Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2005

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

This is something that was discussed at length during committee hearings. Clause 20 of the bill establishes that any reprisal against a public servant is in and of itself wrongdoing. The definition of wrongdoing includes reprisal against a public servant. You have to look at the wording of the bill for all the details on this. That is not to say that the bill is perfect, which is why there will be sunset review in five years to look at any problems that may have come up during that time.

We could have spent more time on technical questions that might come up with certain clauses, but the collective will was for Parliament to pass this bill. We had been in legislative limbo for far too long and our public servants did not have enough protection with respect to any wrongdoing they could have disclosed. The committee did as much as it could on that aspect. I hope that any corrections that may be needed can be made during the review process that will be developed.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, after the question asked by the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, I would like to ask my colleague who assiduously followed the work of the committee if I understood correctly. She wants to know if a civil servant who was victim of a wrongdoing would have absolute protection. I would like to ask him if that is what he understood from the witnesses heard in committee because in clause 20 of the bill, we see that there is a 60-day limit. A little further on, the bill says:

That the Board may revise the deadline if it believes that there is still an offence after the 60-day period.

By working on the bill, by hearing dozens and dozens of witnesses and by asking questions to ensure that there would be sufficient protection against reprisal, I understood that the normal reprisal period was right after the employee came back to work. In certain cases, after a transfer or the return of the former boss, if reprisals happen, the bill would allow for the re-opening of the case to make sure that the protection still applies. That is how I understood the bill. Am I right or can the hon. member, who also participated regularly in the committee meetings, correct my impression?

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have essentially the same understanding, because this was the subject of the debates on this issue during the committee work.

I would also like to go back to the definition of wrongdoing. This definition is not necessarily limited by a time factor. In other words, if an employee is a victim of reprisal, I believe that he or she should be protected not as a function of the 60 days, but as a function of the wrongdoing that was done at the time that it was done. This is rather technical, but I was satisfied, and I think that the hon. member was as well, in the sense that this was effectively covered by the act. As the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is saying, we will have to see the implementation of the bill. If there are things to improve after the five-year period, we will do so at that time.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging the good work the committee has done on this very important piece of legislation. In particular, I want to acknowledge the dedication and commitment that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has shown in regard to the bill over a number of months.

I want to speak a little about the context for this bill. A number of other members have spoken about the technical aspects of it, but I want to remind the House of why this legislation is so important to people who perform good public service in our country. Most public servants are dedicated, committed, hard-working people and they want to be able to perform their duties with a level of integrity that is recognized and rewarded through recognition of the good work.

I want to first refer to the submission to the committee made by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada in April. I think it outlines why this is such an important piece of legislation. The introduction states:

Many of our members, through their licensing bodies and professional organizations, adhere to strict codes of ethics and must bring to light unethical practices in their everyday work. Their commitment to high standards of practice and professionalism protects the efficacy and integrity of government programs and instills the confidence of Canadians. These admirable characteristics mean that it is our members who are most vulnerable when things go wrong. It means that they must have strong and effective legislation to protect them, their careers, and their families.

Strong and effective whistle-blowing legislation not only serves our members and employees throughout the broader public service but the Canadian people by protecting programs and safeguarding the trust they place in their government.

This is an important statement because of the fact that we have seen a number of things over the last couple of years which have really undermined the confidence of the Canadian people, both in their government and their public service. I think it behooves us to remember that most public servants do operate from a place of integrity and that they are very concerned with making sure there is legislation in place to protect them when they want to bring to light the things they see as important for a broader discussion in the Canadian public.

As well, the Canadian Labour Congress also did a presentation to the committee in April. Its members talked about some things which I think we do not normally consider when we are talking about whistleblowers.

The CLC report stated that disclosing wrongdoing is an extraordinarily courageous act on the part of an individual worker who is exposing the wrongdoing of people who have power over them in the workplace, power backed up with immense resources of a huge institution. Speaking the truth about wrongdoing is done with the knowledge that this may have serious implications for the one making the disclosure as well as for the person or persons involved in the wrongdoing if so proven. It is not a decision taken lightly.

I am going to talk in a couple of minutes about what has happened to some of our whistleblowers in Canada and the extraordinary courage they have demonstrated in risking their jobs and their homes in bringing forward issues.

From the same Canadian Labour Congress report, I want to quote a couple of numbers because I think they also signify how important it is that we do protect our workers. A United States study talks about the potential for harmful consequences. This was highlighted in the October 2004 edition of Policy Options , in which Donald C. Rowat highlighted a research study undertaken in the United States on the fate of whistleblowers before the U.S. disclosure law was strengthened.

Of 161 workers who made a wrongdoing disclosure, 62% lost their jobs,18% were harassed or transferred, including being subject to isolation tactics and character assassination, and 13% had their responsibilities or salaries reduced. Many experienced mental breakdown and family breakup. These are high prices to pay.

The willingness to take such high risk points to the integrity, personal strength and commitment to the public of workers who disclose wrongdoing. I think that talks about the tremendous courage they have. Many whistleblowers go into this with their eyes wide open. They understand that when they step forward there will be repercussions for them. That is why this piece of legislation is absolutely critical.

One of the members previously highlighted clause 8 of the bill which talks about wrongdoing. I am going to specifically refer to subclause 8(d) that talks about 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.

This brings me specifically to two cases of whistleblowing within Health Canada. These people came forward because they were concerned about the health and safety of Canadians.

The first whistleblower I want to refer to is a man by the name of Pierre Blais, who was fired a number of years ago by Health Canada when he consistently raised concerns about silicone gel breast implants. He wrote memos about this issue. He looked at reports that talked about some grave concerns about the safety of silicone gel breast implants. This man lost his job with Health Canada. However, he has continued to be a very outspoken person on this issue. He recently appeared before a Health Canada panel examining whether silicone gel breast implants should be re-licensed.

It is a major concern when somebody loses his job because he dared to buck the thought of the day when all he was doing was trying to protect the health and safety, and welfare of Canadians. It is shameful that people who speak up lose their employment.

I am now going to talk about three other very famous whistleblowers in Canada. I am going to read a bit from a press release from The Scientist of May 2005 that talked about these Canadian whistleblowers winning their review. It stated:

Three Health Canada scientists who say they were fired for raising questions about the way that the agency approves veterinary drugs have won another round in their years-long battle in their campaign for reinstatement.

I want to draw to the House's attention the fact that it was a “years-long battle”. These three whistleblowers have been struggling for years to get some recognition that they were wrongfully dismissed and the toll it has taken on their health and on their families is tremendous. The article went on to say:

The Federal Court quietly released a decision on April 29 ordering the public service integrity officer to reconsider complaints from Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon, and Gerard Lambert that they, and the late Cris Bassude, had been pressured—and then sacked—for speaking out about the dangers of mad cow disease and about the use of hormones and antibiotics in the food supply, particularly the use of bovine growth hormones.

These dedicated people were speaking up about BGH, bovine growth hormone, and mad cow disease. One of these individuals is now unfortunately deceased, but the other three dedicated people lost their jobs. They courageously put their jobs on the line to bring these issues to the public's attention. They continue to be harassed and chased around in court, and cannot get this issue resolved. Presumably whistleblower legislation would protect people from having this kind of thing go on.

I want to quote another paragraph from The Scientist of May 4, 2005 because it shows how ineffective we have been in the past in dealing with these kinds of issues. The article stated:

The Public Service Integrity Office (PSIO) was created in 2001 to provide “public service employees with an independent and neutral external review of disclosures of wrongdoing in the workplace”. Its mandate includes ensuring “that an employee who makes a good-faith disclosure is protected from job reprisal”.

We know how effective that organization was because it did not protect those four workers from job reprisals. Public Service Labour Relations Board hearings have been held and government lawyers have been involved. This has been going on for a long time.

I want people to understand the impact of this on people's lives. As mentioned in the article, Shiv Chopra was one of the people involved and he said that he currently has no income and had to sell his home in order to survive. Whistleblowers, people who courageously come forward to expose wrongdoings to protect the health and welfare of Canadians, should not at this stage in their lives not only lose their careers but lose their home as well.

I look forward to the rapid passage of Bill C-11. I encourage all members to support this legislation. Let us protect our public servants, so that they do not have to face the kind of situation that these Health Canada employees faced.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member did go at length into some of the testimony that was heard before the committee on Bill C-11. There was almost a year's worth of testimony to get us to the number of amendments we have today. If we look back to the last session of Parliament, Bill C-25 was there and almost word for word the same testimony was given by the same health department officials or the same representative organizations that the member spoke of early in her remarks. Those witnesses gave almost exactly the same type of testimony about what they would be looking for in whistleblowing legislation and yet the legislation that was brought forward was called by them, during some of their testimony at committee for Bill C-11, as fatally flawed, as being worse than not having it.

The government brought forward legislation that had to be amended. I agree that we have some very good amendments now. Does the member believe that if we were not sitting in a minority Parliament right now, that Bill C-11 would not look anything like it does?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the member is absolutely right. What we have seen is the fact that a minority Parliament can actually produce results and it was only because it was a minority Parliament did we get the kind of legislation that is actually going to protect whistleblowers in Canada.

I also appreciate the fact that revisiting legislation time after time without results is counterproductive. We always talk about efficiency, productivity, transparency and using our resources appropriately, yet when we keep resurfacing bills without getting on with them, it does not speak to anything that is efficient or a good use of resources.

Transparency is a really important aspect of this and I did not get a chance to talk about a 1996 report that Health Canada commissioned. If we want to talk about transparency and repeat business, Health Canada commissioned a report in 1996 on silicon gel breast implants that still has not seen the light of day. I hope we get more action on Bill C-11 than we have in previous bills.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to the member for Ottawa—Orléans who spoke earlier regarding the bill. He talked about the Public Service Alliance and its appearance before the committee, and its support of the bill. Is it the hon. member's understanding that the Public Service Alliance supports the bill? I understand that it was actively involved.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that both the Canadian Labour Congress and the Public Service Alliance support the bill with the amendments that are before the House, so that it does report back to Parliament, and that there be more objectivity in the bill. It is with those amendments that I understand that the employees and the Canadian Labour Congress are supporting the bill as it stands.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C-11 and talk about some of the work it took to get this bill where it is today. The previous speaker talked about the number of witnesses that came before the committee. Some of them had been before the previous session's committee on Bill C-25, which was also whistleblowing legislation.

Bill C-11 is an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings. If we could turn that into normal talk for people who are not in the public sector or work in the government, it simply means that when someone sees something wrong in their workplace, they can come forward and report it, and fear no reprisal for having done so.

In a perfect world, there would be no reason for this type of legislation. Public sector employees and all employees would come forward with suggestions and point out areas where their workplace could be a better place to work. Employers would always be open to those suggestions, open to the points being made by their employees that maybe a better way was there, a more legal way was there. In a perfect world there would never be a need for whistleblowing legislation. Welcome to a non-perfect world.

We do not live in a perfect world. We have had some examples of scandal in this government and in our public sector workplace that calls for the need for legislation such as Bill C-11. We need to have the ability to protect workers who come forward. I guess the granddaddy of them all are the brave employees who brought to the light of day the current advertising scandal that we are dealing with, the wrongdoing that was done, the money that was paid to advertising firms for no work being done, and the money then being in fact kickbacked to a governing party to use in elections.

These brave employees that came forward, so that this could be brought to the light of day today, are protected by Bill C-11. If we look back to the testimony given by public servants such as Mr. Cutler, one of the persons who brought forward the sponsorship scandal, he was being subjected to a reign of terror in his workplace after only doing what he thought was right. Employees should not be punished for doing what they think is right in their workplace.

We also have examples of mismanagement and scandal going back to the HRDC situation. The previous speaker mentioned problems at Health Canada, where employees hoping to protect the health and safety of Canadians came forward and said that they did not think this was right. They thought that they could protect Canadians if things were done differently. Were they given medals? Were they given certificates? Were they given any sort of accolades? No. They were sacked and sent home.

This is what we are trying to protect with Bill C-11. We are trying to make it so that it is an open place for an employee to come forward and yet not be reprised against or punished for doing so.

We have examples of the previous privacy commissioner's spending and travel habits coming to light through employees coming forward. We have examples of crown corporation executives with big spending habits, some of them being even very recent, that most Canadians find appalling. This spending was brought to light because employees are willing to come forward and say something.

With a background of the types of scandals that I have mentioned, it is not a wonder that Bill C-11 is needed. Bill C-11 was badly needed to help protect our public service workforce.

In committee many whistleblowers testified that they came forward not for reward. They did not come forward for spite. They came forward because it was the right thing to do. They felt someone should know what they saw occurring in their workplace. After the fact, almost every individual regretted doing it because of how they were dealt with. Initially, they came forward because it was the right thing to do.

We need Bill C-11 to protect employees from a government that believes behaviours of this type are acceptable. Our employees deserve better than that and this is why Bill C-11 can help. We as the Conservatives have always called for effective protection for public servants who expose corruption and we will continue to do so.

As was stated earlier today, this bill in its original form could have done more harm than good. It was fatally flawed when brought forward to the committee to work on. With the number of amendments that are now in place, the fatal flaws are out of it. Is it flawless? No, it is not, but the fatal flaws are gone.

There were some major reversals by the government. I believe the President of the Treasury Board admitted today that he had to listen to the committee about the structure of who whistleblowers would answer to. It was not an easy fight. He started off not wanting to listen, sure enough, but was forced at the end of the day, by unanimous representation by the witnesses, other than one, that it was the right thing to do, and so it was.

The bill still has some flaws, one being, what we have been calling today, the cover-up clause. We still see that departments can refuse to release information about internal disclosures of wrongdoing for up to five years. In our amendments, we moved that from 20 years to 5 years but nonetheless a department could still hold that information secret. The Conservative Party would like to see this provision completely removed, not just reduced from 20 years.

As was said earlier, it is very important that we protect the privacy of the people coming forward to disclose, and if in fact that is what this clause is for then I ask that we work harder to do so. If the protection of the identity of the discloser also protects the person who is committing the wrongdoing, then it is wrong and it needs to be fixed.

Another flaw, as I see it, is that cabinet or a governor in council can still add or remove government organizations and crown corporations from the list of employees who are covered by Bill C-11. We have been told that is not the case but I read the bill again today and it is still in there. They are saying that it would not be used for that, to trust them, that it would not be used to remove a crown corporation or a body of government from Bill C-11. They say that it is just there so that if they ever close down an organization, they could take that organization off the list.

It comes to mind that if that is the only reason that that clause is there and we end up having redundant organizations somewhere on a list, I would rather take that than risk the non-protection of an employee just because there seems to be a bit of a scandal brewing at crown corporation A and it could be put on the exclusion list so they would never have to deal with it. I would like the government not to have the opportunity for that out. I believe it is still there and the Conservative Party would like to see it removed. It is one of the flaws still left in this bill.

There are other areas of concern. We had witnesses before committee on Bill C-11 who talked about whether there should be rewards or some way of helping employees who have gone through the struggle of coming forward with whistleblowing. It could still be there but it is not yet in there. It also is not stated yet in the legislation what the punishments or further punishments may be for committing a reprisal against a whistleblower.

As I said, most of the whistleblowers we had before committee came forward just through the goodness of their hearts. They came forward because they felt it was the right thing to do and then there were reprisals against them. Certainly the ultimate punishment for someone who commits a reprisal is termination but there are even times when simply terminating the supervisor or manager who committed the reprisal against the employee may not be enough. There may need to be some more punishment besides that. The commissioner should have the power to do this.

In conclusion, we would like to celebrate Bill C-11 in the areas in which it shines. Because of pressure from opposition parties and the Conservative Party, the bill now includes an independent commissioner reporting to Parliament. It is something everybody asked for, except for one witness. It is great to have it in there. Of course, we had to convince the President of the Treasury Board that it was the right thing to do.

The inclusion in the bill of the RCMP for coverage was something we in the Conservative Party had to fight for very hard. We think there are people missing from protection but the RCMP are still in there.

The last one is that there would be a review of the bill in five years. That is positive if in five years we find it has been working and people have been coming forward to disclose wrongdoing in the workplace. Let us hope that in five years we have not found other flaws in the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, in his presentation, my colleague described the situation and the pressure on the government to amend the bill. I would like to add that Bill C-11 is the continuation of Bill C-25, which had been introduced in the previous Parliament. As a consequence of the sponsorship scandal, the Liberal government wanted to redeem itself. Civil servants wanted to disclose information, but knew that they could not do so without being subject to reprisals. Thus, the bill was introduced but never passed, since an election was hastily called.

Nevertheless, Bill C-11 emerged during the election campaign. The Public Service Alliance of Canada clearly told the government and other politicians that the bill, as introduced, was inconsistent with the needs of civil servants. Indeed, there was no independent commissioner. The responsibility was given to the president of the Public Service Commission, who is a civil servant reporting to the government. Still, the government introduced Bill C-11 as a slightly modified copy of Bill C-25.

Will my colleague agree with this? Since the government was in the minority on the committee and since it was subject to pressure from the opposition parties, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, it was forced to amend the bill to make it acceptable. The bill could still be improved, but it is acceptable. Will my hon. colleague agree with this statement?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is yes, flawed legislation was given back to us again, Bill C-25 in the last House and Bill C-11 this time. Not much has changed between the two. Witnesses were heard on Bill C-25 and, as I and the previous member stated, they said almost the same thing, which was that the legislation was fatally flawed and that there was enough wrong with it that we would be better off without the legislation than with legislation that had those flaws in it.

However what came back when this 38th Parliament came to work? It was Bill C-11 which said almost exactly the same things over again, things that had been testified about by the public sector employee unions and other whistleblowers from the past. It came forward with almost exactly the same recommendations in it.

Is that the government's answer? The government shows itself as a white knight after ad scam. It says that it will put forward whistleblowing legislation so that it will look like it is trying to clean up government. If the way to become a white knight is by putting forward flawed legislation that would put whistleblowers in more danger when they come forward, then the government wins the prize.

The government brought forward legislation that took the opposition groups to put it to together as a plausible piece of legislation and here we are today.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, after listening to members of the government here today, it is a whole lot of back-slapping about making Parliament work. Everything sounds great. It almost sounds like this was the Liberals' idea. For the record, people back home know better. If there was no ad scam, this bill would not be here and the government would never have reversed its course.

If there were no David Dingwall question right now, there would have been no reversal by the government in buckling to amendments. Two times the Liberals have introduced a woefully inadequate bill that exposes whistleblowers and does not protect them.

One of the critical areas where we are still vigilant about the bill moving forward is the idea that crown corporations could sort of be taken out of the scope or the protection of Bill C-11. I remember David Dingwall being the now former CEO of a crown corporation, the Royal Canadian Mint. Would something like this never have been exposed or moved forward? Is it not a problem that crown corporations or other agencies like that could arbitrarily be removed from the protection of Bill C-11 and whistleblowers then would not come forward, scandal would not be found out and government would not be cleaned up?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, this goes back far enough to 1993, in either a red book, blue book or green book promise, when whistleblower was first mentioned by the government. We see that it only took 12 years to get it here.

However it is still my interpretation that the governor in council or cabinet can opt in and out crown corporations and government bodies and their employees from this whistleblowing legislation. We will wait for the five year review to see whether it happens or whether that is the truth but I believe that is one of the flaws that is still in this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I have the pleasure of speaking on Bill C-11. At the outset, I would like to thank my colleagues in the Bloc, my colleague from Repentigny and my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who sat in committee and who represented our political party. In conclusion, we came up with a bill which must still be improved, but which is a totally new bill with its 47 motions in amendment. In the final analysis, it gives us a fairly accurate and acceptable picture of what members of the public service want in order to be able to really do their job.

Everything boils down to a matter of confidence. Civil servants must have confidence in the system and in the processes so that they can make disclosures.

Allow me to fill you in somewhat as to the history of the bill. There was indeed consensus in the House of Commons. In committee, a motion was unanimously adopted for the tabling of motions in amendment and modification. This bill was thus completely changed.

On the other hand, the somewhat surprising element is that Bill C-11, which was tabled by this Liberal government, was tantamount to a carbon copy of Bill C-25, which was considered in the previous Parliament and which had received disparaging comments, among others, by representatives of the public service. Indeed, from the outset, they did not feel that they would trust the proposed process. The cornerstone was the intention to give to the president of Public Service Commission the power to receive complaints.

The president of the Public Service Commission is a civil servant himself and he answers to the government, namely to the president of the Treasury Board. It turns out that this was something else along the lines of the Ethics Counsellor, Howard Wilson—as people will recall—who answered to the Prime Minister and who reported to the Prime Minister on the goings-on among ministers.

Obviously, we did not want a repetition of that. After the Liberals came back as a minority government, one might have expected them to have at least grasped the importance of the promise to create whistleblower protection legislation. One might also have expected greater transparency, since the public service, as well as the other parties aspiring to be the party in power, in short, everyone during the election campaign wanted to support the public servants. Finally, the government again introduced Bill C-11, virtually a carbon copy of Bill C-25. Once again, it gave the President of the Public Service Commission the power to receive complaints. All, or virtually all, witnesses before the committee spoke out against this—I realize some will point out that there was one dissenting witness on that. Nevertheless, the vast majority of witnesses before the committee both this session and last criticized this situation and eventually the government came around to proposing an amendment.

The President of the Treasury Board tabled an amendment creating the position of public service integrity officer. So this position at last became that of an independent commissioner. The government backed the right side on something that had been proposed and defended by all opposition parties, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP. Why? Purely and simply because it is a minority government and thus not in majority in committee. Those listening to us will find that easy to understand.

In a minority government, the opposition parties are in majority in committee. As a result, even if the government had not bowed to the obvious, the amendments would have been passed, not unanimously, but with a majority. The bill would therefore have ended up amended. If the government had not wanted amendments, it would not have tabled this bill. That was the other solution: not to table it. This would have run counter to all the government's campaign promises.

It is therefore a pleasure for me today to commend my colleague from Repentigny, my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and all the other opposition members on the committee from the Conservative Party and from the NDP, who stood their ground and got the message across to the Liberal minority government that if it did not come on side with them the bill would be amended regardless and the outcome would be the same.

The committee was unanimous. It is a pleasure today in the House to see all the members of all the parties shake hands and say that things are good. Yes, it is true, especially because there is a Liberal minority government. I hope that there will never again be a Liberal majority government. That is my wish. Obviously, we will see what happens in the next election, but that is still the reality. Why? Because I represent the riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. One part of my riding covers the Papineau region. I want to say hello to the people of Papineau, which is in the Outaouais region. I have one foot in the Outaouais and the other in the Laurentians. Sometimes, I get requests or complaints relating to the government. I want to give two examples, because I can attest to what is happening.

Somebody calls me in confidence and says that they do not wish to give their name. They say that they are a public servant. Immediately after the budget speech of March 31, on April 4—I looked in my agenda because I made a note of it—they say that in their department, they became aware of the purchase of computers by Public Works Canada before the deadline of March 31. It was a large purchase of several hundreds of computers. They ask me if I can do something. They ask me: “If I give you the name of the department, can you do something as a member of Parliament?” I want to look into it, make a request through the Access to information Act. The person than tells me that the computers have already been ordered. They are for new offices that have not been fitted out and when the new computers are installed, they will already be obsolete. This is how they described the situation. They know the situation well since they work in that department. I said to the person: “Listen, you must tell me what department it is.” I had to know. The problem the person had is that if they were to say what department it was, people would know who made the complaint. I want to be able to criticize, but it is difficult for me as a member of Parliament because public funds will be spent for nothing. Imagine, all I know is that computers were purchased by Public Works Canada for offices that have not been fitted out. You can understand that I examined all the requisition files. It is a huge budget. It was impossible for me to find a few hundred computers in the budget without knowing in what department to look.

A second example was provided to me by a journalist from the electronic media. If he is listening to me, he will know what I am referring to. He called to tell me about a situation that occurred just before the adjournment, at the end of June. A public servant had phoned to inform him that a lavish reception was taking place at a ritzy restaurant in the national capital region, at taxpayers' expense. He asked me what could be done about this. I told him, “Listen, it will be difficult to know what went on if we do not know which department is involved. With the date or the restaurant's name, something could be done”. Finally, the journalist called me back to say that he had contacted his source, but the person did not want to say which department was involved, because he did not attend the reception and managers will immediately know that he is the one who blew the whistle. That person did not want to participate. In the end, we never knew who was involved.

This is why we must have bills such as this one to help public servants who are prepared to disclose wrongdoings. The one who called me and the one who called the journalist were prepared to make such a disclosure. The problem was that they did not trust the protection process. That was clear, because there was no legislation such as today's bill. We must defend those who do not agree with these wrongdoings and who do not take part in them. Surely, these individuals must have told some people. They do not want to reveal their identity because they did not participate. For example, that person was not present at the department's lavish dinner. People probably knew why. That person did not agree with the way things were done. We hope that once this bill is adopted, those public servants who are prepared to disclose wrongdoings in the spending of public funds within the public service will feel safer with the process.

Once more I would like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, the members for Repentigny and for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and all my NDP, Conservative and Liberal colleagues who sat on that committee. The Liberals finally understood. Through political pressure, the opposition parties impressed upon the government the importance of bringing forth a bill allowing whistleblowers to deal with an independent commissioner who reports to the House of Commons, pointing out that, should problems arise, these people could call us and we would be proud to come and defend their position in the House.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, clause 3 in the bill authorizes by order in council that schedules can be amended by adding or deleting, for instance in schedule 1, any of the organizations listed, which include all the crown corporations. Some concern has been raised that the government could unilaterally eliminate some from the list. I do know that order in council changes to schedules to make additions or deletions are gazetted for public notice. As well, there are circumstances such as name changes or consolidations or when something is rolled into something else, when we have to have the ability to add or delete. I wonder if the member has a concern that the schedules to the bill could be amended.

I wish the member would also comment with regard to the fact that we had Bill C-25 in the last Parliament under another minister which came back in this Parliament as Bill C-11 under a new minister. The one difference was that this bill was sent to committee immediately after first reading. This gave the committee the latitude to change the bill in any way, shape or form. This is something which cannot be done if the committee receives the bill after second reading debate when general approval in principle has been received.

Would the member care to comment on whether or not the process of referring an important bill like this one to committee after first reading is the preferred route? At committee there is a lot of input and a lot of witnesses. Receiving the bill after first reading ensures that the input from all stakeholders is reflected in a good bill.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's suggestion is twofold.

The second part deals with the parliamentary process. I think that it is a good choice, since there is unanimity in the House on this. We are then choosing a process that we hope will be faster.

As I was saying at the beginning, the difficult part was to make the government understand the extent of the modifications. My colleague will agree with me that as modified, the bill is not at all the same as the original one. Eighty percent of it was changed. Now that we have agreed, I think that the proposed parliamentary solution could be used in other cases.

As for the crown corporations, our party decided to trust the government. Those who say that the Bloc is always against the government will have to admit that this not the case. When it has good ideas, we are ready to trust it. We will see what the governor in council will do. If crown corporations were excluded for whatever reason once the bill has become law, you can be sure that we will not just sit around doing nothing. The pressure will be so intense that the governor in council will have to include all crown corporations without exception.

That is why we decided to go ahead and let the government do what it wanted. We hope that the bill will be given quick passage.

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

Madam Speaker, the member touched on this, but something that is very clear is had there been a majority Liberal government, we would not have had this legislation now. I am not just saying maybe; it is clear that is the case. We know because in Bill C-25, the Liberals' first version of the bill, some of the major changes that have been made, such as having an independent office for whistleblowers to report to and many of the other changes, simply were not there. Even when they came back with Bill C-11, their second opportunity with the new minister, they still left that out. It was only in June, 24 hours after a member of the Conservative Party stood in the House and presented an ultimatum to the minister, that the minister agreed to have an independent office. Clearly, there was no intention on the part of the government. It was this committee, the opposition members, that made it happen.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I am convinced that since the government introduced a Bill C-11 which was almost identical to Bill C-25, it is obvious that the complaints would have been filed with the President of the Public Service Commission, who reports to the President of the Treasury Board. That means that a minister would have dealt with the complaints. That was totally unacceptable.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, this afternoon I will speak to Bill C-11, the public servants disclosure bill, which presents another opportunity for the House to enact legislated protection for whistleblowers.

The bill would create a legislative mechanism for the disclosure of wrongdoing or whistleblowing in the federal public sector, including crown corporations, and would seek to protect those public servants in the department or organization who disclosed the wrongdoing.

This is the second attempt by the government at dealing with the subject of whistleblowing by federal public servants, the first one having died on the order paper as a result of the dissolution of the 37th Parliament.

Before we begin consideration of the merits of this legislation, it is important we recall why its implementation is so important.

Recent allegations of contracting irregularities or abuse of authority in federal government departments uncovered over the past few years have brought rise to an urgent call for protection for whistleblowers in the public service. The current protections afforded to these individuals can only be described as woefully inadequate, and all would agree that a pressing need for change exists.

Many in this chamber will recall a story of one of the whistleblowers, Joanna Gualtieri, but a brief refresher on her experiences would serve to provide an illustration of the current difficulties facing those public servants who bring their concerns forward.

For the past 10 years, Joanna Gualtieri has been a leading advocate for increased whistleblower protection for public servants so Canadians may be informed of any wrongdoing or corruption in their federal government.

As a real estate manager at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, she had witnessed first-hand violations of government rules to maintain lavish diplomatic lifestyles that were costing Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars. When she confronted her colleagues at DFAIT, she was met with high level resistance and outright opposition. Dismayed by the response, she went public about this misspending. Instead of being heralded as a watchdog for the public interest, she was persecuted in her workplace and dragged into a lengthy and costly legal battle with the government.

Yet despite paying a heavy price, both professionally and personally, Ms. Gualtieri has remained steadfast in defending the right to blow the whistle on illegality, misconduct and criminal waste of tax dollars within the public service. Why? In her own words:

Whistle-blowers are employees who exercise freedom of expression rights to challenge institutional abuses of power or illegality that harm or threaten the public interest. They represent the highest ideals of public service and epitomize the golden standard of loyalty to the long-term interests and sustainability of an organization. Studies have demonstrated that whistle-blowers are not the malcontents their detractors allege, but are, in fact, the employees an organization would want—bright, qualified and loyal.

Ms. Gualtieri's case is just one of the many that illustrate the need for effective protection for those public servants who bravely expose corruption.

Regrettably, Bill C-11 is a somewhat flawed piece of legislation and it would have been even worse if the official opposition members at committee had not been so persistent in securing some important changes to the bill.

As it was originally presented by the government, Bill C-11 would have done more to impede those public servants thinking about coming forward than previously. For instance, in its original form, the bill would have obligated whistleblowers to report to the government appointed president of the Public Service Commission.

This proposal was strenuously objected to by the official opposition and the majority of stakeholders who commented on the legislation. As a professional institute, the Public Service of Canada, which represents 50,000 public service professionals across the country, stated before the House Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the office responsible for investigating wrongdoing must have the power to fully and independently pursue allegations of wrongdoing and order correction.

In large part because of the immense pressure, the government grudgingly agreed to amend the legislation to ensure an independent commissioner to hear and investigate disclosures of wrongdoing. Also, again thanks to the official opposition, the government, albeit reluctantly, agreed to permit the commissioner to report directly to Parliament instead of through a minister.

However, several other important amendments proposed by the official opposition in committee were rejected. These amendments are necessary and members of the official opposition will continue to advance them.

First, the bill would change the Access to Information Act to permit departments to refuse to release information about internal disclosures or wrongdoing for five years. It should be noted that this was originally an astounding 20 years until official opposition committee members managed to lower it.

Let us just imagine if Bill C-11 had been in effect earlier. Potentially, Canadian taxpayers would not have known for two decades about the stunning level of waste and mismanagement in the gun registry, in the human resources boondoggle and in the sponsorship scandal. While five years is clearly a marked improvement from 20, this provision remains unacceptable and has to be completely removed from the legislation, as even the Information Commissioner has stated.

A second serious concern with the legislation is the fact that cabinet has the power to arbitrarily remove several government bodies, including the Bank of Canada and the public service pension commission, from the whistleblower protection of Bill C-11. Many observers have stated, and I am inclined to agree, that the inclusion of such a clause threatens the integrity of the entire legislation. Again I will quote the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada:

No branch or agency of the Canadian government can be exempt from this regime if this initiative is to be taken seriously....

A fundamental element to rooting out wrongdoing is an independent and credible disclosure mechanism. Unnecessarily exempting any organization from this process only serves to shelter wrongdoing and silence ethical employees.

The official opposition attempted to alter this in committee, but was refuted by the government. Nevertheless, we will continue to pressure for specific amendments to ensure that cabinet does not have the ability to remove any government body from the scope of the act.

Bill C-11 does not ensure that those whistleblowers who risk their professional careers only to be shunned and punished within their workplace are awarded sufficient compensation. Making the decision to become a whistleblower is not easy.

These are public servants who typically have worked long and hard to advance to a point in a career where their responsibility and financial benefits are considerable. Not only that, they likely have developed close personal relationships with those people guilty of the alleged wrongdoing. They are confronted with a difficult choice: do the right thing and risk it all or remain silent and retain their position. Every year thousands of employees witness workplace wrongdoings, but only a fraction will speak out.

However, for those brave few the consequences can be unpleasant and stressful. Even before she went public with her revelations of waste and mismanagement at DFAIT, Ms. Gualtieri was ostracized for even raising concerns within the department.

Gualtieri, in a Canadian Lawyer magazine interview, recounted that she would be yelled at by one of her bosses in front of other employees. She would be interrupted or ignored at meetings and completely bypassed during work sessions that directly involved her job. It got so bad that on her doctor's advice she took an unpaid leave of absence for four months.

Consequently, it is important that we amend Bill C-11, not only to allow the commissioner the power to grant more generous compensation for whistleblowers but also to allow more severe penalties for those who engage in petty reprisal.

There are gaps in the legislation. They are grave and need to be addressed. However, they do not merit the complete rejection of this legislation.

This is the first step in aiding those future whistleblowers ready to expose corruption in the public service and, to echo the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, “immediate improvement” is preferred instead of “postponed perfection”.

This is vital legislation, not only for those future whistleblowers but also for Canadian taxpayers.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, in clause 55 there is a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act. This is the clause the member referred to in her speech. It deals with the five year protection on information. Subclause 55(1.1) says that the information can be withheld if the information identifies or could be reasonably expected to lead to the identification of a public servant who had made a disclosure under this act.

If anonymity of whistleblowers is a fundamental principle of the bill and we want to be absolutely sure that we protect whistleblowers, why would the member want to eliminate a clause that would seek to assist in ensuring that the identification of a whistleblower was protected by denying information to be released?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the changes to the Access to Information Act and refusing information about the internal disclosures of wrongdoing for five years, we were talking about the element of time and how it was originally 20 years. I think it is more important to have it amended so that information has to be disclosed. If we do not allow that information to be disclosed under five years, and to have it protected, then how will we ever expose information that the public needs to be aware of or made privy to? I think it is actually for the best interests of the public and the taxpayers that the clause is in there.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Conservative Party who preceded me referred to Ms. Gualtieri, who embodies one of the most notable cases. She was quite good at defending herself after blowing the whistle. But later, she suffered reprisals.

I will ask the following question of my colleague from the Conservative Party. Does she really believe that this bill actually and totally protects a person who is blowing the whistle on some wrongdoing?

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think it is a small step toward protecting whistleblowers. However, I understand that some of the flaws still in the legislation will probably have some effect; it will certainly not be protecting Ms. Gualtieri to the point that she would have observed. There were many flaws not addressed in Bill C-23. Then, when it came to Bill C-11, she still had some concerns about the protection. She believes that the brown envelope will probably still be the way for many public servants to disclose wrongdoing. I think she will still have some concerns about protection as far as this legislation is concerned.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, it is my honour to represent the women and men who serve their country as members of the Canadian armed forces and who have the good fortune to be posted to Base Petawawa, which is in my riding.

I am pleased to report to the House and to the Minister of National Defence that since I last spoke on the issue of the health premium tax, which is charged to members of the military even though they are prohibited from using provincial health care plans, I have been contacted by many members of the military thanking me for standing up for them. I thank all the women and men who serve their country as members of Canada's armed forces and who took the time to contact me. Together we will make the government accountable.

For the benefit of Canadians who may be unaware of the substance of this debate, members of the Canadian Forces residing in Ontario are insured under the Canadian Forces health services plan and are specifically excluded by the Canada Health Act from the definition of insured persons. That means their health care is provided directly by the federal government and not by their province of residence.

The Canadian Forces health services plan pays $450 million into its health care system and the federal government identifies that money as a direct federal contribution to the total health care spending in Canada. In turn, the federal government uses this figure in health care negotiations to reduce the amount that it transfers to the provinces. As a result, Canadian soldiers living in Ontario are forced to pay twice for health care.

Members of Canada's armed forces object to paying almost $1,000 a year per person in health care premiums to the Liberal government in Ontario when the Canada Health Act specifically prohibits them from being a member of the provincial health plan. No other province does this.

While I appreciate it when the government states that it is appalled by the actions of its party in Ontario and that at least one minister recognizes that the premium tax is unfair, Canadians are asking: What about the Minister of Health whose responsibility it is to uphold the Canada Health Act? It is a sad day in Canada when the Minister of Health refuses to defend the Canada Health Act.

I have a letter from the Minister of Health, which was copied to the defence minister so I know he has seen it also. In it he not only refuses to defend the Canada Health Act, but he defends the Liberal premium tax on the basis, among other things, that trusts and non-resident taxpayers are exempt. He also defends the premium charge on the basis of residency on December 31 of a taxation year.

What about non-commissioned soldiers who are at a level 1 or 2 overseas posting, or soldiers above a certain level of rank of captain who still pay this premium tax when their point of departure is from Ontario? I understand that even those soldiers at a level 3 or above overseas posting, who should be on tax exempt status, are paying EI, CPP and the Ontario health premium tax.

The point I am trying to make is there are all kinds of exceptions that the military takes into consideration and can take into consideration. This is not an issue of legal technicalities. This decision to charge the tax on this basis is a policy decision. This is a matter of fundamental fairness.

My question to the Minister of National Defence relates specifically to the commitment by the government's representative to compensate soldiers who are forced to pay the premium tax that is supposed to be refunded by the post living differential.

What members of the military do not want to hear is that the government is studying the problem, analyzing the problem and whatever other excuses the Liberals come up with to do nothing.

The Minister of National Defence knows that the cost of living differential is used to harmonize pay on the basis of local costs.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way asked this question last week and it is a very good question. It is an issue that gripped us as soon as the provincial government in Ontario put forth this tax, which in my view is grossly unfair when it applies to our Canadian Forces members. The Minister of National Defence feels the same way.

In fact, I spoke to the Minister of National Defence today and he was drafting another stern response to the provincial minister of health asking him to drop this particular tax against those Canadian Forces members who live in Ontario and have been charged this tax.

The member knows full well that the provincial government does what it wishes to do. We do not control the provincial government and when it instituted this tax, our recourse was to address the issue immediately with it, which is what was done by the Minister of National Defence in 2004.

The premium, as the member correctly pointed out, applies to all individuals in the province of Ontario, and I might say bizarrely, whether or not they have access to the health care system or not. Nevertheless, the minister has approached both the minister of health and the minister of finance in Ontario to highlight the gross unfairness of this tax as it applies to Canadian Forces members.

What have we done? The minister has addressed it exactly the same way that the member mentioned, through the post living differential. We have also applied it through increases in wages across the board to CF members. In fact, if the member were to take note and look at the wages of the CF members over the last two to three years, the wages of CF members have gone up quite considerably as a result of our government's initiative to support the men and women, and their families in the great work that they do in the defence of our country and in the defence of our interests abroad.

Specifically, with CF members and their families in Ontario, we are trying to deal with the post living differential which is a cost of living allowance in a way. It is called the PLD. We use the PLD to develop some kind of fairness across the board, so that persons living in a high expense area will be compensated for that because they are moved around at the request of the defence department.

One of the ways that we are trying to accommodate and address this situation is through the PLD. Beyond that the minister, as I said, is working very hard to put pressure on the provincial government to stop and remove this grossly unfair tax on our CF members in Ontario.