44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 13, 2023 02:00PM
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
Madam Speaker, I have always found you to be very charming, with your bright smile. I am feeling charmed today, but it is not because of you. It is because after hours of debate, after voting, testimony and amendments at committee, it is very moving to stand before you and my colleagues, who have worked with me for this last hour of debate on Bill C‑290 and on whistle-blower protection.
Today, the House of Commons is at a crossroads. I will not go over the bill's history or its content once again. My colleagues did a great job—
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:35:05 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. There seems to be a problem with the interpretation.
The problem seems to be resolved, so the hon. member for Mirabel may continue his speech.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was saying that we have reached a crossroads with this bill. All of the parties worked on it. It is a bit of a sliding scale. As we know, our interests diverge. Today, however, we have a good bill. This is obviously a first step, but everything starts with a first step.
I would like to take this opportunity to do what I did during my previous speeches on Bill C‑290. Once again, I call on all the parties to work together, because absolutely nothing could be less partisan than protecting whistle-blowers, transparency and integrity. Absolutely nothing should be less partisan than that.
I would add that today, we finally have a serious opportunity to send a message of hope to all federal public servants watching us today. They contact us, and we know that they are watching us. We want to tell them that their integrity and safety matter. I am speaking to them directly. Their safety, integrity, career, life and family matter. That is the profound message conveyed by this bill.
Now, there are some people I would like to thank directly. I would like to thank whistle-blower Julie Dion and whistle-blower Luc Sabourin, both former public servants at the Canada Border Services Agency. They are courageous people with a sense of public service right down to their core. They paid dearly in order to stand up for transparency. I would like to thank whistle-blower Joanna Gualtieri, a former public servant—
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:37:22 p.m.
- Watch
I must interrupt the hon. member.
We have a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Heritage.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:37:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise to inquire about Private Members' Business. It ends at 6:57 p.m. today, as I understand, but there are no questions and comments. Perhaps the hon. member could come back tomorrow for questions and comments.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
There are no questions and comments.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean is also rising on a point of order.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:37:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the reason some people are raising points of order is because the hon. member for Mirabel has been black-listed by the hon. member for Carleton. His Conservative Party cronies want to play games.
Let us allow my colleague to finish. It is a great bill.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:38:10 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member asked whether the hon. member for Mirabel could come back tomorrow to answer questions, because he would not have time to answer them today. However, there is no question period. That is all there is to it.
The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach has a point of order.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:38:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very interested in the member for Mirabel's comments. I have seen the Conservatives several times attempt to shutdown debate in this place and censor members.
If you could, please ensure that we have a lively debate and that the member has a full speech without interruption from the—
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:38:43 p.m.
- Watch
There is no question that the hon. member for Mirabel will have his full time.
We have another point of order, from the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
An hon. member: They're doing it again.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:38:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, asking to make sure we have interpretation is the right of every member of Parliament. I take offence to what that member said.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:39:01 p.m.
- Watch
No, that was not the issue.
The hon. member for Mirabel.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:39:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will refrain from rising on a point of order myself, but I will use the time I have left to thank Joanna Gualtieri, whistle-blower, former foreign affairs official and pioneer in this field in Canada. I would also like to thank Pamela Forward, president of Whistleblowing Canada; David Hutton, co-founder of the Whistleblowing International Network; Tom Devine, of the Government Accountability Project in Washington and Ian Bron, of the Centre for Free Expression, a former whistle-blower. This is clearly getting a lot of support.
I would of course like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for their work. In particular, I want to mention the members for Courtenay—Alberni and Edmonton West. The latter has been championing this cause for a long time.
I also want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. If ever there was a caring, competent and understanding person to do this work in committee, it is her. As my colleague clearly demonstrated in committee, the current legislation discourages whistle-blowers. There is a breach of trust. Rather than encouraging whistle-blowers to speak out, we are discouraging them. These people are acting in the public interest, in the interest of Canadians, Quebeckers and taxpayers. We are seeing it here in the House. We saw it a few minutes ago. Certain types of conduct are eroding people's confidence in our institutions. Whistle-blowers counterbalance that.
I will use the minute I have left to wish all of my colleagues from all parties a happy holiday season. I want to take a moment to say happy holidays to my constituents in Saint‑Placide, Kanesatake, Oka, Pointe-Calumet, Saint‑Joseph‑du‑Lac and Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac, as well as those in the north in Saint‑Colomban and those in the east in Saint‑Anne‑des‑Plaines. I want to wish a merry Christmas to everyone who lives in Mirabel, around the airport, and to you, Madam Speaker.
349 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:41:20 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for his kind wishes, and I wish him the same in return.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:42:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if we could have a recorded division, I would be very grateful.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:42:18 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 98, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 31, 2024, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to take part in my first adjournment debate in the House.
I am speaking tonight to follow up on a question I asked the Prime Minister about Bill C-234 and, more importantly, the embarrassing way it was handled in the Senate. For some unknown reason, it was the Minister of Transport who rose to answer me and, frankly, I was not pleased with the response.
Bill C-234 is a common-sense Conservative bill that would remove the carbon tax on propane and natural gas used for drying grain and heating buildings, to give farmers a chance to survive this government's crippling carbon tax and take the first step toward reducing the cost of food in our country.
In his response, the Minister of Transport said that I was misleading Canadians. He used the same tired arguments he always does, such as the idea that the carbon tax does not apply in or affect Quebec.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of anyone with an iota of common sense, the carbon tax obviously affects Quebec, directly and indirectly. Quebeckers will certainly be affected at the pump when the second carbon tax adds 17¢ per litre to the cost of gasoline.
When Quebec farmers import their propane from Ontario or other parts of the country, the carbon tax applies to them. I have invoices from pork and chicken producers in my riding to prove it, but the government refuses to look at them.
In other cases, the carbon tax applies indirectly, for example, when Quebeckers import any other domestic goods shipped by truck across the country into our province. The higher prices are getting passed on to us because, contrary to what the Bloc-Liberal coalition believes, Quebec is not self-sufficient.
Bill C‑234 is extremely important. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we have heard testimony from countless farmers from every part of the country. Every one of them agrees that this bill should be passed as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister decided to pressure the Liberal senators he himself appointed to gut Bill C‑234 at the Senate and then send it back to the House. They managed to remove the clause on barn heating and reduce the sunset clause from eight years to three years at the Senate. Bill C‑234 will be sent back to the House with these amendments. It will no longer have an impact on the price of food, which was the original purpose of the bill.
As we have heard many times, there is currently no other viable alternative for drying grain or heating buildings. That is why the Conservatives agreed to the eight-year sunset clause in the initial bill.
The questions I have for the government are the following. Does the government think that the carbon tax affects Quebec, either directly or indirectly? When the Senate's new amendments are debated here in the House, will the government do the right thing and delete these two amendments that have completely gutted Bill C‑234, so that it can be adopted as it was the last time, by the vast majority—
545 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/23 6:47:03 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
