Status of Women Committee on Oct. 25th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Good morning, everyone. If you can please take your seats, we will begin the meeting. It is 8:45 a.m. on the dot.

Welcome to the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Today we are continuing our study on sexual harassment in the federal workplace.

Once more, we have with us the officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat, Mr. Ross MacLeod and Ms. Martine Glandon. Welcome.

You are not going to have 10 minutes today, given that you already used those 10 minutes last time. We are just going to spend one hour on questions and discussions. So it will be even more lively than last time.

We will start with Ms. Truppe. She has seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if it could be any more lively than last week.

Thank you for coming back. We were cut short, so we all have more questions for you. We found your testimony very interesting, and we appreciate your time last week and again this week.

When you were here last time, you talked about the five-step process that deals with sexual harassment complaints. Could you go through the five steps and what happens in them?

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

I'll ask my colleague Martine Glandon to walk us through the five steps.

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

That would be great.

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

The first step is acknowledging receipt of the complaint. We make sure the employee understands that if a complaint on the same issue has been dealt with through another avenue of recourse.... We have to see if it was dealt with elsewhere or if it's receivable.

We mentioned the 12 months last week. We want to make sure the written complaint is made within 12 months of the last incident. There are some criteria that need to be looked at.

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

A written complaint within 12 months of the last—

[Martine Glandon]

Incident or event of alleged harassment.

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

So if the employee had one incident, and you've acknowledged it, then do you need something in writing as well?

[Martine Glandon]

To me, the definition of harassment is a series of evidence. We're saying from the last evidence or the last event, the person has 12 months to go forward and put in a complaint of harassment.

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

Right, if they're thinking about it.

[Martine Glandon]

Exactly.

Also, in step one, the party is made aware of the option of informal conflict resolution. They may go ahead with a formal complaint, but they may also go with either mediation or informal conflict resolution. That's mainly what happens in step one.

Step two is reviewing the complaint. We want to make sure the allegation meets the definition of harassment. There is a definition within the policy instrument that describes harassment. Then the respondent is notified whether the complaint is admissible. That's in step two.

Step three is exploring options. Based on the information provided, you decide if it should be fact-finding, if we should go through an investigation, or if an informal resolution is an option. So you're looking at all the possible options with the party.

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

Sorry. Who's looking at that option? Is the person who was harassed looking at the option or is it the...?

[Martine Glandon]

The person within the department who is responsible—

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

It's the department that decides the option...?

[Martine Glandon]

Well, it's a discussion with the—

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

With the two?

[Martine Glandon]

Yes, and with the complainant as well.

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

Okay.

[Martine Glandon]

Step 4 is rendering a decision and notifying in writing. Once the fact-finding or the informal resolution or the investigation is complete, then they render a decision and the parties are notified in writing of the decision.

Step 5 is restoring of the workplace. Even though restoring of the workplace is in step 5, we see it as something that should be done throughout the whole process. It's about talking to those who may not be directly involved, but who are part of the environment where the parties are working. It's something that managers should address to see if there are any needs, etc., and also, at the end, when the decision has been rendered, it's to make sure that everybody's okay. If there's anything we should be doing within the environment per se, it's done as well.

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

Right, to do something with the environment to assist the person who was harassed. For example, if the result was favourable for the person who was harassed and it was in her immediate environment—if we're talking about a woman—then steps would take place in this step 5 to make sure that whatever the issue was, it's not in the same environment. So if another person was responsible, they'd be moved to another area?Whatever needs to be done?

[Martine Glandon]

Yes, it may be that, but it may also be just other co-workers. There might be an impact on the co-workers. There may be an impact on witnesses. It's everybody, not only the parties involved.

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

Okay. Thank you.

You also mentioned Treasury Board's role as a monitor of departmental performance. How does Treasury Board monitor the performance of departments in regard to their policy on sexual harassment?

[Ross MacLeod]

We have a number of means of monitoring departmental performance. The main one we use is called the management accountability framework, which actually uses things like the public service employee survey, for example, to rate departmental performance in areas such as harassment and fulfillment of various policies. That information is actually used in the determination of deputy ministers' performance pay or pay at risk at the end of the year, so there is quite a lot of attention paid to it by departments.

We also have other possibilities to do follow-ups or audits if we need to in terms of ensuring compliance from departments. There's a framework for compliance that we can use, which has a progressive discipline approach, effectively, if we need to get to the bottom of something we're seeing that's disturbing us.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Ms. Truppe, I am going to have to stop you there. Your time is up. Seven minutes go by quickly.