Human Resources Committee on Feb. 21st, 2018

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

I would like to make a comment in closing. There is a survey and a policy, but it would appear that there are no concrete tools to ensure the system is working.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

MP Dabrusin is next.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you all for being here and for your testimony. It is really interesting to see how organizations operate.

One of the questions that's come up in our past sessions was about defining harassment. How do you define it? That came up when the minister and the department were here and we were looking at Bill C-65. Under the current systems you operate, does “workplace” include social situations or online situations? Have you seen any challenges in the circumstances as they evolve over time, with new things now being considered harassment that five years ago were not?

I guess we can start here and work across.

[Kathleen Clarkin]

Definitely, that is a key trend now. The workplace is not just a physical one anymore. More and more people are working remotely. We do much more collaborating online, so we've definitely had to work at building into our awareness training the realization that with your social media presence, you're more traceable than ever. Everybody knows who you are.

You have to be respectful. Would you say something to someone's face? Would you want that to be there in another year? Does it pass the Globe and Mail test, if you will? We've definitely had to work at sensitizing people to that aspect as well. “I'm anonymous, and this is my private account” is not so much the case anymore.

We have definitely tried to ensure that people feel safe in all domains, because it is a key element for us.

[Don Graham]

From a health and safety perspective, I would say we're now more aware that there's a psychological health and safety aspect that we have to be conscious of in the workplace, and that we have to put in measures to try to protect people in those regards. It's not just physical health and safety. Likewise, when it comes to issues like, say, violence, it's not necessarily physical contact or a physical thing. It can also be psychological. The landscape has changed somewhat.

[A/Commr Stephen White]

I would say it's similar for us. As with all agencies, for us the cyberworld and all the elements that come with it, whether it be texting or Twitter or Facebook, provide a whole new realm of mechanisms for harassment or comments or behaviour or conduct to take place that are not appropriate in our code of conduct for our RCMP members. It applies to both on-duty and off-duty conduct. That is an area that we are looking at for sure.

[Nathalie Dufresne-Meek]

What social media seem to have done, similar to what my colleagues are saying, is extend the workplace. An issue in the workplace, such as perhaps a disagreement or a conflict between colleagues, is taken to Facebook, for example, or onto Twitter, or there's an exchange about a workplace issue, but it's outside the workplace. Whether or not something is harassment is an issue that we're now facing when managing a complaint that started in the workplace but is continuing outside of it, and it potentially comes forward to a manager. That's certainly a trend that we're seeing.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'll ask that to you, too, Mr. Thibodeau, but I was just going to say that I think that's what I was getting at too. Is it that new situations are arising that are challenging any current definitions? Are the current definitions that you're working under able to respond to new situations as they arise? I think you answered that, but I'm carrying through.

[Marc Thibodeau]

I'll start by talking about social media. We're not isolated from this. I think the

geographic dispersion

of our workplaces is also challenging, but that's not a new trend.

Have I heard or seen in the last couple of years situations that I believe would fit the policy definitions or code definitions, but that couldn't be addressed because of the way they were worded? I would say no. I think that it's substance over process, and that we need to be mindful of that situation. Therefore, we're trying to resolve any workplace conflict, whether it fits the strict definition of harassment or not, as early as possible.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you for that.

I will start out on this side and I have less than a minute.

All of you kind of spoke about the process, and I think the Treasury Board Secretariat spoke more specifically about the exact process in place. In the first instance, when a person is to report a claim under the current system right now, is it an informal process? Who are they supposed to go to, and how do they find out who they're supposed to report to?

Let's start with you, quickly.

[Marc Thibodeau]

I'll try to be succinct.

We have seven mandatory training activities that employees have to go through to make them aware of their rights and their avenues. We will deal with any complaints or any situations, whether they're reported by the individual or whether a manager has identified the issues.

We're not necessarily attaching ourselves to a complaint process. In some cases, these will be addressed informally from the get-go; for others, it's going to be a formal complaint that I will suggest may be resolved through informal conflict management, and the matter will be referred there to see if there can be a resolution. Other complaints will be dealt with through the complete formal process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you. I'm afraid that's the time. Maybe we can come back to it.

MP Trudel is next.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentations.

My first question is for Mr. Breton and Mr. White.

We have heard in the news that more than 4,000 women have filed complaints against the RCMP.

My first question is about the investigation process, which you touched on in your report. You said that investigations of complaints are always carried out by the RCMP itself. Under Bill C-65, they will be conducted by outside investigators.

Would you be open to people who are not part of the RCMP or a police force—civilians with specialized training—investigating workplace harassment or violence complaints at the RCMP? Do you think that would be important?

[A/Commr Stephen White]

The issue of internal investigations versus external investigations is a very important question.

I do hear regularly that external brings a much greater degree of independence, and I think some folks would think external brings a greater degree of transparency as well to any investigative process. Right now, our processes are internal. There is a mechanism for us to go outside of the organization to a foreign external investigator and an external decision-maker as well. We do have that mechanism built into our processes.

Maybe I will ask my colleague to give you just a brief summary, if you wish. We have two different processes, one for harassment and one for our code of conduct.

[Chief Superintendent Jasmin Breton, Director General, Workplace Responsibility, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you very much for your question.

Naturally, over the past few months, discussions have been held at various levels on the possibility of using people from the outside. As Mr. White just said, for some cases we hire outside people, but for the time being, people on the inside are taking care of that.

To answer your question, I think that, if the RCMP management told us it would be better to use outside people, there would be willingness to do so, but for the time being, RCMP staff are carrying out investigations.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

In the brief you submitted, you say the following about Bill C-65: “to take the necessary steps to prevent and protect employees against harassment and violence in the workplace”. Can you suggest any amendments to improve the bill?

[A/Commr Stephen White]

For us, prevention is really built around educational awareness across the entire organization. We have put in place a number of things.

We have a course on prevention of workplace violence, and approximately 24,000 of our employees have taken that course. We have our online respectful workplace course, and over 27,000 of our employees have taken that. We're also continuing with a number of sessions; a course last year on resolving conflict effectively is one example. We had 111 sessions for almost 1,700 participants.

We've built up what I think is a very effective informal conflict management program. We've hired informal conflict practitioners right across the country in all the provinces where we work. These are specialists in consultation, conflict coaching, mediation, group intervention, and facilitated discussions. They really are a key element in working with supervisors and managers and giving them the tools and the training they need to effectively engage in workplace conflict scenarios and situations. What we see in a lot of our cases of harassment is that it is workplace conflict that has not been addressed and has evolved into harassment.

Those are some of the examples of what I've put forward.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

My next question is for you, Mr. Thibodeau.

From what I understood of your comments, you don't have a process for handling complaints. Is that right? I would like you to elaborate on that.

[Marc Thibodeau]

I will set the record straight. Yes, we have a complaint mechanism. The CBSA is subject to Treasury Board directives. The process Mr. Graham described also applies to the CBSA, and we follow it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Fraser, you have six minutes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much. I'll pick up where my colleague Ms. Trudel left off with Mr. Thibodeau.

You mentioned during your testimony the “no wrong door” approach when there's a complainant. My initial reaction was that it sounds appetizing in some ways, but I also have some concerns about a lack of clarity of process. Is there an opportunity in Bill C-65 to enshrine some clarity for a complainant so they're not worried that “no wrong door” becomes no door at all?

[Marc Thibodeau]

Actually, the intent of “no wrong door” is that there's always a door to hear complaints. We found through our experiences that there were individuals who would be aware of concerns/issues through various HR programs, but the connection was never necessarily taking place. What we wanted to do, while protecting the confidentiality and the firewalls that are built into the PSDPA, for example, versus other disciplines, was to make sure that if you weren't too sure about where you needed to report your concern, somebody would take your concern and make sure that it would get to the appropriate authority—

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

On that issue specifically, is there training in place for all the people who could receive the report to ensure they know what to do with it?

[Marc Thibodeau]

Yes.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay. I apologize for cutting you off, but I have a few things I'd like to get through.

Mr. Graham, you described the need to exhaust all intra-departmental remedies before you can approach the remedy under the Canadian Human Rights Act. In regard to some of the fears I have about this requirement, one is that it revictimizes the person who has already been harassed or potentially treated in a violent way by their employer and is having to go back to that same employer who is telling them that it wasn't actually a big deal.

Do you think there's an opportunity in Bill C-65 to potentially move away from this model? Or do you think there is an important reason to keep the need to report things first through internal remedies before you take that next step?