Government Operations Committee on May 15th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

With CPC-3, we do not have the same line issues as with CPC-1.

Go ahead, Mr. Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I have a message for my Conservative colleagues, if I may, Mr. Chair. It's clear from their amendment that they feel it's important to include a definition of political interference. The idea behind our amendments is the same. We are just going about it in different ways. They are proposing prescribing the definition in the regulations, whereas our amendment is more in line with what the witnesses recommended.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. The Liberals argued that including a proper definition of political interference in the act was a problem because it would create discrepancies with all kinds of acts. The next time around, they said that it was possible to have two different definitions, that it was fine as long as the government came up with the definition. I'm not attacking anyone; I'm just being logical.

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

That's not quite what I'm proposing.

I think the definition being proposed is problematic, but we do recognize the importance of defining political interference. I think the best way to proceed is to not adopt BQ‑1. We really want to look at everything carefully and make sure that the regulations are consistent. The benefit of CPC‑3 is that it gives us the ability to make sure that the definition we go with is flexible and doesn't needlessly create any contradictions in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

If I understand Mr. Fergus's rationale, he's saying that, in order to save time, he would be willing to immediately withdraw the two new Liberal amendments that were put forward. I will read them, but they aren't numbered.

The first one seeks to amend Bill C‑290, in clause 4, by deleting line 36 on page 2.

The second one seeks 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

Would he be amenable to withdrawing those amendments, if the committee defeated BQ‑1 and adopted CPC‑3?

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

I think the best way to go is to adopt CPC‑3.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I would say to the Bloc Québécois member that it's better to have something than nothing at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mrs. Kusie.

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

Mr. Garon, we can probably withdraw the second amendment you read, but not the first—the one with reference number 12418922 at the top left-hand corner. If CPC‑3 is adopted along with that amendment, I think it would work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I think what our amendment seeks to do is provide as much flexibility as possible, while abiding by the spirit of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

It's no secret that I prefer BQ‑1, but I prefer consensus even more. I think the bill is important enough to arrive at a consensus. I say that, but I also truly believe it.

I don't think I have the same reference numbers as my fellow members, but when I look at the proposed amendments, my understanding is that the Liberals are saying that CPC‑3 has to remain in addition to the first of the government's two amendments. That would mean adopting the Liberal amendment calling for Bill C‑290, in clause 4, to be amended by deleting line 36 on page 2, as well as CPC‑3, calling for the definition to be prescribed by regulation.

I'm no lawyer, but from what I understand, I think that the Liberals should withdraw the two amendments I read, and that the committee should defeat BQ‑1 and adopt CPC‑3. The government could then establish a definition by regulation, the same one used in the Conflict of Interest Act or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, I realize we can be pretty casual in OGGO by going back and forth, especially during discussion times, but so we can stay on top of things, just put your hand up to be on the safe side.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

I'd just like to make sure that I am not going to be inventing rules. Do the officials feel that if we were to withdraw BQ-1, we would require what is reference number 12418922?

Maybe I'll just wait a quick second here.

[Mireille Laroche]

Sorry, could you please say that again?

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

I'd just like to know whether BQ‑1 is being withdrawn, and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Fergus, just to be sure, you're not referring to any of the new amendments when you're discussing these with the officials. They would not have the new amendments.

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

I'm not certain if I understand, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I don't think they have a copy of the ones that were tabled just today. You're not referring to those, are you?

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

I was referring partially to those. I believe they have a copy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I apologize. Where did you get the copies from? If they haven't been moved, they shouldn't have copies of them yet.

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

That's my fault. I just gave them a copy. My apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Fergus, was it all of your amendments or the whole package?

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

I just gave them my amendments.