Debates of April 2nd, 2004

Question No. 6

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)( b ), to inform the House that the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond to petition No. 373-0200 is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-25, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which has been introduced by the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.

This bill has been made necessary because of the sponsorship scandal and the desire of the public service to say out loud what people have been thinking to themselves for a long time. The problem is that there are serious situations in the public service. I will give examples of public servants who have even lost their jobs because they dared to blow the whistle. That is why we have Bill C-25 before us today.

The incredible thing is that, despite the government's willingness to introduce this bill in the House, if an election is called between now and the end of April, it will, in fact, be impossible for Parliament to pass this bill.

That could mean that, all during the election campaign, if public servants have anything to say about the government's behaviour, they will not be able to make disclosures, or, if they do, they will have no protection under this legislation because it will not have been passed.

Sometimes even we, as members of Parliament, are poor judges. We want to do the right thing and support the public service. The government, probably for good reasons as well, wanted to introduce this bill. Still, I will take the few minutes available to me to speak about the comments made by the Public Service Alliance, the union that fights for government employees. They have some serious recommendations to make about this bill.

One of the major weaknesses seen by the Public Service Alliance is that the public service integrity commissioner proposed in the bill does not report directly to Parliament but to the office of a minister, which will seriously affect the independence of the office and its credibility within the public service.

If ever there were a desire to blow the whistle on government actions, we would have expected the commissioner responsible for hearing complaints to report directly to Parliament. We do, in fact—particularly the opposition members—offer a degree of neutrality, a guarantee for the public servants who make a complaint to the commissioner who, in turn reports to Parliament. It would have been the guarantee of a degree of neutrality in the analysis and examination of a case.

It has been decided by the government that the commissioner will report to a minister, not Parliament. It is already not easy for public servants to make disclosures, but it is even harder if the commissioner receiving the complaints reports to a minister. That minister is, of course, a colleague of other ministers, against whose department the complaint may be directed. This is totally abnormal and something seen nowhere else but here.

The Liberal Party has been trying to demonstrate its transparency for weeks. It has an opportunity to table a bill to help public servants make disclosures, but the commissioner receiving those disclosures will report to a minister's office. This is exactly like the ethics commissioner reporting to the Prime Minister as he did in the past.

We have spoken out about that connection between the ethics commissioner and the PM, but the integrity commissioner who will be receiving complaints from public servants will be reporting to a minister. This is exactly the same thing. What goes around comes around, where the Liberals are concerned.

Once again, I am reflecting the comments made by the Public Service Alliance concerning the fact that the commissioner has only a power of recommendation after carrying out an investigation. The commissioner cannot, for example, order the person making the disclosure to be reinstated in his position or order certain interim measures to protect the whistleblower in certain cases. For example, a person might be transferred to another department for the duration of the investigation. Certain steps could be taken.

So we have a commissioner who can receive a complaint but has no power to reinstate the person in his position . I will look at the case of Alain Tremblay, which is no secret, as he has held press conferences and been interviewed by the media here in the Outaouais.

He is a public servant from the Aylmer sector of the City of Gatineau who had disclosed the wrongdoing of one of his superiors at the Royal Canadian Mint. The individual was living in Quebec but paying taxes in Ontario, where he had a second residence. He had a scheme going whereby he paid rent to one of his employees in Ontario to avoid paying taxes in Quebec.

Consequently, Mr. Tremblay blew the whistle on his supervisor and ended up losing his job over it. That is the reality. Alain Tremblay lost his job and today he is doing everything he can to get re-hired, saying, “Listen, it is not right that I should lose my job”.

With respect to job loss, the government has quite a convoluted way of doing things. Mr. Tremblay was told that, because of cutbacks in the Department of Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, where he worked, his services would no longer be required.

The Government of Canada has increased public service spending by 39% in the past five years. It has increased the number of employees and Mr. Tremblay, who was a whistleblower, was told there had been cuts in his department. It is not easy for Mr. Tremblay, nor is it easy for the member for Hull—Aylmer, who supports Mr. Tremblay and is calling for an investigation.

The problem in this case is easy to understand. The federal government decided to use strategy and told a public service whistleblower, “Your position has been eliminated because of budget cuts. You cannot stay here”.

In 2002, Mr. Tremblay had received a note from his supervisor saying that he had continued to excel professionally and personally that year. So, he was kept on in 2003. There were notes describing his excellent performance in his file. He is a good employee, but he disclosed a wrongdoing. He was laid off because his position had been abolished and he will never be re-hired. That is the difficulty for all public servants.

Again, public servants in the Outaouais and Ottawa-Gatineau region vote Liberal in election after election. I am 46 years old and I cannot remember a time when public servants in the Outaouais did not vote for the Liberal Party. What does that party turn around and do? It blames them whenever there are problems because politicians mismanaged public funds and they do not know where the money went.

The Liberal politicians blame public servants. And in an attempt to encourage whistleblowing, they tell public servants who voted for them in the Outaouais and Ottawa-Gatineau region for years on end, “Listen, we will introduce legislation to ensure you can disclose wrongdoing”.

Except that the commissioner responsible for handling the complaints will answer to a department, just as the ethics counsellor answered to the Prime Minister's Office. That is the problem for public servants, who cannot believe this and are extremely skeptical. Furthermore, there is no retroactivity clause either. This means that there is no protection in this legislation for whistleblowers making disclosures relating to the past, such as before the sponsorship scandal.

The government should have included a retroactivity clause. But no, this legislation will only apply to those who will report wrongdoings once it has come into effect. Of course, when the time comes to hear public servants and protect them, statements will have been made and the Liberal Party will probably have tried to sweep the whole sponsorship scandal under the carpet.

While we are waiting for the next election, this sends the following message to public servants: “Do not talk to anyone, otherwise you will suffer the fate of Alain Tremblay, you will lose your job. They will manage to put you in a position that will be terminated. They will try to transfer you to another department that will disappear, because they will have decided to make cuts precisely in that sector of the department where you work, to be absolutely sure that you can never report wrongdoings again”.

The Bloc Quebecois will never accept this and it will always fight for the integrity of public servants, of men and women who work hard to earn a living.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words on the whistleblowing legislation that is before the House. I was not a member of the committee that studied it in detail but from my quick reading of the legislation, my understanding is that it is not very adequate and does not go very far at all.

Someone called our office a few days ago suggesting that he was with the RCMP, although I am not sure of his position, but he was concerned that the legislation was not strong enough to protect a whistleblower from the federal public service or indeed from the RCMP. He made the suggestion that a number of things in the RCMP were not going properly. I think he used the words that there was some corruption at certain levels. That was his allegation or his suggestion. However, he was suggesting that the legislation before the House would not be strong enough to protect a whistleblower coming forth and making this information public to the people.

My reading of the legislation suggests that he is probably right when he says that the legislation is not strong enough. We should have stronger legislation to protect public servants who come forward and blow the whistle on any wrongdoings. We had the case last summer where the privacy commissioner had the whistle blown on him, which was what really brought this legislation to the forefront.

It is just part of government accountability to make sure that if public servants realize there is some wrongdoing, be it criminal or otherwise, they should be protected to come forward and provide that information to the appropriate authorities and then, at the appropriate time, make that information public.

That leads me to another concern about the legislation. The person in charge of the whistleblowing information, if the bill goes through the House and through the Senate and gets royal assent, will be responsible, not to the Parliament of Canada but to the appropriate minister, in other words to the government of the day.

[An hon. member]

That is ridiculous.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

As my friend from Winnipeg says, that is ridiculous, especially when it comes from a Prime Minister who is talking about a democratic deficit in the country and that he wants to do politics differently.

I was just reading an article in the Vancouver Sun a moment ago where the Prime Minister, who is in British Columbia, is talking about going to Kamloops today to talk about doing politics differently, to talk about accountability and to talk about a more democratic governing process just hours after he appointed three candidates for the Liberal Party to run in ridings. This practice of appointing candidates was used by the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, as well. If there is anything that is undemocratic, it is appointing a candidate to run in a riding.

It is no wonder some Liberals are embarrassed about this. The former solicitor general from Prince Edward Island is hanging his head in shame, pretending he is reading a newspaper. His esteemed leader, who talks from one side of his mouth about democracy, is appointing people in British Columbia to run in certain ridings because they are afraid to stand for a nomination.

[An hon. member]

Big tents are for circuses.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Somebody mentioned big tents, and I guess they really are for three-ring circuses: three candidates in British Columbia, a three-ring circus in British Columbia, and every one of them nominated.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

And a former NDP premier.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

My friend from Nova Scotia, who truly is a good friend of mine, is a good example because he did it differently. The Prime Minister did not appoint him as a Liberal candidate. He had to go out there and fight for a Liberal nomination against somebody else, if I understand it correctly, and he won the nomination on his own merits.

What happened in British Columbia was that they have three people in a three-ring circus, where he had Liberals competing for nominations and they parachuted in these three people.

I see the member from Nova Scotia is getting to his feet. I am sure he is embarrassed and wants to explain this. He wants to do a mea culpa about what is happening. I will cede the floor to him, Mr. Speaker, because I see he wants to interject on a point of order. No, he is embarrassed and he is leaving the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am really getting confused here. The last time I checked, only one person could speak at a time. Maybe I am just getting forgetful. Let us try and resume debate.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is totally off topic of the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not know what to call that but it is certainly not a point of order.

The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon must not have been listening because it is on topic. We are talking about accountability, a democratic process and making this place more relevant. When candidates are appointed for nominations, we do not expand democracy and we do not make this place more accountable.

What we need to have is a democratic process of electing members to the House of Commons. We should not be appointing people to the other House. That is totally undemocratic. We should have the person responsible for whistleblowing report to the House of Commons, not to a minister of the crown, a minister of the executive or the government of the day. That is not the way to go.

Not too many years ago the government of the day said that we could not have the Chief Electoral Officer report to the House. That now has been changed. We have several other people who report to the House now: the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the privacy commissioner and a number of others.

We have made very slow progress in making this place more accountable to all Canadians and this is the way we should have gone in terms of whistleblowing as well.

I would like to see a Liberal get up in the House before the debate ends and defend the decision that was made that the person responsible for whistleblowing should report to a minister of the crown.

I will tell members across the way that the Liberals will not stay in power forever. For the member for Hull—Aylmer and the member for Ottawa—Vanier, who are listening very attentively to what I am saying, I want to say that they will not be in power forever.

Let us suppose, horror of horrors, that the Conservatives win and the new minister is the member for Wild Rose, Alberta. Would we feel comfortable with him as the minister? The member for Wild Rose is a very esteemed member of the Conservative Party, who is in the inner circle and represents the values of the Conservative Party. We see him thundering in this House. He is certainly at the head of the list as cabinet material, and this is a possibility.

I do not think the Canadian people would ever elect a far right-wing, radical, George Bush republican style Conservative Party. Those guys make Brian Mulroney look like a kitten.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

You should not be talking about an individual like that. Do you want us to start talking about your history?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

You can talk about our history any time you want in the House of Commons.

Could the member across the way explain to the House why this person should not report to the House of Commons? Why should this person report to a cabinet minister and to the government?

They want to reform Parliament and they want reform democracy and here is the opportunity to do so.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will not prolong the debate but I could not resist the invitation.

The bill is being referred to committee before second reading, so there is a definition of flexibility in that process. The committee will be able to receive comments and suggestions from all parties. However in the current bill, if I recall, there is not only one but two ministers, so there is bit of flexibility already built into the bill.

However we welcome these suggestions and we welcome the debate at committee.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments about the previous speaker's presentation.

In this House we can attack each other on our principles and our policies, but when the member from the NDP gets up and personally attacks the ability of any member in this House, Mr. Speaker, that is completely out of line. I would have hoped that you would have stopped him from continuing his tirade against a member in this House, the member for Wild Rose.

We can go at each other on our policies and what we believe in as units of government, but no one should be able to get up in this House and personally go after someone like that, questioning his ability to be a good member of Parliament. That member is outstanding and has more support in his riding than that member could ever dream of.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say very briefly that the member should check the record. I was complimenting the member for Wild Rose. I said that he was cabinet material and an esteemed member of the Conservative Party.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Respectfully, as someone has already suggested, that was not a point of order.

If I may, with regard to the comments from the hon. member for Lethbridge, for whom I have a great deal of respect, I would only offer that the Chair from time to time, of course, takes note, not only of what is said but the mood of this wonderful place. Sometimes the mood is not what we would like it to be, but ultimately in the end the Chair is only able to administer those things that it has been empowered to do and I cannot step beyond those boundaries. The expectations of the hon. member for Lethbridge might be a little bit more than the Chair is able to offer. Resuming debate?

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.