Evidence of meeting #80 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Is there any discussion on CPC-25? Seeing none, all in favour of CPC-25?
5:25 p.m.
An hon. member
Can we have a recorded vote on that?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 67)
CPC-25 is defeated. That brings us to NDP-47.
If NDP-47 is adopted, NDP-48 cannot be moved due to a line conflict. Also, NDP-49 would become moot.
I have Mr. Julian.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
You'll be pleased to hear that I will not be moving amendment NDP‑47
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
This is a recommendation from the Customs and Immigration Union, which is concerned about the current clause, because it doesn't include the ability for a union representative to be informed. Of course, through this legislation, we have established collective agreements. We need to ensure there is harmony between this legislation and collective agreements.
What NDP-48 seeks to do is ensure the union representative is part of the duty to inform. It also adds a new clause:
(1.1) The member, person, officer or employee, as well as their union representative, has a right to grieve the Chairperson’s recommendation that a disciplinary process be initiated.
This is in clause 67, “Notice Recommending Disciplinary Process or Measure”.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I'm inclined to be supportive of this.
I just want to ask the witnesses, is there currently a grievance process when there's a recommendation for disciplinary action from the commission? If there isn't and we move forward with this, what exactly is the process you envision? How would somebody grieve this? Who has the authority to hear this grievance and to provide a satisfactory response to the griever?
5:30 p.m.
Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
To answer your question, sir, in two parts, the first is that the bill intends for the right of grievance to lie against the decision of the deputy head to discipline the employee or not. Again, the right of grievance lies against the decision-maker, not the independent body that makes a recommendation.
All of this, however, is saved by clause 71, with the provision that nothing in clauses 67 or 68 prevents the application of the collective agreement. Clauses 67 and 68 are all subject to the safeguards presented in clause 71, which includes the existing provisions of collective agreements of the labour relations regime as a whole. Bringing a right of grievance into this statute risks bringing things into it that are dealt with elsewhere, including the Financial Administration Act, the Public Service Employment Act and other places.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
I think that summarized where some of our concerns are in the sense that if the PCRC is not able to implement disciplinary action, it's simply able to recommend in such cases that disciplinary action happens. However, the decision to implement it or not is up to other bodies. Therefore, a grievance against the PCRC is not the appropriate measure, only because the commission will not be able to implement the disciplinary action. It can only recommend it.
If that disciplinary action is not appropriate, or action isn't taken and another member wishes to grieve in terms of why that wasn't taken, etc., that grievance lies with those who implement the disciplinary action or not, and the PCRC can't.
If this amendment carries, it will start to change the bill to the extent that this bill and this process do not have a disciplinary component to them. I think Mr. Koops has already explained that piece and the later sections that deal with collective bargaining or grievances that are made.
I think it wouldn't be appropriate to allow for a grievance against the commission, which is unable to enact the discipline itself, so we can't support this amendment.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
I appreciated that. I think I've gained a greater understanding of this amendment.
It says it's not necessarily grieving to the decision-making authority, which is the deputy head. The recommendation is saying you have a right to grieve the recommendation from the chairperson.
Is there a mechanism already? Isn't there already a mechanism to appeal a decision by the PCRC? Would that mean that the grievance would be moot? Is that what the process would be? This appears like it is saying we're going to add a new process to grieve decisions by the PCRC.
5:35 p.m.
Director General, International Border Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
By adding the process of grieving the decision of the PCRC—which isn't a decision, but a recommendation; it's the outcome of the PCRC's investigation—it adds a grievance recourse before the final decision has been made. The final decision rests with the deputy head.
It makes much more sense that a grievance follows the decision about what the deputy head does with the recommendation of the commission. There could very well be circumstances whereby the commission makes a recommendation that the deputy head doesn't act on, so there would be no reason to grieve a recommendation that has not been acted on by the deputy head.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Julian, this is your amendment. Did you say at the front end where this came up in testimony?
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, I did. It was the Customs and Immigration Union. They raised the concerns—
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes. They raised concerns about this, and that's why the recommendation has come forward.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Is there any further discussion? No.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That bring us to NDP-49.
Mr. Julian.
November 1st, 2023 / 5:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, as we just discussed this item, I do not intend to move amendments NDP‑49 and NDP‑50.
It's only natural, after having discussed and voted on an amendment, to find that there are other similar amendments on the same topic. I therefore believe that the discussions we held and the questions that were asked were sufficient to enable the committee to reach a decision.
Furthermore, if our goal is to complete the study of Bill C‑20 after having significantly improved it, and as several amendments have already been adopted, I think it's more important to spend our time on important amendments that have not yet been examined and voted on by the committee.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you.
Shall clause 67 carry?
(Clause 67 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(Clause 68 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(Clause 69 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 70)
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the practice of calling for a recorded vote for each clause is normally used as a filibuster tactic. We have been making good progress. I certainly heard concerns raised by my Conservative colleagues about sitting beyond 6:30 tonight, but I find it disturbing that filibuster tactics are now starting to rear their heads. I would ask, through you, to my Conservative colleagues, that we stay focused on the content and on improving the bill and not have filibuster tactics delaying those important considerations.