Status of Women Committee on Jan. 29th, 2013

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

I very much want to get over to our Corrections Canada witnesses and just say, wow. You're constantly breaking down barriers for others by working for Corrections Canada, the last place in the world I would ever want to work. I applaud you on behalf of many women by saying that we're equal and we can do the job every bit as well, no questions asked.

I hope we're able to bring you back so that we can hear more about the kinds of challenges you're facing such as in that one particular case, although I suspect there are many. I hope that we can get to some specific areas that are different from others when it comes to some recommendations that I hope will come out of this study. I hope we'll have an opportunity to have you back.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

Ms. Ambler, you have five minutes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It's okay—

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

I am sorry. There was an error on our list.

Ms. James has the floor. You have five minutes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of our guests for being here.

I'm going to direct my question to you, Ms. Chamberlain, because I believe you made some comments with regard to a question asked by my colleague, Ms. O'Neill Gordon. It had to do with the current policy in place and the zero tolerance the policy states.

I believe you said that the problem with the current policy is that it gives the employer the latitude to determine whether a case meets the definition of the current sexual harassment or harassment definition. I usually ask a question related to this, so I'm glad you brought that up, because my questioning in the past has been referred to as the million-dollar question.

Being a politician and having run in multiple elections, I'll say that you can imagine that many of us have suffered comments or harassment in getting here to Ottawa. The way I look at it is that, in some cases, what may offend one person may not necessarily offend another. From discussions we've had with other witnesses, the definition of harassment ties into the fact that the person who is the harasser should know, or ought to have known, that it may offend the other person.

I guess the million-dollar question is this: how would an employer know in that particular case that the harasser should have known or ought to have known, when each of us are individuals and certain things roll off my back and other things really piss me off? I guess that's the million-dollar question with the statement you made. How is the employer supposed to know? At the end of the day, there has to be a judgment call.

[Mary Chamberlain]

It's a good question.

I agree with you. I always say that harassment is in the eye of the person filing the complaint. What is offensive to me should be investigated. If it's determined at the end of the process that it's not harassment in the eyes of the law or the legislation, then provide the rationale for why it isn't.

I recently was involved in three situations at the very same work location under the very same employer. One was a complaint under the employer's policy. Two were grievances. All three were dismissed. In one case, there were 69 allegations against a co-worker, and these same employer representatives dismissed all three sets of allegations saying they did not meet the definition. When we addressed the concern up to the higher command, the response we got was that “you don't have to like the answer but at least you got one”.

If DND is going to promote zero tolerance, then the persons filing the complaint have the right to be given due consideration. In one of the incidents that I identified, a third party actually recommended to the base commander that an impartial investigation be done. The base commander declined the opportunity to do an investigation although it was recommended.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay, thank you.

You mentioned three particular examples. Did any of those examples go further? Did that person file a complaint with a human rights tribunal or any other tribunal? What happened to these particular cases? Did they go higher? Did they not go higher? I just wonder what the outcome was of those particular three examples you just stated.

[Mary Chamberlain]

Two of the three examples are now at the final level of the grievance process. Depending on the outcome at the final level, we'll make a determination as to whether they can go to the PSAC for adjudication. The third one I personally represented, and the member could have filed a discrimination with human rights. I'm still working with him and encouraging him to follow up on that.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I don't know if I have an answer to my million-dollar question, because it is discretionary, I guess, at best, in human nature, and each person can think different things. As I said myself, certain things roll off my back. But I'll continue to ask that question to every witness who comes in.

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

You have one minute.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

We've talked about statistics with respect to employees who have experienced harassment but may not have reported it because they've been afraid. I think someone mentioned that we actually have no statistics on that. Do we have percentages of the number of employees who might fall into that category? Do we have any estimates?

[Andrée Côté, Women's and Human Rights Officer, National Programs Section, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

The data that is available is data collected under the public service employee survey. Unfortunately, the question that is asked in the survey is just an overall question on harassment. It covers sexual harassment, but it can cover harassment on the basis of ethnic origin, religion, disability, and so on. We don't have any specific information. That's why we're recommending that the survey be—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Do we know if the estimates or statistics just on sexual harassment, even though we might not have solid numbers, over time have increased, decreased, or stayed the same?

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

I am sorry, Ms. James, but I have to interrupt you.

[Andrée Côté]

My understanding is there's been a slight increase since the last public service employee survey. We're now at 31% of women reporting harassment. If I remember correctly, it was 29% in the 2009 survey, so there is a slight increase. We are concerned that increase might be the effect of the cuts and the insecurity in the workplace. When women feel—

[The Chair, NDP, Marie-Claude Morin]

I have to interrupt you, Ms. Côté, because Ms. James ran out of time. Thank you.

We will continue with Ms. Ashton. You have five minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Thank you very much.

I definitely support Madam Sgro's proposal to have the corrections union come back to us, because we also feel there are a number of issues there that you raised that are a bit separate from what we're looking at more broadly today. I certainly hope that is looked into.

Turning to PSAC quickly, Mr. Kingston, were you or PSAC ever consulted to shape the new Treasury Board policy?

[Robyn Benson]

Do you mean the harassment policy?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Yes.

[Robyn Benson]

We had consultation, or what Treasury Board would deem to be consultation, not necessarily our interpretation of consultation. We have worked diligently to try to have some of our changes put within it. We were successful at actually keeping a harassment policy.

I think that's an important issue to raise in front of the committee. At one point in time, of course, they wanted to take the harassment policy and put it into the workforce policy. They have a policy suites review taking place right now, which is undermining a lot of the policies that are in place.

I don't know if Mr. Kingston would like to speak more to it.

[Bob Kingston]

When the bargaining agents who were in consultation with Treasury Board brought to Treasury Board's attention that the policy did need to be compliant with the new violence regulation, that's where it started to fall apart. The bargaining agents' sides informed Treasury Board that they could not formally agree to or buy into the new policy as long as it wasn't consistent or compliant with legislation.

That became a major problem. Treasury Board never put anybody at the table who understood that legislation, so it was a problem and still is.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I'm wondering, because the PSAC is bringing up a very key point around a policy that certainly has been presented as being the be-all and end-all to deal with harassment. If you could provide in writing to our committee the pieces, as well as some which you shared earlier, you feel are outstanding or ought to be improved upon, we'd certainly be keen to have those.

[Bob Kingston]

I'd like to make just one point now, because it's also in answer to the million-dollar question that was posed from across the table. The issue is that a person, like the perpetrator, should have known, and it's about trying to get inside their head. When it's dealt with as a health and safety issue, that problem, like many of the other problems, disappears. The health and safety legislation doesn't talk about how the perpetrator should have reasonably known; it just says that it can reasonably be expected to cause harm. It doesn't say that's assigned to any individual.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Well, personally, as a young woman in this work, there's a lot of sexual harassment in our universe, and I think the important point about the eye of the person living through it is the most essential point in dealing with sexual harassment.

Ms. Chamberlain, Mr. Kers, and Ms. Hauck, you brought up some very important cases, both in the RCMP and involving civilians working in Defence. I'm wondering if there are other cases that you have. Obviously, the ones you brought forward were shocking enough, but are there other cases that you feel are examples of both the harassment that exists and the lack of action that's been taken to provide redress?

[Robin Kers]

Speaking for USGE, as you know, all the components have a mandate to represent x departments. My focus and the bulk of my work happens to be with the RCMP, although I represent employees at a number of other departments.

In preparation for this appearance I focused on the very difficult issue of one individual trying to resolve her sexual harassment complaint. That's the case summary of Ms. R. I have copies of a more elaborate summary. If you wish I could leave it with you. And of course there's the case of Donald Ray.

From our perspective what would be important for this committee to take away from the RCMP situation is a crucial realization that all the publicity has been on the plight of female regular members of the RCMP. Because of the nature of the beast, the members that we represent and the fact that we operate under a different act than the RCMP does, our approach has not been public and cannot have been public. I would hazard a guess and say that on a pro rata basis there are probably as many sexual harassment concerns of public servants in the RCMP as there are among regular members of the RCMP.