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 .

Speaker's Ruling

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am glad we were able to get to the member's debate. He articulates quite well. The member made reference to other countries and put Canada in a placement with those countries.

Are there any provincial jurisdictions in Canada that have followed suit? If the member has any insights on that, I would very much appreciate hearing them.

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

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.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know that in committee there was an amendment that dealt with the matter of subcontractors. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

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.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mirabel for championing this very important bill.

Some elected members responded to the bill's intent saying that the government formed a committee to look into the whistle-blower protection regime.

Does the member for Mirabel think that is a good excuse not to vote in favour of the bill?

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

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.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on this very important bill.

I would like to hear what he has to say about legal fees. Why could these fees not be included in this bill? What does this mean for the courageous people who disclose wrongdoing?

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

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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act, be read the third time and passed.

Public Sector Integrity Act

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Whistle-blowers are the unsung heroes of our institutions. They are the courageous individuals who put their careers, their reputations and sometimes even their lives on the line to expose wrongdoing. They are the guardians of our democracy and the champions of integrity. Their role in our society cannot be overstated, and their protection is a matter of national significance.

I think everyone will agree that public servants who wish to disclose serious wrongdoing must have a trusted, effective means of doing so and must be protected. As is the sponsor of this legislation, the government is committed to strengthening protections for public servants who make disclosures of wrongdoing. This is why it has already taken a number of actions, which were detailed at second reading.

However, the government is not stopping there. The Prime Minister asked the President of the Treasury Board to build on this progress and “Continue to take action to improve government whistle-blower protections and supports.” Action is indeed being taken. Budget 2022 provided $2.4 million over five years for a review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

In November 2022, the government announced the establishment of the PSDPA review task force. This task force will recommend amendments to the PSDPA and changes to the administration and operation of the disclosure regime, with a particular focus on the protection of individuals involved in disclosing wrongdoing from acts of reprisal. The task force is composed of people who bring significant experience and diverse expertise in the field. It is currently conducting wide consultations and inviting input from a range of stakeholders to ensure that a variety of experiences related to the federal whistle-blower regime are collected and considered. Experts, public servants and all those with an interest in this subject are being given an opportunity to share their views. The task force will also consider the report issued by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in 2017 and the discussions on this bill.

In recognition of the fact that work in this area has evolved over the past several years, the task force will look at the latest developments in whistle-blowing regimes since the committee presented their report. As well, the task force will consider reports from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and other stakeholders. It will also seek out best practices through research on disclosure regimes, domestically and internationally. The government's intent is to ensure that the law effectively safeguards and empowers public servants to report wrongdoing. This review will ensure that we are taking an evidence-informed approach to identify improvements to the federal disclosure process. These improvements will mean better protection for public servants who come forward to disclose wrongdoings. Clearly, the government wants to improve the act.

The bill before us proposes a number of changes that the government fully supports. These are expanding the list of persons covered by reprisal protection, extending the time period for a reprisal complaint; increasing penalties for a contravention of the act, allowing reprisal complaints concerning the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to be made to the Auditor General, ensuring that individuals are provided with reasons when a reprisal complaint is refused and, finally, adding a recurring five-year review of the act.

These would be valuable improvements to the act as it now stands. That said, certain amendments in the bill raise legal and operational challenges, many of which were raised both at second reading and at committee. We can take, for example, the removal of the seriousness descriptors from the definition of wrongdoing. By no longer qualifying the degree of severity of wrongdoing covered under the act, the bill would open up the process to the most trivial of misdemeanours. The result could clog the system and reduce its effectiveness; those who blow the whistle on serious problems may not get the protection we all agree they need and deserve.

This could also lead to duplication with existing recourse mechanisms meant for issues such as harassment, discrimination, workplace grievances and privacy complaints, which could lead to conflicting outcomes from multiple proceedings. Employees need a clear, simple and predictable path to follow. The purpose of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is to address serious ethical breaches that cannot be dealt with using other recourse mechanisms.

Bill C-290 also proposes to allow an individual to take a complaint of reprisal directly to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal without a prior investigation by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. This would create the possibility of completely removing the commissioner from the reprisal process, including the investigation of the complaint and the opportunity for conciliation.

As the tribunal has no investigation authority or capacity, all evidence would have to be gathered through the tribunal process. This would make the process more lengthy and costly for all parties involved. As well, we can predict the surge of cases that would overwhelm the capacity of the tribunal. A backlog of cases, which none of us want, would quickly begin to grow. This could negatively impact the original intent and effectiveness of the legislation for those who truly need it.

Another concern I would like to raise is the coming into force state after royal assent. The bill proposes a timeframe of one year, but implementation would take more time given the breadth and complexity of the changes it contains. These are a few of the important challenges this bill raises, and we hope that the Senate takes the time to review these elements when studying the bill.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-290. This is legislation that would strengthen the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which provides whistle-blower protections to federal public servants.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act legislation was shepherded by the previous Harper Conservative government in an effort to restore public confidence in the operations of government following one of the biggest corruption scandals in Canadian history, the Liberal sponsorship scandal, a scandal that involved the waste, mismanagement and misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money as part of a quid pro quo scheme, where Liberal insiders received advertising contracts in return for employing Liberal fundraisers, organizers and so on. These contracts were awarded to people who did little or no work and millions of dollars were funnelled into the Liberal Party as part of this scam. It truly was one of the biggest scandals and really shook public confidence and public trust.

In an effort to restore that trust, the Harper government passed the act that provides a mechanism by which federal public servants can bring attention to wrongdoing in a confidential way, including establishing the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, as well as other measures to protect civil servants against reprisals. This bill would build upon the Conservative government's whistle-blower protections by expanding the definition of “wrongdoing” to include political interference. It would expand the powers of the Auditor General in taking disclosures of wrongdoing and undertaking investigations and would expand the scope of those who are protected. It would do other things as well, which have been mentioned in debate on this bill, all of which are positive.

This bill could not be more timely given what we have seen over the past eight years from the Liberals: an unprecedented amount of corruption, waste and mismanagement. In that light, it is not a surprise to learn that the Liberal government, based upon the parliamentary secretary's intervention, is less than enthusiastic about this bill. After all, we have a Prime Minister who was found guilty not once but twice of breaching ethics laws. It was unprecedented and never happened before until the current Prime Minister arrived in office. This is a Prime Minister who obstructed justice to protect the corrupt SNC-Lavalin, a Liberal corporation. He fired his attorney general when she called out his corruption.

We recently learned that the Prime Minister obstructed an RCMP investigation into his potential criminal wrongdoing in SNC-Lavalin and there is, as we speak, an active criminal investigation into the Liberal government's $54-million ArriveCAN app, better known as “arrive scam”. It is $54 million of taxpayers' money that went out the door for an app that does not work, that cost 500 times more than it should have, not to mention well-established evidence of collusion, price-fixing and fraudulent billing to the tune of millions of dollars.

Just when we think we have seen just about enough of Liberal corruption, there is always another Liberal scandal. We are learning of yet another Liberal scandal at the Liberal green slush fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC. Whistle-blowers came forward with evidence of wrongdoing, which prompted a third-party investigation. That investigation, for which forensic accountants went in, resulted in a damning report. The report concludes that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were handed out to companies that did not qualify. More than that, there have been multiple instances of conflicts of interest at SDTC.

Just to give one an idea, $38.4 million improperly went out the door as part of so-called COVID relief expenditures. Of those companies that received $38.4 million, based on the audits that took place, 29% involved conflict of interest disclosures on the part of board members at SDTC, and not once did any of those board members recuse themselves. The cloud at SDTC is so dark that even this spendthrift Liberal government, which has run up the biggest deficit in Canadian history and doubled the national debt, put a halt and a freeze on spending at SDTC.

The cloud at SDTC, involving tens of millions of dollars and conflicts of interest on the part of a board that is chaired by a Liberal insider, a friend of the Prime Minister, underscores why robust whistle-blower protection legislation is needed.

Many whistle-blowers would reportedly like to come forward with further evidence of wrongdoing at the Liberals' green slush fund but are reluctant to do so. Those who have are also concerned that they could face reprisals because, as it stands, they are not protected under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act because they are not within the definition of a public servant under the act. Although this bill does provide some additional protection to contractors, it would not protect employees and other whistle-blowers at SDTC who would like to come forward.

I would submit that, while this bill is a significant improvement, we would like to see it strengthened even further to include contractors and those who are at arm's-length from the government to be fully protected. The sordid affair at SDTC, the Liberals' green slush fund, underscores that, to shine a light on the rot and corruption that is so embedded right across this government, additional protections are needed to root out waste, mismanagement and corruption. No one, no federal public servant, contractor or anyone, for that matter, connected to government, should feel intimidated or be concerned about potential reprisals for speaking the truth and calling out waste, mismanagement and corruption.

On that basis, I support the bill, but it could be improved.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-290 and the importance of better whistle-blower protection in Canada. Canada has a reputation, unfortunately, of being one of the places in the world among those with the worst whistle-blower protection, so obviously there is a lot more that we can do.

We depend on whistle-blowers to be able to identify across a very large government with a large budget where things are not going well. Of course, there is no substitute for the folks who are actually doing the work every day to be able to understand where problems arise and how things are going wrong. We need to be able to create a culture where people feel a lot more comfortable coming forward when things are not going well in their workplace.

We can all appreciate that it is a difficult decision. Indeed, there are a lot of stories of folks who have had the courage to come forward and not only have not been rewarded for that but have been punished; in some cases losing their employment, in some cases losing their home or their families and indeed in the worst cases losing their lives. It is a very serious issue. We should be grateful that there are folks in the public service who are willing; and are dedicated enough to doing the right thing that they are willing to come forward. We need to create a culture that rewards folks for showing that courage, instead of setting examples for others of why they should not do that because they know that it did not work out very well for a colleague.

The beginning of that culture change has to start with legislation because there have to be adequate protections in place for folks to feel that they have recourse. It is not just the legislation, though. We also need to create workplace cultures where folks in positions of influence know that people who do blow the whistle are going to be well protected enough that people should follow the appropriate workplace policies and procedures and conduct their business in the way that we all expect them to, which is to a high standard.

How do they do that? I want to just survey some of the work that my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni did with the sponsor of the bill in order to improve this legislation.

One is allowing increased access to the tribunal. We know that over time the commissioner who was set up to hear complaints about whistle-blowing only referred, in 16 years, nine cases to the tribunal. The idea behind that amendment, which I am glad to see passed, was to make it easier for workers who did come forward but did not feel they were getting satisfaction through the commission to be able to access the tribunal.

There was also an amendment that passed to create a survey metric so that when whistle-blowers have gone through this process, it would allow getting some feedback from them on how it went and whether they were satisfied with that.

Of course, there were other suggestions and amendments put forward in conjunction with the sponsor of the bill that did not go through. Liberals and Conservatives at committee decided not to put them in.

One of the really important provisions was a reverse-onus provision for cases of reprisal. Right now, the onus is on the person who is the victim to show that it was in fact reprisal for their whistle-blowing activity. That is a high burden of proof and it usually comes with a pretty expensive legal bill for somebody who, if they are experiencing reprisal, may well not have any employment income at all or may already be under a lot of stress due to harassment in the workplace as a result of blowing the whistle. Therefore, this just multiplies that effect by causing a lot of financial distress as well as a long, drawn-out legal process when really it is the employer who has the resources who should be in a position of having to show that whatever workplace discipline may have occurred was not a reprisal for whistle-blowing and that it was based on something unrelated.

I understand that in jurisdictions that have made this change, it has altered the chance of success for whistle-blowers from one in 500, showing that they were in fact the victim of reprisal, to being as high as one in three. When we talk about changing workplace culture and instilling in employees the confidence to be able to come forward, numbers like that show that, even with the improvements that the bill represents, there is a lot further to go if we want to create the legal foundation for a healthy workplace culture that rewards people for coming forward and naming wrongdoing in the workplace rather than creating a chill and a culture where people are afraid of that.

Another way, which is not technically a reverse onus but I think it is of a kind, would have been to protect whistle-blowers from termination automatically, and instead of allowing them to be terminated right away and then having to spend a long time figuring out whether it was the right course of action or not, having some immediate protections upfront would also make a difference in increasing people's comfort to come forward.

Likewise, sometimes people go to the commissioner, as I said, and do not get satisfaction. While having some kind of ability for them to then be able to go to the media or go public in some other way, if they are not getting satisfaction through the normal process, is another way that folks could have been encouraged to bring their concerns forward.

It was unfortunate that, again, the Liberals and Conservatives conspired at committee to defeat those amendments because it means that, in the context of a country that is notoriously behind when it comes to protection of whistle-blowers, this important moment to make significant advances in whistle-blower protection does not take us as far as we could. Hopefully, it will not take as long to get to the next set of improvements as it did to get us to this one because Canadian workers deserve better than to have to wait that long to get protections that are already afforded workers in other workplaces.

I thank the sponsor of the bill very much for his good work on the bill and for his co-operation with the member for Courtenay—Alberni to improve the bill, as much as Liberals and Conservatives, the coalition, if I may be so bold, would allow in this case.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, a year ago, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member, began a study on foreign election interference. We received more than 70 witnesses and sat in committee for more than 100 hours. I personally questioned the government more than 30 times. I spoke with ministers, experts, academics, specialists, intelligence officers. This ended in a public, independent commission of inquiry. Quebeckers are now aware of the challenges of foreign interference. People may be wondering where I am going with this. I am getting to that. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tabled a report on foreign interference and all the threats to the integrity of institutions. The Bloc Québécois even said it would introduce a bill to ensure that a foreign agent registry is implemented.

None of this could have happened without the whistle-blower who dared to report the situation. This information was reported in The Globe and Mail by a journalist, and we started looking into it. That is why the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had so much time and energy. We took action, and we are still taking action. It is therefore with great interest that I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-290, the public sector integrity act.

I will give an example that my colleague from Mirabel mentioned, but I am going to take the liberty of digging a little deeper. Who here remembers the 1995 referendum? I do, because it was my first time voting. The Liberal government of the day spent lavishly out of fear of losing the election. In 1995, a whistle-blower blew the doors off what came to be known as the sponsorship scandal. Nearly every day, there were new revelations in the media about the political interference in the way this program was managed and how $250 million in public funds was squandered. That led the then auditor general to produce a devastating report in 2003.

Once again, it was a federal government official who made the courageous choice to disclose the federal government's actions to journalist Daniel Leblanc. The exact same thing happened recently, and once again I would like to acknowledge the public servants who have the common good at heart, who have chosen a career in public service and who dared to take action.

It was in the aftermath of the sponsorship scandal that the government of the day introduced the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I would like to qualify that. My colleague mentioned just one country earlier, but there are 20 others. I will quickly name a few of them. Canada ranks behind Bangladesh, Rwanda, Botswana, Pakistan and the Cayman Islands. The government must take action. We have to do better.

Since then, the government has chosen to ignore this issue. As a responsible party, the Bloc Québécois is thinking about the people who contribute to the common good and who make democracy possible, for example. That is why we introduced this bill, and I commend my colleague from Mirabel. This week, on Tuesday to be exact, the Minister of National Defence told me, word for word, that it is a good thing the opposition is there to bring pressure. He can rest assured that we are going to put pressure on the government. We need to take action, and we are going to get it done. I am convinced of that.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates considered this legislation, but that was more than five years ago. Nothing has happened since then. There was the study my colleague mentioned. There are also six major challenges that we need to review, and this needs to pass.

I will end my speech with the following statement. When a public servant takes their courage in both hands and decides to report wrongdoing to help get the situation sorted out, the current process does not really make it possible to get to the bottom of the matter and expose or fix the problems.

This bill is of the utmost importance. I invite my colleagues to support Bill C-290.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-290.

This is an important piece of legislation that would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which gives federal public sector employees and others a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoings in the workplace, as well as protection from acts and reprisal.

The bill proposes to expand the protections of the PSDPA to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to any superior, and add a duty to provide support to whistle-blowers, as well as repeal sections of the act that prevent overlap with other recourse mechanisms and provisions that set the standards of seriousness of wrongdoing. The bill is in line with some of the recommendations from the 2017 Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates' reports for legislative reforms regarding whistleblowing in the public sector. It is a bill that the government is very glad to see and is supportive of. We, as the government, believe that public servants who disclose serious wrongdoings must be protected.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act helps to ensure an ethical workplace culture and supports the integrity of the public federal sector. Canada's whistle-blowing law is one component of the recourse mechanism for public servants that covers harassment, discrimination, labour grievances and privacy complaints. Soon, we will launch a comprehensive review of the act to strengthen protections for public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Its task force will include academic experts, union representatives and senior—

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

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.

The interpreters are telling us that there is a phone near the microphone that is vibrating. Perhaps my colleague could put it on the chair to stop the vibration.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member has done so.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I was just wrapping up, Madam Speaker, saying that although we look forward to a comprehensive review of the act in due course, we certainly are supportive of this particular bill and look forward to the Senate moving on this quickly so the legislation will pass into law.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Midnapore in my role as shadow minister for the Treasury Board for His Majesty's loyal opposition.

Before I begin, I would like to send a special wish to my husband James, who is currently in the hospital awaiting surgery. I am not sure if he is watching this, but I am certainly thinking of him and looking forward to seeing him at the end of this week, as well as my son Edward. I thank my mother, my sister and my niece as well for taking such good care of my son at this time.

Bill C-290 is a private member's bill that was put forward this year. This bill would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen the current whistle-blower protections for public servants; expand the definition of the term “wrongdoing”; broaden what is considered a supervisor so that public servants can make a protected disclosure to any superior within their organization; remove the requirement that a protective disclosure must be in good faith; and ensure that a whistle-blower will be protected as long as they reasonably believe what they are disclosing is true.

It would expand the Auditor General's mandate to receive disclosures of wrongdoing from within the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; remove the requirement that investigations by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner cannot overlap with investigations under other laws; extend protections to former public servants, government contractors and all those involved in a disclosure; give supervisors a duty to protect and provide support to public servants involved in disclosures; allow for a remedy to be provided to a whistle-blower if a reprisal is taken; and extend the deadline to file a reprisal complaint from 60 days to one year.

It would expand the annual report requirements, including the number of disclosures made by 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; increase the fines for reprisals against a whistle-blower from $10,000 to $200,000 for indictable offences and $5,000 to $100,000 for summary convictions; and require the act to be reviewed by Parliament every five years.

This legislation was introduced under former prime minister Harper in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Ironically, we find ourselves again, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP coalition, with a significant number of scandals. The most recent was a whistle-blower alleging the Minister of Industry's office softened the STDC report in a cover-up. This is another example where the government attempted to cover up a whistle-blower rather than support a whistle-blower, as former prime minister Harper so bravely did in his first piece of legislation.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates conducted a review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and published a report, and many of the recommendations made in the report are included in this bill. That is, no doubt, a positive thing. The question is: Why did the government not take it upon itself to adjust this legislation prior to a private member bringing a private member's bill forward? It is a valuable question.

When this legislation was finally brought forward, the government operations and estimates committee spent hours going through this bill. The major point of the committee going through this bill was due to an attempt by the current Liberal-NDP coalition to water down this bill and provide no protection to whistle-blowers, as is evidenced in the example I just gave of the industry minister. It is very disappointing and not surprising.

It was expected that the government would implement the recommendations in the 2017 report, but it did not make it a priority to do so. It did what it is really good at. It created a task force, someone to review this legislation and consult with. It is the government's forte to have consultations and gather groups together to review things, with no result.

On December 7, it was the one-year anniversary of the government introducing this task force, which was supposed to review whistle-blower legislation. One year later, there is nothing to show for it. I was in the lobby right outside these chambers when the then president of the treasury board started this process. A year later, there is simply nothing to show for it.

I am very proud of the history that the official opposition has of protecting whistle-blowers in the public service. In addition to the legislation that was brought forward by the Harper government, we also included, with our 2019 and 2021 election platforms, the promise to continue this legislation and to provide more stringent protection for whistle-blowers. Our party has been consistent in supporting increased whistle-blower protections as the policy issues arise.

As I said, this government has a history of scandal. It has a history of cover-ups. It has a history of inaction. After creating task force consultations, it wants to just kick things down the line, push things down the line and avoid responsibility. It is unfortunate, but we actually see this beyond this whistle-blowing legislation, Bill C-290, is in front of us today. It did it today with the private member's bill that was in front of us on child pornography, on protecting our children, protecting the next generation.

Liberals turned their backs. They did not support that legislation as well. This is absolutely in line with the government, to turn its back, to kick things down the line. It would be absolutely impossible for me to stand up here and not mention this as well, which is the most evident display of this. In the greatest conflict in the world right now, through turning its back on a long-standing defender of democracy, through not standing to bring a peaceful end of this conflict and the destruction of Hamas, it is willing to turn its back on not only an entire nation but also, essentially, the entire world order. The things that will come to pass in the Middle East are only, once again, a delay of the things that will soon arrive, that are arriving in other places in the world.

We see this with this current government and what it is doing with world conflict, with the child pornography PMB that was in front of us today, and also with the Bill C-290 legislation.

This government now has the opportunity to do the responsible thing and not only get this legislation through the House but also go one step further to complete the findings of that task force. I hope the President of the Treasury Board will deliver. She has not delivered on finding that puny $15 billion, hardly a drop in the bucket relative to our current deficit and our debt. I do not hold a lot of hope, frankly, that she will come through for whistle-blowers.

It is unfortunate that she was not there for the testimony throughout the government operations committee, which was heartbreaking. It was absolutely terrible to see the things that our public servants have been going through.

Our party was the party of supporting whistle-blowers at that time. We continue to be the party of workers all across Canada, standing up for them in both the public and private realms.

I truly hope that it is within the heart of this government, at this special time of year, at Christmastime, at Hanukkah, at Kwanzaa, to find the responsibility to better handle the crises of the world, our future generation and the concerns of whistle-blowers.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, at third reading. First, I want to give a huge shout-out to my colleague from Mirabel for tabling this bill and taking leadership on this. I also want to thank my colleague and friend from Beauport—Limoilou, who worked really closely with me and our team of New Democrats because we both care and really are passionate about protecting workers' rights.

I want to talk about those workers. These are brave Canadians and Quebeckers who report wrongdoing or crimes in their workplace and often experience consequences like losing their income, health and happiness and all for speaking the truth. All Canadian and Quebec workers should be able to feel safe when they are reporting workplace crimes and negligence.

We know Canada has some of the worst whistle-blower laws in the world, tied with Lebanon. The Conservatives like to pat themselves on the back and say that they care about whistle-blowers, but it is Liberals and Conservatives who have teamed up over decades to make sure that whistle-blowers do not get the chance to protect our society and government.

It was actually the current leader of the Conservative Party who last brought in legislation when he was in government. The experts say that he did not make things better; he made it even harder for whistle-blowers. He made it even worse. The Conservatives say they are for workers, but what did they do today? They moved a concurrence motion so that we could not talk about anti-scab legislation. The Conservatives are not here for workers.

Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to defeat numerous amendments that would actually strengthen protections for whistle-blowers in this bill. They voted against many amendments to Bill C-290. We talk about the coalition. Let us talk about the coalition of Liberals and Conservatives who are fighting workers, muting workers and stonewalling workers from doing the right thing and being able to have the opportunity to protect Canadians and Quebeckers. It is not surprising for the Liberals and their rich friends who are not worried about whistle-blowing. The leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservatives will always prop up their big bosses and not workers. We know that. They have a track record. We have receipts. We are keeping receipts. Canadians and Quebeckers need stronger whistle-blower protection, so that there is more transparency and accountability of government and the public service.

As New Democrats, we are committed to protecting the rights and safety of all workers. That is why we are pushing to make sure Canadians and Quebeckers have the strongest whistle-blower protections possible. I want to talk about the importance of strong whistle-blower laws. Because of how weak our protections for whistle-blowers are, less wrongdoing will get reported and stopped. Protecting whistle-blowers is necessary to protect Canadians' and Quebeckers' lives and security.

Whistle-blower reports protect Canada's global reputation and relationships, so this is important. Luc Sabourin reported that superiors at Passport Canada were destroying foreign passports and logging that they returned them to the foreign embassies. He endured eight years of harassment and abuse, including hand sanitizer in his coffee and threats to his children's safety, before losing his career in 2016 and almost losing his life. He had the courage to show up at our committee and to fight to protect the future of all workers. He is a hero and the reprisal has been significant, and the impact and damage to his life have been significant. I want to thank Luc for the courage to have shared his story; and my colleague from the Bloc who brought Luc to committee and worked with Luc.

As I said, whistle-blower reports save lives. In 1996, Michèle Brill-Edwards also lost her career after she reported that big pharma was influencing the drug-approval process here in Canada, endangering Canadian lives.

We brought forward amendments that were defeated. Our first amendment that we brought forward was to allow whistle-blowers to go to the public or media in specific situations where, for example, the commissioner is not dealing with the complaint or decides not to do anything to stop the wrongdoing. Liberals and Conservatives teamed up in their coalition to oppose this. Therefore, now whistle-blowers are at a huge risk if they expose wrongdoing to the Canadian public.

The second amendment was interim relief, which would have protected whistle-blowers from punishments like termination as soon as they reported wrongdoing. Instead, we are allowing punishments to happen to them and then spending years investigating whether they were indeed punished. The coalition defeated it.

The third one is the reverse onus. Right now, the whistle-blower has to prove reprisal. I will give an example: If they were fired, they have to prove that it was because they reported wrongdoing, which is virtually impossible. This amendment would have forced their superiors to prove that there was a real reason to fire them. In other jurisdictions, this change brings the chances of success from as low as one in 500 to as high as one in three, which would make sense. Those would be strong whistle-blower laws. What happened? The coalition of Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to defeat the amendment.

Again, these are critical amendments. Some things we brought forward as New Democrats were passed. I am grateful that the coalition did not fight these and that we actually got them through, working closely with our Bloc colleagues, who were fabulous on this bill.

The first one is that we improved whistle-blowers' access to the tribunal. This is critical, because the commissioner has been acting as a gatekeeper, preventing workers from accessing the tribunal. In the tribunal's 16 years of operation, the commissioner has only referred nine cases to it. That is insane. It is a terrible track record for Canada and right there, as I said, with Lebanon. There needs to be access to both options, because the commissioner sometimes decides not to even investigate a complaint. It is unbelievable.

The second amendment we brought forward and that passed, as we were glad to see, would create a survey metric to measure whistle-blowers' satisfaction with the process, how supported and protected they felt, etc. We have been looking at the effectiveness of these laws with no input from the whistle-blowers they were supposed to protect. Now they have a voice. Again, I want to go back to my colleague from Mirabel and thank him for that.

The third amendment we were able to get through was adding psychological damage from harassment as a form of reprisal that whistle-blowers are protected from. That is absolutely critical. These are Canadians and Quebeckers who are standing up and fighting for the best services to deliver to their communities.

I am going to finish with one area that is not covered, which is subcontractors. I will give an example: At the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we found out through the ArriveCAN scandal that there were companies that received a contract, Coradix and Dalian, and they subcontracted to a company called GCStrategies, which then subcontracted to a company called Botler. However, they are not protected. Even though they are delivering services under a government contract through the Canada Border Services Agency, they are absolutely not protected. This is just unbelievable.

Both Dalian and Coradix took a commission of between 15% and 30%, and GCStrategies took a commission of 15% to 30%. None of them had expertise in what they needed. These are headhunters. It is like the worst pyramid scheme, in terms of outsourcing, that is happening with Canadian taxpayers' dollars and the layering of commissions.

For Botler, the reprisal was significant for Ritika Dutt and Amir Morv. It is unbelievable, the punishment they took for standing up for Canadian taxpayers, for whistle-blowing, and the treatment they have been under. The government is continuing to fail them for continuing to tell the truth. It is continuing to allow these contractors, who are suspended from the Canada Border Services Agency, to have contracts with other federal departments, even though they are under investigation by the RCMP. We can talk about how failed and miserable the situation is.

We are taking a step forward to fix how the coalition of the Conservatives and Liberals teamed up to mute whistle-blowers. Again, it is because of my colleague from Mirabel, who used his slot. He was high in the order of precedence, and he took this on to stand up for human rights. New Democrats stand with the Bloc, and we worked really hard on this. I am glad it is moving forward.

Let us hope for a better future. Let us hope we can address the concerns that are not addressed in this bill and continue to work together. Workers deserve it. We owe it to them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and proud to rise here today at the end of the third reading of Bill C‑290 so that this bill can go to Senate, where we hope it will be studied and passed quickly so we can protect our public servants.

Public servants are the people who apply the rules and policies while ensuring that the federal services machine remains in good working order. Public servants are the first to notice when the rules and policies are not properly enforced, when they are asked to do things in a way that is not right or when people are doing things they should not be doing. They are the first to witness anything that could go wrong.

When a public servant witnesses such behaviour, it is important that they be able to report it without fear for their personal, social and professional life, as well as that of their family. I will come back to that. We have information that has led us to believe that, despite the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, some public servants have kept quiet and others have been threatened. My colleague talked about this in his speech. With that in mind, my colleague from Mirabel decided to take the bull by the horns and say that we could not let this go.

There is no small wrongdoing. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. Whether it is big, small or mid-sized, it is wrongdoing, period. Each time there is wrongdoing, taxpayers' money is misused. Each time someone blows the whistle and, in the end, a public servant gets rebuffed, harassed or intimidated, there is a loss of expertise and loyalty. That loyalty must be protected. That is why my colleague from Mirabel introduced Bill C‑290.

This bill needs to be passed. We need to protect our public servants, those who are the most loyal, who want things to run smoothly, who want taxpayers' money to be used appropriately. However, what we have been seeing is that some public servants are being harassed and intimidated. I am talking about those who dare to speak up. Some have even had threats made against their families. Some have been told that they will not get a pension. Some of these threats have been carried out. People have been forced to retire early, and their pension was frozen for months or even years. That is not how an employer should treat its employees. If any private sector employer did something like that, they would very quickly end up in court.

Our role is to protect public servants and the public. By protecting whistle-blowers in the public service, we are protecting the public by extension. That is what this bill does. Does it go far enough? No, it does not. There are issues regarding royal assent, among others. Some provisions were weakened by committee amendments. That is unfortunate because, rather than becoming a leader, an exemplary employer, Canada is hardly making any headway with this bill.

People will say I am gullible. Perhaps I am naive, but I had hope. I believed the member for Hull—Aylmer when he said that the government was going to introduce a bill that would complement and strengthen ours, so that Canada would become a leader in protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoing. That bill was to be tabled before the end of the year.

Here we are, basically at the end of the year. I have yet to see a bill that would strengthen ours. That said, I am a bit gullible. I will remain positive. I will remain optimistic that the government is going to introduce a bill that will strengthen the one that my colleague from Mirabel introduced and that was studied in committee, in order to really protect public servants.

The process of amending the bill was not easy, but it was extremely rewarding from a personal learning perspective. Amendments were tabled that narrowed the scope of the bill. Some of these amendments had to be introduced because my colleague from Mirabel's bill required royal assent. We do not run the government and we never will. In case this comes as a surprise to anyone, that will never happen. Certain amendments had to be introduced to avoid royal assent, which was an issue, apparently.

I think the biggest disagreement we had in committee was on the bill's coming into force date. The government wanted to delay that indefinitely. We said the law needed to apply as soon as there was royal assent. If we delay its implementation indefinitely, as with other bills where the government said it would come into force 18 months after royal assent, we would end up with a bill that might never come into force because there will be an election or something, when we want the measure to be implemented as soon as possible.

There is not a government in the world that would not benefit from having legislation that protects public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Every government should have strong legislation on the matter. This protects people who are loyal and it ensures that there is no corruption, no wrongdoing, no reprehensible or illegal act within the public service, which is why it needs to be exemplary. The government, too, needs to set the best example possible for other employers. That is why it is important to have strong legislation. I hope that the Liberal government, or any other government, will realize how important this is and will introduce legislation that will be even stronger than the one we have here.

When we met with people about this bill, we were asked why the Bloc Québécois was introducing such a bill. They said that the Bloc Québécois is separatist, but it wants to protect Canadian public servants. It does, but there are Quebeckers working in the Canadian public service. It is important that we protect our shared values. They acknowledged that that was true, that the Bloc Québécois is used to being David fighting Goliath.

Bill C‑290 is a David and Goliath bill. The Senate is another Goliath. I sincerely hope that the members of the Senate will do what was done in committee and come together to pass a private member's bill for the benefit of the entire public service and, ultimately, taxpayers' money.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the transparency-loving residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

It has been fascinating to hear members from the NDP-Liberal government speak to this legislation. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is a direct result of Liberal corruption.

Whistle-blower protection was a cornerstone of the Conservative Federal Accountability Act. It was the first substantive bill introduced by the Harper government following over a decade of Liberal corruption that reached its climax with the sponsorship scandal. The Chrétien Liberals had given millions of dollars to well-connected companies to do little actual work other than to funnel the cash back to Liberal Party coffers.

Canadians had grown tired of the arrogant, corrupt Liberals and demanded a change. Despite losing the election, the NDP and remaining Liberals refused to listen to Canadians. That is why the socialist coalition voted against our accountability act and whistle-blower protection.

I saw the bow-tied banker from Ajax join with the failed punk rocker from Timmins—James Bay voting against whistle-blower protection. As different as those two members may appear, they share the same inverted belief that people should serve the government instead of government serving the people.

Now, if Canadians have any doubt of this NDP-Liberal government's contempt for whistle-blowers, just look at its track record. One of the first acts this government did was to redirect a shipbuilding contract to its friends. When multiple people shared that information, what did this Prime Minister do? He called Vice-Admiral Norman a criminal and said the admiral would face the courts. Mark Norman spoke truth to power and paid a heavy price. I know he thinks this Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

When another whistle-blower leaked the story of Jody Wilson-Raybould being pressured to direct a prosecution, this Prime Minister called the report fake news. He then fired Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott and kicked them out of caucus to boot. This government is so repulsed by truth and accountability, it attacked the people the whistle-blowers tried to protect.

Then there are the multiple whistle-blowers who tried to do the right thing at the Sustainable Development Technology Corporation. They followed the procedures. They reported it to the deputy minister. The deputy minister even compared it to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. That same deputy said his minister would blow a gasket upon learning the damning information, except nothing happened. No gaskets were blown. No executives were fired. No board members were sacked. There were rampant conflicts of interest and comparisons to the sponsorship scandal. Yet, it was not until the whistle-blowers went to The Globe and Mail that anything happened.

Swap out the words “sustainable development” with “foreign interference”, and we see a similar story. If not for the CSIS whistle-blower, Canadians would still be in the dark about the extent of Communist interference. Our Conservative Party was attacked in the last two elections. The government knew it and covered it up. The Liberals had just spent the last eight years pushing conspiracy theories about Russia to smear Conservatives, so the last thing they needed were credible reports they had received assistance from Communists who control China. If not for the CSIS whistle-blower, there would not be a public inquiry into foreign interference.

Given the recent partisan comments by the judge and her selection of intervenors, we may still not actually have an actual public inquiry. Even the hand-picked special rapporteur actually confirmed that many of the CSIS leaks were accurate. He confirmed that the member for Don Valley North did engage in secret meetings with the Communist consulate in Toronto and did discuss the two Michaels. That member would still be sitting in the Liberal caucus were it not for the whistle-blower.

Yet, this Prime Minister sent his national security adviser out to speak to reporters just to let them know that this government is actively hunting for this whistle-blower. NSA Thomas actually said the whistle-blower would be caught and punished. The Liberal government is declaring a whistle-blower guilty without a trial again. It is as though it has learned nothing from Vice-Admiral Norman and his persecution. That is why we must pass this bill.

The NPD-Liberal government will continue to ignore lessons unless we update the legislation. After eight years of Liberal corruption, whistle-blower protection must become stronger. The Liberals claim this is unnecessary, because they budgeted $2 million for a special task force that is supposed to review a committee report from six years ago. They can save taxpayers $2 million and just support the legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Mirabel for his right of reply.

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

Madam Speaker, I have always found you to be very charming, with your bright smile. I am feeling charmed today, but it is not because of you. It is because after hours of debate, after voting, testimony and amendments at committee, it is very moving to stand before you and my colleagues, who have worked with me for this last hour of debate on Bill C‑290 and on whistle-blower protection.

Today, the House of Commons is at a crossroads. I will not go over the bill's history or its content once again. My colleagues did a great job—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. There seems to be a problem with the interpretation.

The problem seems to be resolved, so the hon. member for Mirabel may continue his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that we have reached a crossroads with this bill. All of the parties worked on it. It is a bit of a sliding scale. As we know, our interests diverge. Today, however, we have a good bill. This is obviously a first step, but everything starts with a first step.

I would like to take this opportunity to do what I did during my previous speeches on Bill C‑290. Once again, I call on all the parties to work together, because absolutely nothing could be less partisan than protecting whistle-blowers, transparency and integrity. Absolutely nothing should be less partisan than that.

I would add that today, we finally have a serious opportunity to send a message of hope to all federal public servants watching us today. They contact us, and we know that they are watching us. We want to tell them that their integrity and safety matter. I am speaking to them directly. Their safety, integrity, career, life and family matter. That is the profound message conveyed by this bill.

Now, there are some people I would like to thank directly. I would like to thank whistle-blower Julie Dion and whistle-blower Luc Sabourin, both former public servants at the Canada Border Services Agency. They are courageous people with a sense of public service right down to their core. They paid dearly in order to stand up for transparency. I would like to thank whistle-blower Joanna Gualtieri, a former public servant—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. member.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Heritage.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to inquire about Private Members' Business. It ends at 6:57 p.m. today, as I understand, but there are no questions and comments. Perhaps the hon. member could come back tomorrow for questions and comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There are no questions and comments.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean is also rising on a point of order.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the reason some people are raising points of order is because the hon. member for Mirabel has been black-listed by the hon. member for Carleton. His Conservative Party cronies want to play games.

Let us allow my colleague to finish. It is a great bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member asked whether the hon. member for Mirabel could come back tomorrow to answer questions, because he would not have time to answer them today. However, there is no question period. That is all there is to it.

The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach has a point of order.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very interested in the member for Mirabel's comments. I have seen the Conservatives several times attempt to shutdown debate in this place and censor members.

If you could, please ensure that we have a lively debate and that the member has a full speech without interruption from the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There is no question that the hon. member for Mirabel will have his full time.

We have another point of order, from the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[An hon. member]

They're doing it again.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, asking to make sure we have interpretation is the right of every member of Parliament. I take offence to what that member said.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

No, that was not the issue.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, I will refrain from rising on a point of order myself, but I will use the time I have left to thank Joanna Gualtieri, whistle-blower, former foreign affairs official and pioneer in this field in Canada. I would also like to thank Pamela Forward, president of Whistleblowing Canada; David Hutton, co-founder of the Whistleblowing International Network; Tom Devine, of the Government Accountability Project in Washington and Ian Bron, of the Centre for Free Expression, a former whistle-blower. This is clearly getting a lot of support.

I would of course like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for their work. In particular, I want to mention the members for Courtenay—Alberni and Edmonton West. The latter has been championing this cause for a long time.

I also want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. If ever there was a caring, competent and understanding person to do this work in committee, it is her. As my colleague clearly demonstrated in committee, the current legislation discourages whistle-blowers. There is a breach of trust. Rather than encouraging whistle-blowers to speak out, we are discouraging them. These people are acting in the public interest, in the interest of Canadians, Quebeckers and taxpayers. We are seeing it here in the House. We saw it a few minutes ago. Certain types of conduct are eroding people's confidence in our institutions. Whistle-blowers counterbalance that.

I will use the minute I have left to wish all of my colleagues from all parties a happy holiday season. I want to take a moment to say happy holidays to my constituents in Saint‑Placide, Kanesatake, Oka, Pointe-Calumet, Saint‑Joseph‑du‑Lac and Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac, as well as those in the north in Saint‑Colomban and those in the east in Saint‑Anne‑des‑Plaines. I want to wish a merry Christmas to everyone who lives in Mirabel, around the airport, and to you, Madam Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for his kind wishes, and I wish him the same in return.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, if we could have a recorded division, I would be very grateful.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 31, 2024, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from December 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-290 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #621

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, International Development; and the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Carbon Pricing.