Finance committee  I believe that was one of the reasons that justified the creation of the agency, to make the staffing process easier and faster for the employer. As I said, they've learned on the job ever since the inception of the agency, and it has been, in our opinion, a failure. I have a hot-off-the-press Federal Court decision here, where the judge said: In my view, the unilateral action of the agency (without the benefit of any jurisprudence on the issue) in the circumstances of this matter does nothing to enhance the credibility of its staffing program.

Finance committee  Third-party review is the process they have in place for recourse.

Finance committee  It was instituted by the agency.

Finance committee  The processes and the recourse—

Finance committee  They're considered not to be an independent third party.

Finance committee  I beg your pardon?

Finance committee  I think the review needs to be addressed with strong recommendations. The feeling is that they put the cart before the horse in establishing their staffing and recourse mechanisms at the agency. It's poisoned everybody's life ever since. There was a comment made by the previous presenters to the fact that the employees of Revenue Canada were professional and rendering a good service.

Finance committee  Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Finance committee  Thank you. I am Michèle Demers. I am the President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and I represent some 10,000 to 10,500 professionals in Canada's Revenue Agency. Today I am accompanied by Mr. Réal Lamarche, who is the president of the audit group and other professional groups in the agency, as well as Mr.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I share Mr. Gordon's opinion on the matter, with a few minor differences. Lobbyists will not try to meet with our members in order to influence them. I do not see who in the public service could be approached by lobbyists. I do not believe that that would apply to our members.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I don't have a figure to suggest to you, but I think it should be in accordance with the merit of the case and the necessity for legal advice and representation. It shouldn't be an arbitrary cap of $1,500.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I can tell you that the Professional Institute has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in representing whistle-blowers, and continues to do so. So $1,500 is peanuts and it goes nowhere. I can tell you that much.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It depends on the case. I hesitate to put a cap because it could be $10,000, it could be $15,000, it could be $20,000. I don't know. It depends on the magnitude of the case. I wanted to comment on what you said before and now I've lost it.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I just wanted to caution that the process for whistle-blowers needs to be simple and straightforward; it cannot be convoluted. Already it's difficult for members to come forward, to build up the courage to blow the whistle on any kind of situation. There has to be a clear path in front of them that they're comfortable with.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  You may want to invite representatives or the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board as a witness to explain their role and their knowledge of the milieu.