Evidence of meeting #91 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was complaint.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada
That's correct, and who drives the investigation needs to be very clear.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Okay.
The last question I have is on something we've touched on, but we really haven't delved into it. We've heard about time to investigate. We've heard that sometimes it's two months and sometimes it's three years. How do we address that?
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada
I've seen a lot of organizations that are actually quite efficient. They have in their policy a time frame that is reasonable. The more bureaucratic we become in the investigation and in terms of who's involved and who needs to be consulted, I think that's where it takes time.
There are very effective processes in both unionized and non-unionized settings. By cons, when we add a lot of players and stages, the process becomes much too long and the damage continues to grow. I will allow you to say that, in my opinion, the solution is that it is as simple and as light as possible.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Dan Ruimy Liberal Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
I have only 30 seconds.
Does anybody else want to jump in on the investigation time and how we manage that?
5:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Keep it as simple as possible.
5:20 p.m.
Union Representative, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
I can't emphasize enough how important it is to deal with these as swiftly as possible. The longer these investigations drag on.... It is extremely difficult and poisonous for the work environment. We experience investigations.... We currently have one that has been going on for over two years. We're still waiting to complete it. It's completely unacceptable.
Whether it's about making sure that we fully streamline and understand what a harassment complaint is and try to decipher that through the various committees we're proposing, or whether additional resources need to be added to make sure they can be done in a very timely and swift manner....
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you, guys, for being here. I appreciate your time. I know it's valuable, and I just want to honour that.
In regard to the quicker response time, I know it was mentioned. On Monday, a time was given. Is there an appropriate time frame that any of you believe would be acceptable and reasonable for the investigation and the process to take place?
5:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Actually, it's not guys. It's girls. I just wanted to point that out.
In a lot of our collective agreements, we have 60 days.
5:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Actually, there are two time frames. The first one, for the time at which the investigation must begin, is one or two weeks. In a lot of cases, there is then a period between about 60 or 90 days. That is what we find most often in our collective agreements.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada
In a survey we did with our members a year ago, we asked them what kind of time frame they had in their policies and were committed to. It turns out that the deadline for completing investigations is between 30 and 45 days on average. That is quite quick.
In my environment, in a professional order, when someone asks a syndic to conduct an investigation of an ethical nature into a member's behaviour, a whole investigative process is set in motion. Syndics have to complete their investigations within a time frame they are given and, if they do not do so, they have to explain why. For very major investigations, it is possible to ask for a more time. Then it is 60 days. I noticed that private companies had a period of 30 to 45 days within which everything was finished.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Thank you.
The other question I had was on the definition. I know that we've had a lot of conversation about the definition, but what we've said around this table a lot is that this is our one shot to get it right. I'm sorry if it's beating a dead horse, but I want to know what components you think should be in there. I've heard psychological, sexual, and physical...and with the sexual, the three branches of that definition. Am I missing anything?
5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Calgary, As an Individual
Just within and outside organizational time and space boundaries I think is really important.
5:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Employees are not the only ones involved. For example, it might be about a supplier or a delivery person making sexist comments to the receptionist. In that case, the employer can take steps against the person making the comments. The intention of the alleged harasser is not important; what is important is the effect that the actions have on the person allegedly being harassed. You cannot get out of it by saying that you did not want to cause any harm. The question is whether there was harm.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Ordre des conseillers en ressources humaines agréés, Chartered Professionals in Human Resources Canada
I'll offer, if I can, wording from one of the provincial...that “psychological harassment at work is a vexatious behaviour in the form of repeated conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures that are hostile or unwanted, that affect the employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity. that make the work environment harmful.” These are some of the key elements.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Calgary, As an Individual
I would say that “repeated” should not necessarily be in there, because it could be one really negative event, and that should be enough for an investigation.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Right. That's one of my apprehensions. If it's too broad, we miss the point or we start getting things that aren't...but if it's too narrow, then we're also missing the point.
5:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, University of Calgary, As an Individual
This speaks to Ms. Damoff's concern about unfounded complaints. I think the benefit of unfounded complaints, as Caroline pointed out, is that usually there is in fact something going on. It's a he-said-she-said thing, or one person's word against another, but it highlights to the organization that something is going on and they're going to be more aware and do more to prevent it, even if it is an unfounded complaint.
I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to err on the side of caution.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
My question goes to you, Ms. Senneville.
Witnesses have suggested a five-year review to validate the effectiveness of Bill C-65 and to measure the results.
Do you think that is a good idea?
