Evidence of meeting #67 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
BQ-4, on the other hand, deals with foreign interference. I think those are two completely different things. In fact, I'm sure of it.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
As I said, foreign interference is usually directed at the public service, not within the public service.
We have a definition that we're working on in the Criminal Code in terms of foreign interference, which I think would be a better use...than adding something in here that doesn't have its own definition.
I would recommend, if other members agree, that this is not an amendment to the clause that we should support.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Given what we have seen in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I think the context of foreign interference is really clear. It's worth amending the bill by adding a provision that deals with foreign interference in a stand-alone and separate way. I think that makes sense.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you.
By adding a stand-alone provision on foreign interference and specifying that the definition falls within the meaning of the regulations, we are giving the government an opportunity to properly define foreign interference. We've taken this approach with other definitions, including political interference.
In addition, though I am not saying this is the case, it's possible that there is interference from outside right now and that people are turning a blind eye, one way or another, because they or members of their family are being threatened. It is to prevent these types of situations from occurring inside the public service itself that we are asking for a specific provision for foreign interference.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I think we might be agreeing on the same thing, so I'm going to have Ms. Sauvé confirm what we want to put in there.
4:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to confirm the proposed wording, which includes the subamendment: It would read “foreign interference in the public sector”, after which we would add wording similar to that contained in CPC-3, that is, “foreign interference” having such a meaning as may be prescribed”.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Are we comfortable, colleagues?
We have a subamendment on BQ-4. Do we need it read back or can we move ahead?
May 17th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Yes, of course.
If the subamendment is adopted, BQ-4 would propose that BillC‑290, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 2, the following:
(c.2) foreign interference in the public sector, “foreign interference” having such a meaning as may be prescribed;
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Is the amendment to BQ-4 carried on division?
(Subamendment agreed to on division)
Shall BQ-4 as amended carry on division?
(Amendment as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 4 as amended carry?
(Clause 4 as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On G-4, Mr. Fergus, I assume you'll speak to that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
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.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I personally agree with G-4. However, I have a question, which I think the legislative clerk can answer.
Since the amendment doesn't specify that the policies will not have financial consequences, is the amendment in order? Under its current wording, would the amendment require a royal recommendation? I want to make sure that a royal recommendation is not necessary.
4:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I don't have time to do an in-depth analysis so I can't answer your question, but, at first glance, that should fall to Treasury Board. So there shouldn't be any problems.
I don't know if maybe the officials would have something to add to that.
4:55 p.m.
Mireille Laroche Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you for the question.
As Mr. Fergus said, that falls under the tasks and responsibilities of the Treasury Board Secretariat. We already have people who work on administering the act. It would be part of their responsibilities. If there is a cost, it would be very marginal.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's wonderful. Shall G-4 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On G-4.1, we have Mr. Fergus.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
This is a new clause 4.1.
We've had good discussions with the Bloc Québécois on this issue. We understand that in drafting its initial proposal, it wanted to ensure that whistleblowers would have a greater choice of people to whom they could turn to make disclosures. However, the Bloc Québécois proposal opened the door too wide because, quite frankly, it allowed anyone to be contacted. We know that not everyone has the capacity or ability to receive disclosures.
That said, there needs to be more than one person in the senior public service or in a department designated to receive disclosures. I hope that our proposal is a good compromise. It would involve designating at least one other person, in addition to the person responsible in each department and agency. This would provide a wider range of people to whom complaints could be made about a problem or wrongdoing in the public service.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Shall G-4.1 carry, then?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 5)
CPC-4 is on page 17 of the package.
Colleagues, I'm not sure whether you have the page numbers on your agenda, so I'll just call them out as we go.
On CPC-4, we have Ms. Kusie.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's clear the government must have the flexibility to establish by regulation how support is defined. I think the support will be different in different situations. I think the government or the department needs the flexibility to determine what kind of support will be provided, given each situation.