Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 13th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's Madame Guay; I'm sorry.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm introducing the amendment. I hope it is admissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It is in order, Madam Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

This clause is the ideal place to add a clarification concerning the definition of the word "reprisal", because it concerns the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Consequently, I'll read you part of the amendment:

(3.1) The definition of "reprisal" in subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (d), by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following after paragraph (e):

(f) any psychological harassment.

Then comes an exhaustive description of psychological harassment.

A number of people have mentioned this to us, and we moreover have tabled a bill on psychological harassment. Quebec already has legislation on that matter. Unions, including the Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec, have asked us to find a part of Bill C-2 where reference could be made to psychological harassment, particularly where, in the event of a disclosure, a person may suffer significant trauma, that is psychological harassment.

We simply wanted to see this definition in the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will vote on BQ-30.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now move to page 151, L-21.

Mr. Owen, would you move that, please?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes. In the process of moving this, Mr. Chair, I would like to make the observation that this does not amend the Canada Labour Code. It simply provides that the provisions under consideration make the Canada Labour Code applicable. So I move this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, I'm going to say it's inadmissible.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Well, I'd like to continue with my discussion of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I'm going to make a ruling, and then we'll see what happens, Mr. Owen.

L-21 proposes to change the definition of “tribunal” to “the Canada Industrial Relations Board”, established in section 9 of the Canada Labour Code.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” Since the Canada Industrial Relations Board is not referred to elsewhere in this bill, I will rule that L-21 proposes a new concept, which is beyond the scope of Bill C-2, and consequently it is inadmissible.

Mr. Owen, do you have a point of order?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. My point of order is that there is no amendment to the Canada Industrial Relations Board contemplated by this. All this seeks to amend is Bill C-2, by changing the definition of “tribunal”. So therefore it is simply an amendment to the bill that's before us, and it has no substantive impact on the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Give me a minute.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a comment on the same point, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes. Evidently this would require a change, at least in the mandate of the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, because it would require of that board to take on a whole list of new responsibilities related to whistle-blower protection, which are not part of the existing responsibilities of that board and are not contemplated or referred to anywhere in Bill C-2.

Therefore, I wish to congratulate and endorse your earlier ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, we're talking about two points of order. I did rule, and my ruling stands that it's beyond the scope of the bill.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Would you remind me, Chair, of the procedure for me to challenge your decision?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You challenge the chair.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I hereby challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. We need a majority vote.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

It's a friendly challenge.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Will the chair's ruling be sustained? Yeas and nays.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

With great respect and the utmost of friendship.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It is indeed sustained.

(On clause 201)

We'll go to clause 201. There are some amendments. It's NDP-20, on page 151.

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes.