Evidence of meeting #66 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 amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mrs. Vignola, thank you for your comments.
In paragraph (d) of the definition of reprisal, the act refers to working conditions. According to the Canada Labour Code, that includes physical conditions and well-being at work, that is, emotional conditions. The employer therefore has to make sure that the employee is treated well, psychologically and physically, and that they are safe. You talked about what can happen outside work, but that is not the employer's responsibility, although the employer certainly has a duty to show compassion to its employees.
You could make the following compromise: the committee could add examples to paragraph (d) of the current definition in the act, which would emphasize some of the conditions that are important to the committee members. How to do this would need to be determined, and it might take some work, but it could provide a focus on the psychological and other elements that committee members consider important.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
If Madame Vignola wouldn't mind, perhaps she could add something along the lines of, to work that in, “including but not limited to”.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
It would be something like that, indeed, with the addition of the NDP's proposed list. Is that all right for everyone?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
My apologies, Chair.
I want to ask Mr. Fergus why the government did not want the termination of a contract to be considered a reprisal.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'm trying to find your reference.
It didn't say that. Is that right?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Are you comfortable with it, Mrs. Kusie?
Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Fergus?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
It's fine. I think it's satisfied logically.
Thank you.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, if there is no one else, I'm going to suspend quickly so that one of our legislative assistants can go over to to Ms. Vignola to get all the details of the amendment. Then we will come back, read it and then vote on it.
Are we fine, colleagues?
We'll suspend for a few seconds.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, we are back. I appreciate your patience.
Ms. Sauvé, who is one of our legislative clerks—whom we've called our law clerks and our legislative assistants—is going to read back for the record what the amendment is. It has been emailed to you.
Because we're combining what looks like NDP-3 and NDP-4 with amendment G-3, eventually a lot of paragraphs (a), (b), etc., will be very different, but that will corrected in the record.
For the sake of time, we'll just read the new amendment, then agree on it and move on, I hope.
5:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Just to clarify, Mr. Chair, what has been circulated was the text of the subamendment proposed by Madam Vignola. Would you propose that I read the subamendment or the new G-3 as it would read with the subamendment included in it?
5:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Read the new G-3 with the subamendment.
May 15th, 2023 / 5:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
This is what G-3 would sound like. I'll start in the English:
That Bill C-290, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 31 on page 2, with the following:
(4) The definition “reprisal” in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
“reprisal” means any listed measure taken against a public servant because the public servant
We would have a new (a), which corresponds with NDP-3:
(a) has refused to commit a wrongdoing
Then we go back, so (a) becomes (b) and so on:
(b) has made a protected disclosure
Is it so far so good?
5:35 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
With this subamendment, the amended wording of the second part of G‑3 reads as follows:
Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: “listed measure” means, in relation to a public servant, (a) a disciplinary measure; (b) their demotion; (c) the termination of their employment, including, in the case of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a discharge or dismissal; (d) any measure that adversely affects their employment or working conditions, including but not limited to: (d.1) the mandatory assignment or deployment of the public servant; (d.2) any form of reprimand; (d.3) any form of discrimination; (d.4) the infliction of emotional distress; (d.5) any act or omission that causes any psychological injury to the public servant; (e) a threat to take any of the measures referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d)…
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Is the subamendment agreed to on division, colleagues?
(Subamendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 4)
We'll start with CPC-2.
We're going to be here until 5:58, colleagues, because we started at 3:58. Hopefully we can at least get this one through.
Mrs. Kusie, go ahead on CPC-2.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
If you're not tabling it, we don't have to withdraw it.
We're on BQ-3, then, which is on page 13 of the package.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
This amendment seeks to amend clause 4 of Bill C-290 by replacing line 34 on page 2 with the following:(b.1) a case of abuse of authority within the meaning of subsection 2(4) of the Public Service Employment Act;
The amendment defines abuse of authority by reference to an existing statute. A new definition is therefore not provided, and the current definition is not a major problem, as there is already a fairly broad consensus on its application. The amendment merely clarifies this point in what would be new paragraph 8(b.1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I appreciate the intention of BQ-3. If it were up to me and I had a choice between BQ-3 and CPC-2, which has not been presented, I would choose CPC-2 because I think it accomplishes the same thing but allows for some further definitions that could be done by officials to make sure they spell out the process. They both speak to the same issue; they are both pretty clear, but I would go more with CPC-2.
Since we don't have CPC-2 available, is it possible to add to it a bit? Could we add some further definition, which could be done by officials? I'm afraid there is going to be a lot of overlap here with the Public Service Employment Act. There could be some things that might not work. They are almost equal, but I think it requires some further definition, which is the advantage that CPC-2 had.
