Bill C-290

Public Sector Integrity Act

An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act

This enactment amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to, among other things, expand the application of the Act to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to certain persons, extend the period during which a reprisal complaint may be filed and add a duty to provide support to public servants.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act .

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé]

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;

[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.

[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.

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

This amendment seeks to amend clause 4 of Bill C-290 by replacing line 34 on page 2 with the following:(b.1) a case of abuse of authority within the meaning of subsection 2(4) of the Public Service Employment Act;

The amendment defines abuse of authority by reference to an existing statute. A new definition is therefore not provided, and the current definition is not a major problem, as there is already a fairly broad consensus on its application. The amendment merely clarifies this point in what would be new paragraph 8(b.1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

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

You dazzled him.

I'll explain the friendly subamendment we are proposing. It involves NDP‑3 and NDP‑4. Before paragraph (a) of the definition of reprisal proposed in G‑3, we would add the change to the definition proposed in NDP‑3, which reads as follows:

vant who made a protected disclosure, has refused to commit a wrongdoing or has cooperated

In addition, the new paragraphs (c.2) through (c.6) that NDP‑4 proposes to add to the definition of reprisal would instead be inserted after paragraph (d) of the new definition of listed measure proposed in G‑3.

In a nutshell, the NDP's proposed amendments would be incorporated into the Liberal Party's proposed amendment, providing greater clarity to the definition of reprisal and clarifying who it refers to, without overly broadening the scope of Bill C-290 or requiring a royal recommendation.

The witnesses talked a lot about reprisals, because they have experienced various forms of it. The word horror comes to mind, because no one would want to go through what they went through. Defining the word clearly would also eliminate any possibility of someone finding a loophole in the bill or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act that would give them the opportunity to retaliate against the person. That's why we're proposing this friendly subamendment.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I move to amend Bill C-290 in clause 3 by adding after line 2 on page 2 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph (c) of the definition protected disclosure in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) in the course of a procedure established under any other Act of Parliament, including the Conflict of Interest Act; or

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Throughout the process, we underscored the importance of hearing from witnesses. Most of the expertise in the area of whistle-blower protection was developed abroad, by legal experts and various groups, for the purpose of adopting a better whistle-blower protection regime. Given how behind Canada is when it comes to protecting whistle-blowers, we firmly believed it was important for the committee to meet with experts and hear their recommendations.

It was obvious to us that we should leverage that expertise, and it is possible to incorporate witness recommendations into a private member's bill. Bill C‑290 captures the main elements of a stronger regime, but if the committee were to adopt certain amendments, including those put forward by the Bloc, it would do two things. First, Canada would no longer be a laughingstock internationally when it comes to whistle-blower protection, and second, Canada's regime would satisfy seven or eight of the 20 criteria that characterize a strong whistle-blower protection regime.

When witnesses appear before the committee, we need to listen to what they have to say, examine their recommendations, incorporate them into the bill, and of course, negotiate. I've had many a conversation with Mr. Fergus and others.

As for this specific amendment, it was important to us and to the witnesses to follow in the footsteps of other jurisdictions and establish a clear definition of political interference. It was also obvious that the definition should be included in the act. The problem is that the Conflict of Interest Act covers only public office holders. We wanted to underscore how important it was for the whistle-blower protection regime to have consistency in the act and definition, and to apply to the entire chain of command, top to bottom. That's why we are proposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will call this meeting to order while everyone is paying rapt attention.

Welcome to meeting number 66 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.

We have a couple of irregular witnesses today: Ms. Laroche and Ms. Stevens. They're here to answer questions. They won't be making any opening statements for us today. In place of our analysts, we have legislative experts on whom we will be relying quite heavily today, I suspect. They're Ms. Sauvé closest to me and Ms. Boyi furthest from me.

Colleagues, in my almost eight years, this will be only the second time we've actually done a clause-by-clause at OGGO, so I hope you will all bear with me and each other on this as we go through it.

I have a small opening statement prepared by our legislative assistants, which I will read. It's just general information on the clause-by-clause today. I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause of Bill C-290.

Today's examination, as we know, is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill, except for the short title, which will be considered at the end. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. If we're all in general agreement, we will do it on division if that is fine with everyone.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

In addition to having been properly drafted in the legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. I may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against a principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown. We must not offend the Crown. If members wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against the clause when the time comes, not propose an amendment to delete it.

I'm going to go very slowly so all members can follow the proceedings properly. I will mostly be going slowly for my own benefit.

In the package that was distributed by the clerk of the committee, amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on the amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and the subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved for an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it, just to keep things interesting.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the short title and the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required, if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Before we start, I'm going to turn things over to Ms. Sauvé for a couple of quick comments about some changes.

Go ahead, Ms. Sauvé.

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel for his question. I also want to thank him again for his bill, Bill C-290.

The idea he just mentioned was part of our platform in the last two election campaigns. I am pretty sure about that with respect to individual tax returns. I am not 100% sure about it when it comes to businesses, but certainly with respect to individuals.

I know that the Quebec members of our caucus, but really all members of our caucus, agree that Canadians should be able to report their income in the simplest and easiest way possible.

I therefore agree with my colleague. We support the idea of collecting taxes as he has suggested.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for ensuring that the debate stays relevant.

Certainly the amount of money the Liberal government is spending is critical to every bill, so thank you, Madam Speaker, for overseeing the discussion as I continue my interaction here today.

As I was saying, the finance minister indicated that she would use fiscal restraint. I do not believe she did so. If I could go even further back to when Bill S-6 was first being discussed, which was last spring before we broke for the summer recess, it was at that time and even into the fall that the finance minister indicated she was going to implement an idea that our leader has committed to: the “pay as you go” system. She said she would have fiscal restraint, but I do not believe she has that. Last year, at the end of the spring session, Bill S-6 was being discussed, as well as the “pay as you go” system, but both of these things did not happen.

In relation to our economy, I talked about Canadians being frustrated, defeated and exhausted. I am sure members saw the article in The Globe and Mail today indicating that this point in Canadian history is the worst time for new small business start-ups. This touches my heart very much. I know members have heard me speak before about how I come from a small business family in Calgary Midnapore. For me, growing up, small business was always front of mind. This included regulations, and I believe small businesses will struggle with the changing regulations indicated in Bill S-6. Again, if we look across the different departments, we can see how this can happen. Those are a couple of points in relation to Bill S-6.

I will also point out that in Bill S-6, with the way the government legislates and operates in general, the language is consistently filled with jargon, with words and phrases that are difficult for Canadians to interpret. I started out this speech by talking about how legislation should be for Canadians. It is the common Canadian we should be legislating for. When we have phrases that are too complex for Canadians to understand, it does not help them. It does not empower them. We need to do that.

With that, I would like to take a moment to talk about the plain language law that we would implement once we are in government, again in an effort to get government working for Canadians instead of having Canadians work for the government, as we are seeing in this case. I thought that was a very important point to mention.

As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, another place where I see this take place is with the public accounts. There needs to be much revision to the public accounts and how they are presented. I do not believe Canadians understand them in the format they are in presently. I always share the story that in my home growing up, like the concept we have in our home, a budget was like this: We bring in this much money as a household, we spend this much money as a household and we save this much money as a household. I do not believe the public accounts reflect a simple concept such as this, a concept that many Canadian households and many Canadians sitting around the dinner table have to follow. Again, this is in relation to the jargon, the lack of plain language and the complexity we see in regulations and legislation from the government, which is relevant to Bill S-6.

We also talk about Bill S-6 being indicative of another concept, which is very dear to the official opposition and the heart of our leader: getting rid of the gatekeepers. That essentially means making it easier for Canadians to live, to conduct business and to have the quality of life they deserve, which the government is not delivering to them, as evidenced by some of the earlier indicators I gave.

We as the official opposition have provided some constructive ideas for getting rid of the gatekeepers.

For example, our opposition day motion that was presented yesterday talked about getting rid of the municipal gatekeepers, which, coming from Calgary, I have had an opportunity to see first-hand at Calgary City Council. Having done some advocacy work at the civic level, I can say that all governments must be working together, pulling in the same direction in an effort to provide Canadians with the best standard of living, and that includes housing.

Especially when we consider the ambitious immigration targets of the current government, we need to seriously and sincerely consider how we are going to accommodate all of these newcomers. Again, I say this as an Albertan. Alberta is a place of incredible growth and we are so happy that so many new Canadians and so many Canadians who have abided in other places are making the choice to come to Alberta, but we need to seriously consider how we are going to support our citizens.

In his opposition day motion speech yesterday, my leader talked about how we will incentivize those municipalities that make the decision to build more homes for Canadians, and we will not reward those that do not. This is an excellent example of where we have to think about the gatekeepers. Bill S-6 is just an indicator that there are so many gatekeepers across government, when we have to make these minute changes to legislation which seems applicable to ages ago, including things as simple as removing stickers from liquid vending machines. It is astounding to me that these types of things are coming to light now.

Another example I will give of the official opposition's desire to get rid of the gatekeepers is our unique idea to bring home doctors and nurses and to allow for a Blue Seal in the same way that we have the Red Seal in the trade professions. That is wonderful. It is just fantastic how we have more young people joining the trades. I am especially excited about more young women joining the trades. I am certainly glad to see some of the legislation, even if it is at a provincial level, allowing young women to feel comfortable in joining the trades. Whether it is providing safe and clean restrooms for them or whether it is providing equipment that is suitable for their size and stature, whatever that may be, that is just excellent.

Our leader and the official opposition have found that the licensing bodies create endless barriers and red tape, which again is a topic that is talked about much in Bill S-6, resulting in an unnecessary, even greater shortage of doctors and nurses. I would like to quote this sentence from my leader. He said, “The Blue Seal will mean that it won’t matter where someone comes from, it matters what they can do.” That is just fantastic. If these doctors and nurses meet our Blue Seal standards, they will be able to work in our health care system. Again, this is just another example of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, looking for true efficiencies.

Bill S-6 addresses these tiny things. Really our energies could be spent on addressing much larger problems and finding efficiencies in larger problems rather than, in many cases of Bill S-6, providing opportunities for even more legislation through regulation.

I will add that legislation by regulation has not always resulted in the best outcomes for Canadians. I know that as we discuss Bill C-290 in the government operations committee right now, we are discussing, for example, the role of the public service integrity commissioner. A big discussion around these debates on Bill C-290 is really to decide how much leeway we will give the public service integrity commissioner in terms of regulation.

These are significant things that touch upon workers and will gravely determine whether a public servant decides to file a grievance and if they feel comfortable in doing so. This is something that is very important.

Another situation where we saw regulation was not sufficiently applied, for this official opposition, was the order in council regarding firearms. My goodness, that was before the pandemic, so three or four years ago now. That is a time when it most probably should have been legislation. Of course, we are going through the Bill C-21 process right now, which the Conservatives oppose. No matter what the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like, we will oppose Bill C-21. That is an example where regulation was used and perhaps should not have been. Perhaps it should have been left to legislation. This is most definitely another example.

I look through these different examples. There are other examples that my colleagues will talk about this evening, things they are very concerned about, interpretations of endangered species, for example. Again, there are more topics filled with jargon, but members will give their comments as well as to what interpretation of this legislation will mean through regulation.

It is something important to keep in mind, because, as I indicated, legislation should be made by the people for the people. This is something the official opposition, the Conservatives, are committed to. I think about how we are going to deal with the complex issues ahead of us, such as artificial intelligence, if we are talking about liquids coming out of vending machines.

Bill S-6 brings back the complexity, the jargon and the gatekeepers of this legislation. We on this side of the House want to have legislation that works for every Canadian in every single home, my home, all our homes, so let us bring it home and let us re-evaluate Bill S-6.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay. That's great.

I'm going to you, Dr. Brill-Edwards, because we know the legislative changes are critical in Bill C-290.

Can you speak about the importance of the culture in the public service? That needs to change. Do you have some suggestions on that?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I invite each witness to answer my next question very briefly.

Are you able to assess the level of good faith I have in supporting Bill C‑290?

In other words, am I doing it for personal glory or vengeance? After all, I'm a nasty separatist!

Why do you think it's important for me to support the bill? Are you able to assess the value of my motives?

[Tom Devine]

As a matter of fact, most whistle-blowers, the overwhelming majority, make their disclosures to their boss. They're not looking for trouble. They see a problem, and they say, “Boss, we have a problem. We need to deal with this.”

In response to the earlier question on loyalty, the studies have consistently shown 90%-96% of whistle-blowers never break ranks, because they think they're defending the organization and its mission. They just don't realize there's a conflict between the organization and its stated mission.

I agree with Bill C-290's broader scope of supervisors, because it allows the employee to circumvent when there's a conflict of interest. What if they learn, for example, that it's their boss who's the wrongdoer? They don't want to share all their evidence of that. They want to bring it to a party that doesn't have that conflict of interest.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses. Thank you so much for coming to committee. I'm sorry there isn't more time today.

I'd certainly like to speak with all of you, but because we are coming to the end and I have only the five minutes, I'd like to focus my questions on you, Mr. Devine. I really appreciate your being here.

I want to focus on support, because you've spoken to this and it's quite important. Bill C-290 includes a requirement for chief executives to provide support for disclosures. However, there's no definition or direction on how this should be implemented. Would this make it difficult to establish an approach to how these supports should be created and maintained, and could this be addressed in an amendment?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

That's excellent.

Ms. Brill-Edwards and Ms. Myers, you both talked about the importance of sanctioning retaliation on whistle-blowers.

I really appreciate hearing you talk about international examples, Ms. Myers. Do you want to suggest some amendments that you would like to see in Bill C-290 that would help strengthen this, as you've seen in other jurisdictions?