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.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Yes, okay. Let's make it “by the end of September”.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
The problem is it can't be distributed unless it's translated. We're wordsmithing on the fly.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I can assure you that tools such as ChatGPT and Google Translate are far from perfect. It is easy to see the difference.
We were going to make the same request as Ms. Thompson, that the motion be provided in writing.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're not going to be able to get it in written form today, obviously.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Can we skip a clause and go for another clause, and then come back to it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We can. We need UC to skip over, as I understand it. I'll double-check.
Colleagues, we'd have to allow or have all of clause 10 stand, as in we'd have to come back to all of clause 10. We can't just do NDP-9...G-5, even though we've already moved past it. We'd have to come back to clause 10, which we can do, and get to clause 11, and then follow up with this motion at our next meeting on Bill C-290.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're going to go to about 6:45, colleagues. We have resources until 6:41, and then we'll make up for the suspended time.
Are we agreed? We'll let clause 10 stand.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It has to be UC, so I assume we have unanimous consent to allow it to stand.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Yes, that is correct.
(Clause 10 allowed to stand)
(Clause 11 agreed to on division)
(On clause 12)
We have clause 12, with G-7, which is on page 26 of the package.
Mr. Fergus, I assume you're going to discuss this.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Yes, I will.
This clause prevents overlap with other recourse mechanisms for reprisals, Mr. Chair. What you want to avoid is having multiple processes being conducted on the same issue by different administrative bodies with different mandates and objectives. Not only would that be a waste of resources, but there could be inconsistent determinations with different remedies that come about.
What this would do, by simply removing this reference, is make sure that we're getting rid of any frivolous or intentionally malicious disclosures. It's consistent with that international standard of asking people to bring forward things on reasonable belief of the verification of that action that should be denounced.
Conservative
Conservative
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Does that mean that amendment G‑7 eliminates possible avenues of recourse for public servants? If I understand correctly, since we are withdrawing lines 24 to 32, we are therefore eliminating the proposed paragraphs a) and b) in subclause 12(1) of the bill, as well as subclause 12(2). Is that correct?
By saying that a public servant may no longer use the provisions of this act if they have already used the provisions of other acts or of a collective agreement, we are removing avenues of recourse. That is completely at odds with the precedent established in Therrien. We cannot do that.
