Status of Women Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Good morning. Welcome to this 44^th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today is October 16.

Today we are beginning our study...

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I...

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Ms. Ashton, if you don't mind, I will start by introducing our witnesses.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Of course. I apologize.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Today we are beginning our study of sexual harassment in federally-regulated workplaces.

Today, we have representatives from Treasury Board Secretariat. We thank them for accepting our invitation. We have Mr. Ross MacLeod, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance Planning and Policy Sector, and Ms. Martine Glandon, Manager, Values and Ethics.

Welcome.

Ms. Ashton asked for the floor, and I will get back to you in a moment.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

We are all awaiting the beginning of our study, but actually I would also like to start the meeting by moving a motion to better clarify the central point of this study dealing with sexual harassment, as well as the role that Status of Women Canada has to play in this study.

Of course, we did our research to make sure the motion was in order.

Therefore, I'd like to present a motion.

Whereas the Standing Committee for the Status of Women has committed to taking on a study of sexual harassment in the federal workplace, Whereas it is the mandate of the committee to guide Status of Women Canada, Whereas it is the legal mandate of Status of Women Canada “to coordinate policy with respect to the status of women and administer related programs”, Be it resolved that given the severity of allegations of sexual harassment within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women call upon Status of Women Canada to take the lead in coordinating policy with respect to sexual harassment within all federal departments, including the RCMP.

The reason we're putting this motion forward—and as I mentioned, we did research to ensure this motion was permissible—is that we want to make sure the work we're doing here day in and day out is useful, that we're not only studying something for the sake of studying it but that we're also giving some guidance to Status of Women Canada as to the serious issue of sexual harassment, not only in the RCMP but across the federal public service.

We know that today we have the Treasury Board in front of us. This isn't a case of taking over the work of Treasury Board, but is a case of recognizing that Status of Women Canada has a role to play.

It's also very important to clarify and recognize that Status of Women Canada states in its own mandate that it has the capacity to coordinate policy with respect to status of women and administer related programs. It can work with other departments, and that's an issue that has raised some question in the past. I think it is critical that we look to the mandate and take that mandate as the scope of the department, and therefore the kind of role we can play.

As members of the opposition, we would like to see that we're all coming here to give some guidance and that the testimony of witnesses, such as those here today but also others who will be joining us over the next several weeks, can be used to contribute to shaping policy. That's undoubtedly what women who are facing sexual harassment want to see. They don't want to see more studies; they want to see action coming from those studies. We as committee members have a duty to make sure that the work we're doing here, using parliamentary resources, actually amounts to something, that we're taking the feedback of the witnesses we're inviting here seriously and taking it to the next level and directing some kind of action and directing Status of Women Canada to follow its mandate, which is to work with other departments.

I'm very excited to examine the new policy put forward by Treasury Board, but I also realize that one of the policies that has been put forward by the government most recently is Bill C-42, with respect to the RCMP. I've had the chance to be part of the public safety committee in the last couple of weeks, and it's quite clear that work remains to be done when it comes to defining a sexual harassment policy. What better department to do that than Status of Women Canada? What better department to take on a leading role for women in the public service and in the federal workplace than Status of Women Canada?

Again, we're not simply focusing on the RCMP, though we recognize that some of the most serious allegations have come from the RCMP. We note that leadership is required there, as well as in the broader federal civil service. We certainly hope that members around this table will support this motion, will support the need for our committee to give guidance, and will support the mandate of Status of Women Canada to work with others to provide leadership and take the leading role, a role that we can all be proud of in shaping policy when it comes to something as serious as sexual harassment in federal departments, including the RCMP.

Madam Chair, this is meant to provide a scope, a noble goal that we can work toward in this committee: to put the testimonies and the research that we receive to best use and to truly provide leadership for women and for all people who work in the federal civil service and federal departments, including the RCMP.

With that, I would like to put forward the motion. I'd be happy to hear any further discussion and reflection on the importance of defining exactly what we're doing here.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Ms. Truppe, you have the floor.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I move that we go in camera now.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Ms. Truppe moves that the meeting continue in camera.

(Motion agreed to)

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

As it seems everyone is ready, we will resume our public meeting.

Our apologies. These things happen from time to time.

I would like to welcome representatives from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Mr. Ross MacLeod, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance Planning and Policy Sector, and Martine Glandon, Manager, Values and Ethics.

Madam clerk was mentioning earlier that if we find we do not have enough time with Treasury Board, we still have some dates available in the context of our study. If the committee agrees, we could then do a follow-up if needed.

Without further ado, you may proceed. You have 10 minutes. There will then be a question period which may be a bit shorter than usual. We will however make good use of it.

[Ross MacLeod, Assistant Deputy Minister, Governance Planning and Policy Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We're very pleased to be here today to help the committee with this important study.

Harassment in the workplace is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, regardless of its source. We know that it's important for the federal public service to maintain a productive, healthy, and respectful workplace where positive working relationships and practices are promoted. Indeed, the core values and ethics of the public sector explicitly include treating each other with respect and fairness.

Unfortunately, we know that harassment does still occur, and we have taken steps to prevent and respond to these situations by developing a policy on harassment prevention and resolution, a directive on the harassment complaint process, and several guides for departments, as well as by delivering awareness information sessions and training programs. We also offer formal and informal mechanisms to raise issues related to harassment.

Success in the practice of these values will foster a safe and healthy workplace, free from harassment. When allowed to persist, harassment has adverse effects on the mental health and engagement of employees and on the quality of their work.

In a complex and demanding work environment that brings together diverse people, and in which collaboration is essential to success, misunderstandings and interpersonal conflicts are inevitable. The organizational culture influences how colleagues interact with one another and must therefore promote awareness of practices such as good communication and effective interpersonal skills. The ongoing effort to demonstrate respect is everyone's personal responsibility.

The Canadian Human Rights Act provides that every person in the workplace has a right to freedom from harassment based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted. These are referred to as prohibited grounds of discrimination. In addition, the act deems sexual harassment to be harassment on a prohibited ground.

The Canadian government has been a leader on policies dealing with harassment in the workplace, being the first employer to introduce a formal policy in 1982. Since 1982, the policy has been revised three times. On October 1, 2012, a renewed policy and a new directive were introduced. The new policy instruments give deputy heads the flexibility to tailor harassment prevention and resolution mechanisms and practices to their operational needs. The new policy instruments emphasize the need for organizations to restore the workplace following an allegation of harassment. They encourage greater use of informal resolution processes and put greater emphasis on the need for organizations to undertake preventive activities and achieve results in a manner that is both respectful to employees and supportive of a more collaborative approach between deputy heads, employees and bargaining agents on harassment prevention and resolution.

The renewed policy and directive continue to reflect the responsibility of deputy heads for establishing and maintaining a respectful and harassment-free workplace, for promptly resolving related complaints, and for monitoring complaints within their organizations.

Harassment prevention is tied to one of the public sector values, respect for people. The new Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, which is a condition of employment, was introduced in April 2012, and it provides an opportunity for managers to reinforce the value of respectful relationships. And this is all the more important in times of downsizing. The Treasury Board Secretariat, through the development of its communication tools and dialogues with organizations, encourages a systemic approach which educates and incents respectful behaviour for all employees, in addition to providing awareness training on harassment.

The new Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector presents an opportunity for promotion of respect and development of related skills, mainly empathic listening, difficult conversations, emotional intelligence, and so forth, for all employees and especially managers.

The Treasury Board policy applies to the core public administration. The policy on harassment prevention and resolution includes sexual harassment as part of its definition of harassment.

Federal public servants have several mechanisms for making an allegation of sexual harassment. Formal mechanisms include filing a complaint of harassment in accordance with the policy on harassment prevention and resolution, filing a grievance, or filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Informal mechanisms include discussions with an informal conflict resolution practitioner or with an employee assistance program counsellor.

Through the Treasury Board Secretariat website, several guides and tools are available to public servants, i.e., managers, employees, and persons responsible for the harassment complaint process in the field of harassment. Several courses are available through the joint learning program and through the Canada School of Public Service.

In addition to the Treasury Board policy on harassment prevention and resolution, some departments have developed their own internal policies and tools and are offering awareness sessions and training programs on harassment, so they're actually going further than the requirements of the policy.

I'll talk briefly about harassment statistics. In the 2011 public service employee survey, data regarding harassment indicate that public servants continue to signal a high incidence of perceived harassment, in that 29% of the 201,430 respondents believe that they have experienced harassment of some kind in a federal workplace within the last two years. The actual number of formally filed cases compared with the total number of federal government employees is relatively small. The survey results do not differentiate between sexual harassment and harassment of a personal nature.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat collected limited statistics on harassment of all kinds through the management accountability exercise in 2009-10. The 40 largest departments and agencies that participated reported a total of 314 harassment complaints and/or grievances between November 2009 and October 2010. Of the 314 cases, 77 were determined to be founded by the delegated managers of these organizations. The numbers provided through the MAF included harassment grievances and harassment complaints, which follow two different processes. Again, the results do not differentiate between sexual harassment and harassment of a general nature.

Thank you for your attention. We will now be pleased to take your questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to a question and answer session, starting on the government side.

Ms. Truppe, you have seven minutes.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you for being here, and I'm sorry for the interruption earlier. We really wanted to have a full hour with you, so we may have to call you back if we have more questions.

We feel it's very important that all public servants be free to face the challenges of a day's work without harassment or fear of being mistreated by co-workers, managers, or superiors.

One of the questions I have is in regard to the training of a manager. Who determines what training a manager receives for dealing with sexual harassment complaints? I'm sure there are specific guidelines, but how are they trained?

[Ross MacLeod]

The duty to prevent harassment rests with deputy ministers or deputy heads of departments, so at a departmental level they would determine who actually gets trained, and how.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

In a specific department there are new employees coming. Is there one specific person who is looking after making sure that they're informed, or how they're informed, of the policy?

[Ross MacLeod]

Typically, there is a senior official in a department who is responsible for harassment complaints. They frequently, but not always, have the role of a kind of champion in informing people in their department. Other players, such as the heads of HR, may have that responsibility as well. Typically, they would do that through departmental communications, as they would with other HR personnel issues.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Are there specific guidelines with respect to the timeliness of responses to allegations? For example, if somebody reports an allegation of sexual harassment, what's the procedure? How long does something like an investigation take?

[Ross MacLeod]

I'm going to ask my colleague, Madam Glandon, to comment on that. There is a five-step process that's been outlined in the directive. In the previous policy, complaint resolution took a very long time. One of the things we want to do with the new policy is provide a more timely process. When these complaints are unresolved, they become a serious workplace problem for everyone, particularly the person who has been harassed.

Martine, did you want to add something?

[Martine Glandon, Manager, Values and Ethics, Treasury Board Secretariat]

The new directive says normally within 12 months for all the steps. There are five steps that are proposed. We're saying within 12 months generally, but we know that sometimes it takes longer and sometimes it does not take as long.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

What is the process for ensuring that accountability is taking place? Someone makes a report on sexual harassment, and then it may or may not be looked into. Is there a sort of a watchdog for the managers who are responsible for that? How do we ensure that everything is looked at and investigated? Is there a procedure? Is something logged?

[Ross MacLeod]

It's the deputy minister's responsibility to ensure that those systems are in place. One challenge with a policy like this, a policy that cuts across the whole federal government, is the diversity of organizations that are there. The new policies have allowed for some flexibility in designing systems that fit the operational needs of different organizations.

As Martine mentioned, we have an advised timeframe that should be followed. At the same time, there is the five-step process in the new directive. It is up to deputy ministers to ensure that they comply and to ensure that they are managing the information flow that goes with that.

At a higher level, Treasury Board Secretariat has the responsibility to monitor departmental performance on a number of fronts, and that's one of our responsibilities as outlined in the policy.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Okay.

Are employees involved in the development of the policy? What's the biggest difference between the new policy of October 2012 and the previous one? Are employees involved in the process at all?

[Ross MacLeod]

I'll take the process point first, if that's agreeable to the committee.

We went through a very long multi-month process with bargaining agents who were the legal representatives of the employees. We spent several months working with them and consulting on the policy. This was a consultation exercise, not a negotiation, but we did take full and fair account of the comments provided to us by the bargaining agents.

Can you remind me of the other half of your question?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

I'm trying to remember where I was. It was in regard to whether they were involved in the policy, which you answered.

[Ross MacLeod]

Yes, that's correct.