Bill C-290

Public Sector Integrity Act

An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act

This enactment amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to, among other things, expand the application of the Act to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to certain persons, extend the period during which a reprisal complaint may be filed and add a duty to provide support to public servants.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act .

Canada Revenue Agency

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we have the highest respect for whistle-blowers and support the private member's bill, Bill C-290, put forward by the member's caucus to protect whistle-blowers. Again, we also have to ensure that Canadians' data is protected. We have to make sure that tax avoidance and tax filings carry fairness within our country and within the system.

We look forward to continuing to work together to strengthen that, and I look forward to working with the member for his ideas as well.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the CRA takes the issue of fraud very seriously.

With respect to what the member has talked about, we have supported whistle-blower rights, as shown in our support of the member's caucus bill, Bill C-290, which aims to increase protections for whistle-blowers. However, we need to find the right balance when it comes to making sure that Canadians' data is protected while also ensuring rights for whistle-blowers.

The CRA has an internal process for reporting, and we look forward to continuing to work with all members in the House and the CRA to strengthen that process.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the challenge here is whistle-blowers. As I said earlier, there are ways within the CRA that people are able to report whatever misconduct they see. I think the question really is how we protect whistle-blowers. We have obviously supported Bill C-290 from the Bloc Québécois. I wonder if we can support the Conservative Party and its whistle-blower situation going on right now.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, there are situations that must be denounced. I have to say that our minister and our government have supported Bill C-290, that party's private member's bill. However, there are situations where we are not able to talk about issues, specifically with respect to section 241 of the Income Tax Act, but there are obligations and there are ways in which we are able to have whistle-blowers report what they need to within the CRA, and we are constantly working on these issues.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about this question of privilege for weeks. Other things that happened in the past could be described as scandals or whatever people want to call it. This led me to the following conclusion on Bill C‑290 on whistle-blowers, which is now before the Senate.

At the end of the day, if we did a better job of listening to and protecting these whistle-blowers who are afraid to report wrongdoing in the government, we might realize that these people also have a duty toward taxpayers.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of whistle-blowers who see wrongdoing from the inside.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We can do a lot of things to strengthen transparency. A very large one was supporting Bill C-290, by my colleague from the Bloc, on whistle-blower protection. We actually need to reopen that bill and make it stronger so that we are protecting whistle-blowers and not corrupt government officials.

Public Services and Procurement

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the federal government is implicated in various scandals, 161 complaints from whistle-blowers are on hold. There are 161 complaints related to wrongdoing or wrongful reprisal against whistle-blowers.

The government has to increase the commissioner's budget, but it must also ensure that whistle-blowers are protected. This reminds us that Bill C‑290, unanimously passed by the House, has not yet passed the Senate.

Will the government ensure that the commissioner gets both the funding and the legal framework she needs to do her job?

Canada Labour Code

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour today to rise to speak to Bill C-378, an important bill. It recognizes that the impacts of workplace harassment and violence endure after employees have left a job, and extends their ability to seek recourse and accountability.

As the mental health critic for the NDP, it is important and critical that we advocate for the rights and well-being of workers, especially their mental health. This is a critical bill to ensure we work toward supporting workers who have been impacted in the workplace, so they have enough time to process their trauma and bring forward a complaint when they are ready. This is a crucial change to that and it would allow workers more time to do that by extending the period to two years.

We know that most adults spend more of their waking life at work than anywhere else. Therefore, workplaces have an essential role in the mental health of Canadians. We certainly know that here. Toxic workplaces that fail to take action to prevent or stop harassment or violence contribute to mental health problems that have an enormous cost for workers, families and Canada as a whole.

According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada, 14% of employees do not think their workplace is psychologically healthy or safe at all. About 30% of short and long-term disability claims are attributed to mental health problems and illnesses. The total cost from mental health problems to the Canadian economy exceeds $50 billion annually.

In 2011, mental health problems and illnesses among working adults cost employers more than $6 billion in lost productivity from absenteeism, presenteeism and turnover. According to a study by Mental Health Research Canada, 22% of respondents report being exposed to trauma at work; 20% of respondents indicate that the nature of their job involves unavoidable risk to psychological harm; two-fifths of respondents, 38%, are still impacted by their trauma, while half, 48%, have recovered from it. Clients, 46%, co-workers, 29%, and direct managers, 27%, are the most frequent sources or workplace trauma. Twenty-seven per cent of respondents indicate that people at work do not often or always recognize the importance of protecting the physical safety of employees and 45% indicate the same about protecting the psychological safety of employees.

We know that workers face significant barriers in bringing forward complaints regarding workplace harassment and violence, including fear of reprisal, loss of their livelihood and impacts on their career trajectory. I will talk about a couple of cases in my riding, which I heard at committee as well, in a moment.

For some workers, it is only possible to come forward once they have left an unhealthy workplace. Therefore, it is essential to remove barriers for former workers to bring forward complaints. Otherwise, harassment and violence can continue unchecked at toxic workplaces. If there is no accountability, there is no push for change.

A deficiency of the bill is that it would only apply to harassment and violence, It would not allow workers to make complaints regarding other actions that may impact their psychological well-being, such as discrimination and unfair dismissal. Therefore, I am hoping that at committee consideration will be made to expand the types of complaints workers can make. However, the bill could also be improved to provide clear timelines and procedures to ensure that former employees do not have to endure prolonged stress because of delays in resolving their complaints.

I was fortunate to serve on the government operations committee for a couple of years. We were in the process of going through Bill C-290, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I had the opportunity to listen to witness testimony about workers who were subjected to terrible workplace trauma and a lot of mental health-related issues. I see my friend from the Conservative bench, who sat with me on that committee, nodding. We heard about the trauma experienced by Luc Sabourin, who worked for the government. Workers were literally torturing him. When he left, the process took a long time, and it is still taking time. Luc is still going through the process of recalling what happened to him.

Going through that process can take a long time, when people have been traumatized, to roll out the facts, to reassess, to seek professional support, to get the guidance they need, to ensure they get the counselling they need, first and foremost, and when they make a complaint, to ensure the complaint is just. We want justice here. That is what we all commit to when we walk into this place.

Another situation that surfaced in my riding over the summer, a really difficult situation, was the lack of safeguards for temporary foreign workers and the lack of recourse for them. We found out that workers at the San mill in Port Alberni were living in inhumane conditions.

I will read a quote from CHEK News that interviewed Joe Spears, who was working as the San Group's general manager of terminals. Workers were washing dishes in and drinking water from a creek. They literally had no drinking water in their accommodation. At one time 30 people were living in an Adco-style trailer. When the news media reported on it, 16 workers were living in inhumane, mouldy conditions. The sewer was running underneath and was leaching into one of the bedrooms. It was absolutely disgusting. It was a horrific scene.

The company tried to say that it was not its problem because it was not required to provide accommodation for these temporary workers under its current permit. However, it was still charging them, $350 each, to live in this trailer. I was told that the rent was going to go up to $500. We also learned that they were not paid what they had been promised, never mind the hours that they were promised. There was discrepancies left, right and centre.

These workers were enduring trauma after coming to Canada, with the lack of safeguards to protect them and the inability of government to respond to support these workers. Joe Spears, when asked by CHEK News about where they were washing their dishes, said, “This is where they chose to wash their dishes.” He went on to say, “If someone chooses to use water, maybe in Vietnam that's an acceptable practice, that's normal housekeeping.” He was alluding to the fact that these Vietnamese workers would rather use an outdoor runoff from a stream than have a running water.

It is unbelievable that a private sector company would put its employees through this trauma. Those workers were left with nowhere to go. The Salvation Army went in and protected those workers. It removed them from the site and found them temporary accommodation. However, it took a couple of months before they received their open work permits and were finally able to get a better start.

It is taking a long time to actually get the full story from these workers as more and more things are surfacing. Language barriers are contributing to the fact that we are not hearing about all the different things they endured through their working time at this mill in Port Alberni.

We have to do better to protect workers. When we look at temporary foreign workers, there is no program for the federal government to respond, to find housing for workers who have been treated poorly, and nowhere for them to get the right supports. The government supports for temporary foreign workers, when they have endured harm in the workplace, are not there.

I was disappointed with the Conservatives. They are bringing forward this bill today, and I am grateful for that, but they were nowhere to be found when this story came out. The Conservative leader was at that mill, talking about the workers and standing with the owners of the mill, but he was nowhere to be found when this terrible situation happened.

I have to bring this to the floor of the House of Commons, because we should never allow this to happen again. I am grateful for this legislation, and look forward to it getting to committee.

Report Stage

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the colleague and I worked together on the mighty OGGO, and we were doing a study on the CBSA and also on the whistle-blower act, Bill C-290, which was brought in by the Bloc colleague from Mirabel. We heard from witnesses from the CBSA who were basically persecuted by the management of the CBSA, even to the point of employees being poisoned by their co-workers when they brought issues forward as whistle-blowers.

I want to ask my colleague if he will push for his government to bring in and enact the whistle-blowing legislation and changes that OGGO had recommended.

Bill C‑20—Time Allocation Motion

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, as members know, we introduced and passed Bill C-290 to protect whistle-blowers. Neither the CBSA nor the RCMP were included in that bill.

Can the minister assure me that Bill C-20 will change things so that my constituency office stops receiving emails from officers asking for help with unjustified layoffs, threats to suspend their pensions, and so on? Will this kind of thing finally end with the passage of Bill C‑20?

Luc Sabourin

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the name of Luc Sabourin has resonated several times in the House. He is synonymous with integrity, courage and humanity.

Luc saw his professional life and his health destroyed after choosing to do the right thing: blowing the whistle on wrongdoing in the federal government. Alas, rather the punish the guilty, the system punished him, as it did so many others. This is a disgrace that should scandalize the House.

For a year now, in support of my Bill C‑290, Luc delivered powerful testimony to better protect whistle-blowers. A few days ago, he won the Centre for Free Expression's prestigious Peter Bryce Prize. Every year, this honour is bestowed upon a person who served the greater good by courageously speaking up about wrongdoing or abuses of the public and taxpayers' trust.

I call on the House to join me in congratulating Luc and in honouring whistle-blowers. We will continue to fight for these issues.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that you have been enjoying listening to the debate on the proposed free trade agreement with Ukraine, so we will continue with that.

This is important. This is a free trade agreement. We have already announced our position, so no one will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois will support the implementation of this agreement. Today, we are not discussing the content of the agreement, but rather its implementation.

We know that Quebeckers are in favour of free trade. We have historically been in favour of free trade. Since the time of the free trade agreement with the United States, then NAFTA with Mexico, Quebeckers have always been leaders in trade with our friends and partners. Back in the day, Ontario was against NAFTA, and the auto industry was against it. We Quebeckers were for it because we believe that countries with smaller economies benefit from free trade. The day Quebec becomes independent, international trade will be part of the solution to our economic equation, just as it is for Canada, which is a very small economy.

We support this proposed agreement. Obviously, the timing is important; there is a war in Ukraine, and it is important to show our solidarity, so we support it.

Today, the government would have us believe that we are discussing the content of this free trade agreement among parliamentarians. However, it is very important to understand how a free trade agreement is negotiated. When two countries meet to negotiate a free trade agreement like this one, the first step is very easy. The countries sit down together and establish a certain number of key principles. For example, they may choose to be in favour of trade, freedom or what have you. Once they have agreed on the key principles, which is easy and takes about two hours, and that is hardly an exaggeration, they establish the exceptions. From that point on, the free trade agreement negotiations are focused on exceptions. We could be talking about cultural exceptions, since Quebec is the only francophone nation in North America, or agricultural exceptions that seek to protect supply management. We could be talking about all kinds of exceptions for our industries.

It is at these critical moments that Quebec usually gets sacrificed. Take, for example, supply management. We know that when the agreements were negotiated with the European Union, the United States and, right now, the United Kingdom, the government said that it would sacrifice Quebec aluminum and Quebec dairy farmers and that it would protect the auto industry. The devil is in the details.

Obviously, the problem is that we have no control over what the negotiators negotiate. We have absolutely no say in the matter. What we are currently discussing is the implementation of the agreement.

Earlier today, the parliamentary secretary and member for Winnipeg North, who is chatting with his colleagues across the way, told us that we Quebeckers are lucky because this time, supply management, our farmers and our dairy farmers were not sacrificed in any way. However, the truth is that the country in this particular case, Ukraine, did not have any surplus milk to export. When it comes to Wisconsin, which does have surplus milk to export, we are suddenly part of the exceptions that are set aside and supply management is sacrificed. When it comes to French cheese in the context of our negotiations with the European Union, supply management is sacrificed, just as it is in the case of British cheese.

In this case, apparently these irritants do not exist, because the major exceptions that Quebec typically calls for were not central to the negotiations.

The fact remains that we are sitting here like a bunch of puppets, discussing the implementation of something that was negotiated over our heads. In the U.S., Congress and elected officials give the mandate to negotiate treaties, whereas here in Canada, mandates come from the executive and ministers. Parliament has absolutely no say. That is the root of the issue, and that is why, in many cases, we disagree with certain provisions in these free trade agreements.

It is similar in Europe, where treaties are ratified with the European Union, and member states, even the smaller ones, have a strong voice. We saw this with Belgium's grievances in relation to the free trade agreement with the European Union, for example. In these cases, the smaller states are very involved in making decisions. In the present case, however, Quebec was not consulted.

The job of implementing free trade agreements is left to provincial legislatures like the Quebec National Assembly. They are told that they are going to have to change their laws to implement a free trade agreement about which Parliament was never consulted. The same thing is happening today. We are being forced to vote on the mechanics of a car without having chosen its make, colour or options. Still, it is up to us to legislate on the spark plug about to be replaced inside the car. That is essentially what is happening and it is obviously problematic.

Not everything in this treaty is perfect. My colleague with the fantastic tie, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, talked about the fact that our Liberal colleague was unable to answer the question about relations between states and multinationals. There is the matter of multinationals suing states for what could amount to expropriation, depending on how it is defined in the free trade agreements. This has always been a problem. We saw it with NAFTA. At the time, the multilateral agreement on investment was derailed because of that.

These are the kinds of provisions that say, for instance, that if Canada decides to apply environmental policies that are not strict, but modern, a Ukrainian investor who invests here and feels affected by these policies could sue the Canadian government, the Canadian taxpayer and the Quebec taxpayer because they felt aggrieved by these environmental policies. This is a major problem.

Earlier, the Liberal member was unable to answer the question on this subject. He did not even understand the question, because he confused the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, which exists in an agreement like this and is an arbitration mechanism that works relatively well in most cases, with the dispute settlement mechanism between a multinational corporation and a state, which involves the courts. This denies Canada its sovereignty. It denies our state its sovereignty. It is highly problematic and should no longer be included in free trade agreements.

I will also come back to how it is negotiated. Parliament does not grant negotiating mandates. It is the government and the ministers who, following discussions behind closed doors, decide to grant a negotiating mandate. Cabinet solidarity keeps them mum. Then this all comes before us and we have nothing to say about it. Parliament needs to get in the habit of restricting the power of the executive branch in advance, before it negotiates these agreements.

That is precisely the objective of Bill C-282, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois. Since we were never asked our opinion, we decided to introduce a bill that requires the government to respect our supply management system and preserve it in its entirety when negotiating free trade agreements. Why do we have to take this unique approach, which involves locking the government into something ahead of time? The reason is that Parliament is never asked to have its say, and that is a big problem.

I would like to add that there are obviously good things about the bill to implement the 2023 free trade agreement. There is a chapter about corruption, transparency and responsible business conduct. The provisions on responsible conduct propose voluntary, non-binding codes of conduct.

I would like to remind the government that, this week, we will be debating Bill C-290, which deals with the protection of whistleblowers. It is a bill that the government itself should have introduced a long time ago. All of the wonderful principles of transparency and respect for institutions that are set out in this bill are found in Bill C-290. The government will have to put its money where its mouth is. If it is good for the Canada-Ukraine agreement, then the government must support the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-290 at third reading.

In closing, this is an important free trade agreement that builds diplomatic ties. It is symbolic and an expression of goodwill toward Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine is a small trading partner.

The effect this agreement will have on our economy will therefore be minor, but it is important to express our solidarity with Ukraine at this time.

I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

International Trade

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, is it a partisan problem or a problem of culture? We have already talked about Bill C‑290. We have already talked about whistle-blower protection in the public service. We have already talked about the internal culture that compels silence when people want to see improvements.

Does the problem stem from a level of government, blue or red, or does it come from a culture of silence? The discussion we are having today raises that question. This is not just about ArriveCAN, it is this culture that we need to dismantle for the greater good of the population.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, in relation to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, concerning the extension to consider Bill C‑290.