Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 29th, 2006

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Does it make sense to you that we would rewrite the entire mandate of the staff relations board so that the staff relations board now would deal with student issues, with contractors, with grant recipients, with a whole host of individuals and bodies with which it has absolutely no experience and for which its mandate makes absolutely no provision, or would you prefer as a student body to go before a panel of independent judges, to bring whistle-blowers before a panel of independent judges who had specifically developed expertise in the area of whistle-blower protection?

[Angela Regnier]

I don't feel that we actually have enough information at this point to make a judgment call.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

All right.

I think there are some others who don't have enough information either, but if they do believe that the staff relations board should be changed and it should no longer be a staff relations board and that its mandate should be extended to every Canadian in the country, I would presume that they will actually bring forward amendments that literally redefine the very nature of the staff relations board, if that is how in fact they think this should function.

My question then would be, would you feel that a panel of judges specifically comprised to protect whistle-blowers would be sufficiently independent from the government to give protection to students?

[Ian Boyko]

I would imagine, but there are questions that overlap. I just want to say, in terms of the recipients of federal grants and the board's jurisdiction over contractors, while many faculty members who are receiving grants from one of the three granting councils could be construed as contractors, if you are a graduate student working under that researcher and you are not the recipient of that federal grant, I'm afraid you wouldn't be protected by what was just described. You're effectively an employee of the contractor, not the contractor.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Actually, it is still a crime under the Accountability Act for your employer to punish you for making a disclosure of wrongdoing, even if that employer is not the government. That is going to be a specific statutory prohibition in the Accountability Act—presuming that it is passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question is for Mr. Regnier or Mr. Boyko.

You talked about university research. However, let us imagine a situation where National Defence gives a Quebec university a two or three million dollar contract for research. The money would come from the federal government, the university would be located in Quebec; the professors, from Quebec as well, would be governed by Quebec collective agreements and would have their own structures.

In your opinion, how would an individual receiving such an amount of money from National Defence be subject to Bill C-2? You're hoping that this will be the case, but how can you reach this conclusion since the province of Quebec wouldn't want this to happen? Have you given any thought to any provisions which would enable people from Quebec to be subject to Bill C-2 when money from the federal government is involved?

[Angela Regnier]

Ultimately, what we've proposed is that through the deputy commissioner on research integrity there would be an overarching policy across Canada. That would ultimately apply to all public research institutions in Quebec, as it would apply to research institutions and universities across the rest of the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau, you have three minutes.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Earlier you referred to the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, among other things. I don't know whether or not you know this, but further to an initiative from the Bloc Québécois, it was decided that the Auditor General would have the right to examine all foundations receiving more than $500 million dollars, which includes the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. These foundations may from now on be audited by the Auditor General. That may reassure you somewhat. In case there is an appearance of misappropriation or any other type of activity of that kind, it would be possible to send a letter to the attention of the Auditor General in order to inform the latter of the matter.

I would like to ask Mr. Boyko a question. Your name does not appear on the witness list. I am, therefore, wondering when you were invited. Moreover, you referred to a former colleague. Was that individual a member of the Canadian Federation of Students or any other organization?

May I ask you that question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You know, I'm just getting concerned that you're picking on these witnesses. The Canadian Federation of Students was invited to come here by one of the caucuses—and that's all we need to know. He's with the Canadian Federation of Students. There's the villain.

I didn't mean it like that, but I really think that's an improper question.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You do not want me to ask my question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, we'll see how they do, but....

[Ian Boyko]

We submitted my name earlier this evening, when we were liaising with the committee clerk. While the colleague I'm referring to wasn't a member of our federation, he really wanted to be. I've worked with him in a few different capacities.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

I will not ask you for any more details.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You both did very well tonight. Thank you very much for coming and giving us your comments.

We're not going to adjourn just yet, as Madam Jennings has some comments.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Yes. I just have a notice of motion.

Given the fact that Madame Sylvie Matteau, the acting chairperson of the Public Service Labour Relations Board, was unable to answer a series of questions because of her current office—she has the duty of reserve—I would move that this committee mandate its chair, and obviously the clerk, to invite a panel of former chairs of the Public Service Labour Relations Board to appear before the committee to answer those questions regarding Bill C-2 that Madame Sylvie Matteau was unable to answer given her office of acting chairperson of the said board.

So I'm giving a notice of motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Notice of motion has been duly--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I see it's 8:20.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The meeting is adjourned until 8:20 tomorrow morning in this room.