Diane Bourgeois

[Citizens of Terrebonne, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today I am paying tribute to my constituents in Terrebonne, a municipality abounding in ingenuity, talent and savoir faire.

Terrebonne, the administrative seat for the Des Moulins RCM, stands out for the services it provides to its citizens. Its public policies emphasize community action, providing vital support for all aspects of residents' lives, both personal and environmental. Just recently, a family policy has been added.

Recognized as the second most significant historic site in Quebec, Terrebonne is determined to achieve a Canadian first: the development of an international industrial city.

The Bloc Québécois is very proud to represent Terrebonne and commends the achievements of all those responsible for its success.

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government's response to the unanimous recommendations of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development on the social and environmental liability of Canadian mining companies abroad is unacceptable.

Since the human rights violations and environmental looting by Canadian mining companies will only get worse, we want to understand why the government is refusing to change its approach, which consists of invoking voluntary codes of conduct, which do not work.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this bill is a big step forward. Make no mistake, the members worked hard in order to reach agreement on this bill. Be that as it may, the fact remains that every member of every party on the committee had to be able to speak as one—particularly with regard to a bill as sensitive as this one.

In my opinion, this bill was essential. It is unfortunate that, today, we cannot predict its impact. However, I am quite hopeful that it will give public service employees who witness wrongdoing and want to disclose it the confidence to do so. We will see if this bill and its provisions are effective over time.

However, I am concerned—my colleague from Repentigny raised a point earlier. Parallel with this bill, I also introduced Bill C-360 to protect victims of psychological harassment. Despite the extensive protection we are able to offer public servants who disclose wrongdoing, psychological harassment will always be the aftermath.

This morning, I received three e-mails from former public servants who followed yesterday's debates. They congratulated me for being the only one who dared lift the veil on what would come after. I greatly appreciate the fact that my colleague from Repentigny has just revisited the aspect of protection and the legislative framework of the bill. The three e-mails I received said more or less this: “Ms. Bourgeois, after the famous 60 days of protection, what will happen if we are transferred to a new place, moved to another department? Then what will happen? Even if people do not know the name of those who make the disclosures, people will end up knowing, or thinking they know, because everything eventually becomes general knowledge. The public service is a closed microcosm.”

That reminded me of something I said here in the House yesterday. I said that the bill is a huge step forward but that there was a little something lacking, and that was iron-clad protection for public servants who make disclosures. That is something that I am proposing along with my bill, but I would also ask that this bill include someone competent who would listen to federal public servants and those covered by the Canada Labour Code. This independent commissioner could be the same one as proposed in Bill C-11, but that person would have to have a staff mandated to deal with public servants subjected to reprisals. These staff members would be able to act even 60 or 120 days after the fact. According to the bill, unless I have misunderstood—and I would like to be told so, if that is the case—the complaint may be filed after that 60-day period if the board deems this appropriate under the circumstances.

With all these “mays” and “ifs” anything is possible, but we are not necessarily resolving the problem. That is what public servants are worried about because they do not have this iron-clad protection. The workplace is merciless toward public servants who blow the whistle. A public servant might be exposing the practice of a government, or, just as likely, the actions of a superior.

I want to close by saying that there is no guarantee that the public servant disclosing wrongdoing can be protected from intimidation, abuse of power, isolation or everyone ganging up on him. I thought that was what the President of the Treasury Board realized yesterday when he nodded in agreement with me that there was a little something missing.

I am not sure there will be as many disclosures as we hope. This bill shows transparency. It goes far beyond any political party. I have heard it said the game here in this House is power. Of course there is criticism. Nonetheless, it goes beyond any political party since it will allow public servants, honest workers, to say, “I am doing this because I do not accept the situation. If I want to sleep well at night, then I will disclose this wrongdoing.” This bill is good, but it needs to go a little further and supplementary protection needs to be added to it.

I now want to ask my colleague why the Canadian Forces were excluded from this bill. He touched on this, but I would like him to elaborate. I want him to explain it again. Many disclosure, harassment and intimidation cases come from National Defence or the Canadian Forces. Of course we trust them. They have their own way of managing and processing complaints as they see fit. Nonetheless, I have some reservations.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

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?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debates all day.

We are turning this bill into a model bill. It still needs to be polished, but it is a great bill. We must commend the hon. members who worked on this committee.

That said, I still have not received an answer to my question or the comments I made this morning. I will ask my question more directly, then maybe I will get an answer.

Public servants have asked for unequivocal protection, wall-to-wall protection, if I may say so. An employee of the federal public service who discloses wrongdoing will be protected beyond the moment of the incident in question. They will be protected even if they are transferred to another establishment or another sector. What provisions have been made for this? What unequivocal protection does this bill provide public service employees?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I said this morning that the bill in front of us is a welcome one. It is a major step towards the protection of honest civil servants.

Earlier, I heard my colleague from the Conservative Party say that very often it was the civil servants who were good workers, who were extremely honest and who really took their job to heart who noticed wrongdoings that had to be brought out into the light of day.

I also said this morning that the bill reflects demands that came mainly from the Public Service Integrity Officer. That officer has been asking for several years to have more power to be able to do more and to help people who have problems with their supervisors or because they disclosed wrongdoings. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada also requested a legislative framework that could guide its members, who are professionals. The Institute also requested legislation to protect in all senses of the word public servants who decide to disclose wrongdoings.

The bill guarantees to a certain extent that whistleblowers will be protected. As a member of Parliament, how can I be sure that whistleblowers will be protected for a certain number of years? Even if they are transferred to a new working environment, as is proposed in the bill, what guarantee do I have that in their new place of work they will be protected from people whose friends may have had the whistle blown on them?

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 3rd, 2005]

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

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

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, September 30th, 2005]

Indeed, they may have some in their offices. However, try to at least give a fighting chance to this bill that seeks justice for those who are victims of harassment. If we already had something in that area, I would not be bringing forward such a bill.

On behalf of those who are seeking justice, I would ask members to reflect on this so that they do not end up supporting a system that may look perfect but is in fact totally flawed.

Our Liberal colleague pointed out, and rightly so, that a policy has been in existence since 1994.

I want to know why, even if that policy has been around since 1994, Canada is considered by the International Labour Organization as ranking third in the world for psychological harassment. I want someone to explain that to me. It simply should not be this way. We are supposed to have a good policy.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleagues in the House who spoke on this bill. Even though some really surprised me, others have shown me that psychological harassment is indeed a little-known phenomenon.

I was surprised to hear a doctor talk to me about stress when, as the hon. member for Drummond was saying, stress follows psychological harassment. I now understand why victims appealed to me. In fact, I am speaking in this House this afternoon on behalf of the victims.

Victims have a hard time getting diagnosed for psychological harassment simply because this phenomenon is little known. It is little known by doctors, who are not able to give a diagnosis. They call it burn out or depression, but not psychological harassment.

There is another reason doctors dare not give a diagnosis of psychological harassment and that is because they dare not take a stand. This House will be no different than these doctors if it does not pass this bill at second reading.

My colleagues in this House and I have no time to lose. If there were Canadian laws to help these people, a more comprehensive Canada Labour Code and a policy on psychological harassment with authority and power, we would not be here talking about an act to prevent psychological harassment.

I challenge any lawyer in this House, no matter how smart—from the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party—to take on a harassment case, see it through and win. I challenge them to do that.

There is no law to help a person who has been psychologically harassed. There is bureaucracy. Any lawyer will take on these cases at $150 or $200 an hour. He will rack up a bill for $12,000 and at the end of the day will say he did everything he could. I have seen that happen for five years now.

I am not here to waste my time or yours. I am here to tell you that there is a problem. At least pass this bill at second reading stage. Then, look at it more closely in committee, amend it, listen to what those people who were victims of harassment have to say. Many have experienced that and we will introduce some of them to you. However, do not reject this bill out of hand.

I am saying to myself that if we ever have a law, lawyers will make money at the government's expense because of its flawed policy.

It is a fact, a lot of people are victims of psychological harassment. There are some in your ridings. I challenge you to tell me that it is not so.