- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Conservative
- Calgary Midnapore
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $141,419.87
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for introducing this bill.
This legislation is very dear to my heart. For close to 15 years I was a public servant at Global Affairs Canada, so I certainly know the importance of this legislation today.
The legislation, as outlined, would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen current whistle-blower protections for public servants. It would expand the definition of the term “wrongdoing”, and it would broaden what is considered a supervisor so that public servants can make a protected disclosure to any superior within the organization. This is very interesting because it means a deputy director can go not only to their direct director but also to the director general, the ADM or perhaps even the deputy minister, so that is a very important piece.
The legislation would extend protection to former public servants, government contractors and all those involved in disclosure. It is very important to me as a former public servant that, if I were called into an investigation, I would have protection under this legislation. It would expand the deadline to file a reprisal complaint from 60 days to one year. That is also very important. As we know, vindication is not always swift. Sometimes these actions can take time, so the fact that there is sixfold greater time frame for this is of much comfort to many public servants.
It would expand the annual report requirements to include the number of disclosures made of 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. On this side of the House, we love transparency, so the more transparency that is provided to Canadians by those who have called their colleagues to account, the better.
This legislation would also provide fines for reprisal against a whistle-blower, which would increase from $10,000 to $200,000 for indictable offences and from $5,000 to $100,000 for summary convictions. Again, on this side of the House, we are always very pleased to see those who have been determined to have been negligent and committed wrongdoing get more than a slap on the wrist, as we saw, for example, when the former finance minister paid only $200 for not declaring his French villa. We are very pleased to see the increases in these fines.
As I am sure members are well aware, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was first introduced through the Federal Accountability Act on April 11, 2006, by then president of the Treasury Board John Baird. As my colleagues have alluded to, the initial Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was introduced under Prime Minister Harper in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Certainly the scandals continued into the future under additional Liberal governments, but that scandal was taking place at that time and this legislation was a response.
I will also note that the member of Parliament for Edmonton West was instrumental in the review, in 2017, by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. He was absolutely instrumental in that review, along with the late Michael Dagg, unfortunately, as well as Erin Weir. We are very grateful for their assessment of the legislation at that time.
As has been mentioned, it was expected that the government would implement these recommendations, but no action has been taken to this point and it does not seem to be a priority of the government. Therefore, I do not blame the member of Parliament for Mirabel for being proactive in presenting this legislation. Unfortunately, it is not the only case where the government has been too slow to act on important legislation. As shadow minister for transport during the pandemic, I begged the government to come up with a plan for the airline sector. It was negligent in doing that, allowing the airlines to recover themselves.
In fact, this past spring and summer when we saw that delays were severely impacting Canadians, the Liberals did not even take responsibility for it at that time. Rather, their Minister of Transport blamed Canadians for still learning how to travel when it was, in fact, the government's inaction with the plan as well as its mandates that created this situation, so too little too late.
Tomorrow we will have the fall economic statement. Lo and behold, recently, we have heard the finance minister say that for every dollar of new spending, they must now find a dollar of savings. Our leader was well ahead of this. He started to talk about inflation two years ago. He came out with a “pay as you go” model long before this. He has, in fact, made it a commitment for Conservatives going into the next election, whenever that is, that under a Conservative government there will be no new taxes and that for every dollar of new spending there must be a dollar of savings.
Unfortunately, another place where we saw the Liberals act too little too late was with the Afghan interpreters and support staff. On July 23, 2021, the Taliban were sweeping across Afghanistan and closing in on Kabul. The minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship at the time announced a special immigration program to bring Afghans and their families who worked directly with Canada safely to our country. At the time he said, “Lives hang in the balance, which is why we’re taking timely and decisive action to support the Afghans who supported Canada”. A year later, those Afghans were still desperate for that timely and decisive action that was promised. Not only did the minister of immigration fail to act quickly, but he was ending the special immigration measures after only 18,000 applications were received.
Passports was another area where we saw the government act with too little effort and too late as thousands of Canadians were denied passports. We heard horror stories in the media of Canadians camping out overnight, sleeping outside passport offices in an effort to get their documents.
Last but not least, the position of ombudsman for victims of crime was left vacant for almost a year. Finally, someone was appointed in September of this year. It is not new that we have seen Liberals replete with inaction and other members of the House must find it within themselves to find legislation to help Canadians. That certainly is the case here.
I will point out that, as indicated by the history of protecting whistle-blowers on this side of the House, the Liberal government has actually been the greatest perpetrator against whistle-blowers. We all remember Jody Wilson-Raybould in August 2019. The report came yesterday and for the second time in just four years, the Ethics Commissioner found the Prime Minister guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act in connection with his role in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal. I quote:
The Prime Minister, directly and through his senior officials, used various means to exert influence over Ms. Wilson‑Raybould. The authority of the Prime Minister and his office was used to circumvent, undermine and ultimately attempt to discredit the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions as well as the authority of Ms. Wilson‑Raybould as the Crown's chief law officer.
It sounds really familiar with respect to a couple of things we are seeing in the House right now.
Of course, who can forget the tragedy of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman? The Crown stayed its charge of breach of trust against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman citing that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction in this case. The minister of defence announced that the government would pay his legal fees. That is a small consolation prize. Norman served as the vice-chief of the defence staff until his suspension in January 2017.
There was overwhelming evidence at the time that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government politically interfered in this case and tried to destroy Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. As the prosecution made clear, the documents that the Prime Minister and the Liberals were fighting to keep secret from them and Vice-Admiral Norman were the very documents that caused the charges to be dropped. This strongly suggests that the government was deliberately suppressing the evidence in order to maintain a bogus and politically motivated prosecution on Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.
In conclusion, I will say that the government has a notorious history, as I have indicated, of just doing too little too late. This is another case where the government has silenced whistle-blowers. On this side of the House, we have always stood up for whistle-blowers. The legislation proves it. Our track record proves it.
1472 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is certainly a pleasure to be back here in the House once again representing the good people of Calgary Midnapore and, even better, to be here under our new leader, the member for Carleton.
Nobel Prize winner and humanitarian Pearl Buck once wrote, “the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members.” I would certainly say the subjects of this act today are not helpless, but they do need our help. I believe that what Madam Buck was trying to say is how we treat the most vulnerable members of our society reflects the quality of it.
Let me take a moment to reflect on how the government has treated the most vulnerable members of our society.
Frankly, its track record is not very good. At best, there have been false aspirational words, strong statements and, of course, thoughts and prayers, with ultimately very little benefit to anyone. Is that the intention of the legislation here today and of the government here today? Is it a holding document, something the Liberals just want to put in the window but do not intend to deliver on?
It would be easy to argue this, considering the legislation was the last piece of legislation placed before the House in the spring of 2019, right before we went into an election that summer, and the government knew it. It would be easy to think this, given it was the last piece of legislation tabled before our summer recess. It would be easy to assume that this is once again just thoughts and prayers and a hope for Canadians. However, I know the minister and know she wants the best for her community, and I believe her, so I do not think that these are aspirational words meant to simply inspire hope.
That is the best of the legislation we have seen from the government, with this false inspiration; it is not the worst. What has been the worst? It has been legislation that divided Canadians. It has been legislation that left swaths of Canadians behind, to be absent from our society and to be ignored without recourse. Is this legislation the worst legislation we have seen from this government? No, it is not. Canadians have seen the worst and they will not forget.
Where does this legislation today find itself? This legislation finds itself in the mushy middle. Why is it the mushy middle? It is because this legislation wants to help but falls short in convincing all Canadians that it actually would help. We have seen this with legislation before, where details were omitted and left to the regulations, including budgets and how they are able to balance themselves.
There are many concerns with this legislation. For example, there is the eligibility for the benefit. Many are concerned about whether individuals with invisible disabilities would be eligible. When we are walking down the street and meet someone, we do not know what they are dealing with. We do not know if they are dealing with an invisible disability such as cancer or heart disease. We have no idea, and this legislation does not provide clarification as to whether these invisible disabilities would be covered.
Then there is the amount of the benefit that Canadians with disabilities would receive. It is not yet clear how the amount would be determined in conjunction with the existing provincial benefits. Of course, many disability supports are currently provided provincially, but there is no indication as to whether this benefit could be considered income and would therefore disqualify individuals from receiving some provincial benefits.
There need to be assurances that there will be no provincial disparity so that no matter where someone lives in Canada, they are equally supported. “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, the Prime Minister has said, so let us show it.
We need to know how the benefit will be impacted if there are provincial changes to the disability support. Because we do not know how much the benefit would be, how the benefit would be delivered or who would be eligible, we do not know what the cost would be to deliver the benefit. With last week's announcement of the affordability bill, we are now at $56.5 billion in budget 2022. We do not know when or how the benefit would be delivered. Would the benefit be delivered monthly, weekly or at tax time? It simply is not clear or outlined within this legislation.
Another major concern is whether the benefit would be indexed to inflation. With rising inflation, Canadians are already suffering, with an unbelievable rate in June of 4.1%. It is unbelievable that we would even have to consider the impacts of inflation on people with disabilities.
There is the process to appeal for persons with disabilities who are denied benefits. We know that disabilities are unique, and we know that there should be a fair and equitable appeal process for those who have been denied benefits.
When persons with disabilities would start to receive the benefit is another major concern for us with this legislation. As well, right now the coming-into-force date would be determined by an order of the Governor in Council, so even if this legislation passes and receives royal assent, Canadians with disabilities may not receive the benefit for some time, if they receive it at all.
One in five Canadians lives with a disability. They need our support to live full lives and participate fully in society, including in the workforce. The Conservatives believe that all Canadians living with disabilities deserve timely access to these benefits and services and should not be penalized for going to work, as is too often the case today.
They do not need more uncertainty, and I would like to point out, with my apologies, that the rate in June was 8.1%, not 4.1%, as I said previously. They do not need bureaucracy; they need our help. If we want to be seen as a society that Pearl Buck would find worthy, then let us really help.
In conclusion, this is not the worst of the legislation we have seen, but it is not the best of the legislation we have seen, of aspirational ideas and of the slogan “sunny ways”. With the worst of it, the government has consistently wedged, stigmatized and divided. It is the mushy middle, but if we really want to have a society that Pearl Buck would judge as worthy, then let us have an act that actually helps people.
1111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
