Evidence of meeting #67 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 recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Since the justifications are exactly the same as for the previous clause, I would ask that we simply vote now.
6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, shall clause 9 carry?
It's a tie, so I'll say yes.
(Clause 9 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 10)
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're on to clause 10 now, colleagues, and we have G-5, on page 23 of the package.
Mr. Fergus, you're up again.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I hope this will go quickly, Mr. Chair.
This is going to be consistent with what we agreed to earlier in terms of making sure the complainant has the reasonable belief that reprisal has taken place against them.
6 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
That's fine for us. That way, the concept of good faith is replaced by the term “reasonably”, which is an international standard.
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Shall G-5 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Johns, you're up again on NDP-9, which is on page 24 of the package.
6 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
This removes some subjective requirements and other barriers to the filing of complaints. Currently, whistle-blowers may be denied protection by the commissioner on various grounds that are subjective, arbitrary or inappropriate, and all commissioners have made full use of such provisions to reject or close cases.
An analysis of the PSIC's case management database for 2007 to 2010 revealed that 40% of disclosures were rejected for “a valid reason”, with no reason given, and 35% because they were better dealt with by someone else. In most cases, they were fobbed off to the grievance process. Whistle-blowers who make disclosures in various forms, timings and circumstances need to be protected, and the public interest does not care about the semantics of the disclosure process and the exactness of the form of the disclosure.
That's why we moved this.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I appreciate what Mr. Johns is trying to accomplish, but I don't think this is the way to do it. The purpose of this clause becomes very unclear. There is a form by which.... It's important to have a clear process by which complainants would lodge their complaints. If we take away that obligation, almost any type or form of complaint would be submitted, and then you'll have arbitrary determinations: Why are some in some forms accepted in one department and not another? I think it could lead to a lot of confusion.
I'll exaggerate, but sometimes receiving a form written on crayon on the back of a napkin is not the right thing to do, nor do you want to have another system in which you have to fill it out in triplicate and have it all attested. It needs to be a pretty standard approach, and this is the reason I wouldn't want to remove this aspect of.... I wouldn't want to support this to remove that obligation.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Having been an officer in a company who was designated to receive whistle-blower complaints before, I want to point out how difficult this would make it for the person who is receiving the complaints. This would allow, for example, a person to walk up to somebody at a Christmas party and make a complaint and to then have that person declare that the discussion was a valid complaint.
You really need a standard form in writing to be received to know when you're supposed to start investigating or not. If you take out “in a form [reasonably] acceptable to the Commissioner”, you know.... The way to handle it is to look at the form and, if we're not happy with the form, to make suggestions about how the form could be made more simple. It's not to completely remove these words and mean that a verbal discussion with somebody somewhere becomes a complaint.
I would just say from experience that this will not work, and it would make things much more difficult.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I do understand the objections of my colleagues, Mr. Housefather and Mr. Fergus. Yet the process is not at all clear in the current wording of the act. By leaving the phrase “in a form acceptable to the Commissioner”, absolutely no guidelines are provided as to that form. It simply restricts the process. There is nothing in the bill saying that the commissioner may not accept a verbal complaint in a particular case, for instance.
This is a recommendation that was made by certain witnesses, specifically Mr. Hutton, if I am not mistaken. The witnesses made two important points. First, they said that a complaint had to contain very specific words, the magic words, in order to be deemed acceptable, and that the absence of those words was in some cases a reason for the complaint to be dismissed. Secondly, they said that restricting as much as possible the form in which a complaint can be submitted served to restrict the process.
The current process is not any clearer. The commissioner has full latitude to determine what is acceptable. Nothing prevents the commissioner from setting guidelines and providing tools for whistle-blowers to use without necessarily excluding other methods.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I view this as not the same but similar to the situation in which there is currently no sitting Ethics Commissioner. If the forms acceptable to the commissioner are deemed unacceptable by our witnesses, then really, the form should be adjusted—not this amendment inserted. In my opinion, this means that clearly the forms acceptable to the commissioner are not satisfactory to the whistle-blowers and those should be evaluated. I think there's a problem that exists that this amendment does not effectively address systematically and in the right way, as it should be. We will not be supporting this. That's the outcome.
Thank you.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I understand completely so I will not waste our time.
The current wording says that the complaint must be in a form that the commissioner deems acceptable, but the commissioner could wake up one day and decide that smoke signals are the only acceptable method and that forms are no longer accepted. You know what I am saying.
Even if this amendment were adopted, the problem would not be completely resolved, but I think the amendment is nonetheless a step in the right direction rather than the wrong direction.
Even though I disagree with you, I do of course understand your position.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Next we'll have Mr. Housefather, then Ms. Kusie and then Ms. Vignola.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with Mr. Garon that there is no need to waste any more time.
This type of form is exactly what other commissions.... The way it's worded here is how it's worded with the Canadian Human Rights Act, for example, in terms of making a complaint. This is the standard wording.
I would suggest that the OGGO committee has every ability to ask the commissioner's office what form they are using. We can look at the form and we can make suggestions if we find that the form they are using is incompatible with what we're looking for.
There is no reason to change the act and take away the fact that there is a standard form. To me, it is totally reasonable and makes life easier for the commissioner to have one standard form.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.