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
Bloc Québécois
NDP
The witnesses answered questions.
The committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1 (short title) was postponed.
The Chair called Clause 2.
Clause 2 carried on division.
On Clause 3,
Julie Vignola moved, — That Bill C-290, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 1 the following:“(1.1) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
political interference means interference in the public sector
(a) in a way that causes any political or personal interest to prevail over the public interest, including by influencing or directing a public servant
(i) to apply a law not according to the intention of Parliament but according to some other interpretation preferred by the person so influencing or directing, or
(ii) to exercise a discretion or a power or to refuse or fail to do so, or to take any other measure; or
(b) in any other way that does not observe the distinction between political and personal interests and the public interest or the priority in the public sector of the public interest. (ingérence politique)”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“protected disclosure” means a disclosure that is made, on the basis of reasonable belief, by a public servant
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus and it was agreed to on division.
“(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”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Julie Vignola and it was agreed to on division.
(4) The definition “reprisal” in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
“reprisal” means any listed measure taken against a public servant because the public servant
(a) has made a protected disclosure;
(b) has witnessed another public servant making a protected disclosure;
(c) has collaborated with another public servant in the making of a protected disclosure;
(d) has been mistaken for a public servant who is in a situation described in any of paragraphs (a) to (c);
(e) has, on the basis of reasonable belief, cooperated in an investigation into a disclosure or an investigation commenced under section 33; or
(f) is associated with a public servant who is in a situation described in any of paragraphs (a) to (e). (“représailles”)
(5) Subsection 2(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
“listed measure” means, in relation to a public servant,
(a) a disciplinary measure;
(b) their demotion;
(c) the termination of their employment, including, in the case of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a discharge or dismissal;
(d) any measure that adversely affects their employment or working conditions; or
(e) a threat to take any of the measures referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d). (“mesure énumérée”)
Debate arose thereon.
Julie Vignola moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding, before paragraph 4(a), the following:
“(a) has refused to commit a wrongdoing;”
And by adding, after the words “working conditions” in paragraph 5(d), the following:
“including, but not limited to:
(i) the mandatory assignment or deployment of the public servant;
(ii) any form of reprimand;
(iii) any form of discrimination;
(iv) the infliction of emotional distress;
(v) any act or omission that causes any psychological injury to the public servant”
At 5:15 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 5:38 p.m., the sitting resumed.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Julie Vignola and it was agreed to on division.
The question was put on the amendment of Greg Fergus, as amended, and it was agreed to on division.
Clause 3, as amended, carried on division.
On Clause 4,
Julie Vignola moved, — That Bill C-290, in Clause 4, be amended 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;”
Debate arose thereon.
By unanimous consent, the amendment was withdrawn.
“(b.1) an abuse of authority, which has such meaning as may be prescribed;”
The question was put on the amendment of Stephanie Kusie and it was agreed to on division.
“(c.1) political interference in the public sector, “political interference” having such meaning as may be prescribed;”
The question was put on the amendment of Stephanie Kusie and it was agreed to on division.
At 5:59 p.m., the committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.