44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are saying that the vote on the amendment is going to be next Wednesday. If that is the case, I suggest we go to Adjournment Proceedings.
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 5:46:18 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Winnipeg North wanted to see the bill defeated. The hon. member for Mirabel wanted to see it concurred in at report stage.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we would require unanimous consent at this point, so let me make a suggestion. If the member wants us to debate the bill today, the best way to do that is to allow the amendment to be defeated on division.
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 5:47:12 p.m.
- Watch
There is no amendment. The motion in amendment could not be accepted because it did not have a royal recommendation. We are on concurrence at the report stage.
Let me redo the vote, and we will make sure it is recorded properly.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be concurred in at report stage on division.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 5:48:45 p.m.
- Watch
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Before proceeding further, the Chair would like to remind members of its November 3, 2022, ruling, in which it determined that Bill C-290 as debated at second reading required a royal recommendation.
On September 18, 2023, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates reported the bill with amendments, and the House just agreed to the report stage of the bill.
The Chair has carefully examined the amendments adopted by the committee and confirms that the bill, as amended, no longer requires a royal recommendation. Thus, the normal process can continue and the bill can be put to a final vote in the House at third reading.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I salute all my colleagues, and especially my colleague from Winnipeg North.
The purpose of this bill, which I introduced on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, is to protect whistle-blowers, public servants who disclose wrongdoing. The reason I introduced this bill stems from my first few weeks and months as a member of Parliament, when whistle-blowers, public servants who had witnessed wrongdoing in departments and agencies, began calling my office and asking for my help. I would tell these folks to use the usual means to try and protect themselves as whistle-blowers. I quickly realized that the Canadian whistle-blower protection regime was completely flawed.
At one point, I asked myself this question: Am I alone in thinking that there is no way for a whistle-blower in Canada to disclose wrongdoing without falling into a hole before reaching the end of the process? Over time, I realized that many people agreed with my diagnosis. First of all, the International Bar Association ranked Canada's whistle-blower protection regime at the very bottom of the global list, tied only with Zimbabwe. Of the 20 criteria used to classify whistle-blower protection regimes, Canada met only one. The only criterion it met was having a piece of legislation. The other 19 criteria were not met. The legislation is empty.
Essentially, Canada's whistle-blower protection regime is like an old car chassis with no engine, no transmission, no tires and no carburetor. That is the vehicle our whistle-blowers are supposed to drive. The International Bar Association says so, the International Labour Organization agrees with us, the public service unions agree with us, former whistle-blowers who have gone through this process and know its flaws better than anyone else agree with us. There are dozens of witnesses.
In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates produced a comprehensive report. The committee held 12 meetings on the issue of reforming this whistle-blower protection regime. Twelve meetings for one study in committee is a big deal. The committee received 52 witnesses and 12 written briefs. The findings of this report are clear. It found that in order to function properly, democracy needs two legs. The first leg is accountability. The executive branch, the departments, all have to be monitored in a democracy. That is what the second leg of democracy, transparency, is for. Without whistle-blowers and protection for public servants who disclose wrongdoing, who do the right thing for the right reasons, at the risk of their health, their life, their finances and their career, democracy would not work. These whistle-blowers are our last line of defence. Not standing up for these whistle-blowers is like hitting the ice without a goalie. A developed country cannot operate like that. This is a matter of protecting public safety and respecting Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, who are losing faith in government institutions.
Today, I am very proud that this bill has made it to debate at third reading and could be voted on. It must be said that this bill is the result of working together across party lines, a collaborative effort by all parties. I want to recognize my colleagues who participated in this process in a constructive manner.
First, I want to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is now our Speaker. At the time, he was working as the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. He supported us in the amendment process, which means that the Liberal Party can vote in favour of the bill this time.
I want to congratulate in advance the NDP member for Courtenay—Alberni, who presented some very good amendments. He worked in co-operation with us. I also want to congratulate the member for Edmonton West, who was the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates when the committee submitted its report in 2017. He has been fighting for this for many years. I know that support and advice are important to him. He is a very wise man. I know that he is very happy that this bill is at third reading stage today.
Of course, I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In particular, I would like to thank the member who went through the entire amendment process on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Dealing with a subject like this required a member who, in addition to being detail-oriented and rigorous, has a heart and understands human issues, the human soul and the profoundly human importance of caring for these people. That would be my colleague and friend, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, and today I want to say just how much I respect and admire her work.
I would also like to talk about the people who have had the courage to continue to blow the whistle on wrongdoing at the expense of every aspect of their lives. They have supported us, testified and devoted time, energy and skills to this process. They are the whistle-blowers themselves and the whistle-blower protection groups. I am thinking in particular of Joanna Gualtieri, who testified, offered us her legal services and advised us. She was one of the first whistle-blowers in Canada. She went through the whole process, spent selflessly to get the truth out, and survived some incredible pitfalls. I salute her.
I also want to thank Pamela Forward, of Whistleblowing Canada.
Tom Devine from GAP, the Government Accountability Project, in Washington, D.C., insisted on coming to the committee in person. He is a global expert who has advised hundreds of administrations on these issues. He wanted to be here in person to work on this bill. I also want to thank Ian Bron, a retired Canadian Armed Forces member. I also want to thank David Hutton for his advice.
I want to salute Luc Sabourin, the whistle-blower at the root of the scandal that is unfolding before our eyes, the destruction of foreign passports by Canada behind our allies' backs. This courageous man risked everything: his life, his health, his sense of security and his financial well-being. His pension was taken away. He is here with us today on the Hill. This goes to show that what we are doing today is of paramount importance to Canadian taxpayers, Quebec taxpayers and these people. I salute him. He has my utmost respect.
Let us now talk about the content of this bill. First of all, there are rankings, which I talked about earlier. If Bill C‑290 is passed, our whistle-blower protection regime will put us in the middle of the world rankings. We will have a similar ranking to the United Kingdom and France, but we will still be lagging far behind the United States and many American states, the European Union and Australia. That means that this bill is the first of many steps we will have to take when it comes to the protection of whistle-blowers.
What are we doing? We are expanding protection to former public servants who are not currently protected but who still have critical information for improving transparency and management in the public sector. We want to get to the bottom of things and give them more channels for filing complaints. Complaints cannot just be brought to the attention of an immediate supervisor because sometimes that person is involved in the wrongdoing. This bill allows for the use of other channels, elsewhere within departments, to file complaints. We included not just administration issues, management issues and the misuse of public funds as wrongdoing in the bill, but also foreign and political interference.
If this bill is passed, we will have the opportunity to work with the government and to monitor it to make sure it is acting in good faith. We have acted in good faith. Foreign and political interference are defined by government regulation. We will remain vigilant but open. We trust the government in that regard because we decided to work together. The government will have to be worthy of our trust.
Whistle-blowers will be allowed to file more than one complaint at a time. Right now, if they file a reprisal complaint, they reach a standstill with the commissioner. They cannot file two complaints at once. No whistle-blower enjoys filing three, four or five complaints at the same time. No one has time in the evenings and on weekends to fool around with five or six complaints for fun. If whistle-blowers have to file more than one complaint at a time, it is because they feel they need to, and because the public sector needs it to happen in order to remain transparent. That will be guaranteed with this bill.
There have been disappointments, and they have been significant, but we have to live with them. It happens often in politics.
The NDP moved an amendment to reverse the burden of proof in some cases. Unfortunately, this was defeated. We supported them. The NDP moved amendments to protect whistle-blowers from reprisals during investigations. That was defeated. I want to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for the work he did. They were good amendments and, one day, we will have the opportunity to go back to them.
This shows, once again, that we need leadership from the government on this issue, because the legislation has not been changed in 15 years, whereas the world has changed. It is not normal to have legislation that does not evolve when the nature of political interference is changing. It is not normal to have legislation that does not evolve when Chinese foreign interference is happening and it was not in the news at the time the legislation was adopted, in other words after the sponsorship scandal.
A law that seeks to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoings should not be like an old piece of meat, an old quart of milk or an old yogourt. It should never expire. There should be a mechanism under which these laws are frequently reviewed. The government has work to do, because I did everything that I could in a private member's bill to advance the cause of protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Opposition members cannot spend money. We cannot cover the legal fees of whistle-blowers, some of whom end up financially ruined for wanting to serve their employer. I cannot emphasize enough that whistle-blowers are people who are loyal to their employer and to taxpayers, who are their real employer. The government will have to continue to work on this and follow our example.
We are here today because we have a minority government, and private members' bills, especially those from the Bloc Québécois, can help change the world. Let us see what we can accomplish in a minority government. We can protect whistle-blowers. We protected the pensions of Quebec workers by making them priority creditors. We succeeded in protecting supply management in trade agreement negotiations. We managed to protect our fruit and vegetable producers' shipments when they are not paid. We managed to protect the Quebec securities commission when Ottawa wanted to move Quebec's financial sector to English-speaking Toronto. We managed to have an independent public inquiry into Chinese foreign interference, in a minority government. We managed to increase the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors by $600 a year. We managed to get hundreds of dollars for parents by making the universal child care benefit tax-free, because the Conservatives had been taxing parents. The Conservatives are compulsive taxers. We had an investigation into the sponsorship scandal.
It pays to vote for the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers should vote for the Bloc Québécois. It is important to vote for the Bloc Québécois.
I am looking at the Conservatives, and they are speechless. What a wonderful sight.
Aside from that, the bill we are debating is in the public interest. This bill aims to protect people's lives. It is about protecting human beings and the quality of life of people who are often portrayed as being disloyal to their employers, but who ultimately just want to make things better and work in an environment that values ethics, transparency and honesty towards hard-working taxpayers. We want to protect these people's lives for the benefit of all.
Today, I invite all my colleagues from all parties and political denominations to vote in favour of Bill C-290. There is only good in this bill. Whistle-blowers and public servants are watching us. We must rise to the occasion.
2159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am glad we were able to get to the member's debate. He articulates quite well. The member made reference to other countries and put Canada in a placement with those countries.
Are there any provincial jurisdictions in Canada that have followed suit? If the member has any insights on that, I would very much appreciate hearing them.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. We discussed that with the whistle-blowers in committee. I thank my colleague for asking it.
In Canada, we find that the provinces generally wait for the federal government to make the first move on this issue. It often makes the first move, encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, and then the provinces react. With the resources we have here, we have an opportunity to set an example, while respecting the federal government's jurisdiction, on a whistle-blowing regime that would not be perfect, but would be an improvement. The Liberals have not yet had or taken the time, to put it politely, to improve the law, but yes, we expect most provinces to look to the federal Parliament and read the bill. A bill based on Bill C‑290 has already been introduced in the National Assembly. We know that by doing the right thing at the federal level and improving transparency and accountability in the federal government with Bill C‑290, others will follow. So there are 10 more reasons in the provinces, and three more in the territories, to vote for Bill C‑290.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know that in committee there was an amendment that dealt with the matter of subcontractors. I would like my colleague to comment on that.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the matter of subcontractors and contract workers is important, as we saw with the ArriveCAN app and National Defence. Unfortunately, expanding protection to subcontractors would require a royal recommendation. That was the nature of the amendment that the Speaker had to reject earlier today. However, it is still an important issue and that is why the government must consider it, because it has the prerogative to do so.
There is also the constitutionality of the issue. Most subcontractors fall under the governance of provincial labour laws. We will have to examine that issue. Just because it is not included in the bill does not mean that we did not think about it, that we did not try to address it, that it is not important and that we should forget about it.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mirabel for championing this very important bill.
Some elected members responded to the bill's intent saying that the government formed a committee to look into the whistle-blower protection regime.
Does the member for Mirabel think that is a good excuse not to vote in favour of the bill?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always good to think things over. Fortuitously, it so happens that when I introduced my bill, the government announced the creation of a think tank, an expert panel, that will essentially tell us what the 2017 committee did. I think that the government has to keep reflecting, thinking and improving things. There are steps to be taken. The government is the one who has to take those steps. However, the real committee that has to determine this has 338 members and they are seated here.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on this very important bill.
I would like to hear what he has to say about legal fees. Why could these fees not be included in this bill? What does this mean for the courageous people who disclose wrongdoing?
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that would prevent these people from being ruined by legal fees when they are David fighting Goliath, in other words, the government. As we know, under parliamentary rules, a bill introduced by an opposition member cannot result in more money being spent. That is the prerogative of the Crown. In order to have a fund that would cover the legal expenses of certain whistle-blowers, the government has to draft and introduce it. There must be a ways and means motion. Some countries do this. Some countries recognize the fact that it is not right for citizens to have to spend $1 million, as Ms. Gualtieri had to do, and end up pretty much bankrupt in order to have the right to defend their integrity. Whistle-blowers deserve better.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
October 26, 2023
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 26th day of October, 2023, at 5:18 p.m.
Yours sincerely,
Christine MacIntyre
Deputy Secretary to the Governor General
The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons
Ottawa
The schedule indicates the bills assented to on Thursday, October 26, 2023, were Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), and Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Whistle-blowers are the unsung heroes of our institutions. They are the courageous individuals who put their careers, their reputations and sometimes even their lives on the line to expose wrongdoing. They are the guardians of our democracy and the champions of integrity. Their role in our society cannot be overstated, and their protection is a matter of national significance.
I think everyone will agree that public servants who wish to disclose serious wrongdoing must have a trusted, effective means of doing so and must be protected. As is the sponsor of this legislation, the government is committed to strengthening protections for public servants who make disclosures of wrongdoing. This is why it has already taken a number of actions, which were detailed at second reading.
However, the government is not stopping there. The Prime Minister asked the President of the Treasury Board to build on this progress and “Continue to take action to improve government whistle-blower protections and supports.” Action is indeed being taken. Budget 2022 provided $2.4 million over five years for a review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
In November 2022, the government announced the establishment of the PSDPA review task force. This task force will recommend amendments to the PSDPA and changes to the administration and operation of the disclosure regime, with a particular focus on the protection of individuals involved in disclosing wrongdoing from acts of reprisal. The task force is composed of people who bring significant experience and diverse expertise in the field. It is currently conducting wide consultations and inviting input from a range of stakeholders to ensure that a variety of experiences related to the federal whistle-blower regime are collected and considered. Experts, public servants and all those with an interest in this subject are being given an opportunity to share their views. The task force will also consider the report issued by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in 2017 and the discussions on this bill.
In recognition of the fact that work in this area has evolved over the past several years, the task force will look at the latest developments in whistle-blowing regimes since the committee presented their report. As well, the task force will consider reports from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and other stakeholders. It will also seek out best practices through research on disclosure regimes, domestically and internationally. The government's intent is to ensure that the law effectively safeguards and empowers public servants to report wrongdoing. This review will ensure that we are taking an evidence-informed approach to identify improvements to the federal disclosure process. These improvements will mean better protection for public servants who come forward to disclose wrongdoings. Clearly, the government wants to improve the act.
The bill before us proposes a number of changes that the government fully supports. These are expanding the list of persons covered by reprisal protection, extending the time period for a reprisal complaint; increasing penalties for a contravention of the act, allowing reprisal complaints concerning the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to be made to the Auditor General, ensuring that individuals are provided with reasons when a reprisal complaint is refused and, finally, adding a recurring five-year review of the act.
These would be valuable improvements to the act as it now stands. That said, certain amendments in the bill raise legal and operational challenges, many of which were raised both at second reading and at committee. We can take, for example, the removal of the seriousness descriptors from the definition of wrongdoing. By no longer qualifying the degree of severity of wrongdoing covered under the act, the bill would open up the process to the most trivial of misdemeanours. The result could clog the system and reduce its effectiveness; those who blow the whistle on serious problems may not get the protection we all agree they need and deserve.
This could also lead to duplication with existing recourse mechanisms meant for issues such as harassment, discrimination, workplace grievances and privacy complaints, which could lead to conflicting outcomes from multiple proceedings. Employees need a clear, simple and predictable path to follow. The purpose of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is to address serious ethical breaches that cannot be dealt with using other recourse mechanisms.
Bill C-290 also proposes to allow an individual to take a complaint of reprisal directly to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal without a prior investigation by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. This would create the possibility of completely removing the commissioner from the reprisal process, including the investigation of the complaint and the opportunity for conciliation.
As the tribunal has no investigation authority or capacity, all evidence would have to be gathered through the tribunal process. This would make the process more lengthy and costly for all parties involved. As well, we can predict the surge of cases that would overwhelm the capacity of the tribunal. A backlog of cases, which none of us want, would quickly begin to grow. This could negatively impact the original intent and effectiveness of the legislation for those who truly need it.
Another concern I would like to raise is the coming into force state after royal assent. The bill proposes a timeframe of one year, but implementation would take more time given the breadth and complexity of the changes it contains. These are a few of the important challenges this bill raises, and we hope that the Senate takes the time to review these elements when studying the bill.
958 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-290. This is legislation that would strengthen the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which provides whistle-blower protections to federal public servants.
The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act legislation was shepherded by the previous Harper Conservative government in an effort to restore public confidence in the operations of government following one of the biggest corruption scandals in Canadian history, the Liberal sponsorship scandal, a scandal that involved the waste, mismanagement and misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money as part of a quid pro quo scheme, where Liberal insiders received advertising contracts in return for employing Liberal fundraisers, organizers and so on. These contracts were awarded to people who did little or no work and millions of dollars were funnelled into the Liberal Party as part of this scam. It truly was one of the biggest scandals and really shook public confidence and public trust.
In an effort to restore that trust, the Harper government passed the act that provides a mechanism by which federal public servants can bring attention to wrongdoing in a confidential way, including establishing the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, as well as other measures to protect civil servants against reprisals. This bill would build upon the Conservative government's whistle-blower protections by expanding the definition of “wrongdoing” to include political interference. It would expand the powers of the Auditor General in taking disclosures of wrongdoing and undertaking investigations and would expand the scope of those who are protected. It would do other things as well, which have been mentioned in debate on this bill, all of which are positive.
This bill could not be more timely given what we have seen over the past eight years from the Liberals: an unprecedented amount of corruption, waste and mismanagement. In that light, it is not a surprise to learn that the Liberal government, based upon the parliamentary secretary's intervention, is less than enthusiastic about this bill. After all, we have a Prime Minister who was found guilty not once but twice of breaching ethics laws. It was unprecedented and never happened before until the current Prime Minister arrived in office. This is a Prime Minister who obstructed justice to protect the corrupt SNC-Lavalin, a Liberal corporation. He fired his attorney general when she called out his corruption.
We recently learned that the Prime Minister obstructed an RCMP investigation into his potential criminal wrongdoing in SNC-Lavalin and there is, as we speak, an active criminal investigation into the Liberal government's $54-million ArriveCAN app, better known as “arrive scam”. It is $54 million of taxpayers' money that went out the door for an app that does not work, that cost 500 times more than it should have, not to mention well-established evidence of collusion, price-fixing and fraudulent billing to the tune of millions of dollars.
Just when we think we have seen just about enough of Liberal corruption, there is always another Liberal scandal. We are learning of yet another Liberal scandal at the Liberal green slush fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC. Whistle-blowers came forward with evidence of wrongdoing, which prompted a third-party investigation. That investigation, for which forensic accountants went in, resulted in a damning report. The report concludes that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were handed out to companies that did not qualify. More than that, there have been multiple instances of conflicts of interest at SDTC.
Just to give one an idea, $38.4 million improperly went out the door as part of so-called COVID relief expenditures. Of those companies that received $38.4 million, based on the audits that took place, 29% involved conflict of interest disclosures on the part of board members at SDTC, and not once did any of those board members recuse themselves. The cloud at SDTC is so dark that even this spendthrift Liberal government, which has run up the biggest deficit in Canadian history and doubled the national debt, put a halt and a freeze on spending at SDTC.
The cloud at SDTC, involving tens of millions of dollars and conflicts of interest on the part of a board that is chaired by a Liberal insider, a friend of the Prime Minister, underscores why robust whistle-blower protection legislation is needed.
Many whistle-blowers would reportedly like to come forward with further evidence of wrongdoing at the Liberals' green slush fund but are reluctant to do so. Those who have are also concerned that they could face reprisals because, as it stands, they are not protected under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act because they are not within the definition of a public servant under the act. Although this bill does provide some additional protection to contractors, it would not protect employees and other whistle-blowers at SDTC who would like to come forward.
I would submit that, while this bill is a significant improvement, we would like to see it strengthened even further to include contractors and those who are at arm's-length from the government to be fully protected. The sordid affair at SDTC, the Liberals' green slush fund, underscores that, to shine a light on the rot and corruption that is so embedded right across this government, additional protections are needed to root out waste, mismanagement and corruption. No one, no federal public servant, contractor or anyone, for that matter, connected to government, should feel intimidated or be concerned about potential reprisals for speaking the truth and calling out waste, mismanagement and corruption.
On that basis, I support the bill, but it could be improved.
954 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
