44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023
- 05:58:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm sorry, Chair. What happened to clause 33.1?
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:59:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
It's not a stand-alone clause. We have already voted on it.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:59:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
1 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:59:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
On G-10.1, I assume we have Mr. Fergus.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:59:08 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Very briefly, Mr. Chair, this is a consequential amendment to a vote that we took much earlier in our first meeting and was carried by the committee. This is just ensuring that we have the ability to refer this to more than one person, so that a complainant has more than one person to access to disclose their complaint to if they have a complaint to make.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:59:45 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Okay. We'll move to a vote.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 34 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: Colleagues, clauses 35 to 40 have no amendments.
Can we have UC to bunch them, or do we wish to address them individually?
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:00:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
If the chair would seek it, I only have a couple of.... I have one clause that I'd like to negate. It would be clause 38. I'd be happy to speak to that if appropriate.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:00:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
We need to discuss clause 38.
Can we have UC to carry clauses 35, 36 and 37 and group them together on division?
(Clauses 35 to 37 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 38)
The Chair: We have Mr. Fergus on clause 38.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:01:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Clause 38 is one where I think we have to ask a question. It proposes that the bill seek consent from individuals to disclose their involvement in an investigation. I can easily understand why the complainant wouldn't mind disclosing, but the person who's being complained about I doubt would give their consent. I'm just not certain of the utility of this provision of the act.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:01:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:01:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would ask for a moment to review the proposed text. It states: “The Commissioner and every person acting on behalf of or under the direction of the Commissioner may disclose the identity of any person involved in the disclosure process, including that of a person making a disclosure, a witness...”. Further on, with respect to the disclosure of information obtained in the course of an investigation, it states: “Subject to other provisions...”.
What was your concern, Mr. Fergus?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:02:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
If the consent of each person is required, I find it hard to see why a person involved in a reprisal complaint would have any interest in giving their consent to have their identity disclosed.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:02:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thanks, Mr. Fergus.
We'll give Ms. Vignola a few moments.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:02:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Mr. Chair, I'd like to know if the officials can answer the question.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:02:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, of course. We always welcome their input.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:03:02 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
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.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:03:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
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?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:04:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Do you mean disclosing all names except the name of the person against whom the allegations are made?
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:04:57 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
3 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:05:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
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.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
