Government Operations Committee on May 15th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's fine, then. Thank you.

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

Was that not proper? I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

No, but go ahead.

Do you have a specific question? Then we can see if we can move on.

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

If the one with reference number 12418922 were to be combined with the removal of BQ-1 and were to work out with the adoption of CPC-3, would that allow us to have the intentions known of what we want defined and allow the opportunity to make sure that is consistent with other notions of what interference is?

[Mireille Laroche]

Thank you for the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Laroche, could you speak a bit closer to your mike? We don't have the greatest sound today, apparently.

[Mireille Laroche]

All right.

The amendment 12418922 aims to remove political interference as wrongdoing. The issue with leaving it there is that when somebody has a complaint, they can do it two ways. They can go to the PSIC or they can go internally to the senior official who's been delegated and to various people. Given that we're talking about political interference, this could put the head of a department in a conflict of interest, in that ministers as well as exempt staff could be investigated by departments in that regard, hence the rationale for taking it out.

In terms of the specific question mentioned by Mr. Fergus, it is a bit of an additional issue as opposed to making sure...from a definitional point of view. However, with the way it is inserted in the current bill, these are the consequences of leaving it in that particular section of the PMB.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Did you have anything to add Ms. Stevens? You don't have to.

[Mary Anne Stevens, Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Disclosures that are made within departments would require the senior officer to investigate, and I think to investigate a political interference blurs the line between the public service and the political level. I'm not sure we want to go down that road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Go ahead, Mr. Garon.

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

The Liberal amendment with the reference number 12418922 completely removes the reference to political interference from the bill. Everyone needs to fully understand that, including the Conservatives. If we adopt this amendment, it would blow apart CPC‑3, which proposes that the definition of political interference be prescribed by regulation. You can't define something that doesn't exist. Doing that would weaken the bill, because it would no longer have any definition of political interference and the government wouldn't be able to prescribe a definition by regulation.

That leaves us with a choice between amendment number 12418922 and CPC‑3. I propose that the Liberals withdraw amendment number 12418922. I would then withdraw BQ‑1, and we could adopt CPC‑3 to ensure that political interference is defined.

It's very clear: if the committee keeps amendment number 12418922, there is no more CPC‑3. That would cut out a whole part of the bill. That's a fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Just to clarify, CPC‑3 is not subject to any line issue. It's a stand-alone. If this goes away, CPC‑3 does not get deleted. It will be a separate one that will be debated and voted upon. If G‑3 goes, NDP‑3 or NDP-4...then it affects CPC‑1. However, for CPC‑3, there is no line conflict. It stands alone.

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

I may be missing something, here, but what you're saying would make sense had the Liberals not put forward their last-minute amendments. With amendment number 12418922—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let me interrupt for a second. I apologize. I thought you said that if this motion changed, CPC-3 would be eliminated. I'm saying it will not, but I may have misinterpreted what you said originally.

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

I see, but if political interference is taken out of the bill, which is what amendment number 12418922 would do, what is the point of CPC‑3? After all, it's about defining that interference. While it may be possible to move CPC‑3, procedurally speaking, doing so creates a major inconsistency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll have Mr. Fergus and then Mrs. Kusie.

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

It doesn't kill amendment CPC-3. Indeed, it allows CPC-3 to establish what political interference is, and it replaces what was in the private member's bill. It will allow it to be done, and done in a way that makes it consistent.

I hope that's the correct understanding. I don't know if perhaps our legal folks can give us a sense of that, but I want to reassure Mr. Garon that it does not eviscerate CPC-3. It is actually giving definition to a new clause 4.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's legislative, not legal. Technically, because CPC-3 hasn't been moved yet, it is also confidential. Therefore, we really can't be discussing it.

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

Forgive me, Mr. Chair, but you also mentioned that if one were adopted, it would have consequential—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm just talking about the numbers being adopted. I'm not talking substantively about any of the information included inside the amendments. All I've said are numbers. Anyone watching is not going to know what the number relates to, as opposed to the actual amendments.

Are we ready for the question?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Was there any movement, Mr. Garon, or should we call the question?

Shall BQ-1 carry?

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

Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chair, but I thought I had withdrawn BQ‑1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We would require a UC motion to withdraw it.

Do we have that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.