Human Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay.

How does this legislation compare with that of other legislatures? Have you looked at that at all—specifically in Canada, including Queen's Park and other provincial legislatures? Do you know how our legislation would compare with theirs? Are there any best practices that we should maybe be looking at for other jurisdictions?

[Pierre Parent]

I'm in contact with the heads of HR in all the legislatures. We meet once a year. Basically, from the case that we had in 2014, which triggered all of these policies, we've become a bit of a leader in that aspect. I know that some legislatures even use our online training as is with the House of Commons branding, because it's there, it's well made, and it's bilingual. We've become kind of a leader. I do know that when we meet once a year, it's topic number one, and I'm sure that again this summer it will be topic number one. Yes, everybody is adjusting to this new environment. It's new for all legislatures.

[Charles Robert]

I can add that earlier this month at Westminster, there was a cross-party working group that reported on an independent complaints and grievance policy. We haven't completed our study of that report, but it's very clear that what they wish to do is to institute a more robust system. They did a survey that was part of what fed their analysis, and they did determine, in fact—and I suppose it would not be very different here—that there are frequent instances, because of the power relationship, of a sense of bullying or harassment. As a result, in order to establish a healthier work environment, they feel there is a need to institute a complaints policy and a resolution process that is, as I said earlier, more robust than what they currently have in place.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Do you think ours goes far enough, then? Do you think that what we have here is going to assist in what you do, or is there anything that would go further that could assist more?

I have about two seconds left.

[Charles Robert]

I don't doubt that what we're doing is, certainly, seeking to improve the situation. I suppose it's when the rubber hits the road that we'll find out whether or not that is actually the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Now we have, for six minutes, MP Trudel.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for joining us. Mr. Robert, I'm happy to see you, and especially to see you up close. My first question is for Ms. Potter or Ms. Berry, but then I would really like to know what you think. My question will be brief.

When it comes to time frames, we have heard a number of witnesses say that they were long, and that could affect victims. As you said, when it comes to the work environment, members often work in very small teams that are sometimes made up of only two or three people.

I would like to know whether you think the bill before us will do more to help reduce processing times. I would also like to know how we could improve, if necessary, the communication of reports to survivors and whips.

[Lynn Potter]

Timeliness is key to our policy right now. Certainly we don't have.... We respect certain time frames within the process. The time frame that it takes to respond can vary depending on the case, and this is why it's very difficult to say we will respond within a certain time frame because some may be more complex than others. Certainly a principle that we have in our policy is to respond in a very timely manner and to get back to both the complainant and the respondent on the results of the investigation that took place.

We're certainly open to any improvements that can help that process. We're trying to tell the complainants and the respondents from the beginning that we expect to be realistic about the time frame, depending on the situation, because it can evolve with time.

We are very open to the idea of improving the process. That is actually one of the challenges we are facing.

[Charles Robert]

In reality, when a complaint is known and concerns a member, a confidentiality risk always exists. The pressure to come up with a solution, since a member's interests are at stake, creates difficulties or challenges, as you say, in terms of the complaint's proper handling. That would have a different dimension if it happened within the House administration.

As Mr. Parent was asking, what should be done with the employee? There are factors involved that are not always obvious. So it is really a challenge for you, as well as for us.

[Pierre Parent]

Regarding the issue of time frames and the length of investigations, I would add that I'm dreaming of an investigation being conducted within a two-week period, but that never happens.

First, policies determine time frames. Second, we have to follow the principle of procedural fairness and respect natural justice. We have to take into account the complexity of investigations. Some investigations are very easy to conduct. We bring forward the allegations, and the respondent says that is exactly how it happened. So the investigation becomes very simple. Other investigations involve dozens of witnesses, who are sometimes spread out in terms of location. That raises the issue of those witnesses' availability. When it happens during the summer, people are on vacation.

In reality, when we put all that together, the investigation may drag on a bit. However, the question of whether we want to proceed quickly or properly remains. There are so many elements at play for the complainants and respondents that I feel that the investigation must be conducted properly and not too quickly.

We are committed to doing it as quickly as possible and avoiding becoming obstacles to resolving the problem.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Robert touched on the topic earlier, and I would like to come back to what you talked about in your presentation, Mr. Parent.

When the complaint comes from an MP's office, you advise them. However, what happens to the employee? Employees of my political party—the NDP—are unionized. So they go to their union advisor, who gives them support. As for other parties, I know that employees are not unionized. Who guides them through the process in that kind of a situation? Is it also you?

[Pierre Parent]

It all depends on how the case unfolds. We are not talking about strategic advice here, but about advice on the procedure to follow.

People can contact me or Myriam Beauparlant, who manages the workplace conflict resolution program. Occasionally, the employee will contact me. So then we look at how we will manage the case, but we often split the task between us. For example, Ms. Beauparlant may take care of the employee, while I take care of the member. I really want to specify that we do not give advice on how to get rid of the complaint, but rather talk about best practices and the next step to take.

One of the things I explain all the time is mediation, which I strongly support. Over the past few years, we have resolved extraordinary cases through mediation. I have training in mediation; I am a mediator. I would not oversee the mediation myself in the cases we are talking about now, but I can at least explain to both parties what mediation involves, so they can make an informed decision.

We tell people that they can use mediation, and we explain what it is and what it is not. That's the type of advice we provide. Talking to both parties at the same time does not involve any ethical problems because that advice does not lean one way or the other. The advice is more about moving the case forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Morrissey, go ahead.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to question you briefly on the process. Both the House of Commons and Library of Parliament indicated that you were following the process of Bill C-65 and the implications it may have for you.

Given the investigative process you have now, could you explain a bit or elaborate more on the final report? This question came up a lot when dealing with unions in the private sector. When you do a final report, what's in the report? Could you explain how detailed a report is and who it is made available to?

Mr. Parent.

[Pierre Parent]

In the context of an investigation in a member's office?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Both in the member's office as well as staffing outside.

[Pierre Parent]

These reports usually are fairly detailed. The last one I got would be ethics. In that context, the employer, whether it's we as the employer or you as the employer, would have enough to make a decision.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Would you get the full report, the detailed report?

[Pierre Parent]

Yes, in the part of the process—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Would the person making the accusation get access to it, too, and not a generalized version?

[Pierre Parent]

Yes. It's the same report.

In our policy, at some point both parties get a draft report. The draft report is basically all the evidence collected during the investigation, so there are no surprises. It's a question, as I said, of procedural fairness and natural justice, so that everyone knows and has the ability to comment on the evidence that is in front of the investigator. Both parties have the same information. It's exactly the same document, and it transits through me. Basically, the investigator gives me the draft report, and I distribute it to both parties in the same exact format.

The same goes with the final report. The final report contains the investigator's findings. That's where the investigator will look at all the evidence and go through all the allegations in detail. In accordance with the evidence that has been collected, which was contained in the draft report, they will draw conclusions on findings of harassment or not, or of partially substantiated allegations.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Would you recommend that this process be applied elsewhere? I ask because there was some discussion, some testimony given, that maybe the report would not be made available to the accusing party or to the accused in its total form, with all the information there, to protect the witness. I take it, from your case, that you're not erring on that side.

[Pierre Parent]

That would not be our approach. Our policy at the House administration and the policy applying to members of Parliament—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You make everything that came up during the investigation available to both the accusing party as well as the accused.

[Pierre Parent]

Yes, to the complainant and the respondent. That's the way I say—