Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to both our guests from the CBC.
I'm going to go back to the definition of sexual harassment. You've indicated that it has been defined by the Canada Labour Code. I ask this question in many of the committee meetings because it often has to do with interpretation or what one person feels is objectionable, an offence, or humiliation, etc. The paragraphs here state “(a) that is likely to cause offence or humiliation to any employee”; or (b) “that might, on reasonable grounds, be perceived by that employee...."
What's offensive or objectionable to one person may not necessarily be to another person. I know as politicians we are pretty thick-skinned. We have to be, otherwise we wouldn't be here. I'm wondering who, at the end of the day, makes that determination. It states here, "on reasonable grounds". Who within the CBC makes that judgment call? Again, is there any leeway in what may be offensive to one person but the vast majority of others would not think so?