Human Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

[Nasha Brownridge]

Yes.

One really important thing to note is that in terms of our bargaining unit, our collective agreement, all the articles regarding anti-harassment and the majority of our collective agreement, applies to interns, volunteers and otherwise.

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

How do you define “volunteer”, though? I guess that's....

[Nasha Brownridge]

We do have a definition specifically in the agreement. We actually stipulate that they cannot work.... Nothing they do is mandatory. They come in as they please. They cannot be disciplined if they only do three hours, for instance.

In my volunteer experience, I was coming in as part of a class from the University of Ottawa. I was only doing three hours a week. It was on my own schedule. I was not doing work that would replace the work of a bargaining unit member, so I wasn't replacing the parliamentary staff in their tasks.

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

I am aware of situations where an MP has had staff come in and then chosen not to pay them. That's just wrong on so many levels. Sometimes people will use the term “volunteer” for those situations when in fact what you're really doing is asking people to work for free.

[Nasha Brownridge]

That's absolutely not what I'm referring to in my experience, and in the experience in our offices that we are aware of. We do not allow for unpaid work, particularly where it concerns the activities of.... We actually have job descriptions that describe what each person does, their title and what they do. No volunteer can come in and get paid for that.

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

I've gone over my time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

MP Fortier, please.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your statements. I am going to speak to you in French.

I'm very pleased that we have been speaking about definitions a lot since we began hearing testimony. I can tell you that we have discussed this at length. This is a notion you have also raised today.

One of my concerns is the need for a certain flexibility that would allow us to broaden or amend the definitions of sexual harassment and sexual assault. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on how the law could, without going into all of the details, include principles that would guarantee a certain flexibility in the regulations. Do you have any ideas on this? Would you be comfortable sharing the definition?

Let's begin with Mr. Phillips or Ms. Bauman, and then we will hear from the others.

[Colleen Bauman]

I think with respect to the definition of harassment, it isn't something that allows for a lot of flexibility. It's going to be interpreted legally; it's going to determine the scope of individuals' rights; and it is vital. In the Ontario legislation they have adopted a definition of “harassment”. I understand the challenges of amending the legislation down the road if you did want to change it, but that's why I would encourage you to take a broad and purposive definition, one that covers both personal harassment and grounds-based harassment. For example, we referenced the Treasury Board policy definition. It provides for not only a series of events—typically harassment takes place over a series of events—but also a single serious incident to also constitute harassment. It also provides for workplace to be defined broadly, so including events related to work, locations related to work, and that sort of thing.

Those are the elements I think you want to think about, but I would encourage that it actually be in the legislation.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Brownridge or Ms. Amrov, I would like to hear your thoughts.

[Nasha Brownridge]

We do believe that the full definition should be included in the bill itself. There are a few reasons for this, which echo some of the concerns that have already been reiterated. First, we do actually currently have a government that has shown some willingness and desire to improve the culture of harassment here. The catch is that politics are fickle. We don't know who will be in government five, 10, or 15 years from now. I have concerns, and our union has concerns, about whether or not anything left up to regulation can be changed without public accountability through the House of Commons. While we currently seem to have agreement amongst this committee to actually move forward in a positive way, if we were ever to hit a situation in which a government was not that open and not that willing, they could water down the definition as it stands. We don't want to allow for that without them having to go through the House and having that accountability.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Ms. Peckford or Ms. Sutton, I would also like to hear your comments.

[Nancy Peckford]

Yes, I would concur. I think it's crucial. We look at sexual harassment policies—not legislation, but policies—across the country pertaining to legislative environments. There are very clear definitions of what sexual harassment is and what it is not. I think they are very instructive, especially in environments where, in fact, there are some difficulties sometimes for individual women. I think ensuring there's a gender-based analysis-plus of this bill will underscore some of those dynamics around young women not being confident that what their experience is—a singular incident or systemic harassment—is in fact grounds for coming forward and activating whatever the mechanism is.

So we do stand behind the definition. We do think, though, that it would be instructive to do a five-year review, to in fact ensure that five years from now we can revisit the legislation, look at some of the challenges and the successes, and improve upon it. Because it's groundbreaking, having that five-year review in place would be very, very helpful.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I was writing a note about the five-year review as you spoke; that is interesting.

In addition, we spoke briefly about prevention. The intention is to change the culture and ensure that there is a basis to prevent incidents, that is to say before they occur.

Aside from what you already mentioned in your presentation, are there points you would like to share with us which could help us strengthen the bill we are studying?

[Nancy Peckford]

I think training and mechanisms to ensure independence are so key. People will just not come forward under precarious employment conditions unless they understand there truly is independence and that their employment and commitment to public service are not at risk. From our perspective, we don't have all the solutions, but we know that's fundamental to the success of the bill.

[Nina Amrov]

I would like to begin by saying that we are here because we are passionate about our jobs, as are many people who work in this area, whatever their party. That said, that passion should be compatible with a safe workplace where we feel comfortable and where we can interact with our colleagues in complete safety.

I consider that the training must absolutely be mandatory. According to what we understand, it is up to the whips to ensure that the members of their party have taken the training. We would like to know what sanctions there will be if a member were to refuse to take the training.

Moreover, we would like to go back to the importance of having a definition, because that is a prevention tool.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you very much.

Now we go over to MP Falk, please, for six minutes.

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

Thank you for being here. I appreciate hearing what you all have to say, and I believe it's very valuable. The first question I want to ask is regarding the time limits. You guys have suggested that there be a time frame. Do you have a number that would be acceptable?

[Nancy Peckford]

I would think, at this point, between six months and a year is the maximum period of time for someone to come forward and see the results of an investigation, and some stipulation of brevity....

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

Okay, and that's with the whole process start to finish, right?

I'll go back to mandatory training. Is training for employee and employer what you're suggesting? I know that you suggested management training. Can you elaborate a little bit on that?

[Nasha Brownridge]

Absolutely. In my statement earlier, I was talking specifically about the mandatory management and anti-harassment training. The reason we address management training specifically is that a lot of incidents of harassment can come from, essentially, unhealthy communication amongst staff and their employers where there is generally not an understanding of how to appropriately communicate, which then cycles and becomes a worsening situation over time.

We are, however, in favour of mandatory training for staff as well, or training for staff in general, because, obviously, there are also incidents of harassment between employees, not just the members of Parliament who we were referring to. That was just a note that we wanted to make very clearly in the initial testimony, but we were limited on time.

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

Perfect, because that's something, too. I just recently came in on a by-election, so I have just gone through this whole process, and everything is new.

[Nasha Brownridge]

Congratulations.

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

Thank you.

I know the House of Commons offers orientation. In discussing all of this, I'm quite surprised that I haven't received any of that type of orientation regarding harassment or anything like that. Is that where you would want to see it, in an orientation?

[Nasha Brownridge]

We had discussed this quite at length, and something we'd like to see is for it to be included in the orientation for new members coming in. We particularly thought a window of within 60 days of being elected, because MPs are automatically hiring staff, or nearly automatically. Often it's one of the first things they do, and in order to manage those staff, they should have that training at that moment when they are being oriented into the role.