Evidence of meeting #73 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 video is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you for the question.
Basically, clause 38 says that the people involved in a disclosure should be asked if their name can be disclosed. We expect they won't give their consent.
As for the other items that can be disclosed, obtaining the consent of the interested parties makes sense. However, we don't see how the people against whom allegations are made would want their names made public.
6 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Right now, everything is sealed. That said, I understand your argument that the person involved will necessarily refuse to consent to the disclosure of their identity if they are asked for permission to do so.
The purpose of getting everyone's consent was really to respect people's integrity and protect the whistleblower and other public servants. If the name of the alleged wrongdoer is disclosed, it forces that person not to do it again because they are now exposed. Second, it can allow other victims to say loud and clear that they have experienced the same thing. However, I understand your point that the alleged wrongdoer could refuse to have their name disclosed.
If all people except the wrongdoer consent to their names being disclosed, can the disclosure still be made?
6 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Do you mean disclosing all names except the name of the person against whom the allegations are made?
6:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes. That said, we would never expect the alleged wrongdoer to give their consent. It would be very surprising if someone in that position were to say yes.
So this provision in the bill is somewhat unnecessary. You could take that out and the rest could work.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
No. Can we just ask that those words be removed, or do we have to introduce a motion in writing right away?
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
If you wish to do a subamendment, yes, we'd require it in one language in writing for the analysts.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry. Give me one moment.
Ms. Vignola, I have some advice from our legislative clerks.
You can move the subamendment, but there are issues where it may have a flow-through effect for the rest of the bill in its entirety. They're suggesting something like this should come from the law clerk, and it may not be, bluntly, a good time or the right time to be proposing a subamendment. They're not able to weigh in on whether it would be a valid subamendment or not.
Mrs. Kusie's was a very straightforward and simple one. Yours is probably not, and it could have multiple effects throughout the bill. It probably should have gone through the drafting clerk.
It's up to you, but it's probably not the best to move a subamendment on this one, at this moment, considering the time.
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
So let's vote on the clause as is. The worst thing that can happen is that people who are alleged to have done something wrong will not let their names be disclosed. That's the worst that could happen. The report will not contain their names. This will not have disastrous consequences.
I move that we vote on clause 38 as it's currently worded.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're six minutes away from our hard stop. Frankly, we could actually adjourn now and give you time to have it drafted properly, or we can stand it and come back to clause 38 at a later time.
We'll stand it? We need unanimous consent to stand it.
(Clause 38 allowed to stand)
(Clause 39 agreed to on division)
(On clause 40)
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
This is on clause 40.
There are consequences to whether or not the debate that we skipped earlier on G-6 in clause 10, which we were going to get back to.... Depending on what we do there, it will have consequences for clause 40.
May I suggest that we move along and skip that as well until we get to that end part?
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay. Mr. Fergus is asking to stand clause 40 based on the outcome of G-6. Do we have unanimous consent to do that?
(Clause 40 allowed to stand)
We're now on a new clause, clause 40.1, which is CPC-5. With luck, we can get through CPC-5 and LIB-11 before we have our end.
We have Mrs. Kusie for CPC-5.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
This is simply a coordinating amendment to allow for definitions mentioned through our other amendments to be determined through regulation.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, we agree with that amendment.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
An hon. member
No, we are not.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
(Clause 41 agreed to on division)
On clause 42, which is a new clause, we have G-11, on page 43 of the package.
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
There are two amendments that are coming before committee, G-11 and G-12. In G-11. We're looking for this coming into force by a Governor in Council change, and of course, in G-12, we're looking for coming into force two years after this receives royal assent.
I don't know if you want to have a debate together or if you want to have it one by one.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative