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

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Poilievre seems adamant that he has heard of such cases. Perhaps he would care to enlighten us?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let's not have a debate here. Ms. Matteau is trying to answer a question, so let her do that, please.

Please proceed.

Things happen from time to time; just ignore them.

[Sylvie Matteau]

Thank you.

To our knowledge, no one has told the board about any concerns of this kind.

Moreover, we have to make some distinctions regarding the additional responsibilities to which you alluded. Under the Public Service Modernization Act, the board has been given new responsibilities with respect to the processing of human rights complaints. It used to be that the board no longer had jurisdiction as soon as human rights were involved in something such as, for example, a grievance.

The Public Service Modernization Act and the new legislation will ensure that the adjudicator responsible for hearing a grievance will now be able to continue exploring the entire issue. Basically, it was decided that this was an issue of labour and labour relations law and that things were occurring in the workplace. If a grievance pertains to both human rights and disciplinary measures, the board now has the authority to continue reviewing the file. This is what I was referring to when I spoke about an expanded mandate.

Clarification is required for certain aspects found in Bills C-2 and C-11. For the time being, that matter does not fall within our jurisdiction. As I already explained, we have a great deal of experience in retaliation measures. The 33 files we are currently studying were submitted pursuant to the Canada Labour Code. However, we are also analyzing retaliatory measures associated with practices occurring during the negotiation of collective agreements. We are responsible for this aspect as well as for analyzing various files.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Are we to conclude that if Bill C-2 were to be adopted today, with this amendment, you would be obligated to send the 33 cases you are currently examining to the tribunal?

[Sylvie Matteau]

No, because we are examining these files pursuant to the Canada Labour Code and the legislation clearly assigns this responsibility to us.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Would you agree to deal with other cases where public servants complain about retaliation?

[Sylvie Matteau]

We do not deal with retaliation cases further to whistleblowing.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your presentation. It was a request to the committee, just to have an idea.... As you've already heard, there was some mention from one of the other panels to look at your responsibilities, your scope, what you're able to do. You've clarified a number of the questions already, so thank you.

I have a couple of questions. To start off with, the work you're presently doing...right now, roughly how many cases are in your backlog? If you've already mentioned it, I apologize. But to clarify, roughly what is your backlog? I know this is hard because every case is different, but on average, how long does it take for a case to make its way through the board?

[Sylvie Matteau]

Thank you.

The definition of a backlog would be an interesting one, I think, for everybody to know. We have over 3,000 cases carried forward from the previous year. Right now we are handling and managing all of those cases. A great majority of the cases will be settled or will be scheduled very briefly. If you're hearing of a backlog at the board, I think it would be more accurate to look at what we are experiencing right now as regular management of our files, in that what is coming in and going out is within the norm and is not adding to....

We are successful in scheduling cases for termination, for example, within four months. We will endeavour to schedule all other cases within five months. So at this point what is happening is that the resources on both sides—the two parties, the bargaining agent and the employer side—are short, and we have requests for postponements due to that.

In response to that, we are trying to innovate and provide both parties with new procedures. We've developed the expedited adjudication process. We are regularly using pre-hearing conferences in order to have the parties maybe narrow the number of days they may need, and those sorts of things, and to try to get a date from them to see when we can proceed.

So we're being very active in this regard, and we don't feel that we're overwhelmed at all. As I said, the numbers are stable and we're managing all of those files.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

With regard to your new responsibilities—in fact, you would have had others if other legislation had been put through—you're telling us in your document here that you are able to call witnesses and to investigate and to provide some remedies. You'll note from the legislation that's in front of us that there are similar kinds of powers to be given to the tribunal.

What additional tools would you require to meet the same kind of standard that is being set out in Bill C-2, or would you require further tools than resources? That's why I asked you the question. You obviously need more resources, and that's maybe for us to put on the table and not for you. I appreciate your position.

I'm curious, but if you were given this responsibility or a similar responsibility as the tribunal, what additional tools or scope would you require in terms of remedy and investigation...? Well, you have abilities to investigate and to hold hearings, etc., but what additional powers would you need?

[Sylvie Matteau]

In terms of the cases that would then come to us, all of the powers we have as a quasi-judicial tribunal.... That's the way we look at it. We do have these powers. By directing these cases to this board, if you will—if that's a good way of describing it—we will be handling the cases with the powers we have, and that's the way we look at it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]...as far as we know. But take a look at it and let us know if you would—

[Sylvie Matteau]

Right. We can take a more precise look at it.

As far as remedies are concerned, we do have extra remedial powers with the human rights cases, which equates to the one the Canadian Human Rights Commission has, which is the $20,000 and....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

We had hearings on Bill C-11 for well over a year and we heard from a host of whistle-blowers, and not one of them said they wanted the staff relations board to be the mechanism to protect them from reprisal—not one. I took the liberty of contacting a host of them this past week to find out if they've changed their point of view, and I have a list, which Mr. Sauvageau asked for, of public servants who are whistle-blowers who do not believe the staff relations board is suitable for this function.

In fact, I have here Joanna Gualtieri, who says she does not believe the board was of any use at all in her case. I have additionally Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon, Allan Cutler, Brian McAdam, Selwyn Peters, and Joanna Gualtieri, who have all said they would prefer to have a tribunal of judges oversee cases such as their own instead of the board.

This is what whistle-blowers are saying. Unions, who have some control over the composition of your board, might feel otherwise, but I'm taking the word of whistle-blowers, for whom this bill was drafted and whom it is meant to serve. That's the first point.

I should also point out that Dr. Keyserlingk, who has been overseeing whistle-blower protection in this country, although with limited powers, also is of the view that a tribunal of judges, and not the board, is perfectly suited to do this.

Finally, I should note that it's a false dichotomy, because what the Accountability Act proposes is to give public servants the choice of whether they want to go to your board or to a tribunal of judges. We are of the view that whistle-blowers should continue to have that choice, and if other parties want to take away that choice from whistle-blowers, that will be their decision, and they'll have to explain it to whistle-blowers.

I want to get more clarity on your mandate as it stands now. Do you have the power to discipline?

[Sylvie Matteau]

We do not have the power to discipline.

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

Do you have the power to grant protection to organizations that receive grants?

[Sylvie Matteau]

We don't have that power.

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

Do you have the power to protect people who contract with the government but who are not employees?

[Sylvie Matteau]

No.

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

So if the whistle-blower protection components of this act are designed to do all of those things and your board would not have the power to do those things.... Moments ago you said you would do this with the powers your board already has, but you've just told me it does not have the powers to do any of those things I've just listed.

[Sylvie Matteau]

That is correct.

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

We've heard from a number of others that this board is perfectly suited and has all this experience, but I've just listed three areas where the board has no previous experience dealing with this matter.

I also note—