Jeff Watson

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-11, the Liberal government's half attempt at protecting public servants who blow the whistle on corruption in government. It is a necessary bill but one, I am sad to say, the Liberal government never took very seriously.

I wish to begin by congratulating the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for his ongoing determination to see a whistleblower protection act that actually protects those who disclose wrongdoing. The voters in that riding would do well to remember it was that member, not the Liberal government, who pushed Bill C-11 from a woefully inadequate, fatally flawed bill to at least a workable framework for protecting whistleblowers. I believe that member of Parliament will be in the House to see a Conservative government that will finish the job.

With the prospect of a Conservative government to replace this tired and scandal plagued Liberal regime on the horizon, it gives me the opportunity to think aloud about what it will take to root out the Liberal culture of corruption and bring about a better, cleaner government for Canadians. This is no small step. Forming government means that we will take the reins as the largest employer in the land. A Conservative government would have to strive for labour excellence with the public service, not settle for the old Liberal pattern to disregard and demoralize.

Labour excellence is about forging a new relationship with our public servants, recognizing them as valued partners in the quest for open, transparent and fully accountable government that is finally free from the stain of corruption. Labour excellence between a Conservative government and the public service will have to include many things.

Some context for this bill: settling contracts on time or better, not allowing them to languish for months as this Treasury Board president did; bargaining fairly and not counting on public stereotypes of bureaucrats to strengthen the government hand to legislate back to work and impose a settlement, as this Treasury Board president hoped to do last year.

Such a partnership will require real whistleblower protection, not the amended bill we have before us today.

During debate on Bill C-11, I have seen a change in the Liberal tone. There is a jump in their step. They are talking about the wonders of a minority government while they secretly hope the public does not remember the two previous incarnations of this bill that did nothing to protect whistleblowers and everything to protect Liberal corruption.

The Liberal government introduced its fatally flawed bill in March 2004, just after the Auditor General slammed the Liberal sponsorship program and the government for breaking every rule in the book. The Liberals introduced that bill just before pulling the plug on the public accounts committee and on Parliament to keep Liberal ad scam misdeeds from reaching the voters. In other words, the Liberal government never intended to protect those who blew the whistle on its corruption.

I remember Allan Cutler. Most of us remember him for bravely disclosing corruption, but how many other faceless and nameless public servants had their careers, their health and their reputations destroyed for trying to do the same before the Auditor General broke ground on the truth behind the Liberal sponsorship program? They must be devastated listening to Liberals yesterday and today acting like they are actively part of a real whistleblower protection act. In fact, Liberals have been selling the false idea that this is already legislation. What a slap in their faces.

Now I am not fooled. Not only did the Liberal government fake whistleblower protection before the last election, it had the audacity to bring back the flawed bill after the election. Another slap in the face to public servants who have high ethics.

Canadians are not fooled. If former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall were not under a cloud of suspicion for bilking Canadian taxpayers with padded expense claims and kickbacks for lobbying the Liberal cabinet for Technology Partnerships Canada grants, the government would not have made a single amendment to Bill C-11, not one.

The Liberal government is in desperate need of an extreme ethical makeover but that makeover does not start with a few half measure amendments that are only better than the original bill because the original bill was so awful. Such an ethical makeover starts with a heartfelt commitment that taxpayer dollars are the delegated trust of hardworking Canadians coast to coast to their representatives, not the personal playthings of a power-mongering Liberal Party desperate to hold power.

Such an ethical makeover requires seeing public servants as public guardians of ethics in the processes of government, not potential leaks that must be quashed to preserve Liberal corruption. These public guardians deserve our utmost consideration as full partners ensuring that the dollars taxpayers pay in good faith help fellow Canadians in need and are not syphoned off to reward the friends and cronies of an institutionalized Liberal government.

Such an ethical makeover is not possible for the Liberal government. The evidence of that is in this amended Bill C-11. Liberals had the chance to get it right and chose not to. The Liberal government had the chance to shed a light into the darkest corners of every government department, but since Canadians would likely have seen Liberal rats scurrying about, the government chose to adopt a cover-up clause instead.

First the Liberals wanted 20 years without disclosure. They would never take zero. They would go no lower than five years. For five years, disclosure of wrongdoings can sit inside a government department before coming to light. Not only this but the Liberals had the chance to broadly apply whistleblower protection without strings attached. They chose not to.

The cabinet will retain the unilateral power to pull protection from whistleblowers, for example, at crown corporations. Disgraced David Dingwall was just forced out of a crown corporation by the official opposition's digging to expose his outlandish abuse of taxpayer dollars, not because the government was forthcoming about it. If Liberals had their way, he would still be CEO of the mint, bilking taxpayers for lavish dinners and golf memberships in secrecy. The Liberals cannot undertake an extreme ethical makeover because they had the chance and did not.

I will reluctantly support the bill, quite frankly because it is the best we will get from the Liberal government. This is better than the naked exposure public servants of high integrity and ethics faced for 12 Liberal years for doing the right thing by disclosing corruption, abuse and waste.

It is too bad the Liberals could not muster the courage to end their self indulgence with a comprehensive whistleblower protection act that would once and for all slap constraints on their corruption addiction. Because the Liberals are incapable of cleaning up corruption and cannot handle disclosure of the truth about their corruption, Canadians will have to sweep them from power.

Only the Conservative Party can clean up Liberal corruption and restore better government to a great Canada. The Conservative Party is ready to step in and do the job of protecting all whistleblowers, not just most.

The member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry is ready. As the next Government of Canada, Conservatives will end the cover-up clause and apply whistleblower protection to all agencies of the government. That is the clean government Canadians deserve.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, after listening to members of the government here today, it is a whole lot of back-slapping about making Parliament work. Everything sounds great. It almost sounds like this was the Liberals' idea. For the record, people back home know better. If there was no ad scam, this bill would not be here and the government would never have reversed its course.

If there were no David Dingwall question right now, there would have been no reversal by the government in buckling to amendments. Two times the Liberals have introduced a woefully inadequate bill that exposes whistleblowers and does not protect them.

One of the critical areas where we are still vigilant about the bill moving forward is the idea that crown corporations could sort of be taken out of the scope or the protection of Bill C-11. I remember David Dingwall being the now former CEO of a crown corporation, the Royal Canadian Mint. Would something like this never have been exposed or moved forward? Is it not a problem that crown corporations or other agencies like that could arbitrarily be removed from the protection of Bill C-11 and whistleblowers then would not come forward, scandal would not be found out and government would not be cleaned up?

[Liberal Government, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, former Liberal cabinet minister David dinewell last year took hard working Canadian taxpayers to the cleaners, and the steak house and the country club. The total damage was a million dollars without a tip.

The Liberals' latest million dollar baby proves that when it comes to tax revenues, Liberals consider the money theirs, not yours. Tax dollar sucking political vampires like swinewell deserve more than a porterhouse stake through their hearts. Liberals say he bilked the taxpayer by following Liberal made rules. It is time to change the rules then, but do not count on this Liberal government to do it.

The Liberals originally tabled a whistleblower protection bill that left sponsorship scandal alarm sounders more exposed than sun tanners on the Italian Riviera. The Gomery commission laid bear the rampant trawling of taxpayer dollars to Liberal friends. Liberals could have acted by now to repair the breach in the ethical levy but are waiting for Gomery to change the rules for them.

For taxpayers, the Conservatives will form the next government of Canada. Hard working Canadians cannot afford more Liberal pork.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-55. It has taken two years from the time of the report to get wage earner protection legislation before this House, but Bill C-55 is not sufficient in scope. It leaves out an important component that I wish were being discussed here today. I am going to get to a question very shortly. What is left out is unfunded pension liability in situations of bankruptcy protection.

General Chemical Canada is in my riding. We can argue about whether that was a planned bankruptcy or not. I have some suspicions about that. There was a serious unfunded liability for pensions left over in this situation. Bill C-55 addresses only the wage protection that employees would get in a situation like that, but there is this other important component that is not being dealt with.

We found out in the situation with General Chemical Canada that there was no real proper monitoring of the pension fund and there is really no mechanism available to help workers who are not going to get full pension at the end of their careers. I understand that this legislation will not help the employees of General Chemical Canada because there is no retroactivity here, but we want to avoid situations like these in the future.

I have a simple question for the parliamentary secretary. Why is the unfunded pension liability protection for workers not included? Why did the government not bring it forward at this time as part of dealing not only with wage earner protection but with the other component that is important to workers in cases of bankruptcy protection? Why is the government continuing to leave workers twisting in the wind on this one?

[Gasoline Taxes, September 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals say they feel Canadians' pain at the pumps, yet plot to stick it to Canadians by pumping up the government's gas tax revenues instead. Conservatives are fighting to cut gas taxes to help seniors lower their coming heating costs now.

The environment minister tells them to “get on their bikes and ride”. Conservatives are fighting for gas tax relief for farmers who will not get their costs back. Environment Canada reports that Liberals really want them to pay $1.40 a litre.

Conservatives are fighting for small businesses that have to eat high gas taxes on the bottom line. The industry minister barks, “get used to it”.

Conservatives are fighting for Canadian families hurt by high gas taxes. The former natural resources minister lectures them, “squeeze into a wee bitty car”.

Conservatives are fighting to cut gas taxes for all Canadians. The Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering says Canadians should “look on the bright side”. The only thing colder for Liberals than the coming winter is the shoulder Canadians will give them at the polls.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no incentive for oil companies to increase production if the result is a drop in both price and their profits. We know this. The Liberal government knows this too. It has an incentive, therefore, to let prices stay high precisely because it rakes in millions of dollars in taxes: millions from small businesses, from seniors on fixed incomes, from farmers and from rural Canadians who do not have access to public transit.

Not only does the Liberal government profit by millions of dollars from Canada's most vulnerable with high gas taxes, but Environment Canada reported that to meet its Kyoto objectives the Liberal government wants a target price of over $1.40 a litre in the price of gas at the pumps, which is higher than what we are seeing at the pumps today.

My question is very simple. Why does the government talk about looking for ways to help vulnerable Canadians today when it secretly plans for higher prices at the pumps tomorrow?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 28th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring a different perspective to this debate for the hon. member opposite.

I am adopted. I do not know my biological heritage, nor do my biological mother and father. Mine is an example of an exception to the norm of traditional marriage, that is, that male-female marriage is marriage precisely because it has procreative capacity and that marriage is the child-centred and not adult-centred institution that satisfies the lifelong need of Canada's children to know and be known by and raised by their mother and father.

The Liberal government wants to overthrow this norm and establish a new norm of marriage by calling homosexual relationships equal that have no procreative capacity at all. Does the member opposite believe that Bill C-38, with its legislative change from natural parent to legal parent, will satisfy the need of Canada's children to know and be known by and raised by their biological mother and father?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Langley. He has become a very passionate advocate for traditional marriage here in the House.

I was glad to hear him talk about his family. I happen to know his wife. I have not met his children yet, but it was good to hear stories about them. It brings together what he has as a marriage, that is, the defining characteristic so central to marriage, that it has a procreative capacity. Heterosexual relationships have that. Homosexual relationships do not. They are different by their nature and therefore, both cannot be a marriage.

My colleague touched on the idea of different but equal: different, recognizing that by their nature they are different, but equal in that civil unions have the same rights as marriage. I would like my colleague to expand a little more on that this is not separate but equal, but different but equal, the Conservative position.

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his comments in the House here today. He is doing a fine job on behalf of the people of Regina—Qu'Appelle.

Originally, 34 Liberals voted against Bill C-38. One is now an independent member of Parliament in the House. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the MInister of Justice earlier today say that cabinet had to be whipped in order to support Bill C-38 because it was a human right.

Why does the Liberal government now support 33 human rights violators in its caucus?

[Civil Marriage Act, June 27th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the very nature of marriage is that it is a procreative relationship. Homosexual unions lack this defining feature. Therefore, the inability to have children for heterosexual marriages because of age or physical dysfunction are exceptions to an established norm. The inability procreate is a norm for homosexual relationships.

As a norm, homosexual relationships are different than traditional heterosexual marriages. The relationships are different, but Conservative policy calls for equal rights for homosexual relationships.

Is it not true that the Conservative Party takes a different but equal, not a separate but equal, approach to marriage? Should the Prime Minister back off his misguided approach to marriage and rights for homosexuals?