:
That is fine, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
[English]
I am here today in my capacity as Clerk of the House of Commons and head of House administration, with my colleague Kathryn Butler Malette, who is the chief human resources officer at the House of Commons and is responsible for managing all of our human resources policies and programs.
[Translation]
I was pleased to receive your invitation to speak on the topic of sexual harassment in the federal workplace, not least of all so that I can clarify the status of employees at the House and perhaps dispel some common misconceptions about how we are set up.
[English]
At the outset, it's important to note that there are two types of employees at the House of Commons. The first category includes staff who work for members of Parliament, either in MPs' offices here in Ottawa or in the constituencies, as well as staff who work for house officers, that is to say, the House leaders or the whips, and in the research offices of the various parties.
[Translation]
Secondly, there is the staff of the House of Commons Administration for which I am ultimately responsible as Clerk.
[English]
Let's look first at the staff of members and house officers.
Each MP or house officer is the employer of his or her employees. As a result, each member is responsible for monitoring and managing his or her workplace environment. Each party has its own way of operating with regard to staff of caucus members, and usually the whip of the party is responsible for general oversight of these arrangements. Neither I nor the House administration has a role in managing this staff.
Now let's look at the House administration context, that is to say, the permanent staff of the House of Commons who survive from one parliament to another regardless of what party configuration has been elected.
[Translation]
As the Clerk, I am entirely responsible for employees in the House Administration, some 1,800 full-time employees who work in a variety of functions to support the institution. I must make another important distinction: the House of Commons Administration is separate from the federal public service and is not subject to Treasury Board policies.
[English]
Our roles and responsibilities as an employer derive from the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. The Board of Internal Economy, chaired by the Speaker, finds its mandate in the Parliament of Canada Act. The board is the governing body of the House, and like any board of directors, sets policies and budgets that broadly determine the terms and conditions of the work environment for the administration.
The Parliament of Canada Act provides that the Clerk is the secretary of the Board of Internal Economy and as such, reporting to the Speaker, has the overall responsibility for carrying out the directives of the board. While we are not subject to the Treasury Board, we follow best practices in public administration. Thus, while we often develop policies similar to those of the Treasury Board, we modify them as required so as to tailor them to respond to the unique needs of the parliamentary environment.
[Translation]
The House Administration works very hard to promote a corporate culture of dignity and respect, where harassment of any kind is not tolerated. Through mandatory information sessions held for all employees regarding workplace conflict, the House Administration educates its employees on what constitutes harassment and what avenues of resolution are available to them.
[English]
Should it be the case that there is evidence of harassment, we will intervene through formal and/or informal routes. There exist many possible resolution methods for an employee who feels that he or she was subject to harassment, sexual harassment being only one kind of difficulty that might arise.
First, there is prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace policy for the House administration, which was approved by the Board of Internal Economy in June 2001. Our harassment policy outlines mechanisms for preventing harassment, addressing allegations, and resolving harassment complaints. If an employee chooses to file a complaint under the policy, the complaint is handled through the director of employee relations and human resources services.
Second, all collective agreements at the House administration include provisions that protect employees from harassment. The same applies to the working conditions for unrepresented employees. If a unionized employee chooses to file a grievance under the collective agreement, it follows the normal grievance process.
These two avenues are formal means of resolution, but there's also the option of an informal route that we have found to be very effective. I'm especially proud of the House administration's information conflict management program, which is called Finding Solutions Together, or FST.
[Translation]
In designing the program, we relied heavily on employee input, both from our unionized and unrepresented employees.
If sexual harassment is suspected, it is possible for someone to first seek advice through the Finding Solutions Together program. They can also seek resolution through FST.
[English]
Here again, employees retain the option of subsequently filing a formal complaint or grievance if they are not satisfied with the outcome from the FST process, or they can decide not to pursue the matter further, should they accept the resolution through FST.
We've noticed that most issues remotely related to harassment, which I should point out are rare, and sexual harassment rarer, first go through FST. As a result, we have had only one allegation of sexual harassment filed at the House since 2006. The case in question became a form of complaint that, following investigation by an outside expert, was deemed to be unfounded. We are nevertheless careful not to be complacent about the issue, and we are aware of our legal obligations to take action upon being informed of a complaint and to intervene in such cases. The House administration is always looking to improve its policies and processes.
[Translation]
That is why we are aiming to update and streamline our existing harassment policy to ensure that it is in line with current best practices in human resources management. We expect that this new policy will be in place by 2013, and it is currently being reviewed. As we are currently reviewing our policy, we will be very interested in the findings of this Committee's study on the matter.
[English]
I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. My colleague, Kathryn, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have in due course.
:
Merci, madame la présidente. Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to appear before you today on behalf of the Library of Parliament related to your study on sexual harassment in the federal workplace.
[Translation]
I am accompanied by Lynn Potter, Director General of Corporate Services. In that capacity, she is responsible for providing leadership in managing Library internal services, including the HR Directorate.
Let me start by saying a little about the governance structure of the Library of Parliament.
The direction and control of the Library of Parliament is vested in the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons, assisted, during each session, by a joint committee appointed by the two Houses. Like the House of Commons, the Library is separate from the federal public service and not subject to Treasury Board policies.
[English]
Instead, the library is bound by the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, known as PESRA, that governs the terms and conditions of employment of its staff. Our workforce of about 350 employees includes a range of subject matter experts. Our employees, for example, provide reference and analysis service to parliamentarians, their staff, parliamentary committee associations and delegations, and to senior Senate and House of Commons officials. They cover the broad spectrum from economists to lawyers to different scientists and social policy experts, as well as librarians.
Two thirds of our staff are women. Similarly, women represent 60% of the library's management cadre. We are committed to providing a work environment in which all persons are treated with respect and dignity, and where employees are expected to treat others in the same way. Employees are not expected to tolerate offensive behaviour in the course of their work, whether it be in person, over the phone, or any other circumstance. The library is a relatively small organization in which access to management at all levels is relatively easy to achieve. There is less hierarchy and fewer protocols compared with large government departments. As such, senior management at the library has a depth of knowledge and experience with our front-line worker realities and pressures they work under.
[Translation]
When difficulties arise, they are communicated and addressed as quickly as possible in a constructive and collaborative manner. Informal conflict resolution is encouraged and used where possible and appropriate.
Over the course of the past five years, the Library has received four allegations of harassment, three of which were abuse of authority and one was personal harassment. There were no cases identified as sexual harassment.
[English]
In March 2011, the library introduced a new policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace, replacing an earlier policy that has been in place since 1993. The new policy is based on the principles of confidentiality, consistency, fairness, timeliness, and prevention. It was developed in relation to other federal public sector models, as well as similar policies in place in the Senate, the House of Commons, and private sector approaches to prevent harassment.
Our new policy incorporates many of the progressive best practice models in place that are grounded on prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace. Our belief is that the best way to address workplace harassment is to prevent it from happening in the first place.
The definition of harassment in our policy includes abuse of authority, bad faith, discrimination, and sexual harassment.
[Translation]
Every employee has a part to play in fostering a respectful workplace. To support the understanding and application of the policy, the Library of Parliament provides mandatory training sessions in order to help employees better understand what constitutes harassment, including sexual harassment, educate staff on the role we each play in ensuring a respectful workplace, and promote how best to prevent or successfully resolve situations involving harassment.
[English]
Given the important role managers have in the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace, customized training for managers includes an assessment tool for determining instances of harassment—and if you're interested we can make copies available to you—an overview of examples of best practices for managers, possible scenarios in the workplace, and a quick reference aide-memoire highlighting management responsibility. Union presence in employee training sessions on this policy is also encouraged and will occur during every session with new employees. Also, all of this information is available to our employees through our Intranet site.
[Translation]
Each allegation of harassment is serious and our policy provides for measures to address both the informal and formal resolution of issues. In the informal procedure, early resolution is encouraged and managers must make every effort to resolve the issue between the parties as quickly as possible.
There are various forms of early resolution. Discussions between management and union representatives are encouraged, as are problem resolution mechanisms such as counseling, coaching, facilitation and mediation to help prevent the situation from escalating.
[English]
Under a memorandum of understanding signed in October between the Library of Parliament and the House of Commons, library employees now have access to the House's Finding Solutions Together, which provides access to a conflict resolution expert to discuss issues such as conflicts with peers, managers, as well as workplace issues that deal with harassment in any of its forms and stressful situations employees may encounter.
Library collective agreements include an article that recognizes the right of employees to work in an environment free from sexual harassment, and states that sexual harassment and abuse of authority will not be tolerated in the workplace. As such, library employees who believe they have been treated in an improper and offensive manner always retain the right to file a formal harassment complaint.
The complaint is subjected to an internal review. An investigation by an impartial and experienced person from within or outside the library is undertaken as required. The findings and recommendations are reviewed by myself, as the Parliamentary Librarian, to determine any corrective measures or disciplinary actions to be taken.
[Translation]
It is important to note that even if the complaint is unfounded, the Library will undertake to apply resolution initiatives to correct the situation that led to the complaint. Conflict does happen in the workplace. However, employees can expect they will be treated without fear of embarrassment or reprisal whether allegations are founded or not. As formal processes can take a toll on the individuals immediately involved as well as colleagues around them, restorative measures such as counselling or team-building are examples of approaches that may be taken to support the return to a positive work environment.
[English]
In September of this year, the library also introduced a new values and ethics code, replacing a former policy on conflict of interest. The code provides a set of guidelines that also support appropriate behaviour and decision-making for all employees at the library. In this sense, the code complements provisions in place under the prevention and resolution of harassment policy.
Again, a similar approach to training and awareness of the code’s provisions is under way with employees across the library.
[Translation]
I am sensitive to the fact that policies alone are not enough. How management approaches problems of conflict in its broadest sense can make the difference between a productive, healthy and respectful workplace and one that is not. I believe that the Library has successfully established positive working relationships and practices that facilitate informal communication and ongoing dialogue. We work to maintain these relationships on an ongoing basis.
[English]
In 2011, the library introduced a practice to systematically capture exit interview data from departing employees. There is no indication from this data that employees leave the library due to concern or experience related to harassment. The library received positive scores with regard to the organizational culture, fairness of policies and procedures, and management treatment of employees as fair and respectful.
[Translation]
Our strategic Human Resources Plan now includes the review and tracking of our policies every two years so our practices remain in step with evolving workplace needs and best practices. We also monitor the application of our policies and procedures with union representatives.
[English]
In addition to a union–management committee which was referenced earlier, we have a health and safety committee, which is another venue for managers and union representatives to voice concerns on topics of particular interest to our workplace. These measures and opportunities for dialogue, in addition to building awareness through training and use of our electronic portals, reflect our commitment to preventing and addressing instances of harassment in our workplace.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to update you on the Library of Parliament's effort to ensure a workplace free of harassment.
[Translation]
Lynn and I are happy to answer any questions members might have.
:
Good morning. I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us here today.
[English]
One of the interesting recurring themes that has come up in the presentations made by various witnesses has been the importance of culture, both in creating a space where sexual harassment doesn't take place, but also culture in the context of a workplace being prone to sexual harassment.
A couple of our witnesses pointed out that when we're talking about culture and looking at the proportion of women working in a certain space, that is very critical, but also very important is the presence of women in decision-making positions in a workplace.
I'll direct this specific point to you, Ms. O'Brien. I understand that you are the first woman to hold the position that you do, as Clerk of the House of Commons. Clearly, it's a very well-respected position and a position that holds a great deal of clout in this universe.
We know that you worked in this space prior to having that position. I'm wondering if you might be able to share some thoughts about how you see that importance of culture, not just in the context of your position, but does it make a difference to have women in decision-making positions, whether it's in terms of human resources or finance or whatever it might be? In the context of the House of Commons, is it important to have women in those kinds of decision-making positions? What kind of workplace culture might that create, perhaps compared to a workplace culture that existed some years ago, for example?
:
Through you, Madam Chairman, thank you to Ms. Ashton.
Yes, I am privileged to be the first woman Clerk of the House of Commons. I was very pleased to accept that appointment. I'm the perfect person to ask this question of because I have been around for so long. I first started at the House in the mid-seventies. I will spare you a step-by-step journey through my career.
One of the things that has really struck me is how much the workplace has changed in the last 15 years. In the mid-seventies when I first came here, it really was very much antediluvian. It wasn't as if I was coming from a particularly progressive workplace. but it was very much a kind of feudal situation that existed at the House. That of course was before Madam Sauvé and the changes in administration and so forth that took place later on. In fact I left the House. I was here for about 18 months and then I left. I came back in 1980 to find the place really much changed.
Certainly since 1980, which I realize is in the mists of time for many people, there has been very dramatic change in the way the culture operates. Within the last 15 years, I think the changes we see in society generally have certainly permeated the culture here. I was really very touched and truthfully surprised at how many women working here came up to me after I was appointed as Clerk to say how happy they were to see a woman in that position. I had thought that it had largely gone unnoticed to tell you the truth. I was thrilled. One of the things that concerns me is the number of table officers, which at one time had been 50% women, has now diminished so that there are more men than women. That was through people moving on and so forth, but I think it's very important that we keep an eye on that.
It does make a difference, not because women are the repository of all good, but I think if people recognize themselves in the management cadre, right away you have a greater likelihood that they are more inclined to trust. Then it's up to us to prove worthy of that trust. It has made a great difference.
Certainly the greater number of women who were elected in the last election has made a great deal of difference. One of the things we strive for, for instance, even in the page program, is to have an even number of boys and girls. I say boys and girls; they would be appalled at my ageism. They're young men and young women. Actually it's young men who are proving to be more elusive at this rate, but I do think it is important.
The culture is much more tolerant than it was. One of the things that I have found is.... A friend of mine once gave me this little adage as I was ranting about something or other, that you should never attribute to malice what you can explain by stupidity.
One of the things that happens in a lot of cases and one of the reasons I think our informal conflict resolution process works well is that if you can get conflicts at a point before they have hardened into positions and everybody has a stake in winning, you have a much better likelihood of people coming to a resolution.
That said, it doesn't take away the fact that you have to have absolutely no tolerance for harassment in any form. Once that is understood, I think you find behaviours changing. I am very proud of the workforce that we have. One of the things, as Sonia was mentioning about the library, is that we are bigger than the library at the House of Commons, but I think that because we are close enough to the front lines, everybody sort of knows what's going on so that we really keep a close eye on things.
:
Finding Solutions Together is a very active program that came out of the idea of the integrated conflict management system that exists in the federal public service. We took it and made it into something homegrown here at the House of Commons.
It's very much aligned to our policy of absolutely zero tolerance for harassment in the workplace. There is no tolerance whatsoever. Any issues that arise—and I can't say there are many at all—are thoroughly looked into, because an allegation of harassment is often a perception of the person. You can't just dismiss it; you have to examine what that perception is.
When Finding Solutions Together got under way, in both instances we hired a labour lawyer with many years of experience in labour relations to run the program. A big part of the program, which you asked about in your question, is training. We, like the library, have obligatory training for our managers, for our employees, for unions. Everybody goes through that training, all shifts. Each year we have almost a blast of training of staff, and new staff are trained as well. They learn about the components of the policy. They understand what harassment means and what perception means and how managers need to be alert to the signs and the comments and the complaints of staff, to take action right away.
Our coordinator in Finding Solutions Together has tremendous experience and deals with a lot of issues, conflict issues mostly. Conflict is a normal thing in a workplace; it's a normal thing in life. She deals with a lot of those issues, often involving the union, if the employee is in agreement, to see whether they can work out a solution.
The statistics we keep are related to whether we think a number of grievances are affected in a good way and whether they are diminishing by virtue of the program, as well as by our number of formal complaints. Certainly the number of formal complaints is next to zero, and the grievances have diminished as well.
:
It would be very easy for people who are in a job for a significant amount of time to kind of forget about things like harassment and what that really is. I really like the idea of your having regular mandatory training rather than a program once every 10 years. I think it's a reminder that certain behaviours are unacceptable in the workplace, whether we're talking about men or women. It's a fairness issue for everyone.
On the issue to do with staff for members of Parliament, I think in the years I've been here I've seen a bit of a change in certain ways in how MPs treat their staff, but I have also seen young women in particular—and possibly young men, I want to be fair on everything.
I'm speaking in particular about a young woman who was clearly being abused while she was working for a member of Parliament. There's nothing much short of it. She worked extremely long hours. She was yelled at, treated disrespectfully in all senses, and was reluctant to go anywhere to lodge a complaint. She didn't want to lose her job. Ultimately she left because there was no other way of dealing with the issue, but that was too bad because she did not want to have to leave.
When I suggested to her that she might speak to others, i.e., whips and people in a higher position, she was very reluctant to do it and ultimately just quit. I thought that was a shame because it was not fair, and she should have had an opportunity to stay in the job, but it didn't work out.
I suspect there are a lot of people who work for MPs who are not coming forward, because we expect an awful lot of people who work for us. Is there ever a meeting done with the staff of members of Parliament outlining opportunities for them to lodge complaints without having to be in fear of losing their jobs?
In fact, I'll quote directly from the policy. The policy is our defence administrative order and directive 5019-1: “Personal Relationships and Fraternization”. Fraternization is defined as follows: “Any relationship between a C[anadian] F[orces] member and a person from an enemy or belligerent force, or a CF member and a local inhabitant within a theatre of operations where CF members are deployed”. It's not internal relationships. A personal relationship is defined as follows: “An emotional, romantic, sexual or family relationship, including marriage or a common-law partnership or civil union, between two C[anadian] F[orces] members, or a CF member and a DND employee or contractor, or member of an allied force”.
Basically what the policy acknowledges is the right of individuals to form personal relationships in the workplace. We don't dispute that. But there are certain operating circumstances in which that might compromise fairness in the workplace. It might compromise the integrity of the chain of command. In those circumstances, we're saying that people who want to enter into that kind of relationship have to declare it so appropriate measures can be taken to ensure that neither of those issues is adversely affected.
For example, we disallow personal relationships between trainers and trainees. It's too easy for a person in a position of authority to exploit, for example, a new recruit and take advantage of him or her in some way. There are no personal relationships permitted in that kind of circumstance.
Similarly, in a theatre of operations, the commander has to determine to what extent—and this is the operational commander—he or she will allow the expression of personal relationships within that theatre of operations. In other words, if there's a risk of compromising the mission and fairness to other members of the organization, his or her judgment will prevail.
Would you like to add to that, Mark?