Human Resources committee  You're right to suggest equal voices of multipartisan organizations. We've undergone a process to gather input from diverse perspectives in terms of the experience. Not everyone will believe that the process is independent, even if it is perfectly executed, because there is that perception that the Ministry of Labour—if asked to make an investigation—is in fact a political entity, and that there might be considerations about whether or not an investigation occurred or did not occur because it fell into the hands of the Ministry of Labour.

Human Resources committee  Because our expectation of the House of Commons is that it models the 21st century workplace, it's really important that staff who have been harassed, or who have had a highly negative experience through harassment or workplace violence, have access to better supports than they currently do.

Human Resources committee  Absolutely. I think one of the reasons people aren't coming forward on Parliament Hill is that they do not believe their alleged experience will be kept confidential. Quite frankly, I think Equal Voice has very serious concerns about the role of the whip in the existing House of Commons policy.

Human Resources committee  I think the purpose of the tip line is to give people an anonymous way to bring forward a complaint that was subsequently investigated through a disciplinary process. Actually, part of our concern at the Edmonton Institution—and again, I'm very limited in terms of my time on this file—is that the disciplinary process was used, in many cases, to investigate, and as a consequence, the normal rigours of a harassment process and investigation were not used.

Human Resources committee  Obviously, we need to be cognizant that the Hill is not a widely unionized environment, so whatever stipulations are in the legislation should be such that non-unionized staff can still avail themselves of a rigorous process. We know that reality as it exists on Parliament Hill.

Human Resources committee  I would also add that I think different legislatures—and we're talking political institutions—have found comfort in defining harassment in terms of what it is and what it isn't, and these are people from very different walks of life with very different partisan backgrounds. Again, I think we're at a stage now culturally where most people around this table, and not just us, would in fact be able to agree on a definition without significant difficulty.

Human Resources committee  Certainly, having visited several over the course of the past couple of years, my experience suggests that the degree of harassment can vary significantly, not that harassment doesn't happen. I would have to point to Edmonton Institution. MP Pam Damoff had the occasion to visit a variety of institutions.

Human Resources committee  I think continuous feedback from parliamentary staff in an anonymized way is super important, and I think we're missing that. We actually don't understand until the complaints come forward, or there are some egregious examples when somebody has left the Hill and decides to say something five years later.

Human Resources committee  A good example might be the public service employee annual survey, which is not perfect, but it is a way of better assessing the day-to-day experience of employees across the public service. I don't see a reason why you wouldn't want to do that with parliamentary staff. Yes, there's more transition in and out, but it would seem to me that, annually, you could conduct a survey of parliamentary staff that assures their anonymity and isn't partisan driven at all, but gathers some insight.

Human Resources committee  I would think, at this point, between six months and a year is the maximum period of time for someone to come forward and see the results of an investigation, and some stipulation of brevity....

Human Resources committee  I think training and mechanisms to ensure independence are so key. People will just not come forward under precarious employment conditions unless they understand there truly is independence and that their employment and commitment to public service are not at risk. From our perspective, we don't have all the solutions, but we know that's fundamental to the success of the bill.

Human Resources committee  Yes, I would concur. I think it's crucial. We look at sexual harassment policies—not legislation, but policies—across the country pertaining to legislative environments. There are very clear definitions of what sexual harassment is and what it is not. I think they are very instructive, especially in environments where, in fact, there are some difficulties sometimes for individual women.

Human Resources committee  First of all, leading out, I think they have to be profoundly detached from the vested interest of the employer to protect the reputation of the workplace. I think that's what we've seen on Parliament Hill and off. It's great to have the legislation addressing the appointment of a competent person through the Ministry of Labour, but I'm not sure, given our understanding of the bill, that it does divorce small-p or big-P politics from the process, as much as I think that is the intention.

Human Resources committee  In the context of the parliamentary environment, because we don't have staff unionized across the board, we have to ensure that the provisions available to non-unionized staff are as rigorous as those provided by a union, because you have extreme variation on the Hill. It's important that the legislation recognize the different degrees of representation that are available, because of the very diverse situations on the Hill.

Human Resources committee  Thank you, Bethany. I, in fact, wear two hats today. One is as an occasional policy adviser with the Union of Safety and Justice Employees, and the other is as the executive director of Equal Voice, where I will provide some comments. I concur with many of the statements that Bethany and our colleagues have made.