Status of Women Committee on May 28th, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ladies, I call to order the 80^th meeting of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

We are continuing our study of sexual harassment in the federal workplace.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I raise a point of order.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ms. Sgro, you have the floor.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much, and my apologies to the witness. This will take just two or three minutes, and possibly we could add whatever amount of time this takes onto your time at the end since we have an open hour for the second hour.

I'd like to raise a point of order relating to the motion that I presented to committee at our last meeting. There was considerable confusion when the parliamentary secretary moved to adjourn the debate, and I felt that some clarity on my part would be in order.

I apologize to our witnesses, but this is an issue that I believe is of fundamental importance, that is jeopardizing the impartiality and the thoroughness of this study, and by extension, our responsibilities and constitutional duties as MPs. As a member of the committee and as my party's lead critic for the status of women, my motion would simply invite RCMP Staff Sergeant Caroline O'Farrell to testify before the committee as part of our study on sexual harassment in the federal jurisdiction.

As background for those who may not know, Staff Sergeant Caroline O'Farrell was one of the first women to become part of the musical ride. Unfortunately, on at least 100 occasions following her joining the musical ride, Staff Sergeant O'Farrell was subjected to harassment, assault, and workplace bullying. Many of these attacks were witnessed and even documented and recorded by fellow officers and those within the command structure of the RCMP.

Some of this is noted in the document that I provided to the clerk for circulation today and at our last meeting. The commissioner of the RCMP said that this case unfortunately was old news, and I find that very disappointing and even shocking to think that Canada's top cop would say that about a case involving so many violations. It speaks to the state, unfortunately, of this once great icon of Canadian culture and values.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Madam Sgro, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to make sure I understand what your point of order is about. It's not a point of debate, so I wonder which rule you think has been breached. So if you could just tell me about that, you will be able to continue after. But so far, it's not a point of clarification and you said you wanted to clarify something. So I just—

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes, I'm coming to that particular part of the point of order—

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

I'm looking for it quite soon and then you will be able to continue.

Thank you.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes. When I first raised the issue, the parliamentary secretary immediately moved a motion to adjourn the debate, which placed my motion on the back burner. But I had said that I would raise it again. I think it's particularly important today, given the fact that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure that we were supposed to have today has now been cancelled. So it actually deprives me of the opportunity to address the issues at the subcommittee level, and I have to raise the matter before the full committee now.

Before I move the motion, I wanted to provide the committee members with more information to help the parliamentary secretary and government members see just how serious the issue is. Accordingly, I'd like to provide copies of the Hansard, which I have provided to the clerk, from both July 14 and July 27. This was when the Liberal MP for Hamilton first asked for an independent investigation into the case of Staff Sergeant O'Farrell. So while I expect that my colleagues on the government side will want this matter dealt with in camera, I believe the issue is not simply an issue of committee business, nor is it a matter to be hidden behind closed doors. That's why I'm raising it as a point of order.

I would urge the members to consider this information and to govern their conduct accordingly. This case has lingered for 25 years, but we have a chance today to deal with this. The issue is not what's going on in the civil court. It's about what criminal activity went on then and unfortunately continues to go on today. I believe it is imperative that we, as committee members of the status of women and as parliamentarians, listen to the comments from Staff Sergeant O'Farrell as we do this study. It is important that she have this opportunity. How can we possibly do a study of this importance without having an opportunity to hear from someone who, 25 years ago, tried to get justice and didn't get it done and got it done from no government and has been asking for that to be done. It's not an issue of money. It's not a civil issue. It's about a criminal activity that went on and has never been pursued in a criminal court, which is probably where it should be.

Again, I'm asking that we deal with this issue now that we have this particular time and that we take whatever time we are taking from our current witnesses and add it on at the end of our meeting, since we have an open hour for the second hour.

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

We have a witness....

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Oh, we have one. What happened to our subcommittee?

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

I am going to answer Ms. Sgro's question. She wants to know what happened at the subcommittee.

At the last meeting, we were supposed to have a witness, but she was not able to attend. So we invited her to appear during the second hour of this meeting.

The subcommittee meeting has not been completely canceled, it has just been postponed. We will have it during the first hour of the next meeting, this coming Thursday.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Alright, thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ms. Sgro, I see that you have finished speaking. But I did not hear you make a point of order.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

There's a motion on the floor and I would like us to deal with that motion before we deal with our witnesses.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

You want us to reconsider your motion, and that is your right.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Notwithstanding the decision of the committee on March 5, I would ask that Staff Sergeant Caroline O'Farrell, as my motion indicated last week, be invited to come to the committee.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ms. Sgro's proposal is to reconsider her motion. The clerk informs me that, in order to do that, the committee must vote to resume debate on the motion because the meeting was adjourned. So that is the question that will be debated and voted on. Does the committee agree, yes or no, to resume debate on this motion at this time.

Actually, excuse me, but the clerk informs me that we cannot debate it. So we are going to vote on whether or not to resume debate on Ms. Sgro's motion at this time.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Can I have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Ms. Sgro is asking for a recorded vote. So I will let our clerk conduct the vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Since the motion was not agreed to, we will not resume debate on the motion at this time.

So I will move to the next item on the agenda.

Mrs. Truppe, you asked to speak. I am not sure if you want to raise a point of order, or if you just want to make a comment.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just going to comment on the motion not to have anyone in the judicial system, which we voted before, and suggest that we take the vote. You've already done the vote, so that's good. Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mrs. Truppe.

So we now go back to our agenda. Today, we have five witnesses with us.

Thank you for being part of our meeting today, ladies.

First, from the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, we have Kim Stanton, Legal Director, Ainslie Benedict, a partner with Nelligan O'Brien Payne, LLP, and Alison McEwen.

Thank you for joining us.

Then, by videoconference, we will hear from two representatives of the Law Society of Upper Canada: Josée Bouchard, Equity Advisor, and Ekua Quansah, Associate Counsel, both from the Equity Initiatives Department.

So each group of witnesses will have a maximum of 10 minutes for their opening remarks. When the two groups have finished, we will move to a question-and-answer period.

We will start with the representatives from the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

Ladies, you have 10 minutes in total. The floor is yours.

[Ainslie Benedict, Partner, Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund]

Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. The Women's Legal Education and Action Fund appreciates the opportunity to appear this morning before this committee.

LEAF is a national organization dedicated to promoting substantive equality for women through legal action, research, and public education. LEAF has intervened in over 150 cases on substantive equality since its founding in 1985, and is a leading expert in the inequality and discrimination experienced by Canadian women. Central to LEAF’s commitment to substantive equality is addressing the inequalities suffered by women who experience discrimination on multiple or intersecting grounds, such as poverty, aboriginal identity, disability, race, sexual orientation, and religion.

In the landmark case of Janzen v. Platy Enterprises in 1989, Chief Justice Dickson cited LEAF's factum in the unanimous decision of the court, declaring that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination because it denies women equality of opportunity in employment because of their sex. LEAF has continued to advocate on behalf of women who experience sexual harassment in the workplace.

Harassment on the job is a serious problem for Canadian women, and I know you've been hearing from many witnesses saying this. In the 2011 public service employee survey—I know other witnesses have quoted that survey as well—of the almost 200,000 respondents, 17%, or 33,000 people, indicated they had been a victim of harassment at least once in the previous two years. An additional 12% had experienced harassment at least twice over the course of the previous two years. Only 31% of the respondents felt their department or agency was working hard to create an environment that was free from harassment and trying to prevent it.

Unfortunately, that survey did not track any data for sexual harassment specifically, but LEAF submits, and I know from my experience working in this field, workplace harassment often does involve an element of discrimination based on gender.

Harassment has a serious negative effect on employees who are victims, but it also has an impact on employers. Employees who are harassed can suffer from all sorts of physical and psychological ailments—headaches, all sorts of stress-related difficulties, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and so on—ultimately forcing them to take sick leave, and as we see way too frequently, forcing them to leave the workplace altogether. This, of course, has a financial impact on the individual and can derail a career completely.

For an employer, the impacts are diminished morale throughout the workplace, high staff turnover, and huge loss of time as other employees are drawn into an investigation as witnesses, or simply as something going on in the department.

Current complaint avenues and channels are confusing for an individual. There's no clear place to go. We have legislation. We have the Canadian Human Rights Act that states employees are entitled to a workplace free from harassment. The Canada Labour Code requires employers to have anti-harassment policies in place and to do training. In October of 2012 the new Treasury Board policy on harassment was introduced. This was developed through consultation with all of the public service unions. On paper the policy looks very good. Unfortunately, it is going to have the same problems that have traditionally existed, and I'll describe what those are.

It's the application of the policy that is of concern. The new policy still relies on a person bringing a complaint forward. As this committee has heard, in many workplaces that's a very difficult thing to do. The institutional culture is also known to discourage that. That same lack of willingness or ability to report a complaint exists in many places, not only the notorious ones, however.

No matter how well written a policy may be, if it's triggered by an individual having to complain internally to her direct supervisor, who perhaps himself or herself is involved in the climate of harassment—may have been part of it, may have a relationship, be a friend, whatever, of the person who is being accused of harassment—it's going to be very uncomfortable for the complainant to bring forward a complaint of harassment and expect that it's going to be dealt with in a fair manner.

Even if the internal complaint process is triggered, and if the individual comes forward, there's often a feeling that there's little support or information given during the process about the steps being taken, or even about the outcome.

There are no real remedies at the end of the day, no perfect solutions. The ideal solution right now is that the complaint will be upheld, that some form of discipline will be upheld. What we see, though, is that the harasser frequently remains in the department, leaving the complainant still feeling vulnerable. It's not vindication; it doesn't make life easier for the most part.

We see the pattern again for the complainant—the prior harassment, the ongoing harassment, frequently leads to the health symptoms persisting and the individual leaving the workplace entirely, ending a career. Even where a toxic workplace has been identified, the available processes are still not going to ensure that harassment is addressed. In this way, the inequality is perpetuated.

There currently is one third-party model that an individual can use. It sounds like a solution but it's not. It's the Canadian human rights process. Unfortunately, it's cumbersome, awkward. It's a two-step process. First, a complaint has to go to the commission, but it's hugely understaffed. In 2011, there were two full-time and three part-time commissioners who reviewed 1,914 potential complaints and referred only 129 of them to the tribunal. So the commission acts as a gatekeeper and refers only a very small number of cases.

The commission also looks to see if there's another avenue of recourse for the complainant. If there is, that is where the complainant has to go. So this is not an effective avenue of recourse for individuals in the federal workplace. The tribunal itself is in very bad shape right now. It currently has an acting chair, one full-time member, and seven part-time members. In 2012, the tribunal released only 30 decisions.

How do we improve the system? The biggest difficulty is that the individual has to report within her environment, where there could have been decades of harassment. There needs to be some mechanism that would allow a woman to talk about her complaint; learn what the remedies and possible avenues are, as well as their pitfalls, timing, and possible repercussions; and get reassurance that her career is not going to end by filing a complaint. That really is the impediment right now.

We need a third-party, neutral avenue where complainants can go. I believe the next witness you will be hearing, the Law Society of Upper Canada, will be talking about a new direct-access model that has been developed in the legal area. It's not necessarily applicable here, but it's an interesting concept. It gives a freedom that currently does not exist under even this revamped Treasury Board policy.

[The Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

You still have one minute, Madam Benedict.

[Ainslie Benedict]

I'm just about there, thank you.

One additional point that LEAF would like to make is that, while the federal government for many years has had on paper a commitment to hiring and promoting minorities, and trying to create a workplace that reflects society at large, we are still very far from that goal. There has to be renewed emphasis on not just paying lip service to hiring and promoting minorities, of which women are one, but on trying to do something that ensures that when you look at the workplace it does reflect society, and that we are all working towards the goal of creating a workplace where harassment is not tolerated.

I think I can leave it there. I'm sure there will be questions after we've heard from the law society, following which Ms. Stanton and I will be pleased to take any questions the committee may have.

Thank you.