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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have a point of order, Ms. Jennings?

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

Thank you.

There is a mischaracterization going on, at least as it pertains to my statement.

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

I didn't mention your statement.

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

My statement was clear: that if the powers that would be given to the newly created tribunal were instead given to—

[A voice]

That's a point of debate. Give me a break.

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

It's not a question of debate; it's a question of mischaracterization, and I'm asking the chair to rule on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order, Mr. Poilievre.

Proceed.

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

Thank you, Chair.

At least as it pertains to my statement to the witness, it was clear that should this committee in its wisdom give all of the powers to the board that currently under Bill C-2 would be given to a tribunal, the board would be able to adjudicate whistle-blower complaints.

For a member of this committee to now state that there's a whole list of powers under Bill C-2 for the tribunal that the board does not have is a misrepresentation. The question was, if the board were given all the powers this newly created tribunal would have, would the board be able to adjudicate?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Another point of order, or is this the same point of order?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Similar. My point of order is that--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

One second. If it's a similar one, it's not the same. So I'm ruling that your point of order is a point of clarification; it is not a point of order.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you. My point of order was along the same lines, that members--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well don't go there then.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I briefly want to say, Mr. Chairman, because you allowed Ms. Jennings to speak for a few minutes, that points of order are raised when the rules of order that govern the committee have been violated. They were not. Ms. Jennings felt that her position was being misrepresented, and that's fair; perhaps it was, and that's fine. She can clarify that when her time is allotted in the rotation of questions. Points of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, we haven't had one of these in some time, so we're now going to stop. We're going to continue on.

Did you have some more to say, Ms. Matteau?

Okay, you have the floor.

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

All right.

As I correctly pointed out earlier, the powers do not currently reside with your body, and it is not clear whether they ever could reside with your body. In fact, it is impossible for grant recipients and contractors to ever get protection from your body, because your body does not deal with non-public servants, does it?

[Sylvie Matteau]

That's correct.

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

That's correct. So the point Ms. Jennings raises is completely irrelevant, because your organization could not, as she suggested, be vested with those powers.

Now, on the matter of harassment, I've spoken to whistle-blowers who say that the principal form of reprisal is actually not job loss or pay cuts or smaller offices, or any issues that deal with the terms of their employment; it's actually harassment.

As I've been briefed, is it not correct that your organization cannot intervene in alleged harassment unless it actually affects the terms of employment?

[Sylvie Matteau]

The board currently does address the question of harassment through our conflict resolution program. We are called regularly to provide mediation services in this regard. So it is definitely something this board is currently doing.

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

At what point can you get involved in a harassment case?

[Sylvie Matteau]

We are called upon to provide mediation services.

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

But at what point can you get involved in those? Is it right when there's an allegation of any form of harassment? Is it immediately?

[Sylvie Matteau]

It varies.

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

Okay, it varies.

I have here a letter from PSAC that actually says your board cannot get involved in matters of harassment. With Ms. Gualtieri's case, for example, PSAC wrote her saying that your board did not have jurisdiction over harassment cases unless it actually led her to leave her job, which would be a case of constructive dismissal.

So a whole host of harassment situations could occur prior to the board even having jurisdiction over dealing with it. So the board would not have the ability, under the current situation, to rectify those situations where someone has not lost their job but they have experienced serious harassment.Those are a whole series of situations that under the status quo the board would not be able to deal with. I'm glad we've had those clarifications.

I'd also like to address the issue of expertise, because some have suggested that judges will sit there with a blank stare because they won't have the expertise. Judges deal with DNA evidence, scientific information, criminal issues, divorce, forensics, financial accounting, environmental issues, health-related matters. From one case to the next, they change on a dime, moving from one area of expertise to another. So would you not agree that it's perfectly reasonable to expect that a judge could interpret matters related to a reprisal against a whistle-blower?

[Sylvie Matteau]

Certainly, but that is not the question.