44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2023 02:00PM
- Dec/13/23 5:41:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I do every time I am given this great opportunity, I want to say that Quebec is less familiar with the carbon tax because that is not how we do things. We participate in the carbon exchange with California.
However, according to the numbers I have seen, the carbon tax is responsible for 0.15% of the inflation we are currently experiencing. Most of the inflation that we are seeing right now is caused by big businesses that are operating within an oligopoly and that are making exorbitant profits. That includes grocery stores, but also, and especially, oil companies. Of course, there is also the international context.
If the government is collecting money, then I think it is also important to invest that money and to make it available to improve our technologies. The point of these taxes is not to make money or drive up the cost of living. It is to improve our environmental performance.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:43:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was passionate as usual. He is an excellent collaborator at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Indeed, last spring, the five big players in the food sector appeared before the committee, which had produced a report. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry thought it was a good idea to invite them back. We got the same answers.
On Monday, when the CEO of Metro, Mr. La Flèche, was at the committee, something happened that I found interesting and I wonder if my colleague noticed it. My colleagues from Quebec say that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec; we could debate that at length because it applies indirectly. I asked the CEO if the carbon tax had any repercussions across Canada and if it had any major repercussions on the food sector and he said yes.
I would like to know if my colleague took note of Mr. La Flèche's answer.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:44:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am very pleased that my colleague from Beauce answered the call I sent out to him during my speech. I appreciate it.
I will explain something to him. In Quebec, we participate in the carbon exchange with California, and agricultural producers are currently at $471 million in costs. Farms in Quebec are exempt from buying carbon credits. However, they are impacted when they buy fuel from Quebec distributors. That is part of the carbon exchange and it will go on, even if the rest of Canada cancels its carbon tax.
There is something I do not understand. It is unfortunate that this cannot be a five-minute discussion, because we would really be able to have some fun. I would like to ask my colleague from Beauce why he is defending the idea of scrapping the tax in the rest of Canada, which would put Quebec at a disadvantage, rather than speaking for Quebec. Why does he not talk about the need to extend the loan payment deadline for our small businesses? There are many small businesses in Beauce. I am sure he is concerned about what I am talking about. Can we give them some breathing room and some liquidity? That is just one example.
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:45:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do enjoy working with my fellow colleague on the agriculture committee. He will be familiar, from the multiple times that we have heard from grocery executives, that they are often talking about how they work in a low-margin industry. I think they present a slightly misleading argument. First of all, it should be pointed out that, in the last three years, their margins have doubled. If we look at it today, yes, when they are operating with a margin that is between 3% and 3.5%, it may look small. However, what people have to realize is that, when their gross revenues continue to climb, even though that margin may seem static, of course their profits will continue to rise as a result.
I just wonder if my colleague can add a bit more to that because I have noticed a bit of defensiveness from the grocery CEOs and not enough attention is being paid to the fact that we do just have five companies controlling 80% of the market. Perhaps the member has some ideas on how we can try to turn that number around so that there is a bit more flexibility and competition there.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:46:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague. Indeed, we do very good work together on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
As I mentioned earlier in my speech, what we are experiencing right now is quite ironic. People come to committee and tell us that they are not taking in any more money than they used to and that their profit margin is only 2%, yet when we look at the figures, we see that profit margins have skyrocketed. When we ask for details, they tell us it is because of the pharmaceuticals section. I would like to know what the percentage increase in profits is for the pharmaceuticals section.
When committees conduct studies, they take them seriously. We call in all the stakeholders, unlike the minister who did not bring in everyone. He invited a few big companies, like Nestlé, and some CEOs. He did not invite agricultural producers or people from SMEs in the agri-food industry. He could not have had all the information. It is important to mention that. When we bring these people in, we realize that there can be a major imbalance in negotiations. A small grower can be told by a big grocer that he has to lower his price; otherwise, no one will buy from him. The small producer knows what that means: He is not going to be able to sell his product, especially if it is perishable. His hands are tied.
I think that the government has a duty to poke its nose in and see what is going on. That is why the committee's report talked about having a sort of price-fixing observatory to see what is going on. A code of conduct is one way to regulate relations among the various players. We need to shine some light on the huge profits being made. Capitalism is a system that works, but not without regulation. Unbridled capitalism is not something we want. Although we seem to be gradually moving in that direction, I do not think it is what we want.
350 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:48:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, throughout the conversation, we have taken a look at our farmers and the huge operating cost increases we have seen. They have increased 21.2% in just 2022 alone, which is a huge increase, and that cost gets filtered down to people. I would be interested to hear from the member.
I have heard from many people in my farming community, particularly now at Christmas. We are sitting here at Christmas time and families are creating Christmas goodies for their families. Over the years, people used to put butter in their Christmas goodies. Now they are using margarine. Part of that was the cost. Part of it was also with respect to possible issues with the product. Ultimately, the costs have continued. Now we see with margarine, a lot of it made with canola oil, the price has increased. I talked with a constituent just yesterday on the aspect of increased costs.
I am interested to know how the member sees where that cost continually gets increased when moved from different products. The product being produced for our consumers is being belittled such that there is a huge impact on Canadians, and the huge taxes are being put upon them.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:50:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. As I was saying earlier, we have to have another look at how we support farmers and have a serious review of the insurance programs.
These programs were designed 20 or 25 years ago in a context where we had a bad year every six or seven years. These days, we have three bad years in a row and we do not know what next year will bring. The people from Abitibi that we received today talked to us about forest fires, drought, spring frost and a host of factors that we can no longer predict. He have to help them.
Before I finish, I will share a statistic. In Quebec, 44% of our farmers have another job because they do not earn enough income on the farm. That is not normal.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am happy to be standing up today to speak to this, but I want to express that there is a little part of me that is also disappointed. I am always in favour of discussing the great work that happens at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, but it needs to be said that, today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-58, which I think is quite an important landmark piece of legislation. It is something that my party proudly supports. That bill is designed, of course, to make sure that collective bargaining is not going to be undermined by the use of scab or replacement labour. However, the Conservatives decided to move a concurrence debate on yet another committee report.
When we look at the Conservatives' history with labour relations, we can understand why they do not want to speak about Bill C-58. When they were in government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, they were not afraid to use back-to-work legislation. Indeed, when two Conservative members started speaking on Bill C-58 at second reading, they did not touch on the substance of the bill. I do not think they had anything to contribute. I do not even know if they actually support the bill. A party that is trying to rebrand itself as the party of workers now does not want to debate a bill that is protecting organized labour and the collective bargaining rights of workers. I will let Canadians make their own judgment on what that is all about.
Turning to the report that we are discussing today, the grocery affordability report from the agriculture committee, I am proud to say that this report issued from a motion that I brought at committee. I want to thank all members of that committee for granting a unanimous vote; I think they were feeling the political and public pressure of the moment from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, who had been feeling the pinch over the last two years on the spiralling, out-of-control grocery prices. We know these prices have been going up higher and faster than the general rate of inflation.
As a part of this, we have had the opportunity to question the grocery CEOs. We had them as a part of the original study, which we are doing now. The agriculture committee is now revisiting this issue, and we have had a chance to reinterview the CEOs. When we talked to the grocery executives, whether it was Michael Medline or Mr. Weston of Loblaws—
434 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:53:58 p.m.
- Watch
I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment.
There is a lot of noise in the room.
The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford may continue his intervention.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:54:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when we were questioning the witnesses, whether it was Michael Medline, or Galen Weston of Loblaws, it became quite clear that these CEOs occupy a different universe from everyday people. They breathe a rarified air. They command very impressive salaries. In Galen Weston's case, I think his take-home pay is about 431 times that of his workers.
They are quite defensive. They will say their margins are pretty small if we compare them to those in other industries, yet if we look at the data, their margins have doubled over the last three years. Here is the thing: Their gross revenues have been going up, so even if margins remain static, as they have for a little while now, they are still going to result in record profits. We can see it when we compare quarterly earnings from one year to the next.
The reason this is such an emotional issue for Canadians is that the products these CEOs are selling are essential for life. These are not just any products, like those at a hardware store; this is food that people need to bring home to keep their families alive. They also sell pharmaceutical products, which are also essential. Why we are seeing anger in the Canadian public is that, for two to three years now, families in my riding and right across this country have been having to make do with less and having to make hard choices. They are the ones bearing the burden, and all the while, corporate profits are reaching record levels.
There is an imbalance right now in Canada, a country where corporate profits are reaching record levels but everyone else is suffering. I am sorry to say this, but I do not see enough action coming out of the present Liberal government, and we know where Conservatives stand with their corporate friends. When presented with evidence showing oil and gas profits and their gargantuan effect on food prices, the Conservatives will just keep saying, "carbon tax, carbon tax, carbon tax", when that is minuscule compared to what corporate profits are doing in this sector. If they do not want to argue with facts, that is fine; they want to live in a different reality.
I want to say that I am proud to be a member of a party that drove this issue to committee. I am proud it is being discussed in the House. I will conclude by saying that I will not stop fighting for the ordinary people in my riding and making sure that we expose corporate profits and their role in driving inflation in Canada.
440 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 5:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time.
Pursuant to Standing Order 66(1), the debate on the motion is transferred under Government Orders.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-290.
This is an important piece of legislation that would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which gives federal public sector employees and others a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoings in the workplace, as well as protection from acts and reprisal.
The bill proposes to expand the protections of the PSDPA to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to any superior, and add a duty to provide support to whistle-blowers, as well as repeal sections of the act that prevent overlap with other recourse mechanisms and provisions that set the standards of seriousness of wrongdoing. The bill is in line with some of the recommendations from the 2017 Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates' reports for legislative reforms regarding whistleblowing in the public sector. It is a bill that the government is very glad to see and is supportive of. We, as the government, believe that public servants who disclose serious wrongdoings must be protected.
The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act helps to ensure an ethical workplace culture and supports the integrity of the public federal sector. Canada's whistle-blowing law is one component of the recourse mechanism for public servants that covers harassment, discrimination, labour grievances and privacy complaints. Soon, we will launch a comprehensive review of the act to strengthen protections for public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Its task force will include academic experts, union representatives and senior—
259 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:00:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
The interpreters are telling us that there is a phone near the microphone that is vibrating. Perhaps my colleague could put it on the chair to stop the vibration.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:00:21 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member has done so.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:00:25 p.m.
- Watch
I was just wrapping up, Madam Speaker, saying that although we look forward to a comprehensive review of the act in due course, we certainly are supportive of this particular bill and look forward to the Senate moving on this quickly so the legislation will pass into law.
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Midnapore in my role as shadow minister for the Treasury Board for His Majesty's loyal opposition.
Before I begin, I would like to send a special wish to my husband James, who is currently in the hospital awaiting surgery. I am not sure if he is watching this, but I am certainly thinking of him and looking forward to seeing him at the end of this week, as well as my son Edward. I thank my mother, my sister and my niece as well for taking such good care of my son at this time.
Bill C-290 is a private member's bill that was put forward this year. This bill would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen the current whistle-blower protections for public servants; expand the definition of the term “wrongdoing”; broaden what is considered a supervisor so that public servants can make a protected disclosure to any superior within their organization; remove the requirement that a protective disclosure must be in good faith; and ensure that a whistle-blower will be protected as long as they reasonably believe what they are disclosing is true.
It would expand the Auditor General's mandate to receive disclosures of wrongdoing from within the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; remove the requirement that investigations by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner cannot overlap with investigations under other laws; extend protections to former public servants, government contractors and all those involved in a disclosure; give supervisors a duty to protect and provide support to public servants involved in disclosures; allow for a remedy to be provided to a whistle-blower if a reprisal is taken; and extend the deadline to file a reprisal complaint from 60 days to one year.
It would expand the annual report requirements, including the number of disclosures made by wrongdoing, the duration of all open cases and cases closed during the fiscal year; the distribution of cases by region and the distribution of cases by federal departments and agencies; increase the fines for reprisals against a whistle-blower from $10,000 to $200,000 for indictable offences and $5,000 to $100,000 for summary convictions; and require the act to be reviewed by Parliament every five years.
This legislation was introduced under former prime minister Harper in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Ironically, we find ourselves again, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP coalition, with a significant number of scandals. The most recent was a whistle-blower alleging the Minister of Industry's office softened the STDC report in a cover-up. This is another example where the government attempted to cover up a whistle-blower rather than support a whistle-blower, as former prime minister Harper so bravely did in his first piece of legislation.
In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates conducted a review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and published a report, and many of the recommendations made in the report are included in this bill. That is, no doubt, a positive thing. The question is: Why did the government not take it upon itself to adjust this legislation prior to a private member bringing a private member's bill forward? It is a valuable question.
When this legislation was finally brought forward, the government operations and estimates committee spent hours going through this bill. The major point of the committee going through this bill was due to an attempt by the current Liberal-NDP coalition to water down this bill and provide no protection to whistle-blowers, as is evidenced in the example I just gave of the industry minister. It is very disappointing and not surprising.
It was expected that the government would implement the recommendations in the 2017 report, but it did not make it a priority to do so. It did what it is really good at. It created a task force, someone to review this legislation and consult with. It is the government's forte to have consultations and gather groups together to review things, with no result.
On December 7, it was the one-year anniversary of the government introducing this task force, which was supposed to review whistle-blower legislation. One year later, there is nothing to show for it. I was in the lobby right outside these chambers when the then president of the treasury board started this process. A year later, there is simply nothing to show for it.
I am very proud of the history that the official opposition has of protecting whistle-blowers in the public service. In addition to the legislation that was brought forward by the Harper government, we also included, with our 2019 and 2021 election platforms, the promise to continue this legislation and to provide more stringent protection for whistle-blowers. Our party has been consistent in supporting increased whistle-blower protections as the policy issues arise.
As I said, this government has a history of scandal. It has a history of cover-ups. It has a history of inaction. After creating task force consultations, it wants to just kick things down the line, push things down the line and avoid responsibility. It is unfortunate, but we actually see this beyond this whistle-blowing legislation, Bill C-290, is in front of us today. It did it today with the private member's bill that was in front of us on child pornography, on protecting our children, protecting the next generation.
Liberals turned their backs. They did not support that legislation as well. This is absolutely in line with the government, to turn its back, to kick things down the line. It would be absolutely impossible for me to stand up here and not mention this as well, which is the most evident display of this. In the greatest conflict in the world right now, through turning its back on a long-standing defender of democracy, through not standing to bring a peaceful end of this conflict and the destruction of Hamas, it is willing to turn its back on not only an entire nation but also, essentially, the entire world order. The things that will come to pass in the Middle East are only, once again, a delay of the things that will soon arrive, that are arriving in other places in the world.
We see this with this current government and what it is doing with world conflict, with the child pornography PMB that was in front of us today, and also with the Bill C-290 legislation.
This government now has the opportunity to do the responsible thing and not only get this legislation through the House but also go one step further to complete the findings of that task force. I hope the President of the Treasury Board will deliver. She has not delivered on finding that puny $15 billion, hardly a drop in the bucket relative to our current deficit and our debt. I do not hold a lot of hope, frankly, that she will come through for whistle-blowers.
It is unfortunate that she was not there for the testimony throughout the government operations committee, which was heartbreaking. It was absolutely terrible to see the things that our public servants have been going through.
Our party was the party of supporting whistle-blowers at that time. We continue to be the party of workers all across Canada, standing up for them in both the public and private realms.
I truly hope that it is within the heart of this government, at this special time of year, at Christmastime, at Hanukkah, at Kwanzaa, to find the responsibility to better handle the crises of the world, our future generation and the concerns of whistle-blowers.
1318 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, at third reading. First, I want to give a huge shout-out to my colleague from Mirabel for tabling this bill and taking leadership on this. I also want to thank my colleague and friend from Beauport—Limoilou, who worked really closely with me and our team of New Democrats because we both care and really are passionate about protecting workers' rights.
I want to talk about those workers. These are brave Canadians and Quebeckers who report wrongdoing or crimes in their workplace and often experience consequences like losing their income, health and happiness and all for speaking the truth. All Canadian and Quebec workers should be able to feel safe when they are reporting workplace crimes and negligence.
We know Canada has some of the worst whistle-blower laws in the world, tied with Lebanon. The Conservatives like to pat themselves on the back and say that they care about whistle-blowers, but it is Liberals and Conservatives who have teamed up over decades to make sure that whistle-blowers do not get the chance to protect our society and government.
It was actually the current leader of the Conservative Party who last brought in legislation when he was in government. The experts say that he did not make things better; he made it even harder for whistle-blowers. He made it even worse. The Conservatives say they are for workers, but what did they do today? They moved a concurrence motion so that we could not talk about anti-scab legislation. The Conservatives are not here for workers.
Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to defeat numerous amendments that would actually strengthen protections for whistle-blowers in this bill. They voted against many amendments to Bill C-290. We talk about the coalition. Let us talk about the coalition of Liberals and Conservatives who are fighting workers, muting workers and stonewalling workers from doing the right thing and being able to have the opportunity to protect Canadians and Quebeckers. It is not surprising for the Liberals and their rich friends who are not worried about whistle-blowing. The leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservatives will always prop up their big bosses and not workers. We know that. They have a track record. We have receipts. We are keeping receipts. Canadians and Quebeckers need stronger whistle-blower protection, so that there is more transparency and accountability of government and the public service.
As New Democrats, we are committed to protecting the rights and safety of all workers. That is why we are pushing to make sure Canadians and Quebeckers have the strongest whistle-blower protections possible. I want to talk about the importance of strong whistle-blower laws. Because of how weak our protections for whistle-blowers are, less wrongdoing will get reported and stopped. Protecting whistle-blowers is necessary to protect Canadians' and Quebeckers' lives and security.
Whistle-blower reports protect Canada's global reputation and relationships, so this is important. Luc Sabourin reported that superiors at Passport Canada were destroying foreign passports and logging that they returned them to the foreign embassies. He endured eight years of harassment and abuse, including hand sanitizer in his coffee and threats to his children's safety. Before losing his career in 2016 and almost losing his life, he had the courage to show up at our committee and to fight to protect the future of all workers. He is a hero and the reprisal has been significant, and the impact and damage to his life have been significant. I want to thank Luc for the courage to have shared his story; and my colleague from the Bloc who brought Luc to committee and worked with Luc.
As I said, whistle-blower reports save lives. In 1996, Michèle Brill-Edwards also lost her career after she reported that big pharma was influencing the drug-approval process here in Canada, endangering Canadian lives.
We brought forward amendments that were defeated. Our first amendment that we brought forward was to allow whistle-blowers to go to the public or media in specific situations where, for example, the commissioner is not dealing with the complaint or decides not to do anything to stop the wrongdoing. Liberals and Conservatives teamed up in their coalition to oppose this. Therefore, now whistle-blowers are at a huge risk if they expose wrongdoing to the Canadian public.
The second amendment was interim relief, which would have protected whistle-blowers from punishments like termination as soon as they reported wrongdoing. Instead, we are allowing punishments to happen to them and then spending years investigating whether they were indeed punished. The coalition defeated it.
The third one is the reverse onus. Right now, the whistle-blower has to prove reprisal. I will give an example: If they were fired, they have to prove that it was because they reported wrongdoing, which is virtually impossible. This amendment would have forced their superiors to prove that there was a real reason to fire them. In other jurisdictions, this change brings the chances of success from as low as one in 500 to as high as one in three, which would make sense. Those would be strong whistle-blower laws. What happened? The coalition of Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to defeat the amendment.
Again, these are critical amendments. Some things we brought forward as New Democrats were passed. I am grateful that the coalition did not fight these and that we actually got them through, working closely with our Bloc colleagues, who were fabulous on this bill.
The first one is that we improved whistle-blowers' access to the tribunal. This is critical, because the commissioner has been acting as a gatekeeper, preventing workers from accessing the tribunal. In the tribunal's 16 years of operation, the commissioner has only referred nine cases to it. That is insane. It is a terrible track record for Canada and right there, as I said, with Lebanon. There needs to be access to both options, because the commissioner sometimes decides not to even investigate a complaint. It is unbelievable.
The second amendment we brought forward and that passed, as we were glad to see, would create a survey metric to measure whistle-blowers' satisfaction with the process, how supported and protected they felt, etc. We have been looking at the effectiveness of these laws with no input from the whistle-blowers they were supposed to protect. Now they have a voice. Again, I want to go back to my colleague from Mirabel and thank him for that.
The third amendment we were able to get through was adding psychological damage from harassment as a form of reprisal that whistle-blowers are protected from. That is absolutely critical. These are Canadians and Quebeckers who are standing up and fighting for the best services to deliver to their communities.
I am going to finish with one area that is not covered, which is subcontractors. I will give an example: At the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we found out through the ArriveCAN scandal that there were companies that received a contract, Coradix and Dalian, and they subcontracted to a company called GCStrategies, which then subcontracted to a company called Botler. However, they are not protected. Even though they are delivering services under a government contract through the Canada Border Services Agency, they are absolutely not protected. This is just unbelievable.
Both Dalian and Coradix took a commission of between 15% and 30%, and GCStrategies took a commission of 15% to 30%. None of them had expertise in what they needed. These are headhunters. It is like the worst pyramid scheme, in terms of outsourcing, that is happening with Canadian taxpayers' dollars and the layering of commissions.
For Botler, the reprisal was significant for Ritika Dutt and Amir Morv. It is unbelievable, the punishment they took for standing up for Canadian taxpayers, for whistle-blowing, and the treatment they have been under. The government is continuing to fail them for continuing to tell the truth. It is continuing to allow these contractors, who are suspended from the Canada Border Services Agency, to have contracts with other federal departments, even though they are under investigation by the RCMP. We can talk about how failed and miserable the situation is.
We are taking a step forward to fix how the coalition of the Conservatives and Liberals teamed up to mute whistle-blowers. Again, it is because of my colleague from Mirabel, who used his slot. He was high in the order of precedence, and he took this on to stand up for human rights. New Democrats stand with the Bloc, and we worked really hard on this. I am glad it is moving forward.
Let us hope for a better future. Let us hope we can address the concerns that are not addressed in this bill and continue to work together. Workers deserve it. We owe it to them.
1521 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased and proud to rise here today at the end of the third reading of Bill C‑290 so that this bill can go to Senate, where we hope it will be studied and passed quickly so we can protect our public servants.
Public servants are the people who apply the rules and policies while ensuring that the federal services machine remains in good working order. Public servants are the first to notice when the rules and policies are not properly enforced, when they are asked to do things in a way that is not right or when people are doing things they should not be doing. They are the first to witness anything that could go wrong.
When a public servant witnesses such behaviour, it is important that they be able to report it without fear for their personal, social and professional life, as well as that of their family. I will come back to that. We have information that has led us to believe that, despite the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, some public servants have kept quiet and others have been threatened. My colleague talked about this in his speech. With that in mind, my colleague from Mirabel decided to take the bull by the horns and say that we could not let this go.
There is no small wrongdoing. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. Whether it is big, small or mid-sized, it is wrongdoing, period. Each time there is wrongdoing, taxpayers' money is misused. Each time someone blows the whistle and, in the end, a public servant gets rebuffed, harassed or intimidated, there is a loss of expertise and loyalty. That loyalty must be protected. That is why my colleague from Mirabel introduced Bill C‑290.
This bill needs to be passed. We need to protect our public servants, those who are the most loyal, who want things to run smoothly, who want taxpayers' money to be used appropriately. However, what we have been seeing is that some public servants are being harassed and intimidated. I am talking about those who dare to speak up. Some have even had threats made against their families. Some have been told that they will not get a pension. Some of these threats have been carried out. People have been forced to retire early, and their pension was frozen for months or even years. That is not how an employer should treat its employees. If any private sector employer did something like that, they would very quickly end up in court.
Our role is to protect public servants and the public. By protecting whistle-blowers in the public service, we are protecting the public by extension. That is what this bill does. Does it go far enough? No, it does not. There are issues regarding royal assent, among others. Some provisions were weakened by committee amendments. That is unfortunate because, rather than becoming a leader, an exemplary employer, Canada is hardly making any headway with this bill.
People will say I am gullible. Perhaps I am naive, but I had hope. I believed the member for Hull—Aylmer when he said that the government was going to introduce a bill that would complement and strengthen ours, so that Canada would become a leader in protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoing. That bill was to be tabled before the end of the year.
Here we are, basically at the end of the year. I have yet to see a bill that would strengthen ours. That said, I am a bit gullible. I will remain positive. I will remain optimistic that the government is going to introduce a bill that will strengthen the one that my colleague from Mirabel introduced and that was studied in committee, in order to really protect public servants.
The process of amending the bill was not easy, but it was extremely rewarding from a personal learning perspective. Amendments were tabled that narrowed the scope of the bill. Some of these amendments had to be introduced because my colleague from Mirabel's bill required royal assent. We do not run the government and we never will. In case this comes as a surprise to anyone, that will never happen. Certain amendments had to be introduced to avoid royal assent, which was an issue, apparently.
I think the biggest disagreement we had in committee was on the bill's coming into force date. The government wanted to delay that indefinitely. We said the law needed to apply as soon as there was royal assent. If we delay its implementation indefinitely, as with other bills where the government said it would come into force 18 months after royal assent, we would end up with a bill that might never come into force because there will be an election or something, when we want the measure to be implemented as soon as possible.
There is not a government in the world that would not benefit from having legislation that protects public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Every government should have strong legislation on the matter. This protects people who are loyal and it ensures that there is no corruption, no wrongdoing, no reprehensible or illegal act within the public service, which is why it needs to be exemplary. The government, too, needs to set the best example possible for other employers. That is why it is important to have strong legislation. I hope that the Liberal government, or any other government, will realize how important this is and will introduce legislation that will be even stronger than the one we have here.
When we met with people about this bill, we were asked why the Bloc Québécois was introducing such a bill. They said that the Bloc Québécois is separatist, but it wants to protect Canadian public servants. It does, but there are Quebeckers working in the Canadian public service. It is important that we protect our shared values. They acknowledged that that was true, that the Bloc Québécois is used to being David fighting Goliath.
Bill C‑290 is a David and Goliath bill. The Senate is another Goliath. I sincerely hope that the members of the Senate will do what was done in committee and come together to pass a private member's bill for the benefit of the entire public service and, ultimately, taxpayers' money.
1076 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the transparency-loving residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
It has been fascinating to hear members from the NDP-Liberal government speak to this legislation. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is a direct result of Liberal corruption.
Whistle-blower protection was a cornerstone of the Conservative Federal Accountability Act. It was the first substantive bill introduced by the Harper government following over a decade of Liberal corruption that reached its climax with the sponsorship scandal. The Chrétien Liberals had given millions of dollars to well-connected companies to do little actual work other than to funnel the cash back to Liberal Party coffers.
Canadians had grown tired of the arrogant, corrupt Liberals and demanded a change. Despite losing the election, the NDP and remaining Liberals refused to listen to Canadians. That is why the socialist coalition voted against our accountability act and whistle-blower protection.
I saw the bow-tied banker from Ajax join with the failed punk rocker from Timmins—James Bay voting against whistle-blower protection. As different as those two members may appear, they share the same inverted belief that people should serve the government instead of government serving the people.
Now, if Canadians have any doubt of this NDP-Liberal government's contempt for whistle-blowers, just look at its track record. One of the first acts this government did was to redirect a shipbuilding contract to its friends. When multiple people shared that information, what did this Prime Minister do? He called Vice-Admiral Norman a criminal and said the admiral would face the courts. Mark Norman spoke truth to power and paid a heavy price. I know he thinks this Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
When another whistle-blower leaked the story of Jody Wilson-Raybould being pressured to direct a prosecution, this Prime Minister called the report fake news. He then fired Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott and kicked them out of caucus to boot. This government is so repulsed by truth and accountability, it attacked the people the whistle-blowers tried to protect.
Then there are the multiple whistle-blowers who tried to do the right thing at the Sustainable Development Technology Corporation. They followed the procedures. They reported it to the deputy minister. The deputy minister even compared it to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. That same deputy said his minister would blow a gasket upon learning the damning information, except nothing happened. No gaskets were blown. No executives were fired. No board members were sacked. There were rampant conflicts of interest and comparisons to the sponsorship scandal. Yet, it was not until the whistle-blowers went to The Globe and Mail that anything happened.
Swap out the words “sustainable development” with “foreign interference”, and we see a similar story. If not for the CSIS whistle-blower, Canadians would still be in the dark about the extent of Communist interference. Our Conservative Party was attacked in the last two elections. The government knew it and covered it up. The Liberals had just spent the last eight years pushing conspiracy theories about Russia to smear Conservatives, so the last thing they needed were credible reports they had received assistance from Communists who control China. If not for the CSIS whistle-blower, there would not be a public inquiry into foreign interference.
Given the recent partisan comments by the judge and her selection of intervenors, we may still not actually have an actual public inquiry. Even the hand-picked special rapporteur actually confirmed that many of the CSIS leaks were accurate. He confirmed that the member for Don Valley North did engage in secret meetings with the Communist consulate in Toronto and did discuss the two Michaels. That member would still be sitting in the Liberal caucus were it not for the whistle-blower.
Yet, this Prime Minister sent his national security adviser out to speak to reporters just to let them know that this government is actively hunting for this whistle-blower. NSA Thomas actually said the whistle-blower would be caught and punished. The Liberal government is declaring a whistle-blower guilty without a trial again. It is as though it has learned nothing from Vice-Admiral Norman and his persecution. That is why we must pass this bill.
The NPD-Liberal government will continue to ignore lessons unless we update the legislation. After eight years of Liberal corruption, whistle-blower protection must become stronger. The Liberals claim this is unnecessary, because they budgeted $2 million for a special task force that is supposed to review a committee report from six years ago. They can save taxpayers $2 million and just support the legislation.
809 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:34:14 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Mirabel for his right of reply.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
