44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
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
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-290 and the importance of better whistle-blower protection in Canada. Canada has a reputation, unfortunately, of being one of the places in the world among those with the worst whistle-blower protection, so obviously there is a lot more that we can do.
We depend on whistle-blowers to be able to identify across a very large government with a large budget where things are not going well. Of course, there is no substitute for the folks who are actually doing the work every day to be able to understand where problems arise and how things are going wrong. We need to be able to create a culture where people feel a lot more comfortable coming forward when things are not going well in their workplace.
We can all appreciate that it is a difficult decision. Indeed, there are a lot of stories of folks who have had the courage to come forward and not only have not been rewarded for that but have been punished; in some cases losing their employment, in some cases losing their home or their families and indeed in the worst cases losing their lives. It is a very serious issue. We should be grateful that there are folks in the public service who are willing; and are dedicated enough to doing the right thing that they are willing to come forward. We need to create a culture that rewards folks for showing that courage, instead of setting examples for others of why they should not do that because they know that it did not work out very well for a colleague.
The beginning of that culture change has to start with legislation because there have to be adequate protections in place for folks to feel that they have recourse. It is not just the legislation, though. We also need to create workplace cultures where folks in positions of influence know that people who do blow the whistle are going to be well protected enough that people should follow the appropriate workplace policies and procedures and conduct their business in the way that we all expect them to, which is to a high standard.
How do they do that? I want to just survey some of the work that my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni did with the sponsor of the bill in order to improve this legislation.
One is allowing increased access to the tribunal. We know that over time the commissioner who was set up to hear complaints about whistle-blowing only referred, in 16 years, nine cases to the tribunal. The idea behind that amendment, which I am glad to see passed, was to make it easier for workers who did come forward but did not feel they were getting satisfaction through the commission to be able to access the tribunal.
There was also an amendment that passed to create a survey metric so that when whistle-blowers have gone through this process, it would allow getting some feedback from them on how it went and whether they were satisfied with that.
Of course, there were other suggestions and amendments put forward in conjunction with the sponsor of the bill that did not go through. Liberals and Conservatives at committee decided not to put them in.
One of the really important provisions was a reverse-onus provision for cases of reprisal. Right now, the onus is on the person who is the victim to show that it was in fact reprisal for their whistle-blowing activity. That is a high burden of proof and it usually comes with a pretty expensive legal bill for somebody who, if they are experiencing reprisal, may well not have any employment income at all or may already be under a lot of stress due to harassment in the workplace as a result of blowing the whistle. Therefore, this just multiplies that effect by causing a lot of financial distress as well as a long, drawn-out legal process when really it is the employer who has the resources who should be in a position of having to show that whatever workplace discipline may have occurred was not a reprisal for whistle-blowing and that it was based on something unrelated.
I understand that in jurisdictions that have made this change, it has altered the chance of success for whistle-blowers from one in 500, showing that they were in fact the victim of reprisal, to being as high as one in three. When we talk about changing workplace culture and instilling in employees the confidence to be able to come forward, numbers like that show that, even with the improvements that the bill represents, there is a lot further to go if we want to create the legal foundation for a healthy workplace culture that rewards people for coming forward and naming wrongdoing in the workplace rather than creating a chill and a culture where people are afraid of that.
Another way, which is not technically a reverse onus but I think it is of a kind, would have been to protect whistle-blowers from termination automatically, and instead of allowing them to be terminated right away and then having to spend a long time figuring out whether it was the right course of action or not, having some immediate protections upfront would also make a difference in increasing people's comfort to come forward.
Likewise, sometimes people go to the commissioner, as I said, and do not get satisfaction. While having some kind of ability for them to then be able to go to the media or go public in some other way, if they are not getting satisfaction through the normal process, is another way that folks could have been encouraged to bring their concerns forward.
It was unfortunate that, again, the Liberals and Conservatives conspired at committee to defeat those amendments because it means that, in the context of a country that is notoriously behind when it comes to protection of whistle-blowers, this important moment to make significant advances in whistle-blower protection does not take us as far as we could. Hopefully, it will not take as long to get to the next set of improvements as it did to get us to this one because Canadian workers deserve better than to have to wait that long to get protections that are already afforded workers in other workplaces.
I thank the sponsor of the bill very much for his good work on the bill and for his co-operation with the member for Courtenay—Alberni to improve the bill, as much as Liberals and Conservatives, the coalition, if I may be so bold, would allow in this case.
1132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, a year ago, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member, began a study on foreign election interference. We received more than 70 witnesses and sat in committee for more than 100 hours. I personally questioned the government more than 30 times. I spoke with ministers, experts, academics, specialists, intelligence officers. This ended in a public, independent commission of inquiry. Quebeckers are now aware of the challenges of foreign interference. People may be wondering where I am going with this. I am getting to that. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tabled a report on foreign interference and all the threats to the integrity of institutions. The Bloc Québécois even said it would introduce a bill to ensure that a foreign agent registry is implemented.
None of this could have happened without the whistle-blower who dared to report the situation. This information was reported in The Globe and Mail by a journalist, and we started looking into it. That is why the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had so much time and energy. We took action, and we are still taking action. It is therefore with great interest that I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-290, the public sector integrity act.
I will give an example that my colleague from Mirabel mentioned, but I am going to take the liberty of digging a little deeper. Who here remembers the 1995 referendum? I do, because it was my first time voting. The Liberal government of the day spent lavishly out of fear of losing the election. In 1995, a whistle-blower blew the doors off what came to be known as the sponsorship scandal. Nearly every day, there were new revelations in the media about the political interference in the way this program was managed and how $250 million in public funds was squandered. That led the then auditor general to produce a devastating report in 2003.
Once again, it was a federal government official who made the courageous choice to disclose the federal government's actions to journalist Daniel Leblanc. The exact same thing happened recently, and once again I would like to acknowledge the public servants who have the common good at heart, who have chosen a career in public service and who dared to take action.
It was in the aftermath of the sponsorship scandal that the government of the day introduced the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I would like to qualify that. My colleague mentioned just one country earlier, but there are 20 others. I will quickly name a few of them. Canada ranks behind Bangladesh, Rwanda, Botswana, Pakistan and the Cayman Islands. The government must take action. We have to do better.
Since then, the government has chosen to ignore this issue. As a responsible party, the Bloc Québécois is thinking about the people who contribute to the common good and who make democracy possible, for example. That is why we introduced this bill, and I commend my colleague from Mirabel. This week, on Tuesday to be exact, the Minister of National Defence told me, word for word, that it is a good thing the opposition is there to bring pressure. He can rest assured that we are going to put pressure on the government. We need to take action, and we are going to get it done. I am convinced of that.
In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates considered this legislation, but that was more than five years ago. Nothing has happened since then. There was the study my colleague mentioned. There are also six major challenges that we need to review, and this needs to pass.
I will end my speech with the following statement. When a public servant takes their courage in both hands and decides to report wrongdoing to help get the situation sorted out, the current process does not really make it possible to get to the bottom of the matter and expose or fix the problems.
This bill is of the utmost importance. I invite my colleagues to support Bill C-290.
706 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 6:43:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, public safety is one of the most important roles government has. As elected representatives, we create laws and policies to keep Canadians safe, but increasingly, people from my community in Kelowna—Lake Country are feeling that the Liberal-NDP government is not prioritizing the safety of our streets and community. The former public safety minister defended Liberal laws and policies that left people traumatized in our communities. After a summer reshuffle, the Liberals put forth a new justice minister, who denies basic facts about crime rates. In an interview with Reuters, he said that “empirically” it is unlikely Canada is becoming less safe.
Here are a few facts after eight years of the Liberal government: Violent crime is up 39%, and murders are up 43%. Gang-related homicides are up 108%, and violent gun crime is up 101%. Aggravated assaults are up 24%, and assaults with a weapon are up 61%. Sexual assaults are up 71%, and sex crimes against children are up 126%. Kidnappings are up 36%, and car thefts are up 34%. The violent crime severity index is up 30%. Youth crime has risen by 17.8% in a single year. Bills like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have created laws that are more lenient on criminals and do less to protect victims.
In British Columbia, disturbing statistics showed that just 40 offenders were responsible for 6,000 negative interactions with law enforcement in one year. Residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country are increasingly disturbed by random attacks and by seeing crimes being committed by repeat violent offenders who are out on bail. Criminals who repeatedly terrorize communities do not deserve to be out on our streets. The revolving door does nothing to help victims, to keep people safe and to reduce recidivism.
I introduced a private member's bill, the “end the revolving door act”, to help people in federal penitentiaries receive a mental health assessment and treatment and recovery while they serve out their sentence. A report showed that 70% of people in federal penitentiaries have addiction issues and that recidivism is high. Receiving treatment and recovery would help the person serving the sentence, their family and the community they would go back to. The NDP-Liberal coalition voted down my non-partisan, common sense bill. Instead, its members have chosen to take a very different path by allowing drug decriminalization policies and taxpayer-funded hard drugs in British Columbia. Investigative reporting showed a new drug black market that emerged from taxpayer-funded hard drugs both on streets and also now online.
More than a dozen addictions doctors wrote to the Liberal government calling for changes in policies around government-funded “safe supply” drugs or to not provide them at all. Today, I ask the government, on behalf of those residents in my community concerned about this shocking rise in crime, when will the government reverse course on all its failed policies?
500 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 6:46:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the debate brought forth by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
As my hon. colleague knows, she spoke about the decisions around bail reform and how transfers occur, as well as decisions about individuals who are in custody and how the Correctional Services of Canada handles each prisoner in the program they are under. The CSC's mandate is to help maintain the safety and security of our communities by managing correctional institutions and offenders in their care.
It is important to acknowledge that operational decisions are not taken by elected officials. In fact, our job as members of the House is to continue to push for best practices and increased transparency in our criminal justice system. While elected officials do not make these decisions on individual offenders, it is important for us as legislators and for the public at large to know why such decisions are made and what we can do to ensure victims of crime feel their voices are heard throughout the criminal justice process.
That is why, earlier this summer, the former minister of public safety issued new ministerial directives to specifically deal with the notification of victims' families. This new directive, as I have said, will help to ensure that CSC takes a trauma-informed approach when considering victims in the case of transfers of prisoners or security reclassifications. These enhanced engagement opportunities also allow for victims to share important input throughout the offender's sentence. This means that the needs of victims and their families will be taken into account, and CSC will place an extra emphasis on the need to not retraumatize those who are most vulnerable.
In addition, I am encouraged that the commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada has shown willingness to listen to Canadians' concerns and order additional reviews, especially in cases where there are high profile cases that Canadians are concerned about.
In addition, CSC has implemented the recommendation from a recent review committee to strengthen victim notification and engagement, and has put in place a committee dedicated to furthering this work. CSC continues to take its responsibility to protect Canadian communities seriously, and we all agree that offenders whose crimes continue to cause pain and anger across the country deserve severe consequences.
385 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 6:49:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, violent crime and increasing crime numbers do not have to be a fact of life in Canada. The government can reduce these through laws and policies. We can reduce the rate of violent repeat offenders by repairing our broken bail system. Victims of crime need to be a priority once again. We know that the Conservative approach works because, under the Harper government, the crime rate decreased by 26%. Violent criminals were targeted, and there was a focus to keep repeat offenders locked up. The number of prisoners was actually reduced by 4.3%.
We must also reverse the NDP-Liberal government's failed policy of decriminalization and funding of hard drugs. Our communities have not become more safe with these policies. Addiction doctors are calling for federal policy changes. Prioritizing treatment and recovery through healing is the only way to assist those suffering in the terrible hold of addiction.
Reducing crime rates, addiction rates and recidivism are all things a Conservative government could accomplish and has in the past, and the Liberal government is just not worth the societal cost.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 6:51:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the duty of any government is to keep citizens safe, and this is why, at the public safety committee, we passed a motion to initiate a study on the rights of victims of crime, specifically around security reclassification within the Correctional Service of Canada. This study will invite the commissioner of CSC, the deputy minister of public safety, officials from the department of justice and public safety, as well as the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime.
It is important that Canadians have these conversations. It is important that we listen to victims of crime, and it is important that we continue to pass legislation that will keep communities safe.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 6:51:58 p.m.
- Watch
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.)
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
