Government Operations Committee on May 17th, 2023

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment speaks of referring matters to the Ethics Commissioner.

I think it's important to take this opportunity to underline how absurd the situation is that we are in right now, not having an Ethics Commissioner. As members know, the government appointed the sister-in-law of a minister as Ethics Commissioner, who then resigned. Now we're in a situation in which we don't have an Ethics Commissioner, which creates all kinds of ongoing problems and challenges and limits the ability of the office to act. This amendment underlines the fact that we need to have an Ethics Commissioner in place, given the important work the Ethics Commissioner is supposed to be doing.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are we ready to move forward with the vote on G-4.4?

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

(Clause 7 agreed to on division)

(On clause 8)

On clause 8, we have NDP-8 from Mr. Johns.

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

This amendment allows disclosure to the public when the disclosure is not dealt with in a timely and appropriate manner.

The commissioner is routinely delayed in dealing with disclosures, in some cases for years, while keeping the whistle-blower uninformed or misinformed. It's often evident to the whistle-blower that investigations have been inadequate when the commissioner has declined to obtain information offered by the whistle-blower, failed to interview key witnesses, and publishes the final report—without the whistle-blower's knowledge—containing false statements. Such actions effectively deny due process to all parties, protect alleged wrongdoers and constitute a type of reprisal against the whistle-blower. They also fail to protect the public interest by allowing wrongdoing to continue.

When this happens, a protected disclosure should be able to be made to the public. When the responsible officials fail to deal with wrongdoing and reprisal in an appropriate and timely manner, whistle-blowers could go to the public. This would motivate responsible officials to execute their duties in a timely and appropriate manner and give all parties timely due process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

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

I'm going to be opposing this amendment, but not because I don't think it's an important one. It's because it's unnecessary. Section 19.1 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, or the PSDPA, actually provides coverage for anyone who goes to the Integrity Commissioner with any information on wrongdoing. Former public servants are expressly recognized in that section.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Vignola, did you have your hand up?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll come back to you, Mr. Johns.

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

I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that investigations by the commissioner do not drag on. I am still concerned about protecting the whistle-blower though. If that person goes to the media and makes a statement with their voice altered, are they still protected? The amendment does not say so, and I think that is a major problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Stevens or Ms. Laroche, do you want to chime in on the question?

[Mary Anne Stevens]

This amendment appeared.... At present, a disclosure may be made to the public under very specific circumstances when there isn't enough time to make a disclosure elsewhere or to make it through the regular procedures, or when there's a substantial and specific imminent danger. In this case, it's basically that, if you've made a disclosure and either the PSIC or the senior officer has decided not to investigate, you are free to go public, and they may have made the decision not to investigate on very good grounds. It opens the door very wide for going public with any type of complaint.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you able to answer Ms. Vignola's concerns, as just expressed, about the whistle-blowers going to the media and what protection they have?

[Mary Anne Stevens]

If a whistle-blower goes public under circumstances that are protected by the PSDPA, then they would be protected. It appears that, if this amendment passes, they would be protected from reprisal.

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

The fact remains that it would be up to the whistle-blower to make that choice, being fully aware of the implications. They might decide to make a public disclosure in order to potentially have the matter dealt with more quickly, knowing that their identity would no longer be protected. By adding the proposed wording, we are still giving the whistle-blower that choice.

Very well, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We will go to Mr. Housefather and then Ms. Kusie.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I understand it, the act already protects whistle-blowers who would go public in very specific situations, such as if there was imminent harm. This, I believe, vastly extends the ability of a whistle-blower to go public for just about any reason if they're unhappy that the senior officer, or whoever is investigating, decides not to pursue the case or finds that no action needs to be taken. I think that really distorts the system.

I can understand, sometimes, when the system is not working or when there's a time issue, that you might need to go public. However, this assumes that the officer who is charged to investigate is utterly incompetent, because any time you don't agree with that decision, you're then distorting the system and going public. To me, there's no point in having a whistle-blower system if this wide-ranging article is put in place, giving people the chance to go public in the event that they're ever dissatisfied with the decision of the person who is charged under the system to render the actual decision.

To me, if I had this in my company—we obviously had whistle-blower policies in my old company—this would entirely distort the process, so I am against it. I think there are times when you allow a whistle-blower to go public to be protected, but this is vastly overreaching in this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

We share similar concerns to Mr. Housefather. As well, we're concerned that there may be reasons beyond what the public servant knows or sees perhaps. Therefore, we will not be supporting NDP‑8.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can we move to a vote, colleagues, on NDP‑8?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

(Amendment negatived on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 8 carry?

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

(Clause 8 agreed to on division)

Shall clause 9 carry?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

On clause 8, you said that it carried on division before, I think, anybody had a chance to react. I would like a recorded vote on clause 8.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you talking about clause 8 or NDP‑8?