that exists. We often talk about it being intangible, but with the consideration of how many women exist in decision-making positions or what takes place during hiring to enforce these kinds of messages, these are things that can be measured. When they're not, it becomes a challenge to be able to find a solution to a problem that obviously does exist.

Mr. Bowlby, I want to thank you very much for sharing this. One of the areas that interest me is also the question of, in times of workplace adjustment, the kinds of stresses that are put on employees, managers, offices, and departments and whether that creates more friction in the workplace. It's a question that is very critical, I think, to a lot of people. Also, is that a factor in people refraining from coming forward with allegations of harassment for fear of perhaps losing their job even faster or being marginalized at a very difficult time?

We're keen to see particular attention to the current situation where we have seen some real cuts to the public service and how that might affect women, women dealing with harassment.

If I can turn to the committee, I think that's a very important part of where we need to be going. I think we need a serious understanding of what is before us in terms of the cuts to the public service particularly, but also more generally, the impact of current budget decisions on the status of women in Canada.

With 48 hours' notice, I would like to verbally propose a motion:That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee invite the Minister for Status of Women Canada to appear, no later than Thursday, November 22, 2012, to discuss the 2012 Budget and the 2012-2013 Report on Plans and Priorities for Status of Women Canada; that the Minister’s opening statement not exceed ten (10) minutes; and that the Minister’s appearance be televised.

In presenting this, I would also like to present this on the record. My colleague Mme Francoise Boivan, on March 14, 2012, asked the minister, “Can we expect to see you back soon, after the budget is tabled, at least for one session, in order to see what is in store for the Status of Women Canada's budget 2012-2013?”, to which the honourable minister responded, “Sure, I would be happy to come back. Of course the votes are not in any of our control. I wish we had more time today. I would be happy to come back.”

I believe we would be remiss to not have the minister speak to not just one omnibus bill budget bill but two, and the impact on the status of women in Canada. After all, what is this committee actually doing? Many of our committees do hear from ministers, and unfortunately ours has been one that has not heard from a minister in a very long time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

I am going to have to stop you there. Your time is up, Ms. Ashton.

Ms. Truppe, your turn.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Sorry, was that a motion or a...?

[A voice]

A statement.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Was that a motion or a statement?

Sorry: what was that?

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Was that a motion, Ms. Ashton?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Is it just notice, or is it a motion?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I used the word “motion”—

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

It is a motion?

[A voice]

Yes.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Then we'd better go in camera.

We'll have to go in camera and excuse the witness again.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Yes. Ms. Ashton has confirmed it was a motion.

[Carolyn Bennett, St. Paul's, Lib.]

Why would you go in camera?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

It's committee business.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

It's a notice of 48 hours, a verbal notice of motion.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Okay, so it's a notice.

That's what I was asking, if it was a notice or a motion.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Well, it's a notice of motion.

I was asked if it was a statement. It was not a statement.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

So it's a notice.

Okay.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

So it was a notice of motion. We'll deal with it at another meeting during committee business.

It is now over to Ms. O'Neill Gordon. You have seven minutes.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to welcome the witness. Thank you for taking time to be with us. Your presentation gave us lots of important facts, and it's great to hear that the employees are given the opportunity to express their concerns. That's a key concern of ours as well.

I know you have a lot to do with all of this taking place. Have you been involved in the preparation of the PSE survey? What would be your involvement with the questions and things like that?

[Geoff Bowlby]

Was Statistics Canada involved in the preparation of the questions for the 2011 version?