Government Operations Committee on May 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Welcome to meeting 67 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023 and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 1, 2023, the committee is meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Very quickly, like the last meeting, we're going to keep it relatively casual, I hope, so that we can have banter back and forth without spending too much time formally recognizing....

I would ask, though, that if we are referring to our witnesses from Treasury Board, we not ask them directly. Please go through the chair so that we keep it a bit more formal for those witnesses.

We have with us again Ms. Sauvé and Ms. Boyi, our legislative clerks who are helping today.

Before we start, Ms. Sauvé is going to explain very quickly something we need to cover before we can continue.

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just quickly, this is in reference to the subamendment that was adopted to amendment G-3 at the last meeting. I have consulted with the jurilinguists, and they are advising that the committee adopt by unanimous consent a very small change in the numbering of the subamendment.

If you recall, in the second part of amendment G-3, which amends subsection 2(1) of the act, we had a list, (a), (b), (c), (d), of what “listed measure” means. Under paragraph (d), we added the contents of amendment NDP-4, which we renumbered paragraphs (d.1), (d.2), (d.3), etc. What the jurilinguists are advising is that instead the committee use roman numerals i, ii, iii, iv, etc., under paragraph (d).

That's just a numbering change. It doesn't affect the content of the subamendment or this amendment itself. I am seeking the unanimous consent of the committee to make that small change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, we have unanimous consent, I assume, so we'll make the changes.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's wonderful. Thank you very much.

(On clause 4)

Returning to the consideration of C-290, we're on clause 4, amendment BQ-4, which is page 15 of the package.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a suggestion. Of course, the amendment is very well drafted and is intended to ensure that no interference of any kind is used in retaliation against a whistleblowing public servant, and that includes foreign interference. I don't know if I have the right to propose this myself, but I would suggest adding a clarification that foreign interference be understood within the meaning of the regulations. That would make it consistent given the other amendments we've adopted. The point is really to make sure that, regardless of...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You can't amend your own amendment—

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

That's what I thought.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

—but perhaps someone else will.

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

I was wondering whether—

[An hon. member]

It's possible if we have unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm willing to—

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

I'm sorry, but I have pointed out that foreign interference would be added to the list of wrongdoings.

I don't know if Ms. Kusie would like to move that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll hear from Ms. Kusie and then Mr. Fergus.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I can move Ms. Vignola's amendment.

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

Thank you.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Fergus, do you want to chime in before we step forward with this?

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

Yes, I would.

I would like to begin by thanking Ms. Vignola and Ms. Kusie for proposing this amendment.

However, I still feel that the definition is not solid enough by any means. When we think of foreign interference in the public service, we need to recognize, firstly, that there is no definition of political interference. Moreover, we are often talking about situations that occur within the public service, not about acts committed against the public service in general. But if we are talking about political interference, it seems to me that it is something that comes from outside, that is, it is something that is external to the public service and is directed towards the interior of the public service, rather than acts committed within the public service. That's why I think the definition is problematic.

What I thought was useful, we already have... Sorry, I don't know what happened to CPC-3 at the last meeting. We adopted it, didn't we?

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

Yes, it was adopted.

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

I think CPC-3 is what we need here. It was... No, sorry, I'm mistaken.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

CPC-3 dealt with political interference within the meaning of the regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Kusie, move closer to your mike.

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

Indeed, you're right.