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

[Joe Wild]

The effect of the amendment would be that it would allow someone who has been proven to have taken a reprisal against a whistle-blower, and who the tribunal orders the employer to take disciplinary action against, to grieve that. The repriser who has now been disciplined by the employer would be able to grieve that. Bill C-2 prevents that from happening. The amendment would open that possibility up.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

So if I understand you correctly, if we were to consider the situation that Mr. Allan Cutler lived, which was clear whistle-blowing and then active reprisals.... Mr. Cutler did in fact whistle-blow on Mr. Guité. We have the testimony before the public accounts committee. Justice Gomery received that testimony as well. Mr. Cutler was then the victim of reprisals by Mr. Guité.

Had Bill C-2 been in force at that time, and had the amendment that Mr. Dewar has just proposed been adopted, Mr. Guité would have been able to file a grievance against a disciplinary order that had been brought against him for having conducted reprisals against Mr. Allan Cutler for whistle-blowing against Mr. Guité.

[Joe Wild]

Without commenting on any fact situation, a repriser who, as the result of an order of the tribunal, has been disciplined by an employer, under the amendment that's proposed would be able to grieve that decision, whereas under the act, as proposed in Bill C-2, they would not be able to grieve that decision. The only recourse would be judicial review at the Federal Court of Appeal.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Without falling into the trap presented and outlining people of note and indicators, I think we have to look at it as public policy isn't based on personality, public policy is based on situations. I think it wasn't about having someone--they have a right to appeal anyhow--have the right to grieve. You could simply turn it the other way. If a decision was made and we found out years later, because other evidence had come forward, that the person wasn't treated fairly.... This is odd for me to be saying. It's plausible--and we've seen this time and again from the courts--that all the evidence wasn't in place and that someone would be allowed the right to at least have an appeal process. So I just put that for the record and away we go.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm calling the vote on amendment NDP-21.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 203)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We move to the amendment on clause 203--amendment G-47, page 154.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

If members turn their attention to page 148 of the Accountability Act, they will find clause 203, which will be amended by replacing lines 12 to 15 with the following:

(l) the power to request that a chief executive provide notice as referred to in section 36; and

(m) the power in section 37 and the power and duties in section 38 to make a report.

I'll invite any comments from our expert panel.

[Joe Wild]

The primary purpose of the amendment is one that is incidental to a motion coming up, amendment G-49. Basically, this removes the making of financial awards from the list of powers and duties of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

Sorry, this section is the list of powers and duties that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner must exercise personally, cannot delegate, but this is just incidental. It's removing this from this list, because as you will see when we get to it, there is a government amendment to remove the financial awards.

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

Presumably those who are opposed to the financial rewards will support amendments to remove those rewards from the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. I don't see any hands up, so I'll call the vote.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't want to put any pressure on people here.

We move to the amendment in clause 210 that is on page 155.1. It's a Liberal amendment, amendment L-22.1.

Mr. Dewar, it is the same as amendment NDP-21.1.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

This amendment is consequential to all the other amendments that I have put forward and that have been adopted based on the recommendation of Maître Walsh in order to preserve as much as possible the constitutional autonomy of the House and its members, the authority of the House over the conduct of its members, and any process that could lead to disciplinary sanctions, or whatever, regarding a member of the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'l call the vote on amendment L-22.1.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 222)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now go to the amendments in clause 222. There's a line conflict.

In amendment L-23, on page 160, there's a line conflict with amendment G-50 and amendment NDP-21.2. So we'll let you all deal with that.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Just a moment, please.

What we're doing here is replacing—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Maybe you could move it, sir.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I'll move it, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

And then I move to replace lines 42 and 43 on page 159 and lines 1 to 24 on page 60 with the following--which is in the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. We're going to keep moving here.

Mr. Owen, do you have any comments?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

No, I think it's self-evident.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

We have a line conflict. Is anyone worried about that? No?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre, we have amendment G-50, page 161, if you could move that, please.