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.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
NDP‑8 was defeated on division. Then you said clause 8. I would like to have a recorded vote on clause 8.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
The reason we would like to have a vote on clause 8 is that we think clause 8 should be negated. That's largely because this whole clause applies only to protected disclosures. Former public servants can't have been reprised against. They're no longer public servants, so there's no stick with which to beat them.
That's the reason we would want to negate clause 8.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
For our part, we want to retain clause 8 because former public servants can continue to suffer reprisals even if they are no longer employees. In particular, there can be threats to their life or to that of their children, and even threats to their pension, which is illegal. That is why we want to retain clause 8.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
This is an important message. Among the witnesses who appeared before the committee, Luc Sabourin did not receive his pension for four years as a form of reprisal. The spirit of this clause is to prevent that kind of thing.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I would like to expand on what Mrs. Vignola said.
Such reprisals are already illegal, so former public servants are protected. For instance, it is already illegal to prevent someone from receiving their pension as a form of reprisal.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Yes, it is already illegal, but it still happens. There are public servants who did not receive their pension for months, if not years. It might be illegal, but it still happens.
If we insist on clause 8, it is because it gives public servants an additional safeguard. It is to prevent any further cases such as Mr. Sabourin's, or threats such as those received by Ms. Dion.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I would like to add something briefly.
Luc Sabourin, who appeared before the committee, did not receive his pension, even though that is illegal under the current act. We have been told that the act does need to be amended nonetheless.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
What's more, the individuals at fault were not punished in any way.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
We are in favour of maintaining clause 8.
Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'd like to ask our officials a question in regard to this.
Could you please clarify how post-employment actions are covered? Is it illegal to conduct reprisals against somebody who has left the public service? I'm not certain if you're familiar with the case of Monsieur Sabourin. If you are, you could use that as an example. If you're not, perhaps you can leave us with an example of how clause 8 is not necessary.
May 17th, 2023 / 5:55 p.m.
Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Under the current version of the PSDPA, in section 19.1 former public servants may make a complaint of reprisal to the PSIC. They are not prevented from making a reprisal complaint.
Clause 8 of the bill, the way it is currently written, has nothing to do with that. It's adding references to former public servants in making a disclosure to the public or the right to provide information to the public. It doesn't affect their right to make a reprisal complaint in any way.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
In conclusion, I would add that this was a unanimous recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in its 2017 report.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
The subject of clause 8 was included in the recommendations of the 2017 report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. And it was a unanimous recommendation.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It was a translation error. Thank you.
Colleagues, we'll do a recorded vote on this.
It's a tie, so I will say yes.
(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
Thank you.
I will slow down so that we don't run into this again.
Mr. Housefather, thank you again.
(On clause 9)
We're on to clause 9. Shall clause 9 carry?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
For very much the same reasons, Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend that we don't carry clause 9. Adding the term “former public servant” is unnecessary. We heard that in one of the responses that Ms. Stevens gave.
Anyone may provide the Integrity Commissioner with information on wrongdoing, and former public servants are already expressly covered by section 19.1, as I pointed out in the previous argument, with a right to complain of reprisal.
This imposes a burden on them, Mr. Chair, that just really isn't necessary.