Human Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

[Pierre Parent]

The question is always, does the relationship of trust still exist? Can the employment relationship still continue? That's where in the past we've looked at different avenues as to how we can take the situation where it is right now, a bad situation, and make it a better situation for everyone. That could involve lots of different avenues, but that's where the member as the employer must take some leadership to a certain extent.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Ruimy, you have six minutes.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you all for being here today.

It's certainly a subject that needs to be addressed.

I believe it was Monsieur Robert who mentioned that in the 2015-16 annual report there were 10 cases, and 19 cases in 2016-17. You said they were mostly inquiries. Can you explain that, please?

[Pierre Parent]

That would be on my part.

As I said, these were not necessarily inquiries requiring just a phone call, or that type of situation. They were inquiries that required a lot of work on our part. In the example I used earlier, an inquiry did not result in a formal complaint but resulted in mediation. Without going to the step of a formal complaint, there was resolution through mediation. We didn't know how to categorize these cases and we did want to account for them because they required a lot of energy. At some point, as I said, although there are only three complaints, almost a full-time resource is assigned to this.

Rest assured that these inquiries are not just a phone call asking where the policy is and it's there on the website and that's it. Those are not accounted for. In these instances, we put some significant energy into the resolution, if possible, to the case.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

There's obviously a bit of an increase from one year to the next, and I'm curious to know whether you have statistics from before. Is that because of changes that have happened, or were people in the past just not reporting or inquiring about it?

[Pierre Parent]

There was no policy before 2014. Basically, this is all new.

These numbers are according to the policy that was approved by the board in December 2014. We had no baseline before that. With the low numbers in 2014, 2015, to 2016, the first reporting period was a bit longer; I went up to 16 months. The new policy was probably not well known, and then there was the election period.

After the election, we saw a bit of a boost. I don't know whether it was outgoing members or incoming members, but there was definitely more traffic. I think the policy was better known and people used it.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Thank you.

Let's go back to training. Who has actually created these training programs?

[Pierre Parent]

The two programs we've added have been developed by staff in my office. For the first one, we used a firm in Montreal to bring the expertise to develop online training. We put our content into their format. If you look at it, you'll see that it's very well made and we're very proud of that product.

For the second one, the one that will take place in the coming months, we've retained the services of a local firm, ADR Education. They have offices across Canada. They are experts in the field.

We did provide some input on our specific environment and what objective we were trying to achieve in the training. I'm proud to say that we test-drove the training this morning and it's fairly good. Mr. Clerk was there and it is something fairly good that should assist in changing the culture.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

As you know, it's kind of unique, working here on the Hill. It's going to be critical that this training not be a cookie-cutter type of operation. That wouldn't work.

I'll put this question to everybody: are you confident that this training program will be effective and actually bring credibility, so that people can trust the process?

[Pierre Parent]

I hope it will. I have three hours. I tried to get more, honestly, but in three hours I can do so much.

I was first hired in 1993, so although my employment has been during two different periods, I have fairly extensive knowledge of what you do as members of Parliament, and the reality that you're members 24-7. I'm CHRO just eight or nine hours a day, but your reality is different and we're aware of that.

That's why we developed that training with your reality in mind, and we focus more on a change of culture. With three hours of training, you'll know about the definitions and what could and couldn't be harassment. The change of culture will be strong, and I'm confident that it will be effective.

[Charles Robert]

As I mentioned at the very beginning of my presentation, the real key is to aim for prevention, and the base for that really is awareness.

Even though, as Pierre says, these sessions are only three hours, it's three hours that you didn't have before that are now devoted to this topic. One would hope that training will give rise to a greater sense of awareness. Certainly the kind of media coverage that instances like this provoke also helps you realize how to build a better working environment in your office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

For five minutes, MP Warawa, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, I've not been able to be at most of the meetings up to this point—or any of them,actually—but I have read and I appreciate the work of the committee and the witnesses here today.

This is a very important topic. We've heard the use of the word “harassment”. In Bill C-65, we have defined “board”, we have defined “employee”, and we have defined “employer”.

Would it be helpful for Bill C-65 to have a definition of “harassment”? That's my first question.

[Charles Robert]

It would really depend on what kinds of constraints it imposes on your being able to be elastic in your approach.

It would be better to defer to a lawyer, but I would guess there are times when a definition of law can be too restrictive and may not be as helpful as you might wish it to be in trying to address this problem effectively.

I guess it would really depend on the definition you choose to put into the bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I will put the question back on you then. You're here sharing with us how you mediate harassment, and how you determine whether or not there's a case of harassment.

How do you determine that, if you do not have a definition?

[Pierre Parent]

We have a definition. As I mentioned, we will table the policies that we have.

As I said, the code of conduct, which only deals with sexual harassment between members of Parliament, is very short. It's a one-liner, but the one that applies to members of Parliament as employers is very extensive. We have that. There are three parts: harassment, abuse of authority, and sexual harassment, and these three are fairly defined.

My own view as chief human resources officer is that I prefer to be able to adjust to best practices as the case law evolves, rather than waiting until legislation is passe. We review our policies—this one or any other HR policy—on a regular basis, so having the flexibility to adjust to best practices is a plus for us. Having a definition in the act may be good, but from my perspective, the fact that we have the flexibility to adjust is something we like.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Your definition over the last five years of best practices has evolved. Is that what you're saying?

[Pierre Parent]

This is a fairly new policy from the last two years. The next time we review the policy we'll look at best practices, and if these definitions, these three parts of harassment...or if there's a fourth one that we don't know about, we'll be able to suggest that to the Board of Internal Economy. This one is fairly new; it's not quite three years old.

[Lynn Potter]

We have also adapted our definition. We updated our policy in 2011 and again in 2016, and we continuously look at it. Although there is a definition and, as I mentioned earlier, harassment may be found or unfounded, the issue is that there is still some kind of conflict. In the training we talk about, we look at what is harassment, what may be harassment, what is not, but there's still that continuum. I think it's the dialogue around what is that continuum. There's obviously an issue that needs to be resolved, whether it is harassment or not.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

My leaning is that we define it so we know what we're talking about. What harassment is can be very broad, but to provide some guidance, I think it would be nice to have something in writing that we can reference so that it's not a mediator's position that, yes, this is or is not harassment. Anyway, that's where I'm coming from.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

You have 20 seconds.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I have a quick comment on those who are suffering long-term mental illness caused by a serious harassment case where sexual assault may be involved. Is there treatment that you recommend that could deal with those serious, long-lasting problems?

[Pierre Parent]

As I said earlier, we have resources, especially in the House of Commons. We have the respectful workplace policy, Finding Solutions Together. I've got two nurses on staff in the employee assistance program, and if for whatever reason a case goes beyond our resources, we'll look at it case by case and if we have a situation where we feel we need to invest additional resources, we'll do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Now for three minutes, we have MP Trudel.