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.