Government Operations Committee on May 15th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

(Amendment withdrawn)

Another 25 hours and we'll be done clause 2.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Next up is G-1, an amendment by the government. I understand that Mr. Ferguson.... This is the second time I've called you Mr. Ferguson. Maybe if I went to you less I wouldn't mistake your name so often.

Mr. Fergus, go ahead, please.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

It's no skin off my teeth, Mr. Chair.

I think we should support this amendment and this clause. I hope that I have the agreement of my colleagues, as I've had conversations with Mr. Garon and others.

The threshold in the current law is too high. To remove any threshold would be too much. I think this is a happy medium. It's not dependent upon any independent officers. It's dependent upon the person who's placing the complaint or whistle-blowing, if they are bringing it forward on the basis of a reasonable belief. I think that reflects what we heard in testimony as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Just quickly, colleagues, if G-1 passes, we get into a line conflict. If it is adopted, NDP-1 cannot be moved. There is a line conflict, as they both modify line 2 on page 2.

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

The reasonable belief part was opposed by the experts we heard from. It's not present in any of the best practices in legislation that we looked at when we looked at whistle-blowing legislation.

This is where we're at: We don't believe it is necessary to move this. I don't believe the reasonable belief is there. We heard from experts that having this removed shows that it doesn't actually increase complaints. That's what we heard from the experts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll have Mr. Fergus and then Mr. Housefather.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We heard from Tom Devine from the Government Accountability Project. In response to a question I asked him about whether or not the reasonable belief test is accepted, he answered that not only is it accepted; it's also a “universally accepted, legitimate merits test for whether a whistle-blowing disclosure deserves to be protected.” The best part of it, once again, is that it's not being determined by some higher-up. Reasonable belief is set by the person who is actually blowing the whistle.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to remind my friend Mr. Johns that the reasonable belief test was actually recommended by the mighty OGGO in its 2017 report. In recommendation 1(E) on page 95, that was exactly what OGGO recommended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Ms. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

We fully support the amendment, not only because it was something the amazing Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates called for, but also because it was something witnesses recommended. It reflects an internationally accepted standard. We have no problem with the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perfect.

Shall amendment G-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

By the way, as I mentioned, that wipes out NDP-1.

We now go to Liberal amendment one from the new ones that were dropped today.

Mr. Jowhari, is that you?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Actually, I'm going to ask Mr. Fergus to talk to that, if possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We don't have it numbered like the others. It's reference number 12430471.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Where is that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

They weren't necessarily distributed in order, colleagues. That's why I'm reading out the number to you.

It's number 12430471. That's the one from May 15 by Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I move to amend Bill C-290 in clause 3 by adding after line 2 on page 2 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph (c) of the definition protected disclosure in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) in the course of a procedure established under any other Act of Parliament, including the Conflict of Interest Act; or

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll have Ms. Vignola and then Mr. Fergus.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In the current act, paragraph (c) of the definition of “protected disclosure” reads “in the course of a procedure established under any other Act of Parliament”. The Liberal Party's amendment would add, at the end of that paragraph, “including the Conflict of Interest Act”. When I search the Conflict of Interest Act, the word “disclosure” doesn't come up. I have a problem with mentioning an act that makes absolutely no reference to disclosure, protected or otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, the provision can't apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus, please.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Vignola is absolutely right. The idea here is to clarify our definition, but if committee members are not in favour of that, we can drop it. That was just the beginning, so people know that it will apply in this case. We will defer to the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Fergus is offering to drop it. Do we have UC for him to withdraw?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, colleagues.

The next one up is Mr. Fergus, I believe. It's G-2, which is on page 4 of the original package.