Evidence of meeting #71 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 tribunal.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay. Shall clause 31 carry?
(Clause 31 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
We're now on to amendment NDP-14. If it does pass, it will create new clause 31.1.
We have Mr. Johns on NDP-14. It's on page 34, if you're following along at home.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
This extends the current provisions for interim relief to all parties. Interim relief, or injunctive relief, was a top priority for every expert we heard from when they were asked about what amendments are most critically needed.
The whistle-blower must absolutely be protected as soon as they make disclosures. Instead of waiting for reprisals to happen and spending time and resources trying to address them after the fact, reprisals should be prevented as soon as a disclosure is made. Currently, interim relief can be provided to those accused of reprisals but not to the whistle-blower.
Sections 19.5 and 19.6 demonstrate a central theme of the PSDPA. The protection of those accused, with a disregard for the whistle-blower's fate, is absolutely absurd. With this amendment, interim relief would be automatically provided to all parties. This would ensure that due process is completed before any disciplinary or detrimental actions can be taken against any of the parties.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Mr. Johns.
We have Mr. Fergus and then Ms. Vignola.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'm a little confused as to the explanation offered by Mr. Johns. I'd love to hear from Mr. Johns again.
I'm wondering if our officials can give us a sense as to what would be the import of passing NDP-14.
6:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Basically, NDP‑14 proposes a definition of reprisals that could be taken against the whistleblower or another person. However, this definition is already included in the definitions set out in the act. Therefore, we see this as redundant.
Do you want to add anything?
6:15 p.m.
Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
I would just say that Mr. Johns has spoken of “injunctive relief”, but I don't see that in NDP-14.
I'm sorry. I'm confused. I'm not sure how to clarify this.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Johns, I have Ms. Vignola, and then I'll come back to you for that.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'm reading and re-reading NDP‑14, and it's not a list of reprisals. The wording says that, during the investigation, if the Commissioner determines that there have been reprisals, it's prohibited to impose sanctions, disciplinary or otherwise, on the public servant who was the victim of those reprisals. This protects the public servant from the outset, during the investigation. That's what I read in NDP‑14:
31.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 35: 35.1 If, during the course of an investigation, the Commissioner finds that a wrongdoing has been committed, none of the following measures shall be taken against the public servant who made the disclosure...
That is followed by a list of five measures that may not be taken against a public servant who has already suffered reprisals.
So it's not a repeated list. It simply says that the public servant is protected during the investigation.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I very much appreciate what Ms. Vignola just added to it. Also, if it's redundant, then it should be no problem passing it.
6:15 p.m.
Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Under the act the way it is currently written, the protection starts from when you make the disclosure. You don't need to have an investigation. The protection is from the time when you make the disclosure. This is after that, so you would already be protected from everything that is listed in this amendment.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Shall NDP-14 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're now on to the vote on clause 32.
(Clause 32 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Colleagues, we only have four minutes left. I'm not going to get into NDP-15.
By the looks of it, we have about an hour and a bit left to get through the bill.
On the 14th, we have the PBO here. Depending on the length of questioning, we might have an opportunity to get to a short amount of Bill C-290 on the 14th.
On the 19th, we have the departments on the McKinsey documents. The 19th is the cut-off that we pretty much have, or the 20th, to get this back to the House.
Once in a while, there are some dates floating out there for a couple of hours here or there for meetings. If colleagues are in agreement, leave it with me. I will try to nab the first spot of any available resources so that we can finish this off.
Are you willing to leave that with me and the clerk?
6:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's wonderful.
If there's nothing else, we will adjourn and we will see you on the 14th.
I understand there are a lot of votes, even though we're starting at 4:30. Hopefully, we can get to it on time.
Thanks, colleagues.
We will adjourn.