Pat Martin

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some satisfaction that I rise on behalf of the NDP to speak to Bill C-11 at third reading. It has been eight long years that I have been seized of this issue and trying to develop some satisfying amendments regarding the protection of whistleblowers. It looks like there is light at the end of the tunnel. By the end of this business day in fact we may pass a significant, satisfactory whistleblowing bill. It is very gratifying for me to address this one last time, I hope, in my career.

I emphasize the words “a bill for the protection of whistleblowers”. I should point out at the outset that that in itself is progress. The original bill that we dealt with in the previous Parliament, Bill C-25, a bill which my colleague from Mississauga South touched on in his remarks, was all about putting in place a system by which people could blow the whistle on wrongdoing. It made very little mention of and had very little emphasis on the protection of the person who blew the whistle on wrongdoing. It struck me that the emphasis was all about protecting ministers from whistleblowers, not about protecting whistleblowers. We were critical of that from the outset. We raised it a number of times. It would seem that our presentations on that issue resonated because we now see that Bill C-11 is titled “an act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings”.

In a perfect world I would even reverse those points and say that this is an act to protect whistleblowers. Without going into the technical details of the bill, the biggest challenge we have now is to convince the public sector that it is going to be okay. Somehow we have to mitigate a century of distrust on the part of the public servants. The empirical evidence to them has been that if they open their mouths and blow the whistle, they are putting their jobs at risk and nobody can really protect them. That has been the prevailing wisdom, well deservedly I am afraid.

As a former trade union leader, if I were a union leader in the public sector and one of the people I represented came to me for advice saying, “I have evidence of a wrongdoing here; I am tempted to go forward and blow the whistle”, my advice would have had to be, “Keep your mouth shut because I cannot protect you. Your employer may persecute you, discipline you or make your life difficult as a result of your coming forward and blowing the whistle”. My advice would have had to be not to do it.

Even though I am well aware of the legal obligation to report breaking the law, there are other things that can be categorized as wrongdoing. Employees may be made aware of maladministration of funds that fall short of criminal behaviour, just fundamentally silly activities.

We hope to learn a great deal after this bill is in place, but as I said, our first challenge and the issue I am seized with now that I am confident this bill will pass, and where I am directing my attention is on how we can get the message out there to assure the broad spectrum of public servants that they are safe now, that they can come forward with the confidence that they will not suffer reprisals just for doing the right thing. That is what it boils down to, doing the right thing.

With any kind of luck, this new officer of Parliament that we are putting in place by virtue of this bill will be like the Maytag repairman and maybe will not get a lot of business. That would be everyone's first hope.

Let us put this in perspective. This whistleblowing legislation should be only one element in a series of bills in a suite of legislation that will augment and enhance the accountability, transparency and openness, and the freedom of information that are the characteristics and earmarks of a western democracy that we can be proud of.

If we had true open government, if we had better access to information and freedom of information laws, there would not be the corruption that whistleblowers would have to report because the government would be operating in the light of day. It is the culture of secrecy that allows corruption to flourish. That much we have learned, and we have learned it the hard way in my years in the House of Commons.

In the context of the current culture of secrecy for which the government is famous, we need whistleblowing legislation. There are activities going on in the shadows without the scrutiny and oversight of Parliament, much less the general public. We would not have unearthed any of the recent corruption scandals were it not for the courage of whistleblowers who came forward at great personal risk and without any personal benefit. I do not know of a single whistleblower case, and I have studied many, where the whistleblower was motivated by self-interest. That is just not the motivation. The motivation is values, morals, ethics and knowing the difference between right and wrong.

I want as an employee the type of person who cannot sleep at night if he or she knows of a wrongdoing in his or her working environment. That tells me we have a decent person. Someone who is decent enough to feel bad about wrongdoing is the kind of employee that we want, that we want to reward, and ultimately that we want to protect.

Here we are in this chamber all of us speaking in lofty language about values, integrity and ethics, but we have been derelict in our duties to not protect those very values within the public service and not to reward those values. If anything we have cut those people adrift and have not given them the support they have needed in recent history. Until the advent of this bill they were on their own.

I have cited this example before. My colleague from Mississauga South, the vice-chair of the government operations committee that developed the bill, will remember it well. During the Radwanski scandal, we would never have known about the wretched excess and the abuse of privilege that was George Radwanski without whistleblowers. The most significant thing and the thing that still bothers me to this day is that those whistleblowers who had clear abundant evidence of wrongdoing within Radwanski's office did not feel comfortable in coming forward to a standing committee of the House of Commons without their lawyers present.

It was at midnight in the East Block behind closed doors at an in camera meeting and they still did not feel comfortable about talking to us. They insisted on bringing their legal counsel with them to defend them. As soon as they left that room they were vulnerable people. That is atrocious. Honest people who were doing the right thing felt they needed legal counsel to be able to report gross misuse of funds.

That illustrated to me more than ever the urgent need for whistleblower protection but as I say, as an interim measure. I am optimistic that within a short period of time the pent up demand may abate. There may be a number of wrongdoings of which people have knowledge. The floodgates may open briefly for the first year or two years, but in the fullness of time as we develop other complementary legislation about access to information, freedom of information and transparency, there should not be a great deal of need for the whistleblower officer. I hope his or her phone does not ring off the hook because we will have a self-correcting regime. Sunlight is a great disinfectant and when we shine the light of day on an issue, it is the natural enemy of the culture of secrecy that allows corruption to flourish. That is the next logical step for those of us who are interested in this issue.

It is not hard to see where the justifiable apprehension about coming forward came from within the public service. I came across a research paper in October 2004 which talked about the United States. Prior to it passing similar legislation, a survey was done of 161 workers who were disclosed wrongdoings. Of those 161 workers, 62% lost their jobs, 18% said they were harassed or transferred against their will, including being subject to isolation tactics and character assassination, 13% had their salaries and the terms and conditions of their employment reduced and many experienced a mental breakdown or family break up. Those people sacrificed an enormous amount to report wrongdoings. Granted, this is an American study, but it is a recent study. I think it is a snapshot of the experience in Canada.

We heard heart-rending testimony from a number of prominent whistleblowers who came before our committee. They could not even hide from the spotlight on this issue.

Ironically, the very week that the latest incarnation of the whistleblower bill was introduced, the three most prominent whistleblowers in Canada were fired, three officials at Health Canada who blew the whistle on the bovine growth hormone. They were under pressure by industry and by Health Canada to approve the agricultural nutritional supplement for milk in cows. However, because they were not satisfied it was safe, they blew the whistle on it.

These individuals went through five years of misery. They went through all the things outlined here today. They were transferred to different offices farther from their homes. They were transferred to places where there were no computers. Imagine a scientist being asked to work without a computer. The department could never seem to get them hooked up. They were denied meaningful work and given only insignificant work. All of a sudden holidays were not available when for years they took their holidays at a certain period of time. This was punishment by subtle harassment. It does not have to be as overt as firing somebody.

Before I run out of time, I caution the government about another thing. In the earlier incarnations of Bill C-11 we were very critical of the government's language which spent more time and attention contemplating punishing those who would make a false report or a complaint that was not in good faith, a malicious or vexatious report. There was very clear, specific, harsh, swift discipline for those who would do that, but there was no corresponding language to punish a manager who might impose punishment upon a whistleblower. It seemed completely out of balance. The government clearly stated that it would not tolerate false or malicious complaints.

Some people say that whistleblowing could be used as a form of industrial sabotage. For example, if people hated their bosses, they could blow the whistle on them in false ways. That was dealt with in Bill C-11, but there was no corresponding discipline contemplated if management was just mad that somebody blew the whistle on it and disciplined the employee. The only recourse for employees would be to file a grievance with their union, wait in line at the Canada Industrial Relations Board to have their grievance heard, and two years later they may or may not achieve satisfaction. That is not good enough.

We now have it clearly stated that punishing a whistleblower is in and of itself a wrongdoing and an individual may be disciplined or fired for doing that if it can be demonstrated. We are comforted in some way that balance has been reintroduced into the bill. However, I caution the government in the application of this bill once it becomes law. Far greater attention and resources should be dedicated to ensuring that managers do not discipline employees wrongly rather than employees wrongly reporting mischievous grievances.

Those are some of the cautionary notes I point out to the government.

We should use these final moments of this debate at third reading to reflect on two things.

It takes enormous courage for a worker to come forward with evidence of wrongdoing. Inversely, it takes a lot of courage for a government to introduce meaningful whistleblowing legislation. I think that is why governments, and not just this one, around the country and the world are reluctant to allow true whistleblowing legislation to come into force. In fact, when we pass this bill, we will be the eighth developed nation, of which I know, that will have meaningful whistleblowing legislation. That is not very many. It is an act of courage on both parts. It is an act of courage on the part of the whistleblower and on the part of the government.

The fact that we are debating this much improved Bill C-11 today is evidence of a minority government situation working as it should. This is a graphic illustration of the advantage to ordinary Canadians of minority parliaments. We saw the type of whistleblowing legislation introduced by the majority Liberal government. Every witness who came before our committee rejected it out of hand. I believe there were 14 leading authorities, from university professors, to union leaders, to people who studied this issue from one end to the other. They rejected it unanimously. That is the kind of bill we get from a majority government. As soon as it was a minority situation, things started to open. Log jams were broken. All of a sudden things that we were told were impossible were in fact possible, and we have a better bill as a result.

I believe it is a case study for the advantage of minority governments, especially as it pertains to issues that affect the general population. Minority governments are good for ordinary Canadians. That is my point and I stick to that.

It was worth the time it took to get the bill right the first time. As opposition party members, we could have said that we were getting half a loaf with Bill C-25, that at least it was a bill about whistleblowing and that was better than nothing. We could have voted for it and had it introduced by now. However, we did not. We stuck to our guns and said that it was not good enough, and I am glad we did.

Nobody could have used a crystal ball to foresee this, but that party lost its majority status as a government. All of a sudden we had some influence. All of a sudden there was consultation and cooperation. All of a sudden my phone would ring and a minister would ask me what it would take for me to support this kind of thing. That did not happen in the majority situation. Believe me, nobody cared what we thought about then, no matter how relevant and valid our contributions could have been.

It is interesting to go back and think about the money we could have saved and the quality of administration we could have enjoyed had we had whistleblowing legislation quite some time ago. Maybe we would not have had to endure the terrible sponsorship scandal that is ripping the country apart.

My Saskatchewan colleague from the Conservative Party said that the sponsorship scandal was the biggest scandal in Canadian history. I disagree with him somewhat. When the dust settles, it may earn that position in the history books. However, to this point in time, the biggest scandal on record, dealing with the malfeasance of politicians, is the Conservative Party government of Grant Devine. Most of its cabinet ministers were not only charged but convicted and sent to prison in massive numbers.

Until such time as the last Liberal is led away in handcuffs, the Devine government in Saskatchewan is holding the record for malfeasance, and I presume that scandal was revealed by a courageous whistleblower.

We are proud to support Bill C-11. We are proud of the role we played in it. I take great satisfaction and some pride in the fact that we will have a bill under which public servants will be protected and feel comfortable in telling us what they know. We will ensure that no one harasses them or persecutes them for doing the honourable thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the member's views on the bill and I think we are in agreement on many aspects of it. However, would he agree with me that, as critical as the details of the bill certainly are, implementation of this bill once it becomes law is going to be critical? The most compelling issue that we have to face, I think, is what kind of a plan will his government have to roll out for the implementation, so that it squashes the genuine fears among the public service? How will he convince public servants that it is now going to be safe to come forward? Is there a plan in place to convince public servants of that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga for a very fulsome and interesting speech. I would like to ask him the same brief question I asked of the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla recently.

In the wage earner protection program, of which the NDP is in favour, if a person has worked for less than three months at the time of the bankruptcy, the employee is not eligible for any benefits. Would the hon. member not agree with me that this is silly and not in the spirit of the bill in terms of compensating employees who are disadvantaged by a bankruptcy?

What would his reaction be to an amendment to the bill that would say that all employees owed back wages and benefits should be eligible for the wage earners protection fund?

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

Mr. Speaker, my question also has to do with the wage earner protection program aspect of Bill C-55. The bill, as put forward by the Liberals, makes workers who have less than three months on the job ineligible to make an application for compensation out of this program. Would my colleague's party share our view that it does not make any sense at all? If employees have less than three months on the job, they are even more vulnerable and perhaps need the compensation more than individuals who have had 20 years of employment to put life savings together.

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

Mr. Speaker, prior to asking a question about the specific bill that we are debating, let me simply say that when someone of such long tenure and long standing respect in the House of Commons chooses to leave and announces that in this place, it is almost like losing a member of one's family.

I can remember the day I first met the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes and how gracious he was to me as a newcomer in the House of Commons. I met him at the opening cocktail party to welcome newly elected members of Parliament and he at the time was the whip for the Bloc Québécois. He was gracious, friendly and welcomed me into what became that very unique relationship that we enjoy as members of Parliament. I am really quite moved by his announcement today that he will not be seeking re-election and will be leaving this place. I can speak for the members of our caucus and say that we will miss him. We will miss the dignity and the respect that he brings to this House.

In regard to the bill, I know the Bloc Québécois shares the view of the NDP that the bill does not really address the big issue of huge underfunded pension plans. I would like the member to expand on his views. Does he share with us the view that it is fundamentally wrong for a company to be able to continue operating by scooping from the company pension plan and therefore leaving a shortfall when the company does collapse?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for making a very critical point. This bill would not protect pensions in Canada.

The NDP's original position was that a bill should come forward that does in fact protect pension shortfalls. This is not it. There will have to be another piece of legislation sometime soon.

I can speak briefly to one recent example in the Province of New Brunswick. The Nackawic mill recently went bankrupt. The employer had been dipping into the company pension plan for the last year. In other words, it was keeping the company running by the company pension plan; it was spending it. When the company finally went bankrupt, the pension plan was reduced by $30 million. There are employees at that mill now with 25 years' service and not one penny of pension. The only pension is for those with 25 years plus. It is a terrible, tragic issue.

There are enough assets in the bankrupt company that it could have reimbursed that pension plan, but the employees rank at the bottom of the list, not top of the list. In fact, the CEO of that company structured it in such a way that he, personally, is at the top of the list. He will be made whole; the employees will have nothing.

Clearly, this bill would not resolve issues where the company has been robbing from the employees' pension plan. There should be legislation not allowing employers to dip into pension plans because those are the employees' wages deferred and being held in trust for their exclusive use. It is not the company's money and should never be. However, this bill falls short on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the current bankruptcy laws were clearly written by the monied class. Big money has controlled things in Ottawa for so long that it is no surprise that all the laws are structured in such a way as to look after the interests of big money. That is the case in the current bankruptcy laws. Employees, workers, have been left hung out to dry in the event of bankruptcies in alarming numbers.

There are approximately 10,000 commercial bankruptcies per year in Canada, with over 100,000 employees owed back wages, benefits and pension contributions. It is a huge problem. Some of the estimates are as much as $2 billion per year are owed to employees due to bankruptcies. Imagine the impact of that.

The government finally has listened to the years of pleas from members of various parties to do something about this. I personally had a private member's bill that called upon the government to address the issue of bankruptcy.

One of the key elements in Bill C-55 is the wage earner protection program. For the record and history books, this is the manifestation of a commitment negotiated with the government by the NDP in Bill C-48, or what we call the NDP/Liberal budget of 2005. The Liberal government is living up to the commitment made at the bargaining table with our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth. We find ourselves with the wage earner program.

Under this proposal, an employee can seek restitution for up to $3,000 for back wages left owing. The government would then seek compensation from the trustee of the bankruptcy, wait in line and be reimbursed. It proposes as much as $2,000. It is an idea that we can agree to in concept. My colleague from Hamilton Centre may be able to expand on it. This was an NDP idea that was put in place in the province of Ontario by the NDP government in the early 1990's.

My problem with it is the figure is too low. We do not believe a $3,000 compensation would compensate as many affected workers as the Minister of Labour would have us believe. Partly, it should not just be back wages and holiday pay. It should also include severance pay or termination pay which may be included in a person's terms and conditions of employment. It also should include commissions for salespeople who may work in retail sales who get their commissions at the end of every month. That could amount to many thousands of dollars.

We believe that threshold limit of $3,000 is not adequate and that the employees should be able to seek compensation for wages, holiday pay, termination pay, severance pay and commission for salespeople.

We also are critical that there is a three month exemption. If someone has worked for the company for less than three months, that employee is not eligible for this program. I do not see the logic in that. In fact someone who has only worked for less than three months is more vulnerable than a person who has 20 years of service if there are two weeks back wages owing. That person may have been catching up on their personal finances. We are critical of both those issues and will be moving amendments to that effect.

The second element of the bill has to do with student loans. My colleague from the Bloc has pretty much reflected our criticisms of the proposed amendment to the student loan provisions. Let us be clear. The 10 year limit that students have to wait before they can declare personal bankruptcy is like a life sentence. This is crazy. Why should they be treated any differently than any other Canadian?

This came into effect only when the Government of Canada off-loaded the student loan system to the banks. When it privatized and contracted out the student loan program, the banks, in assuming the responsibility, demanded that they did not want kids to get out from under their debt for 10 years. That is baloney. The NDP supports the idea, especially in the cases of hardship, that the discharge in the event of student loan debt should be no different from ordinary Canadians. We will be negotiating that down with the ruling party.

One of the most important terms of this new bill is the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act amendments. Under the current rules, and we have checked this out and had it confirmed recently, a judge may unilaterally and arbitrarily alter the terms and conditions of a collective agreement of the employees. When a company goes under the CCAA and is seeking to avoid bankruptcy, a judge may alter the creditors' arrangements or collective agreements unilaterally. This is fundamentally wrong. We cannot and will not abide by that.

The amendment put forward by the federal government states that a judge may intervene to the point that he or she may direct the parties, labour and management, to sit down at the bargaining table and try to negotiate amendments to the collective agreement, but the judge may not unilaterally impose changes to the collective agreement. This is a step forward, providing we can be abundantly sure that the default position will be the status quo. In other words, if the two parties at the bargaining table reach an impasse, the default position will be to revert back to the collective agreement which will stand in full force and effect as it is. Providing that is the understanding, we will support element three of the bill.

The final element of the bill we also support, and I will leave more details of this to my colleague from Hamilton Centre. It deals with personal bankruptcies, in this case for very wealthy people making $200,000 a year or more, which very few do. Usually only heads of crown corporations like David Dingwall make more than $200,000 a year. They would not be allowed to have their taxes discharged in the event of bankruptcy for a period of five years, during which time they would have to try to negotiate a payback period. In other words, the people of Canada have a chance to be made whole if these high income earners try to welsh out on the back taxes they owe to Canada.

I believe this traces its origins back to the Radwanski scandal. George Radwanski, the former privacy commissioner, owed $650,000 in back taxes and it was forgiven 24 hours before he started his job as a $230,000 a year privacy commissioner. There was no payback whatsoever to Canadians. That could not happen under the provisions of this new bill. He would have had to sit down and negotiate a five year payback period. In that scenario, making $230,000 a year as a privacy commissioner, he could have paid back $100,000 a year to the people of Canada and still earned a good salary as privacy commissioner. I support element four of Bill C-55.

We will support Bill C-55 because it is better than the status quo. It gives some relief to wage earners who are affected by bankruptcy. There are some good elements to it. We will be fighting for amendments at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, the point I was making I will make within the context of my speech. As much as we welcome the introduction of Bill C-55 and as much as we are pleased to be dealing with the important issue of benefits for employees who are the victims of a bankruptcy, we are critical in that the bill would do nothing to protect those employees who may lose their pensions altogether in a bankruptcy. In other words, if there is a $50 million shortfall in the pension plan when the company goes bankrupt, nothing in the bill guarantees the pensions of those workers. That was the point I was making to my colleague from the Bloc.

I will comment on the bill in some systematic order because there are four key elements to it. I disagree with my colleague from the Conservative Party. This is not a complicated bill. It is quite straightforward. It finds its origins in the principle that in the event of a bankruptcy the rights of workers should be paramount, they should be first, not dead last in order of priority as per the existing bankruptcy laws.

I would ask if there might be unanimous consent in the House to allow me to split my time with colleague from Hamilton Centre.

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

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the points brought forward by my colleague from the Bloc. In her opening comments she said that we were critical that Bill C-55 did nothing to protect workers' pensions in the event of a bankruptcy. In other words, if there were a massive shortfall in a pension of $20 million or $30 million, the employees of that bankrupt company would still be without their pensions at the end of the day. Could she elaborate on that point?