When we first started talking about the issue of sexual harassment in the federal sector in a tripartite way and we were considering what the alternative ways forward were, one of the options presented by the government was to take this clause in part III of the Canada Labour Code and move it into part II, for a number of reasons, one of which was that it would broaden the scope of who that clause now is applied to.
One of the issues that percolated during that initial discussion was who should be involved in these investigations, and there was, I believe, a general recognition and acceptance at that table that sexual harassment complaints and sexual violence complaints were different, that there was a sensitivity around them that made them different from a typical violence complaint. I think what was generally agreed on at that table was that the number of people with access to that information throughout an investigation should be really tight, as tight as you can possibly make it. I think that really was the genesis of removing the workplace committee from the investigatory process.
That did not mean the workplace committee could not be involved in setting the policy, ensuring the policy is enforced properly, and dealing with any systemic issues of harassment in the workplace. What it meant was that in individual investigations there would not be a specific role for the committee. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a role for the union. The employee could go to their union rep to seek assistance and guidance, to file a grievance, and to go through the process.
That's kind of where that came from. I don't know if that answers your question.