Evidence of meeting #92 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 definition.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Co-Founder and Co-Managing Partner, Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Yes. I think the interesting thing about training is one could argue if 50% of people are acting with intent is training going to matter? Boy, it is ever going to matter because the people who attend that training are going to realize the people who are engaging badly shouldn't be doing that, and they will know what to do about it.
Co-Founder and Co-Managing Partner, Rubin Thomlinson LLP
They might learn something.
February 28th, 2018 / 7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
—realized, and they didn't think they may get caught, or they would get away with it, whatever.
What I find baffling is it's common sense, I think, that you treat people with respect. You may have responsibility over them, but there's always somebody over you; you create an environment where people enjoy working with you, and you are part of a team. Whenever you use authority over somebody as a way of controlling and manipulating, you will get in trouble. It's not good behaviour.
The training is very important.
Co-Founder and Co-Managing Partner, Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Can I just add one thing? The percentage of people who abuse power in organizations I think is quite small, but, unfortunately, they are often in positions of power where they can do much harm. Overwhelmingly, the people we see in training believe in all the things you believe in: respecting people, contributing to a collegial work environment. They don't intent to offend, and yet quite a high percentage of them do just that. They do it, frankly, often because they think it's funny, because in the wonderful, diverse, multicultural society we have in Canada, they don't realize what's funny to them, or what they think is collegial, isn't received that way by other people who are different from them. That's where that education process is so effective.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
So there may not be an intent, but what they said has offended somebody deeply.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Again not an exact percentage, but what percentage approximately of the cases that you investigated where there was a complainant but actually harassment in your opinion.
Co-Founder and Co-Managing Partner, Rubin Thomlinson LLP
Again I just didn't catch the end of that.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
In your firm's opinion as an investigator that there was not harassment. There was a complaint but there wasn't harassment. My follow-up question would be, were they happy with the complainant? Were they satisfied because of you being not representing any body but you were trying to find the truth?
Co-Founder and Co-Managing Partner, Rubin Thomlinson LLP
It is a relatively small percentage of complaints that are unsubstantiated, in the sense that people come forward with complaints about behaviour that we find did not occur. That's a relatively small percentage. The distinction I will draw is that more frequently we make findings that the behaviour occurred, but it was not harassment, and that's a policy definition issue. For an organization that has a very narrowly defined definition of harassment, it can be challenging for us as investigators. We interview people, we collect evidence, make findings that this not so nice, perhaps even relatively awful, thing happened, but it's not harassment because of the construction of the policy. Therefore, an investigation that finds no harassment, when something pretty awful has happened, is not very satisfying. That is a small percentage of cases. In those cases, where we have given people a fair process, they are satisfied that we are neutral, which I think they overwhelmingly are, and they have been heard, so they feel satisfied.
In fact, in cases where I have felt that they would not be satisfied because I found against them, they're satisfied because they've been through the process.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you very much. I will share my speaking time with my colleague Mr. Morrissey.
My question is for the officials from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
In your experience, how long does it take to process a human rights complaint? For our part, we are trying to determine how to ensure that complaints are handled properly. I would also like to know what measures must be taken in a timely manner to prevent workplace harassment and violence.
Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
For the Canadian Human Rights Commission, I cannot tell you exactly how long it takes to process complaints. What is important to us is that sexual harassment and harassment complaints are given priority. We work on a case-by-case basis. There are certain mechanisms in the Canadian Human Rights Act. For instance, section 49 provides that, in some cases, we can refer a file directly to the tribunal when necessary and when the criteria have been met.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
There is a subject I would like to hear your thoughts on. A number of witnesses talked about cases stretching out to two or two and a half years. That is a long road for certain people, such as the complainant and witnesses. That is why we need a process that does not go too fast, but that at least gives people the time to review the case.
Can you provide any examples, based on your experience?
Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I really understand what you are saying. At the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we have been working for two and a half or three years on simplifying many of our complaints processes. We have explained them in layman's terms and have made an online form available. We also have staff who are in regular contact with the victims of discrimination.
In my view, and in that of the commission, the objective is clearly to put the individual at the centre of each of the measures and decisions of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We live in an era when human rights are more topical than ever. The growing number of complaints is placing significant pressure on the commission, but we are working more effectively and are developing tools to help people.
Having worked as a lawyer for 27 years before I became the chief commissioner, and having dealt with numerous harassment files, I can tell you that processing times are not always the most important thing to focus on. It is a mistake to make them a priority. The real focus should be on providing assistance. A person who makes a complaint is vulnerable and in crisis; they need to feel helped and reassured. The person needs to feel supported, and that someone is always there to provide that support. We have to respect that. Sometimes it is the victim who is not prepared to move as quickly as would be desirable.
Liberal
Mona Fortier Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
So we have to be careful to follow these principles in the bill or in the regulations.
Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Absolutely.
One of the positive things that the Canadian Human Rights Commission does is help complaints, especially in harassment cases, from start to finish, right to the tribunal. Clearly, our role is to serve the public interest. The commission is there to work with those people and help them.
Liberal
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Thomlinson, you are in private practice. What limitations do you see from this bill that would be placed on small employers? What would be the challenge? How should we mitigate within this bill any negativity that would be placed on the small employer, which then would be passed down to the employee, and who would ultimately have a complaint to make?
Co-Founder and Co-Managing Partner, Rubin Thomlinson LLP
There were two points I referenced in my remarks with regard to what I think small employers are particularly vulnerable to. First is the requirement that employees report to their supervisor. In a small organization, that just doesn't leave sufficient flexibility. Then there's the confidentiality piece. In a small organization, it's the concern around the organization not being able to tell this person about the identity of the person involved, and any details about the situation, because they're on the health and safety committee, or because this person's the representative. It gets completely unwieldy in a smaller organization. There I think the Ontario language around confidentiality is much more flexible and adaptable in a smaller workplace.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
From your experience in your practice, have you seen a disadvantage within the workplace for the small employer? I'm talking about fewer than five.
