Human Resources Committee on Feb. 21st, 2018

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

We should definitely take a closer look at this aspect in our study of the bill.

Mr. White, I will now turn to you. This is an evolving situation. How do you see the role of third parties who support persons, victims, who file harassment complaints?

[A/Commr Stephen White]

I've found it to be very beneficial. Speaking of unions right now, we are not a unionized environment, except with the public service. We've had a number of occasions to sit with the victims of harassment, supported by their union, and have a very good, open, and frank discussion on what support we, the RCMP, as an employer can provide to support the victim, and moving forward, working with both the victim and the union to plan a road map, whether it be for support, including supporting them in the workplace, or the desire of the victim to move to a new workplace. My experience has been that it's very beneficial.

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

Thank you.

Treasury Board, do you have any comment on this?

[Kathleen Clarkin]

I have just a quick one to say that the unions have been a great partner in our awareness pieces, such as the joint learning program that we deliver with both management and union facilitators. They have a harassment-free workplace one, as well as some great ones on mental health. We share the same motivation to want to resolve this issue.

[Don Graham]

They obviously come with a different perspective from us. They are there to represent their members and to look after their interests. That's what they are there to advocate and work for. We just have to make it work.

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

Thank you.

My time is running out, but one other thing that we're going to be looking at—and I've asked the minister about it—is this third party. From people who are involved in a situation, we feel there is a need to have some privacy, some independence, and sometimes some distance from the direct supervisor who might be involved. It seems at this point in time that the way the law is crafted, we are always pushing that person back into the hands, potentially, of the presumed, or probable and potential, offender, so we're certainly going to look at this. I don't know if someone wants to comment on the importance at some point in time for a person to say, “I don't want to deal with my supervisor because he's involved. I don't even trust my own organization”. That may happen.

I know it's sensitive for you, but do you have any comment on that? I ask because this is something that we're going to look at and for us the third party seemed critical to preserving the integrity or dignity of the process without creating a brand new structure.

Does anyone want to risk saying something on this one, or will you be saved by the clock?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have about 30 seconds.

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

You can try.

[Don Graham]

It would only be to say that in your deliberations, I think you are looking for whatever is going to be the best and what will wind up with our being able to eradicate or eliminate, or reduce down considerably, these types of situations in the workplace. If you think that's the best way to do it....

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

It seems like it has been the way for other administrations like the federal one, and it's working, so we certainly will look into it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

MP Morrissey, you have six minutes.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

My question is general. You represent four prominent bodies within the federal government, some of whom have been in the news in not very flattering situations.

I would ask each one of you to answer my question. Where has the existing process failed victims of harassment? It failed, so I would like you to speak to that here on the record. Where, in your opinion, has it failed?

[A/Commr Stephen White]

In terms of the historical record, I can't speak without knowing specific or individual cases, but I'll go back to what I mentioned earlier, which is the need to have a well-established, robust complaint and investigative system. That's what we put in place for the RCMP post 2014 with the changes to the RCMP Act, our regulations, and the enhanced commissioner standing orders around both harassment investigations and new conduct measures, which try to bring a very well-established framework around the reporting of harassment, how we investigate harassment, the findings of harassment, and the potential imposition of conduct measures if there are findings of harassment.

With that in place today, I would hope that we are responding much better to harassment today—and in the last few years since those changes—than we have in the past. There are a lot of mechanisms. That's what I would put in place. We need to have all of those mechanisms and, as I mentioned earlier, good established gateways for complainants to bring their complaints forward: not necessarily having to go to a supervisor with a complaint of harassment, but having a separate mechanism whereby they can go directly to an office outside of their immediate office to bring that complaint forward.

[Nathalie Dufresne-Meek]

I support that as well. I think the proximity of the direct supervisor or direct manager to the person feeling like they need to report something that's happening to them has hindered and prevented some folks from coming forward. Certainly we're seeing some volume on our tip line. There is more of a sense of confidentiality because it's not even in their region that they're reporting; they're reporting somewhere else.

I also think, though, that there is a piece of training and information that we need to do a better job at—we've recognized this as an organization—in ensuring that people understand what the process is. I say this because on the spectrum of harassment or violence, you will have some events that are extreme in their harassment, serious or egregious in nature, and some at the lower end of the spectrum. With regard to the latter, from what I've heard in talking to some folks who consider themselves victims, some expect that the respondent will be terminated or be subject to significant discipline with regard to an event that would not necessarily warrant that. I think we need to do a better job, certainly as an organization, in ensuring that people understand the process but also understand the tools that are available to them to resolve certain conflicts that might not necessarily be harassment, even though they perceive it as such.

[Don Graham]

Maybe I could add just one thing. I think that one of the other things is that we often find ourselves behind the curve with things that change in society. I think we have to be able to anticipate as best we can how things are going to change and take measures in a timely way, such that we can do that. I think that's one of the reasons why it's been suggested that the definitions probably should be in the regulations, so that those can be adjusted as things go along.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Go ahead, Mr. Thibodeau.

[Marc Thibodeau]

In addition to what has been said, I would offer that we've experienced the same issue that my colleague was pointing to in terms of outcome, but the size of the organization—we have 14,000 individuals working for us—matters in terms of distance, bias, and perception of how the issues are addressed. The delegation to address a harassment complaint in the CBSA rests with directors general, who are far removed from workplaces, especially outside of Ottawa. It may be that where we talk about distance in addressing issues, it has an impact because of the type of organization you have.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I asked the question because for a number of the witnesses, the big issue they identified was identities investigating themselves, and they have no confidence in that. From the testimony we heard, that's where it falls apart: identities investigating themselves when a complaint is made. That's why I posed the earlier question.

Unless those identities or organizations recognize that the process you've been governing has failed.... It's important for this committee to hear that and to get your input on where it failed. Then we can ensure that the legislation best addresses that. That's why I posed the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you. I have to cut you off there. Sorry.

Now we go over to MP Trudel for six minutes.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for everyone. You can answer it one after the other, if you want.

Much has been said about what has been going on in your workplaces. Earlier, it was suggested that it would be preferable to have inspectors within the RCMP investigate whenever a complaint related to workplace harassment or violence is filed. The government will establish rules for inspectors.

In your opinion, what advice and what training should we give these inspectors so that they may do their jobs?

We can start with you, Mr. Thibodeau.

[Marc Thibodeau]

Thank you for your question.

There is technical training on harassment and other problems, but I think that we can't forget what these situations mean, on a personal level, for people, complainants and respondents, who experience them. As a result, I believe that we have to proceed with some delicacy.

[Nathalie Dufresne-Meek]

As my colleague said, we have to take the technical aspect, procedural fairness, into account. It is very important, and we can't ignore it. There are also the personal and interpersonal aspects for victims and witnesses. We touched on that earlier.

In our organization, employees often say that they want to give answers to and confide in somebody who knows their workplace—in our case, penitentiaries—its culture, and so on, to some extent. Currently, we almost exclusively—though not always—turn to outside investigators. Nevertheless, they have acquired quite a bit of knowledge on our workplace. I think that it is important for victims, and important in cases of formal proceedings.

[C/Supt Jasmin Breton]

Earlier, we talked about how important it is to ensure that investigations are conducted

in a timely fashion.

There is nothing more complicated than an investigation that takes two, three or four months. At the RCMP, we have a policy that requires investigations to finish within a year. If they don't, investigators are required to file documents explaining why the deadline was not met. For most people, this feels like a long time. It is sill worth noting that our investigations usually conclude well before the 365-day deadline.

I would like to stress the importance of recognizing that this is an essential dynamic and that, consequently, things must be done as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

[Kathleen Clarkin]

I would just add as well that certainly there are very special skill sets. It is a much more sensitive investigation than others. One thing we are trying to do to help organizations when they feel they need an outside investigator to come in is to renew our national master standing offer for investigative services. Under “occupational health and safety”, we will now have a stream for “violence investigations for competent persons”, as it's called—not that they aren't all competent. We will also have harassment investigators and investigators into wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

It was brought up recently by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner that when a complaint is made at a certain high level, to uphold the trust in the process, organizations should consider having someone at arm's length look at it, whether it is another organization lending services or not. It's definitely not the same as a criminal investigation. There's a real sensitivity to help witnesses not suffer more trauma while going through that, so we're doing our best to help build capacity.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Dufresne-Meek, your organization's employees belong to unions. Will the amendments made by Bill C-65 to the Canadian Labour Code round out the collective agreements? Will they need to be reopened or adjusted? How do you think you'll be able to work this out with the union and with Bill C-65?