Government Operations Committee on March 23rd, 2017

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

You don't particularly have a view one way or the other?

[Rachel Boyer]

I don't particularly, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, that completes our second round. We have just a few moments left.

Mr. Whalen, I know that you had one question you wanted to get in. If you can get both the question and the answer completed in about three and a half minutes, the floor is yours.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Madam Boyer, I was going to follow up with a question along the same lines. I think the general consensus is that we're not happy with the act. We don't think that the act of 2007 that was brought in provides the protections that it needs to provide.

With respect to the private versus the public protection, I think I follow Mr. Weir's view, but with respect to protecting against reprisals, I see two parts of the regime. One is to protect the confidentiality of the disclosure so that people don't know who made the disclosure, and then, if there is still a reprisal, to go to the tribunal. Is there an inherent conflict of interest in the very entity that's meant to protect the confidentiality of the disclosure also determining who is allowed to go to the tribunal? They very well may be implicit or complicit in the disclosure of the identity of the person we're trying to protect.

[Rachel Boyer]

As soon as a case comes before the tribunal, we operate under the open court principle. That said, there are provisions within our rules and regulations to have confidentiality agreements and not to hold the hearings in public. It is part of our rules.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I'm sorry: it's the gatekeeper role of PSIC that I'm concerned about. They have been the entity tasked with protecting the confidentiality. Let's say a reprisal has occurred. Somebody wants to bring that before your agency, but they act as the gatekeeper. Is that not an inherent conflict of interest?

[Rachel Boyer]

From my perspective—and if I look at some comparisons—it was established within the act the same way that the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Tribunal were established.... I don't see it as a—

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

It's the same question there. Do you think there's an inherent conflict of interest in the entity tasked with protecting the confidentiality determining whether or not your office is allowed to review the reprisal?

[Rachel Boyer]

No, I don't think there is a conflict.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We will leave it at that.

Thank you, witnesses, for your appearance here once again. The study is still ongoing. I cannot assure you that you will not be invited back again, but if you are, I'm sure your discussion will be as informative as it was today.

[Joe Friday]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Colleagues, we have a second meeting this afternoon. It was scheduled to start at 3:30; however, I've been informed that votes occurring after question period will not occur immediately. There will be a 15-minute bell now. There are three votes. That means we will be delayed somewhat. I anticipate the meeting won't start prior to 3:45 this afternoon.

Mr. Clerk, do we have the room until...?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Philippe Grenier-Michaud]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We'll go for the full two hours this afternoon. We will have representatives from the Treasury Board Secretariat and also, appearing as a whistle-blower, Madam Therrien.

Thank you once again to our witnesses.

We are adjourned. We'll see all of you back here around 3:45.