Status of Women Committee on Dec. 6th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

With your permission, we will begin. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 54^th 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.

Our first witness today is Vicky Smallman, National Director of the Women's and Human Rights Department, Canadian Labour Congress.

Welcome, Ms. Smallman. Thank you for accepting our invitation.

Also joining us is Timothy Edwards, President of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers. Welcome.

Let me tell you about our procedure today. You will each have 10 minutes for your opening remarks. I will let you know when you have one minute left. I will do the same for the question period; I will let people know when they have one minute left. Sometimes, that distracts the witnesses; that is why I'd rather say it in advance.

Perhaps we can start with Ms. Smallman, if you don't mind.

You have 10 minutes.

[Vicky Smallman, National Director, Women's and Human Rights Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much

On behalf of the 3.3 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, I'd like to thank you for affording me the opportunity to present our views.

The CLC brings together Canada's national and international unions, along with the provincial and territorial federations of labour and 130 district labour councils, whose members work in virtually all sectors of the Canadian economy, in all occupations, in all parts of Canada.

In preparing for these remarks, I was brought back to the beginnings of my career as an activist when I was a student representative on a university committee developing its first-ever sexual harassment policy. This was in 1987 or so, and the issue of sexual harassment on campuses and in workplaces was gaining prominence. Everybody knew it was a problem, but we struggled to break through the silence that surrounded the issue.

Despite the fact that our rights have been clarified in the courts, that policies at all levels of government have been developed, and that collective agreement language in workplaces across the country has been negotiated, it seems this silence still acts as an effective barrier to true equality and justice, especially in workplaces where the culture still reflects a power imbalance between women and men.

This is not to say that we have not made significant progress. Unions have worked hard to build support within our own membership for strong collective agreement language on workplace harassment, including sexual harassment. Unions have developed training for representatives and educational programs on human rights, women's equality, health and safety, and collective bargaining, which all reinforce the need to prevent harassment and address it quickly when it occurs.

One of the best tools for preventing harassment of any kind is a healthy, inclusive workplace with a commitment to gender equality. Job security, reasonable workloads, and good labour relations all offer a sense of stability and comfort in the workplace. But while it does not completely prevent individuals from harassing others, it might create a climate that allows women to feel safe about coming forward with a complaint.

Workplace culture is important. As you conduct this study, I hope you will consider looking at the culture of federal workplaces and any factors that may create an environment conducive to harassment or that may impede its prevention—that is, that may encourage women to keep silent.

Clear policies, including collective agreement language, are also vital, as is training and support for both employees and managers. Strong union representation is also key, as union representatives can help act as buffers for women and help them navigate the processes. In a healthy workplace, harassment is dealt with quickly, before a grievance is even necessary, and if one is necessary, then timelines and processes become important.

A lot comes down to leadership. There needs to be a swift response to complaints and a willingness to take action when necessary. When leaders make a clear effort to prevent harassment and deal with it when it occurs, women may be more likely to come forward when they feel they have been harassed. This means employers need to be sensitive to discrimination in all forms. Leaders need to see harassment and discrimination as organizational issues, not as isolated cases that have to do with conflicts between individuals. Conversely, if a leader is perceived to want to avoid conflict or is dismissive when problems of any kind arise, women are likely to remain silent.

Women may be silent for other reasons. When one sees some of the more prominent cases, where women have waited years for justice or have been pushed out of workplaces, labelled as troublemakers, refused promotion, or ostracized on the job, it becomes difficult to see the benefits of saying something.

Sandy Welsh, a professor at the University of Toronto, did a study of Canadian Human Rights Commission complaints between 1978 and 1995. I don't know if you've already heard about this study. She found that most women who filed complaints lost jobs, became ill, or were demoted. Only 28% of the women who filed complaints were still working for their employer. There is a cost to coming forward.

But there's a cost to remaining silent as well, and the costs hit both employers and workers. We know that harassment can lead to absenteeism and a lack of focus at work. It compounds other workplace stresses. It has an impact on performance and productivity. Women may withdraw from co-workers. They may become depressed or anxious, abuse drugs or alcohol, or end up on stress leave or sick leave. We know that some cases of harassment may escalate and become violent and even fatal.

By breaking the silence, women have made the gains they have. Within the union movement, we recognize that harassment is a serious problem that undermines basic union principles of solidarity and human rights. We also recognize that sexual harassment, as one aspect of violence against women, is a symptom of a much greater problem: the inequality between women and men in our society.

In 1993, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, which states:

[Recognizing that] violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between women and men, which have led to the domination over and the discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women....

While this study examines the issue of sexual harassment in federal workplaces specifically, I think it's important to make the link between this issue and the broader need for the federal government to take action to end gender-based violence, especially today, which is the day we remember the lives of 14 young women who were brutally murdered at École Polytechnique in Montreal.

We remember, and we commit to taking action. This morning, the Canadian Labour Congress joins women's groups, service providers, and others in calling for action in three ways: a national action plan to end violence against women; a national inquiry into the deaths and disappearances of indigenous women in Canada; and leadership at the upcoming meetings of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, which this year focuses on the issue of violence.

I'd like to close with a couple of words on the first of these actions, which is a national action plan.

I think we can all agree that violence against women is a powerful barrier to women's equality and a violation of women's human rights. It is a complex, systemic problem that requires a comprehensive approach to developing solutions. The UN has called on all countries to have national action plans on violence against women by 2015. The national action plan is a blueprint for change, which needs to include action at every level of government—in workplaces, schools, local and cultural communities, and even in individual relationships and behaviours.

Canada's federal government should initiate a process to develop a plan involving territorial, provincial, and aboriginal governments, as well as civil society, service providers, and survivors of gender-based violence. Canada's national action plan needs to include legislation, as well as specific resources and strategies for those most vulnerable to violence. Those are aboriginal women, immigrant women, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered women, women with disabilities, and young women. Canada's plan must also provide sufficient resources for these strategies to be implemented, including support for research to measure progress.

It's this issue of research that pertains to what you're talking about in this study. The last source of decent data that we have on sexual harassment in the workplace is the 1993 “Violence Against Women Survey”. We're coming up to the 20th anniversary of this survey, so perhaps it would be a good time to recommend that we launch a new survey. This survey could be part of the process of developing a national action plan—a real national action plan on violence against women.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you.

We will now go to Mr. Edwards.

You have 10 minutes.

[Timothy Edwards, President, Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Tim Edwards. I am the President of the Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers.

The Professional Association of Foreign Services Officers, PAFSO, is the bargaining agent for Canada's non-executive diplomats, representing nearly 1,400 employees working mainly in Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and the Canada Border Services Agency. Of our membership, 53% are men and 47% women.

I will note at the outset that PAFSO does not have specific recommendations to suggest respecting the Treasury Board’s policy on harassment prevention and resolution of October 2012, or on harassment complaint and reporting mechanisms within the public service. I do, however, have several points to make concerning sexual harassment in the federal workplace and related topics falling within this committee’s mandate.

In the fall of 2012, PAFSO conducted a comprehensive survey to assess our members' demographic make-up, their conditions of work, and the personal impacts of life in the foreign service. More than half of our members completed the survey, providing a very reliable statistical baseline.

Almost one-third—32%—of all respondents indicated that they had been the target of verbal, physical, or sexual harassment or other abusive behaviour in the workplace, either at headquarters in Ottawa or while posted abroad. The percentage who said they had witnessed such behaviour stood at 45%.

While the survey structure does not allow for a breakdown by gender, established statistical trends in the public service workplace suggest that it is fair to assume that women responded in the affirmative at a significantly higher rate than men.

Despite statutory whistle-blower protections, it is often difficult for women to report such incidents, given concerns over the potential impact on one’s career advancement or one’s ability to secure a desirable assignment in the future. Unlike other public servants, members of the foreign service do not “own” their positions; rather, we are appointed to a level in the FS group and then assigned into positions temporarily, according to departmental needs, and we must compete for a new assignment every two to four years.

Since these are assignments and not appointments in the traditional sense of the word, they are not subject to the usual transparency and fairness requirements of conventional staffing. As a result, one’s nebulous so-called “corridor reputation” becomes a hugely important criterion for selection for each assignment. You can see in what way there would be significant structural disincentives to coming forward if you have been harassed.

Even if one decides to seek recourse, this can be challenging for foreign service officers posted abroad, as they are isolated from both their traditional support network of family and friends as well as those managing the complaint, with potentially fewer witnesses to corroborate their story. Such discomfort is heightened at small or mid-sized missions, where a smaller staff complement—as few as two or three, and all the way up to, say, fifteen or so—operates under very close working conditions in which one is not easily moved to another work unit or work location. And this is to say nothing of when one's supervisor is the assailant.

Beyond harassment, service abroad carries additional unique challenges. The demands of the job often put female foreign service officers in harm’s way. Among respondents who had served overseas, almost 50% had experienced a terrorist attack in the city or region where they were based; 48% had experienced a natural disaster; 64% had been exposed to civil disobedience; 41% to armed conflict; and 35% to an epidemic or a pandemic.

Assessing the impact of recent federal budget cuts, 36% of respondents reported a decrease in their family’s quality of life abroad, and 52% reported an increase in family stress levels at post. Given the continuing preponderance of women as the lead caregivers in family relationships, including within Canada’s diplomatic corps, it is safe to say that these impacts are disproportionately felt and absorbed by female officers. Indeed, anecdotal comments that accompanied our survey responses specifically flagged the quality and cost overseas of housing, educational facilities, child care, and medical treatment.

Women often face different challenges from their male counterparts during posting. This is especially true in societies where religious or cultural values are not compatible with Canadian norms of gender equality, such as in strict Buddhist or Islamic countries. One female officer put it this way:

Being a female diplomat in the Middle East often exposes me to situations where I am the only woman in a given environment. It can be difficult being the object of constant scrutiny, curiosity, and sometimes overt harassment, especially as there is no escape from it. I have required a male companion in many situations that were too uncomfortable, and possibly dangerous, without one. In practical terms, my workplace is fundamentally different than it would be [for any other federal public servant] and I have accepted those risks and inconveniences. However, over the course of years, the reality of the scrutiny and the constant spectre of harassment can contribute to professional and personal burnout.

Another female officer had this to say:

In Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks are active in politics and national [life]. During the peace process, this required interaction with religious leaders in promoting Canada's values and priorities. But their strict rules of no contact with women—they will not even shake hands or accept a business card if there is a risk of touching—meant that I was at a disadvantage as a female diplomat in that I was often seated further away than my male counterparts. For example, a male Australian officer was seated next to the host of an important event while I was seated among lower-level staff despite my equal diplomatic rank. It limited my ability to interact with key players.

Female officers also experience unwanted physical attention and harassment in certain countries where machismo is valued more than sensitivity. This is particularly infuriating where the sources of harassment are local work contacts outside the mission, for example, your counterparts in local government ministries in the countries where we are assigned, or fellow diplomats from partner countries. Yet short of being recalled at great expense in the middle of your assignment, your position demands that you continue working with them week in, week out, without any option for recourse, redress, or resolution. The fact that alcohol is usually served at functions where Canadian diplomats conduct advocacy and networking activities on behalf of the government does not help matters.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have attempted to provide a snapshot of challenges faced by members of the foreign service that are unique within the federal public service as they relate to sexual harassment and, more generally, our conditions of work abroad in the service of Canada and Canadians.

I would be pleased to answer any questions or help the committee obtain any additional information you may require.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you very much.

We will now proceed to the first round of questions.

Ms. Truppe, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and my thanks to our guests for coming today.

Tim, I need a bit more information on what your role is. I guess I'm not clear. What is your role if someone is sexually harassed? What is the series of steps that occurs? What do you do? How do you help them?

[Timothy Edwards]

The union, PAFSO, would get involved only if it resulted in legal action, if there were a very significant grievance filed. You're probably aware that in the federal public service, for years now, there has been this so-called informal conflict management system. Many harassment complaints, as I understand it, are first attempted to be dealt with through that mechanism before they get to the point of a formal grievance.

PAFSO provides a largely supportive role. We ensure that our members, should they decide to pursue legal recourse, have access to legal counsel. But the mechanisms that are in place allow unions to simply have an advisory or supportive capacity. We are not the ones who lead any action or pursuit of redress.

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

You don't negotiate with the employer on behalf of the employees or get involved in that way.

[Timothy Edwards]

Not in individual harassment cases, but on salaries, conditions of work, hours worked overtime, and all the rest of it, yes, we do negotiate.

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

But when it comes to harassment, you don't do any of that. You would provide legal assistance or perhaps advice on what route a person might take.

[Timothy Edwards]

That's correct.

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

Vicky, I have the same question. What do you do to assist a member of your union if there is a sexual harassment grievance? At what point are you involved?

[Vicky Smallman]

The CLC doesn't represent individual members. We're a federation of unions. Each union, and each local in each union, may have a different approach, depending on the workplace, the language that has been negotiated, and so on.

I think, though, on the whole, the desire is, in any workplace conflict, to try to resolve it first informally. If that's not possible, you go to a formal grievance procedure, according to whatever is negotiated in your collective agreement. There may be additional policies at the workplace that need to be followed as well.

The union can have a couple of different roles. Sometimes we have member-to-member conflicts, in which case we have the dual duty of making sure that one member who is the complainant has access to justice and is feeling safe in the workplace, and so on. For the other member, the process ensures that due diligence is followed. We have a duty to have fair representation for all of our members, and our commitment is to make sure that the processes are followed accordingly.

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

How do you balance the conflicting responsibility when they're on an equal level?

[Vicky Smallman]

That's a question I think you might want to ask witnesses who have a more direct.... I cannot speak for individual unions and how they operate.

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

The unions all do their own thing.

[Vicky Smallman]

Yes. The CLC handles things on a policy level. Each union has its own culture, for example, and its own processes, and so on. There may be different shop stewards who might work with different members and so on. It really depends. It's up to the local leadership to determine what to do in a specific situation.

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

That's interesting. The CLC develops policy, but not for all the unions. You develop policy for other things, but the unions are able to develop their own policies as to what best suits their area or their members.

[Vicky Smallman]

The labour movement is a democratic movement. It's sort of a bottom-up type of thing. We don't develop policies in isolation. We develop them with our membership, our affiliates. They, in turn, develop their own policies with their own membership through democratic processes that exist within the unions. It's a very decentralized structure.

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

Okay.

The retention and disposal standard for documents governed by the Privacy Act and prescribed by the Treasury Board states that in matters dealing with complaints of personal harassment, where there has not been a secondary incident within the space of two years, all documents relating to the incident, including any letters outlining disciplinary action, are shredded. Essentially, if there are no other complaints against you after two years, the documents relating to harassment are shredded. It doesn't follow you from area to area. So if you move from one area to another area three years later, no one knows that you were maybe investigated or charged with sexual harassment.

Do you think two years is an appropriate amount of time to keep on file information related to an employee's offence? I'd like to ask both of you for your opinion. Do you think it should be more? Do you think it should ever be shredded?

I can start with you, Vicky.

[Vicky Smallman]

I don't know if I can really answer that. I'd really have to look at the whole policy and see.

I think, ultimately, resolving sexual harassment as a problem in the workplace is not really about crime and punishment. It's about trying to create healthy workplaces, where justice and equality are values. I don't know if labelling somebody a harasser is necessarily going to help resolve the broader issue. I would say that I can't really comment on the specific policy.

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

Thank you.

Tim, do you have a comment on that one?

[Timothy Edwards]

Yes. My only comment on this would be that in a rotational workplace, like the one foreign service officers experience, there would probably be merit in extending that period a little bit longer. Institutional memory does tend to die fairly quickly and fairly hard, unfortunately, within our departments, especially for positions that are filled by rotational officers. So extending that period would, I suppose, enable that record to be on file a little bit longer so that the memory isn't lost.

However, I spoke earlier about corridor reputation, and of course that swings both ways. In my discussions with some of my female colleagues, they have confirmed to me that there is always an informal, unwritten list of individuals circulating. I'm sure it's the same in any workplace, but it's particularly important in the foreign service, where you're changing jobs every two to three years. You may suddenly end up in a position and you were not warned or did not have information on the manager, the colleague, the co-worker, or the subordinate that would have helped you make a more informed decision so that you weren't putting yourself in an uncomfortable situation.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Mr. Edwards, I will unfortunately have to stop you there.

We will now go to the other side.

Ms. Freeman, you have seven minutes.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much. I'm glad to be here again.

I'm going to start with Vicky. What amount of resources does the CLC dedicate to combatting harassment, and particularly sexual harassment in the workplace? What types of resources do you provide?