SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Committee

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023
Context: Committee Business Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (OGGO) - Jun/19/23
The Chair
  • 05:23:18 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.
4 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Greg Fergus
  • 05:25:00 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Reasons similar to those for NDP-16 also apply to amendment NDP-17, in ensuring that there is consent from the whistle-blowers to be able to provide that private information. The second thing, again, is that this also covers a case where you're dealing with complaints that have gone to the commissioner, as opposed to ones that have been resolved internally or that the complainant has decided to pursue internally. This will effectively require an annual survey to be conducted by PSIC. Again, we're very concerned about how we might run the risk of releasing people's confidential situations and their current status, so the same reasons that we opposed NDP-16 apply to amendment NDP-17.
120 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:26:05 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Is there anything else, Mr. Johns? Mr. Gord Johns: No. The Chair: Can we go to a vote on NDP-17, Madam Clerk?
23 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Aimée Belmore)
  • 05:27:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Mr. Chair, the count is five yeas and five nays.
10 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:27:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I will vote yes. (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]) The Chair: On NDP-18, it's Mr. Johns.
24 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Gord Johns
  • 05:27:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I will try to go as fast as I can. No additional funds are required. It requires the periodic gathering and publication of indirect performance indicators. There is little to no information available regarding public servants' perceptions of the effectiveness of the whistle-blowing system, the frequency of perceived wrongdoing, which is supposed to expose and deter, and the effectiveness of corrective actions. This makes it impossible to determine the trends that would tells us whether the legislation is having the intended effects. With this amendment, data would be available showing levels and trends in indirect performance indicators related to public servants' perceptions. These would provide a basis for a review and improvement of the legislation and its implementation, which are necessary for the regular reviews of the act to present a realistic picture of how effective the act is. This would not require additional funds. The public service employee survey questions are reviewed every cycle and there's no obstacle to adding these types of questions to it. In the U.S., the Office of Special Counsel has conducted three cycles of this type of survey, demonstrating an improving trend.
191 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:28:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Next is Mr. Fergus and then Ms. Kusie.
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Greg Fergus
  • 05:28:11 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I really disagree with my colleague on his statement that this would have no additional costs. In fact, this will have a significant additional cost. This is providing another survey of public servants, which is similar to the public service employment survey that is done every year. In digging deep on this, we found that each piece of PSES, the employment survey, costs well in excess of a million dollars a year. The entire budget for PSIC is just over a million dollars a year. To run the survey alone would increase the cost of the commissioner's office by 100%. This would be in addition to having a new function and responsibility for the commissioner, who doesn't do this. They would have to make sure they have new authorization to spend this money to conduct this survey. To let you know, the public service employment survey is only done biennially, every two years, for the purposes of finding out what we do, where public servants are at, how they are feeling, the status of their jobs. To have PSIC double this work will create additional costs and significant additional costs.
192 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:29:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Go ahead, Mrs. Kusie.
4 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie
  • 05:29:56 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Chair, I want to make a subamendment to the amendment, which I hope might be friendly, and that is eliminating paragraph (d). We have concerns about anonymity if keeping paragraph (d). I would be looking to remove paragraph (d), please, Chair.
41 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:30:25 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Can we vote on Ms. Kusie's subamendment? Hold on one moment, please. We need to suspend for a moment for our legislative clerks to look at an issue. The Chair: Colleagues, our legislative clerks are advising me that subamendments have to be provided in writing. We can either rule it out of order, or we can suspend for a couple of moments and you can put the subamendment in writing for us, Mrs. Kusie.
75 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie
  • 05:32:30 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Yes, I'm happy to put it in writing. Is it just two sentences, or what does the extent have to be? I can loosely translate it as well, but I don't want to hold up the process.
39 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:32:54 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes for you to put it in writing.
15 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:42:42 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Colleagues, we are back. Mrs. Kusie's subamendment, of course, is to eliminate proposed paragraph (d). Proposed paragraph (c) has the word “and” at the end, so we have to change that. I will read it in. If everyone's fine with it, we'll adjust Mrs. Kusie's subamendment to say, that the amendment be amended by adding “and” after paragraph (b) and removing the following from paragraph (c): “and”. We'll get into Mrs. Kusie's subamendment, then. Mr. Fergus.
88 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Greg Fergus
  • 05:43:14 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I have no comment, sir. (Subamendment agreed to)
8 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Chair
  • 05:43:19 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
It carries unanimously. We are back to the actual amendment itself. Mr. Fergus.
13 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Hon. Greg Fergus
  • 05:43:36 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have difficulty with this. I would like to thank Mrs. Kusie for making the change and removing some of the confidentiality parts of it. However, in regard to NDP-18 as a whole, as you can see at the very beginning, it says, “(2.01) The Commissioner must conduct an annual survey to determine”, and then it goes on for now three provisions. That annual survey has to happen. I mentioned that to survey all public servants in relation to the way they feel disclosures are managed under this act would be analogous to the public service employment survey, which does cost a considerable amount of money, probably in excess of the entire budget for the commissioner's office as it stands now. That is a significant expense. There you go, Mr. Chair. I think it would be better off for this amendment not to happen to Bill C-290.
158 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Gord Johns
  • 05:44:57 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
I would ask about the costs and whether it would require royal assent.
13 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Mireille Laroche (Assistant Deputy Minister, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat)
  • 05:45:02 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
Do you mean a royal recommendation? Mr. Gord Johns: Yes. Ms. Mireille Laroche: 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.
180 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie
  • 05:46:09 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Read Aloud
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.
75 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border