:
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.
:
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 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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting us to participate in your meeting.
I also want to thank the representatives from the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund for the important information they presented on the impact of sexual harassment, especially on women. I will not repeat their presentation. Actually, I want to add to what they have said.
[English]
I will now switch to English, but I am happy to answer any questions in either French or English.
What I would like to do today is to talk to you a little bit about the Law Society of Upper Canada, what we do and what the equity initiatives department does. I would like to talk to you about a guide that we have developed on preventing harassment, discrimination, and violence in the workplace, and more importantly, talk to you about the model that the Legal Education Action Fund mentioned or referred to, which is our discrimination and harassment counsel, because it's a fairly innovative model. Although it has been in place since 1999, it has actually been quite effective.
The Law Society of Upper Canada is the regulator of the legal profession of both lawyers and paralegals. We have 44,400 lawyers in Ontario and about 5,000 paralegals. The equity initiatives department was set up in 1997, or shortly thereafter, to try to promote equity and diversity in the legal profession. Part of the work we do is to develop model policies for the legal workforce and provide research for the legal workforce, so they can in turn promote equity and diversity.
In January 2012, as part of our mandate, we adopted a guide on preventing harassment, discrimination, and workplace violence. The guide basically provides templates or model policies for the legal profession. Law firms can use the guide and the template policies to adopt their own. We know that they have done so. The guide also provides procedures that could be set up in law firms to address harassment and discrimination.
Now we note that the Treasury Board has adopted a policy and procedures to address sexual harassment, and that is an extremely good first step. Our guide talks about other practices that could be implemented to try to address and prevent harassment in the workplace. For example, we think that the policies should apply not only to all employees but also to behaviour that is directed to employees by customers or clients. Because the responsibility of employers is to ensure that the workplace is respectful, it is important to also deal with behaviour that comes from the outside.
We also emphasize the fact that all supervisors, or anybody with supervisory authority, has a responsibility to address harassment or sexual harassment in the workplace, whether it be informally or formally. We also believe that there should be informal and formal processes in place to address sexual harassment, and those would include, as far as the formal processes go, having access to internal or external investigators or mediators.
We also believe that complainants should be reminded of external avenues of recourse, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I know that LEAF has mentioned the difficulties related to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We do not disagree with LEAF, but we nevertheless think that complainants should be entitled to proceed with their complaints in multiple avenues. An employer's responsibility to address sexual harassment is not lessened by the fact that an employee would go elsewhere to try to address the issue.
It's also good practice to communicate the policies to all employees, but also to make sure that everybody receives an education program on harassment and discrimination.
I want to talk about our discrimination and harassment counsel program. It was set up in 1999, but it has been an extremely effective program for the legal profession. We believe that what is extremely effective with procedures related to sexual harassment is to ensure that complainants have multiple avenues of recourse. Internally you may have advisers who were appointed to provide confidential advice to employees.
In the case of the discrimination and harassment counsel program, it was set up as an independent program to provide advice to members of the public, lawyers, or paralegals who believe they have been subjected to harassment or discrimination by a lawyer or a paralegal.
The program really acts as an ombudsperson type of program. So the DHC, as we refer to the discrimination and harassment counsel, confidentially assists anybody who may have experienced discrimination or harassment by a lawyer or a paralegal. The services are offered free of charge to anybody in Ontario who may have suffered harassment or discrimination by a lawyer or a paralegal.
The program is actually funded by the law society. Its cost is about $150,000 a year, and it operates separately and independently from the law society. So it is really a program that operates at arm's-length, and we do believe that if this weren't the case, the program would not be as effective.
The current DHC is Cynthia Petersen, and she is a very senior lawyer in Ontario, extremely well respected, and well versed in the area of equality and sexual harassment. She is also bilingual and provides services in French and English. We also have two alternate DHCs, Lynn Bevan and David Bennett, who offer the services when Cynthia is unavailable. They work part-time. They basically work from their offices and they invoice the law society on a monthly basis.
What do they do? Usually the discrimination and harassment counsel will identify issues. If someone approaches them, they'll identify issues. They'll clarify the issues with the person who has approached them, and they will provide options, either by filing a complaint with the law society under the rules of professional conduct, or going to the Human Rights Tribunal in the case of Ontario.
The DHC does not investigate complaints. However, the DHC has a mandate or the power to either mediate or resolve issues informally. We find that is one of the roles of the DHC that is particularly successful. A number of issues are dealt with confidentially by the DHC in an informal way. The DHC also provides education programs and assists law firms in developing their own procedures and policies, if required.
In closing, I will provide you with some statistical information we have from the discrimination and harassment counsel. She reports every six months to the law society. She basically reports data and the types of cases she receives. In 2012 she produced a nine-year report of data that ranged between January 2003 and December 2011. During that time she had received about 515 complaints against lawyers, three complaints against articling students, and since 2008—which is when the law society began regulating paralegals—she has received about six complaints against paralegals.
Of these complaints what is interesting is that about half, or more than half, have been made by women. So we know that this service is particularly important to women. About half of the complaints are about sex discrimination, and of the complaints about sex discrimination about half are about sexual harassment.
Sex discrimination is actually the most common complaint that the DHC program receives, and of those complaints about 87% of the sexual harassment or sexual discrimination complaints that she receives are made by women. A number of the complaints that are not made by women—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and a special thanks to the witnesses who have joined us today.
We certainly have done a lot of work in this area and strongly feel that individuals should know that they have a respectful workplace, free of sexual harassment each day as they go to work.
This is directed first to the LEAF. Your organization intervenes in court cases, but you also provide access to educational tools and training for youth, some of which address the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. When Canada Post appeared before us earlier in this study, they noted that after a major awareness campaign, they saw a rise in the number of workplace harassment claims, but not in actual incidents of harassment. This was followed by a gradual and continued decrease in the number of claims.
We learned two things from this example. First, the awareness campaigns can have a major impact on the reporting of sexual harassment in the workplace, and second, pure numbers do not always tell the full story, as higher numbers can indicate a willingness to resolve these issues through existing channels.
Could you comment on the impact of awareness campaigns on the reporting of incidents of harassment in the workplace?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Welcome to all of our witnesses.
To LEAF in particular, it's great to see you again. I have long been a big supporter of the work that you've done in my many years in political office. I have heard from you on different things.
I had been very focused with regard to concerns about the RCMP and the sexual harassment and intimidation that unfortunately are clearly smearing the reputation of an icon in Canada, an organization that we Canadians all admire and respect. We've been trying to work through some issues so that some changes can ultimately be made and so that people who choose that kind of career—and women in particular—can do so without being intimidated and being labelled troublemakers, and so on and so forth.
They have all the policies that you could ask for on paper, as does much of the federal service, but the actual carrying out of many of these complaints to the right bodies does not seem to be happening. It doesn't happen because they don't want to be labelled or transferred out. As for going to the Human Rights Tribunal, that just seems to me to be the wrong place to deal with these kinds of issues, especially in the federal workplace.
Now, in your brief, you talk about a third-party complaint process, which is something that I'm quite interested in. Could you elaborate a bit on how you think that might function in a positive way? What kinds of negative things would come out of this? I can only see positives, but I'm sure there must be some other issues. Can you elaborate a bit on that?
:
LEAF is not proposing a particular model, obviously. We're just identifying the issues that are there. But the positive things that could come out of it would be that the moment you remove that barrier to reporting, which is the “my career is over” barrier.... Many people make a complaint knowing that they're making that decision. They say, “I can't stand this and my health is ruined anyway, so I'm going to finally come clear with this.”
So having a mechanism, a third-party neutral model—not necessarily an adjudicative model but adjudication is usually the end of the line and certainly in formal processes—that can be accessed early, before so much damage has been done to an individual's health and career, that's going to be better. If there is such a process, there will be more awareness generally. There will be education. The climate will change and the climate has to change. The RCMP obviously is a huge example of that. I think that when you're on the front page of the paper over and over again, the climate will change.
I was heartened by the law society's comments in the statistics, if you read the brief, about male lawyers reporting other male lawyers' misconduct. That's in keeping with the comments I was making about the occupational health and safety requirement, where it's everybody's obligation to have a safe and harassment-free workplace. When women become free to speak out, to call people on the harassing behaviour, and when male colleagues are calling other male colleagues on the harassing behaviour, all of that, with some third-party independent place where the women can go in the first place to talk about their issues, is going to elevate the tone of everything. It's not going to allow these poisoned workplaces to go on year after year.
When we're talking about the 25-year history of the individual you were referring to before, that's a lot of people who were aware of the problem and didn't say anything. The more access to talking about it, the more education, and the more everybody is educated that this is not acceptable, that's what is going to change things.
:
Thank you for inviting me to contribute to your study of sexual harassment in Canada's federally regulated workplaces.
I would like to start my testimony by echoing a point raised by a former witness, Mr. David Langtry of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, “You will never get a complete picture of the problem from the number of complaints that come forward.”
Research on reporting of sexual harassment identifies numerous responses to sexual harassment, including avoidance and denial, for example interpreting behaviour as a joke; social coping, for example discussing the behaviour with friends; confrontation negotiation, for example asking the harasser to stop; and finally, advocacy seeking, for example filing a formal report.
Findings indicate that whereas many targets engage in avoidance responses, few ever formally report their experiences. Such passive coping strategies may seem strange, given the negative consequences targets of harassment suffer, for example physical violation, psychological harm, lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and the deterioration of work relationships.
Research suggests that following a harassment incident, targets of sexual harassment juggle competing goals—their desire to end the harassment weighed against such objectives as avoiding reprisal by the harasser and maintaining their reputation and status in the work group. Furthermore, employees who believe their organization has a high tolerance for sexual harassment believe that reporting sexual harassment is risky, that complaints are unlikely to be taken seriously, and that there would be few consequences for perpetrators even if the harassment were reported.
Despite the tendency for targets of harassment to refrain from reporting their harassment, some targets do take formal action. Research indicates that various factors influence whether or not targets of harassment engage in advocacy seeking, such as formal reporting.
With regard to personal factors, targets with higher levels of education, previous experiences of sexual harassment, and lower occupational status, are more likely to engage in advocacy seeking. With regard to the sexually harassing behaviour per se, target reporting was found to be more likely when harassers are supervisors, when there are multiple harassers, and when the type of behaviour is sexual coercion, that is to say, where job conditions are made contingent upon compliance with requests of a sexual nature.
Based on the preceding information, it seems that efforts to end sexual harassment that rely primarily on target reporting are unlikely to be successful because most targets do not report their experiences. Therefore, we must look at alternative sources or methods for dealing with sexual harassment.
One method I have studied is observer intervention. Observers are individuals who see harassment occurring but are not directly involved in the incident. Especially in the case of hostile environment harassment, in which the work climate itself becomes poisoned, there often are individuals present who observe the harassment and who might take action to stop it or prevent future incidents.
In my research, my co-author and I conceptualize ways in which observers of sexual harassment can intervene in terms of a typology that includes two dimensions. One is immediacy of intervention, where observers can respond during the unfolding incident of sexual harassment or after the incident has occurred. Two is level of involvement, where observers can respond in a way that maintains their anonymity or immerses them publicly in the event. Crossing these two dimensions results in four categories of intervention. In the interest of time, I will highlight only a few possible observer interventions.
Potentially useful responses from observers of sexual harassment include telling the harasser to stop the behaviour or reporting the harasser to management, interrupting the incident—for example, by removing the target from the emerging harassment—or simply providing support to the target of harassment after it has occurred.
In addition to developing a typology of observer intervention, we also developed a model of observer intervention in sexual harassment based on previous research on bystander intervention. Before observers intervene, they must first recognize that the situation requires action, determine that it is their responsibility to take some action, determine if they should take action now or later, and determine the level of involvement based on the perceived net costs of involvement.
I was very pleased to learn that observer intervention is encouraged of employees working for your Department of National Defence. According to a previous witness before this committee, Ms. Jacqueline Rigg of the Department of National Defence, the policy and guidelines indicate it’s not even just the responsibility of the person who feels they’re being abused, but it’s also the responsibility of anybody else who observes this type of behaviour. They have a responsibility as well to report, to talk to that person, and to encourage them to report as well.
In my dissertation, I found that observers were most likely to recognize conduct as sexual harassment and to express the intent to intervene when they perceived social consensus that the conduct was sexual harassment and believed that sexual harassment was an ethical issue. This suggests that organizational culture plays an important role in the phenomenon of sexual harassment. In organizations that educate all employees—not just managers—on sexual harassment, there is more likely to be social consensus regarding the types of actions that constitute sexual harassment and employees are more likely to see sexual harassment as an ethical issue rather than a social or personal issue. Studies suggest that organizational policies and actions influence observers’ sense-making processes around sexual harassment. For example, observers—especially men—working in organizations with sexual harassment awareness training are more likely to label sex-related behaviour as sexual harassment than those in organizations without training.
Another former witness for this committee, Mr. Ross MacLeod of the Treasury Board Secretariat noted that from his perspective, culture is the key. He stated that culture underlies respect for people. Lack of respect underlies harassment. If you change the culture and create a respectful work environment, then we’ll see change. That’s very much the theme we’re pursuing in dealing with departments on this issue.
Research on sexual harassment supports his testimony. A meta-analytic review of 41 studies indicates a robust relationship between organizational climate and sexual harassment. In two studies of women in the United States federal court system, results provided support for the co-occurrence of sexual harassment and workplace incivility, in that almost all women who experienced sexual harassment also experienced incivility. These studies highlight that sexual harassment occurs within a broader context of mistreatment and disrespect. Part of this broader context is ambient sexual harassment, which is similar to the concept of second-hand smoke in that members of a target’s work group who are exposed indirectly to sexual harassment experience negative psychological and job-related consequences similar to those experienced by the target of sexual harassment.
This concludes my testimony. Once again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before this committee.
:
Thank you so much for your testimony. It was actually quite brilliant. We've been needing this kind of information, because testimony from previous witnesses has raised a lot of questions, and today I want to thank you for being here and giving us some of those answers.
I think there is a lot of misinformation in this committee regarding what's happened before. Right now we're hearing from the public and from different federal departments—because obviously this study looks at sexual harassment in federal workplaces—that historic cases are now coming forward. We are very glad about that, because we don't want sexual harassment in the federal workplace, so it's good to know about this, but some of these cases stem from 10 or 15 years ago. I think there is some disconnect between what happened 15 years ago and the processes that took place then, and the current situation in the federal government.
I want to make that distinction. I think it's very important for you when we ask our questions, because otherwise things get a little confusing.
I wanted to let you know I'm really impressed by your work and your studies in this area. I wanted to ask you if you feel the federal government is on the right track on this.
Since we've come to government, we have identified, accepted, and determined to address this issue of having zero tolerance in the federal workplace. No person should go to work and feel sexually harassed or have to look at that. I think you stated very clearly that it provides a toxic work environment, which is very discouraging and leads to all kinds of stress and other work risks.
Second, we have to develop and implement policies and standards, and that's where I think as a federal government we're going to zero tolerance. Third, we must determine the outcomes we want. That is where I think some of your work is really important. You talked about mandatory training.
I'm just going to outline some of the steps our government has taken and ask you if you have further suggestions for additional steps we can take, because that's what this study is all about. We would welcome any further submissions you want to make to this committee, because we are taking this issue very seriously.
We have taken several steps. We have developed a Treasury Board policy that will cover all federal departments and crown corporations. Second, we have mandated sexual harassment and respectful workplace training. I think you talked about the importance of that. Third, we have incorporated and included management leadership to change the culture. We've heard from various big giant federal departments at which, when the management gets involved in this, the workplace culture does change. They are leaders and champions within their workplace. Fourth, there are optional methods for reporting. They have now also implemented formal and informal reporting. Some departments have specific sexual harassment advisers and units that deal with these complaints and processes. There are employee assistance programs as well for counselling and different other kinds of support, and of course there are legal supports as well.
In addition to that, I really liked your notion of making this not a personal issue. I think we need to somehow infuse that this is a social or work issue. Obviously the harassers have issues with women or power, and that's something we could perhaps look at a bit more. I really like the notion you mentioned about observers also being responsible for reporting.
We have also implemented penalties for sexual harassment. Notes can go on somebody's personnel file, and we are pushing for actual firings, although the unions are pushing back. They usually support the harasser, so I think that creates a difficult situation in the workplace.
So could we have comments from you on all of the above?
:
Sorry, Madame Mathyssen, this is not a point of order.
Thank you very much for being with us today, Madame Bowes-Sperry. We will let you go.
We are now moving to the last part of our orders of the day, which means committee business. I wanted to explain to the member why I decided to put committee business on the list.
[Translation]
Last week, Ms. Sgro introduced a motion to invite Caroline O'Farrell to appear before us as part of the study we are currently conducting. The government then moved to end debate on the motion, saying that it would be ready to resume debate on the following Tuesday.
Since it is Tuesday today, the committee may resume debate on the motion if it wishes. So now, I am trying to find out whether or not we want to do so.
Is there unanimous consent to resume debate on the motion?