Honourable senators, as chair of the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, I will use my time to establish a link between Bill C-65 and the review of the Senate policy on harassment.

Last October, the world saw an unprecedented movement to stop tolerating all forms of harassment. Being connected with the society it is mandated to serve, the Senate is also part of that movement. Last year’s context, profoundly changed by the hashtag #MeToo, reinforced our determination to make sure the institution improves its processes to prevent and deal with cases of harassment. To appreciate how far we have come without trying to blind us to the road still lying ahead, I will first discuss the history of addressing harassment in the upper chamber.

[English]

In 1993, the Senate adopted its first policy entitled “Harassment in the Workplace.” This policy applied to all people in the workplace and provided for a resolution procedure in which the complainant had to inform and have a discussion with the senator concerned. Incidentally, this policy allowed for the possibility of filing a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

In 2009, when the current Speaker of the Senate held the position of Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, a significant update of the 1993 policy led to the passing of the current “Senate Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace.”

On this point, I would like to acknowledge the high quality of the work done at the time, although I do remain convinced that modernizing our policy almost a decade after it was passed is not only possible but necessary.

In 2014, work was started to modernize the harassment policy under the leadership of the late Honourable Pierre Claude Nolin, the forty-third Speaker of the Senate. The late Speaker publicly commented on the Senate’s complaint process following an internal investigation that ultimately cleared a former senator.

It is common knowledge that some witnesses who wanted to participate in that investigation were not interviewed, which raised doubts about the integrity of the process. Moreover, the complainants’ sincere belief in the employer’s genuine desire to get to the bottom of their situation is fundamental to ensuring that victims stop fearing reprisals and trust the internal process.

As comprehensive as the Senate’s policy on harassment in the workplace may be, there is no denying that it is distrusted by a number of employees at the moment. In a speech, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour stated on January 29:

Parliament Hill features distinct power imbalances that perpetuate the culture that people with a lot of power and prestige can, and have, used that power to victimize the people who work so hard for us. It’s a culture where people who are victims of harassment or sexual violence do not feel safe to bring those complaints forward.

To change this deleterious culture, the government introduced Bill C-65, which was unanimously adopted on May 7 by the House of Commons at third reading. It is the first comprehensive and coherent legislative framework to prevent and address harassment and sexual violence in workplaces under federal jurisdiction. It clarifies the complex normative framework of legislation, policies and court decisions that currently govern these issues.

[Translation]

Bill C-65 seeks in part to extend the scope of the Canadian Labour Code provisions on occupational health and safety. At this time, the employees of the Senate and other employees of the parliamentary precinct are not protected by Part II of the Canadian Labour Code, as opposed to civil servants and workers in federally regulated businesses. One of the most significant innovations of this bill is to amend the Code so as to ensure that harassment and violence in the workplace are considered as an occupational health and safety issue from a legal standpoint. However, we still have work to do if we want to reconcile the work done by the other place.

Several amendments were made before Bill C-65 even got to the Senate. For example, a definition of the notion of harassment and violence was added. Also incorporated into the bill was the obligation for the minister to publish an annual report and table a report to Parliament every five years that addresses the provisions on harassment and violence. A targeted employer should also ensure that all of its employees, including management, receive workplace harassment prevention training and are informed of their rights and obligations.

Finally, employees will no longer have to submit their complaint directly to their supervisor before being able to use the recourse available to them. The complainant will have the option to file the complaint with a person designated in the employer’s policy, which is in line with the interim measure put in place by the Senate Subcommittee on Human Resources until our internal policy is amended.

(2130)

I direct your attention to an email sent on May 24 to all staff and senators on behalf of the subcommittee’s steering committee to explain the interim measure. The labour relations adviser of the Human Resources Directorate is clearly named as the person responsible for receiving complaints. Despite these improvements, the Senate committee tasked with studying this bill should look at more potential solutions to further improve it. I am thinking in particular of clause 5, which prevents the referral of complaints relating to an occurrence of harassment or violence to a workplace health and safety committee.

Until further notice, complaints of any type that have not been resolved by the employer can be referred to a workplace committee by any party. One of the benefits of workplace committees is that they are composed of at least two members, with half of them having no managerial functions, chosen by employees.

Allowing inquiries to be transferred to workplace committees could undoubtedly increase the employees’ confidence level towards the complaint process. If Bill C-65 was adopted in its current form, employees would be denied that option in the name of privacy. I hope that the Senate can find a way to ensure the confidentiality of the process without jeopardizing the employees’ ability to use an alternative solution that could kick-start a stagnating inquiry.

As senators McPhedran and Dupuis said in their speeches on Bill C-65, the Senate committee will need to clarify the right of Parliament employees to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Since 2005, the restrictive interpretation given by the Supreme Court in Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid prevents employees of Parliament to avail themselves of the Commission’s dispute resolution mechanisms in cases of discrimination and harassment. That decision denies employees recourse with an institution that is well suited for processing cases of harassment. I agree with what the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission said on February 28, before the House of Commons Human Resources Committee:

. . . victim should have the choice to seek redress immediately with the CHRC before or at any time during their internal complaint process at their respective organization.

The burden on the victim should be minimized as much as possible. For example, if a parallel human rights complaint is filed, the competent person's report should be shared with the Canadian Human Rights Commission so that the victim does not have to start from scratch and retell their story over and over.

[English]

In parallel with the legislative process, your Subcommittee on Human Resources has undertaken a review of the Senate’s harassment policy. Extensive consultations have begun and will continue until the summer recess. These will be based on the principles of impartiality and fairness to all parties, the complainant and the respondent alike. Senators, union representatives and independent expert witnesses will appear during our consultations. Above all, I cannot stress enough the importance of the testimony of the representatives of senators’ staff. Their adherence to the policy review process and resulting modifications are a sine qua non for the success and the relevance of this much-needed reform.

Let me tell you, however, that our zeal to deliver results will in no way compromise how the Senate’s new policy complies with Bill C-65. For the sake of efficiency, all the requirements of the bill will be met because our report will not be published before it is passed. We hope that everything will be completed by early fall, and even earlier if possible.

In conclusion, it is essential that the current movement bring about a permanent change in culture on Parliament Hill and a lasting change in attitudes and interpersonal relationships in our environment.