Peter Julian

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood--Transcona, for sharing his time with me. I will not be able to match his eloquence or his depth and breadth on this subject, but I felt compelled to speak on this issue this evening.

I am appalled, as a new member of Parliament, and ashamed as a Canadian and a parliamentarian that so many years after this original crisis and with so many victims we have still not fully compensated victims of hepatitis C. I am appalled, and I cannot see an explanation for it. I cannot see an excuse for it. There is no reason why these victims have not been compensated. The money is there. The money has been put aside. It is gathering interest, $56 million a year. In a sense, in a very negative and evil sense, we are talking about blood money, money that has come as interest on the principal.

At the same time, 6,000 victims have not been compensated. I do not understand why. I am a new member of Parliament, but all I feel, and I echo the words of the member for Hochelaga, is that we must move quickly, in a matter of weeks, to finally address this issue. I understand that there are extenuating circumstances and it is a complex issue. There is no excuse, though, to my mind, for not promptly and rapidly compensating these victims.

I ran for Parliament because I am concerned about the disconnect that takes place between Parliament and our communities. I have received many letters, as I know other members of Parliament have, about this particular issue. One of the reasons why I wanted to speak to this issue this evening is to read into the record some of the letters that I have received from constituents in my riding of Burnaby--New Westminster dealing with this issue of victims and how they have suffered as a result of hepatitis C.

The first letter I would like to read is from a victim of hepatitis C in my riding who was infected in April 1991 through a blood transfusion after the delivery of a baby girl. After all of that, she has not been able to enjoy seeing her daughter growing up because of the pain caused by hepatitis C. She writes:

Finally I went for treatment for the hepatitis C in August of 2003. Treatment lasted for six months, but for me it felt like I was dying. I experienced weight loss of over 70 pounds, hair loss--I am still almost bald--rashes all over my body, racking pain all over my body, joint pain all over my body, black scars from the rashes all over my body, no appetite, vomiting 24 hours a day and 7 days a week for continuous periods, and diarrhea. To put it honestly, I went through hell. My marriage did not survive. My husband could not take the emotional and physical toll this disease had on me all these years. My family cannot believe how much pain, physically and emotionally, I have had to go through. It is very hard for them to see me suffer.

The second letter is from a victim of hepatitis C from my riding, who was infected in March 1993 through a blood transfusion:

Since contracting this debilitating disease, my health has worsened considerably, preventing me from working and severely affecting my everyday life. Not only am I weakened physically, but as a result of this disease and my disability to work, I must seek financial assistance in order to meet even the basic expenses. Needless to say, the double punishment I have received, infected through government negligence on top of discrimination in compensation, has left me feeling bitter and betrayed.

A final letter that I would like to cite this evening is from the husband of a hepatitis C victim, again in my riding, whose wife died in 1997 after 13 years of struggle with the disease:

My family's loss started in 1984, when my wife Margaret received tainted blood during a heart bypass operation, resulting in her contracting hepatitis C. Her years of suffering ended in her demise on May 6 of 1997, cheating her of a life she so enjoyed, as well as not seeing her grandchildren born after her death.

These are just some of the letters I have received. I know that other members of Parliament have received similar letters across the country. For goodness sake, 6,000 victims in the same situation, with money available now in a compensation fund that has not been allocated to these victims.

I see no reason to continue the suffering. I see no reason and no excuse for the delays. I see no legitimate justification for the continued suffering of these victims.

I rise to speak on this issue this evening to encourage the government. I know the House will fully support that. My colleague mentioned that we are looking at a motion coming forward to this House later this week, and I could only predict unanimous consent for the motion, that this government move rapidly, within a matter of weeks and not a matter of months, to compensate these victims, who have waited and who have suffered long enough.

I believe our function as parliamentarians is to address critical issues. This is a critical issue. I believe that when we have the resources available we must allocate them immediately, not put them in some fund gathering interest, blood money. We need to deal with this promptly. I would encourage the government to deal with it in the next few weeks.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on his presentation, which I found very interesting.

I agree with his comments about the Liberal government's bad management. We know full well that at the beginning of the year billions of tax dollars were cut from major profitable companies in Canada. Meanwhile, we know full well that in our communities across Canada people are suffering a great deal.

In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, St. Mary's hospital, a major hospital, closed its doors. We lost this hospital because of federal cuts and bad decisions by the provincial government. When I talk to people in my riding, I see to what extent young people feel abandoned by this government. The leader of the New Democratic Party talked about this earlier. The burden is on young people and students who now have to face debt in the tens of thousands of dollars. In my region of greater Vancouver, the number of homeless people has tripled in three years because of cuts at the federal and provincial levels and the existence of this fiscal imbalance.

There are so many crises—in the environment and employment insurance. Maybe it was not such a bad idea to change the name from unemployment insurance to employment insurance, because employment insurance only insures those who have a job. If people lose their job, they are no longer insured and they no longer have access to the money that is supposed to help them support their family.

Look at the situation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The waiting lists are getting longer.

My riding has felt the impact of all of this. I would like the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to tell us what impact this has had on his riding and to describe what people are going through because of the fiscal imbalance and the fact that the Liberals are keeping the money for big companies, but also for themselves.

[Supply, October 28th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I found the comments by the hon. member for Outremont very interesting, especially his claim that there is only one national party in this House.

If we look at the NDP, we can clearly see it is also present across the country. We do not have two faces like the Liberal Party shows in the provinces. All across the country, the NDP has always respected the French fact and the official languages. It was an NDP government in British Columbia that set up the francophone school board to respect the rights of francophones. It was the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba that passed official languages legislation to represent French-speaking minorities better in those two provinces. It was an NDP government in Ontario that augmented rights for francophones in that province.

New Democratic members like Léo Piquette, Alexa McDonough and Elizabeth Weir have worked in the provinces—Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta, for example—to promote the rights of francophones.

As a national party—a party that exists all across the country—we do not speak with one voice in Ottawa and another in the provinces. We are united, we are consistent and we are upholding our principles of promoting both official languages and the rights of both English- and French-speaking minority groups across the country. We respect the official languages.

It is interesting to be here today to debate the fiscal imbalance. We know very well that it is because, in the current make-up of this House, two thirds of Quebec's representatives are in the Bloc Québécois. We know that the Liberal Party's bad management has led us to the point we are at today, facing the same sort of quarrels and arguments that prevent the real needs of Quebeckers and all Canadians from being represented and respected.

We know there is a crisis of homelessness, a crisis in health care, a crisis in post-secondary education, a crisis in the fiscal imbalance. This is my question for the hon. member. Faced with all these facts, how can he claim that the Liberal government has advanced the cause of national unity and made Canada stronger than ever?

We know very well that in communities across this land, Canadians are suffering more than ever, that there are crises in many fields because of a lack of federal funding, and that all provinces have problems with the fiscal imbalance, which means that the immediate and urgent needs of Canadians are not being met.

[Financial Administration Act, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that the committee will have broad input and consultations, and that our public sector workers who must be valued will be consulted fully on this bill as it comes forward for improvement and for changes that can be made.

The point to underline and underscore is the record of the past couple of years with this government and its public sector workers. We have seen an appalling lack of respect shown to public sector workers, issues that have not been dealt with, contracts that have expired, and with no meaningful negotiations undertaken.

We have seen the fall in real wages and the use of temporary workers. We have seen the wage gap grow and certainly the one area which was table two, where a salary survey was undertaken, showed a 20% wage gap.

With all of that background, we then entered into these negotiations a few weeks ago, where the government did not negotiate in good faith and there was no respect shown to public sector workers. This is the appalling legacy of the past 10 years.

Public sector workers give enormously to their country and work very hard on behalf of all Canadians. They have not had their issue of wages addressed. They have not had the wage gaps addressed. Hopefully, that will start to change if we allow for the types of broad consultation with public sector workers on bills such as this.

It is not a good legacy of which to be proud. I certainly hope that we will see a shift with this minority Parliament that will allow public sector workers to be fully valued as they should be.

[Financial Administration Act, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the electors of Burnaby—New Westminster for their support on June 28. I would also like to underline the good work of organizations in my riding, such as the Hyack Festival, the New Westminster and District Labour Council and the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce.

I welcome the opportunity to present my views and those of my New Democratic Party colleagues on Bill C-8, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act, the Canada School of Public Service Act and the Official Languages Act. I would like to provide some background on the bill.

In November 2003 the Public Service Modernization Act, Bill C-25, received royal assent. The main intent of the legislation was to modernize the human resources management in the public service by adding the concept of merit, implementing a more flexible staffing system, incorporating learning activities, and this may seem hard to believe given the current state of affairs, improving labour management relations. The NDP supported Bill C-25 in principle but in the end voted against it.

Overwhelmingly, workers in the trade union movement, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada, strongly opposed many aspects of Bill C-25. The government refused to take into consideration their concerns and defeated at committee stage a number of progressive amendments. These amendments mainly dealt with the security of workers.

In came the new Liberal regime and on December 12, 2003, the Liberal government established by decree, or order in council, the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada as well as its functions. The agency was placed within the Treasury Board portfolio.

Government contended that the agency was the next logical step for implementing the Public Service Modernization Act, but since the agency was created by order in council, government had to follow up with Bill C-8, which was tabled this month, to confirm by legislative means the decree of the Prime Minister. This is therefore a technical or mechanical bill, as some would call it, which does not modify the functions or the powers given to the agency but which clarifies the role of the agency in the system.

The government maintains that Bill C-8 will allow for better integration of activities relating to the management of human resources within the sphere of operation of the Treasury Board. The government also maintains that this bill will ensure greater visibility of the agency inside and outside public services.

The bill adds the position of president of the agency but says nothing about the terms and remuneration of the president. I hope we can clarify this with officials at the committee stage.

More important, Bill C-8 confirms a potential significant delegation of powers to the president of the agency. The Treasury Board is relegated to the role of coordinator of the activities of the Treasury Board Secretariat, the president of the agency and of the new office of the comptroller of Canada. This office was reinstated after being canned by the Mulroney Conservatives in the early 1990s.

Given the track record of the Treasury Board on human resources issues, this may be a good idea after all. Maybe labour-management relations would finally improve, but it is fair to say it would be difficult for them to be worse. Bill C-8 keeps the door open to Treasury Board involvement. This makes me wonder about the capacity of the Treasury Board to effectively follow up and coordinate what it is supposed to coordinate. Perhaps some in the government think it would be a good thing to combine a junior partner and a senior partner to effectively deal with human resources issues.

Perhaps as part of the study of the bill in committee we should file access to information requests, targeting existing surveys and reports on job satisfaction at the Treasury Board. That information, I believe, would prove to be very interesting.

The president of the agency is provided with lots of powers over human resources management and human resources issues, in fact, as many as the President of the Treasury Board wishes to transfer, including employment equity issues, ethics, and powers conferred under the Public Service Employment Act.

Given all that, would it not then be appropriate that government consult with Parliament before appointing the president of the agency? Why then not make the president of the agency an officer of Parliament? After all, this is supposed to be an independent agency. I would like to see an amendment to that effect in proposed subsection 3.1.

Once again, this is a technical bill. We are trying very sincerely to find valid reasons to support it.

However we must be absolutely certain, first, that the government is not building up unnecessary expenses. The underlying philosophy of Bill C-8, in its potential implicit and explicit costs, must be assessed or reassessed and scrutinized at committee stage.

We must be sure that this will not entail wasteful spending by the government.

Was there any prior consultation on this agency? None that I know of at least. There is no substantial background documentation. One must wonder whether we are making things up on the go.

Is it improvising first and trying to justify the decision afterward?

The onus is on the government to make and prove its case. How can we respect the credibility of the Liberal government on those issues when we all know its dismal record in human resources management. Certainly with the public sector strikes this fall, the fact that many of the contracts were delayed and negotiations left public sector workers without contracts up to a year and a half, the fact of a fall in real wages of public sector workers who have lost about 10% of their real wages over the past 10 years, and the fact that table 2, the one salary survey that was done, showed a wage gap of 20% between public sector workers employed by the Government of Canada and those in the other public and private sectors. All of those facts indicate that there is a serious issue around human resources management and the lack of respect with which the government treats public sector workers.

I have many other questions about Bill C-8. I would like to find out what it will really mean for us and better understand its consequences for the public service.

Is the government attempting to clean up the mess created by the multiple scandals and abuses of the political purse? Is the agency just a smokescreen or an effective tool for management, or maybe, as I mentioned, it is just an improvisation?

First, an agency was announced last December. Then the government created the evidence for its need. Why would the civil service be better off with this scheme? We need evidence. How will the agency affect other departments? We need evidence. How would this agency ensure a better service from and a better treatment of civil servants. We also need evidence.

As an hon. member already mentioned, the Treasury Board website provides an elaborate plan of action for this agency. On paper it looks fantastic. However, the real challenge will be to demonstrate that these changes will translate into positive and tangible results with respect to the way the government does business. That has not yet happened. It will take years after Bill C-8 is adopted to find out whether the outcome is good for the people of Canada.

We must think of the challenge in trying to hold the government accountable to all of this. Again, there is no guarantee that this will work. The government has shown that it has difficulty in many respects controlling its own departments. How can it control the proliferation of agencies and related outcomes? The more separate places that exist, the less transparency we will have and the more difficult it may become to have effective control.

We are concerned about the proliferation of agencies. The Auditor General herself has commented on the lack of control and on the lack of accountability mechanisms. From Genome Canada, $375 million were poured in for just a few dozen genomic research positions, to the Canada Foundation for Innovation and many others. These agencies are not under the same scrutiny. There is always the same pattern, a small overworked staff relying on outsiders, and none of that is subject to Treasury Board accountability and regulation.

We know the Treasury Board regulations themselves are in serious need of overhaul given the scandals during the election campaign, for example, the expenses for staff at Citizenship and Immigration who were put up in hotels here in Ottawa according to Treasury Board guidelines. It was a cost to taxpayers of more than $30,000.

I am not saying that these agencies do not do good work. I am sure that many competent and dynamic Canadian men and women work hard in them. Still, there is taxpayers' money involved, and these agencies do not really have the means for supervision and monitoring.

There is much talk about the all wonderful program activity architecture, or PAA, to regulate accountability and record it. The PAA went ahead with virtually no documentation, no policy backgrounder and no consultation, again making things up on the go. I would not be the least surprised that not all government departments and agencies have officially submitted their PAA with the signature of the relevant minister.

I have another major concern. How will all of this affect the venerable Public Service Commission? We heard, during the introduction of Bill C-8, the President of the Treasury Board state that the Public Service Commission of Canada was moving away from a managerial role to an auditing role.

Effectively, through Bill C-11, the whistleblowing legislation that is currently before committee, the Treasury Board is giving the public commission a new mandate which is to deal with wrongdoing and whistleblowing in the public service.

The government decided not to create an independent body when in the case of whistleblowing there is indeed a compelling case in favour of creating an independent body to oversee the application of this important legislation. Responding to more calls for an independent whistleblowing agency, the Treasury Board president stated at committee that we should be working to modernize existing rules and procedures rather than add a new body to the public service. That begs the following question: Why is the government then creating a human resources agency when it clearly did not provide the rock solid evidence that was needed? Why is the government refusing to create an independent oversight agency for whistleblowing when there is compelling and overwhelming evidence in favour of such an agency?

I have more. During its presentation to the committee on Bill C-11, the Treasury Board admitted that by giving the mandate to deal with whistleblowing to the Public Service Commission, Bill C-11 would create a conflict of interest situation since the Public Service Commission, a body that holds executive powers over the public service, such as hiring staff, would also have to answer complaints of wrongdoings.

Does this confirm that the government is bent on stripping the Public Service Commission from its hiring powers? We already know that the HR agency proposed by Bill C-8 could be the recipient of many of those powers. Is the President of the Treasury Board paving the way for legitimizing the new HR agency that Bill C-8 would entrench into legislation?

It is strange that, while this government has so far been opposed to the creation of an independent agency to monitor whistleblowing, the same government has not succeeded in demonstrating that the agency created by Bill C-8 is necessary.

Canadians know full well that only an independent agency, operating outside the government, can effectively guarantee that public servants who blow the whistle on wrongdoings will truly be protected.

The government has said no. But this is simply a question of common sense. Unless, of course, someone is trying to protect the minister from the employees and not the other way around.

In fact, there could be an even better solution for whistleblowing supervision. Why not give such a mandate to the Auditor General? It would be a natural extension of the mandate of the Auditor General, not the job of the Public Service Commission or a human resources commission. This would mean that we may not even need to spend money on another independent agency since independence is the middle name for the Auditor General's office. It would be a win-win for our rights as Canadian citizens and a win-win for civil servants and taxpayers.

The non-partisan, venerable and effective Public Service Commission is losing influence due to the proliferation of agencies. Why are we tampering and improvising from one patchwork to the next and weakening government institutions?

We owe it to the taxpayers, the civil servants and the citizens of Canada to question the rationale for the creation of the human resources agency and to ask for evidence that its creation will actually address problems and not create them, and relate all arguments to the basic question: Why another agency if the government has difficulty controlling existing agencies and departments?

The case for the human resources agency proposed by the Prime Minister in December 2003, and which Bill C-8 seeks to legitimize, has yet to be made. I am looking forward to having all of these questions answered at committee.

[Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, since 1997, “Navigating the Waters”, a national employment initiative of the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres, has supported over 5,000 persons with disabilities by helping them upgrade their skills and find jobs at a cost of only $950,000 per year. It does not take a lot of math to see that this is a very good deal for the public purse.

With an unemployment rate for persons with disabilities of more than 50% and a fiscal surplus exceeding $9 billion, I cannot imagine why the government is cutting the funding to such a program as of December this year.

“Navigating the Waters” is on death row and has had so far two stays of execution. This is a real scandal.

This program is restoring equality and dignity to thousands of Canadians. I ask that the minister immediately revoke this death sentence.

[Criminal Code, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-10 on behalf of my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I want to thank the electors of Burnaby--New Westminster for the confidence they expressed in me on June 28, as well as underline the good work that many organizations in our community do, such as the Nikkei Centre, the Japanese Canadian National Museum and Archives, Queensborough and MacPherson Sikh Temples and Crystal Mall, which is the centre of the Chinese community in my riding.

I would like to speak to Bill C-10, which is a response to the June 2002 report of the justice and human rights standing committee. The report reviewed the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code and the committee recommended 19 specific reforms, as well as further consultation and research. Among the changes recommended by the committee were: improving the definition of mental disorder, fitness to stand trial, the repeal of hospitalization orders, and the need for adequate treatment.

The bill attempts to cover the issues of how to deal with accused individuals unfit to stand trial. This means that they are so incapacitated that they cannot be tried, convicted or acquitted.

Provincially appointed review boards are charged with the task of determining how an unfit accused should be supervised. This legislation therefore increases the authority of the review boards. Those boards would be empowered to order psychiatric assessments of the accused, decide whether to require the presence of the accused at a hearing rather than to use detention, and lengthen the time between review hearings when appropriate.

The bill allows victims to read a victim impact statement at a review board hearing and allows for publication bans to protect victims or witnesses.

Bill C-10 would allow for the transfer of a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder if the transfer would promote the recovery or treatment of the accused.

These are all very important measures that we can fully support on principle, with some caveats related to the expanded law enforcement powers and to some extent the increased powers of the review panel, which will have to be scrutinized at committee stage.

Generally, Bill C-10 seems to be a good response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. It deals with complex issues in obscure legalese, and requires a high degree of legal proficiency.

I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of setting standards for clear and simple language in legislation and legal documents. Should a member of Parliament have to be a lawyer in order to be able to do his or her work and understand a bill? In order to read and understand Bill C-10 properly, one needs a copy of the Criminal Code.

I urge the government to introduce bills that are written in plain and accessible language. Please, do not tell me those who want to participate in the democratic life in this country need to be lawyers. We should not write bills that can be deciphered only by a few hand-picked lawyers who are paid $400 an hour.

I also want to emphasize the absolute necessity that people with a mental disorder be well represented. This brings up the fundamental issue of access to justice.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination--

Equal access to justice is one of the fundamental principles of society and a constitutional right of every Canadian. This is simply not a reality for many Canadians. Courts, both civil and criminal, are blind to the financial costs of legal action and, as a result, fail to provide equal and just protection to everyone. The reality is that access to the judicial process is dependent on wealth and this means that those with money reap the rewards while those without are often left behind.

When Bill C-29 was before the House, my colleague and former NDP MP from Dartmouth, Wendy Lill, said:

Imagine that the rights conferred by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were only available if they were affordable. Imagine if our rights to life, liberty and security were available only if we were sufficiently wealthy to secure them for ourselves. What if the right to have a court proceeding translated into a language that we understand were violated because the government stance is that only those who can afford to hire their own translators can enjoy these rights? What if our right to be fairly represented by counsel amounted to nothing more than our ability or inability to hire the best lawyer we could afford?

Again, even our systems of legal aid are failing to do their part as discrepancies between provinces, inconsistent results and underfunding have placed the entire system in crisis. We know that the Minister of Justice called on the legal community to increase pro bono work and that he is very much supportive of a broader, more democratic access to justice and to legal services.

If all our lawyers were as committed to serving the community, I have little doubt in my mind that voluntary guidelines would be sufficient to entice the legal community to provide significant pro bono legal work for all those who need it, particularly the poor and the mentally or physically challenged.

In the real world, not all lawyers can afford to do so. Justice demands from most lawyers more than they are willing or able to give away. Only a minority would go above and beyond, and only a minority would consistently trade a conventional bottom line for a non-conventional bottom line.

In fact, Edward Greenspan, a well renowned criminal lawyer, once said, and I quote, “A lawyer can't turn away a client just because he's charged with an odious crime any more than a doctor can't refuse to treat a patient just because he suffers from an odious illness”. I would add that a lawyer cannot turn away a client just because he is poor or mentally challenged any more than a doctor cannot refuse to treat a criminal just because he suffers from being a criminal.

We have a system of legal aid that should be precisely available for this purpose. Unfortunately, the system is underfunded and very narrowly focused. The system falls under provincial jurisdiction, which complicates a coast to coast to coast approach and strategy to fix the problem.

We need a system of legal aid in this country that is wide enough to be available to ordinary Canadians. We need a system that is deep enough to deal with the difficult cases and with the long term supervision of people who suffer from mental disorders. In sum, we need a legal aid environment that would make it easier for professionals to be at their best in their humanity, a legal environment where a lawyer does not have to be a hero to bring justice to the poor and the challenged, and tax incentives for pro bono work to service requirements that young lawyers should provide to the community.

We must also recognize that the costs of law school are increasingly unaffordable and we should provide more generous tuition credits to increase the number of law school students. This is also important and would address some of the issues facing post-secondary education. Surely, adequate funding and better integration with appropriate fiscal incentives to represent those with lower incomes would be a good place to start.

We in the NDP caucus support this bill in principle and support its referral to committee for further assessment and improvement. We look forward to continuing our involvement in passing this important piece of legislation.

[Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak to Bill C-11, the first bill to which I have spoken in the House. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my constituents from Burnaby and New Westminster for having elected me to this august body on June 28, 2004.

I would like to take the opportunity to stress, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre has, the importance of the legislation for good governance. This is legislation that has been repeatedly promised by successive Liberal governments, first in the red book of 1993, which, as we know, promised the protection of civil servants as a result of the scandals that plagued the Mulroney government.

It was again promised with Bill C-25, which was introduced in the spring of 2002, 11 years later, which was in fact a bill that, to quote my colleague from Winnipeg Centre who has done a tremendous amount of work on this issue, was more aimed at protecting ministers from whistleblowers than whistleblowers from ministers. One can understand the rationale, given that the current scandals that affect the Liberal government are handsomely competing with those of the Conservative government that preceded it.

Bill C-25 had major flaws. All critics agreed that it failed miserably in creating a sense of security to whistleblowers. It failed to cover political staff, the RCMP and national security bureaucrats. It discouraged civil servants from coming out to expose corruption. In fact, when the bill was reintroduced in 2004, some of my colleagues from the 37th Parliament received anonymous calls from public servants who wanted to come out with more information on corruption but who were discouraged by the bill.

Bill C-25 died a good death on the order paper with the 2004 federal election and, of course, whistleblowing legislation was promised again in the Liberal platform. Now we have another reincarnation with Bill C-11.

This new version is indeed improved but I have concerns. There are structural deficiencies which would prevent the desired effect of such a bill, which is to clean up the corruption in government while protecting civil servants. As long as civil servants believe that their organizational culture does not protect them from reprisals or may in fact support reprisal, they will be deterred from coming forward to report misconduct.

I do believe, along with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, that major work needs to be done at committee stage. I compliment the government for referring this bill immediately to committee without having it go through second reading. That would have made major changes impossible since those changes would have gone against the principle of the bill.

The two most important concerns are the following: Bill C-11 replaces the toothless commissioner in Bill C-25 with a complex reporting mechanism involving the Public Service Commission of Canada and a whole array of codes of conduct which, as we now know, are last in, first out, in the case of conflict and deterrence.

The President of the Treasury Board said that the Public Service Commission of Canada was moving away from a managerial role to an auditor role. Why would the Public Service Commission want to get involved in auditing, in issuing subpoenas or setting deadlines for CEOs to respond to recommendations?

As we know, the Public Service Commission has other fish to fry.

When it comes to government and good governance, auditing means the Auditor General. We have seen the good work of this body in which we have full confidence. We absolutely need an independent review mechanism. The Auditor General or another independent officer of Parliament, call it the public sector integrity commissioner or whatever, would be able to do the job and do it efficiently and, most important, report to Parliament.

Bill C-11 has a broader range of coverage and includes employees of crown corporations and the executive, with the exception of CSIS, the uniform members of the RCMP and Canadian Forces. Again, I believe that unless there is an independent review outside the sphere of government, the legislation will not produce the intended effect. We must separate the oversight of the government of the day from the public service.

We need an independent commissioner. The government seems to be in a hurry to set up agencies that can be used as an extension of its policies and where it can hide money for programs beyond the scrutiny of the Auditor General. It is out of the question to give powers to an independent commissioner who would be nothing more than an officer of the House.

Again, why not use the Auditor General? Why not have someone reporting directly to Parliament?

In committee, we need to consider other issues that have something to do with the old saying “The devil is in the details”. Some of these issues have already been raised by the hon. member for Repentigny and my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

Let me mention, for instance, the threat of harsh disciplinary action against public servants making unfounded allegations.

In that case, whistleblowers should file a complaint with other bodies, such as the Industrial Relations Board, which could take up to 18 months. The reverse onus is on the victims to prove their innocence, and that is not real protection against undue risk.

What would the legislation do to protect the rights of those who have already paid the price of the government's inertia? My thoughts are with those three doctors who were fired for denouncing the health hazard of the use of BGH, bovine growth hormone. They should have been nominated for the Order of Canada. I am speaking of Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gérard Lambert. We must look at introducing some retroactivity to protect those individuals.

In conclusion I would like to read an excerpt from an article that was written in the Ottawa Citizen about the victims of our lack of legislation. It reads:

Despite the absence of legislation, employees of conscience have spoken out. At Health Canada, Dr. Michele Brill-Edwards sounded the alarm about the arbitrary drug approval process, including a rush to market of inadequately tested products. Likewise, Health Canada veterinarians Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert spoke out and testified at Senate hearings about the risks associated with bovine growth hormone.

Diplomat Brian McAdam and, subsequently, veteran RCMP officer Robert Read revealed corruption in Canada's consulate-general in Hong Kong and risks to our national security through fraudulent visa schemes and penetration of our immigration computer system by organized crime. And Col. Michel Drapeau denounced corruption among senior military brass and was an outspoken critic during the arbitrarily truncated Somalia inquiry.

As one of the most profiled whistleblowers in Canada, Dr. Nancy Olivieri sparked an international debate on the erosion of the sacred principle of university independence from corporate influence. Threatened when she sought to disclose adverse drug trial results to her entrusted patients, she remains, 10 years later, embroiled in costly and draining litigation.

All were fired except McAdam, whose destroyed health forced retirement, and Brill-Edwards, who conscientiously resigned. For Brill-Edwards, employment came at the price of a weekly train commute from Ottawa to Toronto.

These victims of the absence of legislation underscore the importance of the legislation. We have fought hard to bring the legislation forward. We will be fighting equally hard in committee and in Parliament to make the legislation better so that it truly protects whistleblowers in Canada.

[Public Service, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. More than 120,000 public servants have started their strike. These people have suffered an actual loss of earnings of nearly 10% over the past 10 years. What is clear, as confirmed by the conciliation boards, is that the government's stonewalling is unjustified.

Why is this government so disrespectful with its front line workers who provide vital services to our country while it so liberally distributes bonuses and severance packages to its senior political staff?

[Industry, October 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

More than 11,000 Canadian businesses were taken over by foreign investors under the Mulroney and Chrétien governments. Nothing could be easier than getting Investment Canada's green light for an acquisition; the light is always green.

Will the minister commit today to review the Investment Canada Act to secure an effective examination of foreign takeovers of Canadian firms, including human rights, labour and sustainability standards, starting with the expected Minmetals purchase of Noranda?