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 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, we are back.
Shall clause 28 carry?
This will be a recorded vote.
(Clause 28 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Thank you.
We have amendment NDP-13, new clause 28.1, which is on page 33 of the package.
Mr. Johns, I see your hand is up.
6 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Yes. There are no additional funds required. This defines standards for investigations, addresses training and qualifications of investigators and the independence of investigative operations in line with best practices.
There is considerable evidence of superficial, incompetent, biased and even maligned investigations by PSIC. It's their standard practice to completely exclude whistle-blowers from the process, keeping them uninformed or misinformed about progress, failing to interview them or process the information that they have, failing to interview other key witnesses they suggest and denying them sight of the final report so that they are unable to refute false information.
In one case investigated by FAIR, PSIC effectively sabotaged an important investigation that was making good progress by quietly allowing the investigator's contract to lapse. They then closed the case abruptly without following the lines of inquiry already established.
With this amendment, the investigations would be conducted competently and independently, thus ensuring proper due process for all parties. Without opportunity to pressure or bias investigations, wrongdoers would more reliably be exposed. The public interest would be better protected. Wrongdoers would be denied the opportunity to expand their powers and conduct more serious wrongdoing examples like Phoenix and Lac Mégantic.
In PSIC's primary mandate, the words “investigate” or “investigation” appear more than 100 times in the PSDPA. This is a responsibility that should already be budgeted for.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I believe what we should do for the purpose of setting standards for internal investigations is allow TBS to play that role. That's the role Treasury Board Secretariat does play in terms of establishing government-wide standards. It would be one that would apply throughout the entire government organization as opposed to what is being proposed here, which is for the Public Service Integrity Commissioner to determine what the standards are.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Did you want to address that, Mr. Johns, or are we ready to vote?
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Let's have a recorded vote on that.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
NDP-13 is defeated; therefore, there is no new clause 28.1.
LIB-10 has been withdrawn.
(On clause 29)
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'm going to make sure we're consistent here, and consistent with clause 25. I believe that for clause 29, this is a consequential aspect. To be consistent with our vote, we should vote to negate this, as we did on clause 25.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Shall clause 29 carry?
We have a tie. I will vote yes.
(Clause 29 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(On clause 30)
Next, we have G-10.01, which is on page 33.2 of the package.
Mr. Fergus.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
This one is just making sure that the law would apply, except when it comes to the Canadian Armed Forces, the Communications Security Establishment, as well as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, where these kinds of investigations would be referred to NSIRA, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I just didn't understand what my colleague said. I think there was a reference to CSIS, the RCMP and the military, but the sentence was incomplete and had no verbs in it.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
What I was saying is that these investigations will probably involve information that falls under national security. In the case of the Canadian Armed Forces, the—
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
6:10 p.m.
Bloc
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Shall G-10.01 carry?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 30 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
Shall clause 31 carry? This is not clause 31.1, which is NDP-14.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
No. It's just clause 31.
NDP-14, if it passes, will create its own clause. Clause 31 would be a stand-alone clause.
Do you wish to address it, Mr. Fergus?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal