SoVote

Nov/2/22 5:25:34 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

15 words

Nov/2/22 5:25:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this is the treatment I got in the last debate, particularly from a number of members who attacked me for raising our rules. I know a lot about farms. I am from a rural riding. The hon. member may not know how many dairy farms are in my riding, but this is not about me. This is about trying to listen to the Standing Orders so that this place will work better.

77 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/2/22 5:26:02 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member again for her intervention. I thought I made myself clear on this, but I will let the member for Regina—Lewvan finish.

27 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/2/22 5:26:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that interjection. I know that my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands knows the rules very well, and I appreciate her constantly trying to remind everyone how much better she is at knowing the rules. I appreciate her continuous interjections as well as her thoughts. I will wrap up with a few comments about the environment. Once again, as I put forward in the conversation, the Conservatives have had the opportunity to put forward bills that would help the environment and make the environment cleaner. My friend from Lake Simcoe put one forward, and my friend for Regina—Qu'Appelle has put forward bills. When I look at Bill S-5 on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it has not been amended since 1999, to put that on the record. We will be talking about it more, along with amendments, in committee when it goes to committee. With that, I am very happy to answer any questions members may have on Bill S-5. I cannot wait to hear what my friend from Kingston and the Islands has to ask, because I see he is waving his hand. I will not make him wait any longer so he can take to his feet.

208 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Nov/2/22 5:27:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, yes, I have a question for the member, because I always get a kick out of when the Conservative plan for dealing with the environment is to talk about dumping sewage into our rivers and lakes. It is a very important issue; I will not dispute that, but I will forgive the member if he does not understand how the sewage system works. Basically, we have pipes in a municipality, and they all lead to a pool. When that pool fills up, we have to do something with the water. Unfortunately, the legacy of the way municipalities have been created over the last number of decades and centuries in our country is that the stormwater is connected with the sewage water, so when we have increased storm events, those pools fill up faster. There are various different ways that we can control and deal with that problem, and this is what I would like the member to comment on. We could have grey infrastructure solutions, which basically would be to build larger tanks to hold and deal with the increased flow. We could have green infrastructure that tries to localize the sewage more individually, to deal with it before putting it into this network of sewers and pipes that lead to this pool. I know the Conservatives are against dumping the sewage, and they should be, as we all should be, so I am wondering what their solution is to deal with it. Can he propose a solution?

250 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/2/22 5:29:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the presentations of my friend across the way. One thing I put forward, if he was listening to my speech and its relevance to this, was to use the infrastructure bank to ensure municipalities got some of that money so they could upgrade their infrastructure. What I would not have done is use an omnibus budget bill to make sure Montreal could continue to dump millions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence for another 10 to 15 years without talking to anyone about that. I appreciate the lesson in municipal infrastructure. I live in a municipality as well, and I thank him very much for that, but there is a way the federal government had the capacity to help municipalities make sure they could use that money and not dump raw sewage into our lakes, rivers and oceans. I would say he should take that back to his cabinet and to his Minister of Infrastructure and say that instead of the money leaving here and maybe building pipelines in China, maybe they should build some water infrastructure in Canada.

187 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/2/22 5:30:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member shared his views on so many topics, but specifically to Bill S-5, a number of members of Parliament have suggested that the reference to plastics under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is tantamount to a ban on plastics. I just want to make sure that, in reading the bill, the hon. member will agree with me that Bill S-5 would not ban any plastics. Bill S-5 would create the ability for the federal government to move ahead on existing commitments, and not all plastics are on the radar for any regulation. Only a very small number, and far too small a variety of single-use plastic items are slated for regulation. The bill would create the opportunity only for future regulations, and no one is proposing banning all plastics.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/2/22 5:31:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the conversation, but the conversations we have had in our caucus are to the effect that the legislation would heavily regulate, but not ban, the plastics. I appreciate my hon. colleague's taking the time to ask such a thoughtful question, as I always appreciate her interjections.

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Nov/2/22 5:31:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, one of the things in Bill S-5 that I know is concerning is the ability for anyone in Canada to ask for an assessment of a product. Maybe the member could speak to the challenges the government is going to have, when the government is effectively broken on so many levels and cannot get things done. What would happen if every Canadian could ask for a substance to be assessed?

73 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Nov/2/22 5:32:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, that is what happens with the government a lot of times. Let us talk about unintended consequences, whether it be with its fertilizer reduction target, its targets in banning plastics, or Bill S-5. A lot of the time, when the government brings forward policies, it has not thought about them and does not know what the actual consequences are going to be. We see this as the government being broken. Passport offices are broken. Immigration is broken. There are so many things the government has gotten wrong over the last seven years. This will probably just be added to the list.

104 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/2/22 5:32:35 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

67 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/2/22 5:33:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/2/22 5:33:33 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Thursday, November 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

42 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/2/22 5:33:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at the appropriate time to start Private Members' Business.

26 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/2/22 5:33:56 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

30 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Nov/2/22 5:34:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-290

moved that Bill C‑290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for being here today. There is nothing more important for a government than an ethical, competent and responsible public service, and we must value the work of our public servants. Public servants are in the best position to note irregularities in government, in its management of public monies and use of Crown assets, as people here like to call them. Sometimes, out of a sense of responsibility, these officials become whistle-blowers by disclosing wrongdoing. It is an extremely important role. For that reason, we must protect them. We also need to create and enhance mechanisms that these officials can use to disclose wrongdoing. Currently we have the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. This legislation came about as a result of the sponsorship scandal. We all know that the federal sponsorship program was highly problematic from 1997 to 2001 and caused a major scandal. It was created in the aftermath of the 1995 referendum, when the federal government wanted to have more visibility in Quebec and decided to hang Canadian flags in just about every cultural and social space in Quebec. Unfortunately, in addition to being fundamentally bad, this program ended up being used as a quid pro quo mechanism. Communications firms with close ties to the Liberal Party would receive huge contracts, and the money would directly or indirectly wind up back in the Liberal Party of Canada's coffers. This undermined taxpayers' confidence in the government and public confidence in government operations. The whole thing got out of control and naturally undermined the very democratic process that ensures that we are elected to the House and that people trust the process. We are not talking about a scandal involving small sums of money; we are talking about the proven waste of a quarter of a billion dollars of public funds, which led to the Gomery commission. As members will recall, this resulted in Paul Martin's government being severely punished. It was re-elected with a minority government in 2004. Ultimately, Canadians and Quebeckers decided to toss out the Liberals when they voted in many Bloc Québécois members and gave the Harper government a minority mandate. That government took swift action to protect whistle-blowers in the public service. Members will recall that one of the reasons the public learned as much as it did about the extent of the sponsorship scandal was because of a whistle-blower nicknamed “MaChouette”. She spoke regularly with journalist Daniel Leblanc, who had to battle in court to protect her identity. One of the Harper government's first pieces of legislation was the Federal Accountability Act, followed by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which came into force on April 15, 2007. Obviously, the world has changed a lot since then, but this law has not changed and has not been improved, amended or corrected in 15 years. Now the time has come to do the right thing for our competent public servants and protect whistle-blowers. The objective of Bill C‑290 is to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public service, and also to establish a process to investigate the wrongdoing. That is very important because we want wrongdoings to be disclosed and we want to put an end to them. We want to have processes to help us do that. The ultimate goal is better management of government resources. The current act covers many things. It was an ambitious law at the time, and it had good intentions. It described wrongdoing as a contravention of any act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, or of any regulations, by persons in authority; a misuse of public funds or a public asset; mismanagement in the public sector; an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons, or to the environment, other than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the regular duties of a public servant, of course, because we want them to be able to do their job. The act covers serious breaches of a code of conduct stemming from the events I just mentioned and, of course, wilfully and knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit any of the wrongdoings I just listed. It is still a fairly ambitious law with built-in mechanisms. The act created a mechanism for the disclosure process. We want there to be a mechanism. We do not necessarily want whistle-blowers calling journalists in secret and passing confidential documents to them. We want there to be a process, a process that is supposed to protect anonymity and, more importantly, protect public servants from reprisals. The act created an independent institution, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, which can receive disclosures and investigate allegations and possible reprisals. Lastly, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal was created. If the act is so great, why did we introduce Bill C‑290? Again, the principles of the act that has been in effect since 2007 are excellent, but the act has many flaws. They are small flaws, but when you add them all up, they make this legislation ineffective. We have seen it. Since this legislation was implemented, we can count the number of cases where disclosures have gone through the correct process. We can basically count them on two hands. That is consistent with the findings of the International Bar Association, which ranks Canada at the bottom of the list when it comes to laws that protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Canada has one of the worst records in the world in this regard. I will spare my colleagues from having to listen to a list of the countries that rank above us because it is both embarrassing and shameful. When the International Bar Association assessed the Canadian legislation, Canada got a zero on 19 of the 20 assessment criteria. Do members know what criterion Canada did not get a zero on? Just having an act. That is the only criterion on which we did not get a zero. We are not starting from scratch, but we have a long way to go. Other jurisdictions have led the way on this. The European Union, Australia and the United States have good systems, and we can follow in their footsteps. The point is, things have to change for the better. Taxpayers deserve better. We do not have to start from scratch either. There was a committee study in 2017. I acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues who worked very hard on that report. They met 12 times, heard from 52 witnesses, received 12 briefs from experts, whistle-blowers and unions, people who know about this stuff, people on the ground. Challenges and shortcomings were identified, and 15 recommendations were issued. I know that one of the people who made a significant contribution to drafting the recommendations passed away recently. That person was Michael Dagg, and I, along with a number of my colleagues, want to pay tribute to him. What did we learn from the committee? The committee showed us that there is not enough protection for whistle-blowers in the public service and that public servants lack confidence in the process because of the way it works. They know that mechanisms exist, but since they do not have confidence in where the process will lead and they are afraid that it will end up being very harmful to them, what we end up with is an act that is not used and public servants who do not disclose wrongdoing. Bill C‑290 addresses these shortcomings and, as I said, essentially seeks to correct the problems with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. What does this bill do? First, it broadens the definition of wrongdoing. The act covers serious cases of wrongdoing and illegal acts, but it does not cover cases of political interference in administrative decisions, even though it should. If a public servant discloses an incident of political interference, their complaint will simply be rejected. It cannot be processed or even considered by the public servants in the department who deal with complaints or by the commissioner. However, we need to be able to get to the bottom of things. Under the current legislation, it is impossible to do that when wrongdoing is disclosed. This bill will help to remedy that. In the current situation, turning to the people in charge of receiving complaints can be extremely formal, difficult and intimidating for a public servant. What is more, the commissioner who deals with these matters has a limited budget. He barely has the necessary resources, expertise, or knowledge of the departments. As a result, often the investigations go nowhere. It is possible to refer the case to the police, but, again, there needs to be an investigation first and that generally does not happen. Bill C‑290 proposes to allow the auditor general to investigate such cases. Remember that at the time of the sponsorship scandal, it was the auditor general, Sheila Fraser, who helped expose the wrongdoing. In addition, we want to protect more people. The act currently protects public servants, but it does not protect former public servants who may have witnessed wrongdoing over the years but did not decide to disclose it until later. Furthermore, the act does not protect contract or temporary employees, such as someone who works at CRA for a few months during tax season. These are the people who are most vulnerable in these circumstances, because their employment status is precarious. They can easily become victims of intimidation or reprisals. At the same time, we need to rebuild trust with the public service. Under the current act, a complaint can be dismissed, even if the wrongdoing is well established, because the commissioner may find that the person reporting the wrongdoing had personal reasons for doing so. We understand the seriousness of that. Often someone who denounces a wrongdoing did not witness it only once or twice. It was not a quick 15-minute incident on a Tuesday morning. It happens repeatedly for days, for years. It makes the workplace extremely challenging. It is normal for a whistle-blower to become bitter, frustrated and angry, and that can negatively impact the workplace. It is unfair that an assumption about the reasons for a public servant's deep emotions can result in the facts being set aside. This bill will have a positive impact. As members know, I am a relatively new parliamentarian. I decided to introduce Bill C‑290 as my first private member's bill because I think it is important to introduce non-partisan legislation that is in the public interest. Every single person in this House, no matter their party, their ideology or which side of the constitutional divide they are on, wants public funds to be well managed. We all want Crown assets, federal government assets, to be used properly. We all want taxpayers who submit their income tax returns in April or May to have confidence in the machinery of government. The main reason I introduced this bill is out of respect for the thousands of professionals who dedicate their lives and their careers to public service, people who devote their time and energy to public service, who truly care about the work they do. If we do not update the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, we are essentially preventing those people from doing their jobs to the best of their ability in extremely important situations. I think our public servants deserve Bill C‑290.

1981 words

All Topics

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health, Lib.)

Nov/2/22 5:49:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-290

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He has demonstrated why it is important to examine this issue. We will soon begin a comprehensive review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act with the support of experts. We want to ensure that the act effectively protects public servants. We also want to strengthen Canadians' confidence in the integrity of our public institutions. Does my colleague not think that more work is needed, given the seriousness and scope of this legislation?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Nov/2/22 5:50:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-290

Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that I am acting in good faith, and I presume the members opposite are doing the same. That is why I hope they will support the bill. Having said that, I hope it is not a coincidence that when Bill C‑290 was introduced, the government suddenly decided to review that legislation. The committee that worked on this issue heard from witnesses, made recommendations, heard from experts and worked very hard. It released a terrific, comprehensive report. This bill was drafted, in part, based on that incredible work, which is why I think the government has a vested interest in supporting Bill C‑290 and not rejecting the immense amount of hard work done by the committee.

126 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Nov/2/22 5:51:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-290

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the excellent private member's bill. I also want to thank him for paying tribute to Mr. Michael Dagg, a hero to whistle-blowers in Canada, who, along with Allan Cutler and several others, helped our committee write the gold bar for whistle-blower protection, one that the government has ignored for five years. What does my colleague think about the government sitting on this report and doing nothing about it for five years, and then proposing to spend millions of dollars over the next three or four more years to study it, rather than bringing in protection for our public servants immediately?

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Nov/2/22 5:51:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-290

Madam Speaker, since I was not here over the past few years, I will not pass judgment. That being said, private members' bills are useful. Through these bills, MPs are sometimes able to focus on important legislative aspects with the help of people around them. The government has its hands full, what with the pandemic, inflation and the upcoming recession. That is why I am introducing this bill with a view to serving the public. I do not want to speculate on why the government did not have the time to make progress, but today, with Bill C‑290, the government has the opportunity to address this issue. If it refuses to support Bill C‑290, I will have good reason to question its intentions. For now, I can only assume and hope that the government will collaborate.

140 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 123