Yes.
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.
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.
May 17th, 2023 / 5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
CPC-4 is voted down. BQ-5 is withdrawn. Now we are on G-4.2.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Can we go straight to a vote on that, colleagues? Shall G-4.2 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now at NDP-5, which is on page 19.
Mr. Johns, welcome to the game.
5:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
We don't have to say much. Hopefully, everybody's on board. We can walk through it if you like.
I think due process is often routinely denied to whistle-blowers. The commissioner can't prevent reprisals but only address them after the fact, and the commissioner and tribunal processes often take years. Serious harm can be done to the whistle-blower during that time. They may give up on their efforts to protect the public interest through their disclosure.
This amendment would allow whistle-blowers to receive due process, because they would be protected from damaging reprisals before they cause serious harm. It's already the job of chief executives to ensure a safe workplace. This is another logical part of that.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I would propose a friendly amendment to ensure that the amendment, if passed, would not require a royal recommendation. I don't have the exact wording, but it should be clarified that we are referring to non-financial support as provided for in paragraph 11(1)(a).
I don't know if it's necessary. In any event, my impression is that the amendment, as it stands, would require a royal recommendation. To ensure that it will not require one, I would add a reference to paragraph 11 (1)(a).
5:10 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I mentioned earlier, the Speaker of the House, at the time of his ruling, did not seem to see a problem with the concept of support.
That said, if you would like to propose a subamendment, you can send us the wording in writing. That way we can be sure we are agreeing on the same thing.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I, for one, am not really comfortable with Mr. Johns' proposed change. It's not that I think it's unnecessary, but I think it's a little redundant. It says “procedures, including risk assessments”. What procedures? Who will define or establish them? There already is a procedure in place. I don't know what new procedures are going to be established here. I find this amendment redundant.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Without amendments.... Actually, I'm not even sure that any amendment would make us support this. We feel this should be determined by Treasury Board policies internally and not be—and I'm using this word a lot—“prescriptive” within the bill itself. As it stands, we will not be supporting amendment NDP-5.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Did you have anything else, Mr. Johns? Do you need a couple of moments, or...?
Colleagues, bear with us.
Ms. Vignola, go ahead.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I wish we could clarify NDP-5, but I understand that the clarification may feel like it takes away flexibility. Nonetheless, I like the idea of providing every available support to the people involved, so that their situation doesn't worsen and they don't have to go through situations like the ones we heard about in committee.
I therefore move to keep NDP-5 as is, but add a reference. In the French version, after the words “pour leur fournir”, it would be “le soutien prévu à l'alinéa a) de la même loi”. In the English version, after “to provide them”, it would be “support as in paragraph (a)”. Thus, we would also be introducing a reference as well to ensure that a royal recommendation is not required, in addition to putting in place whatever safety net is necessary to adequately protect whistleblowers.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I just think we are fundamentally opposed to including risk assessments for those involved in the disclosure and providing support. It's too much. I think the Treasury Board should have the flexibility to, again, sort of evaluate the situation as to the necessary procedures. I could potentially talk to my team about stopping it after “procedures”. Again, I think it's very prescriptive. I'm trying to think of another word.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm going to interrupt here. Although we'd like to get some consensus on this important bill, I'm not sensing the numbers being interested in moving forward with this. I'm not sure if there is a path forward, so I'm wondering if we should just go to a vote. I'm not forcing it, but I'm sensing that.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Yes. I think we and the government are in alignment that we're just not comfortable with this amendment. I think it would be better if we could avoid the discomfort of a vote.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We have to vote on the subamendment first and then get to the amendment.
(Subamendment negatived)
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Johns, we're with you again for amendment NDP-6, which is on page 20.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Is it possible, through you, Mr. Chair, to ask the experts to ensure this would not be a problem, in terms of requiring any additional funds? I can't see how it would, but I just want to make sure.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I was going to bring this up, because the legislative clerks have gone through it. It has been evolved and looked at. I understand none of them would run into that problem. I'm not sure whether we need to address each one, but I'll have them answer your question.
Ms. Laroche or Ms. Stevens, you could probably answer for us. Would it require royal recommendations?
Is that what you're asking, Mr. Johns, on NDP-6?