Bill C-290

Public Sector Integrity Act

An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act

This enactment amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to, among other things, expand the application of the Act to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to certain persons, extend the period during which a reprisal complaint may be filed and add a duty to provide support to public servants.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act .

Public Sector Integrity Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to support this bill going to committee. Obviously, whistle-blower protection is something quite serious and important. It is one of a few ways Canadians can come to know about misbehaviour or indeed rule-breaking and unethical behaviour within the government. The fact that Canada's whistle-blower regime needs to be improved is well known.

In 2021, the International Bar Association did a survey of about 50 different countries around the world, and Canada placed dead last in its assessment of our whistle-blower protection regime, so it stands to reason that we should take that to heart. In my first Parliament, in the 42nd Parliament, there was finally a rather extensive review of the legislation under a commitment by this very government that it would improve whistle-blower legislation. This resulted in a number of recommendations that were never acted upon.

We know, and it has been acknowledged in many different fora, both internationally and here at home, that our whistle-blower protection regime is not what it should be and not, what I dare say, Canadians expect.

If we want to talk about gatekeepers, as some do in this place, one of the important ways of trying to create accountability for gatekeepers is to have the people who work under them able to confidently identify instances where they are not doing what they should be doing, where they are not working in the public interest they have sworn to work under or where their political masters are not doing that either. It becomes very important indeed that we have that kind of protection.

Of course the leader of the Conservative Party is someone who likes to talk a lot about gatekeepers and wanting to protect Canadians against them, but it was actually he, as minister in 2006, who introduced this legislation, which has been roundly panned as a terrible way of protecting whistle-blowers within the Canadian public service. Canadians should ask themselves how it is that somebody who managed to design one of the worst whistle-blower protection regimes in the world, or certainly within the 50 countries that were examined by the International Bar Association, will fare as a prime minister trying to stand up to gatekeepers.

We notice in other areas, such as when we talk about housing, for instance, that he wants to stand up against gatekeepers. He pretends that it is only municipal governments that are the problem, and that if only we could push them to approve permits faster, we would solve the housing crisis. There is no mention of the massive corporations that are making billions of dollars with the financialization of the Canadian housing market and the kinds of things we could be doing to make that less of a lucrative enterprise for these large corporations to be renovicting tenants and putting them out on the street. There is no mention of that.

There is no mention of all the gatekeeping that happens in the economy by private actors. He is only seeing one part of the problem, which is government, and sometimes government is the problem. There are government gatekeepers, but here is an example where the cabinet minister had the opportunity to do something about a problem and actually designed one of the worst systems we know of to hold gatekeepers to account. I would just remind Canadians of some of these important facts this bill reminds me of, and it may remind others in the House, on the record of the leader of the official opposition.

However, I digress. It is important also to talk about the record of the government when it comes to whistle-blowing, because at one time the Prime Minister said that he cared about that and that he was aware of the shortcomings of Canada's whistle-blowing regime. Then, not for the first time, he did not follow through on making good on commitments to improve that regime.

Here we are, and a hot topic often in the House of Commons these days, and rightly so, is the extent to which firms such as McKinsey, and I will add, and would like to see my Conservative colleagues add these more often to that list, companies such as Deloitte, KPMG and others, which have also received huge contracts from the federal government.

How would one come to know about an 80-year contract, a contract that is good to the year 2100, is not competitive and does not lock in value for Canadian taxpayers, but actually just shifts expenditure from where it should be in a well-functioning, well-trained and well-supported public service to the arena of private contractors? We would expect somebody who was given the job of administering that contract to blow the whistle, but we cannot get access to that kind of information if people are worried that they will not be properly protected when they bring those kinds of things to light.

I think some of the contemporary topics here in the House of Commons highlight the importance of being able to get good information from our public servants by offering the protection they deserve when they see, in their workplace, that their superiors in the civil service or their political masters are not behaving in the public interest and doing things that rightly ought to be examined in this place, in the media and in all the other fora that matter when we talk about a well-functioning democracy.

We might also expect, frankly, a little more respect for our public servants. We are talking about whistle-blowing today, but another important aspect ties into this question around McKinsey, Deloitte, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers. The government, which says it really values public servants, values the work they did during the pandemic and values that going forward, is not coming to the bargaining table to bargain in good faith with the very workers it is willing to praise with words in this place. When they go back to their departmental offices and it is time for action and time to honour those words in the collective bargaining process, the government takes a pass.

PSAC members at the taxation centre in the riding I represent, Elmwood—Transcona, have been without a contract for two years now. The government will not come to the table to talk to them about the offer that workers have put on the table, so they are contemplating strike action. How does that represent the commitment to respect the civil service that the government made in 2015 when it was also talking about improving whistle-blower protection? It does not.

How dare the government plead poverty at the bargaining table and say it does not have money to pay public servants what they are worth when it is hemorrhaging money out to companies like McKinsey, Deloitte, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers to do work that properly belongs within the purview of the public service. It is unreal.

This perpetual inadequacy of the whistle-blower regime is just another way that a government that says it wants to respect its workers continues to show an incredible amount of disrespect to them. There is disrespect by not allowing them to bring forward problems from the workplace with adequate protections. There is disrespect by refusing to come to the bargaining table and negotiate in good faith. There is disrespect, while doing that, to be paying billions of dollars to private consultants to do the job that public servants were hired to do. The government then says it cannot invest in the public service. Well, that is poppycock because it has the money. It is just choosing to spend it elsewhere.

I am happy to be voting to send this bill to committee, not just to improve whistle-blower protection in Canada, which is long overdue, but also as part of a larger project of manifesting respect for our public servants, who, as others have said in this place, did an incredible service to Canadians in delivering pandemic relief programs on an urgent basis. In many cases, they did that from home while trying to manage children who were not at school and spouses who were also working their various jobs. It was difficult, and a lot of them still, as we all do, bear certain scars from that experience.

What has made it worse and what is tanking morale at a time when the federal government is struggling to provide basic services is this ongoing disrespect by not showing up at the bargaining table and not giving whistle-blowers the protection they deserve. Meanwhile, we find out the government has plenty of cash to pay its friends in the private sector to do the jobs of public servants.

That is why I am quite pleased to be voting to send this to committee, where I hope the whistle-blower portion of the project will be examined in greater detail.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a great bill.

I wondered which member had come up with this brilliant idea, and then I found out that it was the member for Mirabel, an inspiring member. How did he come up with this brilliant idea?

Unfortunately, people often mistakenly accuse us of looking for a fight, and yet we have plenty of solutions to offer all the time. The member for Mirabel had this fantastic idea to introduce a whistle-blower bill, after talking to people who had things to say to us, as one of the Mirabel member's look-alikes would put it. Anyone who watches Infoman once in a while knows what I am talking about.

After talking to people who had things to say to us and unfortunately perhaps felt uncomfortable saying those things, he came up with the fantastic idea of introducing this bill. I know that he spared no effort to move his idea forward. The bill we have today should reflect a consensus. I am under the impression that our NDP colleagues, our Liberal colleagues and our Conservative friends will be in favour of this, which shows that when members have good ideas, as is often the case with the Bloc Québécois, they can bring people together. It is fantastic to be able to bring about change.

Those were my congratulations. Now let us look at the issues at hand.

Only one person within the machinery of government is in a position to see the wrongdoing, illegal acts, instances of abuse of power—that, it must be said, still occur frequently—and, worse still, the political interference that often plays into decisions that should rest solely with the public service, not with partisan people. This means we have to live with the fact that, behind closed doors, public servants are often the eyes and ears of the people. The most important principle underlying democracy is access to information to make decisions. If mistakes are made from time to time and the information is not available, democracy as a whole suffers.

When I say that public servants are the eyes and ears of democracy when it goes on behind closed doors, that is contradictory because there is another principle of significant importance to public servants: the duty of restraint. We know they must obey a hierarchy, that loyalty and allegiance to authority cannot be challenged and discretion is necessary. Public servants are asked to remain politically neutral. That falls under their duty of restraint, their honesty, their impartiality and the absence of conflicts of interest.

None of these very essential principles is questioned in the bill that my colleague is introducing. What needs to be questioned is a situation where the search for public good is obstructed by public servants invoking the duty of restraint for sometimes questionable reasons such as covering up wrongdoing.

This bill is incredibly timely. Looking at the current context, we can see a phenomenon in federal politics that may have existed before, but that is now growing quite significantly. Private enterprise is replacing the state. Members probably know where I am going with this.

I am thinking among other things of McKinsey, a private company that becomes a substitute for the state and writes public policy. We are no longer in the realm of strategic advice or expertise that is obtained externally. We are purely and simply watching a private company replacing us as elected officials. If we had good politicians, and I include myself in the criticism, they would be able to introduce bills and define interesting guidance for the public service, and that would make us move forward. Today, the state apparatus is trying to move away from politician- and public servant-led initiatives and relying more frequently on private firms.

This is quite troubling, especially when it comes to immigration. Personally, I must admit that the Century Initiative frightens me.

Some people have spoken to us about this. Some public servants who receive and see these communication plans or development ideas come in think that this in no way applies to their reality, even though they are the ones who know best how their department works. Still, the Liberals continue to invest a lot of money in this and in these consultants.

Of course, these public servants' superiors could listen to them. They have means at their disposal, but when things become too intense or if they go against the common good, there must be a way to alert the public and the media to get the word out.

That is the purpose of the bill introduced by my colleague from Mirabel, a bill to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing. The bill has two objectives that are fairly simple but can have a significant impact. The first objective is to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoing in the public service, which can take many forms. The second objective is to establish a process for investigating the wrongdoing and help put an end to it.

The bill would create a mechanism of sorts that would allow a public servant to report wrongdoing while remaining anonymous. This person would be protected from reprisals, such as being fired or demoted. Even private companies that receive government contracts could be covered and protected from the non-renewal of their contract. That is good.

I was thinking about this today, and it occurred to me that maybe we should look back at some questionable, not to say controversial, actions taken in the past by the government, actions this bill might have allowed us to get more information about.

Since I am a sovereignist and that will never change, the first case that came to my mind was the sponsorship scandal. Allan Cutler, a.k.a. “Ma Chouette”, was working for the Department of Public Works in 1995 when he sounded the alarm and started communicating with journalists. He was demoted that same year.

If we take a close look, the objective of the sponsorship program was, to use a vulgar phrase, to grease friends' palms with generous subsidies while trying to sabotage the sovereignists by burnishing Canada's image. The scandal that was brought to light resulted in the demotion of a public servant in 1995, a person who would have been protected under this bill.

I am also thinking of public servants like Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gérard Lambert, who reported health risks associated with bovine growth hormone and the government's inadequate measures to prevent mad cow disease. In 2004, all three were fired because they had had the audacity and courage to blow the whistle on a situation that could have had considerable impacts on public health.

I am also thinking of Sylvie Therrien, who was involved in the employment insurance quota affair. Members will recall that, in 2013, the Conservative government imposed quotas on EI officers to ferret out “repeat EI claimants”. Ms. Therrien also incurred the wrath of the government because she had good intentions and wanted to raise a matter of public interest that made her work highly questionable.

I am also thinking of the University of Toronto's Centre for Free Expression, which said that the Phoenix scandal would probably have been brought to light much faster because several people wanted to be heard, but, once again, they feared the wrath of the public service and stayed quiet.

We could say the same thing about the Government of Quebec.

I will conclude by saying that it was high time such a bill was introduced. Based on a report by the International Bar Association, which compiled a list of 50 whistle-blower protection laws—

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

I do apologize, but the member is well over his time.

The hon. member for Mirabel has a five-minute right of reply.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues from all parties for taking the time to consider the bill that I have brought to their attention. There were some constructive and positive comments in absolutely every case. This gives me a lot of hope. I hope to see this bill studied in a non-partisan and constructive way in committee as well.

The people who need to be heard are not the MPs, certainly not the MP for Mirabel. Those who need to be listened to first are the public servants, the public service, those who work within the machinery of government and who feel a need to be better protected, even with the current protections in place.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary said that there are not a lot of reprisals. Some people have talked to me about reprisals, demotions and threats within the public service. These people think they need to be better protected. That is why I am standing before my colleagues and before the House today.

The ones we should be listening to are the Canadian Bar Association, the unions, the former whistle-blowers, the witnesses of all stripes who came by the dozens to testify before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates several years ago. To date, none of the report's recommendations have been implemented.

The International Labour Organization has pointed out the importance of having a more effective whistle-blower regime. Newspaper columnists and journalists have been raising this issue for years, telling us that it is time to take action, not to hold more consultations first. Of course, we can have consultations. However, the pursuit of excellence is an ongoing process that should not be impeded by holding more consultations.

If anyone talked to the whistle-blowers who contacted me and who are the very reason I introduced this bill, they would realize that what we need to do today is listen to common sense and the common-sense recommendations found in the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Many recommendations from that report were incorporated into this bill.

Essentially, it offers protection for more public servants, for contract workers, for former public servants. It offers more anonymity for those who file complaints as well as witnesses. When someone is called to testify, when someone has noticed irregularities, as a complainant has, they are not protected under the current law. We must be able to entrust certain investigations to the auditor general. As we know, his or her work is fundamental to assessing complaints.

It was through the work of Sheila Fraser, the auditor general at the time, that the sponsorship scandal was uncovered. Today we are working to prevent further reprisals, to rewrite and expand the definition of wrongdoing, and to give more time and resources to public servants who want to do their duty with peace of mind, honesty and loyalty to the government, which they must serve first.

I have had some positive signals from the government. Clearly, I have received signals that are more than positive from the two opposition parties supporting me today, and I note that, when I introduced my bill, the minister launched a round of consultations for potential amendments to the act. This would result in significant delays in improving a regime that could be improved today. I hope that these consultations, which are most welcome, will not impede the process leading to the amendment and passage of this bill.

In conclusion, I would like to remind members that whistle-blower legislation is obviously somewhat of a band-aid solution. It is no substitute in the long term for a profound change in culture in certain departments, Crown corporations and Crown agencies that need to make more significant changes to their way of doing things. I hope that the future coming into force of this bill will help them make changes in their culture that, in some cases more than others, are extremely necessary.

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

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 15, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.