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 .

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Sousa.

Thanks for being with us again, Mr. Radford. It's good to have you, as always.

Ms. Solloway, thank you, and welcome back.

Are you able to provide us with a brief on the implementation of Bill C-290? That came through this committee about the same time you were appointed. Are you able to update the committee on how the changes have affected you so far?

[Harriet Solloway]

There's a definition of wrongdoing under our act, and it's very clear that there are certain thresholds that need to be met.

First, there's the burden of proof. It has to be proven on a balance of probabilities. If we don't have that, we cannot have a finding of wrongdoing.

Second, even if there's some indication that there might be wrongdoing, unless we can get evidence on a balance of probabilities, we will not have a finding of wrongdoing.

Third, many of the cases that come in do not meet the thresholds established by our act. For example, if it's not gross mismanagement—if what they're alleging is something of a smaller nature—that is outside the scope of my mandate. I'm not even allowed to take that on. I cannot.

I do believe that one of the elements in Bill C-290 would change “gross mismanagement” to “mismanagement” and “a serious violation of a code of conduct” would become “a violation of a code of conduct”. As things stand right now, and based on case law—and Brian can inform you better—our thresholds are quite clear.

Very often, people come, and there are issues for which there should be a grievance or a case before the CHRC or some other entity, and then there are some times when we cannot take on a case because the act prohibits it if it's already being dealt with by another mechanism established by Parliament. There are a variety of reasons.

One thing that we want to address in our new website, which we're working on, is allowing people to self-triage. What is your issue? Is it this, or is it that? People would know right away and earlier on, before submitting something to us, whether it falls in our jurisdiction or it doesn't.

Part of our communication strategy is to try to make it clear, because I know very well that if somebody thinks that we're going to help them and we come back and we say it doesn't meet the threshold, they're going to be disappointed. I'd rather they not be disappointed. I'd rather they understand at the start what we can and cannot take on.

I don't know if that answers your question.

[Harriet Solloway]

Thank you for your questions.

Our budget request was not at all based on Bill C‑290, but on what is currently before us.

There are two areas where we want to see improvements, but first I'd like to talk briefly about the co‑operative aspect of our work. All kinds of things need to be put in place in the area of finance and human resources. For example, there may be access to information and privacy requests. There are all kinds of functions that are not directly related to investigations.

Until now, our office has had only one financial professional. If that person were sick, I don't know who would sign the documents, give authorizations or do the analyses. So we have to increase our financial capacity. In terms of human resources, we have an agreement with a department to provide us with expertise. However, we have no one to develop a human resources strategy or to ensure coordination. So we need to strengthen our human resources capacity. The same goes for strategic planning or the budget. To submit the budget—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I only have two and a half minutes, I can already assume that some of my questions will have to be answered in writing at a later date.

First, Ms. Solloway, in your 2024‑25 departmental plan, you said you wanted to analyze the processes in order to improve them. So far, what aspect seems to need improvement, be it simple or in depth?

Second, are these procedural aspects addressed in Bill C‑290, which is now at second reading in the Senate?

Third, does Bill C‑290 have an impact on the budgets you are requesting? If so, have you taken that into consideration in your budget requests?

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.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

As far as whistle-blowers are concerned, I completely agree that some situations need to be reported. That is why we support Bill C‑290, which is a step in that direction.

The CRA is unique in that it is a prime target because it holds a lot of personal information. We are governed by the Income Tax Act, including section 241. A lot of measures revolve around that. We have a code of ethics, and we need to comply with it.

All employees are responsible for protecting the integrity of the tax system and obviously cannot compromise ongoing investigations.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yeah, I know.

November 19 I'm holding open right now for Minister Hajdu if she cannot do November 5. If she does November 5, then hopefully we will slot her in there. November 21 is the second Canada Post study. This is the one on the bilingual issue with the post offices. November 26 is the PBO.

Now, on November 5, if Minister Hajdu is not available, we will finish off, hopefully, the recommendations of the Canada Post rural study. If Minister Hajdu shows up on November 5, then Canada Post will go back to November 19.

Now, I do have one issue, and then we'll get to Mrs. Kusie and then Mr. Sousa, unless there's a question on the schedule.

An issue came up on a motion, and I'm going to ask the committee if we can agree to have them in. They're the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the procurement ombud. They both indicated.... The procurement ombud has mentioned before an issue around resources. Now the integrity commissioner has brought up an issue around resources, and I'm looking for agreement to bring them both in for an hour to talk about that.

They're both obviously very important to our committee because they are part of the OGGO world, especially the integrity commissioner, because she is new. However, we've also just passed Bill C-290 on whistle-blowers. The integrity commissioner commented that she doesn't have the resources to do her mandate, and we already have a very, very weak whistle-blowing regime in Canada, so I'd like to hear from her about that. Then the procurement ombud made a comment to the effect that he's just not able to do what is necessary on the existing budget.

Therefore, somewhere in there—not on Remembrance Day, I promise you—if we're fine with that, we'll slot them both in for an hour.

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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Perkins for moving the motion. Indeed, when it comes to public funds management or supply management, for example, facts like these are always troubling.

Since it's directly related to the subject, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that the House unanimously passed Bill C‑290, which deals with whistle-blowers and will facilitate the process of reporting acts like these. The bill is currently before the Senate. We hope to get everyone's co‑operation to adopt it and thereby reduce the incidence of wrongdoing as much as possible. We'd prefer that these incidents not happen, rather than having to discuss them at committee.

Having said that, personally, I'm not a lawyer, God forbid. You may be the authority on this.

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?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, my question is about the passage of Bill C‑290, which would better protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing. A task force is studying the issue. I have two questions about the task force's budget.

Has the task force's budget been updated since 2022, and, if so, how? Is the budget considered sufficient, and what is the task force spending money on?

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.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to my colleague's question about whistle-blowing, would you please share the response from your membership relative to the legislation at the Senate currently, Bill C-290?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to congratulate Mr. Garon on passing his bill earlier this afternoon in the House.

My question is for Mr. Papernot.

On Monday, we heard from Gillian Hadfield, who's the chair of the Schwartz Reisman Institute. In her testimony here at committee, she said that the legislation concerned does a lot to address individual harms, but she also suggested that the legislation doesn't adequately address harms or risk on a systemic level, for example, trading on our financial markets.

The question I would have for you is: How does the introduction of AI into these systems impact our ability to control and to also ensure reliability of our financial markets or protect against antitrust behaviour and maintain trust in our judicial systems?

Public Sector Integrity Act

[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 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.

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

I would like to go back to Mr. Sabourin, because he endured eight years of harassment and abuse, and he deserves to have some time here on the floor today. There was hand sanitizer in his coffee and were threats to his children's safety before he lost his career in 2016 and almost lost his life. 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 in Canada, endangering Canadian lives.

We put forward amendments. Our amendment to allow whistle-blowers to go to the public or media in specific situations in which, for example, the commissioner isn't dealing with the complaint or decides not to do anything to stop the wrongdoing.... Both the Liberals and the Conservatives opposed this. Now whistle-blowers are at a huge risk if they expose wrongdoing to the Canadian public, and it's because of the Conservatives. I'm going to underline that. Interim relief would have protected whistle-blowers from punishments like termination as soon as they reported wrongdoing. Instead, we're allowing punishments to happen then spending years investigating whether they were, indeed, punished. This is exactly what's going on: reverse onus. Right now, whistle-blowers have to prove reprisal. For 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. That's the amendment the Conservatives defeated.

In other jurisdictions, this brings the chances of success from as low as one in 100 to as high as one in three, but the Liberals and the Conservatives teamed up to vote against it. They didn't support it. These amendments were contrary to the advice of all experts and whistle-blowers who testified and submitted briefs to the government operations committee. This is relevant right now, Mr. Chair, to what's going on right here, because some of our amendments were not voted on because both the Liberals and the Conservatives spoke against them.

We got amendments passed and improved whistle-blowers' access to the tribunal. We did a lot of really important work. However, I want to highlight this, because this is exactly relevant to what Mr. Genuis is trying to say about Mr. Utano and Mr. MacDonald. If they were really in their corner, they would have supported those amendments to Bill C-290. He also knows full well that, back to the Auditor General's report.... We're waiting for that report. Then this committee can do its final report and include his concerns in that. This meeting is unnecessary. It's the charade. It's costing taxpayers money, which doesn't seem to be a problem when it comes to Conservatives at the public accounts, government operations, international trade and ethics committees. They're doing four different committees, tying them up on this very issue while people are homeless on the streets of our country. I can understand four committees being tied up because of homeless people. It's costing us much more than the economic leakage of ArriveCAN.

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

First of all, I'm going to say this: Mr. Genuis just brought to the government operations committee a very similar motion, which was defeated. It seems that he is moving along from committee to committee to try to move this motion to the House, when he knows full well that this can be included in the final report. He can raise these concerns in the final report.

Now I'm going to talk a bit about Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano, who not very long ago was testifying before the government operations committee. I'm sure—it sounds like it—he was at more than one committee, because the Conservatives have this study going at four committees, which, like I said, could be focusing on things like housing and other things that are a real crisis in this country.

I'm not saying that we don't want to get to the bottom of this. We have to get to the bottom of this, but the outsourcing issue that ArriveCAN has is reflected in many different contracts, I'm sure. It started under the Conservatives, when outsourcing doubled under the big six consulting companies. It's gone up 400% under the Liberals and it's out of control, but it started with cuts to the public service by the Conservatives. This was actually cemented by Michael Wernick, who testified at the government operations committee, saying that when the Conservatives gutted senior public officials in 2012, this caused huge problems when it comes to leadership, and now it's costing us in outsourcing to outside consultants to fill the void.

The other thing we heard when the Conservatives were on the witch hunt around McKinsey is that we couldn't get some information from redacted documents. That started with a government policy in the Privy Council Office that was set by the Conservatives. You can't make this stuff up.

Conservatives were upset because they couldn't get information. I support that documents shouldn't be redacted before a committee, but it started with their own policies. This was affirmed at committee by the Privy Council Office. They know full well that they implemented policies that were going to make it difficult for future governments. Then they tried to use that as an excuse for not getting access to information. This started with the Conservatives.

I'm going to go to what is going on with Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano, because I saw these two witnesses testify before us at our committee when we tried to get some answers. They were absolutely grilled by the Conservatives. They were attacked by the Conservatives when they testified. There is no way that anyone could watch the tape of those committees and believe now that the Conservatives have their best interests at heart. That is absolutely hard to believe when it comes to what really took place there.

Now I want to talk about reprisals as well. I want to talk about policies that we've seen and about the failures to address protecting people like Mr. MacDonald or Mr. Utano or any public servant who feels that they are under threat from government for coming forward. We know that brave Canadians who report wrongdoing or crimes in the workplace often experience consequences such as losing their income, health and happiness, all for speaking the truth. All Canadian workers should feel free and safe in reporting workplace crimes and negligence. Absolutely, as New Democrats, we support that. Canada has the worst whistle-blowing laws—we're tied with Lebanon—and the Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to make sure that doesn't change under a number of amendments to Bill C-290.

We heard from David Hutton, who spoke to The Hill Times. He said that when the Conservatives reformed whistle-blowing laws under the Harper government—actually, Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the official opposition, was the minister in charge at the time—they actually made things worse, so here we are, with whistle-blower laws tied with Lebanon's as the worst whistle-blower laws in the world.

The Libs and the Cons teamed up to defeat numerous amendments that would have strengthened protections for whistle-blowers. They voted against many amendments to Bill C-290 that we and the Bloc put forward. It's not surprising for the Liberals: Their rich friends are not worried about whistle-blowing, so they're not. Pierre Poilievre, like I said, and the Conservatives always prop up big bosses, not workers. Ask workers about that. Ask unions about that.

Canada needs stronger whistle-blowing protections so that there is more transparency and more accountability of government in the public service to protect all workers. New Democrats are committed to protecting the rights and safety of all workers. That's why we're pushing to make sure Canada has the strongest whistle-blowing protections possible. Whistle-blowing laws are important. Because of how weak our protections for whistle-blowers are, less wrongdoing will be reported and stopped.

Protecting whistle-blowers is necessary to protect Canadian lives and security. Whistle-blowing reports protect Canada's global reputation and relationships. We saw Luc Sabourin. He came and testified at the government operations committee. He reported that superiors at Passport Canada were destroying foreign passports and then logging that they had returned them to the foreign embassies. He endured eight years of harassment and abuse: hand sanitizer in his coffee, threats to his children's safety—

[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—

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of 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.

Speaker's Ruling

[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.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before proceeding further, the Chair would like to remind members of its November 3, 2022, ruling, in which it determined that Bill C-290 as debated at second reading required a royal recommendation.

On September 18, 2023, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates reported the bill with amendments, and the House just agreed to the report stage of the bill.

The Chair has carefully examined the amendments adopted by the committee and confirms that the bill, as amended, no longer requires a royal recommendation. Thus, the normal process can continue and the bill can be put to a final vote in the House at third reading.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

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

It's strange.

Our committee has studied Bill C‑290, which aims to protect people making a disclosure. All of the witnesses we've heard from have been threatened and pressured.

You made a disclosure. Were you threatened or pressured? Were you forced to do something for such and such a reason? If so, what was it, how did it happen, and whom did it come from?

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

We're moving Bill C-290 through the House right now around whistle-blowing. Subcontractors aren't included.

Mr. Terrazzano, do you think that needs to be fixed? Clearly, we need to provide an outlet.

This company, Botler, took a lot of risk. I think they're heroes, really, for stepping out. They're potentially going to be penalized by the government.

Can you speak to that?

[Duff Conacher]

I would just say that in terms of all the changes I have recommended generally, I would hope that opposition party leaders will, as with Bill C-290, join together and introduce bills to strengthen the Access to Information Act, the Lobbying Act, the Conflict of Interest Act and other democratic government measures. As with Bill C-290, the opposition parties have a majority in the House. They should be passing these bills and daring the Liberals and the Senate to vote against them.

In terms of GC Strategies, first of all, there's not supposed to be any lobbying during procurement processes. You can ask questions of the government institution that's contracting out, and the answers will then go to all the bidders. That is a registry of who asked the question and what the answer was. That's all that's allowed. Otherwise, you're lobbying. You are communicating in respect of decisions.

The big, huge loophole in the Lobbying Act, unfortunately, is that if you're not paid for the lobbying, you do not have to register. If you have a contract that says you're just providing strategic advice and that you're being paid for the advice, but that any lobbying you do is free, then you cannot be prosecuted under the Lobbying Act. You have not been paid for lobbying. It's a loophole that has to be changed, along with several other loopholes, to ensure that all lobbying is disclosed and secret lobbying is illegal. One of the big problem areas in this and many other policy-making processes is that secret lobbying.

As well, if the Lobbying Act doesn't apply to you, you can unethically lobby. You can provide gifts and assistance to the people you are trying to get government decisions from. You're not covered by the Lobbying Act, and therefore not covered by the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. Until these loopholes are closed, as I said, the system is the scandal. Expect more scandals, because the system encourages them.

[Duff Conacher]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to members of the committee for the opportunity to talk on this important situation and the issues surrounding it today.

I will be making a written submission to the committee just to follow up on these remarks today and on your questions, which I welcome.

I actually wanted to start by referring the committee to the June 2021 report by your colleagues on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending”. This report was filed with the House in June 2021, almost two and a half years ago. The recommendations in it have not been acted upon, and the government continues to delay taking these effective actions to prevent conflicts of interest and secret, unethical lobbying in spending decisions. Therefore, unethical lobbying and excessive government secrecy, as well as unethical big money influence and unethical decision-making in spending, are all legal in federal politics.

There are huge loopholes in several key laws that allow for all these things to be legal. As well, the enforcement is so weak that Canadians are more likely to get caught parking their car illegally anywhere in Canada than politicians and government employees are likely to get caught violating key ethics and spending rules.

As well, the penalties for illegal parking are higher than the penalties for serious ethics and spending violations by federal politicians and top government officials and government employees.

The system is the scandal. It's not surprising that it encourages dishonest, unethical, secretive and wasteful actions, and this dangerously undemocratic and corrupt system must finally be cleaned up by closing all the loopholes, increasing transparency and making the ethics rules and enforcement of penalties much stronger.

To specifically focus on this situation, the fact that you can actually legally lobby in secret with no record is one loophole that has to be closed, and the way to do it is to reverse the onus, so that for all government employees, officials, politicians and their staff—everyone involved in politics—if someone communicates with you with respect to your decisions, then you register it. That's the way to close all the loopholes and have all communications registered.

Those communications should be up on a registry. The Access to Information Act should require a duty to document all actions and decisions and also proactively disclose it. That will end excessive government secrecy.

Finally, as you have studied extensively, whistle-blower protection needs to be extended to everyone in Canada, not just government employees, so that suppliers can blow the whistle and be protected from retaliation by the system that the Integrity Commissioner runs. Of course, that system needs to be strengthened very much, as you have examined and reviewed, and hopefully Bill C-290 will end up making some of those key changes. If not, it's just another area that needs to be addressed.

I'll leave it at that, and I welcome your questions.

Again, I would just refer you.... In your deliberations on recommendations to prevent another ArriveCAN situation from happening, I think you should review again the June 2021 report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which was aimed at addressing questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending.

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.

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

The committee studied Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

How is it that not a single public servant flagged the questionable nature of the contract to anyone? Why did it take someone on the outside to say that something was off? What's the reason for that, do you think?

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 Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much, Mr. Johns.

Ms. Solloway, that is our time.

Before you go, to follow up on Mr. Savard-Tremblay's questions about what you're going to do, I would urge you, as someone who's been on this committee and was a large part of the 2017 report—I'm going to plug that—to read the entire report and all of the testimony, and the testimony from Bill C-290, before you spend one second with the internal folks.

To follow up on Mr. Johns' comments on your comments about not being in anyone's corner, I would just urge you, again, to listen to the testimony of some of the victims of the retribution from the government. We realize you have to follow the rules, but one whistle-blower against the entire strength of the government that's coming down on them.... I realize there's a certain neutrality that's required, but there's also a realization of one person against the unlimited resources of the government to go after someone. I would just urge you on that.

I thank you for your time.

Colleagues, that is it for us—

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

Bill C-290 aside, in terms of whistle-blowers coming forward, the results are dismal. The outcomes are really clear. If I were working in the public service, would I dare to come forward, given the results and the outcomes so far? I wouldn't. I wouldn't even think about it.

How are you going to change the confidence of the public servants so that there are real results and so that they see there's someone in their corner?

[Harriet Solloway]

I've read different briefs. I've read reports. I was, unfortunately, not able to listen to all of the debate on Bill C-290. I regret that—

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

Thank you for being here.

Before I get started, I want to acknowledge that it's Indigenous Peoples Day. I'm not able to be home with the people in the community where I live, the Hupacasath and Tseshaht people, but I do want to acknowledge that we are doing business on the land of the Anishinabe and Algonquin peoples. I want to wish a happy Indigenous Peoples Day to all indigenous people across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

Ms. Solloway, you have quite an esteemed career. I want to thank you for your service in serving on the international criminal tribunal, the International Criminal Court, the United Nations. The work that you've done around this is extensive in terms of human rights.

There are concerns that this office, I think you know.... Have you been following Bill C-290?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Yesterday, we completed the study on Bill C-290. How would your experience in change management help with its implementation, should this receive royal ascent?

[Harriet Solloway]

Until I get into the job, I don't really know the mechanics of how I will do it. I also, of course, await the outcomes of Bill C-290, as well as the review. I do have some notions of how it's been done elsewhere.

I think, first and foremost, people have to have trust in the office. They have to know about the office, and then have trust in it. One thing I would do is reach out to those in other parts of the system who may have positive contact with staff members who may find themselves in difficult situations, such as ombudspersons who may exist in different organizations or human resource persons who may have knowledge of trends. I would receive information from them, or consult with them, as to how they think we should approach raising the profile of the office and making it most effective.

It's hard for me to be more specific at this stage, other than to say that I would faithfully implement the mandate. In terms of the details beyond that, I'm unable to give you many more specifics, as I really haven't been in the system.

[Harriet Solloway, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you so much for providing me the opportunity to be here today and for your consideration of my nomination. I am very grateful.

As a long-serving international public servant, I have consistently demonstrated my commitment to the rule of law, including due process and access to justice. In a public service context, that requires a safe space in which personnel can come forward and be heard when there are concerns that, if left unaddressed, could shake public confidence and cause serious threat to the integrity of the public service, casting a pall over the work environment for dedicated personnel and impeding the ability to deliver quality service that is owed to the public.

The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is the guardian of procedural fairness in the investigation of wrongdoing, including due process for whistle-blowers, for the subjects of our allegations of wrongdoing and for other participants in the process, with overarching objectives of promoting an ethical public service culture in the federal government.

This is a critical juncture for the office of the PSIC, with active consideration of Bill C-290, as well as the work of the external task force appointed to explore revisions to the act. I look forward to co-operating with the task force and to the faithful implementation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, including any amendments that may emerge.

My career includes experience in labour relations, law, and management both domestically and internationally, including more than 22 years at the senior executive level in the international public sector at the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and others.

As a pioneer of programs to rebuild and transform justice systems in challenging circumstances, I have successfully led multiple strategic and change management efforts. In several positions, most notably as a legal adviser in conflict zones, such as Kosovo and the Central African Republic, and the Director of Rule of Law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I oversaw human rights reports ensuring the accuracy of evidence-based allegations, while considering other factors such as witness and informant protection.

I have extensive global experience in the development and implementation of investigation and policy strategies to address serious crimes and human rights abuses. As the Legal Adviser for Sex Crimes at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, I guided the investigation that led to the first conviction for sex crimes in an international tribunal, the Akayesu case.

During the course of my career, I've investigated crimes, defended accused and built cases for the prosecution in criminal proceedings. I have worked for the protection of witnesses and engaged in capacity building for judges and investigators, all of which provides me with the perspective to be truly neutral, unbiased and fair to all. This, along with my laser focus on due process protections for all parties, will provide the foundation for the approach I will take as commissioner.

Lastly, our dedicated civil servants deserve a workplace where they feel safe and proud of the work they do. I commit to the unwavering objective of exposing wrongdoing and fostering trust in an ethical public sector for our personnel in the 134 government institutions subject to the act, and for the Canadian people.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, that is Bill C-290.

Before we cheer, everyone, can we please give a special thanks to Ms. Laroche, Ms. Stevens and our two legislative clerks, Ms. Boyi and Mr. Vaive? Thank you for everything.

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

I'll send it to you right now.

To sum up, this follows on what we were talking about yesterday, which is that the accused person is unlikely to give their consent for their name to be disclosed in any way. The amendment I moved would take this aspect out of clause 38.

I'll read it out while we wait for it to reach you all.

It would amend Bill C-290 in clause 38 by replacing lines 15 to 18 on page 11 with the following:

disclose the identity of a person making a disclosure and of a witness, with the consent of that person.

We've deleted the part that was initially problematic.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move LIB-12.1, which reads that Bill C-290 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 12 the following new clause:

42 The portion of section 68 of the Conflict of Interest Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

68 If a matter is referred to the Commissioner under subsection 12.1(1)—

which replaces 12(2)

—or 24(2.1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Commissioner shall

My reasoning for this is we want to make sure that we allow the Ethics Commissioner to receive protected referrals from departments under the PSDPA, not only from PSIC. We are just making sure they can receive more.

That's it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Good afternoon. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 74 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, the only committee that matters. If you're watching at home on CPAC, I hope you will hit “like” and “subscribe”.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

I will remind everyone to please keep your earpieces away from the microphone, as it causes feedback.

Quickly, colleagues, I'm going to seek unanimous consent for the proposed budget of $2,950 for the study of the certificate of nomination for the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. As always, that budget is the upper limit. It does not mean we'll spend, probably, any of it—not more than some coffee and a few other items.

(Motion agreed to)

That's wonderful. Thank you very much.

We will resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290 on amendment G-12 to create new clause 42.

Now, resuming debate on G-12, Ms. Vignola, I understand that you had a subamendment. You've given the printed copy to our legislative clerks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Vignola, I'm going to suggest, seeing as we're past our hard stop of 6:15, that perhaps you put that in writing, and we will address that at our next meeting.

Colleagues, before I adjourn, I'm going to seek some resources to see if we can fit in some time tomorrow. I'll advise everyone late tonight, or first thing tomorrow morning, if we can continue Bill C-290.

If there's nothing else, we will adjourn, and I will see everyone on Wednesday, or perhaps tomorrow. I'll let everyone know first thing in the morning. Watch your emails. Thank you very much.

Thank you again for your help, Ms. Laroche, Ms. Stevens and legislative clerks.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have difficulty with this. I would like to thank Mrs. Kusie for making the change and removing some of the confidentiality parts of it. However, in regard to NDP-18 as a whole, as you can see at the very beginning, it says, “(2.01) The Commissioner must conduct an annual survey to determine”, and then it goes on for now three provisions.

That annual survey has to happen. I mentioned that to survey all public servants in relation to the way they feel disclosures are managed under this act would be analogous to the public service employment survey, which does cost a considerable amount of money, probably in excess of the entire budget for the commissioner's office as it stands now. That is a significant expense.

There you go, Mr. Chair. I think it would be better off for this amendment not to happen to Bill C-290.

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

[Technical difficulty—Editor] requires the gathering and annual publication of client satisfaction as a direct performance indicator. There is a lack of direct performance indicators for the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

Multiple reports by the Auditor General and judicial review decisions show that PSIC incompetence, gross mismanagement and failure to provide due process, etc., always disadvantages the whistle-blower, so in consideration of PSIC's performance, the voice of whistle-blowers is completely absent and unavailable. This amendment would make data available and make public servants feel the protection and support, which would serve as an important direct indicator of PSIC's performance.

The purpose of the PSDPA and Bill C-290 are to protect and support whistle-blowers, so whether or not public servants feel protected and supported is obviously absolutely central to whether the PSDPA is functioning as it needs to. Any review of the act that doesn't consider these metrics is an incomplete review, and if public servants don't feel supported and protected in making disclosures, far fewer of them will report wrongdoing and wrongdoing will continue to fester unreported, damaging the public interest.

The reporting of this data would also motivate integrity commissioners and their staff to ensure due process for whistle-blowers. This would not require additional funds, because the evaluation of the performance matrix for the PSDPA requires measurement of whether employees feel supported and protected when reporting a wrongdoing under the act. In fact, the PSIC promised to conduct but has never conducted a client satisfaction survey of whistle-blowers.

I'm hoping we can just vote on this too.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll ask if she wishes, but I'm not sensing a desire to at this moment.

I'm sorry. The answer is no.

We will get to Bill C-290.

(On clause 33)

We're on clause 33 starting with NDP-15, which is page 35 of the package.

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

In spite of conversations we had the last time the subject was raised, there's obviously not going to be any agreement on this today. We have business in Bill C-290 to deal with.

I move that we adjourn debate.

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

Thanks.

We heard from Matthew Shea from the Privy Council Office. He appeared at this committee. He's the assistant secretary to the cabinet, ministerial services and corporate affairs.

He brought to the attention of this committee.... When we grilled him about the redactions, he cited the “Open and Accountable Government” document. He cited that, in “Accountable Government” from 2011, the previous government issued the following guidance to ministers in the public service, and the same guidance was issued by the current government in “Open and Accountable Government” in 2015:

Public servants also have a duty to hold in confidence some of the information that comes into their possession in the course of their duties. There is a tension between that obligation and the request of parliamentarians for disclosure of that same information. When appearing before parliamentary committees, public servants should refrain from disclosing that kind of confidential information, for instance because the information is confidential for reasons of national security or privacy, or because it consists of advice to Ministers. Accounting officers should not disclose confidential information, including advice to Ministers, even where that information pertains to matters of organizational management. In practice, officials should endeavour to work with Members of Parliament, in cooperation with Ministers and their offices, to find ways to respond to legitimate requests for information from Members of Parliament, within the limitations placed on them.

This policy was brought in by the Harper Conservatives. We should be looking at this policy and having a conversation about that. If we have more questions about these redactions, we should be bringing Matthew Shea back here in front of this committee.

I appreciate Mr. Kusmierczyk's talking about being adrift in this committee. We haven't gotten a study done. In fact, the Conservatives keep bringing forward motions that could be included in the reports, whether it be on the Governor General, on McKinsey.... We have nine studies going right now. This could be included in the study on McKinsey. We have 220,000 pages so far. This is what this committee has received.

I want to give an idea. It would take 30 seconds per page to look at it. It would take 1,833 hours and 20 minutes to review these documents. That's 52 full-time weeks. Since it's only been a few months, it would probably take about four full-time staff to go over the documents we have gotten so far. I don't believe anyone around this table has done that, unless you somehow have a budget that I don't have in my office or have a pile of volunteers who want to go through 220,000 pages.

I suggest that we include this in our final report—that would make sense to me—so that we can get to Bill C-290, or we can get Matthew Shea back here and can ask him more questions because I have a lot more questions before I want to send this to the House.

I hate redactions, and I hate this policy. I think it needs to be reviewed. Clearly, it's a problem for this committee. I don't believe that sending this nuclear approach to the House is the right approach. I think we should be doing some work here in this committee before we do that.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.

I want to say that I think my colleague Mr. Housefather, again, as is his standard, has gotten to the heart of the matter. Even though we take this matter of privilege seriously—of course we want to get to the bottom of the reasons why the documentation wasn't provided by the various agencies unredacted—the concern here is that it will open up an opportunity for our colleagues on the Conservative side to simply delay the work being done in the House of Commons. That work is absolutely too important. We see, for example, in other committees, questions of privilege being raised by the Conservatives that tie up the work of those committees for multiple meetings.

I was elected to this committee and this House to get work done. What I'm seeing in this committee is a tremendous drift in its work. We have drifted off course. We have eight studies—eight—that have been opened up: McKinsey, the GG expenditure, outsourcing, diversity and procurement—do you remember that one?—ArriveCAN, air defence procurement, the national shipbuilding strategy and Bill C-290. These are all paramount. All of these are important studies. We opened all of these and have not finished a single one.

I look at the McKinsey study and see the mountainous production of papers—hundreds of thousands of documents and millions of words submitted. I think the PBO estimated that's $9 million in translation alone. If halting the work of this committee and delaying the work of Parliament are the goals, I have to say that's disheartening. We see these tactics time and again.

I weigh those concerns against the seriousness with which we take the question of privilege—this issue before us—but, again, let's call a spade a spade here. We've seen this before. This is not new. There's nothing new under the sun. We've seen this before. We know how this plays out. There's too much at stake. There's too much work, especially in this last week. Canadians expect us, in this last week, to buckle down, work together and get legislation passed. They are looking for us to demonstrate leadership. For that reason, I can't support this. I support the principle of it, but I see the door this will open. It would only delay the work of this committee. Again, we have been blown way off course already. It's time to rein this back in.

I'm turning to my colleagues across the table among the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives: Let's right this ship. Let's get it back on course. Let's get these committee studies passed and do the work Canadians expect us to do, especially in this last week in Parliament.

For that reason, I don't think I can support this.

Thank you.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm reading it now. I move that further to the evidence received by the committee subsequent to the motion adopted on Monday, April 24, 2023, in relation....

By the way, I should say that if the member of the NDP feels so strongly about moving on to Bill C-290, as we do, then he'll vote in support of this motion and we can just move forward to Bill C-290. I think that would be the best way he could show his support for Bill C-290 right now.

I'll continue reading. Actually, I'll start again. I move:

That, further to the evidence received by the Committee subsequent to the motion adopted on Monday, April 24, 2023, in relation to the redactions and improper translation of documents ordered for production by the Committee on Wednesday, January 18, 2023, the Committee is of the opinion that there is a potential breach of privilege which must be reported to the House, and therefore, notwithstanding the decision of the Committee on Monday, April 17, 2023, the Committee adopt the report drafted by the analysts, entitled “Question of Privilege on Providing Documents to the Committee”, as amended, instruct the Chair to present this report to the House forthwith....

I'm going to pause here again, Mr. Chair, and say that we don't want to hold up any of the House business. We just simply want this referred to the House. We don't want to mess up the schedule any more. We are all anxious to get home to our constituents and serve them over the summer, but we feel this has to be dealt with prior to leaving. We just want this referred to the House. That's all we want, Mr. Chair. I believe we'll satisfy the breach. Again, the motion says:

...adopt the report drafted by the analysts, entitled “Question of Privilege on Providing Documents to the Committee”, as amended, instruct the Chair to present this report to the House forthwith, and that the Committee request a comprehensive government response pursuant to Standing Order 109.

Yes, I hope that this committee will take.... I'll wait for your ruling, but I would hope that should you potentially decide it is a breach, this committee would take it seriously, pass this motion and send this off to the House, so that we can swiftly move on to Bill C-290.

Thank you.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, copies have been distributed, or they are being distributed to all members. I will now read this into the record if we're ready.

Again, before I read it, Mr. Chair, I hope we can come to a fast resolution that this is, in fact, a breach of privilege, so that we can move forward to Bill C-290, which is of paramount importance, certainly for the Bloc and of interest for the Conservatives as well.

With that.... Pardon me?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I hope we can come to a fast resolution on what I'm about to discuss here today. This is a matter that has been before this committee several times before. It is on what I believe is a potential breach of privilege.

Mr. Chair, I would ask you to listen to what I'm about to go over in an attempt to demonstrate how this has been breached, not only for me but for all members within this committee. As I said, I hope we will have the support of the NDP and the Bloc as well as the government in this recognition, so that we can move swiftly on to Bill C-290 and get that bill—I know the Bloc is very anxious to do so—back to the House for the next step.

The breach of privilege, Mr. Chair, is a result of several things.

The first relates to our repeated attempts to get documents from the different departments. As of today, I believe, six of 21 organizations, who have been asked three times. The first was on January 18 and the second was on March 5 by you, Mr. Chair. My goodness, March 5—what month are we in now? We're in June, so this was three months ago. Again, this was after discussing it in this committee on March 8, for a third time, yet they haven't completed their submissions. In fact, 16 submitted redacted documents, when in fact McKinsey themselves have provided unredacted pages.

That is certainly the first reason. We've asked for these documents on several occasions. We certainly want to hear from all the departments. We've heard from some of the departments. I have further information here that tells me it probably isn't even necessary for us to hear from the remaining departments that exist. There seems to be some type of lack of will to move forward on this.

I recognize that we want to get to Bill C-290. We want to get it passed through the House. The Conservatives are committed to doing that. I'm hoping everyone else is as well, understanding the important testimony we've heard.

That would be the first one. We've asked three times for these documents. We have not received these documents.

The second reason obviously has to do with official language rights. It's really important that the committee receive the documents in both official languages. We've seen that some of the documents were redacted. That's not good enough, because we need the documents in both official languages.

Of course, Mrs. Vignola was a good spokesperson. She showed why we had to have documents in both official languages. Furthermore, a member of our party, Mr. Godin, demonstrated why the Conservatives felt it was important for all documents to be translated into both official languages.

I will now talk about the third reason.

I said that it was very important that we receive everyone from the departments to explain to us why we did not receive the documents. However, I believe I have here a communication that moots that, Mr. Chair. It is a communication with the Privy Council Office, from Maia Welbourne to Mr. Paul Mackinnon and cc'd to Erin Mather, Linda Nguyen and Jean Cintrat. Mr. Mackinnon asks Ms. Welbourne if she thinks that....

He writes, “Good morning. Remind me”—and this is on June 6, so around the time that we had the first group—“If passed, it's not binding on government to produce documents. Sent from my iPhone”—as we all do in this day and age, Mr. Chair.

Now, the next part I'm going to read out is very shocking. It's actually contrary to what the legal specialist who was in there visiting said. It, in fact, reads, “The government considers it non-binding if Parliament does.”

According to this communication, according to the PCO, it does not have to listen to the will of this committee or the will of Parliament. It just has to listen to the government. If that is not a breach, I cannot think of what type of breach of privilege might exist. If the PCO, the acting body of this government, is saying that what we decide here, what all parties on this side of the House—in the opposition, I should say—decide, or in fact what we as a committee decide, is not movable and is not actionable enough to produce documents.

I'll finish the communication. It says, “The government considers it non-binding”—that's just so insulting it's difficult to read—“if Parliament does. If government doesn't produce documents as ordered by the House, then the matter can be escalated in a number of different ways, including as far as finding the government is in contempt, a minister or official being called to the bar, a non-confidence vote”.

This is the same kind of scenario as last June with Iain Stewart's being called to the bar, and regrettably, we remember how the government hid behind that event. I think it was truly an event in the House of Commons. However, this is where it gets even juicier, unfortunately.

I'll quote again: “Main difference now being the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP.” This document goes on to say, beyond the insult, that our deciding as a parliamentary committee is not enough for this government to produce documents because it is supported as a result of the supply agreement between the NDP and the Liberal government.

It is for these three reasons.... First is the denial of the documents in redacted form.

Second, we did not receive full versions of them in French and English.

Then, finally, there is this insulting communication that I have in my hands whereby this government actually believes that it is not their responsibility, and who knows who the PCO has been instructed by. We've tried to pull this information from them in the past regarding other matters, but they have been instructed that they are not required to follow the will of Parliament. They are not required to follow the will of this committee and bring these documents to us.

Why need we even listen to these other departments if the PCO has been instructed that these documents need not be supplied to this committee? It's more than enough, I believe, to consider it a breach of privilege.

Perhaps then, Mr. Chair, I will read the motion that I brought forward here today. You can certainly take the time to determine if you agree with my assessment as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I call this meeting to order.

Colleagues, good afternoon. Welcome to meeting number 73 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Colleagues, I'll remind you that, when you're speaking, make sure you keep the earpiece away from the mike to avoid feedback for our valued translators.

Last meeting, I mentioned we had to address the issue of the nominee for the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. If we have consent, I'm going to propose that we meet with the nominee on Wednesday for a five-minute opening statement, and then one six-minute round with each department.

Are we good with that, colleagues?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, are we good to adjourn?

Colleagues, just to confirm, we're doing Bill C-290 for two hours on Monday, but I will need about 15 minutes to go over McKinsey documents. We will at least 10 minutes for McKinsey documents. I'll try to send out a bit of information in advance so that we're ready to talk about what we want to do with the documents.

Colleagues, thanks. The meeting is adjourned.

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

It's still Bill C-290 on Monday.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm suggesting to do two hours of Bill C-290 on Monday, and then on Wednesday, do one hour on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Actually, the motion that I'd like to put forward is that the committee continue considering Bill C-290 on Monday, June 19, and provide one hour for PSIC on Wednesday, June 21, to hear from the PSIC nominee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Well, we've created that in this committee already, unfortunately. It's to the detriment of Parliament, I can tell you. That's what the government wishes.

We will do Bill C-290 on Monday. On Wednesday, we will move the department heads and we'll still consider the nominee for the public service integrity commissioner.

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

Well, then let's spend two hours on Monday on Bill C-290. Let's get through it. Let's do this.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that the time has come for us to determine the path forward.

My question is, what was the purpose of passing a motion in the House today to add 30 sitting days so that we could actually continue to deal with Bill C-290 when the House resumes in September?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I can get to that, if we can get to it rather than filibustering.

There are a couple of things. If that's the will of the committee, then obviously that's fine.

I will note a couple of things. On Bill C-290, we have gone well past the number of meetings we had planned, mostly because the government has constantly made many changes, despite promising not to. I understand and I appreciate what you're saying, but we would have had this done in May if the government had fulfilled its promise and its commitments. However, we can certainly switch to C-290.

The issue about the bureaucrats refusing is not an issue with McKinsey. The bureaucrats are refusing an order of this committee that the big green book states they have to follow.

We'll certainly do the will of the committee, which sounds like it's Bill C-290, but we should not forget that this is an important issue, in that the department heads are deciding what the laws should be and what rules they should follow, not Parliament. We could certainly take care of it by doing a very quick vote to send the report to the House. I've promised that it's not going to be used as a concurrence vote or anything else. It'll be a simple report to the House. If that's the will of the committee, that is fine.

On the issue of the public sector integrity person, we have options. One option that's provided in the book is—I think it's option (c)—to do nothing. It's not a statutory requirement for us to review orders in council.

I have spoken with the parties about this. There might be a chance on Wednesday for this, but if we want to do Bill C-290, then we can do Bill C-290. We will not get through C-290 and put aside time for the nominee in the same time. We still have quite a bit further to go.

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, it does appear that a majority of committee members want to see the Bill C-290 legislation. Of course, that is the priority.

Then it's the PSIC, because that is a statutory requirement of this committee—

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

Our preference is that we do Bill C-290 on Monday. I want to get this thing done and presented to the House. I want to get rolling on it.

I would like to see the commissioner come on Monday. If we get done with Bill C-290, even if it's half an hour or we stay later.... We can negotiate to see if we can get the interpreters later.

On Wednesday we can come back and do the department heads. They've been pushed three times, so it's not the end of the world if we ask them to come Wednesday. It's Wednesday now, so that gives them a week's notice. It's not like we're saying on Friday afternoon that we don't want them to come. They work for us; they're public servants. If we ask them come back on Wednesday....

Really, what they're doing is part of the report anyway, coming here and reporting. That's a conversation. We've spent a lot of time on this report, and I think Bill C-290 should get priority, given that.... I don't know how many meetings we've had on McKinsey. We haven't even started on the other study, the bigger study. I'd like to deal with Bill C-290 on Monday.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the priority should be legislation. I would think that finishing Bill C-290 on Monday and getting it back to the House before the House adjourns for the summer should be the priority. My recommendation and preference would be to do Bill C-290 in the first hour of Monday and try to get it back to the House.

I also want to raise the issue of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and suggest that we try to put an hour aside next week to hear from the nominee who's been presented to the committee.

If it was possible to at least try to deal with Bill C-290 for an hour on Monday, it would be appreciated. Also, if we could put aside an hour for the nominee, that would also be appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The issue with that is that we've invited the witnesses already, and I think this will be the third time for them. One of the options, of course, is.... This was a concern when the original report came up. We tried to table it at the House. Mr. Johns, and I think someone from the Liberal side, suggested that we hear from some of the departments about why they're not obeying the order for documents from the committee.

We have heard from them. We can hear from a couple of others and then report, if we can get support to report the report to the House, as the analysts have done it, and then we can get on to BillC-290. Otherwise, it is the department heads on McKinsey, and then the 21st is open.

Mr. Housefather has his hand up, and then we have Mr. Johns.

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

We could reverse the order of business and continue our consideration of Bill C‑290 because I think could complete it. We could hear from officials on Wednesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Monday we have the department heads for the McKinsey documents. That had been bumped from other past meetings and also bumped for one of the Bill C-290 meetings. We'll hear from the department heads on redacting the McKinsey documents this Monday. The witnesses have already been invited.

Wednesday is open. We can do Bill C-290, but it will still be too late. Even if we finish it, it'll be too late to get it to the House in time, but we did, of course, in the vote today, receive the House's approval to add 30 sitting days, so we can finish it in September or October and get it to the House once it has been amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sorry; before you leave, colleagues....

We're not adjourned.

Monday will be the departments on McKinsey. We will have a short discussion with our clerk about the McKinsey documents. Wednesday—that's the 21st—we have open, and I think we said we'd do Bill C-290.

[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.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO.

I table the seventh report, in relation to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

I also table the eighth report, in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, May 17, 2023, regarding the consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Shall NDP-14 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on to the vote on clause 32.

(Clause 32 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

Colleagues, we only have four minutes left. I'm not going to get into NDP-15.

By the looks of it, we have about an hour and a bit left to get through the bill.

On the 14th, we have the PBO here. Depending on the length of questioning, we might have an opportunity to get to a short amount of Bill C-290 on the 14th.

On the 19th, we have the departments on the McKinsey documents. The 19th is the cut-off that we pretty much have, or the 20th, to get this back to the House.

Once in a while, there are some dates floating out there for a couple of hours here or there for meetings. If colleagues are in agreement, leave it with me. I will try to nab the first spot of any available resources so that we can finish this off.

Are you willing to leave that with me and the clerk?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Actually, Bill C‑290 proposes that these individuals always be present. Now, what we're saying is the victim doesn't have to appear before the person accused of reprisals, unless the tribunal feels they would be affected by the outcome. So rather than requiring that the accused person always be present, they would be present in a smaller number of cases.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would just ask the officials to comment on what impacts the changes of Bill C-290 that we've been discussing here would have on the work of the tribunal.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Chair, could I ask the officials to comment on how these changes to Bill C-290 would impact the work of the tribunal?

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

It limits the options available to the whistle-blower. It provides only one recourse method at the time. It cancels Bill C-290's repeal of subsections 19.3(2) and 19.3(3), which prevent the commissioner from dealing with a complaint if any other measure has already been taken, for example, the collective agreement.

We heard from the experts that circumstances may require that more than one method of recourse be taken and that certain methods of recourse often take years, so it isn't reasonable to require the whistle-blower to wait years before beginning another method.

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

Okay.

I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the committee request an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C‑290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, to give the bill the attention it deserves, and that the Chair submit this request to the House.

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

June 19 will not be used for Bill C-290.

I'm convinced that we're all acting in very good faith and that we want to pass Bill C‑290 as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, I'd like to introduce a motion, which I have sent to the clerk. I will read it to you, in both official languages as needed. It won't take long; I have to open it.

I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the committee request an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C‑290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 15, 2023—

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

If I understand well, June 19 will not be used for Bill C-290. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Welcome to meeting number 71 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO or the only committee that matters.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

We have with us, back from the Treasury Board, Ms. Laroche and Ms. Stevens. I ask that if you have questions for them, direct your questions directly to them, please.

Of course, we welcome our legislative clerks.

Really quickly, colleagues, on July 19, it appears we'll have the departments back in for the McKinsey documents. Like before, I'm seeking unanimous consent to limit their speaking time to two and a half minutes for the introductions.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

We also brought in the Federal Accountability Act, but that didn't make the government do anything in regard to the report from OGGO in 2017. That's why we have Bill C-290.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I always tell my family, “seize victory”, but I'm still going to ask this question.

I don't know if the analysts or the clerk could give us an indication of how much time it will be after the 14th before they would be in a position to report this back to the House, so that we respect, I think, the unanimous consent that we want Bill C-290 to be reported back to the House before the summer break.

[Mireille Laroche]

Thank you very much for the question.

Under the current Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, there are four reasons for which a complaint may be deemed inadmissible, including:

a) the subject-mater of the complaint has been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under an Act of Parliament, other than this Act, or a collective agreement;

In the proposed wording of Bill C‑290, this reason would no longer be in the act, nor would the reason that the complaint was “not made in good faith”.

Amendment G‑7 serves two purposes. First, it reinstates the two provisions that were to be removed from the act to make sure there is no overlap. Secondly, the concept of good faith is replaced by reasonable grounds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We can. We need UC to skip over, as I understand it. I'll double-check.

Colleagues, we'd have to allow or have all of clause 10 stand, as in we'd have to come back to all of clause 10. We can't just do NDP-9...G-5, even though we've already moved past it. We'd have to come back to clause 10, which we can do, and get to clause 11, and then follow up with this motion at our next meeting on Bill C-290.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are proposing a new clause, 5.1. The amendment reads as follows: That Bill C-290 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 3 the following new clause:

5.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 11:

11.1 The Treasury Board may establish policies regarding the duties set out in subsection 11(1).

Before I hand it over to my colleague, Mr. Fergus, I will just say that here we are talking about how, when we set up an evaluation for an internal department, we also need to set up standards against which TBS can do that evaluation.

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My understanding of the ruling made by the Speaker in the House of Commons was that the heart of the issue for the royal recommendation with Bill C-290, as it was originally written, was with the definition of “public servant” and not necessarily with the notion of supports.

If the committee wants to be more precise and make sure...then this would appear to be admissible, yes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes. Thank you.

What Bill C-290 does is alter the role of the PSIC in a fundamental way. What we're proposing here is amending line 2 on page 3 so that in effect it will give Treasury Board the authority to issue policy on departmental internal disclosure processes instead of giving this power to the PSIC. There are a couple of reasons we would want to make sure that happens.

At the very least, this would be a brand new role for the commissioner. It will require additional resources for the commissioner to conduct this role. Frankly, this is what Treasury Board does in terms of establishing standards across government as to how things should work. It's not something that you'd want to have the PSIC describe.

As well, there are going to be some elements when there are going to be some disputes that won't involve the PSIC and that the commissioner will not have line of sight on, so it's better to have Treasury Board establish the standards and then for the commissioner to be able to evaluate things as a result of that standard.

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé]

Yes, of course.

If the subamendment is adopted, BQ-4 would propose that BillC‑290, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 36 on page 2, the following:

(c.2) foreign interference in the public sector, “foreign interference” having such a meaning as may be prescribed;

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's wonderful. Thank you very much.

(On clause 4)

Returning to the consideration of C-290, we're on clause 4, amendment BQ-4, which is page 15 of the package.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Welcome to meeting 67 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023 and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 1, 2023, the committee is meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Very quickly, like the last meeting, we're going to keep it relatively casual, I hope, so that we can have banter back and forth without spending too much time formally recognizing....

I would ask, though, that if we are referring to our witnesses from Treasury Board, we not ask them directly. Please go through the chair so that we keep it a bit more formal for those witnesses.

We have with us again Ms. Sauvé and Ms. Boyi, our legislative clerks who are helping today.

Before we start, Ms. Sauvé is going to explain very quickly something we need to cover before we can continue.

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

This amendment seeks to amend clause 4 of Bill C-290 by replacing line 34 on page 2 with the following:(b.1) a case of abuse of authority within the meaning of subsection 2(4) of the Public Service Employment Act;

The amendment defines abuse of authority by reference to an existing statute. A new definition is therefore not provided, and the current definition is not a major problem, as there is already a fairly broad consensus on its application. The amendment merely clarifies this point in what would be new paragraph 8(b.1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

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

You dazzled him.

I'll explain the friendly subamendment we are proposing. It involves NDP‑3 and NDP‑4. Before paragraph (a) of the definition of reprisal proposed in G‑3, we would add the change to the definition proposed in NDP‑3, which reads as follows:

vant who made a protected disclosure, has refused to commit a wrongdoing or has cooperated

In addition, the new paragraphs (c.2) through (c.6) that NDP‑4 proposes to add to the definition of reprisal would instead be inserted after paragraph (d) of the new definition of listed measure proposed in G‑3.

In a nutshell, the NDP's proposed amendments would be incorporated into the Liberal Party's proposed amendment, providing greater clarity to the definition of reprisal and clarifying who it refers to, without overly broadening the scope of Bill C-290 or requiring a royal recommendation.

The witnesses talked a lot about reprisals, because they have experienced various forms of it. The word horror comes to mind, because no one would want to go through what they went through. Defining the word clearly would also eliminate any possibility of someone finding a loophole in the bill or the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act that would give them the opportunity to retaliate against the person. That's why we're proposing this friendly subamendment.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I move to amend Bill C-290 in clause 3 by adding after line 2 on page 2 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph (c) of the definition protected disclosure in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) in the course of a procedure established under any other Act of Parliament, including the Conflict of Interest Act; or

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Throughout the process, we underscored the importance of hearing from witnesses. Most of the expertise in the area of whistle-blower protection was developed abroad, by legal experts and various groups, for the purpose of adopting a better whistle-blower protection regime. Given how behind Canada is when it comes to protecting whistle-blowers, we firmly believed it was important for the committee to meet with experts and hear their recommendations.

It was obvious to us that we should leverage that expertise, and it is possible to incorporate witness recommendations into a private member's bill. Bill C‑290 captures the main elements of a stronger regime, but if the committee were to adopt certain amendments, including those put forward by the Bloc, it would do two things. First, Canada would no longer be a laughingstock internationally when it comes to whistle-blower protection, and second, Canada's regime would satisfy seven or eight of the 20 criteria that characterize a strong whistle-blower protection regime.

When witnesses appear before the committee, we need to listen to what they have to say, examine their recommendations, incorporate them into the bill, and of course, negotiate. I've had many a conversation with Mr. Fergus and others.

As for this specific amendment, it was important to us and to the witnesses to follow in the footsteps of other jurisdictions and establish a clear definition of political interference. It was also obvious that the definition should be included in the act. The problem is that the Conflict of Interest Act covers only public office holders. We wanted to underscore how important it was for the whistle-blower protection regime to have consistency in the act and definition, and to apply to the entire chain of command, top to bottom. That's why we are proposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will call this meeting to order while everyone is paying rapt attention.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, May 1, 2023, the committee is meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

We have a couple of irregular witnesses today: Ms. Laroche and Ms. Stevens. They're here to answer questions. They won't be making any opening statements for us today. In place of our analysts, we have legislative experts on whom we will be relying quite heavily today, I suspect. They're Ms. Sauvé closest to me and Ms. Boyi furthest from me.

Colleagues, in my almost eight years, this will be only the second time we've actually done a clause-by-clause at OGGO, so I hope you will all bear with me and each other on this as we go through it.

I have a small opening statement prepared by our legislative assistants, which I will read. It's just general information on the clause-by-clause today. I'd like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause of Bill C-290.

Today's examination, as we know, is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill, except for the short title, which will be considered at the end. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. If we're all in general agreement, we will do it on division if that is fine with everyone.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

In addition to having been properly drafted in the legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. I may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against a principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown. We must not offend the Crown. If members wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against the clause when the time comes, not propose an amendment to delete it.

I'm going to go very slowly so all members can follow the proceedings properly. I will mostly be going slowly for my own benefit.

In the package that was distributed by the clerk of the committee, amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There's no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on the amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and the subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved for an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it, just to keep things interesting.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the short title and the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required, if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Before we start, I'm going to turn things over to Ms. Sauvé for a couple of quick comments about some changes.

Go ahead, Ms. Sauvé.

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel for his question. I also want to thank him again for his bill, Bill C-290.

The idea he just mentioned was part of our platform in the last two election campaigns. I am pretty sure about that with respect to individual tax returns. I am not 100% sure about it when it comes to businesses, but certainly with respect to individuals.

I know that the Quebec members of our caucus, but really all members of our caucus, agree that Canadians should be able to report their income in the simplest and easiest way possible.

I therefore agree with my colleague. We support the idea of collecting taxes as he has suggested.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for ensuring that the debate stays relevant.

Certainly the amount of money the Liberal government is spending is critical to every bill, so thank you, Madam Speaker, for overseeing the discussion as I continue my interaction here today.

As I was saying, the finance minister indicated that she would use fiscal restraint. I do not believe she did so. If I could go even further back to when Bill S-6 was first being discussed, which was last spring before we broke for the summer recess, it was at that time and even into the fall that the finance minister indicated she was going to implement an idea that our leader has committed to: the “pay as you go” system. She said she would have fiscal restraint, but I do not believe she has that. Last year, at the end of the spring session, Bill S-6 was being discussed, as well as the “pay as you go” system, but both of these things did not happen.

In relation to our economy, I talked about Canadians being frustrated, defeated and exhausted. I am sure members saw the article in The Globe and Mail today indicating that this point in Canadian history is the worst time for new small business start-ups. This touches my heart very much. I know members have heard me speak before about how I come from a small business family in Calgary Midnapore. For me, growing up, small business was always front of mind. This included regulations, and I believe small businesses will struggle with the changing regulations indicated in Bill S-6. Again, if we look across the different departments, we can see how this can happen. Those are a couple of points in relation to Bill S-6.

I will also point out that in Bill S-6, with the way the government legislates and operates in general, the language is consistently filled with jargon, with words and phrases that are difficult for Canadians to interpret. I started out this speech by talking about how legislation should be for Canadians. It is the common Canadian we should be legislating for. When we have phrases that are too complex for Canadians to understand, it does not help them. It does not empower them. We need to do that.

With that, I would like to take a moment to talk about the plain language law that we would implement once we are in government, again in an effort to get government working for Canadians instead of having Canadians work for the government, as we are seeing in this case. I thought that was a very important point to mention.

As shadow minister for the Treasury Board, another place where I see this take place is with the public accounts. There needs to be much revision to the public accounts and how they are presented. I do not believe Canadians understand them in the format they are in presently. I always share the story that in my home growing up, like the concept we have in our home, a budget was like this: We bring in this much money as a household, we spend this much money as a household and we save this much money as a household. I do not believe the public accounts reflect a simple concept such as this, a concept that many Canadian households and many Canadians sitting around the dinner table have to follow. Again, this is in relation to the jargon, the lack of plain language and the complexity we see in regulations and legislation from the government, which is relevant to Bill S-6.

We also talk about Bill S-6 being indicative of another concept, which is very dear to the official opposition and the heart of our leader: getting rid of the gatekeepers. That essentially means making it easier for Canadians to live, to conduct business and to have the quality of life they deserve, which the government is not delivering to them, as evidenced by some of the earlier indicators I gave.

We as the official opposition have provided some constructive ideas for getting rid of the gatekeepers.

For example, our opposition day motion that was presented yesterday talked about getting rid of the municipal gatekeepers, which, coming from Calgary, I have had an opportunity to see first-hand at Calgary City Council. Having done some advocacy work at the civic level, I can say that all governments must be working together, pulling in the same direction in an effort to provide Canadians with the best standard of living, and that includes housing.

Especially when we consider the ambitious immigration targets of the current government, we need to seriously and sincerely consider how we are going to accommodate all of these newcomers. Again, I say this as an Albertan. Alberta is a place of incredible growth and we are so happy that so many new Canadians and so many Canadians who have abided in other places are making the choice to come to Alberta, but we need to seriously consider how we are going to support our citizens.

In his opposition day motion speech yesterday, my leader talked about how we will incentivize those municipalities that make the decision to build more homes for Canadians, and we will not reward those that do not. This is an excellent example of where we have to think about the gatekeepers. Bill S-6 is just an indicator that there are so many gatekeepers across government, when we have to make these minute changes to legislation which seems applicable to ages ago, including things as simple as removing stickers from liquid vending machines. It is astounding to me that these types of things are coming to light now.

Another example I will give of the official opposition's desire to get rid of the gatekeepers is our unique idea to bring home doctors and nurses and to allow for a Blue Seal in the same way that we have the Red Seal in the trade professions. That is wonderful. It is just fantastic how we have more young people joining the trades. I am especially excited about more young women joining the trades. I am certainly glad to see some of the legislation, even if it is at a provincial level, allowing young women to feel comfortable in joining the trades. Whether it is providing safe and clean restrooms for them or whether it is providing equipment that is suitable for their size and stature, whatever that may be, that is just excellent.

Our leader and the official opposition have found that the licensing bodies create endless barriers and red tape, which again is a topic that is talked about much in Bill S-6, resulting in an unnecessary, even greater shortage of doctors and nurses. I would like to quote this sentence from my leader. He said, “The Blue Seal will mean that it won’t matter where someone comes from, it matters what they can do.” That is just fantastic. If these doctors and nurses meet our Blue Seal standards, they will be able to work in our health care system. Again, this is just another example of the Conservative Party, the official opposition, looking for true efficiencies.

Bill S-6 addresses these tiny things. Really our energies could be spent on addressing much larger problems and finding efficiencies in larger problems rather than, in many cases of Bill S-6, providing opportunities for even more legislation through regulation.

I will add that legislation by regulation has not always resulted in the best outcomes for Canadians. I know that as we discuss Bill C-290 in the government operations committee right now, we are discussing, for example, the role of the public service integrity commissioner. A big discussion around these debates on Bill C-290 is really to decide how much leeway we will give the public service integrity commissioner in terms of regulation.

These are significant things that touch upon workers and will gravely determine whether a public servant decides to file a grievance and if they feel comfortable in doing so. This is something that is very important.

Another situation where we saw regulation was not sufficiently applied, for this official opposition, was the order in council regarding firearms. My goodness, that was before the pandemic, so three or four years ago now. That is a time when it most probably should have been legislation. Of course, we are going through the Bill C-21 process right now, which the Conservatives oppose. No matter what the wolf in sheep's clothing looks like, we will oppose Bill C-21. That is an example where regulation was used and perhaps should not have been. Perhaps it should have been left to legislation. This is most definitely another example.

I look through these different examples. There are other examples that my colleagues will talk about this evening, things they are very concerned about, interpretations of endangered species, for example. Again, there are more topics filled with jargon, but members will give their comments as well as to what interpretation of this legislation will mean through regulation.

It is something important to keep in mind, because, as I indicated, legislation should be made by the people for the people. This is something the official opposition, the Conservatives, are committed to. I think about how we are going to deal with the complex issues ahead of us, such as artificial intelligence, if we are talking about liquids coming out of vending machines.

Bill S-6 brings back the complexity, the jargon and the gatekeepers of this legislation. We on this side of the House want to have legislation that works for every Canadian in every single home, my home, all our homes, so let us bring it home and let us re-evaluate Bill S-6.

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

Okay. That's great.

I'm going to you, Dr. Brill-Edwards, because we know the legislative changes are critical in Bill C-290.

Can you speak about the importance of the culture in the public service? That needs to change. Do you have some suggestions on that?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I invite each witness to answer my next question very briefly.

Are you able to assess the level of good faith I have in supporting Bill C‑290?

In other words, am I doing it for personal glory or vengeance? After all, I'm a nasty separatist!

Why do you think it's important for me to support the bill? Are you able to assess the value of my motives?

[Tom Devine]

As a matter of fact, most whistle-blowers, the overwhelming majority, make their disclosures to their boss. They're not looking for trouble. They see a problem, and they say, “Boss, we have a problem. We need to deal with this.”

In response to the earlier question on loyalty, the studies have consistently shown 90%-96% of whistle-blowers never break ranks, because they think they're defending the organization and its mission. They just don't realize there's a conflict between the organization and its stated mission.

I agree with Bill C-290's broader scope of supervisors, because it allows the employee to circumvent when there's a conflict of interest. What if they learn, for example, that it's their boss who's the wrongdoer? They don't want to share all their evidence of that. They want to bring it to a party that doesn't have that conflict of interest.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses. Thank you so much for coming to committee. I'm sorry there isn't more time today.

I'd certainly like to speak with all of you, but because we are coming to the end and I have only the five minutes, I'd like to focus my questions on you, Mr. Devine. I really appreciate your being here.

I want to focus on support, because you've spoken to this and it's quite important. Bill C-290 includes a requirement for chief executives to provide support for disclosures. However, there's no definition or direction on how this should be implemented. Would this make it difficult to establish an approach to how these supports should be created and maintained, and could this be addressed in an amendment?

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

That's excellent.

Ms. Brill-Edwards and Ms. Myers, you both talked about the importance of sanctioning retaliation on whistle-blowers.

I really appreciate hearing you talk about international examples, Ms. Myers. Do you want to suggest some amendments that you would like to see in Bill C-290 that would help strengthen this, as you've seen in other jurisdictions?

[Sean Bruyea]

What I see with the act is that it's really important to see this as a stepping stone for going forward. It's not perfect, but you know what? Nothing passed in Parliament is ever perfect. We work on a system of evolutionary change. There's hardly ever a revolution in Canada in the way things happen, so you know what? It has to start somewhere.

When we're dealing with the culture within a closed system—and the public service is a very closed system; I would juxtapose it against the military's very closed system—that culture has been almost impossible to change with respect to discrimination and sexual harassment, but that has never stopped Parliament from stepping in and saying, “Hey, we're going to start with holding people accountable first and wait for cultural change later.” This is what Bill C-290 does, and I'd like to see that pursued.

[Sean Bruyea]

Thank you very much for the question.

I came up with a standard where I was thinking.... Not being in deep with the law, what occurred to me is that public servants up this point have been seen as the only ones who can be whistle-blowers. The reason is that they meet two criteria: They have insight within their job, and they have a vulnerability to lose that job and suffer other repercussions in the job space.

Bill C-290 does an excellent job of addressing those two concepts and expanding them to contractors who have both insight and vulnerability, as well as former public servants, former RCMP and temporary workers.

In that sense, if we're going to use the criteria of vulnerability, veterans are the most vulnerable of any federally serviced individuals, in that they are often wholly dependant on the Department of Veterans Affairs. Should any one at any level decide to take revenge, then they jeopardize their complete financial security, their complete medical care and often the stability of the family and the home.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses who are with us today.

Unfortunately, given the time we have, I will only be able to ask a few questions. I'd like to start with Ms. Myers.

Ms. Myers, you indicated that the European model would probably be the best one going forward in terms of protection of public servant whistle-blowers. I think that would be a place where we would like to take a very close look.

Before I ask my question, I should quickly give a bit of an overview. We understand that Bill C-290, of course, is a private member's bill. There is only so far that it can go in terms of being able to do what Mr. Devine indicated with respect to changing the culture. There are other aspects that would have to come from a government bill to be able to do that. I know the government is considering and working towards updating the PSDPA.

Ms. Myers, Bill C-290, which is before us here, includes an opportunity to remove the references to “good faith” and “reasonable grounds” from the screening sections of the act. I asked one of our witnesses here last week the same question that I'd like to ask you. If you were to remove that aspect, and if there is no sense of requiring that the whistle-blower reasonably believes that what they're reporting is true, is there a possibility therefore that it could lead to some frivolous or perhaps intentionally malicious disclosures? Have you seen that in other jurisdictions?

[Sean Bruyea]

I will answer that question with an anecdote that I told my son this weekend. He asked me what lie I was speaking about this weekend, and I said, “Imagine that you went to a group of people, and you said to them: 'We're worried about some of you committing a crime, so we would like you to write the law. We would like you to assign the chief of police. We would like you to populate the police that will enforce that law. We will give you control over every aspect of evidence. We will give you unlimited legal resources, and we will give you unlimited financial resources to defend yourself, and, should anyone accuse you of committing a crime, then you have the right to persecute that person.'”

My son said to me, “That doesn't sound like a very smart law, and it sounds like the criminals would like it.” I think that's what we have in front of us, a law that basically does not help the whistle-blower, even though in name it's supposed to. We would never build, for instance, a public building for all Canadians that didn't have wheelchair-accessible ramps or wheelchair-accessible bathrooms—specifically supposed to be designed to help people who are truly vulnerable, disabled, fighting the government—and put in a whole bunch of ladders and a whole bunch of walls that they have to climb over when they're not capable of doing so. Bill C-290 starts to take away some of those obstacles.

[Joanna Gualtieri, Retired Lawyer, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've already condensed it, so hopefully we'll be under two minutes.

With Tom's absence last week, I return to provide testimony that Tom and I had collaborated on.

At FAIR, the whistle-blowing charity I founded and where Mr. Hutton came to volunteer, I wrote standards for a good law, adopting Tom's work. Mr. Hutton shared some with you, but never did I foresee the vengeance that would be marshalled against Canadian whistle-blowers, rendering these standards problematic.

In Canada, free speech and due process, fundamental to any whistle-blower, are handicapped. Former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin put it this way: “[W]e in Canada are more tolerant of state limitation on free expression than are Americans. Similar points can be made about other constitutional rights.” She continued by saying, “[T]he Canadian approach is more nuanced than that of the United States in relation to due process” and, “We are comfortable with ambiguity.”

The nail in the coffin was eloquently warned about by our current Chief Justice Wagner, quoting Balzac: “Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught.” Foundational to culture, these authoritative statements are ominous, especially since the whistle-blower is always the small fly.

You have repeatedly asked what this committee should do. First, take ownership of the crisis. For too long, ordinary Canadians have been doing Parliament's job.

Second, commit to signing an unambiguous public statement affirming full free speech rights for whistle-blowers, and incorporate it in Bill C-290.

Third, identify and bulldoze the due process nuances currently weaponized by our government, courts and tribunals to suppress whistle-blowers' human rights.

Committee has referenced the role of good faith. Please employ your own. Pass C-290, not as an end but as the beginning of a wholesome culture of truth-telling.

Thank you very much.

[Tom Devine, Legal Director, Government Accountability Project]

Thank you for inviting me, and for your schedule flexibility.

The Government Accountability Project, where I work, is a non-profit, non-partisan support organization for whistle-blowers, those who use free speech rights to challenge abuses of power that betray the public trust.

Since I came in 1979, I've worked with over 8,000 whistle-blowers and have been on the front lines for 38 different whistle-blower laws. We're in the middle of a global legal revolution.

When I first came, the United States was the only country in the world where the whistle-blower law had passed—in the previous year, 1978—and now there are 49 nations with national whistle-blower laws and 123 with partial sectoral whistle-blower laws. The reason is that they make a difference. My written testimony has examples of that.

Not all rights are alike, though. The whistle-blower laws are free speech shields against retaliation, because fighting abuses of power means war. If you go into battle with a metal shield, it's dangerous, but you have a fighting chance of living. If you go in with a cardboard shield, no matter how beautifully it's decorated or how heavily it's advertised, you're going to die, and too many whistle-blower laws are the latter.

GAP and the International Bar Association did a global study based on 20 consensus global best practices for what it takes for an effective right. These best practices, I want to emphasize, have been adopted in all four continents. The principles get customized for the legal structures of any given country, but the principles themselves are universal.

In using that study, the results for Canada were that it was complying with one out of 20 consensus best practices. That tied Canada for the weakest whistle-blower law in the world with Lebanon. To me, it's not a cardboard shield here, it's a paper-tissue shield, a law that rubber-stamps retaliation and that any whistle-blower support organization has a duty to warn whistle-blowers against relying on.

Bill C-290 would go a long way towards changing that. I want to give credit where's it's due.

It takes away the motives test for protection, which has put the whistle-blower's reasons on trial instead of the misconduct that's being exposed.

It provides protection from abuse of authority. That's the cornerstone of whistle-blower rights globally, and its absence from Canada's law has been conspicuous. It's well defined as arbitrary and capricious actions that result in favouritism or discrimination.

Bill C-290 protects the whole team that's responsible for an effective whistle-blowing disclosure, rather than just the final messenger. It takes solidarity to survive as a whistle-blower, and the fatal word is isolation. Bill C-290 enables solidarity.

It provides reliable identity protection because the whistle-blower has to approve exposing his or her identity.

It removes the Achilles heel of current law, which is the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's veto power over access to the tribunal and judicial review.

It improves the dysfunctional 60-day statute of limitation to a functional one year to act on your rights.

With respect to disciplinary accountability, it's setting a new standard for best practices, because it allows the whistle-blower to counterattack against the person who's bullying him or her when they defend themselves.

While these improvements are badly needed and welcome, the law will still not provide credible protection against retaliation; they're an outstanding beachhead, necessary but not sufficient.

My written testimony has about a dozen recommendations for you to consider. I think the highest-priority ones are to make sure the rights can't be cancelled through non-disclosure agreements that are prerequisites for employment, or through agency regulations that can cancel public freedom of expression rights in the law, as in the current statute.

Second is burdens of proof, meaning the rules of the game for how much evidence it takes to win. The European Union and the U.S. both have analogous burdens of proof that should be considered.

Third is temporary relief, so that whistle-blowers can survive during multi-year litigation, and there's an incentive for agencies to settle instead of dragging things out.

Fourth, have no-risk counselling and training, so people understand their rights and can change the culture.

Finally, restore remedies that have been cancelled due to the PSDPA's existence. Some of those remedies were superior.

Mr. Chairman, this is an outstanding beachhead to build on, but it's not sufficient. Bill C-290 would change Canada's rights from a tissue-paper shield to a plastic shield. I urge you to make further amendments so that this will be a metal shield.

[Sean Bruyea, Retired Captain, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair.

I really want to sincerely thank all of you for inviting me here today. After 17 years of not a single substantive change to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, a highly discriminatory act designed to fail, Bill C-290 is a long-overdue, vital and desperately welcome first-step initiative. I would not remove anything from this bill. However, like those who have come before and will come after me, I recommend some essential additions. You will find them in the four-page brief I have submitted to the committee.

First, please allow my story to underscore and add to your fine work.

As an air force intelligence officer, I served in the first Persian Gulf War. I would return early, broken physically and mentally, lost in a military culture that heavily stigmatizes any injury as a moral weakness. I hid much of my suffering, and therefore received little help. Veterans Affairs Canada, after a litany of bureaucratic deterrents, would recognize my disabilities and provide treatment and care.

As I regained my strength, I could not ignore that this system was abandoning or destroying so many of those it should be helping. I would be the first to speak out against the 2005 money-saving initiative to replace lifelong veterans disability pensions with one-time lump sums.

My calls for due process caught the eye and the ire of senior bureaucrats. The Government of Canada, which I lost much of my well-being and health protecting, sought revenge. My benefits and treatment were threatened or taken away. Allies who sat in Parliament refused to speak with me. Even the Prime Minister's Office told me that I should seek treatment, as if these reprisals were merely a manifestation of combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

I fought blindly to defend my family. My wife, an immigrant, was not yet a Canadian citizen. Senior bureaucrats with no medical training planned an ambush, calling me in for a “friendly chat” wherein they would issue an ultimatum that I be placed into the Veterans Affairs clinic for psychiatric care. Should I refuse—senior bureaucrats informed the minister of the outcome of the medical assessment before it had occurred—VAC would refuse to support my mental health providers, knowing full well that removal would likely result in my taking my life.

It took me five years to prove this. By 2010, over 14,000 pages were generated on every aspect of my personal life available to Veterans Affairs Canada, then distorted and placed into briefing notes provided to over 250 senior bureaucrats, my member of Parliament, the parliamentary secretary of the veterans affairs committee and two ministers, and briefings to the Prime Minister's Office. Meanwhile, another lengthy battle with VAC had them finally admit to having over 2.1 million pages resulting from a request I made about the department monitoring my newspaper columns and media appearances.

The evidence is overwhelming. Senior bureaucrats took the gloves off and pursued a two-part plan to remove my benefits and treatment while simultaneously discrediting me and my advocacy work. I would receive one of only two official federal government apologies at the time given to an individual not related to wrongful conviction. The other recipient of the apology was Maher Arar.

I put my life back together yet again and completed a master's in public ethics. Shortly after, in 2017, the government would table other deceptively crafted legislation that claimed to be reinstating lifelong pensions. I spoke out. Minister Seamus O'Regan accused me in a newspaper column of stating “mistruths”. The day after the article's publication, Veterans Affairs, without warning or consultation, terminated care for my son, who was then six years old—except Veterans Affairs had learned much since the 2010 privacy breaches and apology. Officials never put on record the reasons for cancelling the care, or they merely refused to release this information.

Four years of working with the privacy and information commissioners have been disheartening. Meanwhile, my health has spiralled again. My PTSD and depression have the unwelcome bedfellow now of severe anxiety disorder, as my mind and body broke once more, with panic attacks lasting not hours but months. Telephone calls from the case manager who signed the letter ceasing my son's care sent me to the ER on multiple occasions with heart arrhythmia. There were ambulances to our house as my son looked on, and monthly ER visits and hospitalization for household accidents as my mind and body disconnected.

After 30 years of suffering constant prostatitis caused by the Persian Gulf War, I developed stage 3 cancer. I sit here today recovering from that surgery.

A system with dozens of the most senior public service officials attempted to humiliate, disempower and discredit me, and then attacked my son's care when I was already dealing with life-threatening chronic illnesses from my military service, yet I was the one accused of being unreasonable, unstable and untruthful.

It is a wonder that anyone who serves in any capacity for our federal government would risk their job, their health, their reputation and their family to speak out. Still, they selflessly do. I, like them, believe that the corruption and mismanagement that appear in the country we love so dearly.... Such unscrupulous or dangerous behaviour must be called out lest others, or our nation, be harmed.

I strongly support expanding the act to former public servants and contractors. Serving military members and CSE have their deeply flawed internal complaint mechanisms. That leaves military veterans as the only federally employed or formerly employed demographic without protection, yet veterans are deeply vulnerable to the whims of a vengeful bureaucracy.

Over 100,000 veterans and almost 40,000 family members are partially or wholly dependant on Veterans Affairs for their financial security. There are no big box stores for veterans' benefits. There's only Veterans Affairs. This places veterans and their families in a particularly vulnerable situation, especially considering that almost 40,000 veterans are suffering a mental health injury.

Veterans are also uniquely positioned to not just see but experience any potential wrongdoing, not only in the $200 million in contracts awarded annually by Veterans Affairs Canada, but also in the new $0.5-billion contract for rehabilitation. We must, as a nation, take good governance and accountability as seriously as the rest of the developed world.

We must see whistle-blowing not merely as an inherent right to be protected, as we protect freedom of expression and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must see whistle-blowing as the voice of reason, independence and accountability in a system where senior civil servants hold all the cards in consistently avoiding accountability.

Ultimately, we must protect those, especially—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 64 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House of Commons on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Colleagues, we'll be going to about 4:30 p.m. Then we will go in camera to finish off the Governor General study.

We have one witness online and several in person. We have some opening statements. I will just confirm that for our witness online, we have done the proper sound check for our interpreters.

Mr. Bruyea, we'll start with you, after which we'll go to Mr. Devine and then Ms. Brill-Edwards.

Mr. Bruyea, go ahead, please.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Is that a recommendation that you would have for Bill C-290, then, to not direct people towards having a judicial review but to having access to the regular court system?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much.

I really do appreciate the testimony from these two witnesses. Let me just reassure them that of course we are looking at ways to make sure that we could.... There needs to be an update to the whistle-blower protection act. There have to be changes, which are being brought about. We have an opportunity right in front of us to bring forward some important changes that would be connected with Bill C-290.

With that understanding, I'd like to turn to you, gentlemen, to help us try to improve the act and to make sure that we will have something that can work within the confines, of course, of a private member's bill and the limitations that we have in that. We could see this as a first step toward a government bill that would come to improve the act. Nonetheless, let's take advantage of the opportunity that is in front of us here.

You mentioned, Mr. Hutton, the PSIC and its predecessor, the PSIO. I'm keen on this notion. In the private member's bill, there is an intention to create an intermediary body or to transform the role of the tribunal. It would serve as a sort of way station between the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and of course a very expensive federal court system, which would be very expensive to the whistle-blower if they were to choose to go down that route, which should be their right.

Would creating this tribunal as a way station diminish the role of the PSIC as you see it? Would that then imply, for those being accused of wrongdoing, that there would be an obligation for government to extend some legal services to them so that they could defend themselves in case they were being wrongfully accused of wrongdoing?

[Dr. Ian Bron]

There are already a number of jurisdictions in Canada that offer protection to contractors who come forward with concerns consistent with what's in Bill C-290.

The best practice standard is that you protect any person, any worker, who comes forward with a concern. We've heard some concerns about jurisdictional issues, but to me this is a bit of a red herring. What we're trying to do is regulate the behaviour of federal public servants. They're the ones making the reprisals. They're the ones who are probably central to any wrongdoing that's been disclosed.

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

You're reassuring me.

I'll also reassure you that I support Bill C‑290, not because I'm a troublemaker, but because it's the right thing to do for our citizens and our workers. However, you're demonstrating that it's impossible to know what a person's true intentions are in a disclosure or even in supporting a bill.

Thank you, gentlemen.

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

Currently, as a member of Parliament, am I acting in good faith by supporting the Bill C‑290 or am I seeking glory, perhaps even revenge? Are you able to determine that?

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

A few times today, mention has been made to removing the clause on good faith or good intentions.

I'd like to do a test with you, Mr. Hutton or Mr. Bron. Can you tell why I support Bill C‑290 and whistle-blowers? What are my intentions? Am I acting in good faith or am I looking for glory?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Bron, in your assessment of Bill C-290, you made the observation that the improvements this bill make may “act as a Trojan Horse, luring unwitting whistleblowers with illusory protection.”

I think the last thing we want to do is have the appearance of doing something when, in fact, we're not. We want to address doing nothing, but we don't want to pretend or be fooled into thinking we're doing something when we're not.

You identified the five categories that are needed in order for whistle-blowing protections to be effective. How can we improve this bill right now so that it offers substantive protections to whistle-blowers?

[Dr. Ian Bron, Senior Fellow, Centre for Free Expression]

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to speak.

I've studied whistle-blowing for over a decade, but just as importantly I was a whistle-blower in 2006. A former naval officer, I joined the federal public service after the 9/11 attacks. I quickly rose to be chief of transportation security regulations at Transport Canada. After witnessing serious misconduct and naively believing that I would be safe, I blew the whistle. This is before the PSDPA came into force, but I don't believe it would have protected me anyway.

The reaction was overwhelming as the resources of the entire department were swiftly mobilized against me. I was falsely accused of security breaches and harassment. When a colleague and I fought back using the grievance process, the complaint was heard by one of the implicated individuals. It was maddening to experience so many abuses of authority assisted by human resources and the department's integrity officer.

The cost and stress destroyed my finances, further damaged my mental health—I already had PTSD from my military service—and ended my marriage. It took me six years to escape this nightmare. Sadly, my efforts achieved nothing. The people and practices I was reporting remained in place, directly contributing to the conditions that allowed the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster to occur.

One positive aspect of this experience was that I met fellow whistle-blowers. The similarities in our experiences made me curious, so I began to study the phenomenon. My Ph.D. dissertation examined whistle-blowing regimes in the U.K., Canada and Australia. I read the literature and interviewed dozens of whistle-blowers, officials, advocates, unions and academics. I scoured legal databases and official records. This helped me understand how whistle-blowing regimes are supposed to work, how they actually work and what is creating the gap between expectations and reality.

Experience has now accumulated to the point where we can refer to numerous best practices. We developed our own best practice document at the Centre for Free Expression, based on these international standards and our own experiences. Using this, I've been assessing provincial whistle-blowing laws for about a year, and I've completed five assessments so far.

After going through both the PSDPA and Bill C-290 painstakingly, my conclusion is that the PSDPA fails every major category of our criteria. As Mr. Hutton has observed, critical failures render it useless to nearly all whistle-blowers.

Bill C-290 does significantly improve the PSDPA and is an excellent start, but it is not enough to make the PSDPA effective, and there remain some critical failures.

First, many people who believe they are protected will not be protected because of the requirement for magic words—that is, if their disclosure is not said in exactly the right form or to exactly the right person.

Second, there is still no duty to actively protect the whistle-blower from the instant they speak up. Instead whistle-blowers must endure reprisals, typically for years, before they can even apply for some form of redress. By this time, most are broken and give up, and the public interest issue dies.

Third, there is no interim relief from reprisal for whistle-blowers. Perversely, there is interim relief for those accused of reprisals.

Fourth, the Integrity Commissioner still doesn't have any special powers to investigate complaints of reprisal, so departments can simply stonewall.

Fifth, processes to correct the wrongdoing remain fundamentally flawed as there is no standard for competence or timeliness of investigations. Departmental investigations are especially vulnerable to interference.

Sixth, while the requirement for five-year reviews is positive, measuring or auditing the performance of the regime is still impossible.

In sum, whistle-blowers remain consistently disadvantaged, and wrongdoers get the benefit of the doubt.

To properly fix the PSDPA will require more changes. In general, future revisions must approach the law with a different mindset. Protecting the whistle-blower must be the priority, not an afterthought, because keeping the whistle-blower safe ensures that the wrongdoing isn't swept under the carpet. Investigations should meet standards of competence and be completed in a reasonable time. Whistle-blowers should be able to rebut evidence from implicated officials.

I'll conclude with an important point that's sometimes missed by people who haven't experienced a reprisal. Whistle-blowing systems must be designed for the worse-case scenario. Whatever limits you might imagine would temper reprisals, such as structural and legal checks and balances, common sense or even normal human decency, discard them from your minds. Whistle-blowing regimes must be constructed as if those implicated will ignore such constraints, because the more serious the wrongdoing and the more powerful the wrongdoers, the more likely that is to happen.

Thank you.

[Julie Dion]

It's so vague and so large.

I'm going to come back to the credibility of the complaints that are made. I think the first thing to do would be to ensure that complaints are acted upon and that people who report these situations are listened to. I believe that Bill C‑290 will provide the protection needed for anonymity and to allow things to go smoothly for both parties.

I think that complaints should be acted upon and that every complaint must be listened to and investigated.

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

I just have a quick question.

I asked Ms. Dion what it would mean for Canada if we passed Bill C-290. Can you speak about what it would be like if we failed to pass it?

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

Can you talk a bit about due process for whistle-blowers, about what they are getting under the current act and what they would get under Bill C-290, and maybe about, again, more improvements that still need to be made to ensure there's fair process?

[Joanna Gualtieri]

Thank you for that.

Tom Devine was to be here today. He is the legal director at the Government Accountability Project. I have been working with him since 1998. In fact, I chaired the board at the Government Accountability Project. He is really the global leader in drafting legislation, so he will speak to this.

Perhaps that's why I was emotional. I really do not speak about my case. I don't want to shine a spotlight on myself. I have been so involved in the legal aspects of it. We decided that he would speak to it today, and that I would speak more to the human dimension.

Turning to your question of whether Bill C-290 gives a whistle-blower a fighting chance, I support deeply the passage of Bill C-290, because it's not just what's in the law; it's what it represents. It represents a step forward in this movement for transparency, accountability and employees' free speech rights.

Will it do the job? No, it will not. That is because it is a very formidable machine that you're going up against.

Monsieur Garon knows that, but he's limited by a private member's bill in what he can put in. The government has the pen to do a lot more. We are going to lean heavily on the government to do that.

For instance, there's no provision for legal counsel in this bill. The burden of proof is not covered in this bill, though I believe there are going to be attempts to deal with that. When somebody comes forward with a complaint, the burden shifts to the other side to show that the retaliation was in no way linked to the disclosures they made. Without that, the complainant carries the burden of proof.

How do you prove what is difficult, which is what your bosses were doing or what is buried in their paperwork that they've never shared with you? You should know that the documents in my case, when piled on top of each other, were five storeys high. It's a lot of information.

This bill is really about kicking off a whole new debate about whether Canada is a country that is going to protect truth-tellers and those people who seek to protect us, the public.

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

First, thank you both for your courage and for seeking justice.

Ms. Gualtieri, I'm going to go to you first.

Would a public servant have a high chance of prevailing with whistle-blowing right now with the the passage Bill C-290?

Maybe you can also speak about what is missing from Bill C-290. I was reading an article where you talked about other countries and what they've done that could be added to strengthen this bill and to even further protect workers.

[Julie Dion]

There were threats to take away our pensions. We were reminded that we were bound by confidentiality. That confidentiality was for the work I was doing, not for the abuse I was experiencing.

When a person is traumatized, when they are shaken, they no longer have all their head to think. When you threaten them directly, they'll freeze in place, not move, because they're being threatened and, on top of that, they may lose their pension.

In my case, I’ve already lost years of service. I have only 15 years of service, and I won't even get a full pension because they pulled the rug out from under me.

So we absolutely need Bill C‑290.

[Julie Dion]

I'm sure that today I would still be standing on my own two feet and would still have my career. So no, I wouldn't have been in this situation if Bill C‑290 had been in force. I would have had a minimum protection, as would Mr. Sabourin. We would still be in Ottawa working, and we wouldn't both be broken.

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

Since Bill C‑290 is a private member's bill, we know that it doesn't have everything it would need now. It's up to the government to put things in place, particularly when it comes to money, and so on.

That said, as it stands, if Bill C‑290 had existed when you were a public servant and needed support, would you have experienced the same incidents you did?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have another question for you, Ms. Dion.

Bill C‑290 proposes to remove references to good faith or having

“reasonable grounds” in sections of the act.

Do you think this will open the door to unwarranted accusations? Is it better to have a framework that says that people must sincerely believe that a wrong or an injustice has been done?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Ms. Dion and Ms. Gualtieri for their very moving testimony.

Ms. Gualtieri, I wasn't aware of your situation, but I was very aware of Mr. Sabourin's and Ms. Dion's efforts to help him.

I'd like to reassure you that everyone around the table agrees on the substance of this important Bill C‑290. We're trying to improve the legislation to ensure that we avoid the kind of problems like the ones you've experienced or witnessed.

My questions will be a little more specific, and I hope you'll be willing to answer them.

Madam Gualtieri, given your direct experience of this, what are your thoughts on this bill's expansion of protection to public servants, not the actual disclosure of wrongdoing but those who are involved in the disclosure of wrongdoings?

[Joanna Gualtieri]

Thank you for that question and for your interest.

I have been involved in this movement for a long time. I am a lawyer as well. I have to say that my initial involvement was very committed to the law. Partly that was my training and I also saw that it was necessary to regulate behaviour through changing the laws. As I've progressed, I've realized—I'm going to read you something by an academic—that the law is really just one part. It has to be there, but we know through any social movement—I always look at the civil rights movement—laws were changed. However, it took decades, years and a lot of sacrifice. There were a lot of deaths and a lot of marches. The culture changed through an amassing of people.

It is essential to pass Bill C-290. To turn it back will send a very grave message to not only the public service but to the people of Canada that they are not important and the truth does not matter, and it's a very cynical manoeuvre. I take it as a given that people will collaborate to pass C-290.

Will it be a panacea? No, it will not. Probably one of the most critical issues is how somebody is supposed to mount a case without legal representation. That is a very big part that we're going to have to discuss how to do.

I want to read you something by an academic. I'll send it to the clerk. This is an article by Brian Martin, who's an Australian academic. He said this:

A whistleblower is, in essence, a person who believes that truth should prevail over power..... [They] are a potential threat to nearly everyone in powerful positions and thus need to be domesticated.

...it is unrealistic to expect a law to undermine powerful hierarchies.

...it cannot be expected that any formal procedure could be enacted and implemented that would enable single individuals, backed solely by truth, to reliably win against powerful organisational elites.

The law is essential. Is it enough? No. We need a major cultural, socio-political shift in embracing whistle-blowing.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Dion, I worked for the Department of Foreign Affairs for 15 years. I was posted to El Salvador, Argentina and, lastly, Dallas, Texas. I remember the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. I was involved in the aid effort at that time.

Thank you both for your service to our country. I think most Canadians don't recognize the service of people who work for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development or who have worked for CIDA.

Madam Gualtieri, I'm just looking at this beautiful picture of you as a younger woman. I was once a younger woman myself. You just wonder how you've changed from then until now. I can't imagine the difference between who this person was, so bright and optimistic, looking outward to the world. After what you've been through, most certainly....

Not to excuse the actions of any government, but I will say that at the time when I was consul for Dallas the foreign minister took some very strong decisions to sell our official residence in Dallas—which had an impact on me—as well as properties in Rome, for example. Certainly I know the injustice that you have faced. It is injustice, but there were those who heard your concerns as outlined within the article in terms of the expectations of Canadians serving abroad. Thank you for that.

Now, I will finally get to the questioning, Madam Gualtieri.

How do you think BillC-290 will impact public servants going forward into the future? What positive aspect is there that could have helped you, were it in place?

[Julie Dion, Border Service Officer and Trainer, As an Individual]

I want to begin by thanking the committee for listening to our stories. It's important.

My name is Julie Dion. I'm 55 years old, and I worked for the federal government from 2000 to 2015. I defended whistle-blower Luc Sabourin.

I was recruited in February 2008 by the senior analyst in the records section, the very person who was the unit's tormentor.

During my initial interview with the director, she asked me if I was comfortable working in a unit where there were interpersonal problems. I told her that I could do it without any problem, since I was trained as a referral agent to provide support in the employee assistance program. So the director knew there were problems in that unit.

I started in this unit as a team leader where I was responsible for about 15 employees. It was during that year that several employees, including Mr. Sabourin, approached me to complain about harassment, injustice and intimidation within the team. During the 18 months of that mandate, I witnessed reprehensible behaviour that was so serious that I lost my sleep.

As per the current complaint protocol, I forwarded the information to my immediate director. This director had to leave the unit within six months because she herself had become the target of the disruptive agent. At that time, the person responsible for the employee assistance program offered me conflict management training. I approached my director to see if I could attend, and she said I could attend, but I couldn't do anything for our unit.

During this training, I learned that I had to go one level above my director, since she, herself, was involved. The senior person responsible was the vice-president of the Canada Border Services Agency. The complainants and I went to meet with her. The situation went downhill after that. The verbal barbs from my director and the disruptive officer made it clear to me that these two individuals were aware of the complaints and the steps we had taken.

During my short tenure with the unit, I saw at least 25 people come and go because of this situation.

The anguish and nightmares caused by defamatory comments and abusive, aggressive and reprehensible actions were ruining my life. Faced with this chaos and my powerlessness, I asked for a sabbatical year to fulfill a mandate of the Canadian International Development Agency in Haiti. It was a nine-month contract.

I asked my director for help on several occasions to support the training that I sometimes gave to the records unit, which she refused, not surprisingly.

Following the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, the Haitian minister asked me to stay to help manage the state of emergency. I asked my new director for an extension of my mandate to allow me to stay in Haiti, which she refused. She then asked me to return to Canada. In light of this refusal, the Haitian minister asked the Canadian ambassador to intervene with the director to release me. The Canadian ambassador's request was also denied.

An email from CBSA's vice-president of Operations notified me that I was being fired. I found myself without a government job after 11 years of loyal service and literally risking my life to promote the values and security of my country, all because I dared to speak out, because I dared to support a whistle-blower.

In 2013, I was contacted again following an investigation, which Mr. Sabourin talked about in his testimony, to be reinstated in my position, because it had been discovered that I had been wrongfully terminated. In 2014, I was reinstated to a position below mine, in a unit in Sherbrooke that was far from my area of expertise.

I would find out later, through an access to information request, that an order for radio silence had been issued to me by management. That was the death knell of my career; I'm still being targeted.

In 2015, I couldn't take it anymore. Suffering from post-traumatic stress related to this situation, I went on sick leave. I've never been able to return to work.

Being a whistle-blower in the current system is the equivalent of professional suicide. It's David versus Goliath. As a witness to what was going on with Mr. Sabourin, I was also targeted and not protected. If the amendments proposed in Bill C‑290 had been in force, I would have been protected.

I ask the members of the committee and all Canadians to hear my case.

The lack of real protection kills. Wrongdoing, even criminal acts, takes place within the government, and no one says anything because of the lack of protection and the violence of reprisals. All of this breaks whistle-blowers. It can even drive them to suicide; believe me, it's not as rare as we think. Things must change, and Bill C‑290 is part of that change.

Remember that the work you do in Parliament has the potential to save lives. Please stand on the right side.

Thank you.

[Joanna Gualtieri]

Thank you.

I have learned sobering truths. Despite winning, decades of being in a subterfuge of corruption, lies and cover-up leaves lasting wounds, but the deepest cut is loss: loss of time, hope, vocation, community, and most of all, the loss of my little brother who, with special needs, counted on me. Engaged in a war against a formidable government, I couldn't be there when he needed me most, and he died alone.

A year later I went through the same debilitating regret when mom died. We never got to sign up for the sewing classes. I kept deferring. I am so sorry.

Today my husband Serge is here with our sons Zacharie and Sebastien. In the depth of despair, we found grace with their arrival. For their generation, we must find courage and place dignity to people over deference to power. We must pass Bill C-290, establishing this moment as a new beginning in restoring trust not only in our public service but also in Canada's vision for decency and justice.

Martin Luther King said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Today, pass Bill C-290 and be the force that bends this arc.

Thank you very much. I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 63 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Colleagues, one of our witnesses for today, unfortunately, was tied up by their airline and will not be able to make it. That's Mr. Devine, so we have two witnesses today.

Ms. Gualtieri, welcome back. It's fantastic to see you.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois for its Bill C‑290, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Of course we agree that workers' rights are important. I think that we can also agree that the government and the Prime Minister are to blame for the current strike.

Based on the questions I got, it is clear that we agree on a lot of things concerning workers' rights and the government's responsibility.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, MP Barrett. We are in support.

Can I just ask for a clarification? How many meetings do you have in mind, and how do you see calling the witnesses impacting specifically Bill C-290 and some of the other work we are doing?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. I will echo the statements of everybody else by thanking Mr. Sabourin for showing the courage to ultimately revisit his painful lived experience.

Thanks also to our colleague, Monsieur Garon, for bringing this forward again.

I think Mr. Sabourin talked a little bit about this. The bill includes making “failure to provide support” to a public servant who is making a reprisal part of the act.

Would this change violate the confidentiality of the process, as additional people would need to know the identity of the discloser? I think you mentioned that it ultimately goes to people who know the people who know the people.

My question is for Madam Forward.

Bill C-290 also includes a new category of wrongdoing, which is “abuse of authority”, but it has no definition within the bill. How can the committee solve the problem of how to define that?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start off by echoing the comment of my colleague MP Kusie. I also want to recognize and speak to the courage that has been alluded to here and the resolve that it has taken, I believe, for you to speak out and speak publicly.

I won't speak for all of us, but I would say that it is very difficult to understand how a professional public service would allow this culture to exist. It's even more difficult to understand and to hear the extent of the intimidation that you were subjected to and the impact that had on your mental and physical well-being. I want to thank you for coming forward, Mr. Sabourin, and sharing your story with us.

I also want to thank Mr. Garon one more time for introducing Bill C-290. I think the only thing worse than doing nothing is believing that you are doing something when you, in fact, are not.

Reviewing this piece of legislation and acting on it I think is something we are very committed to on this side of the House, of the room.

I don't really have any more questions. I would just turn the floor back to either of you to make any final comments that you would like to make to this committee today.

[Luc Sabourin, Retired Junior Officer, Canada Border Services Agency, As an Individual]

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for having me.

On behalf of my colleagues, I would also like to thank Mr. Garon and Mrs. Vignola.

My name is Luc Sabourin. I'm 55 years old and the father of two young children, a 16‑year‑old girl and a 12‑year‑old boy. I am a whistle-blower who disclosed federal wrongdoings internally.

I was a senior quality control operator for the entry of critical and specific information in a federal database that contributes in part to national and international security. I held the highest security clearances, granted on an extremely limited and restricted basis. I performed my duties in an operational environment for the Canadian government during my 26 years of service, with no incidents in my career file.

My career began on August 13, 1990, and ended tragically and harshly on February 16, 2016. During the period from March 2009 to February 2016, I witnessed a number of criminal wrongdoings in my workplace. On February 16, 2016, I received a constructive administrative dismissal. This administrative procedure was the final step taken by my employer after eight years of psychological, physical and administrative harassment.

This constructive dismissal constituted a major reprisal by my employer for two reasons. First, an outside investigation, but one that was extremely limited and under the administrative control of the branch, revealed and demonstrated that the employer was guilty of harassment towards me.

Second, I used the internal disclosure processes, and religiously followed the employer's internal guidelines and protocols on disclosing wrongdoings and crimes in the federal workplace.

Consequently, management and co‑workers who were the perpetrators undertook a major campaign of reprisals against me just to undermine and destroy me, and to catch me doing something wrong in order to justify my dismissal. For eight years, I was the victim of psychological, physical and administrative harassment in the workplace, as well as a smear campaign, abusive management practices and unwarranted threats from colleagues and members of management. It was so extreme that I suffered a psychological breakdown.

In 2015, I reached the breaking point psychologically and made an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Today, life has given me a second chance to speak on behalf of some of my colleagues who are no longer with us as well as those who are still here. No one should have to go through what internal whistle-blowers experience at the hands of their employer.

I asked for help from the person in charge of my workplace, my Liberal member of Parliament, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. I also made a complaint to the RCMP, which has been unsuccessful to date.

Today, I am on permanent retirement for medical reasons. I am physically, mentally and financially shattered. My personal life and professional career have been destroyed, and the future is uncertain for me and my family.

I can state with certainty that the Government of Canada and the Canadian people had an experienced honest public servant who represented their interests with integrity and transparency. It is for these same reasons that the employer ended my career as a federal public servant.

It is imperative that each of you support amending the current law by passing Bill C‑290 for whistle-blowers in the federal public service. This will protect them and save lives in the interest of transparency and justice. Democracy and public safety must be protected from potentially destructive and illegal situations in the federal public sector.

Thank you all for listening.

[Pamela Forward, President and Executive Director, Whistleblowing Canada Research Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Pamela Forward, president and executive director of Whistleblowing Canada Research Society. We appreciate very much the opportunity to speak with everybody today.

Our heartfelt thanks to MPs who, thus far, have supported the private member's bill, Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and to the Bloc Québécois member of Parliament from Mirabel, Mr. Jean-Denis Garon, for bringing it forward.

This bill is a long-awaited signal. It's a sign of humanity, compassion and respect towards Canada's public servant whistle-blowers. It will make significant, much-needed improvements and hopefully provoke many more to the deficient PSDPA.

In my time with you I will highlight some historical facts, why improvement in Canada's whistle-blowing regime is needed and thoughts on what more can be done.

In terms of history, here are some key facts.

Both of Canada's major parties have had a hand in the creation of the PSDPA, which was implemented in 2007. Clearly, they knew before the fact that the bill would not improve anything for whistle-blowers. Justice Gomery warned of this in his report on the sponsorship scandal in 1995. Instead of encouraging and empowering whistle-blowers, what it really did was control and suppress them.

More missteps perpetuated the suffering and enabled wrongdoers. First, was the 2012 government decision to disobey a statute—an indictable offence. They did not conduct the required independent review of the PSDPA after five years. Next, was the new government leader's decision to ignore the OGGO committee's 2017 unanimous report of its review of the PSDPA, recommending more than 20 amendments, if I remember correctly.

Why are improvements needed then? Studies and whistle-blower cases confirm that truth and truth-tellers in Canada are imperilled by this uncompromising unwillingness—at least up to now—to provide true protection and stop reprisals. This peril includes major catastrophes to both individuals and society at large, up to, and including, death. When truth dies, harm and corruption grow.

The studies and findings are listed in my submission. They confirm our flawed legislation and dysfunctional cultures.

Also, a key finding is that legislation alone will not protect whistle-blowers. The overriding factor for success is culture. If laws are introduced into an unwelcoming, resistant culture, they will not be properly upheld.

Here are a few whistle-blower cases.

This is an old one that has current consequences. Thirty years ago, in the 1990s, national security whistle-blowers from the then Department of External Affairs, the RCMP and CSIS were suppressed and ostracized. Their careers and health were destroyed for just doing their jobs. They reported on corruption in the Canadian high commission in Hong Kong that allowed Chinese Triads—criminals—to flow into Canada and bring along with them drug and human trafficking, money laundering, inflated house prices, etc. The consequences have persisted until today and have grown to include interference in Canada's elections by the CCP.

Here is a current case waiting to be told. This case concerns the Canada Border Services Agency and an officer who simply did his job by refusing to comply with illegal and potentially criminal orders from his superiors. You're going to hear from him in person. What's breathtaking and frightening is the litany of failures of all of the authorities he contacted who should have helped and could have helped, but didn't. That sadly included MPs from most parties. It's a living testimony to the disintegration of our democratic institutions in real time.

That's something else to consider. I'm going to leave it because of the time. I hope it will come up again.

What is needed then is Bill C‑290. It contains eight internationally recognized best practices. There are 20 in all. A few more are needed to give a whistle-blower a reasonable chance to prevail. We urge you to work collaboratively to include as many as possible in the bill. This is not a partisan issue. Our democracy is under stress, and we need—and you need—whistle-blowers to come forward to help defend it.

The problems plaguing the current regime are.... I'm just going to list them and I have listed solutions in a table—

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

I already answered that question in a broader sense. If it's all right with you, I could provide you with a written answer and a table summarizing all the recommendations that we chose to include in Bill C‑290.

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

As I said, first of all, the purpose of the bill is to better protect the anonymity of whistle-blowers and witnesses in investigations.

I'll give you an example. The decision to disclose wrongdoing can have a major impact on someone's career. Those who take this step are seldom the only ones who witnessed the wrongdoing in question. Although corroboration is needed, other witnesses may not be at the same point in their personal journey. Therefore, even if the anonymity of the person making the disclosure is ensured, when the time comes to talk with the witnesses and investigate, if these individuals do not have sufficient protection, this will severely constrain the investigator's investigative authority. This is part of what we had in mind when we drafted the bill.

Another issue relates to the time limits. The current legislation states that a person must make a disclosure within 60 days after witnessing a wrongdoing. I am telling you this because you are going to hear from witnesses who have gone through this process and paid a high price. These 60 days provide an opportunity to ask oneself certain questions. Will I be serving the public interest, and acting in the best interest of the country and sound management of the government? Will I lose my job, be demoted, face harassment and so on?

Indeed, there may be reprisals. Sixty days isn't much time to make this decision. When you get a mortgage rate, it is frozen for three months. This is an important decision, so we want to extend this period to a year. I would say that, in this regard, one year is very little time.

There is also the possibility of referring the matter to the Auditor General. At present, when an individual witnesses criminal acts in the public administration, there is obviously recourse to the RCMP. In the case of gross mismanagement, there is no recourse to the Auditor General. As you know, the Auditor General has a unique skill set within the machinery of government and enjoys a unique level of independence with regard to gross mismanagement. This is part of the proposed changes to the legislation.

Lastly, we have an obligation to support public servants. When a public servant suffers reprisals, this person is being given the opportunity to have the reprisal recognized before being forced to bring the matter before the Federal Court at their own expense, thereby risking bankruptcy. These are major changes that are going to make the process much more effective and much less costly, both for whistle-blowers, who are simply doing their job, and for the government, which must manage the entire process, including the appeal and judicial processes.

This is part of the changes contained in Bill C‑290.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your welcome. That's very kind of you.

I would also like to congratulate my colleague, Mr. Garon, for taking the initiative of introducing Bill C‑290. As the member has just said, this is a tremendous opportunity to reach a strong consensus among all political parties on how to enhance the legislation.

Mr. Garon, I have a few questions for you about certain elements of your bill. A number of the proposed changes involve removing certain restrictions in the act that are intended to prevent overlap with other legislation or organizations. For example, the bill would remove subsection 19.1(4), which prevents individuals from availing themselves of a procedure under another act or a collective agreement when they file a reprisal complaint.

Do you think that the removal of this restriction would lead to significant overlap between recourse mechanisms?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Garon, for being here today, and for the work you did in developing Bill C‑290, work that the government decided not to do.

What do you think are the reasons why the government decided not to implement the recommendations from the committee's 2017 report?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Fellow members, thank you for having me. It is a privilege to come before you today to present my bill, Bill C‑290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

This is an important moment for me and for many whistle-blowers. This is a historic moment.

For more than 20 years, we have had few opportunities to improve the whistle-blower protection regime within the federal government. I would add that sound management of public finances and government as well as restoring public confidence in the government are deeply non-partisan issues.

We already have a public servants disclosure protection act, but it is flawed, unfortunately, and has at times led to a breakdown in the trust between prospective whistle-blowers and the government. Moreover, according to the independent U.S. organization Government Accountability Project, the Canadian act is one of the weakest of its kind among countries that have this type of legislation. In fact, Canada is ranked behind Lebanon, Rwanda, Pakistan, Bosnia, Tunisia, Uganda, Kenya, Zambia, Kosovo, Namibia, Serbia and many others. This is a problem for a G7 country, a G20 country, an OECD member country and for a democracy that is expected to have sound institutions.

This bill seeks to strengthen the mechanisms that protect the anonymity of whistle-blowers and includes additional categories of public servants in the system. It also seeks to better protect the identity of witnesses who participate in investigations. The bill will increase the obligation to support public servants who disclose wrongdoing and will give them more time to file a complaint. At present, the limitation period is much too short. Disclosing wrongdoing is an extremely demanding process; it can take more than 60 days to decide whether to proceed. The bill will simplify the appeal processes that whistle-blowers can use in the event that they face reprisals. It will also make it possible, in cases of mismanagement, to refer the matter to the Auditor General.

I wish to point out that the current legislation came into being in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, which was exposed thanks to the expertise of the Auditor General, expertise found in few other places within the federal government.

The intent of the bill is to restore confidence between the public service and the federal government, which is extremely important. Whistle-blowers are very courageous individuals who want to better protect the public. The decision to disclose wrongdoing has an enormous impact on the whistle-blower's life.

Over the course of its review, the committee will meet with witnesses whose lives have been shattered by this process. These individuals placed their trust in the process, but it is seriously flawed—as we will see during the clause‑by‑clause review. They ended up being punished for doing good and for wanting to serve Canadians, Quebeckers, taxpayers, democracy at large and our institutions. In some cases, these individuals were even placed under surveillance. The committee may meet some people who are afraid to come before the committee, who fear reprisals. It is this type of situation that we need to address; our democracy depends on it.

By protecting whistle-blowers, we are safeguarding democracy and sound management, as well as the government. Scandals should not be used as a management tool. We cannot wait for a scandal to occur before making adjustments to legislation.

We need to put mechanisms in place to ensure that Canadians who witness irregularities are better served by government institutions, and that is the very intent of the bill that I have introduced in the House of Commons.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, good afternoon. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 61 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

With us we have the creator of the bill, MP Jean-Denis Garon. We will have an opening statement from you for five minutes, sir.

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Do we need a recorded vote or all we all good? I think we're good with the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

That's perfect.

Before we get to you, Mr. Johns, there are a couple of things that I need to clear up with Bill C-290, and I'd like to do that while we're still on track there, if you don't mind.

On the deadline for amendments on Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, I would like to set it for May 3, 2023, by noon, if that's fine with everyone. The committee will commence clause-by-clause for Bill C-290, an act to amend the PSDPA, on Monday, May 8, 2023. We have May 10 being held as well if we can't get through that on the clause-by-clause. Are we all comfortable with that?

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

All members received in an email the text of the amended motion on Bill C‑290, an act to amend the public servants disclosure protection act. The motion has been submitted in both official languages. I will read it out:

That, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 15, 2023, concerning Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Committee invite the following witnesses to appear regarding the protection of federal public servants who disclose wrongdoing: a) Pamela Forwards, President of the Board of Directors of Whistleblowing Canada; b) Joanna Gualtieri, lawyer; c) Luc Sabourin, former employee of the Canada Border Services Agency; d) Julie Dion, former employee of the Canada Border Services Agency; and e) Tom Devine, Legal Director, Government Accountability Project; That the Committee allocate Wednesday, April 19, 2023, and Wednesday, April 26, 2023, to hear these witnesses.

It's basically the same motion that we started to discuss a few weeks ago, and we seemed to have a consensus.

The only difference of note is simply that the dates have changed for the witnesses. The witnesses are aware that they may be summoned in the very near future to testify before the committee. They are looking forward to it, and many of them will propose solid amendments to the bill.

This act is very important in terms of protecting our public servants, citizens and employees, as well as the quality and integrity of government services provided to our citizens.

I hope that the consensus is still there, given that only the dates have changed somewhat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I suspect, when the time comes, we'll ask the same for the McKinsey ones, but that she's doing ArriveCan first is my understanding.

We have a couple of budget items to go over. The budgets have been distributed by the clerk. The first one is Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. It's $14,000, but because it's all internal—I think the witnesses are all going to be in person—I don't think we'll spend any of it. However, we need the committee's approval for that.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis, Mr. Chair and all the witnesses.

I'll tie up a few loose ends here.

We already heard from Ms. Gauthier about Bill C-290, the Public Sector Integrity Act. Do the other three companies have a position on this bill?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay. I see that Ms. Sampson is nodding.

Let's shift gears a bit to Bill C-290, which is the public sector integrity act. This is a bill that is before Parliament. It's about strengthening whistle-blower legislation.

Do any of the witnesses have any position on this particular bill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Johns, thank you.

Mr. Giroux, thank you very much.

Ms. Vanderwees, I'm sorry you didn't get a chance to interact with us, but it is always a pleasure to have our honoree OGGO member from PBO join us. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I have two very small housekeeping announcements.

The committee is going to be considering the recommendations for the report on travel expenditures related to the office of the Governor General's secretary since 2014 for the second hour on March 27. I do encourage everyone, because we had so many recommendations and so many overlapping.... We agreed to pare them down to discuss among each other.

The second item is that the committee will receive a brief presentation from the legislative clerk at the start of the second hour on March 27 on Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. If you recall, we were going to have them in, but it got bumped.

If there's nothing else, colleagues, we will adjourn. Thank you, everyone.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay.

How will Bill C-290 affect the legislative review process?

[Jean-François Fleury]

It will be consulting lots of specialists in the whistle-blowing regime, as well as looking at the recommendations made in the report by OGGO and the comments expressed during discussions on Bill C-290, and will do a report in 12 to 18 months from now.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

Of the $1.9 million in new funding that Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is requesting under vote 1(c), program expenditures, $486,378 would be for a review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. This is a budget 2022 initiative. On February 15, 2023, a private member's bill, Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, was referred to the committee.

In your opinion, would the requested funds support the nine task force members' compensation? For what else would these funds be used, please?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you for your different comments.

I do want to mention that, of course, Bill C-290 is going to be part of our study to continue to reinforce the law about whistle-blowing. Also, the OGGO committee tabled the report. There is good in there that we will be using. I did, of course, mention earlier that much of it will be part of strengthening the act.

When we talk about transparency and responsible financial management, our government is committed to that. We bring monthly financial reports that are posted and reported in "The Fiscal Monitor". Our departments provide quarterly financial reporting. You also know that annual audited financial statements are published in the public accounts. We also table, as you know, departmental plans and departmental results reports.

For your information, we will be tabling the departmental plans tomorrow. Outside of the pilot project that we did in 2018-19, which I'm sure someone might raise, our government has tabled the departmental plans—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to you, Minister, and to your departmental officials for being with us.

I just want to make a suggestion before I go into my questioning. While you're discussing Bill C-290 and perhaps the things you like about it and the things you don't, I would recommend that you take a look at a perfectly good OGGO study that made recommendations to address the issues within the system. It's my understanding that the report has basically been collecting dust for over four or five years now, and it actually could be implemented for free. You've had parliamentarians undertake a study on this, so please do take a look at that study.

Twice, Minister, you've mentioned “ambitious” agendas and have said that you have “an ambitious agenda”. I think an ongoing issue with the departmental plans has been the departments setting departmental results to be achieved with the money provided to them, but with dates and actual targets set with “to be advised” status. This has been brought up each time for years. You wouldn't get a bank loan for a lemonade stand by setting targets “to be advised”. A full 25%—one in four—had no stated goal for results to be achieved in a year. Why do you expect Parliament to approve money when there are no goals or targets attached to that?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you for the question.

As we said, we have to do things properly, without half measures. Amending the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is not as simple as adopting the recommendations made in the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Some of those recommendations would overlap with other possible avenues of recourse, resulting in needless duplication and inconsistent decisions. Others can simply not be done. On the other hand, we will draw on some of the committee's work to strengthen Bill C‑290.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

First of all, thank you for your question.

I am pleased to hear you say that Bill C‑290 has some strong points.

There are also some challenges with it right now, however, because of certain changes to be made to its structure. We are in discussions right now to find ways to improve it. The task force will therefore continue its work for 12 to 18 months and then, once we have received its recommendations, we can make our proposals to strengthen Bill C‑290.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

I appreciate more of that information.

Really I don't think that it is the protection of whistle-blowers by this government. I actually think it's desperation by public servants who felt compelled to protect their nation and to provide information that is pertinent and imperative to the democracy of this country that drove these individuals from CSIS to come forward with this information.

I think your government has been significantly behind on this issue for some time, and, as I said, this task force just looks like another attempt to try to cover up transparency when you were given the opportunity with Bill C-290 to move forward with that.

In addition, you mentioned maintaining public service morale. We also see here in the estimates that you have put aside $817 million for professional services. You know very well that we have been undertaking a study of McKinsey here. Previous to that we were looking at other procurement issues. There has been a call to study other agencies outside of McKinsey. Why then do you continue to undermine public servants, who are sitting with you here today even, and provide another $817 million for consulting firms?

I believe your government is failing on transparency and you're also failing in terms of public service morale and, frankly, it's showing in the numbers we have seen recently. Both private union support and public union support are at the lowest place historically that I can remember, Minister Fortier.

What do you have to say to that regarding the amounts put aside for professional consulting services?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you for the question.

We all know that those who disclose serious wrongdoing must be protected. That is why we are currently asking an expert external task force to study how the federal disclosure process can better protect and empower employees to come forward. I really look forward to their advice.

Also, I think all parties agree on better protecting whistle-blowers, and that's why Bill C-290 would make some constructive changes but also would create some structural challenges.

I have had very good conversations with MP Garon about bringing forward Bill C-290, and we hope to find common ground to better protect our world-class public servants by taking some of the information in Bill C-290 and making sure that we also reduce those structural changes to make sure we have a law that provides a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoing in the workplace and also protection from acts of reprisal.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I see you have asked for $486,378 for this five-week fiscal period for review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and yet you and your government didn't vote in favour of Bill C-290.

Your government is clearly at this time, especially given everything that we're seeing on the foreign interference file—which we saw today actually dates back to 2019—really just a series of cover-ups. Frankly, I was really shocked that your Prime Minister didn't suggest an inquiry, because I felt as though this is what happened with Bill C-290, in that this private member's bill was put forward and so in a panicked response you put together this advisory board on the whistle-blowers.

My point is that your government at this point—and, in fact, we have seen in this meeting as well the closure of debate on our request for the documents around the U.K. trip—has a terrible track record of transparency with Canadians, and Canadians are waking up to that.

We saw that in question period today, where your Prime Minister, sadly, had to try to use so many tactics that we have seen before time and time again and to deflect by talking about, perhaps, errors my colleagues have made, or International Women's Day, which we have seen before.

Why didn't you just support Bill C-290 and will you commit to more transparency, Minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid that was your last question—for now.

Mr. Garon, we'll go to you for six minutes, but before we do, I want to congratulate you on the passing of your private member's bill regarding the protection of whistle-blowers. I do have to say that, as someone who worked on the original study from OGGO, I was extremely disappointed that those who worked on it from the government side refused to vote for it. However, I'm very pleased that it passed. It will be fantastic for whistle-blowers. Thank you, sir.

Go ahead for six minutes.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Then, Minister, you're going against the words of your public servants. You're going against what they are saying to the media. You're going against what the media is reporting. Frankly, after seeing the way your government just voted in the House on Bill C-290, it's not very surprising. It's not surprising, and I see the member who passed the PMB is agreeing with that. This is not surprising. Considering the response that we saw from that poor gentleman from Afghanistan in the chamber last week, it's not surprising to me that you're disregarding the words of your public servants.

You are also contradicting the words of not only your predecessor, Minister McCallum. You're also contradicting the words of the former finance minister Bill Morneau, who also said in his book, “We developed a number of good ideas and concepts. They included setting immigration targets and expanding the number of scientists available to work on new developments that could either support existing economic activities or inspire new ones.”

You're saying one thing, Minister. Your public servants, the media and your predecessors are saying something else.

Public Sector Integrity Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-290 under Private Members' Business.

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to a bill that I believe is long overdue, as it addresses something that I believe is long overdue to be addressed.

Bill C-290 would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen the current whistle-blower protections for public servants. This is an excellent initiative, and I commend my colleague for introducing the bill.

As was mentioned in the sponsor of this bill’s speech, while the Public Servants Disclosure Act is based on sound principles, it has a number of flaws. The bill before us seeks to address those flaws. That is why it is important to add these stronger protections sooner rather than later. Though it would seem that the desire to swiftly deliver stronger protections for whistle-blowers only exists on the opposition side of the House.

The government, after sitting on well-written recommendations for whistle-blower protections for five years, now wants to spend millions of dollars and more time studying them. The Liberals may even decide to procure the services of some outside consulting firm to tell them what they should do. We simply cannot continue to wait for them to get their act together.

Whistle-blower protections are fundamental to the functioning of our government. If public servants are afraid to raise the alarm, then corruption and wasteful spending run rampant. In the absence of these protections, a culture of fear arises. Public servants are worried about retaliatory actions being taken if they raise their concerns over government actions.

Oftentimes, it is public servants who lead to the public discovering a government’s malfeasance. For example, at the beginning of this year, when CBC published its article detailing the McKinsey contracts, there was testimony from two IRCC employees who held major roles in the department. They spoke about the issues of contracting with McKinsey and their concerns on the condition of remaining anonymous.

If we had a system in place that would have protected them and allowed them to raise these concerns earlier, we may not be where we are now, with the government having given over $100 million in contracts to McKinsey. That is why we must ensure that the protections for whistle-blowers are strong. The bill would do many things to strengthen these protections.

Bill C-290 would expand the definition of wrongdoing. It would broaden who is considered a supervisor, so that public servants could make a protected disclosure to any superior within their organization. This would allow public servants to go to any trusted superior to voice their concerns. It would give public servants more confidence in raising concerns if they know they can go to someone they trust outside of their direct superior.

Another good change that is being proposed through the bill is the extension of the deadline for filing a reprisal complaint from 60 days to one year. Giving public servants more time to file their complaints would ensure there is ample time for reprisal actions to be identified and punished. It is important that these concerns are heard and that bad actors are dealt with, or else we may have reoffenders.

Another aspect that is addressed in the bill is the penalty for reprisal against whistle-blowers and protections for whistle-blowers themselves. The significant increases in financial penalties for reprisals would be an important deterrent for possible bad actors who are trying to punish and silence whistle-blowers. The increased penalties would likely be a strong deterrent against reprisals.

The bill would also allow for a remedy to be provided to a whistle-blower if a reprisal action was taken. This is important, as not only could the whistle-blower be vindicated if reprisal actions are taken, but they could also be compensated in some way to make up for the reprisal action and ensuing consequences. Additionally, by giving superiors a duty to protect and provide support to public servants making a disclosure, whistle-blowers could be more confident when coming forward that this would indeed happen.

One last aspect of the bill that I want to focus on is the requirement to review the act every five years. I am sure that members of the governing party will enthusiastically welcome this addition, given their eagerness just now to review the act.

Obviously, we have seen that, without proactive attention, the shortcomings of the act have been exploited. As members may recall, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was brought in under the previous Conservative government in 2006. This legislation was in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Over the past several years, we have seen that the current whistle-blower protections are not sufficient.

As the sponsor of this bill said in his speech, we can probably count on two hands the number of people who have actually been protected under the current framework. We must do more. With a Prime Minister and cabinet that have been found guilty of a record five ethics breaches, we need to rely on whistle-blowers more than ever to bring to light the questionable and unethical, behind-the-scenes actions of the government.

We need only recall how the Prime Minister treated his former minister of justice when she stood up for the integrity of her office. She was quickly forced out. If a minister of the Crown cannot be protected, how can we expect public servants to come forward with their concerns? This bill is the first step we can take towards strengthening whistle-blower protections. Hopefully, we can reach the point where the government will fully implement all of the recommendations put forward by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in 2017.

Conservatives have always been supportive of strong protections for whistle-blowers. That is why we are supporting this bill, just as we supported the 2017 recommendations from the OGGO committee then, and they were as follows: expanding the definition of the terms “wrongdoing” and “reprisal” and modifying the definition of the term “protected disclosure” under the act; amending the legislation to protect and support whistle-blowers and prevent retaliation against them; reversing the burden of proof from the whistle-blower onto the employer in cases of reprisals; providing legal and procedural advice, as necessary, to public servants seeking to make a protected disclosure of wrongdoing or file a reprisal complaint; embedding in the legislation confidentiality provisions of witnesses’ identities; making the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner responsible for training, education and oversight responsibilities to standardize the internal disclosure process; and finally, implementing mandatory and timely reporting of disclosure activities.

As my colleague, the shadow minister for Treasury Board, stated last fall:

Conservatives have a long history of standing up for whistleblowers, first with the creation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protections Act under Prime Minister Stephen Harper as well as reforms to strengthen the act included in both our 2019 and 2021 platforms. As the Liberal government fails to prioritize these important protections, we will continue our work to stand up for public servants and protect whistleblowers.

I hope that all of these recommendations will be fully implemented sooner rather than later, and I think this bill is a great start. I also hope my colleagues on the government side will support it. If they do not, we will be left to speculate as to why they do not want public servants bringing forward concerns about the government’s actions.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to take a brief look at the summary of Bill C-290. It proposes to expand the protections of the PSDPA to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to any supervisor, add a duty to provide support to whistle-blowers and repeal sections of the act that prevent overlap with other recourse mechanisms and provisions that set out the standard of serious wrongdoings.

I want to highlight for members the importance of whistle-blower legislation. I had an opportunity here in Ottawa in the past and in the Manitoba legislature to talk about the importance of enabling whistle-blowing and enhancing legislation where we can. We know that the government has been working with stakeholders regarding how we can improve legislation, which is a process that has been under way for a while now. I do not necessarily know all of the details of it, but I do know how important it is that we recognize this particular process and, at the very least, acknowledge those who have put in so much effort to bring us to the point where we are today.

The legislation we are talking about, I would suggest, has a number of concerns within it. At the very least, if the legislation were to go to the next stage, no doubt it would require a number of amendments.

Our civil service puts in a phenomenal effort in many different respects. It was not that long ago that we turned to our civil servants and said, when going into the pandemic, that we needed to ensure we could develop the types of programs that would be there for Canadians. I want to acknowledge the types of efforts that were put in, and then at the tail end, I will talk about why it is important that we have whistle-blower legislation at the provincial and national levels. I will start by giving credit where credit is due.

When we went into the pandemic, there was no such thing as a CERB payment or a program that would provide hundreds of millions going into billions of dollars to Canadians. Virtually from ground zero, civil servants stepped up on a program of that nature. Earlier today, we talked at great length about the wage subsidy program. Again, it was civil servants who stepped up to provide that program. In general, the vast majority of things that take place within our civil service support Canadians seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

If one wanted to illustrate how effective our civil servants were, and still are obviously, in the creation of the programs I just referenced, we can put it into perspective: Nine million-plus Canadians received benefits, and none of that would have been possible if not for our civil service. It provided the financial resources that were necessary for people to sustain themselves. We can talk about the tens of thousands of businesses, some of which were highlighted earlier today and the CRA will follow through on, that benefited from the efforts of civil servants providing the programs and processes necessary to sustain companies and protect jobs so that Canada would be in a much better position.

The speaker before me on this legislation made reference to the issue of immigration. We have civil servants around the world who are there every day to ensure that we continue to grow and prosper as a nation through immigration policies. As immigration grows, the demands on those civil servants continue to grow and we provide the finances.

It is not all perfect, as we know. There are ways in which we can look at improving the system. I want to relay some statistics in regard to issues. For example, from 2007-08 to 2021-22, there were 161 internal disclosures that led to a finding of wrongdoing and 443 internal disclosures that led ultimately to corrective measures. PSIC had 17 cases that led to a finding of wrongdoing and corrective measures, along with two cases that led to corrective measures without finding any wrongdoing. In fact, eight cases were referred to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. There have been no findings of reprisal. I think that is really important.

This is the reason why we look at whistle-blower legislation and how we can improve upon the civil service. This is how I ultimately view it: How do we enhance what we already have as a world-class civil service? One of the ways we do that is by protecting those civil servants who are put into positions where there is a moral obligation or, at times, some form of quasi-legal aspect of having to report on something, so that there are no reprisals as a direct result of having to make that claim.

From 2016 to 2021-22, there were 505 reprisal complaints received by PSIC, leading to 62 investigations that were launched, with 22 of them being resolved through conciliation. I think it is important to note that data was not reported from 2007-08 and 2015. Over the last five years, the number of new allegations of wrongdoing made internally has averaged around 269 per year. Over the last five years, PSIC received an average of 145 disclosures of wrongdoing and 48 reprisal complaints.

I could go on with some of the stats, but I want to emphasize that we believe public servants who disclose serious wrongdoing must be protected. We recognize that. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act helps to ensure an ethical workplace culture and supports the integrity of the federal public sector.

As I started off my comments, I would like to conclude them by saying that I have witnessed first-hand, for many years as a parliamentarian, the outstanding performance of our civil servants at the national and other levels of government. Comparing Canada as a whole to other nations around the world, I think we can take a great sense of pride in it. I am glad to hear that the department itself is looking at ways in which we can even improve the system by incorporating whistle-blower legislation that will add true value to the process and protect our public servants.

The House resumed from November 2, 2022, consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Bill C-290 came up for debate on November 2. Do you think it's any coincidence that on October 30—three days before—the government announced that they'd be moving forward with a review of the act and gave three full business days to have representatives apply for two positions on the advisory committee it is striking as part of the review? This is after five years, and they had to do it. Do you believe this is proper engagement with the public sector unions and the Canadian public?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Do you think that when the task force begins its work, it will come to lots of conclusions that are already not only in the 2017 report but also in Bill C-290 as presented by the member for Mirabel?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Well, 18 months is quite an imposition. I think it's already being impeded.

Do you think that some of the work of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act review task force would overlap with the parliamentary process involved in Bill C-290?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm sure you're well aware that a Bloc Québécois member put forward the private member's bill, Bill C-290, to implement more whistle-blower protections, and I can only assume the absence of Liberal action, since this report had been available for five years.

Do you think the government should be supporting this bill?

Requirement of Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑290—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the member for Mirabel regarding C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which stands on the Order Paper under his name.

In my statement of September 26, 2022, on the management of Private Members’ Business, I expressed concern about Bill C-290. At the time, I encouraged members who wished to make arguments about whether or not the bill requires a royal recommendation to do so. The member for Mirabel, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader did just that in points of order on September 28, October 21 and October 25, 2022. I would like to thank them for the information they shared in their statements.

In his point of order, the sponsor of Bill C-290 explained that clause 5 of the bill stipulates that chief executives must provide support to public servants who make disclosures. He said that this support is not of a financial nature, but instead includes information, referrals, guidance and advice, and would not entail any new expenditures.

In addition, regarding the proposed amendments to the definition of “public servant” in subsection 2(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the member said that, since the act already includes provisions on contract employees in the public sector, adding these employees to the definition does not mean the bill needs a royal recommendation.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby agreed with the bill’s sponsor. In his intervention, he noted that nothing in Bill C-290 indicates that the support provided to public servants who make disclosures must be financial in nature. He further remarked that amending the definition of “public servant” as the bill proposes would only prevent the withholding of a payment or the termination of a contract.

As for the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, he said that the bill’s inclusion of former public servants and those retained under contract would expand the scope of the public servants disclosure protection regime. For this and other reasons, the parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-290 should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on page 838, “Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.”

The Chair has carefully examined Bill C-290. Currently, section 42.2 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act prohibits some forms of reprisal against contract employees, including payment withholding and contract termination. The new definition of “public servant” proposed by Bill C-290 would, among other things, allow for the payment of compensation or the reimbursement of expenses or financial losses to contract employees who are found to have been subject to a reprisal following an investigation.

In the view of the Chair, the implementation of Bill C-290 would infringe on the conditions of the initial royal recommendation that accompanied the current act. Accordingly, a new royal recommendation is now required before the bill can proceed to a final vote in the House at third reading.

In the meantime, when the bill is next before the House, debate will continue on the second reading motion, and the motion will be put to a vote at the conclusion of the debate.

I thank the members for their attention.

Public Sector Integrity Act

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

Madam Speaker, any self-respecting country must have the means to ensure that public funds are used properly, not diverted, not doled out to cronies and not used for any other wrongdoing.

After the sponsorship scandal, Stephen Harper's government enacted legislation to protect public servants who disclose information. We must remember that the sponsorship scandal was only brought to light because of a whistle-blower known as “MaChouette”. People had to go to court to keep this individual's identity secret. Let us keep this in mind, as it is important.

Without that individual, it is very likely that the sponsorship scandal would never have become public knowledge and that these kickbacks and this program might possibly have still been ongoing. Thanks to this individual and the Gomery commission, we learned that the amount siphoned off by the sponsorship program was $250 million. What would that amount be if “MaChouette” had not blown the whistle? It would be an enormous amount of taxpayers' money.

In order to encourage public servants who witness questionable practices in government to report them, an act was passed to protect them. Does it really do so? The answer is no, and it is precisely because the act is flawed that my colleague from Mirabel introduced Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

I would like to remind members of the objectives of the act, give a short list of reasons why the law is basically ineffective and provide a quick explanation of the corrections that Bill C-290 makes to the legislation in place.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act has two objectives: to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the management of the state and to implement a process for investigating such wrongdoing and help put an end to it.

I want to be very clear. Most public servants are basically honest. It only takes one person with questionable practices to tarnish the reputation of all public servants. If such a person exists, they need to be found and reported. The entire state suffers the consequences of a bad reputation.

Public servants are aware of all that. Nevertheless, there are people in our society, as in any other society, who pay little heed to these considerations and who may feel untouchable or undetectable. Fortunately, only a small minority of these people among the hundreds of thousands of our public servants have no qualms about diverting hard-earned taxpayer money for their own benefit or to do what they think is best.

This very hierarchical system—I would even say there is a code of silence—and competition ensured, and probably still ensure, that honest public servants kept quiet, even when they knew that a colleague or a superior was breaching ethical, or even legal, boundaries. They kept quiet, and continue keeping quiet, for fear of reprisal. If they blew the whistle, they would be pressured. Some fear this pressure to the point of getting sick or being forced to resign. These are examples that unfortunately I have heard from former public servants who are now retired, who wanted to improve something and blow the whistle on a particular situation and who experienced the pressure I just mentioned.

The 2007 act was necessary to protect the people who work for the public, but it also needed to be drafted in such a way as to prevent workplaces from becoming an environment where everyone suspected everyone else of wrongdoing. Instead of creating toxic workplaces we needed to create collaborative places where it was clear that if something was wrong, someone would do something about it. However, in wanting to protect the balance, the legislation went too far and became unworkable.

When I was a teacher and we had to implement a rule, one of the first questions I would ask myself was whether it could be enforced. I might have the best intentions in the world, but if I could not enforce the rule or if there were no consequences, the students would not be fooled and would realize it at some point. They would find the loopholes and skirt the rule. It is the same thing in the machinery of government. That is what happened with the existing legislation. The government enacted a law without having the ability to properly enforce it and without making it clear that if there was a problem, there would be consequences. That is what is missing.

I will give an example to support my argument. In 15 years, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has officially investigated only eight cases, and none of these led to a whistle-blower being protected or resulted in an investigation of wrongdoing.

Furthermore, the International Bar Association has compiled about 50 whistle-blower laws. It has ranked countries that provide the best protection for whistle-blowers. On a list of 20 criteria to be checked, Canada has only checked off one, the fact that it has a law. That is it. Botswana, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Pakistan and other countries are ranked higher than we are. We should be looking at best practices, such as those used in the European Union, Australia or the United States.

As my colleagues have also mentioned, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates issued a report in 2017, if I am not mistaken, and the recommendations in that report have not been followed. We are still waiting. That is what my colleague's bill will do. It will make that report come to life and, more importantly, it will enable public servants who see wrongdoing to be truly protected.

Bill C-290 is designed to give the act some teeth by proposing a series of remedial measures. I will not go through the whole list. When I look at a bill, I take the original act and the bill, and I note everything that is different, everything that has improved, everything that has been taken out and everything that has been added. It takes hours, so I will not put my colleagues through that. I only have ten minutes. I will try to be brief.

First, the bill broadens the definition of wrongdoing. For example, the original act considered only serious wrongdoing. What does “serious” mean? It is a bit unclear because it can mean different things to different people. For example, to me, theft is theft, even if it is something small. In other words, wrongdoing, whether major or minor, is wrongdoing. It is serious to me, but the act does not specify exactly what the word “serious” means. Now the word “serious” is going to be taken out. If a person witnesses a wrongdoing, it is a wrongdoing and must be dealt with. There is no distinction between minor and major wrongdoings. I do not know if everybody sees it that way, but I hope so.

It also introduces the notion of political interference. Next, it corrects something that does not make sense, because, in the case of a major incident, the existing act states that the department must investigate itself. Bill C‑290 would amend the act. That part did not make sense to me because, if a member of society commits a wrongdoing, that person does not get to investigate their own actions. That is the police's job. The act asks the department to investigate itself. I have a problem with that. Bill C‑290 fixes that.

In conclusion, to regain the public's confidence, the government and its public servants must be exemplary. In order for that to happen, public service employees need to feel confident about disclosing anything they consider to be wrongdoing, and there have to be meaningful consequences following these disclosures, not only for public servants, but also for contractors and former public servants who may have kept quiet for a long time.

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

Madam Speaker, as pleased as I am to join the debate this evening to speak on Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, I am sad I have to be doing it from my home.

I have had to come back to the unceded land of Tseshaht and Hupacasath and the homelands of the Nuu-chah-nulth people to attend the funeral of the Tla-o-qui-aht Chief Muuchinink, also know as Bruce Frank, who suddenly passed away on Sunday. I will be travelling through his Ha-Hoothlee, his territory, tonight to join his family and his community. I will bring greetings from all of us from Ottawa, and condolences to his people. It is a very sad time for the people in our communities and for all Nuu-chah-nulth people. He was a great man who loved his people.

I want to thank the hon. member for Mirabel for bringing forward this bill and prompting this important discussion. It is very important, and I really appreciate his work in doing this.

When the new Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, was a minister under the Harper government, he brought forth legislation that he repeatedly said would offer “ironclad protection” for whistle-blowers in the federal public service. Instead, after 15 years in force, it is clear this law is a complete failure.

I am going to talk about David Hutton, a whistle-blower protection expert and senior fellow at the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University. He recently wrote in The Hill Times:

After studying this system closely for the past 15 years, I have come to believe that it was never intended to protect whistleblowers. It does not look like a regrettable accident resulting in an ineffective system. In reality, it functions as a highly effective, finely tuned offensive weapon against whistleblowers. It lures them into a trap, where their disclosures of wrongdoing are disregarded and buried forever, the promises of protection made to them prove to be false, and their efforts to obtain justice place them on a treadmill of endless, costly and ultimately fruitless rigged processes.

Indeed, after 15 years, the results of Canada’s whistle-blower regime speaks for itself. The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has found a mere 18 cases of wrongdoing out of more than 1,500 disclosures from whistle-blowers. While 500 whistle-blowers have submitted complaints of reprisals, the tribunal set up to address these complaints has never once awarded a remedy.

In another article, David Hutton wrote, “there have been no happy endings for whistleblowers, who nearly always lose their job, their career, and their livelihood.”

The failure of this law does not just cost whistle-blowers. It costs all of us when wrongdoings and mismanagement are allowed to continue unchecked. We see this all the time in procurement, and the failure for whistle-blowers to be able to come forward. I will cite one, which is the disastrous Phoenix pay system. It was supposed to save money, but it has resulted in at least $2.4 billion in unexpected costs so far. It is an example of what can happen when there is a culture of fear in the public service.

This started under the Conservatives, and it has carried on under the federal Liberals. It is unacceptable. That culture of fear is reflected in the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s own findings. In March 2022, the Office published a report it commissioned entitled “Exploring the Culture of Whistleblowing and the Fear of Reprisal in the Federal Public Sector”. The report was based on focus groups drawn from a selection of departments, and it echoed the findings of similar surveys conducted in 2011 and 2015. This latest report found that fear of reprisals remains a major concern in the federal public service.

It also contained some other concerning findings: first, that most workers and managers surveyed did not know of the office’s existence; second, there is increasing disillusionment and cynicism about whistle-blowing; and, third, increased activity around whistle-blowing, such as awareness raising and education, is seen mainly as window dressing instead of actual change. We could make a long list here.

It is disappointing to read these findings in 2022. The need for change in how we deal with whistle-blowers has been well known for years. There are serious deficiencies in the existing act, including a narrow definition of wrongdoing and a focus on procedures for dealing with allegations rather than protecting whistle-blowers.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates tabled a unanimous report recommending sweeping changes to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. This report was prepared at the request of the Treasury Board to fulfill the requirement for statutory review that should have been conducted five years earlier. It sounds familiar. It has been five years since, and the government has not implemented the legislative changes the committee recommended, and we heard the member for Mirabel talk about it earlier. Instead, in the most recent federal budget, the government committed $2.4 million over five years for the Treasury Board Secretariat to launch a new review of the act.

It is a positive development to see the federal government finally acknowledge the need for legislative reform, but I am concerned whether there is genuine political will to move forward and make real changes or if this is simply a face-saving exercise. As the member for Mirabel talked about, the government did not even start this until Friday, just as this bill came up for debate.

It reminds me of how the government acts suddenly when private members' bills come up, like my bill, Bill C-216, on substance use. The government did nothing on the Province of B.C.'s request for an exemption for people who are caught with a small possession of substances to not be criminally charged. The government announced that B.C.'s exemption would be granted the day before the vote on my bill. It is just all too familiar. I have seen this happen a lot.

To get back to the bill, its latest review was likely prompted by a 2021 analysis by the International Bar Association, which compared countries with whistle-blower protection laws and ranked Canada as tied for last place. This is an international embarrassment. It is about transparency and trust, and it is a clear call for action, yet in September, Canada failed to send any representatives to an International Labour Organization meeting to discuss the protection of whistle-blowers in the public sector. Surely some helpful information could have been gleaned from this meeting to inform the government's new review. It could have gained a lot.

Again, I am glad that the member for Mirabel has brought forward this bill, which acknowledges the failure of the current act and will hopefully help generate momentum for much-needed change. My office has engaged with public sector unions regarding the bill. The general sentiment is that this is a step in the right direction, but further changes will be required to truly protect whistle-blowers and the Canadian public.

The bill does not address all of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in 2017. However, it does propose some significant improvements that are worth noting.

The bill would expand protections to more people, including contractors and former employees, and cover more types of wrongdoing, including political interference. I believe the bill has merit and should proceed to committee where members can hear from public service workers and experts and see if there are opportunities for amendments that could offer more protection for whistle-blowers.

I will note that I do not believe the Treasury Board's new review of the act should preclude moving forward with improvements now. It is not clear when this review might be completed, but it is clear that Canada's whistle-blower protection regime is broken and is in desperate need of reform to protect brave public service workers and the Canadian public who disclose wrongdoings.

In 2015, the Liberals promised that transparency would be a hallmark of their government, but that promise has fallen to the wayside, just like the Conservatives. Under the frequent cloud of scandal, I question whether the government is truly motivated to improve protections for whistle-blowers who could shine a light on government wrongdoing or mismanagement of public funds.

In closing, I want to thank the member for Mirabel for bringing the bill forward, and I look forward to engaging in further debate on this issue.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C‑290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

First, I would like to thank my colleague from Mirabel for introducing Bill C‑290, which is very well written. This is very useful and important work. I think everyone will agree that public servants who disclose serious wrongdoing must be protected.

The question is not if we can strengthen those provisions, but how. Bill C-290 offers some potential steps forward, but it also poses some important legal and operational challenges.

Today I am going to speak about what has been done to better protect whistle-blowers, the upcoming comprehensive review of the act and what needs to be fixed in Bill C-290 to help it create the positive change I know my hon. colleague certainly intends.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act promotes a work culture based on ethics and the integrity of the federal public service. Canada's whistle-blowing legislation is one of the various recourse mechanisms available to public servants when it comes to harassment, discrimination, labour grievances and privacy complaints.

The government has made meaningful improvements to the system. We have implemented greater guidance for the internal disclosure process.

We have increased the number of awareness activities and training sessions for public servants, supervisors and managers. We have also improved reporting on the internal disclosure process and founded wrongdoing.

The government has also established a central website as part of the government portal. It will allow Canadians to access information about founded wrongdoing within federal institutions. In his mandate letter to the President of the Treasury Board, the Prime Minister directed her to build on the progress that has been made and to “continue to take action to improve government whistleblower protections and supports”. In keeping with this mandate, we will soon be conducting a comprehensive review of the act, which will include recommendations for possible amendments.

The review will be conducted by a working group of academics, experts and union officials. Their work will take into account international research and the Canadian experience, the report from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, as well as the debate and testimony on Bill C‑290.

Our intent is to ensure that the law effectively protects and empowers public servants to shine a light on wrongdoing and to help strengthen Canadians' confidence in the integrity of our public institutions. This is what makes the bill before us so important.

As it currently stands, Bill C‑290 contains some positive measures. It would extend protection to cover more public servants involved in reporting wrongdoing. It would extend the period during which a reprisal complaint may be filed from 60 days to one year. It would increase the applications respecting offences under various sections of the act. It would enable the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to disclose additional information in specific circumstances. It would also require a review of the act every five years. These are valuable and important proposals.

The hon. member who introduced this bill is to be commended for the work he did in preparing this bill.

That said, Bill C‑290 also raises issues that have to be looked at in committee to make sure there will not be negative legal and operational repercussions. It is important to note that the purpose of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is to address serious ethical breaches that cannot be dealt with using ordinary recourse mechanisms. It is not designed to deal with all ethical breaches or to replace existing recourse mechanisms meant for issues such as harassment, discrimination, workplace grievances and privacy complaints.

These other recourse mechanisms include those set out in the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, the Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the code of conduct for procurement.

I would also like to point out that the provisions of Bill C‑290 will result in a significant amount of overlap and duplication when it comes to these processes. Consider, for example, the bill's proposal to remove the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's power to refuse to deal with a complaint regarding reprisals that may be or have been dealt with under another act of Parliament. This change could lead to the use of multiple processes for the same issues by various administrative bodies with different mandates and objectives.

Such overlap and duplication could result in wasted resources. It could lead to inconsistent determinations, differing remedies and duplicating settlements. I doubt that the hon. member had these consequences in mind.

Another example is the proposal in Bill C-290 to include abuse of authority in the definition of wrongdoing. This could lead to overlap with staffing complaints on the same allegations under the Public Service Employment Act. Once again, this could result in the potential for parallel proceedings and multiple decisions on the same matters that could contradict each other.

We need to avoid introducing unnecessary duplication and confusion into the current system. We must be careful not to undermine the value of grievances, which are an important tool for unions in the public sector.

Other provisions will change the degree of severity of wrongdoing covered under the act, opening up the process to the most trivial of misdemeanours, which will clog the system and reduce its effectiveness. Bill C-290 also requires executives to provide support to a public servant involved in a disclosure, which conflicts with the principle of confidentiality.

By including contractors in the provisions, Bill C‑290 could not only result in problematic employment relationships, but it could also encroach on provincial jurisdiction. I have no doubt that that was in no way the Bloc Québécois member's intention.

This bill also removes the discretion of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal to decide whether to add the person alleged to have taken a reprisal as a party. This could in fact expose whistle-blowers in cases where the person alleged to have taken a reprisal does not know who the complainant is.

My colleague has introduced a very important bill. Parliament needs to consider whether the operational concerns I have outlined today can be addressed in committee or whether it would be better to wait until the review leads to more complex reforms.

In closing, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Mirabel for his work on Bill C‑290, and I look forward to the next steps in the legislative process.

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

Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that I am acting in good faith, and I presume the members opposite are doing the same. That is why I hope they will support the bill.

Having said that, I hope it is not a coincidence that when Bill C‑290 was introduced, the government suddenly decided to review that legislation.

The committee that worked on this issue heard from witnesses, made recommendations, heard from experts and worked very hard. It released a terrific, comprehensive report. This bill was drafted, in part, based on that incredible work, which is why I think the government has a vested interest in supporting Bill C‑290 and not rejecting the immense amount of hard work done by the committee.

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

moved that Bill C‑290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for being here today.

There is nothing more important for a government than an ethical, competent and responsible public service, and we must value the work of our public servants. Public servants are in the best position to note irregularities in government, in its management of public monies and use of Crown assets, as people here like to call them. Sometimes, out of a sense of responsibility, these officials become whistle-blowers by disclosing wrongdoing. It is an extremely important role. For that reason, we must protect them. We also need to create and enhance mechanisms that these officials can use to disclose wrongdoing.

Currently we have the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. This legislation came about as a result of the sponsorship scandal. We all know that the federal sponsorship program was highly problematic from 1997 to 2001 and caused a major scandal. It was created in the aftermath of the 1995 referendum, when the federal government wanted to have more visibility in Quebec and decided to hang Canadian flags in just about every cultural and social space in Quebec.

Unfortunately, in addition to being fundamentally bad, this program ended up being used as a quid pro quo mechanism. Communications firms with close ties to the Liberal Party would receive huge contracts, and the money would directly or indirectly wind up back in the Liberal Party of Canada's coffers. This undermined taxpayers' confidence in the government and public confidence in government operations.

The whole thing got out of control and naturally undermined the very democratic process that ensures that we are elected to the House and that people trust the process. We are not talking about a scandal involving small sums of money; we are talking about the proven waste of a quarter of a billion dollars of public funds, which led to the Gomery commission.

As members will recall, this resulted in Paul Martin's government being severely punished. It was re-elected with a minority government in 2004. Ultimately, Canadians and Quebeckers decided to toss out the Liberals when they voted in many Bloc Québécois members and gave the Harper government a minority mandate. That government took swift action to protect whistle-blowers in the public service.

Members will recall that one of the reasons the public learned as much as it did about the extent of the sponsorship scandal was because of a whistle-blower nicknamed “MaChouette”. She spoke regularly with journalist Daniel Leblanc, who had to battle in court to protect her identity.

One of the Harper government's first pieces of legislation was the Federal Accountability Act, followed by the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which came into force on April 15, 2007.

Obviously, the world has changed a lot since then, but this law has not changed and has not been improved, amended or corrected in 15 years. Now the time has come to do the right thing for our competent public servants and protect whistle-blowers.

The objective of Bill C‑290 is to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public service, and also to establish a process to investigate the wrongdoing. That is very important because we want wrongdoings to be disclosed and we want to put an end to them. We want to have processes to help us do that. The ultimate goal is better management of government resources.

The current act covers many things. It was an ambitious law at the time, and it had good intentions. It described wrongdoing as a contravention of any act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, or of any regulations, by persons in authority; a misuse of public funds or a public asset; mismanagement in the public sector; an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons, or to the environment, other than a danger that is inherent in the performance of the regular duties of a public servant, of course, because we want them to be able to do their job.

The act covers serious breaches of a code of conduct stemming from the events I just mentioned and, of course, wilfully and knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit any of the wrongdoings I just listed.

It is still a fairly ambitious law with built-in mechanisms. The act created a mechanism for the disclosure process. We want there to be a mechanism. We do not necessarily want whistle-blowers calling journalists in secret and passing confidential documents to them. We want there to be a process, a process that is supposed to protect anonymity and, more importantly, protect public servants from reprisals. The act created an independent institution, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, which can receive disclosures and investigate allegations and possible reprisals. Lastly, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal was created.

If the act is so great, why did we introduce Bill C‑290?

Again, the principles of the act that has been in effect since 2007 are excellent, but the act has many flaws. They are small flaws, but when you add them all up, they make this legislation ineffective. We have seen it. Since this legislation was implemented, we can count the number of cases where disclosures have gone through the correct process. We can basically count them on two hands.

That is consistent with the findings of the International Bar Association, which ranks Canada at the bottom of the list when it comes to laws that protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Canada has one of the worst records in the world in this regard. I will spare my colleagues from having to listen to a list of the countries that rank above us because it is both embarrassing and shameful. When the International Bar Association assessed the Canadian legislation, Canada got a zero on 19 of the 20 assessment criteria. Do members know what criterion Canada did not get a zero on? Just having an act. That is the only criterion on which we did not get a zero. We are not starting from scratch, but we have a long way to go.

Other jurisdictions have led the way on this. The European Union, Australia and the United States have good systems, and we can follow in their footsteps. The point is, things have to change for the better. Taxpayers deserve better.

We do not have to start from scratch either. There was a committee study in 2017. I acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues who worked very hard on that report. They met 12 times, heard from 52 witnesses, received 12 briefs from experts, whistle-blowers and unions, people who know about this stuff, people on the ground. Challenges and shortcomings were identified, and 15 recommendations were issued.

I know that one of the people who made a significant contribution to drafting the recommendations passed away recently. That person was Michael Dagg, and I, along with a number of my colleagues, want to pay tribute to him.

What did we learn from the committee? The committee showed us that there is not enough protection for whistle-blowers in the public service and that public servants lack confidence in the process because of the way it works. They know that mechanisms exist, but since they do not have confidence in where the process will lead and they are afraid that it will end up being very harmful to them, what we end up with is an act that is not used and public servants who do not disclose wrongdoing.

Bill C‑290 addresses these shortcomings and, as I said, essentially seeks to correct the problems with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

What does this bill do? First, it broadens the definition of wrongdoing. The act covers serious cases of wrongdoing and illegal acts, but it does not cover cases of political interference in administrative decisions, even though it should. If a public servant discloses an incident of political interference, their complaint will simply be rejected. It cannot be processed or even considered by the public servants in the department who deal with complaints or by the commissioner.

However, we need to be able to get to the bottom of things. Under the current legislation, it is impossible to do that when wrongdoing is disclosed. This bill will help to remedy that.

In the current situation, turning to the people in charge of receiving complaints can be extremely formal, difficult and intimidating for a public servant. What is more, the commissioner who deals with these matters has a limited budget. He barely has the necessary resources, expertise, or knowledge of the departments. As a result, often the investigations go nowhere. It is possible to refer the case to the police, but, again, there needs to be an investigation first and that generally does not happen.

Bill C‑290 proposes to allow the auditor general to investigate such cases. Remember that at the time of the sponsorship scandal, it was the auditor general, Sheila Fraser, who helped expose the wrongdoing.

In addition, we want to protect more people. The act currently protects public servants, but it does not protect former public servants who may have witnessed wrongdoing over the years but did not decide to disclose it until later. Furthermore, the act does not protect contract or temporary employees, such as someone who works at CRA for a few months during tax season. These are the people who are most vulnerable in these circumstances, because their employment status is precarious. They can easily become victims of intimidation or reprisals.

At the same time, we need to rebuild trust with the public service. Under the current act, a complaint can be dismissed, even if the wrongdoing is well established, because the commissioner may find that the person reporting the wrongdoing had personal reasons for doing so.

We understand the seriousness of that. Often someone who denounces a wrongdoing did not witness it only once or twice. It was not a quick 15-minute incident on a Tuesday morning. It happens repeatedly for days, for years. It makes the workplace extremely challenging. It is normal for a whistle-blower to become bitter, frustrated and angry, and that can negatively impact the workplace. It is unfair that an assumption about the reasons for a public servant's deep emotions can result in the facts being set aside.

This bill will have a positive impact. As members know, I am a relatively new parliamentarian. I decided to introduce Bill C‑290 as my first private member's bill because I think it is important to introduce non-partisan legislation that is in the public interest. Every single person in this House, no matter their party, their ideology or which side of the constitutional divide they are on, wants public funds to be well managed. We all want Crown assets, federal government assets, to be used properly. We all want taxpayers who submit their income tax returns in April or May to have confidence in the machinery of government.

The main reason I introduced this bill is out of respect for the thousands of professionals who dedicate their lives and their careers to public service, people who devote their time and energy to public service, who truly care about the work they do. If we do not update the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, we are essentially preventing those people from doing their jobs to the best of their ability in extremely important situations. I think our public servants deserve Bill C‑290.

Requirement of Royal Recommendation for Bill C-290

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

Madam Speaker, I will be responding to a point of order and a question of privilege. One of them will take longer than the other.

I am rising on a point of order in response to the Speaker's statement on September 26, 2022, respecting the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Mirabel. I will not comment on the substance of the proposal, but I would like to put forward a submission that the bill would seek to authorize spending for a purpose that is being significantly altered.

In 2005, when the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was promulgated, it was accompanied by a royal recommendation. The royal recommendation was required because it set the mandate, purpose, objects and qualifications for a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the public sector.

In 2006, Parliament adopted a bill that amended the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen protection for whistle-blowers, including through the creation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. The creation of the tribunal and its mandate was seen as a new and distinct charge upon the consolidated revenue fund and was accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection regime. The first change relates to whom the regime applies. Section 2 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act defines “public servant” as:

public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive.

Bill C-290 would add an entire new class of persons who would be subject to the regime. Subclause 3(3) of the bill states:

public servant means every person employed in the public sector, every person retained under contract to perform services for the public sector, every member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and every chief executive.

Even the factual summary of the bill acknowledges that this proposed change represents an expansion of the mandate. The summary states:

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

Allow me to highlight other changes proposed in Bill C-290 that would alter the mandate of the regime and the duties and functions of the commissioner and the tribunal.

Clause 6 would extend the protections provided under the regime to former public servants, which is not contemplated in the act.

Clause 4 of the bill seeks to expand the types of wrongdoings to include new elements, namely the abuse of authority and political interference, and removes requirements such as the individual applying in good faith.

Clause 30 would remove the definition of “investigation”, which is set out in section 34 of the act. It states:

If the Commissioner is of the opinion that a matter under investigation would involve obtaining information that is outside the public sector, he or she must cease that part of the investigation and he or she may refer the matter to any authority that he or she considers competent to deal with it.

By proposing to remove section 34 of the act, the bill seeks to expand the mandate of the commissioner to obtain information that is outside the public sector, which, under the act, is clearly outside the scope of the commissioner's duties and functions.

Bill C-290 also seeks to amend subsection 19.3(1) of the act to remove the ability of the commissioner to refuse to deal with a complaint if the complaint has been adequately dealt with or could be more appropriately dealt with according to the procedure provided for under an act of Parliament other than this act or a collective agreement, or if it was not made in good faith.

Clause 24 would add a new responsibility for the commissioner to assess internal disclosure procedures in organizations and to review disclosure procedures upon request or on his or her own initiative.

Clause 19 of the bill would also add a new function for the tribunal by removing a power conferred upon the commissioner in the act. Clause 19 states:

A complainant whose complaint is dismissed by the Commissioner under section 20.5 may apply to the Tribunal for a determination of whether or not a reprisal was taken against him or her and, if the Tribunal determines that a reprisal was taken, the complainant may apply for an order respecting a remedy in his or her favour and an order respecting disciplinary action against any person or persons...who took the reprisal.

Bill C-290 seeks to significantly alter the mandate of the public servants disclosure protection scheme and the duties and functions of not only the commissioner but the tribunal in a manner not authorized under the act or any other act of Parliament.

Page 834 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

I believe this is the case with Bill C-290. The amendments proposed would significantly alter the objects and purposes of the public servants disclosure protection regime in a way that exceeds the royal recommendation originally obtained when the statute was enacted and the royal recommendation attached to amending legislation.

Access to Information

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec spoke out against the government's source hunting. It fears that Ottawa is discouraging whistle-blowers when it should in fact be protecting them. It is concerned, and rightly so, because Canada has the weakest whistle-blower legislation in the world. According to the International Bar Association, Canada ranks 50th out of 50.

That is why the Bloc Québécois has introduced Bill C‑290 to better protect public servants who blow the whistle.

Will the government support our bill instead of basically going on a witch hunt trying to track down sources within its own ranks?

Requirement of a Royal Recommendation for Bill C-290

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today because the Chair asked parliamentarians to share their views on the requirement for a royal recommendation to accompany Bill C-290. I would like to give my party's opinion on this matter, as well as my own.

In our view, there is nothing in the bill that proposes the use of public funds. Nothing in the bill would result in direct costs, which, as we know, is at the government's discretion.

In his speech on September 28, 2022, the sponsor of the bill and member for Mirabel argued that clause 5 of the bill “specifies that the chief executive must provide support to a public servant who makes a disclosure.” The bill does not specify the nature of the support, but there is absolutely no indication that it would be financial.

The member for Mirabel explained this by adding the following:

The support referenced in clause 5 would involve, rather, things like information, referrals, guidance or advice, all of which are part of the normal duties and functions of executives. In short, we need to ensure that when public servants see wrongdoing, they know their rights, they know where to go, and they are not left to fend for themselves.

I agree with what he said, and I am concerned about too narrow an interpretation of the word “support”, which is absolutely not limited to financial support. In this case, the bill before us contains no mention of financial support, and it should not be interpreted as such.

I think the government's obligation not to terminate a contract or withhold payment following a disclosure falls into the same category. This provision would not generate any new government spending. All it does is prevent the government from taking a reprisal by withholding already payable funds.

The guidelines governing royal recommendation for private members' business are summarized in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1125, as follows:

The Constitution Act, 1867 and the Standing Orders require that bills proposing the expenditure of public funds must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, which can be obtained only by the government and introduced by a Minister. Since a Minister cannot propose items of Private Members' Business, a private Member's bill should therefore not contain provisions for the spending of funds.

I think it is important that the need for a royal recommendation be interpreted in a direct, targeted fashion. Any form of legislation can have indirect impacts on government spending. What is being asked for here is that the direct commitment of public funds be accompanied by a royal recommendation. That is why, in my opinion, Bill C-290 does not meet that criterion and consequently does not require a royal recommendation.

Requirement of Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑290

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

Mr. Speaker, recently the Chair sought the members' views on whether my bill about public sector integrity, Bill C-290, might require a royal recommendation. The Chair did not specify which part of the bill warranted its intervention, but I surmise that two sections merit analysis.

There is clause 5, which states that the chief executive must provide support to the public servant making a disclosure.

There is also subclause 3(3), which gives contract employees the same protection offered to public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public sector.

In my view, these provisions do not generate any expenditures that would not be covered by an existing royal recommendation, and that is what I intend to argue today.

I would like to begin by saying a word about Bill C-290. It amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to make it more effective. That legislation, as members will remember, was passed in the wake of the sponsorship scandal and was intended to provide protection to public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public sector.

In many cases, only one person within the machinery of government becomes aware of wrongdoing, illegal acts, abuse of power or political interference in decisions that should be up to the non-partisan public service. The purpose of the act is to protect public servants who blow the whistle from reprisal and to create an institution responsible for enforcing the act, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, that public servants can go to for help.

Even though the act was passed more than 15 years ago, it has not produced the expected results. In fact, the federal government has one of the worst whistleblower protection regimes in the world, according to the International Bar Association.

Add up the numerous flaws throughout the act, and it is basically useless. For example, because the definition of wrongdoing is too narrow, many disclosures are not protected by the act. If a public servant makes an unprotected disclosure, their complaint will be rejected, the act will not protect them from reprisal, and their anonymity cannot be guaranteed either. Furthermore, if the whistleblower's complaint is admitted and an investigation is launched, the act does not clearly protect witnesses.

In the case of an internal investigation conducted by a person in a position of authority, this is understandably problematic. It is these flaws that my public sector integrity bill aims to correct.

This brings me to clause 5, which specifies that the chief executive must provide support to a public servant who makes a disclosure. Although the bill does not specify the nature of the support, it is quite clear that it is not financial support. The bill provides for no new financial support, period. The support referenced in clause 5 would involve, rather, things like information, referrals, guidance or advice, all of which are part of the normal duties and functions of executives. In short, we need to ensure that when public servants see wrongdoing, they know their rights, they know where to go, and they are not left to fend for themselves.

This brings me to subclause 3(3) of my bill. It amends the definition of “public servant”, adding “every person retained under contract to perform services for the public sector”. Subclause 3(5) adds that the government cannot terminate a contract as a result of a disclosure. This provision does not generate any expenditure that is not already foreseen, and here is why.

First, the current act already contains provisions about contracts. Under section 42.2, the government may not “withhold any payment that is due and payable in respect of any...contract”. It may not “terminate any contract...by reason only that the other party to the contract or any of that other party's employees has...provided information concerning an alleged wrongdoing”.

Furthermore, a disclosure is not considered a reasonable ground for refusing to enter into a new contract. The problem is that the definition of contract is restrictive. According to the act, contract “does not include an agreement by a public servant, or by a person appointed by the Governor in Council or by a minister of the Crown, to perform the duties to which their employment or appointment relates”.

A construction company that reports wrongdoing at a federal government work site is protected, yet a person hired under contract to provide a service to the government on a temporary basis may not be covered. Because that person meets the definition of a casual worker under the Public Service Employment Act, I gather that they are excluded because they carry out the duties of a public servant but do not enjoy the other protections that public servants have because they are a casual worker.

One example is someone who is offered a three-month contract with the Canada Revenue Agency during income tax season. Because they have no job security, people with precarious status are precisely the ones who need protection the most.

It should be noted that they are not completely unprotected at this time. They are afforded some protection through their contract, which is binding on the Crown. That is how it works right now. Under contract law, which is governed by the Civil Code or by common law, the government cannot unilaterally modify or terminate a contract in an arbitrary manner. This is already the case.

The government's financial commitments are those set out in the contract, whether or not Bill C-290 is passed, but the remedy for contractors who experience retaliation is a civil suit. Bill C‑290 simply changes the administrative process following a complaint.

If Bill C‑290 passes, contractors will be able to file complaints with the commissioner and they will remain anonymous. The complaint will go through the process and the contractor can expect to see an investigation that will result in an end to the wrongdoing. In the event of reprisals in the form of termination of contract, the contractor can seek assistance from the commissioner, who will then reach out to the government, if appropriate, saving contractors from having to sue in court to enforce the provisions of their contracts. This does not, however, change the terms of the contract or the financial obligations thereof.

In short, Bill C‑290 in no way alters any of the government's contractual obligations. These obligations are already binding in civil court and must be met under part III of the Financial Administration Act. Bill C‑290 in no way changes those obligations. It will not generate any expenditure beyond what is already set out in the existing legal framework. It changes neither the amount of the expenditure, nor its terms or any associated conditions. In conclusion, I do not feel that it requires royal recommendation and I am confident that the Chair will come to the same conclusion.

Requirement of Royal Recommendations for Bills C-285 and C-290

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I would like to make a statement concerning the management of Private Members' Business.

As members know, certain constitutional procedural realities constrain the Speaker and members insofar as legislation is concerned.

Following each replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair has developed a practice of reviewing items so that the House can be alerted to bills that, at first glance, appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. This allows members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the replenishment of the order of precedence with 15 new items on Monday, June 20, I wish to inform the House that there are two bills which preoccupy the Chair. They are Bill C-285, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act, standing in the name of the member for Niagara West; and Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Mirabel.

The understanding of the Chair is that these bills may need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

I therefore encourage members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement of a royal recommendation for Bills C-285 and C-290 to do so at their earliest opportunity.

I thank the members for their attention.

Public Sector Integrity Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Madam Speaker, today it is with great pride that I introduce the public sector integrity act, which puts some teeth into the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Public servants who witness wrongdoing must be able to speak out without fear, in the knowledge that their anonymity will be protected and that they will not be thrown under the bus. They need to know that they deserve thanks, not reprisal. They need to know that there will be an independent investigation into the wrongdoing reported, not just an internal review by people who may have an interest in covering it up.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates identified these issues five years ago, but the government has never addressed them. Last year, the International Bar Association found that Canada provides very little protection to its whistleblowers. Canada ranks dead last in this regard, behind countries like the Cayman Islands, Bangladesh, Rwanda, and Pakistan. That is the situation in the best country in the world.

This is what my bill addresses. It protects more people, including former public servants and contractors, and covers more cases, including political interference in the work of government professionals. It can trigger a real investigation by the Auditor General or law enforcement, because wrongdoing must be exposed, not covered up.

Public servants who expose fraud, mismanagement and undue political interference are heroes. Let us protect them.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)