Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Human Resources
Issue No. 1 - Evidence - June 5, 2018
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 5, 2018
The Subcommittee on Human Resources met this day at 5:47 p.m., in camera and in public, pursuant to rule 12-7(1), to consider financial and administrative matters (Topic: Review of the Senate’s Harassment Policy).
Senator Raymonde Saint-Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are resuming our meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
I would like to welcome the general public. The Subcommittee on Human Resources was struck on December 7, 2017, by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to review and update the Senate’s policy on the prevention and resolution of harassment in the workplace.
Before I introduce our witness, I would ask the committee members to introduce themselves, starting on my right.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Tkachuk from Saskatchewan.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Moncion: Senator Moncion from Ontario.
[Translation]
The Chair: I am Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec and chair of the committee. Senator Tannas is the deputy chair.
I am pleased to introduce Angela Dionisi, Assistant Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University.
I now invite Ms. Dionisi to begin her presentation.
[English]
Welcome, Professor Dionisi. We will listen to you carefully.
Angela Dionisi, Assistant Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University: Thank you so much, and good evening. As was just mentioned, my name is Dr. Angela Dionisi and I am a professor of management at the Sprott School of Business, Carleton University.
I would like to start by thanking you all for inviting me here this evening to share some insights about the topic at hand from research. I prepared a few comments that I would like to share to open our discussion, and then I would welcome questions and comments and discussion following that.
Sexual harassment is a problem in our workplaces that has existed for a long time. Over the years, we have rightfully seen our conceptualizations and understanding of this issue grow and change to reflect the realities of those who are targeted with this form of mistreatment. While sexual harassment was once seen as something that was a sexual problem — it was thought to be behaviour that stemmed from natural or inevitable sexual urges — we now know that this behaviour is more appropriately understood as discriminatory conduct that has little to do with sexual desire and much to do with hostility.
When it comes to defining sexual harassment, we now know that this mistreatment can take a number of different forms. First, as was originally called out by feminist scholars back in the 1970s, sexual harassment can take the form of sexual coercion — or what is often referred to as quid pro quo harassment — when a woman is threatened with or actually loses her job or job-related benefits for refusing to cooperate sexually. While this form of sexual harassment is not as common as some of the other forms that I’ll be discussing in just a moment, this tends to be what comes to mind when people think about this issue. These are the types of behaviours that people believe we’re talking about.
Somewhat relatedly, sexual behaviours that are not accompanied by tangible or economic job outcomes but are nonetheless hostile and create an uncomfortable environment can also be sexually harassing, for example, addressing colleagues in a sexually objectifying way, being exposed to unwanted sexual overtures, unwanted touching, kissing and behaviour of that nature. This behaviour is referred to as unwanted sexual attention.
Importantly though, sexual harassment most typically takes the form of insulting verbal or non-verbal behaviour that conveys hostile or degrading attitudes, typically about women, but it’s not sexual. This includes questioning or insulting women’s competence in the workplace; addressing women in ways that belittle them, for example, calling them “honey” or “sweetie”; displaying lewd, pornographic images in the workplace and distributing sexist jokes. When it takes this form, sexual harassment is something we refer to as gender harassment. Gender harassment involves sexual and/or sexist comments, jokes and behaviours that alienate and demean victims based on their sex rather than solicit sexual cooperation.
While we now know that sexual harassment still takes the form of unwanted sexual attention or sexual coercion, much more sexually explicit or sexually charged forms, sexual harassment most often manifests as behaviour that, in a sense, represents or communicates animosity rather than attraction. The reason for this is that power is at the root of this behaviour.
Regardless of what form it takes, theoretical and empirical work suggests that sexual harassment is an expression of power and dominance and is used as a mechanism for protecting or enhancing one’s sex-based social status. It is behaviour that is essentially being used as a tool to punish those who threaten a harasser’s social or gender identity and the benefits derived from it.
When it comes to understanding what sexual harassment is and what it looks like in our workplaces, an important misconception I would like to dispel or call our attention to right off the bat is that sexual harassment does not have to be — and typically is not — sexual in nature. Many people are misinformed when it comes to what motivates sexual harassment and, by extension, they don’t understand the full spectrum of behaviours that are, in fact, sexually harassing.
One of the ramifications of the misconceptions surrounding motive is a restricted understanding of who this workplace problem affects, a restricted understanding of it’s scope, which is going to impact policy and its enactment. For example, for the longest time, sexual harassment was seen as a woman’s problem, as something that was enacted by men against women. We know that in the majority of cases, or large number of cases, at least, this is in fact the case. However, social science research has also found that this is an issue that affects the lives of many men. While the tangible numbers vary by sample and study, there is now research showing that upwards of 30 to 40 per cent of men report having experienced sexual harassment at some point during their careers, and again this is not something that many people realize.
We’re also learning that the sexual harassment experiences of men are quite unique. Research is showing that men by and large are most typically harassed by someone of the same sex, and the most common form of their harassment is what is being called “not man enough harassment.” This is when a man is, for example, teased about his role in the home or domestic responsibilities or when he is mocked for failing to participate in the objectification of women or for not laughing at sexist jokes. In each of these cases, the content of sexual harassment revolves again around policing gender role performances. In other words, it is ensuring that men are behaving as “real men” by bullying them for their inadequate displays of masculinity.
As we look to legislation or policies that are in place or being amended, recognizing and emphasizing that victimization can span gender boundaries is an important step towards ensuring that all of those who are being affected by this issue are given a voice.
Finally, when thinking about the scope of sexual harassment, over the last number of years, there has also been a push within the workplace mistreatment literature to begin considering how sexual harassment can create toxic workplace environments that negatively impact not only those who are directly targeted but also those who witness this behaviour going on around them.
Studies show that not only are employees aware of their co-workers’ mistreatment, but they are also negatively affected by it. This is something we call vicarious sexual harassment. For example, studies have shown that being exposed to the sexual harassment of a female colleague is related to a whole host of negative job-related outcomes, such as work withdrawal and decreases in commitment and satisfaction. Seeing a co-worker being harassed has also been linked to anxiety, depression and other forms of psychological and physical illness.
This is important when thinking about how we define workplace sexual harassment. Not only do the ramifications of a single incident of sexual harassment grow exponentially, so too do the number of people who could legitimately file a claim for this type of behaviour. Again, as we look to legislation and policies that are in place or that are being amended, recognizing and emphasizing that sexual harassment can be felt by those who may not be the direct targets is going to be critical.
When we consider the wealth of data that has been produced showing the negative consequences in terms of job-related outcomes, psychological outcomes, physical outcomes and so on, we really see how powerful this behaviour is in the workplace and, by extension, our need to do something about this. That is, of course, why we’re here this evening. I understand we’ll be discussing issues pertinent to that conflict.
The Chair: Thank you very much, professor. We have many questions.
Senator Tannas: Thank you for being here. We really do appreciate it. I listened very carefully.
I just wondered if you have seen our harassment policy.
Ms. Dionisi: I have, yes.
Senator Tannas: Do the definitions capture what you think we ought to be focused on, or do you have some specific suggestions about what we need to do in terms of additional words or fewer words?
Ms. Dionisi: Absolutely, yes. Thank you for that question.
I have had the opportunity to take a look at the policy and consider it with regard to what the research tells us as well as what Bill C-65 has to say. I do have some comments, and I can address that specific comment first, if you would like me to.
In line with what I was just saying in my opening comments, based on the latest sexual harassment research, I would suggest that some amendments potentially be made to the definition and scope of this issue. Currently, the definition of “harassment” in the policy is “any improper conduct by an individual that is directed at and offensive to another person or persons.”
As I just mentioned, vicarious sexual harassment is being shown to be a significant problem in organizations, so I would suggest the committee think about slightly amending that definition such that those instances would be accounted for. As one suggestion, it could add “an improper conduct by an individual that is directed at or indirectly encountered,” for instance. Doing so would help to account for cases where one may not be the direct target of harassment but still be negatively affected by it. In fact, Bill C-65 now allows for claims to be made with regards to psychological illnesses. Research would suggest this is a likely outcome of that vicarious exposure to harassment, so that would be one suggestion.
Moreover, I would also suggest that the definition of “sexual harassment” itself be amended slightly to better account for the most common form of sexual harassment, which is gender harassment. Currently, the definition is “sexual harassment is any conduct, comment, gesture or contact of a sexual nature.” It would be my suggestion to add to that “or sexist nature.” In so doing, we can call attention to the fact that sexual harassment is not just sexual; it can be sexist conduct as well. That’s important, because it helps to dispel some of those misconceptions that exist out there about the types of behaviours that are considered to be harassing. That would be the second recommendation I would make.
Further to that, I noticed in Appendix B, you have some questions and so on that are stated with the intent of trying to instruct people on evaluating a situation to determine whether it is harassing, so potentially including several examples of gender harassment, of vicarious harassment and, as I was saying in my opening comments, of male sexual harassment. Particularly with regards to that third point, that would go a long way, especially given many men are hesitant to come forward. There is not the same social recognition of that conduct. Many men may not even really know for certain that the behaviours they are experiencing as being uncomfortable and unpleasant could legitimately be determined or be defined as sexual harassment. So perhaps further qualifying that expanded scope and including some examples in the appendix might be helpful.
Senator Tannas: Thank you.
I need to let the gender thing marinate with me, but regarding vicarious harassment, we are all conscious here on the Hill. We have a very public case right now of a person who has been accused of being both a harasser, a vicarious reporter and on and on. Would you not agree that the vicarious harassment issue would only be in play if the initial harassment was unresolved and continuing? Would we not be better off, if we’re going to go down this road, so that we don’t get people — busybodies — running around reporting one incident,on some kind of a crusade. Rather, we actually deal with the workplace issue of an uncomfortableness that comes by witnessing something that never gets resolved, doesn’t get resolved, doesn’t appear to get resolved or is repeated. Is that not what we’re trying to get after here — to make sure we don’t have a busybody, for lack of a better word, who has decided they are going to make a point at somebody else’s expense?
Ms. Dionisi: The danger around that is that if a claim has to be made first by a direct target in order for a vicarious situation to be —
Senator Tannas: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that somebody wouldn’t be able to say, “I was at a cocktail party and someone said something terrible yesterday to another person. Now I want to make a big fuss about it.”
Ms. Dionisi: Right.
Senator Tannas: But if somebody said something and that person was injured and it’s continuing, or that person doesn’t want to report it and it’s kind of unresolved. Do you know what I mean? There is a difference. How do we separate that?
Ms. Dionisi: Right. Your comments bring to light another issue I wanted to talk about at some point, which is the idea of bystanders. What role do witnesses to events have in terms of intervening, communicating to either a harasser or target that they’re aware of what’s happening or potentially reporting something to a supervisor.
Senator Tannas: Maybe that’s what I’m missing here. A bystander would be the busybody thing. You’re saying that I’m saying, “I was injured because I saw this.”
Ms. Dionisi: Yes, exactly.
Senator Tannas: I see. Okay, thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for being with here.
Ms. Dionisi: Thank you for having me.
Senator Jaffer: I want to pick up on the bystander. In the Canadian Armed Forces, they have the bystander program, where they encourage people. Normally, we see that as being a busybody, but in the Canadian Armed Forces, they encourage it as a way of supporting people who are harassed. Could you tell us what we would need to put in place to encourage people to be bystanders, to speak up or be there for that person in the way I understand they’re doing it in the CAF? Apparently, it is very effective.
Ms. Dionisi: Absolutely. Studies show that very few victims of sexual harassment actually report their mistreatment. There are a number of reasons for that. Victims don’t believe that they will be taken seriously. Victims are also worried about secondary victimization and retaliation. They may be hesitant to put their complaint into writing and have it put into their formal employment file.
A fair bit of research in the last number of years is showing that bystanders have an important role to play in helping to address mistreatment in the workplace more generally and sexual harassment specifically. There are a number of things that would prevent a bystander from intervening. There is a long history of research showing the effects of diffusion of responsibility and so on. Just because people are witnessing sexual harassment in the workplace doesn’t mean they will come forward. Research has been focusing on the fact that this could very well be an important avenue through which we can combat sexual harassment, so what can we do to encourage that, which is, I think, your question.
We’re finding that working language into policies, first of all, that stresses the responsibility that bystanders have to play in this issue can be very effective. That was one of the recommendations that I was going to make in terms of the Senate’s policy, whether it’s in the general comment section or the context section. That is, having a statement to that effect, namely that it’s the responsibility of everybody in the workplace to work together to address this issue. If you see an instance of workplace sexual harassment going on around you, you have a responsibility to do something about that.
I would qualify that by providing different avenues for a bystander to take, whether that’s reporting to a supervisor or confronting a harasser and saying, “That behaviour is wrong. We don’t accept that here. I don’t support that. What are you doing?” Or going up to a victim after the fact and saying, “Look, I saw what happened. I’m here to support you. Can I help you make a report? Can I help you find other supports?” In other words, being an advocate for a target of harassment. These sorts of examples could be potentially included in the policy to give some guidance to a witness. Working that kind of language into policies is an important thing to consider.
Research is also showing that one of the best ways we can encourage this type of behaviour is through implementing a bystander intervention portion into our training. Organizations now must have training for their employees on workplace sexual harassment. It’s being suggested that a component of that training revolves around how to be a good bystander, what avenues to take, how you should approach a victim or a perpetrator, and making that part of the culture via what we’re educating our employees on.
Senator Jaffer: This is a very small place. There also needs to be a safe place for bystanders. It’s a different culture. I know that in the Armed Forces they now have a formal bystander culture, but it’s taken some developing. Maybe we could work with you as to how the policy can be adopted, because people have to be seen as being the good Samaritan or a good friend, or more. It’s almost a separate thing. Maybe you can give us some ideas on the bystander.
I want to go to another place. Listening for a few meetings to people with whom we work has been a real eye-opener. Again, we are 105 silos. We work on our own and we really don’t know what is happening around us, or not much, even though we see each other a lot. It’s become very obvious, for people with whom we work, that trust is a big issue. They don’t trust. They’ve said that they would like somebody from outside. I respect that because I can see that trust is a big issue. How do we go about creating a safe place?
Ms. Dionisi: That’s a tough question. It has a lot of different components to it. I think the ultimate goal is to create a culture where, as you said, trust is infused throughout. That’s going to take policies, training and time.
I think that leadership has a big role to play. In fact, research shows that within organizations — and there have been studies looking at women specifically — women report that when their leaders not only care about this issue but also follow through on what they promised, follow through on policies and so on, they are not only more likely to report an instance of sexual harassment that they are personally experiencing but also that the culture around sexual harassment is much more positive in terms of it being something that is seen as unacceptable. Rates of sexual harassment go down. So there is something to be said for the behaviour of leaders. Leaders need to be following through on the promises that are made in policies and otherwise. They need to be role modelling the proper behaviour. They need to be monitoring their workplaces and being very aware of what is going on. When those who are in positions of power start to behave in a way that is trustworthy, then that can start a cycle that filters down.
Senator Jaffer: Let me stop you there.
The Chair: Briefly please, senator. Do you have a question?
Senator Jaffer: I wasn’t going to do a sermon. I did have a question.
The Chair: Please make your comment and, if you have other questions, we’ll come on second round.
Senator Jaffer: We’ll go on second round.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Tkachuk: We talked earlier about the particular situation the Senate and senators are in. This whole question of harassment is sort of a learning experience for society. It’s a twentieth century phenomenon. Women weren’t in the workforce. Now they’re in the workforce, and new behaviour has to be learned by the people who are in charge.
MPs and senators were not absent from that. Not too long ago, 30 years ago, most MPs and senators were all men. The executive assistants were almost all women. I would say that today, a lot more women are MPs and senators. I think that will all change, because the executive assistants haven’t changed. They are still almost mostly women. Even though about 40 per cent of the Senate is men, I would say most of the executive assistants are all women.
I talked earlier to some of the people who were here. I mentioned having an outside person. We really don’t have a pyramid structure here. We have a very flat, horizontal structure of senators and executive assistants. The administration is there to serve the Senate offices, so they are not really part of that group, except at a bit of a distance. I had mentioned to some of the others that a place for them to go to would be outside. That is my first question.
My other question is: You spent most of your time talking about sexual harassment, but is that the majority of harassment or is it the other part? I’ve heard a lot about this in my time. There are yellers, there are screamers and there are people who are abusive. I’m not sure if that’s a larger percentage than, say, sexual, but I would say it’s a pretty large group of people.
Ms. Dionisi: Yes, absolutely. There is no question that other forms of harassment, such as workplace bullying, different —
Senator Tkachuk: Racist comments, homophobic, those things — those are all harassment if the boss is constantly bullying the staff for a particular reason that doesn’t make any sense.
Ms. Dionisi: Or a co-worker.,
Senator Tkachuk: Or a co-worker.
Ms. Dionisi: Absolutely. My area of expertise is sexual harassment. In terms of commenting on prevalence rates of other types of harassment and so on, I can’t give you those numbers, but there is no denying that all of these types of mistreatment do go on and can have many of the same negative effects.
Senator Tkachuk: For sure.
Ms. Dionisi: In terms of sexual harassment specifically and one of the comments that you made with regards to an outside person, do you mean in terms of seeking supports?
Senator Tkachuk: I think they have a problem. Who do they go to complain to? We don’t really have a human resource group — I mean, they are part of the administration which is there to serve senators. They are an extension of a Senate office. Most of them are all individuals, so we would have an office of one or an office of two. There are very few if any offices that have more than two people in them. So they’re very tiny, and it’s a boss-and-employee relationship in each little office. It’s complicated.
Ms. Dionisi: Right, and that poses an important set of circumstances that we need to be aware of. It’s problematic when a target of sexual harassment has to go to an immediate supervisor or a supervisor of some type to report their mistreatment. There are a few reasons for that, one of which is that sometimes it is that person who is doing the harassing or is part of the larger situation. In many cases, the individual is a male so there are some power dynamics there that make it problematic.
Research suggests it is very important to provide options to targets, which I think is to your point, when it comes to how they report and to whom they report. Studies show that it’s important within workplace harassment policies to allow employees options with regard to whether they are going to file a complaint that is anonymous, whether they are going to file a complaint to an employer, to someone in HR, or in fact to someone external to the organization, which I think is to your point. There are choices with respect to whether the claim they file is an informal claim or a formal claim. I think it’s an important thing to consider. Who are we requiring these targets to report to? What are these individuals doing with this information? Essentially, how much autonomy and agency are we giving those who are being targeted with this mistreatment?
Senator Tkachuk: Are women different from men? In other words, does the research show that women in positions of authority are less abusive and is there less sexual harassment from women than men, or are they about the same?
Ms. Dionisi: The research shows that, by and large, men tend to be those who harass more than women — serve as harassers. That is not uniformly the case. Women can also be those who sexually harass. They can sexually harass men. Men can sexually harass other men and they can sexually harass women. It’s not to say it’s only coming from men, but research would suggest that there is a higher proportion of males who are the perpetrators of this type of behaviour.
Senator Tkachuk: I notice that it’s on a very regular basis in the United States that there is a woman teacher who is having sexual relations with a student. It’s becoming very common. To me, that’s an abuse of power and an abusive relationship. It’s something you never heard of 25 years ago. You always heard it the other way around, but now it’s quite common.
The Chair: Any type of harassment is unacceptable coming from whomever.
Ms. Dionisi: Exactly.
The Chair: If you agree, I will ask Senator Moncion to ask her questions, and you can come back to this in your answers.
Senator Moncion: You spoke briefly of the education component. I would like you to elaborate more on that portion of the harassment policy.
Ms. Dionisi: Yes, absolutely. Studies show that organizations have a lot to gain from educating their employees on this issue. Recent research has shown that organizations that provide education on harassment not only increased the knowledge that their employees have about this issue, but they improve bystander responses, they reduce victim blaming and they increase the likelihood that a target will come forward with their harassment. There is evidence to suggest that are benefits to be had when it comes to training employees.
With that said, what is included in harassment training, the form that it takes and so on can be very important. Even though around 80 per cent of businesses have sexual harassment training, in many of these cases it’s ineffective, there is little consistency across programs, and it does not truly reflect the true scope of these types of behaviours, so there needs to be some thought given to how the training is going to be delivered. There are different styles, different approaches, and I can make a few comments about those if you’re interested, but things like instructional videos versus online training modules versus in-person role-playing experiences and so on, and there are some pros and cons to each of those.
Regardless of the method implemented, there are a couple of things that research suggests are worth considering, one of which is that it’s important for organizations to recognize that training is not necessarily a one-time thing, or in fact shouldn’t be a one-time thing. Just because employees have been trained once doesn’t mean that the job is done. Rather, research suggests that it is important to go back and have booster sessions to keep employees up to date on the issue, to fairly regularly revisit the issue through different types of training to ensure that the lessons that employees are learning stick and they remain current in the minds of employees.
Research also suggests promoting meaningful levels of engagement among employees in this type of training so they’re not just passively watching the video or ticking the box. It’s important to try to implement some type of interactive or experiential component into that training. Oftentimes, having a post-test whereby employees can reflect on what they have just seen and have the opportunity to report on that can help with knowledge development and internalization.
It’s important to think about things like who is getting the training. Research would suggest that everybody should be getting the training, not just leaders but all employees. Research would suggest that you need to think about who is giving the training, and these should be experts in the field, people who have detailed knowledge of the issues, and legal experts can potentially be a part of that as well.
Also, there needs to be consideration to what content is being implemented in the training. A few of the suggestions include the need to explain what sexual harassment is, but beyond that give tangible examples that employees can reflect on and potentially relate to. Part of the training needs to be around the policy itself: the different components inherent in it, reporting procedures, expectations and so on.
As I mentioned earlier, bystander intervention training is a promising thing to think about when it comes to the types of things that are being incorporated into the training, and that can pertain to things like when employees have a duty to report, how to actually go about providing support to a victim, and different channels or avenues that a bystander would have at their disposal.
In addition, supervisors or leaders should also have some unique aspects to their training, including how to carry out their responsibilities with regard to policy, but also things like how to notify somebody that they are being accused of harassment or how to notify a target of harassment of what the investigation found. Those can be very sensitive issues, so some training around that can be beneficial as well.
Senator Moncion: Thank you.
My other question is on the power situation where you have senators versus staff. How do you deal with harassment in this kind of environment?
Ms. Dionisi: Yes, it’s tricky. Again, it partly goes back to what I was saying earlier about making sure that targets have the ability to seek support, advice and file claims to people other than those who directly have power over them. That can be a really important step, again, giving them options, making them feel like they aren’t at risk of being victimized again.
One of the other important aspects that I wanted to mention, which can fall under policy or it can fall under training, is also being very explicit about retaliation. Within the policy itself, being very explicit about the fact that retaliation is not acceptable, that it will be punished, and giving some examples of what retaliation looks like. Retaliation can come not only from an employer but also from colleagues. If someone gets wind of the fact that you are rocking the boat, so to speak, they can react to that in a retaliatory way.
Looking at the Senate policy, I suggest thinking about being more explicit when it comes to that issue. I know that in section 2.3.7, I believe, there is a brief mention of the fact that corrective measures may be taken in cases of retaliation, but my recommendation would be to make the language stronger around that, perhaps even adding a provision to section 3.11 where it is explicitly mentioned that retaliation is not permitted behaviour. I think that would help to at least start to address some of the concerns that come with, as you mentioned, that power dynamic that often exists between a target and the harasser.
Senator Moncion: There is also the negative image that it spreads within the senators’ culture. It hurts the staff and it hurts everyone. Thank you. These have been very good comments.
Senator Tannas: I had a question around continuous training. I know it has been fairly early, but what is the data showing about reductions in actual incidents in workplaces where there is training? Is there anything showing increased amounts of empowerment versus decreased amounts of aggression and aggressors? Do the bullies go away if there is more training because of empowerment or because they actually have some conversion on the road to Damascus?
Ms. Dionisi: That’s a great question. Research in the area of the effectiveness of training is only just beginning, but there are some preliminary findings that I can share with you.
One of the things that has come out in some of the literature is that the form that training takes is important to some of what you have just mentioned. For instance, probably the most common form of training that is implemented is video-based training or in some cases now Internet-based training. These tend to be the most popular largely because they are cost effective, they are easy to implement to geographically dispersed employees and you can depict instances of actual sexually harassing behaviour in a way, and with regards to the Internet form you can tailor the content of that training by virtue of the needs of your employees. So those two forms are quite common.
Research shows that those forms of training do in fact help employees better understand what harassment is. When they leave these sessions, they say, “I can identify harassment and I know what it is,” which is a first step. However, research also shows that they aren’t very effective in actually changing the attitudes of employees. Employees don’t leave feeling any different about, for example, the ethicality of these behaviours. If they had sexist attitudes going into it, there isn’t necessarily a change of those attitudes. That’s really going to be foundational to the effectiveness of any training program in terms of eliminating harassment.
There is some evidence to suggest that training that is conducted with groups of people, with a live trainer, for instance, ones that incorporate experiential components, role playing and so on, is far more effective when it comes to changing employee attitudes. While it can be more expensive and a little more difficult sometimes to coordinate, preliminary research would suggest that there is some promise when it comes to what training is actually doing.
Senator Tkachuk: Does the boss change the culture or does the culture produce the boss? In other words, if a person becomes the boss and they are abusive, they must have been promoted within an organization where that person had to be the same way before, I’m sure. So it’s pervasive then. It’s not just the guy who is in charge or the woman who is in charge. It’s the culture of the whole organization. Then that is a very hard problem to get rid of.
Ms. Dionisi: They are inextricably linked. One of the enduring questions is how do you change the culture of a workplace. It’s not something that happens overnight. It’s not something that any one person can do. It very much involves all these different facets that we’re speaking about. It could very well be the case that there is an employer who is behaving in this particular way. That is going to filter down to the entire organization.
Senator Tkachuk: How did he or she get there?
Ms. Dionisi: That’s a good question. But to my points earlier, if we have leaders who are modelling the behaviour that we’re expecting of employees, that are communicating a very strong anti-harassment message, that they are walking the talk, that they are following through on the promises that they have made, if they are embodying the culture that they want to see in the organization, that’s a good step.
[Translation]
The Chair: I would like us to go a bit further than prevention and training which, as we have seen, are absolutely essential. Let us go all the way to the complaint. If we receive a formal complaint, what kind of investigator should be responsible for following up on it? Is a sexual harassment investigation conducted the same as an administrative investigation?
What if any measures should be taken during the investigation as to the employee who alleges they were sexually harassed and the person accused of harassment?
[English]
Ms. Dionisi: That’s a very good question. There are some parameters that have been laid out in Bill C-65 that can give us a little bit of guidance with regard to what is required.
With regard to complaints, Bill C-65 now requires that employees make a complaint to their supervisor or to the person designated in the organization’s policy first. Before exercising any other resource available to that employee, they must now bring that to the attention of their employer, who then is charged with trying to remedy this before it goes any further. I think that is going to have implications to the Senate policy in terms of the flowchart and how that all works.
Research suggests that victim agency is really important when it comes to the sexual harassment resolution process. Studies show that not only do victims themselves report wanting and needing autonomy over this reporting process, but also allowing choices during that process can be very beneficial when it comes to encouraging people to come forward in the first place.
So while Bill C-65 requires that a complaint be made to the employer first, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t specify, for instance, whether that complaint must be formal or informal. When I took a look at the Senate policy, if I interpreted it correctly, it’s currently written that informal resolution processes should be attempted first before doing anything else, except in the case where the human resource manager deems that wouldn’t be appropriate.
One suggestion I have would be to let the target, him or herself, decide whether pursuing a formal or informal complaint is desirable to them. There are different pros and cons to each, so letting a target decide for themselves what form that is going to take can be important.
There are also provisions in Bill C-65 around impartiality. It now makes it the responsibility of the employer to establish a process of impartiality addressing complaints, and it more specifically prohibits any policy committee, workplace committee or health and safety committee representative to be part of an investigation, so that necessarily may impact how the policy approaches who does an investigation.
Separately, research suggests that victims of harassment prefer to have some say over at least some of the details of who does an investigation. For instance, most people say that they prefer a team of people to do an investigation rather than one single individual. Most prefer to have individuals of both genders on the investigative committee. Also, they like to have some choice about whether they are organizational insiders or outsiders who are performing these investigations.
This idea of impartiality is really important. We need to have people on these committees who are not biased and don’t have a stake in the game, so to speak, and are able to accurately and unbiasedly look at the facts of the case.
[Translation]
The Chair: In the interest of fairness, do you think the alleged harasser should also be given some say in the type of investigation, the members of the investigation team and the investigator?
[English]
Ms. Dionisi: Yes, that’s a good point. I haven’t seen any research that speaks to that side of the equation in terms of what those who are accused of these types of behaviours report as being important to them, but I would imagine that they would equally like to have a say in terms of who is involved and who isn’t. I think that’s definitely something to consider.
One other thing that comes to mind, as you mentioned, with regards to what happens during the investigation process, is that there are provisions in Bill C-65 which now, in stronger language, stress the importance of confidentiality. That’s something that cannot be ignored. You may want to think about strengthening the language around that a little bit more in the policy to reflect those requirements.
In addition to that, this idea of intermediate measures may be something to think about. What happens if somebody comes to you and says, “This person is harassing me?” What do you do until there has been a determination? Research suggests that it may be necessary to implement intermediate measures, things like making schedule changes, transferring the alleged harasser or placing the alleged harasser on leave. They can be controversial and there is not a definitive answer, but thinking about the options that are out there. One of the things that the research does stress is to not unduly place the burden of onus on the target. For example, transferring the target to a different department is not something that we want to do. It’s a tricky thing, but it may be worth having a conversation to figure out what is going to be done in the interim. Do we allow these two people to continue working together? Is that potentially putting somebody in jeopardy? Thinking about that is important.
[Translation]
The Chair: In your opinion, does the role of investigator require highly specialized skills? Do we have access on short notice to an external pool of specialized investigators who can do the job in a timely manner and very competently?
[English]
Ms. Dionisi: There are people who exist out there who specialize in this, who have intimate knowledge of the area and who are able to come in and impartially judge what is going on. I think involving outsiders is important when it comes to an unbiased approach to investigation. I can certainly look into the specifics and make some specific suggestions. I don’t have any off the top of my head right now, but I would be happy to look into that for the committee if it is something that is of interest. There are people who specialize in this area and would be qualified to do that.
The Chair: Thank you. I do not see any other senators that have questions. Regarding your closing words, we are interested in receiving information and more documentation from you. I want to thank you on behalf of all the members, Professor Dionisi, for a value-added participation to our work, and hopefully we’ll stay in touch.
Senators, thank you, and thank you to the analysts, the clerk, the translators and the stenographers.
(The committee adjourned.)