OGGO Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Conservative
Bloc Québécois
NDP
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee resumed its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The committee resumed clause-by-clause consideration on Clause 4 of the Bill.
“(c.2) foreign interference in the public sector;”
Debate arose thereon.
Stephanie Kusie moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “public sector” the following: “, “foreign interference” having such meaning as may be prescribed”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Stephanie Kusie and it was agreed to on division.
The question was put on the amendment of Julie Vignola, as amended, and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 4, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 4.1,
Greg Fergus moved, — That Bill C-290 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 3 the following:“4.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 10:
10.1 The Treasury Board may establish policies respecting the duty set out in subsection 10(1).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on division.
“4.1 Subsection 10(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2.1) Each chief executive must designate one or more persons to be responsible in addition to the senior officer for receiving disclosures of wrongdoings made by public servants employed in the portion of the public sector for which the chief executive is responsible.
(3) A person designated under subsection (2) or (2.1) may be a person who is employed in a portion of the public sector other than the one for which the chief executive is responsible.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on division.
On Clause 5,
Stephanie Kusie moved, — That Bill C-290, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:“(a) provide the prescribed support to a public servant who has made”
Debate arose thereon.
Anthony Housefather moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the words “non-financial” after the word “prescribed”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Anthony Housefather and it was agreed to on division.
The committee resumed consideration of the amendment as amended.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
(a) replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:
“(a) provide, on request, non-financial support — including information on appropriate resources and recourse mechanisms — to a public servant who has made”
(b) replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 3 with the following:
“volved in the disclosure process, including that of any person referred to in paragraph (a), any other witness and any person alleged to be responsible for a wrongdoing;”
The question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on division.
“(a.2) establish procedures, including risk assessments, to protect persons involved in the disclosure process, including persons making disclosures, from reprisals and to provide them with support;”
Debate arose thereon.
Julie Vignola moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding the words “as in paragraph (a)” after the word “support”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Julie Vignola and it was negatived.
The question was put on the amendment of Gord Johns and it was negatived.
“(2) Subsection 11(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):
(b.1) establish procedures to protect, support and follow up with persons who have made protected disclosures for up to three years following the day on which their disclosure is dealt with; and”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, carried.
On new Clause 5.1,
Majid Jowhari moved, — 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).”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Majid Jowhari and it was agreed to on division.
On Clause 6,
Greg Fergus moved, — That Bill C-290, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 3 to line 3 on page 4 with the following:“6 Section 12 of the Act is replaced by the following:
12 A public servant may disclose to any of the following persons any information that the public servant believes could show that a wrongdoing has been committed or is about to be committed, or that could show that he or she has been asked to commit a wrongdoing:
(a) the public servant’s supervisor;
(b) any person who is at a higher level than the public servant’s supervisor in the line of reporting for the portion of the public sector in which the public servant is employed;
(c) the senior officer designated by the chief executive of the portion of the public sector in which the public servant is employed; or
(d) any person designated under subsection 10(2.1) by the chief executive of the portion of the public sector in which the public servant is employed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 6, as amended, carried on division.
On new Clause 6.1,
Greg Fergus moved, — That Bill C-290 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 4 the following:“6.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
12.1 (1) A senior officer must refuse to deal with a disclosure if the senior officer is of the opinion that the subject-matter of the disclosure is within the jurisdiction of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner under the Conflict of Interest Act and must refer the matter to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
(2) If a senior officer refuses to deal with a disclosure under subsection (1), the senior officer must inform the person who made the disclosure and give reasons why he or she did so.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 7 carried on division.
On Clause 8,
Gord Johns moved, — That Bill C-290, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 4 the following:“(2.1) Section 16 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(1.01) A disclosure that a public servant or former public servant made under sections 12 to 14 may also be made to the public if the public servant or former public servant believes on reasonable grounds that the investigation was inadequate or if the investigator:
(a) did not, within six months following the day on which the disclosure was made, notify the public servant or former public servant whether the disclosure would be investigated;
(b) decided not to investigate the disclosure;
(c) investigated the disclosure, but did not recommend the taking of any action in relation to the alleged wrongdoing in the public sector.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Gord Johns and it was negatived on division.
The question was put on Clause 8 and the result of the vote was announced:
YEAS: Michael Barrett, Garnett Genuis, Gord Johns, Stephanie Kusie, Julie Vignola — 5;
NAYS: Parm Bains, Greg Fergus, Anthony Housefather, Majid Jowhari, Joanne Thompson — 5.
Whereupon, the Chair voted in the affirmative.
Accordingly, Clause 8 carried.
The question was put on Clause 9 and the result of the vote was announced:
YEAS: Michael Barrett, Garnett Genuis, Gord Johns, Stephanie Kusie, Julie Vignola — 5;
NAYS: Parm Bains, Greg Fergus, Anthony Housefather, Majid Jowhari, Joanne Thompson — 5.
Whereupon, the Chair voted in the affirmative.
Accordingly, Clause 9 carried.
On Clause 10,
Greg Fergus moved, — That Bill C-290, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 5 with the following:“reasonably believes that a reprisal has been taken against them may”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on division.
“file a complaint with the Commissioner. The complaint may also be”
Debate arose thereon.
Julie Vignola moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “Commissioner” the following: “, in a reasonable form, as may be prescribed”.
By unanimous consent, the subamendment was withdrawn.
At 6:18 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 6:29 p.m., the sitting resumed.
Garnett Genuis moved, — That the committee report to the House that it believes, in light of testimony it has received, that there should be a standard by which the Integrity Commissioner receives complaints that is simple and accessible, and that the committee ask that the Integrity Commissioner provide feedback on this report to the committee by letter by the end of September 2023.
Debate arose thereon.
After debate, the question was put on the motion of Garnett Genuis and it was agreed to.
By unanimous consent, Clause 10 was allowed to stand.
Clause 11 carried on division.
On Clause 12,
Greg Fergus moved, — That Bill C-290, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 33 on page 5 with the following:“12 Paragraph 19.3(1)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(d) the complaint was not made on the basis of reasonable belief.”
Debate arose thereon.
At 6:52 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.