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.