Status of Women Committee on May 23rd, 2013

[Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk]

I think there are 300 people in the lawsuit right now that could probably identify with that. I think a lot of them are still serving.

I've been approached several times by people who are in the RCMP. They phone me to tell me that they've read my book or they've heard about me or they know about the lawsuits that are going on and they are afraid to come forward. The first thing I ask is whether they're safe. You just never know how things can escalate.

I'm sorry you had those experiences, because they do leave a scar on people. For me, there were a lot of subtle things before I realized it was actually almost criminal behaviour. It was the little things. You look back now and you can see how damaging it was and what harassment really looks like. Basically, it's bullying. You can put another label on it, but someone who harasses you is a bully. A bully in the workplace, a bully in the military, a bully at school, a bully in cyberspace, they're all doing the same thing. Their intent is to have power over someone and to wound and destroy.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I want to get some sense because I know there's a variety of people who have indicated they're part of this lawsuit. As far as you know, do you know if this is ongoing within the RCMP and other federally regulated workplaces?

[Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk]

Do you mean the harassment problems?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

That's right.

[Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk]

Definitely. Just because there's a lot of public attention doesn't mean.... The problem now is it goes underground. The abuse or the bullying and harassing will no longer be so overt. It will be that silent kind of shunning. It will be words that are unspoken, actions, things like that. This is what shunning looks like: Imagine coming to work and nobody talks to you. The phone rings and instead of saying, “Carol, the phone is for you”, they just hold it up, if you're working on a file. Instead of saying, “Carol, there's a phone call for you”, they just write “somebody called“ on a sticky note. I think that's still happening; not all the time, but as I said, because there's a lot of attention right now, it will go underground.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Hughes.

Madam O'Neill Gordon, you have the floor for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the witness, thank you for taking time to come back with us today. As you know, we've been doing a lot of work on this study, and it is very important to all of our committee that individuals go to work each day knowing that their workplace will be free of sexual harassment as you face all the other challenges that one has in a day's work.

Earlier you shared copies of correspondence from both inside and outside the RCMP on the topic of your experiences. In your book Women Not Wanted you mention that you did not begin as a good note taker, but subsequently developed the skill. This is a skill that takes learning. Can you describe how you see this as being a very important skill, and how important it is to maintain this kind of information?

[Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk]

That's an excellent question. I tell people when they're having problems the same thing: document, document, document. It started out just when things would happen and I thought I was never going to remember things so I would just write down that I was at the detachment, the people who were there, the date and time. As I gathered notes, I was able to start to look back to see if there was a pattern of abuse.

When I was writing my book, it was a lot easier to prove my case when I wanted to see a lawyer, when I wanted to go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, because they would ask me what evidence I had. This happened two years ago. They don't want to go just by memory. They prefer to have something in writing.

I had boxes of stuff, of documents that I could show, e-mails and letters in which people were saying that I shouldn't have reported my partner being drunk, and I had no sense of humour about the door falling on my head. Of course, I kept that and that's perfect evidence of what abuse of power looks like and how the retribution is on people who make complaints. I tell people all the time about the importance of documenting.

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

Yes, that was very important and it was good that you had all those facts written down. Is there anything else that you would recommend to a woman experiencing a similar situation at work? Is there any advice you might give her about what to do, or who to engage?

[Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk]

Definitely always remember self-care. If you don't feel safe, really physically safe at work, then get out. If you can't find somebody within the organization who can be supportive, find someone outside so that you always have someone to speak to, to share your feelings with, someone who can give you some positive feedback on, maybe, different ways to communicate. And don't blame yourself for something that's happening. The only person someone can control is themselves. If you're being abused at work, take care of yourself. Document things. Try to have a healthy balance at home, at least. Seek legal advice, if needed. Know your policies, procedures, and regulations at work. All businesses now have them.

I know the RCMP has a lot of these policies and they're great, but, as I said, they're only as effective as the people who enforce them. So for women and men, I just tell them to document, self-care, and know their policies and the laws on harassment, and their rights.

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

That's good advice. We find, and probably you do as well, that more and more people are now speaking out. Do you think this is the result of the training they are getting? Do you think that had you had training earlier, it would have helped you a lot more?

[Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk]

I'm not sure if it would have helped me. I think I would have recognized....

I'll go back right to the beginning. Right in training, we are silently seduced, is the best way to say it. We are silently seduced to believe that we are better because we wear the uniform.

For many people, to protect the image of the uniform, they will do whatever they can. If that means abusing somebody else, harassing someone else, bullying someone else to maintain the image of that RCMP organization, then they will do that. I don't know how you're going to change that. It's going to be difficult, but that's where it has to start. It's not the uniform that reflects the person, it's the person who reflects the uniform.

Does that help?

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

Yes. For sure we all admire and owe great respect to those uniforms when we see them, of course.

In your book, Women not Wanted, you describe the grievance process at the time of your first grievance as having 30 different stages throughout it, and two levels of decision, and then finally access to the external review committee, and decisions sent to the commissioner. In between all of these steps you are under pressure to meet short deadlines for submission of documents.

While you were in the middle of this process, the rules changed and some of the stages between the initial letter and the decision by the commissioner were removed. Could you please describe the difference in the initial process as compared to the changes that were then made?

[Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk]

My grievance against the medical discharge in fact took six years. As a result, at the very end there were recommendations by the external review board to make changes to the grievance process. They were saying this person was off almost six years while this was going on, and if they would have had shorter timelines, fewer stages in the grievance process, perhaps this could have been resolved a lot earlier.

Basically, when a grievance goes on that long, it becomes so polarized: them against me. It's like anything. Then it becomes very difficult to return to work. Basically, it was shortened down to about three stages, and each stage had an opportunity to be mediated. It's more efficient now; however, there's still opportunity for further abuses with regard to the internal process of who's involved in a grievance and who has power in the grievance.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. O'Neill Gordon.

Ms. Sgro, you have seven minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Ms. Podolchuk, I'm glad we have you here, and I'm glad to see you're still smiling.

How is it the RCMP managed to get away with using the code of conduct investigations rather than criminal law? Many of the things you and others have mentioned involve sexual assault, not harassment. Instead of dealing with it like any other company would do, which would be criminal action, why has the RCMP for so many years been able to get away with this?

[Sherry Lee Benson-Podolchuk]

That's the million-dollar question. I really would like to know what an effective answer would be to that.

The problem that I've seen is the fact that in the internal process, when people are making complaints, the RCMP is handling them. As you have seen this last year or two, when the serious complaints come forward, the RCMP handles them. You're right that most businesses would say that this is fraud, this is sexual assault, this is to be tried criminally. They go straight to the code of conduct.

According to the policy, you can only get a maximum of 10 days' suspension. Hopefully with the amendments, there can be some people who are actually fired. But I'm not sure how the outrageous conduct is going to ever be defined.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

For the information of the committee, I have some evidence that I'll be referring to. I'll give it to the clerk and ask that it be distributed to all members of the committee. I believe it's critically important evidence as part of the study we are doing. No one in Parliament or anywhere else could read the kind of evidence I'm going to give you and not feel that more needs to be done, over and above what we're doing right now.

As many of us have heard:

RCMP Staff Sergeant Caroline O'Farrell has commenced legal proceedings against the RCMP and several of its members for damages she sustained while she was a member of the Musical Ride in the mid 80's. It had long been a dream of S/Sgt. O'Farrell to be on the Ride, and she was one of the first women to be admitted. In the end, it turned out to be a nightmare, when she was assaulted, sexually assaulted, abused and discriminated against by the other members of the Ride. All of these acts were either witnessed by or known to her supervisors who did nothing to stop them or to hold the perpetrators accountable. Any efforts S/Sgt. O'Farrell took to protect herself or to obtain redress only resulted in her being further abused, victimized and isolated.

We’ve heard that from Sherry Lee and others.

S/Sgt. O'Farrell was ultimately removed from the Ride, not by virtue of any inadequacy on her part, but only because her supervisors felt it would be best for her own protection. An investigation was conducted at the time, and the conclusion was that there were over 100 substantiated incidents of assault and abuse.

An example of the kind of abuse she had to endure is a particular incident in which some of the male members—and I'm sure Sherry Lee has heard these things before—swarmed her from behind and yanked the stirrup of her horse from her hand. She punched some of them and tried to push them away with a penknife folded in her fist. She also punched other constables. They formed a circle, closed in, filled a wheelbarrow full of cold water, and carried her forceably into the riding school where she was restrained. They lifted the wheelbarrow over her head, drenching her head and body in cold water, right down to her bra and underpants. Then they dragged her along by her arms through the mixture of dirt, shavings, manure, and urine. Once they had finished with her, she sat there, her head fuming, alone and humiliated. All the while, they were laughing and videotaping the incident. Afterwards, they all took off. The incident was videotaped by a particular constable and witnessed by 18 other course members, who were walking their horses at the time. The incident occurred within a few feet of the supervisors who had gone into the farrier's shop after learning that a shit-troughing was about to occur.

That is exactly the kind of incident this particular individual is referring to, and I will submit this as information that I think will be helpful for the committee as we move forward with this.

I'd also like to move a motion that we allow Caroline O'Farrell to appear before the committee. We know clearly from the rules of the committee that anyone coming and giving evidence before the committee does not violate the sub judice convention. It happens very often in standing committees where we have people come before us as part of a study, as long as it's relative to the study. That would help us to achieve the goal, which is to thoroughly understand this issue.

In 1988, this issue was raised in the House of Commons by one of my former colleagues, Sheila Copps. In 1988, the same issue was raised referring to Staff Sergeant Caroline O'Farrell.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Madam Sgro, you have one more minute.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

The response from the government of the day was that it was going to be taken care of. This isn't anything to do with partisan politics; these are serious issues in a federal police force that's here to protect Canadians, protect all of us.

I had meetings in Vancouver last week. More people are coming out, men and women, on this issue of harassment. I think it's critically important that we move forward and have a more thorough investigation.

My motion is simply to ask that the committee invite Caroline O'Farrell to appear before us.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Sorry, Sherry. I ran out of time. I would have asked for some comments back.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ms. Sgro put forward a motion that we have to discuss and vote on.

Madam Benson-Podolchuk, we'll come back to you very soon. You can stay with us, but we will just debate that motion.

Madam Truppe, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to move that we adjourn the debate.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ms. Truppe, we can't deal with your request.

We are going to vote on the motion.