Evidence of meeting #73 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 video is available from Parliament.
Mireille Laroche Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Do you mean a royal recommendation?
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
In terms of a royal recommendation, as before, I'd say that's not in my purview, so I will leave it to the legislative clerk to say something. However, in our view it would create a cost, because if you look at your proposed subsection (2.01), you see it says, “The Commissioner must conduct an annual survey”. This doesn't say to work with the PSES and include questions, so he or she would have to create their own survey that would be applied to all public servants in order to get this information. Therefore, it would require methodology, question design, applying it and so on.
The other thing I would like to say is that the PSES currently asks a number of questions that are covered by proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in terms of awareness and the ability, so there could be an opportunity for collaboration to include some of the key questions of the PSIC in the current PSES.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I just want to say that I've done that survey he talked about and I believe what he's saying. If you were to amend it to include it within the public service survey, I feel that would also be sufficient, which, according to his reasoning, would suffice, because then you're folding that survey into the bigger survey.
That would be my suggestion, if he's sincere, which I'm sure he is.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I am sincere. Perhaps I could riff off of Ms. Kusie's suggestion. By folding it into the PSES with the appropriate questions and then removing the requirement for it to be an annual survey, that would really work, but if you make it annual, you're just doubling the cost of the PSES.
I will leave it to you to do so, to making sure that it captures....
May I make a suggestion that you might withdraw it, but then maybe the committee can make it clear in its report that we would expect that the PSES would include questions that would....
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Okay. I will go with that. I am going to withdraw it.
(Amendment as amended withdrawn)
(Clause 33 as amended agreed to on division)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Great.
Clause 33.1 is a new clause. We have it in NDP-19, which is page 39 of the package.
Go ahead, Mr. Johns.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Again, no additional funds are required. It requires appointees to the position of Integrity Commissioner to be independent of the bureaucracy and to be qualified to lead an agency whose primary mandate is investigation.
Integrity commissioners who are from the bureaucracy are in a serious conflict of interest between the investigative mandate of PSIC and their future career prospects in the public service. Three successive integrity commissioners, all drawn from the bureaucracy, have demonstrated similar behaviour in consistently favouring the rights and the interests of bureaucrats over the protection of whistle-blowers, contrary to the purpose of their position.
This behaviour has been reported both by the Auditor General and by judges and judicial review decisions. According to a focus group report commissioned by PSIC in 2022, few public servants trust the agency, and a commissioner must be appointed who does not have a conflict of interest that might deter them from investigating suspected wrongdoing through fear or favour.
A commissioner must be appointed who will be motivated, most of all, to ensure that whistle-blowers are protected as witnesses essential to their investigations.
With this amendment—I'm sorry if I'm speaking a little bit ahead—the PSIC will have greater credibility. Public servants will be more likely to trust the commissioner and to come forward with disclosures. There will be greater public confidence in PSIC, and more wrongdoing will come to light and will be remedied.
I've spoken on, I guess, NDP-19, NDP-20 and NDP-21 altogether, but if we could just vote on NDP-19 first, and then....
Conservative
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Johns, I'll speak to NDP-19, NDP-20 and NDP-21.
In regard to NDP-19, I do think it's a little bizarre that you would bring in someone who has no experience with the public service to try to understand what happens in the public service and to better understand where the complainant might be coming from. It just seems that would be like asking a judge not to be a lawyer first.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'll stick to NDP-19. This is where I'm going on this one.
It just doesn't really add up. I'm not certain where the conflict of interest happens. The person is no longer holding a job in the public service when they're appointed commissioner. That is their job. They're not double dipping, so I'm not certain where this comes from at all.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We will go to Mrs. Kusie and then to Mr. Johns. We're on amendment NDP-19.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I was going to ask that we change “not employed in the public service” to “not employed in the Public Service of Canada”. I think it's better defined.
Would the government be open to...? As I understand it, they're currently objecting to this. I guess they would still object to it if we put “the Public Service of Canada” versus “the public service”. In that case, if all opposition parties vote to support it, then it is not significantly material but it is material.
I guess that would be my subamendment then. One moment. Let me just confer with my desk.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Again, the subamendment would have to be in writing to our legislative clerk.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I'm going to withdraw the subamendment. It doesn't feel material enough to spend time on it at this point.
Thank you.
Conservative
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I'm going to be really quick.
We heard many times from the witnesses about their concerns around this. It's funny, because we write laws. I know I'm one of the few “not lawyers” at this table here. Okay, I'm sorry. There are only a couple of lawyers, but I think you get my point.
Conservative
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
The commissioner this committee wants to meet this week is not a member of the Canadian public service. She's an expert from New York. The government is applying the NDP amendment before it's even been passed. So I don't see why this amendment would be an issue right now.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Just because this candidate is not a Canadian public servant doesn't mean that no candidate should ever be a public servant. We're neutral on that concept, and Harriet Solloway's appointment simply proves that we're seeking the best possible candidate. However, this makes it impossible to appoint someone who's had a career in the Canadian public service. It's just a little strange.
I'd like to ask the witnesses whether this criterion creates a conflict of interest in the amendment.
Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you for your question.
Just in terms of the trust, I want to point out that those working for the Auditor General, those doing internal audits for the government, are public officials, and I think we all strive, as public servants, to be impartial and to do the best job possible. That's one thing.
Second, when you read the amendment, it says that, at appointment, the person should not be employed in the public service. Let's say that I apply. If I quit government the day before I am appointed, I can still be appointed as a PSIC. I don't think that this will have an impact at all, given how it's written because it says that the Government in Council appoint “a person not employed”. No one is employed because they will have given their notice to the federal or provincial government, wherever they work, in order to take on that job.