House of Commons Hansard #207 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was discrimination.

Topics

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden, SK

Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party vote yes on this motion.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I misread the box in which I had the answer. The Reform Party votes yea, not nay, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jag Bhaduria Liberal Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON

I vote yea, Mr. Speaker.

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

Business Development Bank Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the second reading stage of Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act.

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc members will vote against this bill.

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members vote nay, except for those members who wish to vote otherwise.

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden, SK

Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic caucus present today vote yea on this matter.

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Jag Bhaduria Liberal Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I vote yea.

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

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

Royal Canadian Mint ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It being 6 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

May 30th, 1995 / 5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

moved that Bill C-248, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Employment Act (whistleblowing), be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-248 is to protect against retaliation employees acting in good faith and in the public interest who report reprehensible practices by their employers, particularly when public health and safety are at issue.

This bill applies solely to public sector employees under federal jurisdiction. It is based on two fundamental principles.

The first principle is to encourage federal public servants to report institutional or individual actions or practices that would cause a specific and substantial danger or prejudice to public health, safety or welfare, or entail considerable or unjustified public spending.

The second principle without which the first one cannot be serviced is the protection of employees against employers' reprisal measures in retaliation for disclosures done in accordance with the bill's provisions.

Implementing the two principles underlying this bill requires a dual mechanism. The legislation must provide, first, for the filing of complaints and then, of course, for the protection of employees. To that end, Bill C-248 proposes an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would give the commission responsible for enforcing this act the power to receive and examine complaints of illicit practices and to rule on their admissibility.

In addition, Bill C-248 would empower the commission to cancel any retaliatory action by an employer against a whistleblower acting in good faith.

Bill C-248 answers the expectations of Canadian citizens and of many Canadian organizations.

The people want the federal government to reduce waste and end all illicit practices. To them, it is a matter of government openness and federal institutional ethics.

Allow me to quote from the 1995 auditor general's report: "Canadians are concerned about integrity in government and they have the right to expect the highest ethical standards in their governments. Leadership by members of Parliament, ministers, and deputy ministers is critical to maintaining ethical standards and performance in government".

And the auditor general adds, and I quote: "If Canadians do not trust their governments to act ethically, governments will find that their actions have less and less legitimacy and effectiveness. Thus, we believe that it is important to discuss the ethics in government and to take action to maintain and promote ethics in government".

You can see why Bill C-248 now before us is a good bill for the government, for its employees and particularly for the public. I would like to comment briefly on the various clauses of the bill.

Let us first consider the first six clauses of the bill. The purpose of these provisions is to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. Clause 1 would add a new provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act, by which it would become a discriminatory practice to discharge, suspend or impose a financial penalty on an employee, or to directly or indirectly differentiate adversely

in relation to an employee in retaliation for a disclosure in connection with a complaint made in good faith by the employee pursuant to the provisions of our bill.

The same clause also suggests that an employee shall be presumed not to act in good faith where, in making a disclosure, the employee violates any act of Parliament or rule of law protecting privileged communications, unless the employee can prove on a balance of probabilities that the violation was prompted by reasonable concerns for the public health or safety.

In clause 2, we propose that section 40 of the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to encourage employees who have reasonable grounds to do so to bring their concerns regarding employer misconduct to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The commission would be required to maintain a confidential registry of all complaints.

Clause 3 proposes to amend section 53(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to empower the Commission to roll back retaliatory measures by an employer against a whistleblower when the human rights tribunal deems it appropriate.

Clause 4 proposes to add to the Act a new section stating that no person shall discharge, suspend or impose a financial penalty on any employee in retaliation for a complaint or for a disclosure.

Clause 5 proposes to amend section 60(1) of the Act to include a reference to the new section 59.1 so that a person who contravenes this new section would be guilty of an offence for which he would be liable on summary conviction to the punishment set out in the Act.

Clause 6 proposes to replace paragraph (3) of section 61 of the Act by new paragraphs (3) to (7). Where a tribunal established by the Commission finds that a complaint is substantiated or that there are reasonable grounds to believe it true, these paragraphs would compel the Commission to report the finding to the Speaker of the House so that he may refer it to the appropriate committee.

Clause 7 proposes an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. This clause would amend the Canada Labour Code by adding two paragraphs after subsection (1) of section 240. These two paragraphs stipulate that retaliatory discharges for bona fide whistleblowing shall be considered unjust dismissals for the purposes of that Act.

Finally, clause 8 proposes an amendment to the Public Service Employment Act. Under this clause, the oath or solemn affirmation taken by a public servant in respect of his employer would be qualified as follows: it shall not be deemed to be a breach of the oath or solemn affirmation for an employee to make a disclosure in good faith regarding the employer's misconduct.

Since the first reading of the bill in May 1994, which was a year ago, several organizations representing some 200,000 federal civil servants have contacted my office to offer support as well as valuable comments.

Various organizations have commented that the bill should contain stronger measures. One of the areas they singled out was complaint registration. I will elaborate on these improvements later.

In its recent publication, Breaking the Silence , the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada stressed the urgency of bringing in an initiative like Bill C-248.

In its report called "In the Public's Interest", which was a summary of what its membership said at its hearings, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which alone represents over 150,000 public servants, also recommended implementing a measure like the one contained in this bill.

It is also worth noting that parliamentarians and political parties have also spoken in favour of legislation in the area mentioned above. For example, during the 34th Parliament, a New Democrat member introduced a bill, which made it to second reading, which was for all intents and purposes equivalent to Bill C-248. At that time, two Liberal members, one of them the ethics critic, the other, human rights critic, enthusiastically supported the principles in the bill. The bill was debated in February 1992.

Might I add that in 1991, the official opposition's critic for government administration declared that it was imperative to implement a policy to adequately protect public servants who bring wastage to the light of day. In the past, hon. members like the former Liberal who is now a senator, Jean-Robert Gauthier, the former New Democrat member for Skeena, Jim Fulton, and the former Conservative minister, Alan Redway, all proposed, in one form or another, legislative measures along the lines of Bill C-248.

For its part, the Reform Party has always insisted on transparency in the federal government and the elimination of waste of public funds. In this regard, the Reform member for St. Albert said the following on May 11 in the House in a question to the President of Treasury Board:

Given the fact that a notable proportion of public servants would not report such unethical behaviour, will the government introduce legislation to protect whistleblowers?

My colleague from the Reform Party was referring to chapter 1 of the latest auditor general's report which indicates that public servants are somewhat fearful about reporting practices that contravene the government's ethics guidelines.

The members of our political party, the Bloc Quebecois, at its first general council on June 18, 19 and 20, 1993, recommended to the parliamentary wing that it ensure legislation providing for protection of public servants who blow the whistle be tabled in the House as soon as possible.

It therefore appears that all parties in the House have in recent years or weeks given their support to a measure like the one proposed by Bill C-248. Hence there is ample reason for the House to consider Bill C-248 as votable.

However, to make the bill votable requires unanimous consent of the House. Without unanimous consent the bill, which is really expected by the Canadian public, will not go any further.

This means, therefore, that, without the unanimous consent of this House, unions, management, organizations, groups, in fact everyone will be prevented from expressing their opinions on the measures proposed in Bill C-248.

Acknowledging the unanimous support of all parties for a number of years relative to the necessity of the whistleblowing legislation, acknowledging also the obvious necessity of legal protection for good faith whistleblowers, and acknowledging the inescapable necessity for the bill to be votable if it is to be discussed in committee before coming back at third reading, I will ask members of the House to unanimously accept the bill as votable. I will make the request prior to the end of this period.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

6:15 p.m.

St. Boniface Manitoba

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill, which is a very laudable initiative. Indeed, even though the government may have some reservations about it, the proposed legislation includes many good points and we must take a very close look at it. I sincerely hope that we can pursue this debate.

One of the stated purposes of the bill is to provide for appropriate sanctions against retaliation or retaliatory discharges by public sector employers of employees who "blow the whistle" or report a serious misconduct of their employers.

Bill C-248 would, it is claimed, protect employees acting in good faith and would recognize there are times when it is in the public interest to encourage whistle blowing, especially if public health or safety were at issue.

It is important to remember that the idea is to improve public health and safety.

Let me say at the outset that I am most interested in any proposal that would lead to improvements in the way government programs are delivered that would lead to greater efficiencies and effectiveness and that would lead to the elimination of waste, mismanagement or misconduct.

This idea is a basic principle which we must support.

At the moment there are a number of legislative provisions with complementary policies and guidelines that have application in this area. I am interested in how they are working, how they can be improved and how the bill before us today could lead to improvements in these areas.

It is with this in mind that I have reviewed and now comment upon the bill before the House today.

Here are my comments, along with some specifics.

One of the clauses contained in the bill proposes amendments to section 23 of the Public Service Employment Act. This section requires every deputy head and employee, before becoming a member of the public service, to subscribe to the oath or affirmation of allegiance and the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy, the latter being set out in schedule III of the present act. Under Bill C-248, which restates the wording of section 23 as it now stands, two lengthy new clauses would be added qualifying the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy.

One of these clauses refers directly to the administration of section 40(1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. No change would be contemplated with respect to the oath or affirmation of allegiance, though any misconduct that could constitute betraying it may well pose a serious problem as abuse of the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy.

The oath or affirmation of allegiance is covered by the Oath of Allegiance Act. It prescribes a form by which every person in Canada who, either of his or her own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of him or her or in obedience to the directions of any act or law in force in Canada, except the British North America Act and the Canadian Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have it administered.

The prospective deputy head or employee of the public service must before assuming office affirm and swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance.

Confidentiality is required of all federal public servants by virtue of the Official Secrets Act and by the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy taken by all public servants on entering the service. The prospective employee swears or affirms that he or she will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties that evolve upon that person by reason of public service employment and not without due authority disclose or make known any matter that comes to the individual's knowledge by reason of such employment.

Of course it must be recognized that major departures from existing practices in tried and true legislation could have important implications for the future well-being of the public service.

This is something which must be carefully examined. If were to go ahead with the proposals contained in this bill, would we experience problems with some of them?

It is necessary to determine the precise nature of the problems that are believed to exist or might exist, in view of those proposing Bill C-248, to ascertain precisely the dimensions and nature of the systems that would be required were abuses to occur and how they might best be handled. The means for resolving any problem that might arise in this area under present legislation and regulations should be examined carefully in order not to duplicate or complicate unduly existing measures that inhibit or permit various actions. These include those inherent in the judicial system, the current system of checks and balances in existing legislation, regulations, policies and guidelines, as well as in our open system of government and strong voice of the media.

In examining this proposal for major legislative change, it must be recognized that there is already some legislation covering the abuse of authority and responsibility by public servants at all levels. Paragraph 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, for instance, makes it an offence for any official or employee of the public service to demand, accept, offer or agree to accept from a person dealing with the government any reward, advantage or benefit either directly or indirectly through anyone else for his or her own benefit without appropriate authorization.

Members will know that it is the duty of public servants and there are disciplinary and legislative tools available to ensure that they comply to be honest, efficient, effective and loyal in carrying out their responsibilities and managing the resources of the public service.

Employees are expected to inform their superiors of any seeming impropriety and to suggest ways of improving public services. Indeed, the incentive awards program recognizes exceptional contributions to the public service.

There are sanctions as well in place now to prevent, avert or penalize proven dishonourable conduct, criminal actions, waste, extravagance, discrimination or abuse of trust. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, there are already a number of sanctions and legislation in place covering the actions of concern to whistleblowers and to provide recourse for public servants against unfair treatment.

Canada is already known for having one of the finest public services in the world. It is critical that employees and managers recognize the importance of identifying problems and of working together to resolve them.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to comment on the proposals for legislative changes presented by the hon. member in Bill C-248.

I support this bill in principle, and I sincerely hope that we can continue to discuss it. As I just mentioned, some mechanisms are already in place. It is up to us to decide whether to go any further. I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed bill.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to deal with this very important subject about whistleblowing legislation. I am pleased also to see that the President of the Treasury Board on May 13 mentioned that he is still open to the idea of whistleblowing legislation. He is not convinced yet that it is necessary. I am pleased to see that he is open to the idea. Certainly as my colleague mentioned earlier, the Reform Party feels that any time we can open up government and open up the process we would be in favour of that.

Bill C-248, having to do with the rights of so-called whistleblowing, has been raised several times as private members' business in this House over the last decade or so. Unfortunately, it has not been raised by the government of day, past or present, and that is a shame.

There is a very old proverb I learned when I was a child. I know, Mr. Speaker, you will be interested in this one. I believe in it and I hope every member of the House subscribes to it as well. I try to follow it in my own life and it has done me nothing but good when I manage to follow it, even though it sometimes hurts. The simple old proverb goes like this: "Honesty is the best policy".

I have a question to ask members today. Is honesty really the best policy? If it is, and I believe that it is, we should develop institutions to protect honesty, to encourage honesty, to deter dishonesty and to even punish dishonesty when we find evidence of it.

In general, the Criminal Code and other statutes of Parliament require it, but very few provide an incentive for government organizations to be honest and not only honest but safe and frugal with taxpayers' dollars as well. I therefore agree with the intent of Bill C-248. It provides a mechanism for employees to demonstrate these qualities. It would help the government and the private sector to be honest by placing before it the possibility that dishonesty could be exposed.

Allow me to quote from an article in the Journal of Canadian Public Administration . It puts it well. It states:

There is solid evidence to show that, in the absence of an effective whistleblowing mechanism, employees have suffered emotional and physical turmoil in trying to deal with knowledge of fraud, conflicts of interest, rampant waste, pollution violations, and other illegal or unethical activities. Companies have a duty of care to provide such a mechanism to assist ethical employees.

Employees, who have real concerns and who make the wrongdoing public, suffer real problems in the workplace as a consequence. The Association of Mental Health in Maryland did a study on whistleblowers in the late 1980s found that 82 per cent of whistleblowers experienced harassment after exposing a wrongdoing, 60 per cent were fired from their jobs, 17 per cent eventually lost their homes and 10 per cent reported they had attempted suicide. So there are serious repercussions by not accepting the word of a whistleblower or by persecuting them afterwards.

Even with these problems, whistleblowing means savings for the American government. In 1980 the U.S. government began a hotline for the American public service. The government received 94,000 telephone calls in the first 10 years of operation, 1,100 calls were substantiated and $20 million was saved. The cost of the hotline was minuscule in comparison to those savings.

There are some dangers in this type of policy. It may be used irresponsibly by people who have their own axe to grind or people who are just plain disagreeable and want to cause trouble and headaches for honest employers by alleging things that simply are not true and then escape by hiding behind a law.

The idea I want to get across today is of controlled whistleblowing or a mechanism by which whistleblowing legislation can be passed that protects all parties involved. We must have the right to expose illegalities, the gross abuse of funds or a significant risk to public health or safety within limits that would protect employers and, in the case of Parliament, ministers of the crown and public service managers.

I want to suggest what might be part of an ideal act of Parliament. Then I want to compare that ideal with the bill before us. Ideal whistleblowing legislation should define the nature and limits of the activity that would be protected by such legislation specifying the gravity of wrongdoing to be exposed. I admit this would not be easy.

For instance, an employee may want to expose a fellow employee for being a couple of minutes late one morning because he is angry at him for some unknown reason. The law would have to be designed in such a way that it would be kept from degenerating into a sort of informer's paradise. The legislation probably would specify some type of internal process which must be followed before it would be legal to go through the public whistleblowing activity. It is only fair that an employer be able to clean up his act before getting tarred in the press.

Ideal legislation would specify public whistleblowing rather than leaked documents as well. Leaks are the curse of any minister's existence. If I was a minister I would not appreciate leaked documents either. However, whistleblowing legislation would not protect leaked documents unless it was one of those concerns that I mentioned earlier about gross misconduct or something. Public servants are expected to keep documents confidential at all times and that should continue under any legislation.

I like the idea of an employee coming forward in a forthright manner through proper protected channels if it is necessary to expose things.

Legislation should contain some kind of statute of limitation so that employees could not try to get revenge on certain people by exposing things that happened long after the employee has left the employer.

I also think the act must create an incentive system for legitimate whistleblowers. This is another difficult area and I do not claim to have all the answers. It is difficult enough for whistleblowers to come forward even with the protection that the President of the Treasury Board says is in place already. We see it is very difficult to get them to come forward.

The United States has the false claims act. Under it whistleblowers receive 25 per cent of the savings of any whistleblowing benefit they unearth. Over the first six years of the operation of the act, 407 lawsuits were filed and 37 were settled for a total of $147 million in savings. The average whistleblower received $400,000.

I have considerable hesitation in supporting this type of high priced incentive to whistleblowers. However, if this is referred to committee, the committee should investigate whether there

should be some sort of a monetary incentive or public recognition or some kind of paper recognition. Some sort of incentive should be investigated in committee to see if it has some validity on the Canadian scene.

There also needs to be legal protection for legitimate whistleblowers, including confidential advice for public servants and an appeal process for those who are harassed or fired. For that we need an independent body which would act as sort of a place of sober second thought. I am not going to suggest the Senate but we need something that would give an employee confidential advice on whether his or her concern constituted a legitimate exposure and so on.

This independent person or office, something like an ombudsman or an independent ethics counsellor-emphasis on the independent-would also act as a repository for the information that was revealed. Anyone could come and receive that information. It would be a very popular office indeed. I know many public servants have been in contact with me about the need for this legislation.

If it was done in this way it could be exposed in a non-partisan, orderly way that would protect the employee concerned and also protect the government or other employer by suppressing frivolous or mischievous claims such as the one I mentioned earlier about someone overstaying a coffee break or something.

Next we would need an appeal process where an employee who was being harassed or who was fired could go. We need something there. Investigations could be conducted and reparations made. However there would also have to be a companion law that would punish or somehow discipline an employee for publicly exposing things for which they have given an oath not to expose. For example, they would still have no right to expose confidential documents from the cabinet and so on. We have to make sure under this legislation that employees do not feel they have the right to expose what by necessity must be confidential.

How does Bill C-248 measure up? I have mentioned several things that could be fleshed out in the bill. I find the bill is like a shell. It has the skeleton of some very good ideas. It is not specific enough in many areas. For example, there are no limits specified as to the time of reporting, the gravity of the offence to be reported or even the kinds of things an employee could report.

We should investigate whether there should be an incentive system of some kind which is not mentioned in the bill. We should do something to encourage the natural inertia of the bill against whistleblowing and jump start it. Maybe some sort of incentive program would help to do that.

I am not convinced the Canadian Human Rights Commission is the best body to solve this problem. Canadian human rights is becoming a grab bag. It seems to be solving everything or it is expanding its role. Under Bill C-64 it has been asked also to expand its area of expertise into the employment equity issue.

I see a little problem with the Canadian Human Rights Commission becoming the catchall for all this. I wonder if rather than a human rights issue it could more properly be administered under the Department of Labour because this is typically an employee-employer type problem. We could change this to the Department of Labour because it would be best equipped to handle these types of employment related matters.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the bill contains no deterrents against destructive or frivolous whistleblowers, people who just want to pass the time of day and harass employers. We will need something there.

To conclude, the intent of Bill C-248 is noble. We agree with its general direction but it is like a shell that needs to be filled out. I appreciate the member's work in this area and I only feel disappointed the government did not present this legislation.

This situation is much like the access to information experience. There have been many private members' bills over the years that sought to improve access to information. Given the benefit of hindsight and the great amount of good the Access to Information Act has done, the Liberal government would be well advised to take this bill as an umbrella piece of legislation and work with it. I realize it would be taking a bit of a risk.

Once this type of legislation is worked over in committee and becomes law we will all wonder how we got by without it. It is a good idea. We on this side of the House look forward with anticipation when real whistleblowing legislation becomes a reality.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec-Est, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-248 is a good bill, because it meets a blatant need. It is an open secret that there is considerable waste and abuse in government. I am vice-chairman of the committee on public works. As the hon. member for St. Boniface who spoke for the government knows full well, we have seen many cases of waste and abuse in the public service, particularly when contracting out is concerned, with an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion a year in contracts awarded by the government to private enterprise.

In that sector alone, hundreds of millions of dollars may be wasted through abuse and errors. The Public Service Alliance told us about some absolutely incredible cases of waste. For example, painters employed by the federal government were moved aside as contracts were awarded to private sector entrepreneurs, who were paid to do the work while public servants stood by watching them. Some contracts and leases were a real waste of government money. The waste is legendary.

If public servants had the right to denounce such cases of abuse, the government could save millions of dollars every year. The public is well aware of this, and one of its most common criticism is that the government is not careful enough about its spending, especially since Canada faces a huge deficit.

It would be a good idea to draft such a bill in light of the potential savings. This bill would also help restore the credibility of the government and of politicians who, to a certain extent, are held responsible for public service waste and abuse.

If public servants could denounce cases of abuse, this would not only save money but also probably bring to light events or actions endangering public health or safety.

Public servants reporting cases of abuse must be protected. Thus, they would fell more inclined to report or blow the whistle on the conduct of their superiors and coworkers. That is why government employees need the kind of protection this bill is designed to afford them.

There are many examples around the world of governments that have already passed legislation to allow employees to disclose instances of abuse and squandering within the public service. In fact, this public administration philosophy is increasingly popular in the United States.

More than 20 states in the U.S., including major states like New York and California, are reported to have put in place similar legislation enabling public servants to report abuse and protecting them; in some states, the protection of the law even extends to disclosure of abuse and squandering in the private sector. We are light-years behind them in that respect.

And the U.S. is not alone. England also has similar legislation. But we, in Canada, do not. It would be great, of course, if the federal government could act on this. There is every reason to do so. In fact, there is no valid reason not to pass this bill, except perhaps a lack of will on the part of the government. This is not even a partisan issue; it does not have anything to do with being a federalist or a sovereignist. It is strictly a matter of common sense. As other members mentioned, public servants themselves and the Public Service Alliance have come forward and expressed full support, for the reasons stated previously.

There really is no reason not to pass this bill, because this is a bill that will help the public service operate better and more economically. Why not agree in principle with this bill, as suggested by the hon. member for Saint-Boniface and the representative of the Reform Party? Why not refer it to committee, where improvements can be made if required so that we can go some way toward providing Canada with a piece of legislation enabling public servants to disclose instances of abuse without being subjected to unfair retaliation.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The member for Portneuf, on a point of order.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned previously, I would like to ask the House if these is unanimous consent to find this bill votable.

As we know, Canadians have been waiting for such a piece of legislation. We have the opportunity to have an important in-depth debate which would enlighten members of Parliament as well as the public. Later on, we will have the opportunity, if the House so desires, to vote to refer this bill to a committee.

What we are talking about now is to have two more opportunities to debate this bill. Therefore, I ask the House for its unanimous consent.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The House has heard the terms of the motion presented by the member for Portneuf seeking unanimous consent to find this item votable and to debate it for two more hours.

Is there unanimous consent?

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96, this item is dropped for the Order Paper .

It being 6.50 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.49 p.m.)