Status of Women Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2012

[Caroline Cyr]

No, it's in an overall context. When we look at our data, if it's under part II, it's how many hazardous occurrences, fatalities, and investigations there are. Under part III, it's how many investigations we do. We then determine which ones are the high-risk industries.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Okay. Thank you for that.

I'm wondering if you have an idea of which sectors or workplaces might be high-risk for sexual harassment.

[Caroline Cyr]

Because we don't collect data specifically about sexual harassment, we're not able to provide you with that information. The data collection we have is specific to what our intervention activities are. If we go into a business or workplace to do an inspection or an investigation, we'll record that. With respect to violence prevention, we don't record the type of violence. We don't keep data on that.

What we can tell you is how many inspections we've done, how many complaints there were for violations under violence prevention. Beyond that, we don't have any breakdown.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

That follows from the presentation from Treasury Board last week. They don't have data on how much sexual harassment occurs in the federal workplace. While a figure of 29% was made for general harassment complaints, there's actually no information on how much of that is sexual harassment.

When we're talking about something as serious as sexual harassment, one would hope that the information would be available at anyone's fingertips. Is HRSDC working at asking that question? Recognition exists for hazardous occurrences. Is there an interest in finding out exactly what kind of harassment takes place in certain workplaces, specifically sexual harassment?

[Caroline Cyr]

Our mandate under both part II and part III is very specific. We keep data that is in line with what we're mandated to do under the legislation. We have data on the number of occurrences where we've been pulled in.

An important point of clarification is that we provide the legislative and regulatory framework, and we provide the education and counselling, but it's up to the employers to ensure that they adhere to the code.

As part of that division of responsibilities, there's nothing in the code that mandates the employers to report to us when there is violence in the workplace or where there are complaints of sexual harassment. That information never comes back to us. So even if we had data, it wouldn't be indicative of the whole universe, because the employers don't have to tell us what's happening in their workplace.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you for that. That seems to be a gap. Certainly our committee's in a position to recommend how we could deal with such gaps.

I want to move to the question of the times we're in, specifically in terms of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

In September, 1,700 more jobs were lost in HRSDC alone across the country. We've talked a lot in this committee about prevailing cultures in the federal workplace and how they might assist in harassment taking place and also in people choosing not to report harassment.

I'm wondering, in the context of job stress and workplace adjustment, if you have a sense of not just sexual harassment but of perhaps greater stress on workers and maybe a sense that they don't want to come forward on any harassment that might be taking place.

[Caroline Cyr]

Unfortunately, as the labour program, we are the regulator. That information falls within the purview of the employers.

You mentioned specifically the public service cuts. Treasury Board Secretariat, as the employer of all public servants, would be in a better position to answer that question. It falls outside the purview of the labour program.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Sure.

How about in terms of applying the kind of work you do with respect to HRSDC employees working on the ground in Service Canada offices? There are potentially some challenging situations, particularly in the times we're in, with respect to the cuts to EI, pension changes, and that kind of thing.

I happen to know people who work for Service Canada. I'm wondering about the kinds of situations they're facing and how, in fact, HRSDC might be responding to perhaps increased stress and the potential for harassment.

[Caroline Cyr]

Right.

Again, even though we are HRSDC, the labour program also regulates HRSDC, the same way it would regulate any other federal department. In that respect, we would take the same role vis-à-vis our own department.

The department is responsible for ensuring that they comply with the elements of the code, which means that they have to have a policy with respect to violence in the workplace. As part of their responsibility, they have to be able to identify any factors that may come into play in increasing the risk of workplace violence. That would be work done by each of the employers, whether that's HRSDC or a trucking company that crosses borders. It's up to the employers to do that. That certainly falls within their roles and responsibilities. Ours is to ensure, when we do inspections, that they have those policies in place, that they're posted, and that the training has taken place, for instance. If we receive complaints, we can make sure that they were indeed in compliance with the elements of the code.

If we receive complaints about sexual harassment, we don't actually—

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Unfortunately, Ms. Cyr, I am going to have to stop you here. Thank you very much.

Ms. James now has the floor and has seven minutes at her disposal.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our guests for being here today.

I listened to your speeches. Part of the speech is in printed form, and I'm going to read from it. It says, “Every employer, after consulting with employees or their representatives, must issue and post a policy on sexual harassment. The policy must contain”—and the first one is—“a definition of sexual harassment”. There's a series of points thereafter.

I'm a little concerned, because the way this is worded seems to imply that employers can actually have different types of policies posted. When I think of the definition of “sexual harassment”, I'm a bit concerned that one definition from one employer may be different from another definition from a different employer.

Is sexual harassment not sexual harassment? That's the first part of the question. Also, who actually monitors the actual policy that's posted to make sure that it is in compliance and that one employer's policy is not way out of line compared to those of other employers that are also monitored or governed by this code?

It's a two-part question. Thank you.

[Caroline Cyr]

We provide a definition of “sexual harassment” under part III of the code. The employer's policy has to be aligned with that. Although there might be some nuances from employer to employer, they have to be aligned with what's in the code. That's the safeguard, if you will, in that respect.

Part two of your question is about how we ensure that they have it and how we ensure that they don't do something other than what they're required to do. Is that a fair summary of what you're asking?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Yes, it is.

[Caroline Cyr]

That's part of the follow-up we do, as I mentioned earlier. We will do a proactive follow-up. It's what we call the inspections. We go into the workplace and ensure that the employers are compliant with the requirements of the code.

We can go into the workplace and look at a variety of things. It doesn't necessarily mean that our visits are targeted only to violence prevention. We might be going there for something else and would look at the violence prevention at the same time.

We have those follow-ups, and we ensure that, indeed, the policy statements and the definitions, all of these things, are aligned with the provisions of the code, either part III for sexual harassment, or violence prevention in part II. If they're not, this is where we play our education and counselling role. We work with employers.

Generally speaking, we are successful through what we call an assurance of voluntary compliance, AVCs, where they voluntarily agree to comply with that. After that agreement, we will do a follow-up, or they will be asked to send us whatever is lacking or whatever needs to be redressed.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. That actually leads to another set of questions, but I want to come back to this policy the employers actually create.

You've indicated that you actually give them some parameters. You provide the definition of “sexual harassment”. That's good, but what would be the variations you would see in certain policies among different employers?

It looks as though the employer needs to consult with employees and their representatives to come up with a tailor-made policy that fits their organization. I'm just wondering, if they have to include all of these different points, what would you see as a variance between one employer and another, and just the Canada Labour Code providing what's required?

[Caroline Cyr]

I can't answer the question right now, because we don't actually have a repository of all of the employers' policies and policy statements. There are almost 10,000 employers, so you can imagine the nightmare this would create for us to keep those, and this is one regulation.

We don't have that information in terms of being able to offer a comparator.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I was just curious to know where you would see the variations, but if you can't answer, that's fine.

Going back to your statement regarding the inspections, and I know that Ms. Truppe asked some questions regarding that, as well, you indicated that you had made 700 inspections.

[Caroline Cyr]

Under part II, yes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You also mentioned that when there's a complaint, you initiate an inspection. Are they random inspections? Are they annual inspections or are they done every two years? Do you hit the 10,000 different organizations? How do you pick and choose?

[Caroline Cyr]

We have this intervention model. This is under part II, occupational health and safety, the violence prevention regulations. We identify which ones are our high-risk industries. We identify those through an analysis of data in terms of which sector, rather than employer-specific, has the most hazardous occurrences or the most fatalities, in that sort of scope. Based on that, we identify the top five sectors and we target our interventions to those sectors.

I don't have all of them, but I could come back to the committee with a written response. We have road transport. We have longshoring. We have rail. I think there are two more. I could—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Is it safe to say that if you were not one of the top five sectors, this particular organization or department would never have an inspection?

[Caroline Cyr]

I don't think that's safe to say. You may not have an inspection this year—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

—or regularly.

You've also mentioned high-risk industries based on different sectors. Why are those sectors, and you named a few, considered high risk with regard to sexual harassment and not necessarily deaths or injuries in the workplace? What would define a high-risk sector?

[Caroline Cyr]

Those sectors are defined as high risk not specifically to sexual harassment. We don't have an identification of high risk based on sexual harassment because we don't collect data on that.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Unfortunately, Ms. Cyr, I am going to have to interrupt you because Ms. James' speaking time has expired.