Status of Women Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

If we may, we will begin the meeting. We have some very busy people with us this morning.

Ms. Sgro, you have the floor.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Chair, before we start with our witnesses, some time ago, I gave notice of a motion to the committee, which I'd like to move now. It reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on the Status of Women undertake an immediate and comprehensive study of the mandate assigned to the Status of Women Canada, and that this study include a focus on strengthening the function of Status of Women Canada as a federal think-tank and problem resolution mechanism, and issues involving Canada's Aboriginal population and the unique challenges faced by new Canadians

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Ms. Sgro has moved a motion.

Ms. Truppe, you have the floor.

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

I would like to move that we go in camera for committee business.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Ms. Truppe is proposing that we sit in camera if we are dealing with committee business.

I would just like to say one thing. We have witnesses with us today who have had to travel and who are very busy. Committee business is scheduled for the end of the meeting. In that case, Ms. Sgro, would you agree to have the motion dealt with at that time, particularly given that our meeting is being televised?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

That's certainly fine with me. The parliamentary secretary did move to go in camera, and there is usually no debate allowed on that issue, but otherwise, that is fine with me.

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

That's fine with us, too.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on sexual harassment in the federal workplace.

Today we will be hearing from House of Commons employees. With us is Audrey O'Brien, who is the Clerk of the House of Commons. Welcome, Ms. O'Brien. We will also be hearing from Kathryn Butler Malette, who is the Chief Human Resources Officer. Good morning, Ms. Malette. We will also be hearing from Sonia L'Heureux, from the Library of Parliament. Good morning, Ms. L'Heureux. And we will also be hearing from Lynn Potter, who is the Director General of Corporate Services.

I would like to thank all of you for accepting our invitation. We will be spending an hour with you. You will have 10 minutes to make your presentation, and then there will be a question period.

We can begin with you, Ms. O'Brien, if that is okay with you.

[Audrey O'Brien, Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons]

That is fine, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

I am here today in my capacity as Clerk of the House of Commons and head of House administration, with my colleague Kathryn Butler Malette, who is the chief human resources officer at the House of Commons and is responsible for managing all of our human resources policies and programs.

I was pleased to receive your invitation to speak on the topic of sexual harassment in the federal workplace, not least of all so that I can clarify the status of employees at the House and perhaps dispel some common misconceptions about how we are set up.

At the outset, it's important to note that there are two types of employees at the House of Commons. The first category includes staff who work for members of Parliament, either in MPs' offices here in Ottawa or in the constituencies, as well as staff who work for house officers, that is to say, the House leaders or the whips, and in the research offices of the various parties.

Secondly, there is the staff of the House of Commons Administration for which I am ultimately responsible as Clerk.

Let's look first at the staff of members and house officers.

Each MP or house officer is the employer of his or her employees. As a result, each member is responsible for monitoring and managing his or her workplace environment. Each party has its own way of operating with regard to staff of caucus members, and usually the whip of the party is responsible for general oversight of these arrangements. Neither I nor the House administration has a role in managing this staff.

Now let's look at the House administration context, that is to say, the permanent staff of the House of Commons who survive from one parliament to another regardless of what party configuration has been elected.

As the Clerk, I am entirely responsible for employees in the House Administration, some 1,800 full-time employees who work in a variety of functions to support the institution. I must make another important distinction: the House of Commons Administration is separate from the federal public service and is not subject to Treasury Board policies.

Our roles and responsibilities as an employer derive from the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. The Board of Internal Economy, chaired by the Speaker, finds its mandate in the Parliament of Canada Act. The board is the governing body of the House, and like any board of directors, sets policies and budgets that broadly determine the terms and conditions of the work environment for the administration.

The Parliament of Canada Act provides that the Clerk is the secretary of the Board of Internal Economy and as such, reporting to the Speaker, has the overall responsibility for carrying out the directives of the board. While we are not subject to the Treasury Board, we follow best practices in public administration. Thus, while we often develop policies similar to those of the Treasury Board, we modify them as required so as to tailor them to respond to the unique needs of the parliamentary environment.

The House Administration works very hard to promote a corporate culture of dignity and respect, where harassment of any kind is not tolerated. Through mandatory information sessions held for all employees regarding workplace conflict, the House Administration educates its employees on what constitutes harassment and what avenues of resolution are available to them.

Should it be the case that there is evidence of harassment, we will intervene through formal and/or informal routes. There exist many possible resolution methods for an employee who feels that he or she was subject to harassment, sexual harassment being only one kind of difficulty that might arise.

First, there is prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace policy for the House administration, which was approved by the Board of Internal Economy in June 2001. Our harassment policy outlines mechanisms for preventing harassment, addressing allegations, and resolving harassment complaints. If an employee chooses to file a complaint under the policy, the complaint is handled through the director of employee relations and human resources services.

Second, all collective agreements at the House administration include provisions that protect employees from harassment. The same applies to the working conditions for unrepresented employees. If a unionized employee chooses to file a grievance under the collective agreement, it follows the normal grievance process.

These two avenues are formal means of resolution, but there's also the option of an informal route that we have found to be very effective. I'm especially proud of the House administration's information conflict management program, which is called Finding Solutions Together, or FST.

In designing the program, we relied heavily on employee input, both from our unionized and unrepresented employees.

If sexual harassment is suspected, it is possible for someone to first seek advice through the Finding Solutions Together program. They can also seek resolution through FST.

Here again, employees retain the option of subsequently filing a formal complaint or grievance if they are not satisfied with the outcome from the FST process, or they can decide not to pursue the matter further, should they accept the resolution through FST.

We've noticed that most issues remotely related to harassment, which I should point out are rare, and sexual harassment rarer, first go through FST. As a result, we have had only one allegation of sexual harassment filed at the House since 2006. The case in question became a form of complaint that, following investigation by an outside expert, was deemed to be unfounded. We are nevertheless careful not to be complacent about the issue, and we are aware of our legal obligations to take action upon being informed of a complaint and to intervene in such cases. The House administration is always looking to improve its policies and processes.

That is why we are aiming to update and streamline our existing harassment policy to ensure that it is in line with current best practices in human resources management. We expect that this new policy will be in place by 2013, and it is currently being reviewed. As we are currently reviewing our policy, we will be very interested in the findings of this Committee's study on the matter.

I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. My colleague, Kathryn, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have in due course.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you very much, Ms. O'Brien.

We will now move on to the testimony of Sonia L'Heureux, from the Library of Parliament.

You have the floor.

[Sonia L'Heureux, Parliamentary Librarian, Library of Parliament]

Merci, madame la présidente.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to appear before you today on behalf of the Library of Parliament related to your study on sexual harassment in the federal workplace.

I am accompanied by Lynn Potter, Director General of Corporate Services. In that capacity, she is responsible for providing leadership in managing Library internal services, including the HR Directorate.

Let me start by saying a little about the governance structure of the Library of Parliament.

The direction and control of the Library of Parliament is vested in the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, assisted, during each session, by a joint committee appointed by the two Houses. Like the House of Commons, the Library is separate from the federal public service and not subject to Treasury Board policies.

Instead, the library is bound by the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, known as PESRA, that governs the terms and conditions of employment of its staff. Our workforce of about 350 employees includes a range of subject matter experts. Our employees, for example, provide reference and analysis service to parliamentarians, their staff, parliamentary committee associations and delegations, and to senior Senate and House of Commons officials. They cover the broad spectrum from economists to lawyers to different scientists and social policy experts, as well as librarians.

Two thirds of our staff are women. Similarly, women represent 60% of the library's management cadre. We are committed to providing a work environment in which all persons are treated with respect and dignity, and where employees are expected to treat others in the same way. Employees are not expected to tolerate offensive behaviour in the course of their work, whether it be in person, over the phone, or any other circumstance. The library is a relatively small organization in which access to management at all levels is relatively easy to achieve. There is less hierarchy and fewer protocols compared with large government departments. As such, senior management at the library has a depth of knowledge and experience with our front-line worker realities and pressures they work under.

When difficulties arise, they are communicated and addressed as quickly as possible in a constructive and collaborative manner. Informal conflict resolution is encouraged and used where possible and appropriate.

Over the course of the past five years, the Library has received four allegations of harassment, three of which were abuse of authority and one was personal harassment. There were no cases identified as sexual harassment.

In March 2011, the library introduced a new policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace, replacing an earlier policy that has been in place since 1993. The new policy is based on the principles of confidentiality, consistency, fairness, timeliness, and prevention. It was developed in relation to other federal public sector models, as well as similar policies in place in the Senate, the House of Commons, and private sector approaches to prevent harassment.

Our new policy incorporates many of the progressive best practice models in place that are grounded on prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace. Our belief is that the best way to address workplace harassment is to prevent it from happening in the first place.

The definition of harassment in our policy includes abuse of authority, bad faith, discrimination, and sexual harassment.

Every employee has a part to play in fostering a respectful workplace. To support the understanding and application of the policy, the Library of Parliament provides mandatory training sessions in order to help employees better understand what constitutes harassment, including sexual harassment, educate staff on the role we each play in ensuring a respectful workplace, and promote how best to prevent or successfully resolve situations involving harassment.

Given the important role managers have in the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace, customized training for managers includes an assessment tool for determining instances of harassment—and if you're interested we can make copies available to you—an overview of examples of best practices for managers, possible scenarios in the workplace, and a quick reference aide-memoire highlighting management responsibility. Union presence in employee training sessions on this policy is also encouraged and will occur during every session with new employees. Also, all of this information is available to our employees through our Intranet site.

Each allegation of harassment is serious and our policy provides for measures to address both the informal and formal resolution of issues. In the informal procedure, early resolution is encouraged and managers must make every effort to resolve the issue between the parties as quickly as possible.

There are various forms of early resolution. Discussions between management and union representatives are encouraged, as are problem resolution mechanisms such as counseling, coaching, facilitation and mediation to help prevent the situation from escalating.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed in October between the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons, library employees now have access to the House's Finding Solutions Together, which provides access to a conflict resolution expert to discuss issues such as conflicts with peers, managers, as well as workplace issues that deal with harassment in any of its forms and stressful situations employees may encounter.

Library collective agreements include an article that recognizes the right of employees to work in an environment free from sexual harassment, and states that sexual harassment and abuse of authority will not be tolerated in the workplace. As such, library employees who believe they have been treated in an improper and offensive manner always retain the right to file a formal harassment complaint.

The complaint is subjected to an internal review. An investigation by an impartial and experienced person from within or outside the library is undertaken as required. The findings and recommendations are reviewed by myself, as the Parliamentary Librarian, to determine any corrective measures or disciplinary actions to be taken.

It is important to note that even if the complaint is unfounded, the Library will undertake to apply resolution initiatives to correct the situation that led to the complaint. Conflict does happen in the workplace. However, employees can expect they will be treated without fear of embarrassment or reprisal whether allegations are founded or not. As formal processes can take a toll on the individuals immediately involved as well as colleagues around them, restorative measures such as counselling or team-building are examples of approaches that may be taken to support the return to a positive work environment.

In September of this year, the library also introduced a new values and ethics code, replacing a former policy on conflict of interest. The code provides a set of guidelines that also support appropriate behaviour and decision-making for all employees at the library. In this sense, the code complements provisions in place under the prevention and resolution of harassment policy.

Again, a similar approach to training and awareness of the code’s provisions is under way with employees across the library.

I am sensitive to the fact that policies alone are not enough. How management approaches problems of conflict in its broadest sense can make the difference between a productive, healthy and respectful workplace and one that is not. I believe that the Library has successfully established positive working relationships and practices that facilitate informal communication and ongoing dialogue. We work to maintain these relationships on an ongoing basis.

In 2011, the library introduced a practice to systematically capture exit interview data from departing employees. There is no indication from this data that employees leave the library due to concern or experience related to harassment. The library received positive scores with regard to the organizational culture, fairness of policies and procedures, and management treatment of employees as fair and respectful.

Our strategic Human Resources Plan now includes the review and tracking of our policies every two years so our practices remain in step with evolving workplace needs and best practices. We also monitor the application of our policies and procedures with union representatives.

In addition to a union–management committee which was referenced earlier, we have a health and safety committee, which is another venue for managers and union representatives to voice concerns on topics of particular interest to our workplace. These measures and opportunities for dialogue, in addition to building awareness through training and use of our electronic portals, reflect our commitment to preventing and addressing instances of harassment in our workplace.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to update you on the Library of Parliament's effort to ensure a workplace free of harassment.

Lynn and I are happy to answer any questions members might have.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you very much.

We will now move on to the question period. I will start with the committee members representing the government party.

Mrs. Truppe, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome our guests. We were looking forward to having you here at this important study, and I have some questions for each of you.

I'd like to start with Madam O'Brien, but perhaps both of you could answer this question.

I read somewhere that the act allows for the expunging of recorded infringement after two years if there are no further offences. My understanding is that if someone facing a harassment charge is found guilty, the record is not only expunged but also all evidence and documents pertaining to the claim are shredded. No one, after two years, would know the person did anything wrong, if he or she were going to another department.

Could you each explain the reasoning for that?

[Audrey O'Brien]

If I understand you correctly, Madam Truppe, you're talking about the Canadian Human Rights Act.

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

I'm not sure where I read it. I'm not sure if it's that act. It had to do with someone’s being charged with sexual harassment and the record being expunged and the information shredded after two years. Maybe that does not apply to your—

[Audrey O'Brien]

No, it doesn't. It may be part of the Treasury Board’s policies on dealing with cases. We don't follow that particular directive.

Perhaps I could have my colleague explain how we deal with it.

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

Perfect. Thank you.

[Kathryn Butler Malette, Chief Human Resources Officer, Human Resources, Corporate Planning and Communications , House of Commons]

In the case of an employee who was found to have been engaged in sexual harassment and who was disciplined, the disciplinary file is one element that we look at and that we retain for a length of time, depending on the disciplinary record of the employee. If the employee is discipline-free for a certain period of time, then you can't rely on that previous event, but it doesn't mean it's taken off the file.

The collective agreements and the working conditions guide us in how information is retained related to disciplinary action.

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

Okay, thank you.

When the person who is the complainant or respondent in a sexual harassment complaint isn't an employee of the House administration, the policy notes that appropriate steps will be taken. I was wondering if you could clarify what steps they would be. For example, I'm thinking of someone who is an employee here and they are found guilty of sexually harassing someone who is not an employee, maybe someone who is a volunteer here or is visiting here. It says appropriate steps would be taken.

Is there some type of guideline for what the appropriate steps would be? This person would end up leaving the House, and they would not be here anymore to continue with their complaint.

[Audrey O'Brien]

As I understood the first part of your question, I think that was referring to a case where you have a House administration employee who is harassed by someone who is not a House administration employee, so it's the reverse.

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

The reverse, yes.

[Audrey O'Brien]

What we would do there depends on who that person is. If, for example, it's someone phoning in for information and becoming abusive, then usually you would deal with that by the person who's answering the phone and subject to that abuse turning the matter over to his or her manager to deal with it, if it's just a citizen, if you will.

If it is, for example, a case where it's maybe a staff member of an MP or a senator who is harassing, then in that case what would happen is that ordinarily it would be brought to my attention. I would bring it to the attention of—let's keep it within the House of Commons—the member in question to say that this had been raised as a concern, so that they at least would be aware of the situation. We would then look into it.

First of all, I have to say this is rare, but when it happens, members are very cooperative and anxious, of course, to get to the bottom of it. Then we take whatever steps are appropriate. It depends on where this harassment has taken place. Is the interaction between that administration employee and the member's employee, keeping that same example, a frequent interaction? In that case there has to be some kind of resolution worked out, because they're going to have to deal with each other on a frequent basis. If it's an infrequent thing or if it's a one-off where you have someone who has just lost their temper and said various intemperate things, then we can work on an apology or something of that sort.

It's really a question of bringing it to the attention of the employer, in the case of the MP, and then working out from the situation in question how best to handle it.

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

Right.

As I understand you, there are different methods depending on the type of harassment, whether it's a phone call, whether it's infrequent or frequent. What about if it was sexual harassment, for example? Would there be charges laid against the employee?

[Audrey O'Brien]

Again, particularly in a highly charged atmosphere as this often gets to be here in a legislative environment, one of the things we are very careful about is that if someone has been upset and has raised concerns, first of all, we want to make sure that it is actually harassment that we're dealing with and not something else. In any event, we take it very seriously.

If there were an allegation of sexual harassment, then again the same basic steps would be taken. If it's somebody who isn't from the administration, I would contact the employer, and the whip of the party might have to be involved as well. I'd ask if it happened on the premises here in the work environment or was it something that happened outside in whatever context.

The other thing about this is that we realize once an allegation is made you can't unring the bell. Very often what happens is people are sufficiently upset and they may not know how to articulate what they're upset about. I think initially it requires listening very carefully to the complaint and the person who is upset.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt you because Mrs. Truppe's time is up. Thank you.

We will now move on to Ms. Ashton. You have seven minutes.