Status of Women Committee on Oct. 16th, 2012

[Martine Glandon]

It depends on what happens. If they decide to go down the formal conflict resolution road, they can do that as well. It depends on the seriousness of the situation and the incident, really.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sgro, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

To the witnesses, thank you so much for coming and helping us. The reason we're doing this study, as you know, is a result of the complaints and issues raised with many of the women in the RCMP. That's the reason we're actually looking at this. I appreciate the fact that you've reviewed your mandate and your policy and are making changes.

Further to that, these numbers that we're talking about give us great concern. You've done that survey of over 200,000 people, gathered in different categories, and one-third of them speak of harassment. The very issue of sexual harassment is the one that we're very focused on.

One of the suggestions is this. Would it be possible for you to go back and do a survey and be more specific? It is important for us to know. It's a difficult issue for people to complain about. It's difficult for many of the women in the RCMP to go forward and lodge a complaint. They're dealing with their superiors, and that doesn't change in any of our departments here. You said a small number actually came forward and lodged these complaints, granted, but I would suspect they were very concerned about their jobs. People do not come forward lightly.

Have you given consideration to possibly quite soon going forward and trying to do another survey on this whole issue, without it being too complex, to try to narrow it down during the same time we're trying to do this study?

[Ross MacLeod]

I think the timeframe on that will actually be difficult. Surveying the public service is a large undertaking. We are currently on a three-year cycle to do that survey.

However, I would also add that relative to the first part of your question, this policy and the values and ethics code provide for an alternative route for complainants, so that you don't always have to deal with your direct supervisor in dealing with it. Frequently it can come from a supervisor, but not always. In every case with this, with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, there is an alternate route for people to go to, so they can do it safely. What remains is the puzzle that we've had with those employees who feel they can't initiate a process, which is still, in our view, too high.

We're scheduling a survey for 2014, which is unfortunately a couple of years from now. With respect to budgets and the ability to organize ourselves for a survey, we think that's the earliest we'll be able to do it. However, as I indicated on an earlier question, this is an area that we will be looking into for possible additional questions.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Bullying and intimidation is a big issue in a variety of departments. I've heard from some of these people, not only in the RCMP, who are not going to risk their jobs by coming forward. You're saying you're setting up a timeline of 12 months. Unless the case was very severe, that would seem too long to have this hanging, whether it's the deputy minister or whoever or that employee. Why did you allow so much time to deal with this issue, and why do you not set tighter timelines? Often these things can be dealt with in a much shorter time. If someone has 12 months, I'm sure it's going to be shuffled from one desk to another. In the meantime, you have two individuals, maybe more, who have this hanging over their heads.

[Ross MacLeod]

We encourage speedy resolution. Sometimes the issues are very complex around harassment, and for due process they need time to be resolved.

A speedy resolution on some of these things is informal conflict resolution, whereby it can be dealt with quickly in the event that it's based on a misunderstanding rather than intended harassment. There are a number of methods to get there faster. We felt we needed to leave enough time for due process in more serious cases. When someone has been accused of harassment, they have the right to a due and fair process.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

The whole goal here is fairness for everyone, but the employees have a particular issue, and it's much more difficult for them.

What about the managers who aren't covered under your basic policies?

[Ross MacLeod]

All managers in the core public administration are covered by this policy.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Are deputy ministers?

[Ross MacLeod]

Deputy ministers are, yes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

They would be covered under the same policy that you're putting forward now.

[Ross MacLeod]

Yes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

What was the impetus for actually sitting down and reviewing the policy?

[Ross MacLeod]

We are undertaking a large review of the Treasury Board policy suite. It's been under way for about five years now. The idea is to modernize the policies and ensure they are in keeping with deputy head responsibilities.

In 2009 the government decided to rework the responsibilities of deputy ministers on human resources relative to the responsibilities of the Treasury Board. In order to ensure that they had the full responsibility they were supposed to have, we reviewed this policy.

The old policy was inflexible in specific work environments. We thought it would be useful to do this so that deputies could target the specific issues of their work environment that the old policy did not address.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Have you had discussions with the unions and the human rights people in developing your new policy?

[Ross MacLeod]

We consulted widely on this and had a multi-month consultative process regarding the agents. We consulted the federal government heads of HR, the Human Rights Commission, and so on.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

With respect to changing the culture of a particular organization or a department, how frequently do you have sessions at which you encourage openness and understanding? The words are wonderful and they read beautifully and it sounds great, but words are only words. They don't necessarily change things, even though the intention may be there. It's very difficult to change the culture of any organization just by putting it on a piece of paper. It's really a mindset that has to change.

[Ross MacLeod]

That's absolutely correct, and culture change is at the core of this approach. It is pushing culture change down to the level of every single employee.

It can come from anywhere, even from clients. You have dual responsibilities in this. There is the responsibility of the deputy head to provide a safe work environment for employees, but there's also the responsibility of every individual who works in the government to make sure that they comply and that they're part of this culture of prevention.

One of the things we're trying to promote with the new policy in our work with heads of HR and practitioners of anti-harassment is prevention, as opposed to dealing with the situation after the fact.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

I will have to stop you at this point.

This concludes our meeting with representatives from Treasury Board.

I thank you very much for your indulgence. I discussed the matter with Madam clerk and members of the committee. We have some free time on October 25. It is therefore possible that we may call you back and invite you to appear before our committee again, if you are available, of course. From what I gather, the committee wants to know more on the subject. Thank you.

I will now suspend the meeting for a few moments to allow our next panel of witnesses to come forward.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Good morning. Please sit down. We will continue the meeting.

First I'd like to welcome the people from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, represented today by Mr. David Langtry, Ms. Monette Maillet and Mr. Philippe Dufresne.

We also have with us Mr. Susheel Gupta from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which is examining sexual harassment.

Each organization will have 10 minutes to make a presentation. This will be followed by a period during which members of the committee can put questions to witnesses.

I will therefore give the floor to representatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

[David Langtry, Acting Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner's Office, Canadian Human Rights Commission]

Madam Chair, honourable members,

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to contribute to your study of sexual harassment in Canada's federally-regulated workplaces. I have three main points.

The first is that despite all the work that has been done to eliminate it, sexual harassment persists; second, that while organizations need to be proactive about it, policies alone are not good enough; and finally, that ending harassment depends on cultural change.

Complaints of sexual harassment are more prevalent in hierarchical, male-dominated organizations. An equitable distribution of power within the workplace helps foster the inclusion of women and a workplace culture of respect.

It is only within our lifetimes that Canada has made strides to stamp out sexual harassment in the workplace. When our mothers joined the labour force, years ago, it was a different story.

My mother was 15 years old when she got her first job, driving a gravel truck in Stony Mountain, Manitoba. Like many children who lived through the Great Depression, she worked out of necessity to support her family.

Women joining the labour force at that time were routinely subjected to abuse, and there was little they could do about it. Inappropriate comments and jokes, unwanted touching, and uninvited sexual overtures were a condition of work, part of the price you paid for being a female. It was just part of the job. They often just had to put up with it. It was a matter of survival.

Today every person has the right to live and work free from sexual harassment. This right is protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act, by provincial and territorial human rights laws, and by the Canada Labour Code.

All provide recourse to victims of sexual harassment. Today, you can do something about it. But nobody should have to.

Once an act of sexual harassment has occurred, the damage has been done. Humiliation, stigma, embarrassment, fear, and stress cause emotional pain and suffering. We know emotional suffering to be akin to physical illness in the way it affects an individual. It goes without saying that organizations and society as a whole pay a heavy price in lost productivity. It’s a far, far better thing to prevent harassment from occurring.

Parliament designed the Canadian Human Rights Act as a tool to fight discrimination. The intent of Parliament was to provide equality of opportunity to everyone in Canada. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is responsible for administering the act and promoting equality. We receive discrimination complaints regarding employment and services provided by organizations under federal jurisdiction. This includes the federal public sector, as well as private sector companies involved in industries such as transportation, telecommunications, and banking. The commission screens all the discrimination complaints that it receives. Many are settled through mediation or resolved through a dispute resolution process; in some instances, we refer complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for adjudication. The tribunal operates independently of the commission.

Canada was slow to outlaw sexual harassment in the workplace. In fact, sexual harassment was not recognized as a form of discrimination when Parliament passed the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977. It wasn’t until six years later, in 1983, that it was added as a form of sex discrimination, a definition that was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1989.

In other words, by the time the right to live and work free of sexual harassment was enshrined in law, women of my mother’s generation were already retiring, having spent all of their working lives without the benefit of these protections. What succeeding generations have found, sadly, is that while laws can protect our rights, they are not a shield. Sexual harassment persists in workplaces in Canada today.

In the past five years, the commission has received 332 complaints related to sexual harassment. More than 85% of these complaints were filed by women. When considering this number, it is important to note that the commission usually only deals with the most intractable complaints. Many sexual harassment complaints from workplaces under federal jurisdiction never come to the commission. They are handled through internal dispute resolution processes, internal grievance processes, or by the Public Service Labour Relations Board, which has jurisdiction to apply the Canadian Human Rights Act.

You will never get a complete picture of the problem from the number of complaints that come forward. We at the commission believe in fact that sexual harassment in the workplace is under-reported. Filing a complaint takes courage. In some organizations, there could be fears of stigma or retaliation. For many, complaining is a last resort. It’s often easier just to quit or to remain silent and take it.

As well, there are gaps in our understanding. We simply have no contemporary data on the prevalence of sexual harassment in Canada. In fact, only one major study has ever been conducted in Canada, and that was in 1994. The honourable members are no doubt aware of that study, entitled “Work-related sexual harassment”, which analyzed survey data collected by Statistics Canada in 1993. The study found that close to 400,000 women—6% of employed women—reported experiencing sexual harassment in the preceding 12 months. The same study found that 2.4 million women had experienced work-related sexual harassment in their working lives.

We can’t tell you what has changed in quantitative terms, because we don’t have the data. Clearly, that’s a gap that needs to be filled

Our laws and redress mechanisms may be effective in providing recourse for those who choose to and have the courage to seek it. However, their influence on human behaviour or the internal culture of an organization is limited. In other words, they do not prevent sexual harassment from occurring or reoccurring, so they do little to protect those who, for whatever reason, are unwilling to speak out.

The Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code place the onus on employers to ensure that employees can work free from sexual harassment.

According to the 2008 federal jurisdiction workplace survey, 87% of employees who work under federal jurisdiction work for an organization with a harassment prevention program in place, 77% work for an organization with an appeal process against a decision related to harassment, and 76% work for an organization with a dispute or grievance review process.

The smaller the organizations, the less likely they are to have processes like these in place.

I don't believe it is enough to ensure that victims of sexual harassment have effective recourse. As I said earlier, by the time someone seeks recourse or remedy, the damage is already done. We must find better ways to address the issue before a person's dignity and self-respect suffer injury.

Based on the commission's experience, sexual harassment is more prevalent in hierarchical, male-dominated cultures.

Addressing sexual harassment in federally regulated workplaces requires a fundamental cultural shift within organizations. It requires a far-reaching commitment to respect for human rights, one that extends to all corners of an organization.

The commission believes that an equitable distribution of power within the workplace, with an equitable representation of women in positions of responsibility, fosters respect for human rights, inclusion, and diversity. However, the proportion of women employed in senior management in Canada has remained relatively unchanged over the past two decades, according to the Conference Board of Canada's 2011 report. Men have been two to three times more likely than women to hold senior management positions in both the private and the public sectors.

The latest employment equity figures show that in the federally regulated private sector, women held 42% of the jobs but only 22% of senior management positions. In the federal public service, women held 55% of the jobs but only 45% of senior management positions.

So that's another gap, another piece of the puzzle that needs to be addressed. The fact that close to three decades after sexual harassment was added to the Canadian Human Rights Act we are sitting here...

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to interrupt you, Mr. Langtry. Your allotted time is up. Your testimony was very interesting. You can speak again during the question period.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Gupta of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

You have 10 minutes.

[Susheel Gupta, Vice-Chairperson, Acting Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal]

Thank you.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Chair, would it be possible to obtain the entire presentation?

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Yes, of course.