Debates of Dec. 13th, 2023

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am being heckled because I did not recognize someone. I just want to say that the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville had stood up before the hon. member came to visit us. I am just going to say that.

The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville has the floor, from the top, please.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, there are close to 60 countries in the world that have a price on pollution. We are talking, of course, about Canada; Denmark; the whole European Union, 27 countries; Japan; Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; South Africa; Singapore; Sweden; and the U.K., and I could say many more, including Ukraine. Of course, we have trade agreements with many of these countries. We have had long-standing trade agreements. We have voted in the House, as Liberals, for a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Would the Conservatives, in their reckless and risky way, put many of our trade agreements around the world in jeopardy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the countries that the member missed is the United States, where there are many states that actually have a price on pollution. I suspect that it is only going to be a question of time before the United States will, in fact, have a price on pollution, because, as I say, there are many states that currently do.

What is really important for us to recognize is that the price on pollution makes a lot of sense, as countries around the world are adopting it, including the European Union. That is one of the reasons why Ukraine has had it since 2011. One has to ask the question, why does the Conservative Party continuously vote against Ukraine, specifically the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? It is totally amazing.

There is only one answer and that answer is that it is the MAGA right of the United States that is creeping into Canada via the office of the leader of the official opposition, who wants to be the golden boy of advertising and misleading, the Donald Trump of the north, as one of my colleagues would say.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1945, 1950, 1953 to 1955, 1943, 1944, 1946 to 1949, 1951, 1952 and 1956.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I usually do, I want to bring the debate back to the subject we were asked to address, namely a report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

However, that does not mean that I disagree with the comments that have been made to the effect that the Conservative Party has been engaged in systematic and ongoing obstruction while claiming to be working for the common good. It is rather ironic. Meanwhile, we have a government that says all the right things and is great at photo ops and PR, but produces very little in the way of results. That is also rather ironic. Then we have the NDP lackeys, who always vote with the government, no matter what is proposed. That paints a picture of the situation.

However, we are here to talk about substance, so that is what I am going to do.

We conducted a study on the price of food at the grocery chains. This allows me to add a clarification to the question I asked the parliamentary secretary earlier. I told him that the show put on by his Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did nothing but create media attention in an effort to get a boost in the polls, although this was also a failure. We have done the study. We already received the CEOs of the major grocery stores at committee, and we got a taste of their total lack of concern. We have already seen how little they seemed to care about what we asked of them.

I have said this before in the House and I will say it again. When we received the five CEOs of the grocery stores, they did not want to disclose their profits, which are astronomical and have only increased over previous years, despite everything they might tell us. They said they could not give us the numbers for competition reasons. I asked them whether they would give those numbers to the Competition Bureau, which would keep them confidential. There is a serious study to be done. All five grocers promised me they would do that.

When I received the Competition Bureau's report, I noticed that, in the first few pages, the bureau lamented the fact that the companies had failed to provide their figures. How honest and transparent. I commend all the big grocers for that.

I am asking for those numbers again in committee because the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has asked us to redo the work, so that we can be part of the show he is putting on to try to convince people that we are working on the price of groceries and that it is going to produce results. I am missing two, but those people all told me that they had submitted their figures. At the end of the study, we will probably still have five CEOs who promised me they would provide their numbers, the Competition Bureau saying it did not get them, and the same five CEOs telling me that they did provide them. That is the power that the government has over grocery prices.

The problem goes deeper than that. These are private companies. The problem is related to competition. The situation we are in is due to an oligopoly where five companies control 80% of the market. They claim they do not talk to each other, which is doubtful. Since they cannot be accused of anything without proof, we have to believe them. That said, they must watch each other because, after COVID‑19, on the same day, they all cancelled the bonus pay they were giving their employees. If they are not talking to each other, they are closely watching each other. When we look at pricing, we can see that their prices are very similar. That is the problem.

We also have an oligopoly situation in the oil and gas industry. Our Conservative friends speak out against the carbon tax. I understand that this has consequences for their Canadian operations. However, beyond that, these companies' exorbitant profits are on the rise. It is funny, because I do not hear any Conservative members speak out against that. I hear my NDP colleagues criticizing the big grocers for their profits. I understand that, and I do not disagree. They really are astronomical. Why do we not hear the Conservatives talk about profits? When we talk about the price of gas, when we talk about people in the regions who need to use more gas, why do the Conservatives stay mum on that? I would like the Conservatives to tell me about that.

Earlier, we put the question to my esteemed colleague on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We asked her the question twice, and twice, not just once, we did not get an answer. I see colleagues I know well. If any of them would like to answer my question, I invite them to do so. I would be delighted.

What we need is transparency, control and competition. We have asked for information on how prices are set. We have asked that more flexibility be given to indigenous communities in the north, where the cost of food is appallingly high compared to other regions. Measures could be taken to prevent food waste. For example, expiration dates could be reviewed. When I visited a yogurt factory and told the production manager that if the expiration date is November 3, I throw my yogurt away on November 4, he kind of laughed at me. There is nothing scientific about it; it is a legal protection that companies give themselves. Perhaps they could ease off a bit.

We also need to find a way to redistribute surplus food. Some farmers have written to tell me that after their machinery finishes up in their market garden fields, some produce remains behind. Some great initiatives are under way, like the Maski Récolte project in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. Volunteers go into the fields and harvest what remains. However, this is not common practice across the territory. Why could we not, as a government, reimburse farmers for the cost of harvesting this food in their fields, provided they donate it to food banks? I think the effort might be worthwhile. Why should farmers have to pay to share this surplus food when they already work long hours with little or no support, and get ignored?

My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue was with farmers from his region today who came to meet with the minister to explain the region's situation, the lack of support and lack of programs for farmers. The members of our agricultural community are not being supported; they are being left to endure terrible conditions. Then people wonder why the cost of food is rising. It all follows logically. Can we take care of our people and use our heads?

We talked about plastics. We are in favour of protecting the environment and removing plastics, but it has to be done intelligently. It is like deciding to ban a pesticide. First, we have to know what the industry plans to replace it with and what impact that will have. Will the solution be worse than the pesticide being banned? Governments sometimes tend to bring in populist measures, especially when one pesticide name becomes more popular than another. These same governments accuse other political parties of being populist. Let me be clear. I am not saying that they are wrong when they accuse other political parties of being populist. What I am saying is that we must not get caught up in that. Let us be smart.

Do members know what the report recommended? It recommended that the government reimburse the farmers who paid 35% tax on Russian fertilizer. That never happened and never will because they are incapable of doing it. They do not know who paid what. It is too complicated. They are just leaving the tax there. Canada is the only G7 country to do that. Everyone wants to help Ukraine, but can we be smart about it? The Russians are laughing at us and this is having no impact. Our farmers are paying the tax and we are unable to give them their money back. They were told not to worry about it, that the government was going to create a nice investment program for farm climate action and that the money would be put in there. The farmers were supposed to be happy about paying for a program. It it ridiculous. Then, people say that food is expensive. There are some unparliamentary words that come to mind, but with great restraint, I will refrain from uttering them.

What is more—and this is what I want to denounce most loudly and clearly—the program addressed the liquidity issue. The government often talks about agriculture, but we cannot forget the agri-food industry, all the processing. A lot has been mechanized, industry plays a big part, and there is a chronic shortage of workers. The government does not help much, if at all. It is extremely complex. The report recommends making it easier for small businesses to access liquidity to stay afloat. All the government does now is lend them money from time to time; there is no direct support. However, there is a very simple show of support that could have been offered. In fact, I would like to hear my Conservative colleagues talk more often about deferring repayment of the emergency business account loan.

I have not heard my friends talk about that for a long time. It seems to me that it is a logical, concrete measure. According to all of their speeches, it should be part of the picture. Why do they not support us in pressuring the government to ask for another year, especially for the agricultural sector?

I am sure it is the same for them, but many small producers have come to see me to say that they are unable to pay back the loan and they need a break. In response, the government says it will give them 18 more days, after which they will have to take out a loan at the current interest rate of 7%, 8% or 9% to pay it back. Otherwise, the government, which is so generous, will turn the $20,000 subsidy into a loan and finance it at 5%. My, is that not generous?

I may look a bit frustrated, but it seems to me that I keep repeating the same things over and over. A whip staffer told me that I had to come to the House because we were going to talk about a farming report. I have read the recommendations and it appears to be the same report we talked about last week.

As members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we work hard and diligently. We come up with recommendations that make sense. Then, six months or one year later, we realize that our recommendations were not followed. Another situation comes up, and the same recommendation applies, so we make it again. We have been making a lot of the same recommendations for four years. I have been here for four years and we have been making these recommendations for four years. Can we make them happen? Can we get moving on this?

We have mentioned liquidity in small businesses. What is happening with the Canada emergency business account is unacceptable, disgusting, even shocking. That members of the government are willing to see our small businesses, our SMEs, including restaurants, flounder and go bankrupt, is scandalous. The government is so intent on recovering $40,000 that it is going to end up with nothing once these businesses are bankrupt. Congratulations, what a success story.

For four years now, the recommendations have been calling for an investment fund to expand infrastructure and modernize agri-food processing. When we look at the supply chain, we see that there is not enough investment in technology and infrastructure for businesses in Canada and Quebec. When governments refuse to invest over and over again, sooner or later, after 25 years, it becomes much more profitable for a company to shut down and start a new one. Where will the new one be located? Maple Leaf is a very good example. That company moved to the U.S. Are we going to wait for more of that?

Can something constructive be done? It does not have to cost the government a lot of money, but we have to make investments easier for businesses.

We talked about giving the Competition Bureau more authority to compel reluctant grocery store CEOs to hand over figures they were unwilling to provide, for example. When the bureau analyzes mergers, it has to stop rubber-stamping everything. At the moment, companies are allowed a market concentration of 30% to 35%. That means that three companies can control everything. That is still an oligopoly. The grocery industry has seen a series of acquisitions and mergers since the 1980s. It all happened at once. Oddly enough, no one, not a single political leader, had the foresight to say that the market would become too concentrated and that the big companies might fix prices. Members of government are only realizing this now, when five companies control 80% of the market. Then they call in the big CEOs and tell them that they will have to advertise discounts in their flyers, thinking the general public will swallow it. I hope that Canadians will not be fooled into accepting that.

We also need to look at why there are only five companies. What are the obstacles? There are anti-competitive practices. For example, a grocery store has space in a shopping mall and demands that there be no other grocery stores in that mall. This needs to be illegal. Sometimes, grocery stores move, but the former landlord is still stuck for five years not being able lease space to another grocery store. Then we are surprised that there is no competition.

It is the same with the labour shortage. How long has this been an issue? The government has had its head in the sand. Then it says there is a labour shortage, panics and wonders what to do. Actually, the Liberal government is not even doing that. They see that there is a labour shortage, but they figure that they can wait a while and it will pass. They simply close their eyes and wait. Weeks go by, and things do not get any better on their own. Then the government tries to do something.

We must take action for the people and be serious about managing the situation. That is my message. Of course, I am sending it out to our Conservative colleagues, who are enjoying blocking everything for the sake of blocking everything, so they can say that the government does not work and then think they look brilliant, as a result. My message is also for the Liberal government. I am asking them to show they have vision and to listen to the opposition's proposals. I would also tell my friends at the NDP to stop voting for just anything on the expectation they will get a few goodies. We must all act together for the common good.

This is not the first time I say this in the House, but an election should last a month and a half. During the four years in between, not two years or 18 months, we should all work together for the common good. To demonstrate that, I will stop four minutes before the end of my time. I hope that my colleague from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food will be grateful, even though I did not leave him much time. He needs to realize that this is huge, because I never have enough time.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, can the hon. member comment on the fact that a business, such as a trucking company that moves food, pays a price on pollution or a carbon tax but gets a rebate, and as an input cost, it also gets to deduct that from the amount it earns as a company? Does that not, in the member's opinion, really negate the argument that somehow a price on pollution is behind high food prices today?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I do every time I am given this great opportunity, I want to say that Quebec is less familiar with the carbon tax because that is not how we do things. We participate in the carbon exchange with California.

However, according to the numbers I have seen, the carbon tax is responsible for 0.15% of the inflation we are currently experiencing. Most of the inflation that we are seeing right now is caused by big businesses that are operating within an oligopoly and that are making exorbitant profits. That includes grocery stores, but also, and especially, oil companies. Of course, there is also the international context.

If the government is collecting money, then I think it is also important to invest that money and to make it available to improve our technologies. The point of these taxes is not to make money or drive up the cost of living. It is to improve our environmental performance.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was passionate as usual. He is an excellent collaborator at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Indeed, last spring, the five big players in the food sector appeared before the committee, which had produced a report. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry thought it was a good idea to invite them back. We got the same answers.

On Monday, when the CEO of Metro, Mr. La Flèche, was at the committee, something happened that I found interesting and I wonder if my colleague noticed it. My colleagues from Quebec say that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec; we could debate that at length because it applies indirectly. I asked the CEO if the carbon tax had any repercussions across Canada and if it had any major repercussions on the food sector and he said yes.

I would like to know if my colleague took note of Mr. La Flèche's answer.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am very pleased that my colleague from Beauce answered the call I sent out to him during my speech. I appreciate it.

I will explain something to him. In Quebec, we participate in the carbon exchange with California, and agricultural producers are currently at $471 million in costs. Farms in Quebec are exempt from buying carbon credits. However, they are impacted when they buy fuel from Quebec distributors. That is part of the carbon exchange and it will go on, even if the rest of Canada cancels its carbon tax.

There is something I do not understand. It is unfortunate that this cannot be a five-minute discussion, because we would really be able to have some fun. I would like to ask my colleague from Beauce why he is defending the idea of scrapping the tax in the rest of Canada, which would put Quebec at a disadvantage, rather than speaking for Quebec. Why does he not talk about the need to extend the loan payment deadline for our small businesses? There are many small businesses in Beauce. I am sure he is concerned about what I am talking about. Can we give them some breathing room and some liquidity? That is just one example.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do enjoy working with my fellow colleague on the agriculture committee. He will be familiar, from the multiple times that we have heard from grocery executives, that they are often talking about how they work in a low-margin industry. I think they present a slightly misleading argument. First of all, it should be pointed out that, in the last three years, their margins have doubled. If we look at it today, yes, when they are operating with a margin that is between 3% and 3.5%, it may look small. However, what people have to realize is that, when their gross revenues continue to climb, even though that margin may seem static, of course their profits will continue to rise as a result.

I just wonder if my colleague can add a bit more to that because I have noticed a bit of defensiveness from the grocery CEOs and not enough attention is being paid to the fact that we do just have five companies controlling 80% of the market. Perhaps the member has some ideas on how we can try to turn that number around so that there is a bit more flexibility and competition there.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague. Indeed, we do very good work together on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

As I mentioned earlier in my speech, what we are experiencing right now is quite ironic. People come to committee and tell us that they are not taking in any more money than they used to and that their profit margin is only 2%, yet when we look at the figures, we see that profit margins have skyrocketed. When we ask for details, they tell us it is because of the pharmaceuticals section. I would like to know what the percentage increase in profits is for the pharmaceuticals section.

When committees conduct studies, they take them seriously. We call in all the stakeholders, unlike the minister who did not bring in everyone. He invited a few big companies, like Nestlé, and some CEOs. He did not invite agricultural producers or people from SMEs in the agri-food industry. He could not have had all the information. It is important to mention that. When we bring these people in, we realize that there can be a major imbalance in negotiations. A small grower can be told by a big grocer that he has to lower his price; otherwise, no one will buy from him. The small producer knows what that means: He is not going to be able to sell his product, especially if it is perishable. His hands are tied.

I think that the government has a duty to poke its nose in and see what is going on. That is why the committee's report talked about having a sort of price-fixing observatory to see what is going on. A code of conduct is one way to regulate relations among the various players. We need to shine some light on the huge profits being made. Capitalism is a system that works, but not without regulation. Unbridled capitalism is not something we want. Although we seem to be gradually moving in that direction, I do not think it is what we want.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, throughout the conversation, we have taken a look at our farmers and the huge operating cost increases we have seen. They have increased 21.2% in just 2022 alone, which is a huge increase, and that cost gets filtered down to people. I would be interested to hear from the member.

I have heard from many people in my farming community, particularly now at Christmas. We are sitting here at Christmas time and families are creating Christmas goodies for their families. Over the years, people used to put butter in their Christmas goodies. Now they are using margarine. Part of that was the cost. Part of it was also with respect to possible issues with the product. Ultimately, the costs have continued. Now we see with margarine, a lot of it made with canola oil, the price has increased. I talked with a constituent just yesterday on the aspect of increased costs.

I am interested to know how the member sees where that cost continually gets increased when moved from different products. The product being produced for our consumers is being belittled such that there is a huge impact on Canadians, and the huge taxes are being put upon them.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. As I was saying earlier, we have to have another look at how we support farmers and have a serious review of the insurance programs.

These programs were designed 20 or 25 years ago in a context where we had a bad year every six or seven years. These days, we have three bad years in a row and we do not know what next year will bring. The people from Abitibi that we received today talked to us about forest fires, drought, spring frost and a host of factors that we can no longer predict. He have to help them.

Before I finish, I will share a statistic. In Quebec, 44% of our farmers have another job because they do not earn enough income on the farm. That is not normal.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to be standing up today to speak to this, but I want to express that there is a little part of me that is also disappointed. I am always in favour of discussing the great work that happens at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, but it needs to be said that, today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-58, which I think is quite an important landmark piece of legislation. It is something that my party proudly supports. That bill is designed, of course, to make sure that collective bargaining is not going to be undermined by the use of scab or replacement labour. However, the Conservatives decided to move a concurrence debate on yet another committee report.

When we look at the Conservatives' history with labour relations, we can understand why they do not want to speak about Bill C-58. When they were in government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, they were not afraid to use back-to-work legislation. Indeed, when two Conservative members started speaking on Bill C-58 at second reading, they did not touch on the substance of the bill. I do not think they had anything to contribute. I do not even know if they actually support the bill. A party that is trying to rebrand itself as the party of workers now does not want to debate a bill that is protecting organized labour and the collective bargaining rights of workers. I will let Canadians make their own judgment on what that is all about.

Turning to the report that we are discussing today, the grocery affordability report from the agriculture committee, I am proud to say that this report issued from a motion that I brought at committee. I want to thank all members of that committee for granting a unanimous vote; I think they were feeling the political and public pressure of the moment from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, who had been feeling the pinch over the last two years on the spiralling, out-of-control grocery prices. We know these prices have been going up higher and faster than the general rate of inflation.

As a part of this, we have had the opportunity to question the grocery CEOs. We had them as a part of the original study, which we are doing now. The agriculture committee is now revisiting this issue, and we have had a chance to reinterview the CEOs. When we talked to the grocery executives, whether it was Michael Medline or Mr. Weston of Loblaws—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment.

There is a lot of noise in the room.

The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford may continue his intervention.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we were questioning the witnesses, whether it was Michael Medline, or Galen Weston of Loblaws, it became quite clear that these CEOs occupy a different universe from everyday people. They breathe a rarified air. They command very impressive salaries. In Galen Weston's case, I think his take-home pay is about 431 times that of his workers.

They are quite defensive. They will say their margins are pretty small if we compare them to those in other industries, yet if we look at the data, their margins have doubled over the last three years. Here is the thing: Their gross revenues have been going up, so even if margins remain static, as they have for a little while now, they are still going to result in record profits. We can see it when we compare quarterly earnings from one year to the next.

The reason this is such an emotional issue for Canadians is that the products these CEOs are selling are essential for life. These are not just any products, like those at a hardware store; this is food that people need to bring home to keep their families alive. They also sell pharmaceutical products, which are also essential. Why we are seeing anger in the Canadian public is that, for two to three years now, families in my riding and right across this country have been having to make do with less and having to make hard choices. They are the ones bearing the burden, and all the while, corporate profits are reaching record levels.

There is an imbalance right now in Canada, a country where corporate profits are reaching record levels but everyone else is suffering. I am sorry to say this, but I do not see enough action coming out of the present Liberal government, and we know where Conservatives stand with their corporate friends. When presented with evidence showing oil and gas profits and their gargantuan effect on food prices, the Conservatives will just keep saying, "carbon tax, carbon tax, carbon tax", when that is minuscule compared to what corporate profits are doing in this sector. If they do not want to argue with facts, that is fine; they want to live in a different reality.

I want to say that I am proud to be a member of a party that drove this issue to committee. I am proud it is being discussed in the House. I will conclude by saying that I will not stop fighting for the ordinary people in my riding and making sure that we expose corporate profits and their role in driving inflation in Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(1), the debate on the motion is transferred under Government Orders.

The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act, be read the third time and passed.

Public Sector Integrity Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-290.

This is an important piece of legislation that would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which gives federal public sector employees and others a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoings in the workplace, as well as protection from acts and reprisal.

The bill proposes to expand the protections of the PSDPA to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to any superior, and add a duty to provide support to whistle-blowers, as well as repeal sections of the act that prevent overlap with other recourse mechanisms and provisions that set the standards of seriousness of wrongdoing. The bill is in line with some of the recommendations from the 2017 Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates' reports for legislative reforms regarding whistleblowing in the public sector. It is a bill that the government is very glad to see and is supportive of. We, as the government, believe that public servants who disclose serious wrongdoings must be protected.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act helps to ensure an ethical workplace culture and supports the integrity of the public federal sector. Canada's whistle-blowing law is one component of the recourse mechanism for public servants that covers harassment, discrimination, labour grievances and privacy complaints. Soon, we will launch a comprehensive review of the act to strengthen protections for public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Its task force will include academic experts, union representatives and senior—

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.

The interpreters are telling us that there is a phone near the microphone that is vibrating. Perhaps my colleague could put it on the chair to stop the vibration.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member has done so.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I was just wrapping up, Madam Speaker, saying that although we look forward to a comprehensive review of the act in due course, we certainly are supportive of this particular bill and look forward to the Senate moving on this quickly so the legislation will pass into law.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Midnapore in my role as shadow minister for the Treasury Board for His Majesty's loyal opposition.

Before I begin, I would like to send a special wish to my husband James, who is currently in the hospital awaiting surgery. I am not sure if he is watching this, but I am certainly thinking of him and looking forward to seeing him at the end of this week, as well as my son Edward. I thank my mother, my sister and my niece as well for taking such good care of my son at this time.

Bill C-290 is a private member's bill that was put forward this year. This bill would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen the current whistle-blower protections for public servants; expand the definition of the term “wrongdoing”; broaden what is considered a supervisor so that public servants can make a protected disclosure to any superior within their organization; remove the requirement that a protective disclosure must be in good faith; and ensure that a whistle-blower will be protected as long as they reasonably believe what they are disclosing is true.

It would expand the Auditor General's mandate to receive disclosures of wrongdoing from within the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; remove the requirement that investigations by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner cannot overlap with investigations under other laws; extend protections to former public servants, government contractors and all those involved in a disclosure; give supervisors a duty to protect and provide support to public servants involved in disclosures; allow for a remedy to be provided to a whistle-blower if a reprisal is taken; and extend the deadline to file a reprisal complaint from 60 days to one year.

It would expand the annual report requirements, including the number of disclosures made by wrongdoing, the duration of all open cases and cases closed during the fiscal year; the distribution of cases by region and the distribution of cases by federal departments and agencies; increase the fines for reprisals against a whistle-blower from $10,000 to $200,000 for indictable offences and $5,000 to $100,000 for summary convictions; and require the act to be reviewed by Parliament every five years.

This legislation was introduced under former prime minister Harper in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Ironically, we find ourselves again, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP coalition, with a significant number of scandals. The most recent was a whistle-blower alleging the Minister of Industry's office softened the STDC report in a cover-up. This is another example where the government attempted to cover up a whistle-blower rather than support a whistle-blower, as former prime minister Harper so bravely did in his first piece of legislation.

In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates conducted a review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and published a report, and many of the recommendations made in the report are included in this bill. That is, no doubt, a positive thing. The question is: Why did the government not take it upon itself to adjust this legislation prior to a private member bringing a private member's bill forward? It is a valuable question.

When this legislation was finally brought forward, the government operations and estimates committee spent hours going through this bill. The major point of the committee going through this bill was due to an attempt by the current Liberal-NDP coalition to water down this bill and provide no protection to whistle-blowers, as is evidenced in the example I just gave of the industry minister. It is very disappointing and not surprising.

It was expected that the government would implement the recommendations in the 2017 report, but it did not make it a priority to do so. It did what it is really good at. It created a task force, someone to review this legislation and consult with. It is the government's forte to have consultations and gather groups together to review things, with no result.

On December 7, it was the one-year anniversary of the government introducing this task force, which was supposed to review whistle-blower legislation. One year later, there is nothing to show for it. I was in the lobby right outside these chambers when the then president of the treasury board started this process. A year later, there is simply nothing to show for it.

I am very proud of the history that the official opposition has of protecting whistle-blowers in the public service. In addition to the legislation that was brought forward by the Harper government, we also included, with our 2019 and 2021 election platforms, the promise to continue this legislation and to provide more stringent protection for whistle-blowers. Our party has been consistent in supporting increased whistle-blower protections as the policy issues arise.

As I said, this government has a history of scandal. It has a history of cover-ups. It has a history of inaction. After creating task force consultations, it wants to just kick things down the line, push things down the line and avoid responsibility. It is unfortunate, but we actually see this beyond this whistle-blowing legislation, Bill C-290, is in front of us today. It did it today with the private member's bill that was in front of us on child pornography, on protecting our children, protecting the next generation.

Liberals turned their backs. They did not support that legislation as well. This is absolutely in line with the government, to turn its back, to kick things down the line. It would be absolutely impossible for me to stand up here and not mention this as well, which is the most evident display of this. In the greatest conflict in the world right now, through turning its back on a long-standing defender of democracy, through not standing to bring a peaceful end of this conflict and the destruction of Hamas, it is willing to turn its back on not only an entire nation but also, essentially, the entire world order. The things that will come to pass in the Middle East are only, once again, a delay of the things that will soon arrive, that are arriving in other places in the world.

We see this with this current government and what it is doing with world conflict, with the child pornography PMB that was in front of us today, and also with the Bill C-290 legislation.

This government now has the opportunity to do the responsible thing and not only get this legislation through the House but also go one step further to complete the findings of that task force. I hope the President of the Treasury Board will deliver. She has not delivered on finding that puny $15 billion, hardly a drop in the bucket relative to our current deficit and our debt. I do not hold a lot of hope, frankly, that she will come through for whistle-blowers.

It is unfortunate that she was not there for the testimony throughout the government operations committee, which was heartbreaking. It was absolutely terrible to see the things that our public servants have been going through.

Our party was the party of supporting whistle-blowers at that time. We continue to be the party of workers all across Canada, standing up for them in both the public and private realms.

I truly hope that it is within the heart of this government, at this special time of year, at Christmastime, at Hanukkah, at Kwanzaa, to find the responsibility to better handle the crises of the world, our future generation and the concerns of whistle-blowers.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, at third reading. First, I want to give a huge shout-out to my colleague from Mirabel for tabling this bill and taking leadership on this. I also want to thank my colleague and friend from Beauport—Limoilou, who worked really closely with me and our team of New Democrats because we both care and really are passionate about protecting workers' rights.

I want to talk about those workers. These are brave Canadians and Quebeckers who report wrongdoing or crimes in their workplace and often experience consequences like losing their income, health and happiness and all for speaking the truth. All Canadian and Quebec workers should be able to feel safe when they are reporting workplace crimes and negligence.

We know Canada has some of the worst whistle-blower laws in the world, tied with Lebanon. The Conservatives like to pat themselves on the back and say that they care about whistle-blowers, but it is Liberals and Conservatives who have teamed up over decades to make sure that whistle-blowers do not get the chance to protect our society and government.

It was actually the current leader of the Conservative Party who last brought in legislation when he was in government. The experts say that he did not make things better; he made it even harder for whistle-blowers. He made it even worse. The Conservatives say they are for workers, but what did they do today? They moved a concurrence motion so that we could not talk about anti-scab legislation. The Conservatives are not here for workers.

Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to defeat numerous amendments that would actually strengthen protections for whistle-blowers in this bill. They voted against many amendments to Bill C-290. We talk about the coalition. Let us talk about the coalition of Liberals and Conservatives who are fighting workers, muting workers and stonewalling workers from doing the right thing and being able to have the opportunity to protect Canadians and Quebeckers. It is not surprising for the Liberals and their rich friends who are not worried about whistle-blowing. The leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservatives will always prop up their big bosses and not workers. We know that. They have a track record. We have receipts. We are keeping receipts. Canadians and Quebeckers need stronger whistle-blower protection, so that there is more transparency and accountability of government and the public service.

As New Democrats, we are committed to protecting the rights and safety of all workers. That is why we are pushing to make sure Canadians and Quebeckers have the strongest whistle-blower protections possible. I want to talk about the importance of strong whistle-blower laws. Because of how weak our protections for whistle-blowers are, less wrongdoing will get reported and stopped. Protecting whistle-blowers is necessary to protect Canadians' and Quebeckers' lives and security.

Whistle-blower reports protect Canada's global reputation and relationships, so this is important. Luc Sabourin reported that superiors at Passport Canada were destroying foreign passports and logging that they returned them to the foreign embassies. He endured eight years of harassment and abuse, including hand sanitizer in his coffee and threats to his children's safety. Before losing his career in 2016 and almost losing his life, he had the courage to show up at our committee and to fight to protect the future of all workers. He is a hero and the reprisal has been significant, and the impact and damage to his life have been significant. I want to thank Luc for the courage to have shared his story; and my colleague from the Bloc who brought Luc to committee and worked with Luc.

As I said, whistle-blower reports save lives. In 1996, Michèle Brill-Edwards also lost her career after she reported that big pharma was influencing the drug-approval process here in Canada, endangering Canadian lives.

We brought forward amendments that were defeated. Our first amendment that we brought forward was to allow whistle-blowers to go to the public or media in specific situations where, for example, the commissioner is not dealing with the complaint or decides not to do anything to stop the wrongdoing. Liberals and Conservatives teamed up in their coalition to oppose this. Therefore, now whistle-blowers are at a huge risk if they expose wrongdoing to the Canadian public.

The second amendment was interim relief, which would have protected whistle-blowers from punishments like termination as soon as they reported wrongdoing. Instead, we are allowing punishments to happen to them and then spending years investigating whether they were indeed punished. The coalition defeated it.

The third one is the reverse onus. Right now, the whistle-blower has to prove reprisal. I will give an example: If they were fired, they have to prove that it was because they reported wrongdoing, which is virtually impossible. This amendment would have forced their superiors to prove that there was a real reason to fire them. In other jurisdictions, this change brings the chances of success from as low as one in 500 to as high as one in three, which would make sense. Those would be strong whistle-blower laws. What happened? The coalition of Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to defeat the amendment.

Again, these are critical amendments. Some things we brought forward as New Democrats were passed. I am grateful that the coalition did not fight these and that we actually got them through, working closely with our Bloc colleagues, who were fabulous on this bill.

The first one is that we improved whistle-blowers' access to the tribunal. This is critical, because the commissioner has been acting as a gatekeeper, preventing workers from accessing the tribunal. In the tribunal's 16 years of operation, the commissioner has only referred nine cases to it. That is insane. It is a terrible track record for Canada and right there, as I said, with Lebanon. There needs to be access to both options, because the commissioner sometimes decides not to even investigate a complaint. It is unbelievable.

The second amendment we brought forward and that passed, as we were glad to see, would create a survey metric to measure whistle-blowers' satisfaction with the process, how supported and protected they felt, etc. We have been looking at the effectiveness of these laws with no input from the whistle-blowers they were supposed to protect. Now they have a voice. Again, I want to go back to my colleague from Mirabel and thank him for that.

The third amendment we were able to get through was adding psychological damage from harassment as a form of reprisal that whistle-blowers are protected from. That is absolutely critical. These are Canadians and Quebeckers who are standing up and fighting for the best services to deliver to their communities.

I am going to finish with one area that is not covered, which is subcontractors. I will give an example: At the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we found out through the ArriveCAN scandal that there were companies that received a contract, Coradix and Dalian, and they subcontracted to a company called GCStrategies, which then subcontracted to a company called Botler. However, they are not protected. Even though they are delivering services under a government contract through the Canada Border Services Agency, they are absolutely not protected. This is just unbelievable.

Both Dalian and Coradix took a commission of between 15% and 30%, and GCStrategies took a commission of 15% to 30%. None of them had expertise in what they needed. These are headhunters. It is like the worst pyramid scheme, in terms of outsourcing, that is happening with Canadian taxpayers' dollars and the layering of commissions.

For Botler, the reprisal was significant for Ritika Dutt and Amir Morv. It is unbelievable, the punishment they took for standing up for Canadian taxpayers, for whistle-blowing, and the treatment they have been under. The government is continuing to fail them for continuing to tell the truth. It is continuing to allow these contractors, who are suspended from the Canada Border Services Agency, to have contracts with other federal departments, even though they are under investigation by the RCMP. We can talk about how failed and miserable the situation is.

We are taking a step forward to fix how the coalition of the Conservatives and Liberals teamed up to mute whistle-blowers. Again, it is because of my colleague from Mirabel, who used his slot. He was high in the order of precedence, and he took this on to stand up for human rights. New Democrats stand with the Bloc, and we worked really hard on this. I am glad it is moving forward.

Let us hope for a better future. Let us hope we can address the concerns that are not addressed in this bill and continue to work together. Workers deserve it. We owe it to them.