Certainly, Madam Chair.
I would perhaps start with the letter. First, it was a misnomer. I should have referred to the public sector as opposed to the public service. Throughout my experience, when I was dealing with crown corporations, I obtained a very good understanding of their role and the importance as well of delivering either policy or programs.
I think that the education, prevention, and training—I believe this was discussed as well in committee, if I'm not mistaken, as to who should have the role. Certainly now the newly named Canada Public Service Agency presently has a role, along with Treasury Board, with respect to education and training, and this is very important to maintain as the employer.
But like any tribunal—I mean, the Supreme Court of Canada has been reaching out through its chief justice—not that I compare myself to the Supreme Court, but general courts and general tribunals want to make known what the mandate is, what is the transparency, what is the openness, and as well, to try to reach out to a very diverse group of people who deliver services to Canadians, to try to improve the way they do so and try to come to terms with issues that may happen in the workplace.
So this is in the most general terms of making known the role and mandate of this new institution and, as well, not to work in isolation. That would be my first comment, Madam Chair.
The second one has to do with alternative dispute resolution. So it is in that context that I would have referred to a supervisor taking remedial action. In the context of a process, a mediated approach, you always look for recognition that either a wrong has been committed or a mistake has been made, and often I have found that lack of communication was definitely key, either on the part of the complainant or on the part of the respondent. Often we come to a resolution of those issues in a variety of situations that could arise.
I think I'll leave it at that.