Government Operations Committee on June 12th, 2023

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

We're not going to ask for a royal recommendation for this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Fergus.

Shall NDP-12 carry?

I will assume that going forward we'll do a recorded vote on all of them.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 21 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

(On clause 22)

We have amendment G-9, which is on page 31 of the package.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and go to Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, I clearly support this amendment.

This will require a tribunal to add reprisers, if they are affected by its determination. I think this is a good change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Ms. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I understand it, at the end of the day, the victim won't necessarily decide whether or not they will face the accused person at the tribunal. In my humble opinion, the victim should be making that decision.

I want to make sure I understand correctly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That question would have to be put to the expert witnesses.

How can reprisers be affected by the decision of the tribunal?

[Mary Anne Stevens]

The clause in the bill would automatically add the repriser as a party before the tribunal, so they would always be present.

What the amendment in G-9 is doing is saying that they would only be present at the tribunal if the tribunal thought they would be affected, usually through discipline, by the outcome of the tribunal. If the repriser would not be affected by the outcome, they would not be a party before the tribunal.

Is that clearer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Please go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Actually, Bill C‑290 proposes that these individuals always be present. Now, what we're saying is the victim doesn't have to appear before the person accused of reprisals, unless the tribunal feels they would be affected by the outcome. So rather than requiring that the accused person always be present, they would be present in a smaller number of cases.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

If I understand correctly, the accused person would only be there if the tribunal determined that they did in fact retaliate, so that they could be forced to face what happened. Otherwise, the victim wouldn't be able to tell them what they went through because of what they did to them. The tribunal may well impose little or no penalties on the accused person, but it's important that the victim be able to tell the person who retaliated what consequences their actions had on their life. That can't happen if the person who has retaliated isn't present at the tribunal.

I would go to a vote on this, because we may not agree again.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I just want to point out that that's the opposite of what you said the first time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Shall amendment G-9 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

Shall clause 22 as amended carry?

I'll let Mr. Fergus speak first, Mr. Jowhari.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

For the last time, I am going to make a request that we negate this clause, because we will be making this—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. If you don't mind my interrupting, it was originally clause 23 that was on your list to negate. We're on clause 22.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm sorry. I apologize.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, and you said no.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I sincerely apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll go to the vote.

(Clause 22 as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

(On clause 23)

Mr. Fergus, would you like to start again?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I won't waste the committee's time. You could apply what I just said earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, we'll go to a vote.

(Clause 23 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 24)

Shall clause 24 carry?

Colleagues, are there any changes to clauses 24 and 25?

Mr. Fergus, could we perhaps have you combine the two of them?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

On clause 24 I would agree, Mr. Chair, but I would like to propose negating clause 25. So I can't do that this time. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's fine. I thought I'd ask.

We'll go straight to a vote.

(Clause 24 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm a little confused. What was the vote we took before clause 24?