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.
6:35 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I understand what Mr. Fergus is saying, in principle. At first glance, it does not seem unreasonable.
But I would like to expand on what Ms. Vignola said. I do not know if my colleagues remember the case of Sylvie Therrien, a former public servant who worked in the area of employment insurance. At one time, the Harper government circulated an internal memo saying that all employment insurance applications from seasonal workers had to be denied because they were costing the government so much. As Ms. Therrien stated in a grievance filed under her collective agreement, she had no other avenues of recourse. It was deemed that she already have an avenue of recourse. This public servant, Ms. Therrien, was therefore left without recourse. She was lucky, though, because the union took the case all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal. In the end, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled, through a mechanism that is exactly like the one proposed in amendment G‑7, which is similar to the one proposed in G‑6, that workers' rights had been violated. If we were to adopt G‑7, we would be doing the exact same thing again. That is why we are opposed to it.
What we have in the bill does not provide multiple avenues of recourse; rather, the purpose is to ensure that a worker is not left with no recourse, as established by the Federal Court of Appeal and in the case law.
I would like my colleagues to reconsider their position on this. We think this amendment really contradicts the bill, which does not include the risk of multiple avenues of recourse.
6:35 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I do, because, more to the point, amendment G-7.1 on page 26.1 would.... Do I have that right? I'm trying to think of the one where that applies. We are going to be leaving open.... I believe what will happen is we're actually going to be making sure we remove overlap so we don't have those differing results and differing procedures.
I'm going to ask our officials if they could shed some light on the Therrien case and how this can help clarify our role, so we don't have any overlap and duplication.
6:35 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you very much for the question.
Under the current Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, there are four reasons for which a complaint may be deemed inadmissible, including:
a) the subject-mater of the complaint has been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under an Act of Parliament, other than this Act, or a collective agreement;
In the proposed wording of Bill C‑290, this reason would no longer be in the act, nor would the reason that the complaint was “not made in good faith”.
Amendment G‑7 serves two purposes. First, it reinstates the two provisions that were to be removed from the act to make sure there is no overlap. Secondly, the concept of good faith is replaced by reasonable grounds.
6:40 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Let me explain once again why the bill seeks to repeal those two paragraphs in the current act. It is precisely because the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in Therrien that a worker could not be prevented from asserting their rights, even through legislation. Amendments G‑7 and G‑8 would restore those two paragraphs that are in the current act, but this contradicts the decision in Therrien and therefore contradicts the case law.
Let me repeat, these two paragraphs in the current act mean that workers cannot exercise their rights. We cannot allow that. That is why they would be repealed by the bill, and that is why we cannot accept amendments G‑6 and G‑7.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
To make sure there is no discrepancy, I invite my colleagues to consider two further amendments we would like to make. The first is amendment G‑7.1, which I had started talking about. There is also amendment LIB‑9, on page 32.1 of the bundle of amendments, which pertains to another part of the act. Not only would the first amendment create a procedure, but, further to the second amendment, if the commissioner decided to not an investigation or to dismiss a complaint that he deemed unfounded, he would be required to provide another option to the whistle-blower or inform them of the most appropriate mechanisms further to the disclosure.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Ms. Vignola, before you start, I understand that the motion has been distributed.
We have only about three or four minutes. I don't think we're going to settle clause 12 today. Are we comfortable leaving this and getting to the motion?
(Clause 12 allowed to stand)
I just want to confirm with Mr. Genuis that he meant September 30, 2023, for the date.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I don't think that necessarily needs to be in the text, as long as that's well understood, but....
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay.
Colleagues, are we comfortable just going back to the motion and getting that done?
Are there any objections to the motion? Do we all agree to it?
Mr. Johns, I just want to double-check with you.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Are we fine with the motion as distributed?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That's wonderful.
We have only one minute, so I'm going to suggest that we adjourn. Before we do, colleagues, our next meeting....
We're quickly running out of time here. The next meeting available to us is June 12, which I had set aside for the line by line for the Governor General. I'm hoping we can do one hour with the GG line-by-line, get that report done, and then continue this in the second hour. Hopefully, we can finish this by June 14.
If there are no objections to that, we'll consider that our plan going forward.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I always tell my family, “seize victory”, but I'm still going to ask this question.
I don't know if the analysts or the clerk could give us an indication of how much time it will be after the 14th before they would be in a position to report this back to the House, so that we respect, I think, the unanimous consent that we want Bill C-290 to be reported back to the House before the summer break.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The cut-off is the 21st, assuming that the government does not prorogue.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The cut-off for reporting back is the 21st. We have the 14th and the 19th open to us right now.
We will go to Mr. Johns and Ms. Vignola, and then Mr. Jowhari.
6:45 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Chair, can you give us a quick rundown for the 29th, the 31st, the 5th and the 7th so that we can have a quick discussion on this?
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
On the 29th we are welcoming back the minister for PSPC for the main estimates, and then the second hour is the bureaucrats.
On the 31st is the TBS minister. The President of the Treasury Board will be here for one hour, then the bureaucrats.
The 5th and 7th will be two hours each with the departments. We've been putting off for them to come to discuss with us the refusal to obey the order of the committee to hand over the unredacted documents.
The 12th is tentatively the GG report.
Colleagues, maybe we can leave it with the 29th and 31st, one hour with the minister. My understanding is that Minister Fortier has said she will do an hour and 20 minutes on the 31st. The rest of the time we could get back to this, or we could continue with the department, the DMs, for the estimates, which is tradition.
Next is Ms. Vignola, then Mr. Jowhari, and then we'll go back to you, Mr. Johns.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
First, I have a question. I know the ministers have busy schedules, but would it be possible to postpone their appearance to June 5 and June 7?