Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to raise a point of order relating to the committee's motion of March 5, 2013, and the direct negative impact that it's having on the process we're undertaking today.
First, I apologize to the witnesses, but this is an issue of fundamental importance that I'm sure you will understand and that I believe is jeopardizing the impartiality and thoroughness of this study, and, by extension, my responsibilities and constitutional duties as an MP and as a member of this committee and my party's lead critic for the Status of Women.
While I expect that my colleagues on the government side will want this matter dealt with in camera, I believe this issue is in all of our interests. It's not simply an issue of committee business, nor is it a matter to be hidden behind closed doors, so I am raising it as a point of order.
The committee had scheduled to hear from Krista Carle at our last meeting of March 7. Despite having already made the plans for the appearance on March 5, the government members of the committee pressed through a motion, which read, “That, in accordance with the sub judice convention, invitations to appear on the study of sexual harassment in the federal workplace be limited to individuals not currently...[under]...a judicial process or grievance.”
Following that motion, the clerk issued an e-mail to Ms. Carle, which stated, “As a consequence,” of the motion, “and given your current involvement in a class-action suit against the RCMP, your appearance before the committee, scheduled for Thursday March 7...has been cancelled.”
In essence, the potential witness was told by the committee that her experience with assault, harassment, and bullying in the workplace would not be heard by this committee because she had opted to take action against those who allegedly perpetrated the crimes. As a result of that rejection, I requested a legal opinion on this matter.
Yesterday, that legal opinion was delivered by the Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to all the members of committee. While it spoke to the history and to the legal developments of this matter, two elements in particular are germane to the point I'm making today.
Richard Denis, the Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, stated:
After a review of the relevant transcript of the Committee, we conclude that the testimony and questions posed were of a general nature. They addressed a matter of public policy rather than specific allegations. Therefore, there appears to have been no violations of the sub judice convention; {QuotePara} At this time, the proceedings of this legal action are still in their preliminary stage, and the hearing for the certification of the class-action will only occur at the end of the year. It is yet unknown if the courts will allow the claim to proceed on the merits, which will take another few years. Therefore, there['s] little chance that the Committee’s evidence...[could]...prejudice the potential legal action, and as such there would be no violation of the sub judice convention.
Setting aside the fact that the sub judice convention is not a rule and is not found anywhere as an enforceable measure in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, this legal opinion means that hearing from people like Ms. Carle would not jeopardize any formal proceedings and, even if it did, the pending class action litigation does not constitute a matter that is currently before the courts.
Knowing this, and having this confirmed by the Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, I would therefore suggest that the committee's motion of March 5 was premature, misinformed, and out of order. I submit that the motion should not have been presented until a legal opinion was received and digested so as to ensure the accuracy and appropriateness for all of the committee members.
Clearly, the motion was faulty. I would therefore suggest that it be rescinded and that this committee make immediate plans to hear from people like Krista Carle, Catherine Galliford, and the many other brave women who have experienced harassment at the hands of their employer and who would bring valuable experience and lessons to this table.
Madam Chair, I think this is an extremely important study that we're doing, and I don't want it to lose its way. We've done six months of work and only heard from one witness who specifically suffered at the hands of many of the members of the RCMP, so I've asked that the committee consider rescinding that motion, allowing us to go forward in giving the many women out there involved in this a chance to come and speak to the Status of Women committee and have their voices heard.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I would appreciate very much the support of the committee.
I understand that we don't all know what the procedures are, but the motion clearly was out of order, and I think that had the committee had the full understanding of who we can call before us and who we can't, they probably would not have had to introduce that motion.
Thank you very much for allowing me to make that point of order, and I would appreciate some feedback from the committee on rescinding that motion.