- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
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
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, the matter of subcontractors and contract workers is important, as we saw with the ArriveCAN app and National Defence. Unfortunately, expanding protection to subcontractors would require a royal recommendation. That was the nature of the amendment that the Speaker had to reject earlier today. However, it is still an important issue and that is why the government must consider it, because it has the prerogative to do so.
There is also the constitutionality of the issue. Most subcontractors fall under the governance of provincial labour laws. We will have to examine that issue. Just because it is not included in the bill does not mean that we did not think about it, that we did not try to address it, that it is not important and that we should forget about it.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. We discussed that with the whistle-blowers in committee. I thank my colleague for asking it.
In Canada, we find that the provinces generally wait for the federal government to make the first move on this issue. It often makes the first move, encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, and then the provinces react. With the resources we have here, we have an opportunity to set an example, while respecting the federal government's jurisdiction, on a whistle-blowing regime that would not be perfect, but would be an improvement. The Liberals have not yet had or taken the time, to put it politely, to improve the law, but yes, we expect most provinces to look to the federal Parliament and read the bill. A bill based on Bill C‑290 has already been introduced in the National Assembly. We know that by doing the right thing at the federal level and improving transparency and accountability in the federal government with Bill C‑290, others will follow. So there are 10 more reasons in the provinces, and three more in the territories, to vote for Bill C‑290.
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I salute all my colleagues, and especially my colleague from Winnipeg North.
The purpose of this bill, which I introduced on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, is to protect whistle-blowers, public servants who disclose wrongdoing. The reason I introduced this bill stems from my first few weeks and months as a member of Parliament, when whistle-blowers, public servants who had witnessed wrongdoing in departments and agencies, began calling my office and asking for my help. I would tell these folks to use the usual means to try and protect themselves as whistle-blowers. I quickly realized that the Canadian whistle-blower protection regime was completely flawed.
At one point, I asked myself this question: Am I alone in thinking that there is no way for a whistle-blower in Canada to disclose wrongdoing without falling into a hole before reaching the end of the process? Over time, I realized that many people agreed with my diagnosis. First of all, the International Bar Association ranked Canada's whistle-blower protection regime at the very bottom of the global list, tied only with Zimbabwe. Of the 20 criteria used to classify whistle-blower protection regimes, Canada met only one. The only criterion it met was having a piece of legislation. The other 19 criteria were not met. The legislation is empty.
Essentially, Canada's whistle-blower protection regime is like an old car chassis with no engine, no transmission, no tires and no carburetor. That is the vehicle our whistle-blowers are supposed to drive. The International Bar Association says so, the International Labour Organization agrees with us, the public service unions agree with us, former whistle-blowers who have gone through this process and know its flaws better than anyone else agree with us. There are dozens of witnesses.
In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates produced a comprehensive report. The committee held 12 meetings on the issue of reforming this whistle-blower protection regime. Twelve meetings for one study in committee is a big deal. The committee received 52 witnesses and 12 written briefs. The findings of this report are clear. It found that in order to function properly, democracy needs two legs. The first leg is accountability. The executive branch, the departments, all have to be monitored in a democracy. That is what the second leg of democracy, transparency, is for. Without whistle-blowers and protection for public servants who disclose wrongdoing, who do the right thing for the right reasons, at the risk of their health, their life, their finances and their career, democracy would not work. These whistle-blowers are our last line of defence. Not standing up for these whistle-blowers is like hitting the ice without a goalie. A developed country cannot operate like that. This is a matter of protecting public safety and respecting Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, who are losing faith in government institutions.
Today, I am very proud that this bill has made it to debate at third reading and could be voted on. It must be said that this bill is the result of working together across party lines, a collaborative effort by all parties. I want to recognize my colleagues who participated in this process in a constructive manner.
First, I want to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is now our Speaker. At the time, he was working as the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. He supported us in the amendment process, which means that the Liberal Party can vote in favour of the bill this time.
I want to congratulate in advance the NDP member for Courtenay—Alberni, who presented some very good amendments. He worked in co-operation with us. I also want to congratulate the member for Edmonton West, who was the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates when the committee submitted its report in 2017. He has been fighting for this for many years. I know that support and advice are important to him. He is a very wise man. I know that he is very happy that this bill is at third reading stage today.
Of course, I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In particular, I would like to thank the member who went through the entire amendment process on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Dealing with a subject like this required a member who, in addition to being detail-oriented and rigorous, has a heart and understands human issues, the human soul and the profoundly human importance of caring for these people. That would be my colleague and friend, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, and today I want to say just how much I respect and admire her work.
I would also like to talk about the people who have had the courage to continue to blow the whistle on wrongdoing at the expense of every aspect of their lives. They have supported us, testified and devoted time, energy and skills to this process. They are the whistle-blowers themselves and the whistle-blower protection groups. I am thinking in particular of Joanna Gualtieri, who testified, offered us her legal services and advised us. She was one of the first whistle-blowers in Canada. She went through the whole process, spent selflessly to get the truth out, and survived some incredible pitfalls. I salute her.
I also want to thank Pamela Forward, of Whistleblowing Canada.
Tom Devine from GAP, the Government Accountability Project, in Washington, D.C., insisted on coming to the committee in person. He is a global expert who has advised hundreds of administrations on these issues. He wanted to be here in person to work on this bill. I also want to thank Ian Bron, a retired Canadian Armed Forces member. I also want to thank David Hutton for his advice.
I want to salute Luc Sabourin, the whistle-blower at the root of the scandal that is unfolding before our eyes, the destruction of foreign passports by Canada behind our allies' backs. This courageous man risked everything: his life, his health, his sense of security and his financial well-being. His pension was taken away. He is here with us today on the Hill. This goes to show that what we are doing today is of paramount importance to Canadian taxpayers, Quebec taxpayers and these people. I salute him. He has my utmost respect.
Let us now talk about the content of this bill. First of all, there are rankings, which I talked about earlier. If Bill C‑290 is passed, our whistle-blower protection regime will put us in the middle of the world rankings. We will have a similar ranking to the United Kingdom and France, but we will still be lagging far behind the United States and many American states, the European Union and Australia. That means that this bill is the first of many steps we will have to take when it comes to the protection of whistle-blowers.
What are we doing? We are expanding protection to former public servants who are not currently protected but who still have critical information for improving transparency and management in the public sector. We want to get to the bottom of things and give them more channels for filing complaints. Complaints cannot just be brought to the attention of an immediate supervisor because sometimes that person is involved in the wrongdoing. This bill allows for the use of other channels, elsewhere within departments, to file complaints. We included not just administration issues, management issues and the misuse of public funds as wrongdoing in the bill, but also foreign and political interference.
If this bill is passed, we will have the opportunity to work with the government and to monitor it to make sure it is acting in good faith. We have acted in good faith. Foreign and political interference are defined by government regulation. We will remain vigilant but open. We trust the government in that regard because we decided to work together. The government will have to be worthy of our trust.
Whistle-blowers will be allowed to file more than one complaint at a time. Right now, if they file a reprisal complaint, they reach a standstill with the commissioner. They cannot file two complaints at once. No whistle-blower enjoys filing three, four or five complaints at the same time. No one has time in the evenings and on weekends to fool around with five or six complaints for fun. If whistle-blowers have to file more than one complaint at a time, it is because they feel they need to, and because the public sector needs it to happen in order to remain transparent. That will be guaranteed with this bill.
There have been disappointments, and they have been significant, but we have to live with them. It happens often in politics.
The NDP moved an amendment to reverse the burden of proof in some cases. Unfortunately, this was defeated. We supported them. The NDP moved amendments to protect whistle-blowers from reprisals during investigations. That was defeated. I want to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for the work he did. They were good amendments and, one day, we will have the opportunity to go back to them.
This shows, once again, that we need leadership from the government on this issue, because the legislation has not been changed in 15 years, whereas the world has changed. It is not normal to have legislation that does not evolve when the nature of political interference is changing. It is not normal to have legislation that does not evolve when Chinese foreign interference is happening and it was not in the news at the time the legislation was adopted, in other words after the sponsorship scandal.
A law that seeks to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoings should not be like an old piece of meat, an old quart of milk or an old yogourt. It should never expire. There should be a mechanism under which these laws are frequently reviewed. The government has work to do, because I did everything that I could in a private member's bill to advance the cause of protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Opposition members cannot spend money. We cannot cover the legal fees of whistle-blowers, some of whom end up financially ruined for wanting to serve their employer. I cannot emphasize enough that whistle-blowers are people who are loyal to their employer and to taxpayers, who are their real employer. The government will have to continue to work on this and follow our example.
We are here today because we have a minority government, and private members' bills, especially those from the Bloc Québécois, can help change the world. Let us see what we can accomplish in a minority government. We can protect whistle-blowers. We protected the pensions of Quebec workers by making them priority creditors. We succeeded in protecting supply management in trade agreement negotiations. We managed to protect our fruit and vegetable producers' shipments when they are not paid. We managed to protect the Quebec securities commission when Ottawa wanted to move Quebec's financial sector to English-speaking Toronto. We managed to have an independent public inquiry into Chinese foreign interference, in a minority government. We managed to increase the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors by $600 a year. We managed to get hundreds of dollars for parents by making the universal child care benefit tax-free, because the Conservatives had been taxing parents. The Conservatives are compulsive taxers. We had an investigation into the sponsorship scandal.
It pays to vote for the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers should vote for the Bloc Québécois. It is important to vote for the Bloc Québécois.
I am looking at the Conservatives, and they are speechless. What a wonderful sight.
Aside from that, the bill we are debating is in the public interest. This bill aims to protect people's lives. It is about protecting human beings and the quality of life of people who are often portrayed as being disloyal to their employers, but who ultimately just want to make things better and work in an environment that values ethics, transparency and honesty towards hard-working taxpayers. We want to protect these people's lives for the benefit of all.
Today, I invite all my colleagues from all parties and political denominations to vote in favour of Bill C-290. There is only good in this bill. Whistle-blowers and public servants are watching us. We must rise to the occasion.
2159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be concurred in at report stage on division.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I seek consent to adopt the report on division.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues from all parties for taking the time to consider the bill that I have brought to their attention. There were some constructive and positive comments in absolutely every case. This gives me a lot of hope. I hope to see this bill studied in a non-partisan and constructive way in committee as well.
The people who need to be heard are not the MPs, certainly not the MP for Mirabel. Those who need to be listened to first are the public servants, the public service, those who work within the machinery of government and who feel a need to be better protected, even with the current protections in place.
Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that there are not a lot of reprisals. Some people have talked to me about reprisals, demotions and threats within the public service. These people think they need to be better protected. That is why I am standing before my colleagues and before the House today.
The ones we should be listening to are the Canadian Bar Association, the unions, the former whistle-blowers, the witnesses of all stripes who came by the dozens to testify before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates several years ago. To date, none of the report's recommendations have been implemented.
The International Labour Organization has pointed out the importance of having a more effective whistle-blower regime. Newspaper columnists and journalists have been raising this issue for years, telling us that it is time to take action, not to hold more consultations first. Of course, we can have consultations. However, the pursuit of excellence is an ongoing process that should not be impeded by holding more consultations.
If anyone talked to the whistle-blowers who contacted me and who are the very reason I introduced this bill, they would realize that what we need to do today is listen to common sense and the common-sense recommendations found in the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Many recommendations from that report were incorporated into this bill.
Essentially, it offers protection for more public servants, for contract workers, for former public servants. It offers more anonymity for those who file complaints as well as witnesses. When someone is called to testify, when someone has noticed irregularities, as a complainant has, they are not protected under the current law. We must be able to entrust certain investigations to the auditor general. As we know, his or her work is fundamental to assessing complaints.
It was through the work of Sheila Fraser, the auditor general at the time, that the sponsorship scandal was uncovered. Today we are working to prevent further reprisals, to rewrite and expand the definition of wrongdoing, and to give more time and resources to public servants who want to do their duty with peace of mind, honesty and loyalty to the government, which they must serve first.
I have had some positive signals from the government. Clearly, I have received signals that are more than positive from the two opposition parties supporting me today, and I note that, when I introduced my bill, the minister launched a round of consultations for potential amendments to the act. This would result in significant delays in improving a regime that could be improved today. I hope that these consultations, which are most welcome, will not impede the process leading to the amendment and passage of this bill.
In conclusion, I would like to remind members that whistle-blower legislation is obviously somewhat of a band-aid solution. It is no substitute in the long term for a profound change in culture in certain departments, Crown corporations and Crown agencies that need to make more significant changes to their way of doing things. I hope that the future coming into force of this bill will help them make changes in their culture that, in some cases more than others, are extremely necessary.
665 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be evasive, but I am not going to go into detail in answering my colleague's question because it is a matter that I know very little about. Furthermore, it is a matter that is somewhat peripheral to the bill.
My colleague told us that, to some extent, there is a lack of confidence in our institutions. We have seen that in recent months and throughout the pandemic. It is important that taxpayers have confidence that their taxes are well managed.
It is important that taxpayers see the government not as an open bar, but as a serious institution that has serious processes for implementing serious programs for its population. I believe that Bill C‑290 can make a modest but important contribution to that.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, recently the Chair sought the members' views on whether my bill about public sector integrity, Bill C-290, might require a royal recommendation. The Chair did not specify which part of the bill warranted its intervention, but I surmise that two sections merit analysis.
There is clause 5, which states that the chief executive must provide support to the public servant making a disclosure.
There is also subclause 3(3), which gives contract employees the same protection offered to public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public sector.
In my view, these provisions do not generate any expenditures that would not be covered by an existing royal recommendation, and that is what I intend to argue today.
I would like to begin by saying a word about Bill C-290. It amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to make it more effective. That legislation, as members will remember, was passed in the wake of the sponsorship scandal and was intended to provide protection to public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public sector.
In many cases, only one person within the machinery of government becomes aware of wrongdoing, illegal acts, abuse of power or political interference in decisions that should be up to the non-partisan public service. The purpose of the act is to protect public servants who blow the whistle from reprisal and to create an institution responsible for enforcing the act, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, that public servants can go to for help.
Even though the act was passed more than 15 years ago, it has not produced the expected results. In fact, the federal government has one of the worst whistleblower protection regimes in the world, according to the International Bar Association.
Add up the numerous flaws throughout the act, and it is basically useless. For example, because the definition of wrongdoing is too narrow, many disclosures are not protected by the act. If a public servant makes an unprotected disclosure, their complaint will be rejected, the act will not protect them from reprisal, and their anonymity cannot be guaranteed either. Furthermore, if the whistleblower's complaint is admitted and an investigation is launched, the act does not clearly protect witnesses.
In the case of an internal investigation conducted by a person in a position of authority, this is understandably problematic. It is these flaws that my public sector integrity bill aims to correct.
This brings me to clause 5, which specifies that the chief executive must provide support to a public servant who makes a disclosure. Although the bill does not specify the nature of the support, it is quite clear that it is not financial support. The bill provides for no new financial support, period. The support referenced in clause 5 would involve, rather, things like information, referrals, guidance or advice, all of which are part of the normal duties and functions of executives. In short, we need to ensure that when public servants see wrongdoing, they know their rights, they know where to go, and they are not left to fend for themselves.
This brings me to subclause 3(3) of my bill. It amends the definition of “public servant”, adding “every person retained under contract to perform services for the public sector”. Subclause 3(5) adds that the government cannot terminate a contract as a result of a disclosure. This provision does not generate any expenditure that is not already foreseen, and here is why.
First, the current act already contains provisions about contracts. Under section 42.2, the government may not “withhold any payment that is due and payable in respect of any...contract”. It may not “terminate any contract...by reason only that the other party to the contract or any of that other party's employees has...provided information concerning an alleged wrongdoing”.
Furthermore, a disclosure is not considered a reasonable ground for refusing to enter into a new contract. The problem is that the definition of contract is restrictive. According to the act, contract “does not include an agreement by a public servant, or by a person appointed by the Governor in Council or by a minister of the Crown, to perform the duties to which their employment or appointment relates”.
A construction company that reports wrongdoing at a federal government work site is protected, yet a person hired under contract to provide a service to the government on a temporary basis may not be covered. Because that person meets the definition of a casual worker under the Public Service Employment Act, I gather that they are excluded because they carry out the duties of a public servant but do not enjoy the other protections that public servants have because they are a casual worker.
One example is someone who is offered a three-month contract with the Canada Revenue Agency during income tax season. Because they have no job security, people with precarious status are precisely the ones who need protection the most.
It should be noted that they are not completely unprotected at this time. They are afforded some protection through their contract, which is binding on the Crown. That is how it works right now. Under contract law, which is governed by the Civil Code or by common law, the government cannot unilaterally modify or terminate a contract in an arbitrary manner. This is already the case.
The government's financial commitments are those set out in the contract, whether or not Bill C-290 is passed, but the remedy for contractors who experience retaliation is a civil suit. Bill C‑290 simply changes the administrative process following a complaint.
If Bill C‑290 passes, contractors will be able to file complaints with the commissioner and they will remain anonymous. The complaint will go through the process and the contractor can expect to see an investigation that will result in an end to the wrongdoing. In the event of reprisals in the form of termination of contract, the contractor can seek assistance from the commissioner, who will then reach out to the government, if appropriate, saving contractors from having to sue in court to enforce the provisions of their contracts. This does not, however, change the terms of the contract or the financial obligations thereof.
In short, Bill C‑290 in no way alters any of the government's contractual obligations. These obligations are already binding in civil court and must be met under part III of the Financial Administration Act. Bill C‑290 in no way changes those obligations. It will not generate any expenditure beyond what is already set out in the existing legal framework. It changes neither the amount of the expenditure, nor its terms or any associated conditions. In conclusion, I do not feel that it requires royal recommendation and I am confident that the Chair will come to the same conclusion.
1171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, today it is with great pride that I introduce the public sector integrity act, which puts some teeth into the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Public servants who witness wrongdoing must be able to speak out without fear, in the knowledge that their anonymity will be protected and that they will not be thrown under the bus. They need to know that they deserve thanks, not reprisal. They need to know that there will be an independent investigation into the wrongdoing reported, not just an internal review by people who may have an interest in covering it up.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates identified these issues five years ago, but the government has never addressed them. Last year, the International Bar Association found that Canada provides very little protection to its whistleblowers. Canada ranks dead last in this regard, behind countries like the Cayman Islands, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Pakistan. That is the situation in the best country in the world.
This is what my bill addresses. It protects more people, including former public servants and contractors, and covers more cases, including political interference in the work of government professionals. It can trigger a real investigation by the Auditor General or law enforcement, because wrongdoing must be exposed, not covered up.
Public servants who expose fraud, mismanagement and undue political interference are heroes. Let us protect them.
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
