Jean-Denis Garon Bloc
Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)
Second reading (Senate), as of Oct. 31, 2024
Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-290.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to, among other things, expand the application of the Act to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to certain persons, extend the period during which a reprisal complaint may be filed and add a duty to provide support to public servants.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act .
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
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.
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, I would just ask the officials to comment on what impacts the changes of Bill C-290 that we've been discussing here would have on the work of the tribunal.
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Chair, could I ask the officials to comment on how these changes to Bill C-290 would impact the work of the tribunal?
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
It limits the options available to the whistle-blower. It provides only one recourse method at the time. It cancels Bill C-290's repeal of subsections 19.3(2) and 19.3(3), which prevent the commissioner from dealing with a complaint if any other measure has already been taken, for example, the collective agreement.
We heard from the experts that circumstances may require that more than one method of recourse be taken and that certain methods of recourse often take years, so it isn't reasonable to require the whistle-blower to wait years before beginning another method.
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Okay.
I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the committee request an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C‑290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, to give the bill the attention it deserves, and that the Chair submit this request to the House.
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
June 19 will not be used for Bill C-290.
I'm convinced that we're all acting in very good faith and that we want to pass Bill C‑290 as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, I'd like to introduce a motion, which I have sent to the clerk. I will read it to you, in both official languages as needed. It won't take long; I have to open it.
I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the committee request an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C‑290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 15, 2023—
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
If I understand well, June 19 will not be used for Bill C-290. Is that right?
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Welcome to meeting number 71 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO or the only committee that matters.
Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
We have with us, back from the Treasury Board, Ms. Laroche and Ms. Stevens. I ask that if you have questions for them, direct your questions directly to them, please.
Of course, we welcome our legislative clerks.
Really quickly, colleagues, on July 19, it appears we'll have the departments back in for the McKinsey documents. Like before, I'm seeking unanimous consent to limit their speaking time to two and a half minutes for the introductions.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
We also brought in the Federal Accountability Act, but that didn't make the government do anything in regard to the report from OGGO in 2017. That's why we have Bill C-290.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I always tell my family, “seize victory”, but I'm still going to ask this question.
I don't know if the analysts or the clerk could give us an indication of how much time it will be after the 14th before they would be in a position to report this back to the House, so that we respect, I think, the unanimous consent that we want Bill C-290 to be reported back to the House before the summer break.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you very much for the question.
Under the current Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, there are four reasons for which a complaint may be deemed inadmissible, including:
a) the subject-mater of the complaint has been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under an Act of Parliament, other than this Act, or a collective agreement;
In the proposed wording of Bill C‑290, this reason would no longer be in the act, nor would the reason that the complaint was “not made in good faith”.
Amendment G‑7 serves two purposes. First, it reinstates the two provisions that were to be removed from the act to make sure there is no overlap. Secondly, the concept of good faith is replaced by reasonable grounds.
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We can. We need UC to skip over, as I understand it. I'll double-check.
Colleagues, we'd have to allow or have all of clause 10 stand, as in we'd have to come back to all of clause 10. We can't just do NDP-9...G-5, even though we've already moved past it. We'd have to come back to clause 10, which we can do, and get to clause 11, and then follow up with this motion at our next meeting on Bill C-290.
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are proposing a new clause, 5.1. The amendment reads as follows: That Bill C-290 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 3 the following new clause:
5.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 11:
11.1 The Treasury Board may establish policies regarding the duties set out in subsection 11(1).
Before I hand it over to my colleague, Mr. Fergus, I will just say that here we are talking about how, when we set up an evaluation for an internal department, we also need to set up standards against which TBS can do that evaluation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding of the ruling made by the Speaker in the House of Commons was that the heart of the issue for the royal recommendation with Bill C-290, as it was originally written, was with the definition of “public servant” and not necessarily with the notion of supports.
If the committee wants to be more precise and make sure...then this would appear to be admissible, yes.
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Yes. Thank you.
What Bill C-290 does is alter the role of the PSIC in a fundamental way. What we're proposing here is amending line 2 on page 3 so that in effect it will give Treasury Board the authority to issue policy on departmental internal disclosure processes instead of giving this power to the PSIC. There are a couple of reasons we would want to make sure that happens.
At the very least, this would be a brand new role for the commissioner. It will require additional resources for the commissioner to conduct this role. Frankly, this is what Treasury Board does in terms of establishing standards across government as to how things should work. It's not something that you'd want to have the PSIC describe.
As well, there are going to be some elements when there are going to be some disputes that won't involve the PSIC and that the commissioner will not have line of sight on, so it's better to have Treasury Board establish the standards and then for the commissioner to be able to evaluate things as a result of that standard.