Human Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2018

[Colleen Bauman]

I'll just add something with respect to training in the broader federal public service, because I think it's an issue also in that context. CAPE itself has noted that, when there is a new manager who goes into a workplace, sometimes you see an increase in harassment complaints in certain sections, and largely that is often a product of someone not having the proper training with respect to what constitutes harassment and what constitutes bullying and abuse of authority. If you put in more training on a better understanding of harassment when managers are going into those roles, I think that, even beyond the context of Parliament in the broader public service, you're going to see that would also make a big impact on preventing harassment.

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

I guess, too, one thing that I'm a little cautious about is that I'm nervous about bringing forward training and people becoming normalized to the discussion and not doing anything about it. Do you know what I mean? Like, “Oh it's just another thing I have to do”. I'm just apprehensive of that. Do any of you have any opinions on that, bringing it forward and having the conversation? What I'm fearful of is that we have this conversation, and then it's, “Oh yeah, whatever” because it's becoming normalized.

[Nasha Brownridge]

I can see where the concern comes from, but right now, again, we're speaking from a very specific context. When members of Parliament come in, when staff come in, they are provided with very little information on this, so I would rather it be normalized than not addressed at all. Of course, I think things like five-year reviews, even on just this training, are extremely important to ensure that isn't happening, but I think having them in the first place is more important. Then, if we start facing a scenario where people aren't taking it seriously, and they're just doing it as another thing they have to do when they get elected, we would have to do a review and ensure that isn't happening.

[Nancy Peckford]

I think continuous feedback from parliamentary staff in an anonymized way is super important, and I think we're missing that. We actually don't understand until the complaints come forward, or there are some egregious examples when somebody has left the Hill and decides to say something five years later. I think if there was a way to institute a continuous feedback loop, that would be very helpful. Is the training working? Are you actually feeling an impact in the MP's office in terms of either your direct supervisor or the MP in question?

EV, Equal Voice, has been continuously asked to comment on the House of Commons policy. In many cases, all our insight is anecdotal. I think it is incumbent upon the House of Commons to do much more rigorous data collection from both a staff perspective and the MP perspective. At this point, I don't think you have any data with which to work. It would be super helpful—in addition, of course, to the five-year review—to make sure that you get crucial information that is fully anonymized that can inform continuous improvements to the House of Commons policy and your future amendments to legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Ruimy, please.

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

Thank you very much for being here today.

Certainly, we've been hearing the same themes over and over again, and it can get a little “where do we go, how do we do this, and do we do definitions in legislation or in regulations?” I can kind of see both sides of that.

We're jumping ahead to the five-year review, and you just mentioned that. How do we track? What are we tracking? What is the data that we're tracking? Earlier today we had two other witnesses who said that in 2015-16 there were 11 inquiries and that in 2016-17 there were 19. That could suggest an increase, or that could just suggest that people feel a little bit more comfortable. How do we track that on a better case, and what would we be tracking in that manner?

[Nancy Peckford]

A good example might be the public service employee annual survey, which is not perfect, but it is a way of better assessing the day-to-day experience of employees across the public service. I don't see a reason why you wouldn't want to do that with parliamentary staff. Yes, there's more transition in and out, but it would seem to me that, annually, you could conduct a survey of parliamentary staff that assures their anonymity and isn't partisan driven at all, but gathers some insight. It's not perfect. I would also suggest that you talk in a more systematic way to your MP colleagues across party lines about how they perceive harassment. Is their own understanding of harassment evolving to align with the legislation as it will be adopted? I think those are two starting points.

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

One of the things that I asked earlier was about.... They said that those were inquiries, so I asked for an explanation of that. They come to a successful conclusion of some sorts. It's different when somebody goes back and says, “Well, 70% of people said that they'd been harassed.” That I don't that useful because I don't know what that means. How do we break this out further so that, whatever we do moving forward, come five years we have actionable data? Do we break it up into smaller pieces: somebody picked up the phone and said, “I was bullied”? Of course, maintaining confidentiality.... Are there already things in place that you are tracking overall, aside from everybody saying, “Well, you know, 70% said that they had been harassed”?

[Nasha Brownridge]

I think, oddly enough, that actually does come back to definition in one way because in the definition, it should be defining the different forms of harassment because there are very distinct categories. Now there may be a category that is more difficult to define or situations that may not fall under a very specific category: psychological harassment, sexual harassment, bullying in the workplace, bullying outside of the workplace, for example. I do think those are important identifiers that should be tracked. Now how they're reported to maintain confidentiality will have to be a very careful consideration. I also do want to reiterate what was said by Nancy: continuously getting feedback from staff, I think, is going to be extremely important. Staff on the Hill, particularly, often feel left out of every process. That speaks to a larger culture as well, and I think including them in that process through surveys or other mechanisms is going to be critical to earning their trust.

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

You mentioned bullying as an example. See, we're coming back to definitions. How would you define “bullying”?

We've heard different stories of what bullying can be. When we've gone through our training here, if somebody wants a day off because they want to go wherever, and it's traditionally not a time to take a day off, and we say, no, you can't because we need you to be here, some might interpret that as being a bully because you're not giving them what they want.

This is where the problem comes with definitions. Once you've set it in legislation, now you're stuck with it.

[Nasha Brownridge]

I have a hard time believing that someone would want to go through this process to complain about an employer who just didn't give them a day off. I know you're just giving an example. I just want to respectfully reiterate that I don't see someone making this complaint. This complaints process, no matter how amazing it turns out to be at the end of this committee, is still going to be onerous for someone who has faced a situation. I don't see someone going that far, because their boss didn't give them a day off.

We will be submitting our definition, not necessarily to be used for legislative purposes but as a reasonable example and a baseline. And we do exclude normal social conduct between people and employers. We have processes for how to approve and not approve time off, where the union comes in helpful, but we do include that so that normal social situations are not included within harassment.

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

You quickly spoke about MPs who are new, and never managed people, and I can certainly understand that. Coming from a corporate background I've been through the hoop and I've learned how to manage people. When they come here it's overwhelming sometimes.

How would you suggest that they do this management training? Would it be three hours, would it be...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Very quickly, please.

[Nasha Brownridge]

I don't have an exact time frame. One thing I would say is that there should be different categories for individuals who have experience, but also recognizing that this is a completely different environment from where someone else may have managed in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

Mark Warawa, five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Is there a consensus on what the definition of harassment would be? It seems to be the common theme. There are three groups represented here today. Would you agree on that definition?

[Colleen Bauman]

I don't think we've consulted each other on that definition, but I think you will find a lot of commonality in the views, so that if we were to spend some time on it we could come up, along with other unions, with a definition that was agreed upon.

This is not something that is novel or new. There are definitions of harassment that you can find in many different contexts, and that also have been interpreted legally, so I don't think that should be seen as this great challenge, or something that's so difficult. There are many recognized and used right now in the federal public service; that's why we were suggesting the Treasury Board policy. That is used every day in the federal public service. I don't think we should be scared of a definition of harassment. I think intelligent minds coming together can come up with one that is widely accepted.

[Nancy Peckford]

I would also add that I think different legislatures—and we're talking political institutions—have found comfort in defining harassment in terms of what it is and what it isn't, and these are people from very different walks of life with very different partisan backgrounds.

Again, I think we're at a stage now culturally where most people around this table, and not just us, would in fact be able to agree on a definition without significant difficulty.

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

My apologies for interrupting, but my suggestion is that you might put your heads together and provide guidance to this committee, because this committee is going to be making a recommendation to the government and possibly amending the legislation as it is now, sending it back to the House, and then to the Senate. This will be happening again in the Senate committee. If there is a lot of thought, and you get consensus on what the definition should be in Bill C-65, I think it would go a long way to achieving what you want.

I think there is support around here if it were a definition that we could all support. Particularly if the witnesses are supporting it, then that would go a long way.

I do have a question for Ms. Peckford and Ms. Sutton.

My curiosity in having studied criminology and Corrections Canada, and visiting the different institutions from the Fraser Valley, Matsqui, which is a medium security, and then going up to Kent, and to Mountain, and visiting the different.... There is a dynamic, a feeling, a culture around each of these institutions that's quite different as you move around.

My question is, for people working in these different environments, is there a different level of sexual harassment? Does it breed a sexual harassment environment?

[Nancy Peckford]

Certainly, having visited several over the course of the past couple of years, my experience suggests that the degree of harassment can vary significantly, not that harassment doesn't happen. I would have to point to Edmonton Institution.

MP Pam Damoff had the occasion to visit a variety of institutions. Certainly I think in the case of the maximum security prison in Edmonton, there was such a profound sense of disconnect. Last week, we had a visit and the warden described it as an island unto itself. It was so profoundly disconnected to the overall CSC culture, which isn't fabulous, quite frankly. There are other institutions where USJE is seeking workplace investigations because we know there is troubling behaviour there too. Yes, it does vary.

Does that suggest that the leadership is only required in Edmonton? I would say absolutely not. I think there's an obvious need for better mechanisms, and I'll let Bethany speak to them because there's a culture-wide feeling but no doubt it has varied.

I think what's remarkable about Edmonton Institution is how long it went on and how fundamental commissioner leadership is. Unfortunately, I'm sad to say it, we didn't have it. The union was often told that they were chasing ghosts, that unless people were putting their names, their personal lives, on the line that investigations were not warranted.

I think that's why this legislation is so valuable, when you're looking at RCMP, CSC, some of these other workplaces. You absolutely need a safety mechanism outside the department. It is also true of Parliament Hill.

Once again, I'm super happy to have a safety mechanism. We want you guys to get it right, because we know we've only got one shot at this right now, apart from a five-year review, and it's important that we make sure we make it as strong as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bryan May]

Thank you.

MP Trudel, you have three minutes.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I barely have three minutes to wrap up, but I would like to hear all of your comments.

Bill C-65 aims to set aside the joint occupational health and safety committee, a joint committee that involves the employer, workers and the union on certain occasions. You mentioned the importance of including the union. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Do you think that the occupational health and safety committee should be maintained, and be a part of the investigation process into cases of assault or harassment?

Let's begin with Ms. Bauman.

[Colleen Bauman]

I would encourage opportunities for the union and the employer for joint discussions going forward. I know, for example, the NJC is a forum in which this type of issue could be discussed between unions and the employer going forward. We would definitely want to see a role for unions as this develops and is implemented to make sure that members get as broad protection as possible.

[Nasha Brownridge]

Reiterating, we do believe the unions need to be involved, and if we were afforded that right to be involved in the discussion, we would absolutely want to take part. I think there would be consensus that ensuring the unions are active, not only in developing this legislation but once the process is implemented, I think we would appreciate that joint committee opportunity.

[Nancy Peckford]

Obviously, we need to be cognizant that the Hill is not a widely unionized environment, so whatever stipulations are in the legislation should be such that non-unionized staff can still avail themselves of a rigorous process. We know that reality as it exists on Parliament Hill.

I would invite Bethany to speak about where unions can add value. Bethany was part of an RCMP collaboration in a division in this country where something egregious did occur. The collaboration with the union is value-add, it's efficient, and it allows for better, more productive conversation and stronger recommendations. I think that's what we want: no flailing, just people bringing the best of what they have to offer.