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.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
We don't know what the president would actually.... We can't say anything on that. I'm sorry.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Obviously, it has to be real quick, so we can fly through this.
Conservative
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize. I didn't hear the question.
Yes, on the royal recommendation ground.... Again, this already falls under the role of the Treasury Board and would be covered by the initial royal recommendation. It accompanies the act as it's currently written. It wouldn't lead to new spending that would require a royal recommendation.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
[Inaudible—Editor] so I said I'd bring it here.
This extends the duty of protection for a reasonable time frame, preventing delayed reprisal. We know there are some bad actors who wait until the formal proceedings are over and then carry out acts of reprisal with impunity. This amendment would help protect disclosures after the processes are over, when they become more vulnerable because the spotlight is no longer on their case.
It's not hypothetical. There are numerous reported cases of this happening. This would give the whistle-blower confidence that the protections they're receiving will be effective and not just transient and temporary.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Once again, my sense would be that this lacks the consent of the whistle-blower. I think that's the problem. The whistle-blower gets identified. By making sure the support could be provided up to three years after the person...the department would know who the whistle-blower is and would be contacting them. The point is there's supposed to be a confidential process in place. I'm not certain I would want new people to be brought into this.
Maybe I could ask the department whether they have some views as to how this works, in terms of the three years past the date when they denounced an action.
Mary Anne Stevens Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
The reprisal protection under the PSDPA starts at the reprisal, not at the disclosure. If you're reprised against two years after your disclosure, that's when the protection begins. This may be redundant.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
On similar grounds as with the previous amendment, we will not be supporting this, in order to move the process along and in fairness to the members.
Thank you.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
After the decision has been made, could there be further reprisals, where this would be necessary or useful?
Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
I'm sorry. After...?
NDP
Senior Director, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes. After any reprisal, you are protected under the PSDPA.
Conservative
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Yes. After the formal proceedings are over, acts are carried out beyond that timeline.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Let's say there was a reprisal, and there was a decision as to whether it happened again, and then there were further reprisals. The person could go back to the PSIC and be protected.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Are you looking for a vote, or are you looking to withdraw it?
Ms. Stevens and Ms. Larouche, thank you for that.
Colleagues, we need unanimous consent for Mr. Johns to withdraw that, I assume.
Excuse me for two seconds.
(Amendment withdrawn)
(Clause 5 as amended carried)
I'm sorry, colleagues. We're now on new clause 5.1, with amendment LIB-5, which is on page 20.1 of the package.
Go ahead, Mr. Jowhari.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are proposing a new clause, 5.1. The amendment reads as follows: That Bill C-290 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 3 the following new clause:
5.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 11:
11.1 The Treasury Board may establish policies regarding the duties set out in subsection 11(1).
Before I hand it over to my colleague, Mr. Fergus, I will just say that here we are talking about how, when we set up an evaluation for an internal department, we also need to set up standards against which TBS can do that evaluation.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
As we have been consistent in our support for flexibility in regulation, we will be supporting this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, shall amendment LIB-5 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
(On clause 6)
We're now on to amendment G-4.3, which is on page 20.3 of your package. Seeing as amendment G-4.1 passed, we can actually do G-4.3.
Mr. Fergus.