Thank you.
I think primarily the reason I'm here is that I think my textbook has come to the attention of someone. Published in September, it's a guide for the understanding and prevention of sexual harassment. It's not focused on just the workplace, but I have been practising labour and employment law for over 20 years now. I've had a lot of experience on both sides of the road and also with regard to the practical implementation of what you're suggesting with regard to the bill.
I thought I could comment with regard to what my friends have said, and I do agree that what needs to be included in the bill is recognition that it should be dealt with by the parties internally. However, there should be mechanisms built in as well so that if the parties don't get it right and the employer doesn't do a proper investigation, it does default back to the government to address it. It's just to make sure that there's a safety valve there with regard to getting it right in the workplace, because it never should be the case that anyone has to endure that as part of the terms and conditions of their employment.
With regard to the definition of harassment, generally it is included right in the legislation. Currently there is the definition of sexual harassment in the code. It's there specifically. I believe that the definition should be updated. Especially when I was doing training with regard to sexual harassment, and even when I was doing the cover for my book, a lot of people were coming back to me with pictures that involved touching—and it was a man touching a woman. Sexual harassment can happen to anybody in the workplace. It can happen regardless of your gender, your gender identity, your gender expression, your sexual orientation. The way that sexual harassment is currently defined, it still seems that it involves a man and a woman, and there's touching or something of a sexual nature. As discussed earlier, there is also psychological harassment. All forms of harassment can happen in the workplace, and sexual harassment is not limited to actual sexual advances, sexual solicitation, unwanted touching, or unwanted comments. I think the code needs to be updated in that regard.
I agree with my friends on the practicality with regard to balancing this important issue—preventing anyone from having to endure, as a term and condition of employment, harassment or violence—with a need for privacy. Lately we haven't had that. Lately it's been the case that people have been assumed guilty without due process. Unfortunately, that ruins people's reputations and their careers. I applaud the efforts made in this bill to ensure that privacy is respected with regard to the process.
Again, as part of my process in writing the book and part of my practical experience—and hearing what my friends, especially Canada Post, have said with regard to their process—I'd say you need to have prevention and collaboration, effective and timely responses, and review and updating. I did look at the bill with regard to subclauses 3(1) and 3(3), about proposed subsection 125(1) and the regulations. I would encourage the consideration of not only addressing general policies but also having policies for anti-harassment, anti-discrimination, and anti-violence as specific requirements. I don't see that specific wording currently in the bill as it's drafted. I believe this would be a way of giving it some teeth and ensuring that this is implemented and the process followed through in the way you intend it to be.
There's one other potential pitfall that you might experience with the way it's currently drafted. Subclause 5(1) of the bill talks about amending subsection 127.1(1) of the act by having it be reported to a “supervisor”. It can well be the case that the supervisor is the one who is the alleged harasser. That person can't be the one you go to or the one you address the complaints to.
With regard to what the banks do, they have an independent outside party, the ombudsman, accepting those complaints, because the complaints might be against the supervisor or the supervisor's manager.
The supervisor isn't in a position to be the one to address the issues or concerns, so having an outside individual who's not directly in that person's chain of command is something that should be addressed and included in the legislation.
I'm happy to answer any other questions or concerns you have with regard to practicalities of implementation or anything with regard to sexual harassment generally.