I'll answer your question about the involvement of the health and safety committees. First of all, sometimes we'll see a complaint go in, and it could even be a violent harassment complaint. What's the plan if the individual ends up coming back to the institution? This is why we have to be involved. The complaint goes in. Nobody hears anything. All of a sudden, somebody disappears for a while, and then they end up coming back, but nobody's talked to. This is pretty damning for the victim who may still be at that particular site. This is why we have to have some involvement.
I know my colleague also referred to sifting through what constitutes harassment as well. If a supervisor tells me to do something, that's not necessarily harassment. This is why we need to have some engagement from a health and safety perspective for a safety issue. We had, as an example, one supervisor actually push her chest up against an individual and nothing was really done. It was clearly harassment, and all of a sudden a month later the manager disappeared, and then ended up coming back with no explanation to the victim. We need to know, as a health and safety committee, if this manager comes back, if it is safe for our member. I just use that as a particular example.
I think the second part of your question was around impartiality. Part of the problem we have with the organization is that obviously the independent firms that come in and investigate are paid by the department, by the government, so how do we get around ensuring that it's really impartial? Sometimes we feel, as correctional officers, when a harassment complaint is put in, that it can be swayed one way or the other.
Also, the investigations take way too long. That's another issue we're faced with.