This bill is from the 37th Parliament, 3rd session, which ended in May 2004.
Denis Coderre Liberal
In committee (House), as of April 20, 2004
(This bill did not become law.)
The Library of Parliament has written a full legislative summary of the bill.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-25s:
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I watched the Prime Minister's latest ad scam on TV last night where he had the gall to tell Canadians that whistleblowers are now protected by legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, Bill C-25 should be called an act to protect ministers from whistleblowers.
Will the government come clean and admit that its feckless idea of whistleblowing legislation is more about plugging leaks than about protecting honest civil servants?
Denis Coderre LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, again trying to get 15 seconds in the news tonight. First, not only is it good legislation, but we encourage both sides of the House to fully participate in the government operations standing committee where we are open and flexible.
We believe this legislation is well done. We have consulted all stakeholders. It is the first time we have had legislation that will cover not only the public service, but at the same time will cover crown corporations.
I think he must be pleased. I hope that the way he asked his question means they all support Bill C-25.
Denis Coderre LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is I am expecting the opposition members to vote in favour of Bill C-25. That is what they should do because we walk the talk. Our Prime Minister, with his vision, and our government promised to put a template and action plan in place, and we have done that with the whistleblower legislation. We have consulted also with all stakeholders, and we will proceed.
Not only that, we are expecting all members from the House to participate fully in the standing committee to ensure that we have a good law that will suit everybody.
Darrel Stinson Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, on March 27, W5 exposed corruption and cover-up at Canada's High Commission in Hong Kong.
One of those trying to protect Canada's interests was immigration control officer Brian McAdam, who discovered that known Chinese criminals were being admitted into our country. After filing many reports with many superiors, Brian McAdam was drummed out of Canada's foreign service, his career and his health destroyed.
Another whistleblower was RCMP corporal Robert Read, a 24 year veteran of the force. After getting no results through internal channels, he went public with his concerns and was fired. Although Corporal Read was cleared and actually commended by the RCMP internal review committee, he still does not have his job back.
The facts about Brian McAdam and Robert Read show why Bill C-25, the new whistleblower protection law, is inadequate and should have no time limit. The government should be protecting Canada, not the old boys' network.
Darrel Stinson Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, current hearings being conducted by the public accounts committee into the sponsorship scandal make clear how much government waste could be avoided if we had some way for employees in each department to get their concerns dealt with. Instead, conscientious employees who see things not being done right often must put their jobs on the line to get action.
Canadians and their federal employees urgently need a new law. According to the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, “Canada is still the only major industrialized democracy without adequate whistleblower protection for public servants”.
This government has proposed Bill C-25 but it needs amendments. I urge the government in the strongest terms to consult with the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the public service integrity officer, Dr. Edward Keyserlingk, to develop the amendments needed for conscientious federal employees to get wrongdoing corrected quickly.
Canadians and whistleblowers deserve no less.
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the Thursday question.
This afternoon, we will continue the budget debate. Tomorrow, we will begin consideration at the report and subsequent stages of Bill C-3, the Canada Elections Act, followed by a motion for referral of Bill C-25, the whistleblower bill, to a committee before second reading.
Monday and Tuesday we will continue with the budget debate. Wednesday, we will have votes on ways and means motions. We will then resume consideration of any bill that did not get finished on Friday, Bill C-11 in particular, plus of course, if possible, Bill C-9 on drugs. Next Thursday, I hope we will be able to start second reading of the budget bill.
As for the committees, all I can say is that I am pleased the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will be able to make some progress during the week we are not sitting here in the House.
Denis Coderre LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Odina Desrochers Bloc Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, our presence here today is the result of a political event that occurred in October 1995, the referendum. Fifteen days before the referendum, the polls clearly showed that the Yes camp was winning.
So, there was panic here in the House of Commons, particularly among the federal Liberals. Quebeckers had to be shown that Canada was a beautiful country and an ad campaign was needed to do that. That is why the sponsorship program was created, and that is also where everything started, like the famous love-in held two days prior to the referendum.
So, when I am told in the House that the current Prime Minister, all of the current ministers and all of the federal Liberal members did not know what was happening, I must say I have serious doubts because everyone knew that Jean Chrétien's Liberal government had to flex its muscles to save the country. That is what we were told by the person who set up this program when he testified in July 2002 about the sponsorship and Groupaction scandals.
Do you know what Mr. Guité said? “We were at war. Something had to be done. The separatists were going to win”. What more proof do we have to give here in the House? The sponsorship scandal is inextricably linked to the future of Quebeckers. Now, today, they are trying to tell us that the present PM did not know what was going on.
I remember my days on the public accounts committee when we tried to have some witnesses appear who could cast some light on this. You should have seen the stonewalling that went on, as the federal Liberals systematically prevented the Standing Committee on Public Accounts from doing its job.
Today we hear from the new President of the Treasury Board. It was he who opposed those amendments, before the present Prime Minister came along, when we were debating the importance of the Public Service Act and when the Bloc and the NDP were trying to introduce amendments to protect public servants who might act as whistle blowers about ministerial political interference. The Liberals themselves blocked those amendments to Bill C-25.
This morning, it is quite fantastic what the President of Treasury Board can say when he talks to us about democracy and transparency. I need not remind hon. members that, the night before the Auditor General's first appearance to explain the content of her report, an emissary of the PMO called together the Liberal members of the Public Accounts Committee. I would call that interference and controlling behaviour.
Today they are trying to make us believe that transparency and democracy exist among the Liberals, but I am not buying it. You know what the press is saying today? Today's headlines describe the PM's actions of yesterday as “damage control mode”, in other words that he was in a panic. Do hon. members want to know what the PM reminds me of with his protestations of not being aware, that he will clean house, that he is outraged, and so on? He reminds me of someone who claims to have left his past behind, but then keeps on talking about it. After two hours of hearing about it, one is tempted to say “Hey there, you have not left your past behind you at all”.
That is what the Prime Minister is doing now. He keeps on saying he knew nothing, keeps on saying his government will change its behaviour, change its mentality, that his government will become the most democratic government anyone has ever seen in this House of Commons.
That is a monumental joke. The people of Quebec are starting to react to what the Prime Minister intends to do, because it knows that the sponsorship scandal is intimately related to our national future.
If current polls are clearly showing that the Bloc Quebecois has made significant gains in Quebec, regardless of what happens in coming months, this means that the people of Quebec understand what took place in October 1995. It means that Quebeckers are a good, proud, and different people.
There are phone-in radio show hosts, in Toronto and Vancouver, and even a minister who are currently suggesting that this whole issue is indicative of Quebec's way of doing things. We have certainly never seen anything of the sort.
The current Prime Minister, who proclaims himself a Quebecker, should take more aggressive action to stand up for Quebec when under such attacks. There is more to come. Anytime the Quebec people sets out to achieve sovereignty, these kinds of racist remarks pop up all over the place in English Canada. Forgotten are all the nice things said in Montreal, one day or two before the referendum.
Light will definitely be shed on this issue. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts has set the process in motion. On Thursday, we will have a meeting where the Auditor General and officials from the three departments concerned will try to explain the complex nature of this program. There are so many complexities that it is hard to make out the authors. All this was apparently done without any political interference.
Now we can see one president after another speak up. André Ouellet said he did not know what was going on at Canada Post. Jean Pelletier—and this is worse—is Jean Chrétien's former chief of staff and now heads VIA Rail. He would have us believe that he knew nothing.
I look forward to hearing what Alfonso Gagliano has to say. He made us a promise and I hope he will keep it. He said he did not want to comment on a political situation while posted in Denmark, but would clarify the whole situation upon his return to Canada. I am sure that, listening to Alfonso Gagliano, there are ministers from Quebec, federal Liberal ministers, who are going to blush.
We are talking about a Prime Minister who says he was not in the loop. It is funny that the same day the report was tabled he held a press conference to announce his measures. He preferred to speak to the media rather than to Parliament. The next day he said that it was a small group. When he felt that people were beginning to have increasing difficulty believing him, he went back to the media at 1:30 p.m., to tell the journalists that it was no longer just a small group, but that it was quite a lot bigger than he thought and that there was some political direction involved.
Not only are the polls unanimous, but all of our colleagues were discussing it when they returned to the House. On the weekend, no one was talking about anything else. We heard how revolted the people felt, especially since this Prime Minister had made cuts in transfer payments for health care and education and in employment insurance, so that the government and good friends could make millions and millions of dollars. That is unacceptable. It does not matter whether the election happens on May 4, May 10, in the fall, or in 2005, the people of Quebec are going to say, “Liberals, begone”.