Lynne Yelich

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

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.

[Status of Women, September 30th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last May the government announced it was finally ready to tackle violence against aboriginal women, promising new funding that would help them live free from fear and violence. Yet last week it was revealed no funds have been put to use and will not be until October, at the earliest.

Over the summer six more aboriginal women disappeared. The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations issued a warning of the potential risk of abduction. The problem is real; the Liberal reaction is not.

When will the government treat this with the urgency it deserves?

[Textile and Clothing Industries, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 164, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish, in compliance with international agreements, a policy of assistance to the textile and clothing industries in order to enable the industries to compete throughout the world, particularly by broadening the Technology Partnerships Canada program to include these two sectors....

I recognize that this is a very important issue for the province of Quebec and for the entire Canadian clothing and textile industry. We in the Conservative Party are committed to a real and sustainable industrial development policy.

I looked into the background of this motion. In December 2005, the federal government announced a program for the textile sector to, first of all, eliminate the tariffs on fibre and yarn imports. That was worth up to $15 million a year. There was also the elimination of tariffs on imports of textile inputs used by the apparel industry. That was worth up to $75 million a year. All of this was effective as of January 2005.

Additional funding of $50 million was provided to the textile production efficiency component, better known as CANtex, over the next five years. This encouraged Canadian textile companies to shift to higher value added products, focusing on niche markets and improving productivity. The program extended current duty remission tariff reduction orders benefiting textile and apparel manufacturers for five years, gradually phasing out benefits over the final three years.

This followed much pressure from all of the opposition parties to address the impending January 1, 2005 removal of textiles and clothing quotas. A Bloc day motion on February 9 called for industry support for the textile sector of $50 million over five years as well as an aid program for older workers and the invoking of special safeguard measures under existing trade agreements. The Conservative Party supported this motion. It was passed by the House.

On November 30, 2004, the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment studied the issue. It was here that the Bloc first raised the issue of assigning part of the Technology Partnerships Canada program to research and development, for example, in this industry for the first time.

On November 30, 2004, an NDP concurrence motion was introduced on the issue of duty remission orders, which was consistent with our Conservative call to extend for a further seven years the duty remission orders covering the apparel sector.

My observation is that there is an inherent contradiction between the textile and apparel sectors about government action. The inherent contradiction with the textile industry is the concern that Canada already provides duty free entry for many fabrics used in garments made in Canada. The apparel industry is concerned about duty free entry for some garments that are 100% made outside of Canada. The textile industry struggles to find domestic markets within the apparel industry when garments made in other countries from Canadian fabrics are fully subject to duty.

This observation makes it clear that there is a need for further government-stakeholder consultations to agree to a whole industry approach to this issue.

We favour reducing subsidies to for profit businesses, but the tariff eliminations must be phased. There must be a phased reduction of duty remissions which benefit the domestic industry and the industry support commitments.

We must work with international organizations and individual nations to reduce protectionist policies to secure free trade agreements, and where there is injurious harm caused by a trade action we must have a reasonable chance of winning and/or reversing this action. We must support the industry on a temporary basis until the trade action is resolved.

This approach should not only reduce but eventually eliminate these subsidies to for profit businesses by focusing on improving overall economic growth through facilitating competition, improving productivity, streamlining regulation and fostering innovation in concert with free and fair trade agreements.

Technology Partnership Canada is not really designed to be an adjustment program for established industries, but to encourage new and emerging sectors to maturation. Therefore, it is not clear that the mandate of Technology Partnerships Canada extends or is appropriate for the clothing and textile program and that there may be another government program or service line that would better address this industry's needs.

We support an examination of programs delivered by Human Resources and Development Canada to assist all the workers, not just older workers displaced by changes in the textiles and clothing industries.

The apparel industry is the 10th largest manufacturing sector in Canada and the second largest in the province of Quebec. As of 2002, over 94,000 Canadians have been employed in the apparel industry, with an annual payroll of $2.3 billion. We recognize how important the apparel industry is to Canada and to Quebec.

The Canadian textile industry provides direct employment for almost 50,000 Canadians and indirect jobs for many thousands more.

The differing positions within the textile and apparel industry suggests that more work needs to be done by both the government and stakeholders to agree on a plan for the evolution of this Canadian industry. We have an appreciation that we must have a transition period in place so the industry can be encouraged to adapt to the new market conditions.

Again, I realize it is very important for Quebec and the entire Canadian clothing and textile industry. We are committed to real and sustainable industrial development policy. However, the Technology Partnerships Canada program I do not believe is designed to be an adjustment program for established industries, but to encourage new and emerging sectors to maturation, upon which time the Technology Partnerships Canada loans must be repaid.

Therefore, it is not clear that the mandate of Technology Partnerships Canada program extends or is appropriate for the clothing and textile program and that there may be another government program or service line available which would better address this industry's needs.

We would recommend also that we broaden the directive to the government to seek solutions from Human Resources and Skills Development to approach the labour market rather than narrow the focus on the program.

[Wage Earner Protection Program Act, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about the proposed legislation and the student loans again, about applying for discharge after seven years but allowing hardship discharge after five. I wonder if the member would support an amendment to allow application for hardship at any time.

I also want to hear the member's comments on the exemption for RRSPs. Currently RRSPs related to insurance are exempt, but most others are not. In the proposed legislation, a wider range of retirement savings and products would be exempt from seizure in bankruptcy. I am wondering if the member supports either/or.

I also would like him to comment on pensions and whether there should not be a push to tighten pension laws so that companies cannot underfund them.

[Wage Earner Protection Program, September 29th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the member spoke about student loans. Right now the current legislation says that an individual can apply for discharge 10 years after he or she ceases to be a student. Bill C-55 talks about applying a discharge after seven years and allowing a hardship discharge after five years. I noticed Bill C-281 does not cover it. I am just wondering whether the member supports the discharge clause.

[Gasoline Prices, September 26th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the member suggests that tax rebates can help with some of the costs. She has made suggestions that for people driving to work, there are ways to conserve. I would like her to put herself in the position of the agriculture sector right now, where farmers need to have fuel to run their equipment for 8, 10 or 12 hours. They do not have an option of parking their machines and hoping the crop gets off. Right now a lot of the crops are under duress with some of the weather factors that have hit us. We have had a lot of rain and therefore the quality of the crops has gone down, so we are looking at declining prices. We have just come from some serious years of trade issues and problems, and now we are looking at crops that are going down in quality and price.

We need fuel to run our equipment. That is how we put the crops in and that is how we take them out. I wonder what we can suggest to help the farming industry that depends on fuel. We do not have options. We do not have biodiesel. The GST rebate does us no good if we cannot get the crops off to pay the fuel. It is getting quite serious. In fact, crime has gone up considerably because people are getting quite desperate. I would like the member to comment.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I again would like to quote an expert, Donna Hughes, a professor at the University of Rhode Island in the women studies program and a noted researcher on women's rights. In the spring 2000 Journal of International Affairs she wrote a paper entitled, “The 'Natasha' Trade -- The Transnational Shadow Market of Trafficking in Women.” She said:

Legalization of prostitution is sometimes thought to be a solution to trafficking in women, but evidence seems to show that legalized sex industries actually result in increased trafficking to meet the demand for women to be used in the legal sex industries. Increased activity of organized crime networks also accompanies increases in trafficking.

That lady is an expert who is frequently consulted by governments, such as the U.S. State Department and the Council of Europe and non-governmental organizations, including the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, on policy relating to trafficking and exploitation of women and girls.

I am taking my cues from the experts who are studying these social problems. I always have felt that prostitution takes our society down a slippery slope. I believe that this professor's work and statistics are probably very legitimate and worthwhile.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about trying to get it out of our domain. I will go back to prostitution at the local level where it is becoming a concern.

I represent the city of Saskatoon and we have a lot of problems. There is a lot of child prostitution. Parents are taking this into their own hands now. They are trying to get these people off the streets by going out with cameras and taking pictures of johns. They are taking the law into their own hands by doing things at the local level instead of waiting for our government to help with child prostitution and protection of young people, who are vulnerable to the johns who prey on them.

This has to do with working at home in our communities with our prostitution problems which soon leads to trafficking.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts on that and they have to do with something the government is intending, and that is looking at legalizing prostitution. That is one area we should probably address. I think it should not even be entertained.

I want to refer to a comment of Donna Hughes, a professor from the University of Rhode Island. As she researched women's rights, she consulted with many governments. In a journal she wrote a paper called “The 'Natasha' Trade - The Transnational Shadow Market of Trafficking in Women”. In this paper she concluded that:

Legalization of prostitution is sometimes thought to be a solution to trafficking in women, but evidence seems to show that legalized sex industries actually result in increased trafficking to meet the demand for women to be used in the legal sex industries. Increased activity of organized crime networks also accompanies increases in trafficking.

We have to work at the ground level. We have to ensure we keep vulnerable people off the streets. We should not look at legislation to legalize something that I think would contribute to trafficking of humans.

[Criminal Code, September 26th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the resources can be quite readily addressed by perhaps the waste that we have found with the gun registration, for example. I believe what the member says is true, that we are very short of resources. I have met with RCMP officers in Saskatoon. They are suffering cut backs. We do need more resources out there. We need more front line people.

I agree that there should be more resources. How do we get them? We have to take a look at the gun registration which is taking a lot of our resources. Our tax dollars are going into that tremendous boondoggle of gun registration. I think the provinces would be very happy to get the money that goes into gun registration.