Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2005

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I did listen carefully. Those types of words of course ring alarm bells, but I do not believe anything was attributed to a minister, certainly nothing that I heard.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this because I think it is a substantive issue. I am saddened by the continued attempts to characterize this as the cover-up clause. It is nothing of the sort. It is exactly the same clause that is included in the investigative procedures of any investigative body.

We must remember that the raison d'être of this organization is to expose wrongdoing. That is what it is for. All the processes drive toward a process which does that. It is well documented in the legislation for other investigative bodies. If we were to speak to the Auditor General, she would stand before us and say that she seeks exactly the same protection for investigative notes. Members will note that in the bill we allow public servants to make allegations without evidence. They can make any allegation they want and that allegation gets treated properly.

This is the position of those who have conducted investigations. If we want them to be as free and fulsome in collecting information as we want, we want to allow them to collect all the information they can, but then when they are collecting it we want them to do it in an atmosphere of confidence. The product of that would come forward and we would have an independent officer of this House who would decide on the actions taken, unless members are saying they do not have confidence in the person we are creating and choosing to do this, which might raise other questions, but frankly, that person would have the ability to choose whether or not to proceed and how to proceed and all of that.

The advice given by all those who were involved in investigative bodies was for providing some protection on the notes that govern. Again, as for any action taken and the results of any investigation, that is all put on display. This is simply protecting the investigative notes because of the possibility of collecting information that turns out not to be indicative of any wrongdoing. As for this sense of criminal conspiracy, I just think it is rather sad, frankly, that we have this kind of conversation.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say to the president of the Treasury Board that I am very pleased that a first step has been taken to protect whistleblowers. You will appreciate that I myself am introducing a bill, Bill C-360, which is aimed at helping victims or at recognizing the negative effects of psychological harassment on federal public servants.

Since I became a member of Parliament, a huge number of federal public servants have denounced not scandals, but very small things to their immediate supervisor or simply within their department. Indeed, they have suffered psychological harassment. I would like the president of the Treasury Board to respond to me on this. The important thing for people who have had problems because they disclosed wrongdoings is to know whether the bill provides protection measures for public servants who denounce some situations. If there are protection measures, what are they? How far are we going to go? Are we going to ensure that people who deal with cases of whistleblowing have the qualifications required to respond to the victims' psychological needs and to recognize psychological harassment?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments, but I want to differentiate between what this particular bill covers and the topic of psychological harassment that she is raising, because this bill is not constituted to deal with a workplace issue of that sort.

That is not to say it is not an important issue and should not be dealt with in other ways. I will obtain a copy of her bill and have a look at it. If she would like to meet with me to discuss this outside the House, I would be more than willing to do so.

It is interesting in a way, because it was one of the reasons why I thought going to the Public Service Commission was an interesting choice. The problem is that we can do some things, particularly in larger organizations on more complex problems, to protect the identity of the person bringing forward the problem, but in a lot of cases we cannot. In a lot of cases it is kind of known within the organization. One of the concerns was about how we protect someone who has legitimately brought forward a case of actual wrongdoing, because there are other problems.

Britain has legislation like this. One of the complexities it found is that what starts out as a claim of wrongdoing turns out to be a personnel or HR matter because someone got passed over for a promotion or something. All of that has to be sorted out in dealing with wrongdoing.

In cases where people have brought forward substantive cases of wrongdoing, within the act there is a requirement that they be protected. As well, if there are any attempts to deal with them later on in their careers as a result of their actions in this matter, there are remedies for that.

One of the reasons why I thought the Public Service Commission was interesting was that it, by definition, is the body that would follow them for the rest of their careers and be able to extend some of that protection, but between the public sector management agency and the new House officer, we have the tools to provide that kind of protection.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the minister.

First, why did this minister and the government fight for two years, kicking and scratching, before they agreed to put into this legislation the independent office for people to report to? It was in the first piece of legislation and they refused to change it in the second piece. It was only good work on the part of the committee that made it happen.

Second, there is a five year review built in. What if the committee finds changes are needed in a year, assuming this government is still in power? Will the minister be open to making those changes before the five year review?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from responding in the same tone. I think the member is asking me if I will now commit to making changes in a bill that has not yet been proclaimed or enacted and on which we have not yet seen anything done. I would hope that we would at least allow the commissioner to get in place, allow the process to work and evaluate the outcomes.

I think what we have is a robust piece of legislation that is a major improvement in the way we deal with the public service. I think we should give it a chance to succeed. The purpose of a five year review is to bring it back before the House and let people have a look at it, but to announce it dead before it arrives I think is unfortunate.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

I would like to compliment the President of the Treasury Board on the fact that he was open-minded enough to allow committee members to effect changes to this piece of legislation that they felt needed a lot of improvement. I appreciate the fact that he was able to consider the changes that we put forth and was open-minded enough to recognize that those changes had to be put into effect.

I also think that we must have worried him some because I notice he has come back to this session of Parliament much reduced in weight from when he left. I assume that is because we worried him so much with all the changes we were requesting.

It has always been the Conservative Party's policy to protect public servants who expose corruption. That is why we felt it was necessary to create a truly independent officer to hear and investigate disclosures from public servants. It now finally appears that the government has given in to that demand.

For years the Liberal government has ignored the demands of accountability experts, public servants, opposition parties and even the House of Commons committee on government operations by delaying this issue and resisting amendments to make this legislation truly effective.

I remember meeting with the President of the Treasury Board in his office before the bill was presented in the House. When he told me what the bill was going to consist of, I told him that in my mind it would have no credibility with public servants because it lacked an independent commissioner. Our differences began there, but we have worked hard at resolving those differences. I think we have a better piece of legislation as a result.

The thing that concerns me is that the government has reintroduced a bill that actually has not changed from the bill it introduced in the last Parliament. I am not sure whether that is just an arrogant government used to operating with a majority, but it did not take long for it to realize that things have changed. It is now a minority government and it has to do business a little differently. It seems that the government is working more effectively in this session of Parliament than in previous sessions because we are making improvements to legislation.

The bill was introduced last fall, and it was not until June 16 of this year that it became clear to the President of the Treasury Board that the bill as written by the government would not be accepted by the committee. No member of the committee was prepared to accept the bill, so the Liberals backed down and promised to create an independent integrity commissioner. I am pleased they decided to do that.

Even then we were hesitant to approve the changes until we actually saw the text of the provisions creating the independent body. The Liberals tried to tell us that the original bill created an independent process, which was untrue of course, and we wanted to ensure this legislation was not just another attempt to pull the wool over the committee's eyes.

Conservative members of the government operations committee have now reviewed these amendments in detail and we are satisfied that most of our demands have been met. We will therefore allow this legislation to pass at second reading and report stage after fair and reasonable debate.

Our support for the bill is qualified because it still remains flawed. For example, it would allow the government to conceal information revealed internally by whistleblowers for five years. The Liberals originally wanted to keep such matters hidden for 20 years, so this is a slight improvement. The Conservative Party would like to see, and we are going to insist, that this cover-up clause be eliminated completely.

The bill would allow cabinet to remove certain agencies, crown corporations and other bodies from the scope of the legislation whenever the government sees fit. The Conservative Party would take away that cabinet power to cover up corrections in agencies and crown corporations. These flaws are serious, but we do not believe they are fatal.

We will pass the legislation because it would put in place the basic structure needed to protect public servants who expose corruption. The problems I mentioned will be addressed by a future Conservative government.

I cannot emphasize enough how important the bill is for public servants and Canadian taxpayers. If this kind of legislation with the Conservative amendments had been in effect years ago, the waste that resulted from the sponsorship scandal, BSE and the Dingwall spending scandal, and countless similar spending scandals could have been nipped in the bud. I believe the legislation, although still imperfect, is a good first step toward cleaning up the way government is run.

I credit my Conservative colleagues for their excellent work in committee to create an independent commissioner, to hear and protect whistleblowers. I thank all members of the committee. There was a lot of hard work by all members of the committee. We came up with what I think, as the President of Treasury Board said, is a workable piece of legislation that still needs improvement but one that we are going to work on.

One of the improvements we were able to make, thanks to the hard work and the insistence of my colleague from Nepean—Carleton, was that the RCMP be included in the legislation. I am pleased that we won that and that is thanks to my colleague from Nepean—Carleton.

During committee hearings we heard from somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 to 20 witnesses and without fail, every one of them told us that, unless we had an independent commissioner, the legislation would probably be of no value. I must thank those witnesses because many of them had lost their jobs over having the integrity to come forth when they saw something that was inappropriate in government. We heard harrowing stories, one after the other, where public servants who had been working for 25 years or 30 years who had come forth with an account of wrongdoing and consequently lost their jobs because they had come forth. The legislation will ensure that it does not happen to future public servants.

I spent 22 years as a public servant. I am very proud of my time in the public service. I must say though that during that 22 years I saw incidents that I am not very proud of and I am sure that the government would not be very proud if it knew what was going on in some of the departments.

I saw cases where it got so bad that staff would not talk to a supervisor without having witnesses because they were fearful of recrimination. That, hopefully, will be stopped with this current legislation.

The legislation says that the Parliament of Canada, we the government, believes that each and every member of the public service is a worthwhile individual and deserves the support and protection of Parliament. I am so proud to have had a part in the legislation that will bring that forth.

As a Conservative member of Parliament I am proud to stand in the House on behalf of my former public service colleagues throughout Canada and in fact, around the world, and tell them that, although the legislation is not perfect, I am proud of what our committee accomplished and I will continue to work at protecting such a fine group of people.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was maybe not a fulsome disclosure in the speech about what exactly the bill is addressing. I think it is addressing wrongdoings. It is not maybe as advertised, but somehow a tool for corrupt governments.

The act under section 8, and it is important to have it on record, relates to those working in the public sector. Public servants are defined now as basically everyone, all crown corporations and agencies. The only exclusions are CSIS and the military for reasons with which the committee was satisfied.

Wrongdoings constitute a contravention of any act of Parliament or a legislature of a province or any regulations under those acts; a misuse of public funds or public assets; gross mismanagement in the public sector; an act or omission that creates a substantial or specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons or the environment, other than a danger that is inherent in the performance of those duties; a serious breach of the code of conduct, which each of the departments, agencies and corporations have to set up under the act; the taking of reprisals, which means going back on an employee who became a whistleblower; and finally, knowing directly or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing set out in any of the previous paragraphs. Would the member care to comment?

It is extremely important that we understand that the success of Bill C-11, this whistleblower legislation, requires the support and confidence of the public service. We must make absolutely sure that as we move this forward, as we introduce it to Canadians and to the public service, we be very clear on what the bill does and does not do. It certainly does cover anyone who touches any of those areas of wrongdoing. It could include anybody in the civil service. It could include any member of Parliament, any minister or any other party over whom they have influence. It is much more substantive than simply putting it under the umbrella of dealing with corrupt government.

I would ask the member if he would set the tone for public servants, so that they understand that the committee worked hard to ensure that the best interests of our valued public servants was being put first.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing I would love more than to set the record straight for the public servants. I will give the House a very brief description of what the witnesses we heard at committee recounted. There was a gentleman by the name of Corporal Reid, an RCMP officer for something like 28 years of service, who lost his career because he stood against wrongdoing and corruption.

Regarding the BSE crisis, a gentleman by the name of Shiv Chopra and some of his colleagues were fired from Health Canada because of their concerns about BSE testing and prevention. We also have the testimony of Allan Cutler who revealed the sponsorship scandal.

If the bill had been in effect, those people would not have suffered the emotional damage which they had to go through for years and the loss of their employment. Yes, I am very proud of this new legislation which will prevent that and we will never have to live with those kinds of things in the future.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I have listened to the debate and I am interested in what will happen after the fact. When a public service employee decides to use this legislation and files a complaint against someone within his or her own department, someone close to him or her, I am wondering if it would not be appropriate for that person to benefit from what we would call precautionary cessation of work. That person could be kept away from the workplace until the complaint is examined and settled, with full compensation of course so that he or she can live a decent life in the meantime. That was my first question. I do not know if there are such provisions in the bill; I have not seen anything like that. Perhaps my colleague could clarify this for me.

My second question is even more important. One of our colleagues mentioned this earlier: what happens if the complaint is settled, if the person comes back to work, whether or not blame was assigned to his or her immediate employer, and a few months later, the immediate employer takes revenge on that person by subjecting him or her to psychological harassment or by other means? Should this possibility not be provided for in the legislation? My colleague will introduce a private member's bill, but should there not be some kind of protection against that in the bill?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The commissioner will have the power to deal with any case of harassment in the workplace. The commissioner will be required to take charge of these situations and solve the problem.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased the House finally has started debate on Bill C-11 to enact whistleblower legislation. This is the second legislation that has come to the House to deal with whistleblowers.

A couple of years ago Bill C-25 was introduced in the House, but it was rejected by the committee because of a few things, one key thing being the independent officer of Parliament to which whistleblowers would report was not in place. In spite of that, when Bill C-11 came to committee, that was still the case. No independent office was set up so whistleblowers could comfortably and confidently report without having the filter of a minister.

This demonstrates better than anything else that we cannot trust the government to make itself accountable for waste and corruption. Should we expect the Liberals to bring forward legislation that could clean up a systematic corruption in their government? I think not. We saw it with David Dingwall last week and we saw it with the sponsorship scandal. The government is not to be trusted with Canadians' tax dollars. It seems to be more concerned about taking care of its friends and quite frankly the Liberal Party.

What the Liberals have done with this whistleblower legislation is no different. Their bill was totally rejected by the government operations and estimates committee and was substantially and fundamentally rewritten. It had to be rewritten before the all party committee of the House of Commons would accept it. When civil servants see corrupt activity, they should be able to blow the whistle without retribution.

Bill C-11 is a triumph of committee work. The committee, consisting of members from all parties, should be proud of the work it has done with the legislation. They have taken a weak bill, which was totally unacceptable, and made it into a bill which is not perfect, but at least it is a starting point. It would allow whistleblowers to come forward with confidence and report wrongdoing. Had the legislation been in place before the sponsorship scandal, it probably would have prevented that from happening.

It is key legislation, probably the most important the government has brought forth in the last two years.

By producing the legislation, which will better protect whistleblowers, the government operations committee has demonstrated how effective committees of Parliament can be. Public servants and members of the RCMP, which was an amendment made by the committee, would have been protected by the new legislation had it been in place at the time of their disclosure. I am speaking about public servants and members of the RCMP who, because there was no legislation like this, had their careers destroyed and their lives torn to shreds. We heard from some of them at committee, and I believe most members of Parliament have heard from others. Again, it is not perfect but it will go a long way to improving the situation.

I am astounded that the government fought so long and so hard to keep the control over the office of the whistleblowers in the hands of a minister so it could filter anything that went to it. I want to talk about what happened in that regard.

Bill C-25 was the first legislation that came forth about two years ago. The committee heard from several witnesses. I was a member of that committee. In fact, the current minister in charge of the Treasury Board was chair of the government operations and estimates committee at that time. Every witness who came before the committee said that the legislation would be worthless if the government did not have an independent officer to whom they could report. What did the government do? It brought back Bill C-11 with an office of the whistleblowers which would answer to a minister, not directly to Parliament.

The committee heard from about 20 witnesses. Again, they all said the same thing, that among other changes it was absolutely essential to have an independent office for whistleblowers to which they could report.

When did the government finally give in on this? It was about June 16. On about June 14 the critic for the Treasury Board, the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, asked a question of the minister in the House. It was a very respectful question, pointing out that the committee was bogged down, that the legislation would be thrown out by the committee if an independent office was not put in place. At that time the minister made no guarantee that he and his cabinet would agree to put in place an independent office.

On June 16 that same member put an ultimatum before the government. The ultimatum was delivered in question period in the form of a question to the President of the Treasury Board. I wish to read it so people can see what happened here. The member said that he had asked the President of the Treasury Board whether he was prepared to create an independent office to protect whistleblowers and investigate their disclosures. He went on to say that the Conservative Party, with the backing of every single stakeholder and expert, had been making this demand consistently both in the House and in committee ever since the Liberals tabled their worst and useless whistleblower bill. Then he said:

The dithering has to end now. I have an ultimatum for the minister: either he amends his bill to create an independent commissioner who reports directly to Parliament, or the Conservative Party will make sure this bill dies in committee. Independence or death, which will it be?

A bit of theatrics, but that is the question delivered by the member. It was an extremely important question. Again, no satisfactory answer.

The member delivered the ultimatum again and said, “Will the minister take it or leave it?” He still would make no commitment. However, less than 24 hours later the government against all of its efforts was forced to do the right, to back up and agree with the committee to put in place an independent office so whistleblowers could report to an officer of Parliament, set up similar to the Auditor General. If it did not, the bill would be defeated.

It is very unfortunate when we have to resort to threats, but when it comes to protecting our public servants and protecting the integrity of the public service, at that time we will use whatever measures we have to use to make things happen. That ultimatum worked. As a result of that, the independent office was put in place. That was a key part to making the legislation work.

There were several other areas which were absolutely needed as well. Allegations without evidence would now be allowed to be brought forth by whistleblowers. That was a key change to the legislation. Otherwise how would the public service get absolute evidence? It is just about impossible. Allowing allegations without having actual evidence proves this was a key change, again made by the committee under pressure.

Another key change was that a whistleblower would not necessarily have to report to his or her immediate supervisor. Imagine how ineffective the legislation would be had a whistleblower been forced to report directly to an immediate supervisor. The Liberals backed off on that one. Now whistleblowers can go directly to the commissioner should they choose. This is an important change.

Reducing the information secrecy period was a great concern to many on the committee. In the legislation there was a 20 year period where information regarding what the whistleblower brought forth and the discussions that went on around it was protected. I believe that was a cover-up protection. It would allow a government to protect the information from the general public and opposition parties for 20 years. That is completely unacceptable. The committee had it changed to five years. It is not a total victory by any means, but it is progress.

These changes and many others were made by the government operations and estimates committee. The committee really demonstrated that a committee of Parliament could work effectively and it did. I am proud of all the members of the committee.

It also went to show that the government will resist any change to make it more accountable. The government will resist to a point that it takes an unbelievable push to make the necessary changes. We did that. The committee should be proud.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noted that during the member's comments he referred to the existence of an independent person looking into the investigatory side of the whistleblowing legislation. He said that the president of the Public Service Commission was not acceptable because that person would somehow be filtered by the minister. I am not sure exactly how that would happen. I know that under the applicable legislation with regard to the public service the president of the Public Service Commission does his or her own report. It happens to be tabled in the House by the minister but it is certainly not written by the minister. I am a little curious about that.

I am asking the next question quite sincerely. There seems to be a misunderstanding that a question in the House was a pivotal moment in determining that there was going to be pressure and that we were going to have an independent officer. The member will certainly recall, because the letter is under his signature on behalf of the committee, that at the committee meeting, immediately preceding the question that the member posed to the minister in the House, we agreed unanimously as a committee and sent to the minister our letter recommending the creation of an independent officer as a consequence of all of the hearings. It was the witnesses who gave us the foundation on which we could make that recommendation.

Why is the member suggesting that somehow a member's question in question period was the reason we did something when clearly the minutes of our committee meeting will show that immediately preceding, the committee unanimously agreed to make that recommendation to the minister?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, maybe the member is getting a little petty. Really, which of these events had the most impact is hard to judge. The committee certainly pushed hard but in the end it is a fact that within 24 hours of the time the ultimatum was given in question period the action was taken. That is all I am going by. I am only stating the facts.

On the issue of the Public Service Commission, every witness rejected the concept of having the Public Service Commission be the whistleblower office. That the member would suggest it would still be okay absolutely astounds me. Clearly the independence is not there. Who chooses the public service commissioner? The Prime Minister and cabinet. Clearly there is not independence to the level that we absolutely need. All the witnesses made that clear. The committee pushed for that and, as I said, I am extremely proud of the committee for the work it did.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on the same subject as the member of Mississauga South, who often rises in the House.

The chairman of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, who just made a speech on that subject, is talking about the ultimatum given by the Conservatives regarding the appointment of an independent integrity commissioner. I would like him to tell us, in his capacity as chairman of the committee, if, apart from Mrs. Barrados, the President of the Public Service Commission, who knows about the committee's hearing, he has heard one single witness say that this should be done before the Public Service Commission and not before an independent commissioner.

Are we talking only about the Conservatives or about all the witnesses? I would like him to identify one single witness who disagreed with the Bloc, the Conservatives or the committee's unanimous decision.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I give my Bloc colleague full credit for the work he has done at committee.

Clearly, every single one of the witnesses said that we need an independent office and the government still would not deliver. It was great pressure on the part of the NDP members, the Bloc members, the Conservative members and some of the Liberal members, quite frankly, that made this happen and they should all take credit for that.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this second opportunity to speak to Bill C-11. I will remind hon. members that I spoke on this same bill in this House on Thursday, October 4, 2004. It will be interesting to look at the way the bill has evolved in keeping with the position of the Bloc Québécois and of members of all parties. On Thursday, October 4, 2004, when Bill C-11 was before the House prior to referral to committee, I said:

However, we will give this minority government the benefit of the doubt and see whether the Liberals will listen to us at committee and be open to making a few amendments, as far as the legislative process allows.

Subsequent to that wish, 47 amendments were proposed. There were problems, however, and I will quote myself again on that:

If the Liberals really want to make this a credible position; if they really want to honour part of the promise in their 1993 red book to restore confidence in the public service, elected officials and the government; then they must establish an independent position of commissioner with this bill. We said this about Bill C-25 and we say it again, and so do the Conservatives.

In another part of that same speech, I made reference to clause 24(1) of the bill:

24.(1) The President of the Public Service Commission may refuse to deal with a disclosure if he or she is of the opinion that:

(a) the public servant has failed to exhaust other procedures otherwise reasonably available;

That was the second problem we pointed out in 2004. I ended my speech as follows:

We hope that the Liberals will act in good faith and with an open mind.

Following that speech, there were eight months of discussions in committee. Many witnesses were heard, and 47 amendments have been presented today with a view to improving Bill C-11, to making it better.

A brief aside here, if I may, to mention the contribution made by someone who worked with me throughout the entire committee process and who is no longer here, because he was an intern. I wish to comment on the excellence of the program, and also of the intern in question. Jeff Bell, of British Columbia, was with me in committee for five of those eight months, for which I was very grateful.

We heard a number of very key witnesses, including Mr. Edward Keyserlingk, who gave us his comments on the actual situation. He was the public service integrity officer and he asked that this Treasury Board policy become law, so that the integrity commissioner would have all the necessary tools to do his job properly.

We heard many things regarding Bill C-11, but I think this legislation can be defined in three very specific points. Usually, when I begin a speech, I always remind people of the issue being discussed. We are debating Bill C-11, An Act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings. Let us summarize its content. The public servants who worked on it and who were with us throughout the process might find this summary somewhat simplistic. However, for the general public—those who are interested can read the whole bill—this legislation basically covers the three points that follow.

Bill C-11 provides for the appointment of an independent public service integrity commissioner. My friends from the Conservative Party said that it was thanks to them, to their ultimatum and to their good work, because they are good, strong and powerful. However, I managed to get them to recognize that this measure had been requested by everyone. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP asked for it, as did all the witnesses heard, this since the beginning. There is unquestionably a degree of open-mindedness. First, the Liberals asked that this be put in the hands of the Public Service Commission. In response to the hon. member for Mississauga Centre, I will say that the main problem was that it was the minister who was tabling the report, while we want an independent officer of the House of Commons to do so.

Starting with Bill C-25, which was the forerunner to Bill C-11, between Bill C-11 in its first draft and Bill C-11 as it emerged following Committee review, the main victory for all witnesses who appeared before us in Committee, for the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservatives is that an independent commissioner will be appointed along the very same lines as the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Commissioner of the Environment, with all the credibility and the recognition given to independent officers of the House of Commons. They will independently—however they wish, subject to the regulations governing them—table reports directly in the House of Commons. This is a great victory for civil servants, for public service employees who will be able to report any wrongdoing to a person they trust.

Secondly, this provides a statutory and formal framework to a civil servant who wishes to disclose a wrongdoing. What is a wrongdoing? That is an interesting question the committee discussed at length. The definition can be found in clause 8 of Bill C-11. I will read some excerpts from it.

This Act applies in respect of the following wrongdoings in or relating to the public sector:

(a)) a contravention of any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, or of any regulations made under any such Act;

(b)) a misuse of public funds or a public asset;

(c) a gross mismanagement in the public sector;

(d)) 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 duties or functions of a public servant];

The last part was subsequently added, account being taken of military personnel or RCMP officers. Their work can occasionally put their lives in danger.

(e)) a serious breach of a code of conduct established under section 5 or 6;

(f)) the taking of a reprisal against a public servant;

[(g)) knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit one of the wrongdoings set out in paragraphs above.]

The concept of wrongdoing has been defined well. As the Conservatives have pointed out—mind you, I do not want to engage in sensationalism when it comes to Bill C-11—there could be cases of the abusive use of public funds or serious mismanagement. People at the Royal Canadian Mint could have used and benefited from Bill C-11 to disclose this type of problem. The sponsorship scandal and the gun registry scandal could have been avoided if Bill C-11 had been in place.

A third point was made. First, there will be an independent commissioner. Second, wrongdoing was defined and anyone witnessing a wrongdoing now has the legal ability to disclose the situation. Third, and the last main point in my opinion, is that there will be protection from reprisal.

My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville discussed this earlier, as did my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. What happens to victims of reprisals? This also sparked lengthy discussions in committee. These questions come out in clauses 19, 20 and so on, under “Protection of persons making disclosures” in Bill C-11. Clause 19 states:

No person shall take any reprisal against a public servant.

It is very easy to write that into a bill, but if ever any reprisals are taken, what will happen? What can be defined as reprisal measures? The bill states:

If a public servant realizes 60 days after the date on which they knew, or in the Board’s opinion ought to have known, that the reprisal was taken, then they can make a complaint.

A person discloses a wrongdoing, waits for the entire process to be settled, is transferred laterally or protected because that is the law. They resume their duties. A month or two later, they realize they are a victim of reprisal, whether psychological or otherwise. They can make a complaint to the Board. More than that, the complaint can be presented after the same deadline mentioned in subsection 3, if the Board finds it appropriate to do so under the circumstances.

If a long time has elapsed, six months for instance, and it feels it is appropriate, the board may hear and make a determination on a complaint by a public servant who feels that a reprisal was taken against him or her.

On receipt of a complaint, the Board may assist the parties to the complaint to settle the complaint. The Board must hear and determine the complaint if it decides not to so assist or the complaint is not settled within a period considered by the Board to be reasonable in the circumstances.

What may be considered as a reprisal is also defined.

If the Board determines that the complainant has been subject to a reprisal taken in contravention of section 19, the Board may, by order, require the employer or the appropriate chief executive, or any person acting on behalf of the employer or appropriate chief executive, to take all necessary measures to

(a) permit the complainant to return to his or her duties;

(b) reinstate the complainant or pay damages to the complainant in lieu of reinstatement if, in the Board's opinion, the relationship of trust between the parties cannot be restored;

(c) pay to the complainant compensation in an amount not greater than the amount that, in the Board’s opinion, is equivalent to the remuneration that would, but for the reprisal, have been paid to the complainant;

(d) rescind any measure or action, including any disciplinary action, and pay compensation to the complainant in an amount not greater than—

(e) pay to the complainant an amount equal to any expenses and any other financial losses incurred by the complainant as a direct result of the reprisal.

The committee members and myself sincerely believe that we have covered all bases to ensure that a formal framework is clearly defined so as to prevent frivolous or vexatious complaints. Think of pressure tactics for instance. We have also covered all bases to ensure that any reprisal is minimal and as difficult as possible to take against a person who has disclosed a wrongdoing.

We are not infallible however. My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned it earlier, and we want to reiterate, even though it is already in there, that this bill must be reviewed five years after coming into force. If we realize that there have been a million disclosures because the definitions are too broad or because everyone is dishonest—which I doubt very much—then we can look at what could be improved and tighten the rules. If reprisals were taken against every person who disclosed a wrongdoing, we might conclude that we misunderstood everything we heard during committee hearings.

After several months of discussions, of hearing witnesses and of negotiations, members of the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates agreed that the three main points are the independent officer, the legislative framework to file a complaint and measures against reprisal. The members believe that these points were serious enough that we could give what I maintain is unanimous support in this House to Bill C-11, as introduced to us at this time. Of course, this support will be conditional to us being able to review this bill in five years to correct the errors that, unfortunately, we did not see while studying it.

We thus created the position of integrity commissioner. In the very unlikelihood that a wrongdoing would be committed in the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, should the Office of the Integrity Commissioner do wrongful things with public funds, a person could file a complaint before the Office of the Auditor General. Thus we believe we have established a framework for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the government.

We also changed some terms and references to give a more positive character to the bill. Indeed we now talk of “disclosure” instead of “whistleblowing” and “person who discloses” ”instead of “whistleblower”. Thanks to the concerted work of Conservative and Bloc Québécois members as well as certain witnesses heard, the RCMP is included in Bill C-11 whereas it was excluded previously. After five years, we will verify whether this is a good thing. However, not all RCMP services are included.

For the Bloc Québécois, this was a very enlightening committee because we worked not only for strictly political reasons, but also to provide a more adequate workplace for public service officers and public servants.

I would not want the bill to cast a shadow over the work of public servants as a whole and I would not want people to think that public servants are all suspicious individuals. However, thanks to this bill, we will be able to keep an eye on the work of each and every manager involved in public finances. While this is definitely not the bill's underlying objective or philosophy, unfortunately, there are still people in positions of authority who mismanage public funds. We saw it with the scandals that were mentioned earlier and that my Conservative friends are happy to remind us about. Some managers misuse public funds. The employees working under these public servants had every reason to fear reprisals for disclosing these wrongdoings.

The committee heard some sad stories. For example, three public servants at the department of Health were fired. These three scientists, who have doctorate degrees, told us that they were fired or shelved because they blew the whistle on bovine somatotropin, while their managers were adamant that they should not talk about this issue. These people are currently appealing to the civil courts, in an attempt to reintegrate their positions. The public servant who denounced the sponsorship scandal told us that he was really lucky to know someone who reintegrated him into another department, otherwise he would have been out of work. We saw how difficult it is to speak out and what the impact could be on the personal lives of these individuals, and on those of their families and friends when, after six months or a year, they would make the decision to disclose a wrongdoing. They had to put up with the reproving look of their supervisor, who would ostracize them because of their actions.

I remember another former public servant who was posted in Hong Kong. He mentioned how computer systems were open windows for those who were prepared to falsify passports for people from Asia who wanted to come to Canada. He too was fired for purportedly falsely alerting authorities when in fact he was justified in making these disclosures.

So we saw the flip side of the coin: how yesterday and today, before Bill C-11 comes into effect, those who witnessed such wrongdoing were forced to painfully disclose it. Even if only 1% or 2% of all public servants are guilty of mismanagement, the employees working under such managers must be given an official and clear framework. In my opinion, there will not be a mountain of complaints. First, the legislation will be tested when it comes into effect. Nevertheless, there will not be many complaints from the public service. Perhaps some of these complaints will be not be relevant because they can be resolved internally. The other complaints will be heard and, initially, no doubt, there will be some leading cases.

Since the government has heard that an independent commissioner is needed and since it amended the bill to reflect what stakeholders asked for in committee, I am hopeful. First, I believe that it was essential to look good after what happened. Second, I am quite hopeful that any public servants who are listening or who will find out about this bill will use it wisely.

In closing, I want to ask the government, which spends a great deal on communication and advertising, to invest a little less—but still invest—in order to inform the public service about Bill C-11 when it does come into effect. I am no expert in BBM ratings and polls, but I do not think that the entire public service is currently listening, at 1:30 p.m., to the debates in the House of Commons. First, I think that they are working. Second, I do not think that they will read Hansard tomorrow morning to see if we discussed a bill that might have a direct impact on them.

I am hopeful that the government will at least promote this legislation so that the public servants know what tools are at their disposal in order to disclose wrongdoing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Repentigny and also his colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for their constructive contributions to Bill C-11, which went on over an extensive period of time. Admittedly we thought we had almost lost the bill at one point, but I am very pleased that everybody stuck with it. I believe, as I think the House will show by its support, that Bill C-11 is an important step in the building of confidence within the public service of Canada as defined, which also now includes crown corporations and other agencies.

I hope that as we go through this debate we will get to some other aspects of the bill. As the member will know, one of the important messages we have to give public servants is that there is a differentiation between wrongdoings and human resources issues and that it is important to understand this is not going to become a place to which all grievances will go. It is very important for us to get that message out.

The other is that the new commissioner is going to have the same powers as any other officer of Parliament, with all of the investigatory tools necessary to do this. This is one of the important aspects in terms of protecting anonymity and giving that level of confidence to the public service that allegations will be taken seriously and that this officer, who will be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament for his or her appointment, will in fact be there to represent the best interests of all stakeholders. I ask the member for his comments on those issues.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank my colleague. There was indeed a major omission in my speech. That gives me an opportunity to underline the work done by the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, mainly in the of area of reprisal measures. I thank her for her work on the whole file, but more specifically in that area. I had forgotten to thank her in my speech. Therefore, I thank the member for giving me an opportunity to correct myself.

I have the same opinions as he does regarding allowing civil servants to disclose wrongdoings. However, this person will not be a commissioner of complaints nor a commissioner of employees' bad feelings toward the managers who supervise them. Neither will the commissioner be a human resources bureau for the entire federal public service. That is why clause 8, in paragraphs a to g , contains a very clear definition of a wrongdoing.

If a civil servant believes that he or she should have received a promotion because he or she possesses the skills to perform such duties, but does not receive that promotion, he or she will not be allowed to complain to the integrity commissioner, as this is not part of the commissioner's duties.

I will use an expression that we hear more often back home, but which other members must also hear in their ridings. Employees might feel tempted to appear on Mongrain's show or on a program like J.E. to say that the commissioner is not doing his or her job. In actual fact, he or she is doing the job. It is only because those cases do not fall under the commissioner's mandate.

Therefore, it is very important to specify the definition of wrongdoing and the nature of the mandate of the commissioner of integrity in the public service.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the committee members who worked on this bill. I believe it is a huge step forward. The current public service integrity officer, Mr. Keyserlingk, who appeared before the committee, needed increased powers to have more room to manoeuvre in order to clarify many situations.

I will remind members that Mr. Keyserlingk has also met people who were victims of psychological harassment. Last year, he tried to settle twenty or so of these cases, which proved to be a rather difficult task since there is no legislation dealing with victims of psychological harassment.

I am speaking on behalf of those who are subjected to psychological harassment, those public service employees who have made disclosures and against whom a reprisal was taken, not immediately, but maybe six months, a year or two years later.

In fact, the public service is a small world. Take Correctional Service Canada for example. A public servant working in a facility like that in Cowansville is subject to psychological harassment and requests a transfer. He is reassigned to Port Cartier, but there is no guarantee that someone is not waiting for him in Port Cartier, precisely because he relocated after complaining about psychological harassment.

While Bill C-11 is a very good bill, we must recognize that there is somewhat of a flaw in that respect. The bill says that a complaint has to be made within 60 days after the date on which the complainant knew, or in the board’s opinion ought to have known, that the reprisal was taken.

In reading this clause, a person who is carrying a heavy grudge because he or she was reported on, will figure, “I will wait the 60 days, but if I get my hands on him again, he better watch out”. Psychological harassment is an insidious thing; it is difficult to prove. Someone may be subjected to it six months, one year or even two years later. There is no mechanism in this legislation to fully protect those who make disclosures.

Also, reference is made to a serious offence under an act. But there could be less serious offences that bother a public servant when he gets home and, because he is honest, he decides to report them. It may not be a serious offence. Let us assume that $500 or $1,000 goes missing from an officers' mess. This person will say, “This is not a serious offence; we are not talking about $1 million, but there is still $1,000 missing”. Who can this person go to? Who does someone who witnesses less serious offences go to? If that person goes to her immediate supervisor and the immediate supervisor is the one who broke the rules, chances are that the situation will never be redressed. So, there are two little flaws.

I do appreciate the work done by the committee. But I believe it does not go far enough. Contrary to my hon. colleague who expects public servants to make disclosures, and many of them to do so, I bet there will not be that many. A few will make disclosures at their own risk, but their protection cannot be guaranteed afterwards. In fact, there is no guarantee that either their physical or emotional integrity will be protected.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville. As for the 60-day deadline, I remind him that the complaint can be made after the deadline mentioned in subsection 3, if the Board deems it appropriate to do so under the circumstances. We need to be careful and check with the Treasury Board.

My colleague from Mississauga discussed this earlier. The public service integrity commissioner will not be a listening post who will deal with every human resource management problem. The definition of wrongdoing is very clear in clause 8. There is also the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Commission. We have to look at who does what, who should be doing what and who is not doing their work. I think that under clause 8, the person making the complaint is protected under Bill C-19. If there is a subsequent reprisal, then the person should look into the mandate of the Public Service Commission and go to the Labour Relations Board and ask them to improve their measures against reprisal if there are gaps within these organizations. However, we must not think that the integrity commissioner is going to resolve every problem in the public service.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus to share our views on Bill C-11, the whistleblower bill. I note technically it has a much longer name, but those of us who have been working on it for quite some time call it what it is. It is a bill to protect whistleblowers in the public service.

Today in debating Bill C-11 in the House we are experiencing a good, graphic illustration of the advantages of a minority Parliament. I hope you will not consider it out of order for me to explain my comment, Madam Speaker.

As recently as June 2005, Bill C-11 was dead. It had been on life support for 18 or so months leading up to that, but clearly by June 2005, the wheels had fallen off the bill. The ruling party was not listening to the wishes of the majority of the members of the House of Commons, which is the opposition in this situation. Because of the unique nature of minority parliaments, the will of Parliament was heard. With a minority Parliament the elected members are able to make manifest the will of Parliament instead of just the will of government.

The important thing to remember as we begin the debate is that through a process of consultation and cooperation with the other legitimately elected members of the House of Commons, we arrived at a package that we could support. We revitalized Bill C-11 by an exercise of cooperation, which is rare in my experience as a member of Parliament.

Let me can compare the seven years that I spent as an opposition member in a majority government situation to the last 16 months as a member of Parliament in a minority government. I can say it is a great deal more gratifying to be in a minority government situation where the spirit of cooperation is what guides us in the best interests of Canadians, instead of the exercise of absolute power vested in the majority party which may hold power at any given time. We should remind ourselves that in our electoral system even that majority party may not represent the majority of Canadians. It is not unusual to form a majority government with 36% or 37% of the vote, but because of the nuances and inconsistencies in the first past the post system, that is the arrangement we have.

In beginning the debate on Bill C-11, we should acknowledge, recognize and pay tribute to this unique moment in history where we actually have all Canadians being represented in the decision making process of Parliament. It is good for Canadians. It is certainly good in this example.

Let me preface my remarks on the specifics of Bill C-11 by saying that in my experience as a working person and as a leader of a trade union in my past life, I know that good managers want to know what is going on in their enterprise and good managers welcome whistleblowing. It is only managers with something to hide who try to resist and oppose any kind of whistleblowing exercise. We should keep that in mind as we go into this process because it is this unique minority government's opportunity that may be leading us toward an era of greater transparency and accountability, ethics, morals and values, reintroducing some of those elements that have clearly slipped away in the exercise of power in recent Canadian history at the federal government level.

My party is committed to good whistleblowing legislation. I had a private member's bill to that effect. When I became a member of Parliament in 1997, one of the first bills I had commissioned by the legislative drafting people of the House of Commons was whistleblowing legislation. In my experience as an advocate for employees as a trade union representative, I know that workers are vulnerable and are put in uncomfortable situations in the workplace where they wish to come forward with evidence of wrongdoing but do not feel safe or able to do so.

I know that is not an infrequent experience in my own workplace, in my own working life and certainly in today's public sector. That feeling was given even more weight in my view when as members of the government operations committee, we were charged with the task of investigating the office of the Privacy Commissioner in what has become known as the Radwanski affair. Never in Canadian history has there been a more graphic illustration of the need for whistleblowing protection for employees than in that glaring example of abuse, maladministration of funds and what has been characterized as wretched excess on the part of a public servant.

Clearly the privacy commissioner of the day broke faith with the Canadian people when he used his authority to his own personal advantage. However, even though the employees in his office knew full well that these abuses were taking place, they did not feel they could come forward to anyone because under the current regime, the person they would have to report it to would be their immediate supervisor who was the culprit himself. It is an impossible, untenable situation for the worker.

Even when we provided the protection of a non-partisan standing committee of the House of Commons to interview these employees about what they knew, the employees felt compelled to bring their own lawyers. Who can they trust if they cannot trust a non-partisan, all-party committee of their elected representatives? We are supposed to be on their side, as citizens of Canada and as employees in the public service. They still could not see fit to come forward and share the information they knew without bringing their own lawyers. That, perhaps more than anything, illustrated to me that the system as it stands is broken, unfair and does not in fact protect whistleblowers. If anything, whistleblowers, if they were looking at their own best interests and the best interests of their families, would keep their lips zipped and not share the information because no one would to guarantee that they could protect them if they did come forward.

We wrestled through that and through a number of incarnations of a proposal from the government side to alter the whistleblowing regime. Successive scandals with the government made it abundantly apparent that there was a need for a change of operations as it pertained to transparency and accountability of the government. It was put off and put off until it could be ignored no more and the public outcry was such that the Liberal government could not ignore the need for whistleblowing legislation. However its first overture toward correcting the regime, which was Bill C-25, was an insult to those of us involved. It was put forward during the period of time when the Liberals had a majority government and it was a farce.

Rather than an act to protect whistleblowers, we called it an act to protect ministers from whistleblowers. It was structured in such a way that the real defence mechanism was to protect the government from people who may come forward. We criticized it in a resounding way. My colleagues from the Bloc did a comprehensive analysis of the bill and also criticized it. All 14 witnesses, the experts in the field, the leading authorities in the rights of whistleblowers, nationally and internationally, came before the committee and said that we would be better off with nothing than with what was being proposed. It was resoundingly condemned and we really had to go back to the drawing table.

At that time we struck a subcommittee. I was proud to be the co-chair of a subcommittee of the government operations committee to revisit the issue of whistleblowing and to at least develop the framework under which we could see an acceptable whistleblowing protection regime developed. I co-chaired that committee with my colleague from Laval—Les Îles and I was proud that our small working group came back with recommendations that had, I believe, captured the sentiment of the nation and the authorities and collective wisdom of the people from whom we sought input.

I think we were faithful to the spirit of the representations made to our small working group but what came forward was not something that we could support.

When we started the round of hearing witnesses on Bill C-25, we heard from people in the trade unions, university professors, lawyers who had represented whistleblowers in the past and even some high profile whistleblowers who said that what was being proposed by the government would not protect them. Even the public service integrity officer, Mr. Keyserlingk, told the committee that even as the integrity officer of the country if he were a civil servant he would not come forward and divulge what he knew because he did not believe he could protect those people. We then knew that we were going nowhere.

The point has been made abundantly clear that any time civil servants disclose wrongdoing it is a very courageous act on their part. They are not doing it out of any self-interest. They are doing it because they feel a moral obligation to report wrongdoing in the public interest.

I should also point out, just to give credit where credit is due, that it is a courageous act on the part of any government to introduce legitimate whistleblowing protection legislation because it is opening the door and inviting people to come forward and tell people what they know that may be critical of the government. I admire any government that puts forward legitimate whistleblowing legislation and protection. It shows a self-confidence and a commitment to honesty, integrity and transparency that should be recognized.

I believe that with Bill C-11 we are approaching the point where I can make that statement, that Bill C-11 will in fact, in this form, with some amendments and modifications, perhaps, or some adjustments in the administration and the application and the regulation of this bill, give public servants the security they need to feel comfortable coming forward.

That came through directly because of this minority government situation, where the opposition parties, in the middle of June, made it abundantly clear that this bill was dead without the adjustments that we were seeking and the key fundamental adjustment was that the integrity officer, the actual commissioner as such, has to report to Parliament not to the minister. It was such a glaring oversight in the first incarnation of this bill that the whole process led to the minister responsible or, in other words, to government. In other words, the poor public servant was put in the position of blowing the whistle on something the government was doing and the report went to, guess who, the government which has the absolute power and control in the employer-employee relationship over that individual. It was completely unworkable.

In the scenario being proposed now by an amendment by the opposition parties, the new integrity commissioner would be a free standing officer of Parliament, an independent officer who reports only to Parliament. That is the fundamental difference that we are proud to have achieved by consultation, cooperation and perseverance at committee.

I am very grateful and glad that the opposition parties had the strength and the foresight to resist the temptation to accept the earlier offers that were made. Those of us who have been engaged in the struggle for true whistleblower protection for eight years were very tempted. It is very seductive to be offered some improvement in the situation. However, wisely and collectively, we disagreed and said that we could do better. We said that if we were going to be one of the eight countries in the world with legitimate whistleblowing legislation that we had to get it right the first time. We did not want to introduce some half-assed version that would still have civil servants vulnerable if they did not read the fine print and then have to revisit that five years from now and try to correct it. It is better that we were patient and waited for a better working environment because we ended up with a better bill.

Bill C-11, as we know it today, has gone through the committee stage. The government referred it to the committee stage before second reading, which is significant. It is much more difficult to achieve substantial amendments after a bill has achieved second reading. The fact that the committee had it in its hands at first reading meant that the House of Commons had never voted to adopt it in principle and, therefore, this substantive fundamental change was achievable at that stage. We are doing a compressed version of debating this at second reading and report stage all at once today.

I think the public servants can take some comfort in this bill. I am hoping that with correct supervision and administration and the right regulations associated with this bill, civil servants will be protected when they come forward with knowledge of wrongdoing and that their anonymity shall be guaranteed. I hope the report does not wind up in their bosses' hands so they would know who the person was who blew the whistle. When public servants put themselves in these situations, it is not just their own futures that they are putting at risk or at stake when they disclose wrongdoing, it is their families. It is their wife's and children's futures if they lose their job, economic security, et cetera, because they came forward for no personal gain. It is a sacrifice that many civil servants would be unwilling to make.

Let us think of the benefit to the public good if whistleblowers with knowledge of wrongdoing, waste or corruption, whatever it may be, were able to come forward. The savings are of unknown benefit to the government and, by extension, to the people of Canada. If we are sincere about eliminating waste, we want to know where waste exists and we want civil servants to feel comfortable in coming forward and sharing that information with us.

It is the culture of secrecy that allows corruption to flourish. If we are sincere about stamping out corruption, we need to create an environment that is transparent and open and where public servants who have knowledge of corruption may come forward and share that without putting their own personal economic stability at risk or fear any kind of subtle reprisals that may come back to haunt them.

I should point out how critical my party was when, within a week of the introduction of the whistleblowing legislation, such as it was, the Government of Canada fired the three most prominent whistleblowers in the country. I am talking about the officials at Health Canada who had the courage to come forward and warn the Canadian public about the bovine growth hormone. Even though they were being pressured by the industry and the government to approve these hormones for general use, they said no, that they were scientists and were fearful for the well-being of Canadians. They went public and blew the whistle on that .

I think those three courageous scientists are heroes and should have been given the Order of Canada, not summarily fired by the Government of Canada. However that more than anything perhaps illustrates the vulnerability and risk that public servants find themselves in if they do divulge knowledge of wrongdoing.

Having analyzed the bill endlessly over the last many years and having watched it evolve, I can safely say that the members of the caucus of the New Democratic Party welcome the opportunity to put forward whistleblower protection in the public service. The onus will be on us, I believe, if we support the bill at these stages, to monitor and follow the administration and application of this new legislation to ensure that the intent and spirit of the legislation is delivered and lived up to by the federal government because we still have to caution public servants that they need to know exactly what their rights and protections are before they come forward.

I am actually heartened by the fact that there is an element contemplated in Bill C-11 that incorporates the office of the president of the Public Service Commission who may in fact advise public servants as to their rights and the process involved in the disclosure of wrongdoing under the context of Bill C-11. Perhaps this new role for the president of the Public Service Commission would be helpful and valuable to public servants who may be offered counsel and advice--

[The Speaker]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted for his remarks has expired. He will have 10 minutes for questions and comments when debate resumes on this matter.

Lakehead University

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to congratulate Lakehead University on its 40th anniversary.

As an alumnus of this incredible institution, I am very proud of all that has been accomplished by the university. LU offers a broad range of degree and diploma programs within seven faculties and has over 30,000 proud alumni around the world, including one member of Parliament and my predecessor, Dr. Stan Dromisky, who was a professor.

This year over 7,400 students are enrolled in either full or part time studies. As such the school is a significant contributor to the economic and social well-being of the city of Thunder Bay and the region.

There is even a campus in Orillia and its Thunderwolves hockey team has the largest home game attendance of any Canadian university. In addition, Lakehead boasts, along with Laurentian, the first new medical school in North America in over 35 years.

Please join me in congratulating president Fred Gilbert, chancellor Lorne Everett, and all the alumni staff and faculty on this auspicious occasion.

Liberal Government

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, former Liberal cabinet minister David dinewell last year took hard working Canadian taxpayers to the cleaners, and the steak house and the country club. The total damage was a million dollars without a tip.

The Liberals' latest million dollar baby proves that when it comes to tax revenues, Liberals consider the money theirs, not yours. Tax dollar sucking political vampires like swinewell deserve more than a porterhouse stake through their hearts. Liberals say he bilked the taxpayer by following Liberal made rules. It is time to change the rules then, but do not count on this Liberal government to do it.

The Liberals originally tabled a whistleblower protection bill that left sponsorship scandal alarm sounders more exposed than sun tanners on the Italian Riviera. The Gomery commission laid bear the rampant trawling of taxpayer dollars to Liberal friends. Liberals could have acted by now to repair the breach in the ethical levy but are waiting for Gomery to change the rules for them.

For taxpayers, the Conservatives will form the next government of Canada. Hard working Canadians cannot afford more Liberal pork.