Evidence of meeting #74 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
On division.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(On clause 10)
Colleagues, we're back on the stood clauses. We have clause 10. We got a bit ahead of ourselves.
I'll go back and ask for UC again for the withdrawal of NDP-9.
7:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
(Amendment withdrawn)
Thannk you.
We're now on clause G-6.
Mr. Housefather, were you addressing that one?
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Basically, G-6 is meant to reverse the removal of the prohibition if starting a different proceeding under a different act for a reprisal. It would prevent overlap with other recourse mechanisms for reprisals, which could allow for multiple processes being conducted on the same issues by different administrative bodies with different mandates and objectives. In my view, that would waste resources and create inconsistent determinations and different remedies.
Coming back to this, it would say you have to go through one recourse mechanism for reprisals, and I think that's a better way to do it.
That's the purpose of G-6.
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I'm sorry about my microphone.
7:05 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I understand my colleague's concerns. At the second-last meeting, we discussed amendment G‑6. Our goal is to make sure that the public servant's options for recourse aren't restricted and that if the public servant chooses to go to the union, for example, and the grievance process seems to be dragging on forever, the person will have the right to use other recourse mechanisms.
In our view, it's a protective measure, and that's why we're not going to come to an agreement over amendment G‑6.
7:05 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
We're on the same terms as Mrs. Vignola, in the sense that subsection 19.1(4) says that filing a complaint of reprisal precludes workers from seeking any other procedural remedy for the same act of reprisal.
The commissioner and the tribunal are not perfect, and in many cases are far from effective. Their processes also often take years. There are many situations in which disclosures may need to also seek another method of recourse, for example, grievance. They should be able to do so without waiting years for one process to complete. Different processes are available, because these situations are complex and require multi-faceted resolutions. We'll also be opposed to this.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's common sense that when you're picking an action before one administrative tribunal, you're not supposed to have parties take actions before multiple different administrative tribunals at the same time. The reason is simple. You'll have contradictory decisions. You'll have all kinds of flaws in terms of resources, because you would have to put resources in front of two or three tribunals instead of one.
In my view, if you want to take court action, you are not going to launch it in front of the court of appeals, the superior court, and the court of Quebec at the same time. You wouldn't be allowed to do that. It would create unreasonable bureaucracy. It would also cause time delays and all three different judges having to deal with the same issue.
It just doesn't make logical sense to me. I believe the line should be deleted. Again, I would call upon the common sense of my colleagues to see that it makes sense to not have alternative mechanisms.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Kusmierczyk, before I go to you, I'm sensing the Conservative side is probably supporting this.
Could we skip over you and get to a vote? Is that fine, Mr. Kusmierczyk?
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
7:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mrs. Vignola has requested a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
On clause 10 as amended, would you like a recorded vote, or can we do that on division?
7:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
On division.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
(Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 38)
We are now resuming debate on clause 38.
Mrs. Vignola, did you have an amendment?
7:10 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
During our discussions yesterday, it was pointed out that it would be surprising if a person accused of wrongdoing were to give their consent for their name to be disclosed.
In a spirit of goodwill, in light of the discussions—
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
May I interrupt for a moment?
Are you able to distribute that? Our legislative clerks have it, but the rest of us don't.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
7:10 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'll send it to you right now.
To sum up, this follows on what we were talking about yesterday, which is that the accused person is unlikely to give their consent for their name to be disclosed in any way. The amendment I moved would take this aspect out of clause 38.
I'll read it out while we wait for it to reach you all.
It would amend Bill C-290 in clause 38 by replacing lines 15 to 18 on page 11 with the following:
disclose the identity of a person making a disclosure and of a witness, with the consent of that person.
We've deleted the part that was initially problematic.
