That is the motion I am proposing
today, Mr. Speaker, and it is seconded by my colleague,
the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.
I am presenting that motion
because we feel that the public service in this Province
should fall under the same protection as do the Officers
of the House of Assembly and the statutory offices of
the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. So we feel that
right now to deny these protections to public servants
we are in fact stifling any particular legitimate
complaints that could come forward for investigation.
Mr. Speaker, whistleblower legislation would allow a
government employee or a senior staff member to talk
about critical problems within government without facing
disciplinary action.
If we had it in place, for
example, a lab worker may have promptly reported
problems with testing of tissue samples and hormone
receptors at Eastern Health long before we ever came to
the conclusion that there was a problem there. Because
there was no protection for health care providers and
people who worked in the health care system, I am not
surprised that the issue around hormone receptor testing
went on for as long as it did in this Province
unreported. Even if there was – and I am not suggesting
that there were people who knew the difference, I am not
suggesting that at all – what I am saying is that if was
a problem and someone was aware of it and they had to
have come forward they were certainly at a risk of
losing their job. They were at a risk of being
disciplined in their workplace. Maybe suspended without
pay or some other kind of retribution.
Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is
that we should ensure that protections are there. Maybe
in the case of Eastern Health and the faulty hormone
testing that occurred in the laboratories for several
years may have been detected much earlier if the workers
were protected and had the ability to be able to come
forward and to make complaints without fear of losing
their jobs or being disciplined in some other manner.
Another good example, Mr. Speaker,
is the spending scandal that occurred within the House
of Assembly; the spending scandal and the abuses of
allowances by MHAs that went on for a period of time,
without being detected. I am not saying, Mr. Speaker,
that there were people in the staff of the House of
Assembly at the time who knew what was happening but I
am saying that if there was and the legislation was in
place they would have been protected. Mr. Speaker, maybe
we would not have had the spending scandal and the
misappropriation of allowances by MHAs that we had that
went on for such an extended period of time if there had
to have been people employed within the House of
Assembly that were protected if they were reporting
anything that they saw to be suspicious or divulging
information that they thought should be shared with
higher authorities or people in positions of authority.
If they thought that they could do that without risking
their terms of employment maybe we would have detected
that much earlier.
Mr. Speaker, what happened was
this, after these particular incidents that had occurred
there was a report that was done by Chief Justice Derek
Green. In his report he recommended that there be
protection put in place for the staff in the statutory
offices of the House of Assembly so that if there were
reports coming forward, then these employees could be
protected. That was built into our new legislation when
we passed it in the House of Assembly.
With the exception of some of the
members who were recently elected in by-elections,
everyone else who is in this House would have voted on
that legislation. Mr. Speaker, they obviously voted to
uphold the fact that there should be whistleblower
legislation in place for statutory offices of the House
of Assembly and for employees of the House of Assembly.
Why did government not take that a
step further and make it binding on all government
departments and agencies of government such as school
boards, health boards and so on? Why did that not
happen? I guess that is the reason we are bringing this
motion to the floor of the House of Assembly today
because if it is good for one group of people within the
public service, why is it not good for all groups of
people? Why is it not good for all departments?
I think it goes back, and I think
we have to go back a little further. We will go back to
2006. You will all remember the incident that happened
with teachers in the Province going back to that
particular date. At that particular time, Mr. Speaker,
the Member for Grand Bank was actually, I think, the CEO
of the Eastern School District. It was the Member for
Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker, who suspended teachers from
that school board simply because they spoke out at a
forum. The forum was talking about stress that teachers
are facing within the education system. It was about
stress that they were dealing with in the classroom;
very legitimate issues I would say to hon. members –
very legitimate issues in terms of respecting what
people out there working on behalf of citizens in the
Province often have to go through.
In the case where these two
teachers spoke out, they were disciplined. They were
disciplined by then the CEO, who happens to be the
Member for Grand Bank today, who was the CEO of the
school board at that time – very proudly, Mr. Speaker,
was out in the media speaking about this issue, talking
about suspending teachers who were outlining very
publicly the fact that there was stress in their jobs,
stress in their schools, issues that were confronting
them as professionals who were working in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, these two teachers
were suspended for a week, they were suspended without
pay, and they were suspended for what? Voicing their
opinion regarding workload and stress issues in the
workplace; that is what they were suspended for. It is
not like they uncovered, Mr. Speaker, a big scandal of
some kind. It was nothing of the sort. It was employees
who were frustrated, who had issues with workload that
had some stress and they were speaking out. They were
suspended by the CEO of the Eastern School District, who
happened to be the Member for Grand Bank, Mr. Speaker.
What we are saying is that we need
to do something to protect these particular workers. The
government opposite felt the need to do that as well,
because if they did not they would not have made the
commitment in their Blue Book in 2007. In 2007, Mr.
Speaker, at that time their leader, who was the Leader
of the government, who was the Premier, was out saying
that he pledged that a new Tory government will
implement whistleblower laws in the next session of the
House of Assembly. That they would at the earliest
opportunity - this was in 2007, in the middle of an
election. You talk about Stephen Harper making
commitments and breaking promises.
In 2007 the Tory government, Mr.
Speaker, was out knocking on doors in this Province
telling the people of the Province that we are going to
bring in whistleblower legislation at our earliest
opportunity so that public servants, so that teachers,
so that health care workers who see things that are
going on in their workplace are able to speak out
without being suspended like those teachers were by the
Member for Grand Bank; without being sent home from
their jobs and their paycheques held back. This is what
the Conservative government was telling people. It is no
wonder they are standing shoulder to shoulder with
Stephen Harper today, Mr. Speaker. It is no wonder they
think it is okay for the federal government to make
commitments boldly in the face of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and then retract on those commitments,
because they did the very same thing. They did the very
same thing in 2007 when they went to the people of this
Province and said, we will promise and commit to bring
in whistleblower legislation at the earlier convenience
in the Legislature, and it never happened.
A year later, Mr. Speaker, when
they were bringing in their Throne Speech that spring,
when the new session of Parliament was opening, right
before the Budget came down - and this will tell you how
much you can read into a Throne Speech by a Conservative
government in this Province, absolutely nothing, I say
to government members, nothing. Let me tell you what you
said. You had the Lieutenant-Governor come in here, sit
in the Speaker’s Chair in this very House of Assembly,
and you had the Lieutenant-Governor read from the Throne
Speech your words as a government, where you talked
about Chief Justice Derek Green’s report and the fact
that he had recommended there be whistleblower
legislation implemented in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In your Throne Speech you said,
"Among his recommendations was a call for
‘whistleblower’ legislation establishing procedures for
the disclosure of wrongdoings and for protecting public
servants who disclose wrongdoings.
"My Government will introduce
whistleblower legislation this year after appropriate
consultation has taken place."
That was the commitment in the
Throne Speech in 2008. Since then, Mr. Speaker, we have
had a Throne Speech in 2009, we have had one in 2010, we
have had one in 2011, and they have yet to act on that
commitment.
Mr. Speaker, there are others out
there who are calling for this legislation, including
NAPE itself. Public servants themselves want to see this
legislation. We had a report of the Legislature and, Mr.
Speaker, the recommendations of the Chief Justice at the
time was that the legislation should be implemented and
put in place. We had commitments from the government
themselves saying that they would do it. Yet, Mr.
Speaker, they withdrew their support and they did not do
it.
Why did they not do it? Let me
tell you. Let me tell you what they said as a
government. This is after promising it, Mr. Speaker, in
the middle of a campaign when they were knocking on
doors. This was after having the Lieutenant-Governor
come into this House, sit in that Chair where you sit
today hon. Speaker, and read to the people of the
Province that we are committed to bringing in
whistleblower legislation, and to date they have not
done it.
This is their explanation. They
said it is just a law that would be used by people who
may have a personal vendetta against the government for
the wrong reasons. Now, how paranoid can one government
get, I say? I say, be men and women; be responsible
parliamentarians, Mr. Speaker. We cannot bring this in
because there might be someone out there with a vendetta
against the government, and they may use this for the
wrong reasons? What kind of an excuse is that, Mr.
Speaker, for not giving public servants in this Province
the ability to free speech, the ability to report
wrongdoings within government departments and agencies
without being disciplined, without being punished, and
without having to lose their jobs? The government is so
fickle, they are so paranoid, and they are so scared
that they cannot do this because there might be a
vendetta against the government by one of these public
servants and then they would use it for the wrong
reasons.
Mr. Speaker, they also cited the
fact that they could not do this because things like the
access to information legislation are already creating a
burden for their Administration. Because people have the
ability to have access to information, it is taking up
too much of their time to inform the public. Too much of
our time is being used giving out information, so we do
not want to add to that. We do not want to be burdened
by people in this Province who really want to know what
is going on. No, we are the government, Mr. Speaker, we
do not want to be burdened by people. I say to
government, honour the commitment that you made. Support
whistleblower legislation and stand in your place today
and tell the people of this Province that there should
be freedom of speech -
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne):
Order, please!
MS JONES:
- and they should be able to do it
without being punished.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today
that the hon. members of the Opposition have brought
this motion to the floor of this House. Mr. Speaker, we
have been questioned from time to time, in Question
Period mostly, with respect to why we have not brought
in stand-alone whistleblower legislation during our
tenure as government of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds we
have in Question Period we do not have an opportunity to
do the answer justice. Instead, what it does is offers
the Opposition the opportunity to make negative
innuendos and allegations and question government’s
motives and whatnot about whistleblower legislation, and
failure to keep up with our commitments and whatnot.
There is very little opportunity in a few seconds to
respond to their questions to get the government’s
position right, Mr. Speaker.
Today, Mr. Speaker, by bringing
this resolution to the floor of the House, it gives us
the opportunity to make full response and explain to the
people of this Province where we are on whistleblower
legislation and our rationale for our position. Mr.
Speaker, this debate today should be very helpful to the
public in understanding the position of this government
about this rather sensitive and very complicated issue.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution part
of the motion put forward today is that the government
consider the immediate extension – the immediate
extension – of whistleblower protection to all
provincial and municipal public servants in order to
ensure their ability to freely disclose information
about something they believe to be harmful to the
public’s interest without the fear of workplace
retribution or retaliation.
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader is then, in making this motion, asking the House
of Assembly to call upon government to immediately, and
I emphasize the word immediately, consider extending the
whistleblower protections that are currently afforded to
the public service employees under part 6 of the House
Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity, And
Administration Act; to extend that whistleblower
protection to include all provincial and public
servants. That is what the motion asks, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning,
let me say that we will not be supporting this motion;
for a very simple reason: that the motion calls for the
immediate consideration and extension of whistleblower
legislation.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did, in 2007,
promise in our blueprint - we promised in our 2007
blueprint - that we said we would: a Progressive
Conservative government will develop whistleblower
legislation. We deliberately said develop, Mr. Speaker,
because that indicates that it will be an unfolding
process, an unfolding process.
To do so immediately, Mr. Speaker,
as suggested by the hon. Opposition, would be
irresponsible, and not in the best interests of
Newfoundland and Labrador. It would not be in the best
interest to bring in legislation simply because other
jurisdictions have it, or bring in legislation that
would be mired in bureaucracy, with pitfalls, mired in
secrecy, misguided, and unaccountable.
So, Mr. Speaker, for that reason,
we will not support this motion. Not because we do not
support whistleblower legislation. We have been
considering and continue to consider whistleblower
legislation, Mr. Speaker, for a number of years – and we
continue to do so – but we will be voting against the
motion, because the motion directs us to proceed
immediately, when good government planning and prudence
dictates otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of
questions one might ask when trying to strike a right
balance with whistleblower legislation, and none of
these questions, Mr. Speaker, are easily answered.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that
there is no need to call upon government to consider
immediately such an initiative, because, as I mentioned
earlier, this government has been considering, and
continues to consider whistleblower protections for
public service employees. Mr. Speaker, to do so
immediately, as I mentioned, would not be responsible.
Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all,
explain to the hon. members and members of the public,
exactly what whistleblower protection means.
Whistleblowers are usually defined as those who disclose
information about something they believe to be harmful
to the public interest occurring in business or in
government. For example, if you report something like an
employee falsifying travel claims or some mechanic or
engineer who is making shortcuts in maintenance all
which might risk public safety. These would be the sorts
of things that whistleblowers would inform on. The
whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, establishes a
framework for the disclosure of these wrongdoings by the
public servants. It enables public servants to disclose
a serious wrongdoing without fear or threat of reprisal.
Mr. Speaker, generally a
wrongdoing is defined broadly in Canadian whistleblower
legislation. It includes, Mr. Speaker, an act or
omission constituting an offence under provincial or
federal laws or an act or omission that creates a
substantial and specific danger to the life or health or
safety of persons or to the environment. Other than the
danger, of course, that is inherent in the performance
of the duties or the functions of an employee. It is
also defined to include gross mismanagement including in
public funds or a public asset. A wrongdoing would be
knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a
wrongdoing. That is how wrongdoing is defined broadly in
whistleblower legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2007
this government introduced new legislation entitled, the
House Of Assembly Accountability Integrity And
Administration Act, which legislation governs the
effective administration of the House of Assembly, the
standards of conduct of elected members and their
ethical and accountable behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, part 6 of the House
of Assembly Accountability Integrity and Administration
Act contains whistleblower protection for employees of
the public services of the Province who disclose
information relating to a wrongdoing committed by the
Speaker, by a member or an officer of the House of
Assembly, or a person employed in the House of Assembly
in statutory offices. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in a
later presentation this afternoon will refer to other
pieces of legislation that includes whistleblower
protection.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, if a
public servant reasonably believes that he or she has
information that could show that a wrongdoing has been
committed by the Speaker, or by members or by an officer
of the House of Assembly, or a person employed by the
House of Assembly is about to or commit or may make a
disclosure to his supervisor that something untoward is
going to happen, he can do it, Mr. Speaker, without fear
or threat of a reprisal.
Mr. Speaker, reprisal, what does
reprisal mean? What do we mean a fear of reprisal? What
can happen to you for disclosing a wrongdoing? What are
some of the fears or concerns people might have? A
reprisal might be a disciplinary measure taken against a
person for making a report. It might be a demotion. It
might be termination of employment. It might be a
measure that adversely affects his or her employment in
some way. Or it might be a threat to take a measure to
affect his employment in some way.
Mr. Speaker, this government is
well aware that there are jurisdictions in Canada that
have enacted whistleblower legislation for wrongdoings
committed by members of the public service; a number of
them across Canada. We have examined them all, talked to
the officials in these jurisdictions and reviewed them
all, Mr. Speaker, because we have actually been silent
or inactive on this in the last few years.
In Ontario, Mr. Speaker, part 6 of
the Public Service of Ontario Statute Law Amendment Act,
2006 is whistleblower legislation for Ontario. Manitoba
has a Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower
Protection) Act, 2006. New Brunswick has the Public
Interest Disclosure Act, which received Royal Assent in
2007. Nova Scotia has civil service disclosure of wrong
doing regulations made under section 45 of the Civil
Service Act, 1989. Mr. Speaker, there are jurisdictions,
four as a matter of fact, in this country that have
whistleblower legislation.
We are also aware that Prince
Edward Island Opposition Leader tried to introduce
whistleblower legislation into his Legislative Assembly
in 2010, but the bill was voted down by the current
Liberal Government due to its many flaws. We are also
aware, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia has been
looking into comprehensive whistleblower legislation but
has yet to enact any legislation; neither has Alberta,
neither has the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, the
Yukon or Quebec.
That tells us something, Mr.
Speaker. This tells us that Newfoundland and Labrador is
not unique in exercising due diligence to ensure that
any whistleblower legislation that we do enact best
serves the needs of the people of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out so
often in question period, officials in my department
have attended a national conference on public interest
disclosure legislation to discuss the experiences of
other jurisdictions; they have formed working
relationships with their counterparts and continue the
dialogue with them. We continue to monitor these
jurisdictions with whistleblower legislation and have
discussions with them.
Mr. Speaker, we are considering
whistleblower legislation and we continue to do so. Mr.
Speaker, that flurry of provincial legislation
protecting whistleblowers follows a move by the federal
government to beef up its own whistleblower legislation.
In 2010, Mr. Speaker, the Public
Servants Disclosure Protection Act was passed by the
Parliament in November 2005 and came into force in
April, 2007. That act contains procedures for
disclosures of wrongdoings and provides for an integrity
commissioner with powers of investigation. Mr. Speaker,
she fell out of grace with that government, for obvious
reasons. I think, if I may, she left the post in early
retirement on October 18, 2010, four years before her
term was up because the Auditor General found out that
during her tenure of the 228 complaints that were filed,
only five investigations were launched and not one
investigation of wrongdoing was discovered. She fell
from grace, Mr. Speaker, very early into her term.
Watchdog groups, Mr. Speaker, such
as the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform and
Canadians for Accountability have called the federal act
a toothless law. They claim it is mired in bureaucracy,
it is misguided, creates a secretive, unaccountable
regime. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this
government is not interested in mirroring any
whistle-blowing legislation that is mired in
bureaucracy, is misguided, and is secretive and
unaccountable. This government has considered and
continues to consider whistleblower legislation and will
bring forward appropriate legislation which will
facilitate public servants’ ability to freely disclose
information, Mr. Speaker, about a wrongdoing without
fear of workplace reprisal. We will do this when we are
satisfied we have conducted our due diligence.
Mr. Speaker, we still have
questions about the effectiveness of stand-alone
whistleblower legislation and the establishment of
independent offices to administer this legislation. For
example, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the following
statistics which demonstrate a number of inquiries
received pursuant to provincial and federal
whistleblower legislation in 2009. Mr. Speaker, the
ombudsman in Nova Scotia in 2009 received twenty
inquiries, investigated two. The integrity commissioner
of New Brunswick received thirteen inquiries, none of
which proceeded through full investigation. The
ombudsman in Manitoba received three, investigated
three. The integrity commissioner in Ontario received
thirty-five and only investigated seven. The federal
integrity commissioner, before her fall from grace,
received 151 inquiries and investigated none.
Mr. Speaker, before we embark upon
legislation, before we expend significant funds and
create more bureaucracy, we will continue to learn from
the growing pains of other jurisdictions until we are
satisfied that we will bring to this House a bill that
is well thought out, thorough and effective to meet the
needs of this Province. We need the time to do it right.
To proceed immediately, Mr. Speaker, does not give us
that time. That is the reason we will be voting against
this motion.
This government will not hide
wrongdoing. That is why we brought in the Auditor
General in this House. That is why we brought in the
whistleblower legislation for the House. We will
continue, Mr. Speaker, because it is our responsibility
to do so and we will protect our public servants.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to again
thank the hon. Opposition for bringing this matter to
our attention. This government is not interested in
bringing in legislation for political reasons. We will
only bring it in when we get an act that is appropriate
to protect our public servants.
Mr. Speaker, in the meantime let
me say that we are very proud of our public servants. We
value them. They are the engines that drive this
government. We depend on them every day to pull strongly
and enthusiastically on the oars of their departments,
agencies, or boards. I can assure them that even without
whistleblower legislation, Mr. Speaker, they can have
every confidence that this government will support them
if they feel compelled to report wrongdoing in the
workplace.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We just heard fifteen minutes of
sound, words, and very little substance. I am absolutely
shocked and amazed at what the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of this Province just uttered as a
justification for voting against this resolution.
Not only Joe Chesterfield, but the
people of this Province are not so gullible and are not
so naive that they just could not plainly and clearly
see through a case of spin. I am absolutely shocked from
the minister of this government who said: We need time
to do due diligence. We will do it when it is right. We
do not want to do it right now because we have not
studied it enough.
This is from a government who five
years ago said: Yes, we are prepared to do it. Yes, we
will do it in the first session of the House of
Assembly. That came from the former leader of this
government, Mr. Williams, on October 7, 2007, reported
in The Telegram. His comment was: Yes, we will do
it. Yes, we will do it in the first session of
government.
For this minister to stand up here
today and suggest that we need more time, what about the
time that it took to bring in the House of Assembly
whistleblower provisions? Did that take five years? Mr.
Speaker, that did not take five months. Justice Green
came in here and did his investigation during the MHA
scandal, proposed the legislation for the whistleblower
which only applies to Members of the House of Assembly
by the way and to staff of the House of Assembly and its
agencies, not - as the minister forgot to tell in his
speech - that it does not apply to departments and
agencies of government. It was cute that it was left
out, too cute by half.
We do not already have
whistleblower legislation when it comes to this
Province. It only applies to the House of Assembly.
Justice Green did that in five months. This House of
Assembly passed that legislation in five months, yet we
have a minister here who has been five years into the
game and says we need more time. We need more time.
Well, Mr. Speaker, governments who claim they need more
time usually are governments who are secret, which we
absolutely know that this government is. It is a
government that does not want to fulfill its
commitments. It is a government that wants to maintain
absolute control so that nothing can ever come out to
reveal the things that are improperly and sometimes
illegally happening. That is the whole point of
whistleblower legislation.
If someone works in a government
department and they are aware of some wrongdoing and
they reveal it right now, they do not have the
protections for their jobs. They can be flicked out the
door immediately no matter how bad the activity is in a
given department of this government. If someone were to
come out today, their job is on the line. That is what
whistleblowers, principally, is all about. It is not
about trying to show governments up, it is about
protecting the people who know there is a wrongdoing.
Now, if there is one thing the
Minister of Justice did say, it was that is what it is
about. It is about people who are doing wrongdoing. I
liked the way he also says: Some jurisdictions do not
have it. Quebec does not have it. Maybe there is a
reason they do not have it. I say to the minister there
are a lot of jurisdictions in this country that do have
it. Our neighbours in Nova Scotia have it, New Brunswick
has it, Ontario has it, Manitoba has it, and
Saskatchewan has it. Are we inventing a wheel here? This
is not inventing a wheel; this has been created and
done. We have even done our own in the case of the House
of Assembly.
So, when the minister stands up
today and tries to be so cute and says we are going to
vote against this resolution because it calls for
immediate. That is why it calls for immediate, Mr.
Speaker, because immediate was supposed to be in 2007.
They have had five years to study this. They have
studied it to death, or the other alternative is they
have not studied it at all. I think that is the
alternative that is most likely, Mr. Speaker. They have
not studied it at all because if they study it, then, of
course, they have to do something with it. There is only
one conclusion you can draw, they do not want to do
anything with it.
This is about a government, we
talk about keeping commitments. It was in their Blue
Book of 2007. It was uttered from the lips of the
Premier of the day, their leader, and yet, not followed
through. Which can only leave the people of this
Province wondering: Why won’t they follow through on
that? If we would have had whistleblower years ago, for
example, you might never have had the MHA piece. You
might never, ever, have had Mount Cashel; which as the
investigation inquiry revealed, bureaucrats were into it
up to their ears and people in authority, when it came
to cover ups. We might never have had those catastrophic
events in our history.
That is what this minister is
trying to do now, deflect again. This is the same person
who took the remand centre off the radar up in Goose Bay
and did not tell the people about it last year; slipped
it out of the budget. This is the same minister who is
not doing anything about HMP and blames it on the feds.
This is the same minister who does not respect the
reports that are filed by our Citizens’ Representative.
This all happened in the last week with the Citizens’
Rep, Mr. Speaker.
It is about protecting people. We
have an Auditor General in this Province, he looks at
the financial details. If you do something wrong he
comes into the departments, he picks it out, and he
tells us. The Auditor General is limited in what he can
do. He is restricted in what he can do from a financial
point of view. Money was involved, money was expended.
Was it expended within the program guidelines? Was it
wasted? Is it not being properly utilized? He reports
back to the government, which report becomes public, and
everybody knows about it. We do not have that when it
comes to a lot of other things that are going on in
government.
This is the same government that
says when it comes to freedom of information requests
under the access to information act - the most delaying,
deflective government in the history of this Province,
bar none. The timelines, forgetting answers to freedom
of information requests, are routinely, routinely,
disregarded when it comes to the departments of this
government; absolutely, routinely disregarded.
I noticed the minister also said
he is not going to support it because it is sensitive
and complicated matters, was the phrase he used. We are
dealing with some sensitive and complicated matters as
governments so therefore, we have to be careful on what
we bring in.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about the
serious, complicated matters that this government
supposedly deals in. This is about a wrongdoing. This is
not about innuendo that somebody thinks I did not like
what this minister, or deputy minister, or some director
in government did. This is not about this kind of stuff.
This is not about the policy decisions that the
government is dealing with. This is when somebody
‘boldfacedly’ does something wrong. We are talking crime
here. We are talking criminal, possible illegal
activities here, Mr. Speaker. That is what whistleblower
is designed for. It is not about protecting governments.
It is not about protecting ministers or protecting MHAs.
The principal end result of
whistleblower legislation is to protect the person who
reveals the illegal activity from any retributive action
that might be taken against them or punishment.
Therefore, one can only conclude, if this government is
not prepared to bring in whistleblower legislation, they
want to leave that hammer, or more like a maul, on the
table so that regardless if there are illegal activities
going on in some department of this government today,
whatever it is, it might even embarrass government
because it went on. If it is illegal the government
should be the first one to come out and say that is
illegal; that is improper, we cannot condone that.
Instead of that, and saying we need to protect the
person who brings out that illegal activity and thank
the employee.
I agree, we have a good crop of
public servants in this Province but if they are so
good, as the minister claims, why is he not affording
them, and his government affording them, the opportunity
to be protected when it comes to things like
whistleblower legislation? If you really admire your
workers, if you appreciate the work and the skills that
these people bring to their jobs, why would you not want
to protect them? Yet, this government is saying no, we
are not prepared to do that. We already know - they do
not have to invent the wheel - it exists in numerous
jurisdictions in this country, it exists in numerous
jurisdictions in this Commonwealth. We even have it
within our own House of Assembly and everybody who works
for the House of Assembly, yet this government will say
we cannot go there; we need some more time to study
this. They have not one, but a dozen templates.
They claim we have a great public
service that they respect. They agree that it is
necessary and yet, they are not agreeing to come forth
with it. It has nothing to do with complicated and
serious and sensitive matters of government policy. It
has to do with exposing, without the fear of reprisal,
illegal, improper activities that are going on within
government departments and agencies.
Now, the alternative, Mr. Speaker,
is what we live with today, and that is called the brown
envelope syndrome. That is what we have. We have seen
it, in fact, because this government rules with an iron
fist. This government deflects information. This
government tries to deflect issues, and this government
has ruled, for the past number of years, with an iron
fist to the point where there is a fear in our public
servants and in our bureaucracy. A fear that if I open
my mouth, no matter how bad or how terrible something is
and how contrary it is to the public interest, I will
lose my job if I reveal that. That is not a fiction of
anyone’s imagination.
I have had people approach me, the
first question is: Can I ask you something in
confidence? Sure. Once you give your commitment to
confidentiality of course that is what it is, you stick
with it. Then they tell you a story, and you say: well,
how come you have not revealed this in some manner? This
is absolutely inappropriate, improper and possibly
illegal. Why will you not come forth with this? It is
because I will lose my job. If it ever was traced as to
where it came from, I could lose my job. Now, you have
to respect that person. As concerned as he or she is
about the public interest and wanting that information
out there, they have to look after their jobs and their
families first. That is why they ought to be afforded
the protection that would come with whistleblower
legislation.
What I call the brown envelope
syndrome, there has been more brown envelopes exchanged
since former Premier Williams left, three or four months
ago, then have been seen in the last four years. The
fear is still there but now people, for some reason or
other, they do not care as much; not that they do not
care about the incident. Absolutely, they care about the
incidents but the brown envelopes - and that is the case
where people, without having to expose who they are,
remain absolutely anonymous. They are putting the
information in envelopes and slipping it to people in
the media, slipping it to people in the Opposition
because they want it brought out but they do not want it
brought out in their name for fear of being fired.
Now, I would think a government,
rather than try to hide from the truth, rather than try
to deflect from what is absolutely necessary – i.e. the
revelation of the truth – that you would be all in
favour of this and say: We want to know if there is
something going wrong. Tell us about it. We decided as
MHAs that that was appropriate for us and everybody who
works at the House of Assembly. Why would we not accord
the same courtesy and respect to the people who work in
our public service? Yet, this government says no.
So I say to the people of the
Province who are listening: Ask yourself why. Why would
a government commit to something that protects its
public servants, yet for five years refused to implement
it on the nebulous, frivolous grounds that they have not
had time enough to study it yet. Who is trying to
protect whom, I say, Mr. Speaker?
This certainly does not appear to
be a government that respects or is prepared to respect
and protect its public servants when it comes to
revelation of information that is harmful to the public
interest. It ought to be done and it ought to be done
immediately.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment
and Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to stand today if I could
and make a few comments about the private member’s
resolution that calls on government to take an immediate
action and to immediately extend the whistleblower
protection to all provincial and municipal public
servants.
In the last eight years, our
government has been committed to transparency,
accountability, and ethical conduct. One of the things
we need to recognize is that whistleblower protection is
not, in and of itself, a policy in isolation. I think we
need to look at whistleblower legislation and the
policies around it in context, Mr. Speaker, not just in
isolation.
For example, this government
introduced the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act in 2005. The cornerstone of this access to
information and protection of privacy is openness,
transparency, and accountability. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
section 3 of that act provides that the purpose of the
act is to make public bodies more open and accountable
to the public.
Let me just share with you three
of those mechanisms with which it does that, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader, on a point of order.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS:
I stand to be corrected, but the
member said the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act was brought in 2005. My understanding,
actually, Mr. Speaker, is that was introduced and passed
in this House in 2002 after vigorous debate between the
government and the Opposition. It was in 2002 that it
was actually brought in and passed in this Legislature.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of
Environment and Conservation.
MR. WISEMAN:
You are absolutely right, Mr.
Speaker, there is no point of order. If there is a
statement of ‘misfact’ then let it be corrected, but
trying to interject and to take some of my time, Mr.
Speaker, is a normal practice consistent with the
strategies by members opposite, but let me continue.
I was about to, Mr. Speaker, share
with you, and share with the House some of the
provisions in which these public bodies are left to be
accountable. Firstly, by giving individuals the right to
access of records; secondly, specifying very limited
exceptions to the right of that access to the
information; and thirdly, Mr. Speaker, providing for an
independent review of decisions made by the public
bodies under the act, very clearly, Mr. Speaker,
providing that openness and accountability
We have more than 400-and-some-odd
public bodies across the Province that are covered by
that access to information and protection of privacy;
the government departments, agencies, boards, and
others. The act was proclaimed in 2005, and during that
proclamation period there is a requirement that there be
a comprehensive review every five years after that act
came into force.
I say, Mr. Speaker, last year, in
January, or this past January actually, that five-year
period was up and we did the first access to
information; the review was done and completed. That,
Mr. Speaker, very clearly showed that our government is
committed to the effectiveness of this important piece
of legislation. The mere fact that we put in place a
review mechanism – the consultations, again, broad
consultations were conducted around the Province –
further demonstrates by way of example the kind of
commitment that we have made as a government to openness
and transparency. The results of that government effort,
Mr. Speaker, with respect to that particular piece of
legislation, the access to information and privacy
policy, I think, points very clearly an independent
review, an independent assessment.
The National Freedom of
Information Audit released in May, 2010 by the Canadian
Newspaper Association; this year it said Newfoundland
and Labrador placed fifth among the Provinces and
Territories, receiving a B grade; placed fifth, Mr.
Speaker. With respect to response times, again, the same
assessment, Newfoundland and Labrador placed second
among the provinces, with only 7 per cent of the
responses beyond the statutory deadline. When you
consider the large number of requests that we get, only
within 7 per cent did we not meet the deadline, I say,
Mr. Speaker.
Just let me read you some
statistics; in 2009-2010 there were some 550 requests
under that particular piece of legislation for access to
information; in 2008-2009 there were some 535 requests;
in 2007-2008 some 470 requests, Mr. Speaker. With those
numbers of requests to be compliant within that kind of
range I say, Mr. Speaker, is again a reflection of our
desire to be open and transparent.
Mr. Speaker, in 2004, our Province
enacted the Lobbyist Registration Act. Transparency
around lobbying is good government policy I say, Mr.
Speaker. It is a good policy objective. Information
should be publicly available on individuals or groups,
who seek to influence government spending, seek to
influence how government raises money, and seek to
influence how government may make laws and regulations –
pass legislation in this House that becomes the law of
the land. Mr. Speaker, it is important for all of us,
that we know what lobbying is, who is doing it, that
they be registered, when it is done, and it is done
appropriately to ensure that we have the legislation
that governs it.
Lobbying can be a very legitimate
part of the democratic process. It provides an
opportunity for individuals, groups or organizations to
inform government, to provide information, lend insight
to help form policy decisions and legislation that we
may introduce in this House. Open and transparency, and
registering and making sure that the paid lobbyists are
registered to ensure that they are in fact and the
activities that they are engaged in with public office
holders are actually documented and recorded.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to
Newfoundland and Labrador’s openness – and
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I think expect all of
us to be open, transparent and accountable as we make
decisions. The Lobbyist Registration Act is yet another
example of where this government is committed to good
governance, good openness and providing a democratic
process to influence decisions.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to
remind the members opposite that it was this
government’s clear commitment to greater openness and
accountability for all government departments and public
bodies. That is why we have demonstrated in the
Transparency and Accountability Act that we proclaimed
in 2006, Mr. Speaker. Let me just share some of the
items under this act that reflect our government’s
commitment to openness and transparency. Under this act,
each government entity must develop a three-year plan,
Mr. Speaker, that includes clearly the definitions of
performance expectations, exactly what the department is
doing and what those performance expectations are.
Annual reports I say, Mr. Speaker, for each of those are
provided. All of the necessary information that is
recorded in those plans needs to reflect the direction
provided under the legislation.
To help that process, Mr. Speaker,
we resourced it. We provided an office to help develop
those plans to ensure that they have the support
necessary to provide consistency, open information,
factual information, and clear information about what
the future should look like, and to ensure that all of
these entities throughout government are complying with
the legislation. There are some 140 government
departments and agencies now that are covered by this
particular legislation.
In addition to the planning and
reporting, the Transparency and Accountability Act also
stipulates a number of very significant points. I just
want to share with the House some of those particular
stipulations. Each entity must prepare their annual
budgets using accrual accounting information, Mr.
Speaker, and that entities report required financial
information in a manner consistent with generally
accepted accounting principles. We want to make sure
that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have a
clear understanding of the true financial position of
the government, of the department, or of the agency
involved.
Prior Cabinet approval is required
to set up a new corporation under the Corporations Act
so that agencies and departments cannot go out and
conduct business by incorporating a company under the
Corporations Act that would take them outside of the
regulations and the act itself.
Any unauthorized borrowing will
not be allowed. Borrowing must be approved by the
minister of the department responsible, together with
the Minister of Finance. Capital borrowings, again,
require the approval of the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance will
publish a three-year fiscal forecast and semi-annually
report on the economic and fiscal position of the
Province. Fortunately, in the last five or six years as
the Minister of Finance has stood, it has been a very
positive message, Mr. Speaker. The forecast has been
reflective of a Province that is on the move. The
Minister of Finance on the day of his Budget presents a
three-year forecast about the impact of the policies and
the decisions that will have significant financial
impact on the Province. I say, Mr. Speaker, these are
all requirements under this particular piece of
legislation.
I think if you look at
government’s record of openness, accountability, and
ethical conduct, those three pieces of legislation are
clearly reflective of our government’s intention to
ensure that we are open, transparent, and conduct
ourselves in a very ethical fashion. That goes back to
my introductory comment. When you start talking about
whistleblower legislation, it is impossible to talk
about it as a policy decision in isolation. You need to
give it consideration in the context of other things
that we are doing.
There was a reference earlier made
to Justice Green and his report and bringing legislation
to the House to cover Members of the House of Assembly
and employees of the offices of the House. I think what
is really important, Mr. Speaker, and if the members
opposite want to cite Justice Green and his activity,
what becomes really important is that Justice Green also
said that whistleblower legislation is very complex. It
is extremely complicated, very complex, and it is
important in bringing in the legislation to strike a
balance. It becomes, as my colleague, the Minister of
Justice, has already pointed out, it is really important
that before we start jumping in whole-heartedly, wanting
to quickly move to bring legislation in, we need to
ensure that we understand what it is we are doing. We
need to understand the implications of that, Mr.
Speaker.
So, we need to be careful as we
continue to monitor, to continue to become informed, to
continue to do the analysis of what is happening in
other jurisdictions. When we have done the appropriate
due diligence, when we are comfortable that we have the
necessary insights, the necessary understandings, can
speak clearly to the experiences of other jurisdictions,
and we have struck the balance, as referenced by Justice
Green, and we understand the implications of that
balance, then we will be in a much better position to do
as the members opposite are asking to do immediately.
Sometimes, taking immediate action and doing it
prematurely can do more damage than having no
legislation in place in the first place, I say, Mr.
Speaker.
So, I thank you for the
opportunity, and I thank members opposite for giving me
the opportunity to have a few comments with respect to
the bill that they have introduced, and ask them to
recognize that sometimes being hasty, moving
immediately, can sometimes do more damage than making
sure that we have done the appropriate due diligence,
and we understand the implications of the decisions we
are about to make. When we have done that, we will be in
a much better position to move forward, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District
of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am very happy to stand today and
to speak to this private member’s motion with regard to
whistleblower legislation. I am pleased that the Member
for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair brought this in, because
I think it is something that is more than well overdue.
The former speaker just talked
about we cannot do things as a knee-jerk movement or a
knee-jerk reaction. Well, I would say the government
right now must have an arthritic knee, because this is
not a very fast knee-jerk that we are talking about
here. In 2007, these people sitting in government right
now promised that they would deal with whistleblower
legislation during the first session of the House. Then
in 2008, in the Throne Speech the government promised to
introduce whistleblower legislation that year after
appropriate consultation had taken place. Well, that
appropriate consultation has been going on for three
years, Mr. Speaker, and it is not acceptable.
This is not something that is
brand new; this is not an idea that has not happened in
other jurisdictions, an idea that has not happened even
here in our own Province. We, here in this House of
Assembly, and the people who work with us, all fall
under a piece of legislation that has whistleblower
legislation in it. Even after the Cameron report when
Madam Cameron was studying the whole issue with regard
to the ER-PR testing and did her report, even in that
there was some built-in protection for members in the
health care. It is not a general whistleblower but
protection in one particular aspect of the health care
system.
Mr. Speaker, we have taken the
steps, major steps, to make whistleblower happen. Surely
to goodness if we have been able to put a process in
place to make sure that whistleblower is operative under
the House of Assembly and all of the statutory offices,
surely if we have been able to put that in place, we
should be ready to start putting it in place for the
whole of our government. The lame excuses from the other
side of the House, from the government side of the
House, are really boring. It is all I can call them is
lame excuses because there is some reason why they are
not putting this in.
It is really interesting that when
it was put in here in the House of Assembly, it was as a
result, as has been said already, of Chief Justice
Green’s recommendation. The House of Assembly at that
time was compelled and felt compelled, and rightly so,
to make sure that his recommendations were put in place.
It is really interesting that in the report that Chief
Justice Green did, Chief Justice Green documents that in
a survey that was done of Members of the House of
Assembly at that time, in that survey over 50 per cent
of the MHAs of the day did not think that we should have
whistleblower legislation. Knowing that the majority of
the people in that survey were people who were members
of this government, one can say that they only put it in
for the House of Assembly because they were forced to
put it in and that there really is not an openness over
there to having it in our full government and that is
why we do not have it. When they were forced to do it,
they did it. Now that they can take their dead time in
getting it put in place for our whole governmental
system, we are never going to see it under this
government, Mr. Speaker. I have been calling for it
since I was elected; representatives of the NDP were
calling for it before I sat in the House. On a federal
level, our party has recently put in a reform agenda
that includes legislative protection for whistleblowers,
and that comes from recommendations by the federal
Public Service Commission in a recent report to
Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, they do not have it
in Ottawa, and it is a shame. The Public Service
Commission has acknowledged that they should have it and
have made a strong recommendation. We know it was deemed
extremely important by Chief Justice Green, and that is
why we have it here in the House of Assembly, in our
statutory offices. I am really tired of the rhetoric
that I am getting from the government side of the House.
One gets the feeling that they really do not want it,
yet we know from people who come to us and speak to us,
people who send information to us, that out there in our
government we do have people who are not happy because
we do not have whistleblower legislation. They are
asking if you can have it in the House of Assembly, in
the statutory offices: Why don’t we have it? They want
the protection. There are many things they observe that
they are not happy about. They are not protected, so
they are not going to say anything. The delays are
unacceptable. When are we going to get a timeline from
this government? I would suggest it is just like the
anti-scab legislation when the promise was made during
an election time, that that was going to happen. The lip
service that they give to some things is one thing but
the actions are another, and we are not getting actions.
I am really glad the Official
Opposition brought forward this private member’s bill
today so that the issue can be raised here in the House
and we can have an opportunity to point out to people
that this government is just dragging its feet with
regard to making sure that workers inside of the whole
government system are protected. It leads to a spirit of
openness, Mr. Speaker. It leads to a spirit also of
responsibility. If people know they can identify things
that are going wrong and identify those things safely
and without having to fear for their jobs, if they can
do that, Mr. Speaker, then that leads to a whole culture
of a sense of responsibility. Because people are going
to say, not only do I think I should report this but I
have protection which is telling me that I should report
it; that this is my responsibility to report something
if I see it going wrong; that I have a responsibility to
report it, and I am protected because I have that
responsibility.
By not putting in this
legislation, Mr. Speaker, this government is continuing
to allow the bureaucracy of government to be operating
in a spirit of fear and a spirit of hiding, and that is
not good. This is a government that says it is open and
transparent. Well, it should be open and transparent on
every level. One of those levels is how this government
governs the bureaucracy inside of the whole government
and public system.
On the federal level there is a
non-governmental organization called the Federal
Accountability Initiative for Reform. The acronym is
FAIR, which is a very nice acronym; I am sure they liked
that, when they came up with it. This group FAIR says
that although drafting of whistleblower legislation does
take time - and it does, but I would say four years is a
lot of time, Mr. Speaker. They point out there are
powerful vested interests that favour the status quo.
FAIR calls the history of
whistleblower legislation in Canada, they are using my
words, one of foot-dragging by politicians and
bureaucrats alike and it is not acceptable. It is really
good to know there is an organization like FAIR that is
studying and researching the issue. Proponents of
whistleblower legislation point out that it ensures that
public servants are not afraid to speak out for fear of
retaliation and it ensures that wrongdoing is quickly
revealed. That is the point I was making. Because people
are not afraid and because they know they do have a
responsibility to speak out, if they see wrongdoing
happening, then they are going to speak out.
Chief Justice Green does point out
in his report, in the section where he talks about
whistle-blowing, that while having whistleblower
legislation here in the House of Assembly prior to 2006,
while it may not have stopped what was going on, he felt
confident in saying there had to be people who were
handling things along the line at the time of the
spending scandal, who knew there was something wrong and
they just did not have the process, or an apparatus, or
legislation to allow them to come forward. He does not
say it would not have happened, but he does indicate he
did believe that whistleblower legislation would have
helped if it had been in place. That was one of the
reasons why he made the recommendation. It does ensure
that people feel free and will come forward, and that
things get revealed quickly. That means that something
which is not operating well in the system will not go on
for years.
The other thing that Chief Justice
Green recommended, he recommended that a law to protect
public servants or anyone else who speaks up with
evidence of financial abuse or other impropriety should
happen in the legislative branch. It was extremely
important to him, and he said that such legislation
might have gotten someone to come forward sooner. It
might have, he could not say for sure, but when we had
the financial wrongdoing back in 2006 it might have been
identified sooner if we would have had it. Certainly,
such legislation might have meant that ER-PR testing
mistakes in Eastern Health and the ensuing cover-ups,
because there were cover-ups, would have come to light
earlier as well. Surely to goodness, with the experience
we have had here in this Province just with those two
incidents alone, the financial wrongdoing and the ER-PR
mess; surely with just those two alone we should be one
of the Legislatures that are rushing to put
whistleblower legislation in place.
Like I said earlier, it is not
like it is a new idea. It is not like it has not been
done elsewhere in the general governments, like in Nova
Scotia, and we already have it here in our House of
Assembly. We need it for all sectors, not just in
Eastern Health and the House of Assembly. We need it for
all workers. All of the workers in our bureaucracy
should know that they have this protection and it will
lead to good governance and to good order, Mr. Speaker,
which is extremely important. We need a law that will
stipulate mechanisms and guidelines for both internal
disclosure and protection and for external disclosure
and protection, because there might be times when
internal disclosure will not work; therefore, there has
to be protection if a person has to go outside the
system to disclose, because that is a possibility. We
have to have legislation that allows both for internal
and external when the internal does not work.
This government has to start
taking this seriously, has to stop the foot-dragging,
and has to let us know when they see that this
legislation can be put in place. It is not something
this government is good at, Mr. Speaker, giving
timelines; they are not good. Every time you ask them
for a plan they give you a strategy. They never give you
a plan that has actual timelines and tells you what
their goal is and when they are going to get there, and
I would like to see it. They can do it sometimes.
It is interesting today that we
had a Ministerial Statement where there was a goal set
with regard to buying more fuel-efficient vehicles for
government, and they set a bar of 25 per cent. Lo and
behold, they actually when up to 46 per cent of the
vehicles now in use are fuel-efficient. So, they can do
it when they have the will to do it. So the question is:
Why don’t they have the will to do it in this case?
This is a quote from FAIR,
"Speaking up in the workplace about public interest
concerns is considered a natural, expected and
honourable course of action." We should want people to
identify when things are going wrong. We should want
people to be able to stand up and say: This has to
change. That is what openness and transparency is all
about. If this government wants to show some way in
which it is open and transparent, then put in a system
that will allow the whole of our bureaucracy to be open
and transparent because people will be free and will be
safe in doing the honourable thing.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Kelly):
The Chair is pleased to recognize the
Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased today to be able to
have a few words on this private member’s motion, and to
give a little bit of background, Mr. Speaker, and to
address some of the ways that we are currently dealing
with whistleblowers in other forms of legislation. It is
not simply a matter of bringing a specific whistleblower
act. It is something that we deal with as a government,
and it is something that other governments throughout
the country, and the federal government, have also dealt
with.
Mr. Speaker, whistleblower
protection became, as many people are aware, a prominent
topic in corporate governance in the wake of the
numerous high-profile corporate fraud scandals a number
of years ago. Whistleblower legislation, federally, was
brought in, in 2004, in response to the sponsorship
scandal, which many people will remember. Then, as a
result, provincial legislation protecting whistleblowers
came into vogue across Canada. Currently, Mr. Speaker,
there is a degree of whistleblower protection in every
jurisdiction in Canada, including our own. I am going to
go through a couple of examples in a couple of minutes.
Various federal and provincial
statutes already contain provisions designed to protect
employees who provide information to law enforcement
officials. For example, Mr. Speaker, most occupational
health and safety legislation protects employees from
reprisals resulting from their efforts to enforce
statutory health and safety provisions. The Canada
Labour Code, as well as this Province’s Labour Standards
Act, protects employees who give information to
inspectors or who testify against their employers.
An example of this, Mr. Speaker,
can be found in our Occupational Health and Safety Act
which says in section 49, "An employer or union shall
not take a discriminatory action against a worker by
dismissing him or her or by deducting wages, salary or
other benefits, or by taking other discriminatory action
against him or her… (b) because the worker has testified
or is about to testify in a proceeding or inquiry under
this Act or regulations;" or "(c) because the worker has
given information to the Workplace, Health, Safety and
Compensation Commission, an officer or another person
concerned with the administration of the Act…" Again,
Mr. Speaker, the clear intent of this piece of
legislation is that if someone gives information or
testifies then they should not be subject to reprisals.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things we
cannot forget here, of course, is human nature. Human
nature is such that two things can happen: one is that
there is a natural human reaction to figure out exact
reprisal for what he or she did unfairly to me; or,
secondly, I will get back at him or her for what they
did to me. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to be cognizant of
that in all aspects of our legislation and our workplace
environment.
Mr. Speaker, we deal with people
who come into contact with each other on a daily basis.
We have people who disagree over issues. What this type
of protection is meant to be afforded, I would suggest,
is on serious issues, on issues that have, if not a pure
motive, then certainly a good motive.
Mr. Speaker, oftentimes in this
House I refer again, as many of us do, back to our
experience or what I refer to as my former life. In my
former life, one of the things we dealt with regularly
in the criminal justice system was information provided
by what we refer to as informants. Mr. Speaker,
informants make the police world go round. They are the
basis upon which the police will receive intelligence,
will receive reasonable grounds to get a warrant, and
will provide information to the police which will go
into their databanks.
Mr. Speaker, you always have to
look at the information that some of these people have
provided with a degree of scepticism. You look to
corroborate the information that they provide to ensure
that innocent people were not subjected to unnecessary
prosecution or the stigma of being brought to the
criminal justice system. So, Mr. Speaker, on the one
hand you have the public good requiring and police
investigations requiring reliance upon information which
could otherwise be sceptical.
Now, I am not saying, Mr. Speaker,
that in this case people who come forward as
whistleblowers can be put into that category because
they are not. We always have to be aware of human
nature, of what human nature does to us, and how it
affects us as human beings. So what we have tried to
build into the legislation, and I will give you an
example in a second here now under the Environmental
Protection Act, then I am going to talk about the
Personal Health Information Act which was recently
brought in.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, what I will
probably do is I will jump, because my time is somewhat
limited and this is a matter that I could certainly
discuss at length, but let’s talk about the newly
proclaimed Personal Health Information Act which, I
think, was recently proclaimed on April 1. It includes a
whistleblower protection. This is a good example, I
would suggest, of how a whistleblower protection section
should be described and then I will go back to the
Province’s Environmental Protection Act. "A person shall
not dismiss, suspend, discipline, demote, harass or
otherwise disadvantage or penalize an individual where
(a) the individual, acting in good faith and on the
basis of reasonable belief…"
So, what we are doing, we are not
simply saying that everyone who brings forward
information is entitled to the protection of the
whistleblower legislation or the whistleblower provision
here. The person has to act in good faith. Now, what
does acting in good faith mean, Mr. Speaker? Acting in
good faith means you proceed on the basis that you are
doing what you believe to be right, which is necessary
in the circumstances, and which requires, in the public
interest, coming forward and on the basis of reasonable
belief. It is not enough to say: Well, he told me that
someone else told him that she said this. Because now we
are into our third or fourth level of hearsay, and I am
not saying reasonable belief cannot be based on hearsay,
but that belief must be, as the modifier states,
reasonable. So, we have acting in good faith and on the
basis of reasonable belief.
Mr. Speaker, the person shall not
be dismissed, harassed or demoted if he or she, acting
in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief,
provides information to the commissioner under the
Personal Health Information Act. In subsection (b), "the
individual, acting in good faith and on the basis of
reasonable belief has done or stated an intention of
doing an act that is required to be done…" Mr. Speaker,
what we have to understand with whistleblower
protection, and whistleblower protection, for example,
in this act, is that there is a requirement on the
individual who is coming forward to ensure that there is
a certain standard met. Mr. Speaker, people’s
reputations can be at stake. It can be a situation where
an allegation can be brought forward, an investigation
can pursue, and there is no basis. That is not fair, Mr.
Speaker. We have to, as we are bringing in this type of
legislation and we are looking at this type of
protection, ensure that people feel free and feel that
they can come forward and they can be listened to, but
there is an obligation imposed on them, Mr. Speaker, to
act in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief.
That does not mean, Mr. Speaker, you have to like the
person or that you dislike the person who you have the
information on. What you have to have is that you act in
good faith, it has to be something that affects, in this
particular case the Personal Health Information Act, and
also that you have said to yourself, well, this is the
information I have and it is reasonable and I am
obligated. Perhaps that is a good way to put it, Mr.
Speaker. While there may not be that legal obligation,
you feel a moral obligation to come forward. Mr.
Speaker, in subsection (c) that is reinforced, "…acting
in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief...".
There is an interesting provision,
Mr. Speaker, when we go to the Environmental Protection
Act. Under section 97 it states, "(1) An employer shall
not (a) dismiss or threaten to dismiss an employee",
again, because whistleblower protection is meant to
protect the whistleblower. In the Personal Health
Information Act, if he or she acts in good faith and on
the basis of reasonable belief, "(1) An employer shall
not (a) dismiss or threaten to dismiss an employee; (b)
discipline or suspend an employee; (c) impose a penalty
upon an employee; or (d) intimidate or coerce an
employee, who refuses to carry out an action which is
contrary to this Act, or because the employee has
reported or proposes to report to a person an act or
omission that contravenes, or that the employee has
reasonable grounds to believe may contravene…". Again,
we are hearing the reasonable grounds. Mr. Speaker,
while people are encouraged to come forward, there is an
onus upon that individual to ensure that he or she is
not acting with an ulterior motive other than a belief
in this is the job or the moral obligation imposed upon
me by virtue of the job that I do.
What I find interesting, Mr.
Speaker, in subsection (2) – and I looked in the
Personal Health Information Act – under subsection (2),
"A person who intentionally reports or provides false or
misleading information under subsection (1) is guilty of
an offence." There is a recognition, Mr. Speaker, in
this section that there are circumstances where people
will act with ill motive, where people will act to exact
retribution or revenge. If someone does that, Mr.
Speaker – but again the use of the word, intentionally,
certainly outlines that you have to act knowingly,
willingly or with an intent because that is what the
word intentionally means.
Mr. Speaker, we have in the
Personal Health Information Act: acting in good faith
and on the basis of reasonable belief. In the
Environmental Protection Act, Mr. Speaker: a reasonable
grounds to believe. While we are encouraging or while
these sections in these acts encourage people to come
forward, there also, Mr. Speaker, is an onus or an
obligation on the individual to ensure that as best he
or she can, that they are acting within the confines of
the law.
As outlined in section 97(2), Mr.
Speaker, if you provide false or misleading information
you are guilty of an offence.
Mr. Speaker, while these
provincial protections target particular types of
offences related to the specific purpose of the
legislation they do provide public servants with
assurances needed to encourage potential whistleblowers
to come forward. These provisions form part of the
government’s commitment to ensure accountability and
ethical conduct.
Mr. Speaker, there is also, under
section 425.1 of the Criminal Code, an amendment that I
have to say, despite all of my years of working with the
Criminal Code, the first time I saw this section or
really paid attention to it was today. This is section
425.1: that it provides as criminal offence for an
employer to take or threaten an employee with
discipline, demotion, dismissal, or to penalize an
employee because an employee has reported or plans to
report to the appropriate authorities a violation of any
federal or provincial/territorial law on the part of his
or her employer.
Mr. Speaker, what we have here in
the Criminal Code, as I think I was talking about the
other day in terms of the difference between the federal
head of jurisdiction under section 91, which makes
criminal law, and section 92 of the Constitution Act
which allows us to make provincial laws, the Criminal
Code, or the Parliament of Canada has seen fit to ensure
that there is a provision here which says that no
employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall
take measures against an employee with the view or the
intent – again, we are into criminal law now so there
has to be an intent – to compel the employee to abstain
from providing information or with the intent to
retaliate against an employee.
Mr. Speaker, while concern over
capital market fraud – exemplified by the, I guess the
best example I can think of is the Enron case – led to
the enactment of this new provision in the Criminal
Code, this legislation provides whistleblowers with
protection if they disclose any type of criminal
activity by their employer.
Mr. Speaker, employers who use
employment related intimidation in retaliation against
employees now, or against whistleblowers, risk criminal
liability. That is an interesting section of the
Criminal Code, Mr. Speaker, and one which I am not aware
of having been used, but we could very quickly find out
– through the various research tools – if it ever has.
Mr. Speaker, section 425.1 is the
first provision to apply in a comprehensive manner and
to provide for criminal sanctions, which again, are an
indication of how serious our parliament, the Federal
Parliament of Canada takes this kind of activity.
Mr. Speaker, this is all
consistent though. It all comes back to one of our basic
principles upon which we exist as a society. That there
is an obligation on law abiding members of society to
report when something is going wrong, where public
safety may be threatened. What was it I was speaking
about the other day, Mr. Speaker, where again we talked
about the obligation on members of our society to come
forward with information?
Mr. Speaker, my point today that I
am adding to the points raised by my colleagues the
Minister of Justice and the Minister of Environment that
whistleblowers and principles are not new to this
government. This government is committed, as we have
shown, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years to
accountability and good government. What we have to do
is ensure that legislation is the best possible
legislation and you look at what has taken place in
other jurisdictions and you look at, Mr. Speaker, what
is taking place in our jurisdiction. My point is that
whistleblowers in this Province are not without
protection, as I have outlined in examples of the
legislation that we have in our Province.
Mr. Speaker, these acts are
examples of our commitment in terms of protecting
individuals who come forward in good faith and on
reasonable belief to report incidents that they feel
they have to report.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes the hon. the
Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a privilege again to be able
to stand in this House to speak to the private member’s
motion. I would like to just read through the motion
again just to -
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I am having difficulty hearing the
hon. member. I ask all hon. members for their
cooperation.
The hon. member.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was having trouble hearing
myself as well.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to just
read through the private member’s motion again and speak
to it for a few moments before it is brought to a
conclusion, shortly. It says:
WHEREAS free and open
communication is critical to sound public policy,
essential to good governance and a cornerstone of an
open and democratic society; and
WHEREAS public servants have a
higher loyalty to the people of the Province than to the
security and convenience of their supervisors or
political masters; and
WHEREAS whistleblower protections
already exist for the House of Assembly Service and
statutory offices but the same protections are denied to
public servants within government departments and
related agencies such as health and education
authorities; and
WHEREAS this government promised
to introduce whistleblower legislation almost four years
ago;
BE IT RESOLVED that government
consider the immediate extension of whistleblower
protection to all provincial and municipal public
servants in order to ensure their ability to freely
disclose information about something they believe to be
harmful to the public’s interest without fear of
workplace retribution or retaliation.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Justice, when he responded to the presentation of the
private member’s motion as the Leader of the Opposition
spoke to it first, said one of the reasons or the main
reason that he would not be able to support this motion
is that we are calling for the immediate implementation
of this particular act. I do not believe that is exactly
the intent of this motion, because it says it calls upon
government to consider the immediate extension.
Considering the immediate extension or the
implementation immediately would be two different things
I would think, Mr. Speaker. With his background and
profession, I would not challenge his interpretation, so
to speak, but I would think he would understand what the
intent of this motion was.
I have listened to a couple of the
members speak from the government side and I was
particularly interested as the Minister of Environment
talked about many of the great policies and decisions of
government but really never did speak to the
whistleblower legislation, to the private member’s
motion here today. We go back and we recognize or we
realize that in 2007, as this government went to the
electorate of this Province, that in its Blue Book, in
its book of promises and good wishes, and so on, in
solicitation of the support of this Province, one of the
conditions in there, one of the promises to the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador was that a Progressive
Conservative government, in its second term, would
develop whistleblower legislation. You cannot be much
clearer than that. It did not say we would look at it.
It did not say that we would begin to develop it. It
said in the second term of governance it would develop
whistleblower legislation.
We know some of the dates and
things that have been brought forward here this
afternoon by us as an Opposition, and by the Leader of
the NDP as well - we heard from our leader when she
talked about the incident with two school teachers who
were suspended from the Eastern School Board for
speaking out at a forum. It was very shortly after that,
just the following month, when my hon. colleague, as the
critic for Education at that time, called for
legislation to protect teachers. We know that in May,
2006, the report by Commissioner Derek Green called for
whistleblower legislation as well. Then we see a litany
of responses and delays, if you will, by government
throughout that whole process.
It is interesting that suddenly
this promise, this piece of legislation that was
important enough in 2007 to go into the Blue Book of the
Progressive Conservative Party as they solicited the
votes of the electorate of Newfoundland and Labrador,
that suddenly it began to be delayed. What is also
interesting is when the election was completed in
October of 2007, and this Province gave the vote of
confidence to the government, and when we get to the
Throne Speech in March of 2008, it was important enough
again to be a part of that Throne Speech. The Lieutenant
Governor reading the Throne Speech on behalf of the
Premier at that time, said that my government will
introduce whistleblower legislation, not this term, not
in the next four years, but it said this year, after
appropriate consultation has taken place. Mr. Speaker,
that is three years ago.
We listened to a Throne Speech
just a couple of weeks ago by the Lieutenant Governor,
and it is now three years later, it is three Throne
Speeches later, and even the consultations on
whistleblower legislation has not begun. So, it is only
right this afternoon, here in this House, that we would
bring this forward as an Opposition party to question
this government, to expose the fact that this was so
important that it was put into the Blue Book, it was
written into the Speech in 2008, and yet, three years
later we are hearing excuses and reasons why this
legislation has not begun to move, why it will not begin
to move, and why we really have no idea as to where and
when we can realistically expect it.
Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of
whistleblower legislation, basically, has been defined
here this afternoon. We know that it would essentially
allow a government employee to notify a senior staff
member or someone else about a situation within
government, within their workplace; be it without facing
disciplinary action, without being scolded or run
through the wringer, as we might say, so to speak, with
bringing it forward. It is very important that we have
that. It is critical in order to allow these employees,
for the best interests of people, to be able to come
forward with situations they are concerned about in
their workplace and so on.
It is interesting that just a
couple of months ago when the issue of teacher
double-dipping, I believe it was referred to in the
media and so on, when that issue came out after the
Auditor General’s report, the AG’s report, that when it
was brought into the open, myself, as the Education
critic, suddenly every other day when I would go to my
office there would be a brown envelope. It would be a
concern that would be addressed around this issue in
terms of the retiring teachers being hired and so on. I
do not want to focus on that, but I want to focus on the
issue of the only way that people could bring out what
they feel were injustices being done within the system
in which they work was by putting a brown envelope on
the desk of an Opposition member. Mr. Speaker, that is
one of the things this legislation is all about, is to
change that course of communication, if you will, and it
is about being able to allow freedom of speech within
the workplace.
One of the areas that I feel best
represents freedom of speech being stifled was in the
handling of the air ambulance situation when it was
moved from St. Anthony to Goose Bay. It is a sore spot,
obviously, and always will be because of the reason it
was done. It was a political move. In that situation,
there was very clear direction which came from that
board to staff within the region of the
Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health services that they
were to say nothing. They were not to talk about it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask
why a directive would go out in any department, in any
situation that would tell people they are not allowed to
talk. What is it they are not allowed to talk about?
What is it that the government is frightened they might
talk about? Why would you want to stifle people from
expressing themselves, from sharing concerns, and from
probably bringing information forward that a department,
a government, an organization, or whatever the case
might be, do not want people to know? It makes you
become suspicious, certainly. It is an example again of
where whistleblower legislation that allows or gives the
freedom of speech – it is an example again of where
people are prohibited from doing that because of the
absence of whistleblower legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we now are at a point
where we are nearly four years down the road from the
promise of whistleblower legislation by this government.
We are now at a point where we really do not know where
that legislation is because there is no commitment
anymore. The Minister of Justice, in December, said
there would be no legislation in force in 2010. Now we
are into 2011, and we are into the spring sitting of the
House of Assembly. There does not seem to be any desire
or any immediate legislation to come forward on
whistle-blowing. We are left wondering exactly where it
is that the whistle-blowing legislation is.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Environment, again, if I could go back to some of the
comments that he made when he was speaking, talked about
ATIPP and the ability to have access to information
through this legislation. He said that it was brought
in, in 2005, it was actually brought in, in 2002, but
nevertheless, it is there. Mr. Speaker, I can attest
this afternoon to you in this House that every time we
go after information through ATIPP, if there is any way
that it can be delayed, it is delayed. Time and time
again – and he mentioned the numbers, the successes, as
he put it, in terms of the numbers of pieces of
information that were coming out on time. Well, I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that probably the only information
that is not coming out on time is the information that
the Official Opposition is requesting from this
government.
I have seen delays that have been
two months, three months, four and five months waiting
for a simple response to a piece of information, to a
request that has been put in appropriately and so on,
and you wait, and you wait, and you wait, and you wait,
and it does not come forward. That, basically, really
seems to be the way this government deals with things. I
believe that is a part of the reason why we are not
seeing this whistleblower legislation because, again,
they want to keep things quiet, they want to keep it
under the rug, they do not want things exposed, and they
do not want a mechanism in place. Basically, the excuse
that has come back since 2007 when they promised, as a
government, that they would bring that legislation in,
is that now we do not want people using it as an
opportunity to be vindictive in situations and so on.
The minister, in his closing
comment, I found very interesting because he said that
you cannot move too quickly. Now, I am not sure what too
quickly is, Mr. Speaker, but when you consider that it
is four years since the promise was given, and four
years later there is no start or development on that
project, then I would consider that as not being very
quick. As a matter of fact, I would consider it as a
quite a delay. As a matter of fact, I would consider
that it is something that obviously is not important to
this government, does not seem to be on their radar, and
that they really have no intentions of bringing forward.
He said also that we have to do
due diligence. Well, Mr. Speaker, a part of doing due
diligence is to keep the commitments that have been
made, to honour the obligations that have been put
forward, and I would call on government today, I am
pleased to be able to stand at to have spoken on this
for a few moments, and I would call on government to
honour its commitment, and we look forward to seeing
whistleblower legislation in the very near future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader
of the Opposition. If she speaks now, she will close the
debate on the resolution.
MS JONES:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank my colleagues in
the House of Assembly today for their contribution
towards the private member’s bill that I presented. Mr.
Speaker, I want to reiterate what the motion was because
it was with regard to whistleblower legislation. I
understood that some members did not talk a whole lot
about whistleblower legislation, but basically that is
what the bill is about.
Basically, what we are asking is
we are asking government to keep a commitment that they
made to the people of the Province in 2007, a commitment
that they made when they were out in the middle of an
election campaign when they were knocking on doors,
similar to what Stephen Harper did a few years ago when
he made commitments to the people of the Province. They
made a commitment to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
that they would bring in whistleblower legislation.
Now, what is whistleblower
legislation? What that legislation does, Mr. Speaker, is
it allows public servants in this Province: people who
work for the taxpayers, people who work in Confederation
Building and in office buildings all across this
Province, people who work in our schools, people who
work in our hospitals, people who work for other
government agencies and boards; it allows those people
to speak freely and openly about any wrongdoings that
they may see within their workplace and to be able to do
so without being punished, without being fired, without
being sent home or without pay from their jobs and that
is exactly what it means.
The very people who work for the
public in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who work
for people all over communities in this Province, who
every day, Mr. Speaker, works hard and pays some of
those hard-earned earnings and taxes to the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador; those particular people
employ public servants. We are asking that these public
servants have freedom, that they have the ability to be
able to report things that should be investigated,
report things that they see going on in their workplaces
that may be wrong.
I cited some examples. I cited the
example of the faulty hormone testing and what happened
in laboratories in this Province. I am not saying that
people were aware that this was going on, but if they
were aware they would have been able to report it
without being punished, without losing their jobs, or
without any penalty at all. I talked about other
situations like what happened with MHA spending in the
House of Assembly, what happened when there were
misappropriated allowances of MHAs’ funds. Maybe, Mr.
Speaker, if there was someone who was aware of that, I
am not sure if there was, but if there was someone who
was aware of it, they could have reported it and they
would not have been punished, fired, or lost their job.
They would not have had to worry about those kinds of
things.
So we are asking, Mr. Speaker,
that the same freedom and flexibility be afforded to
other civil servants, to other people who work for the
taxpayers of this Province and who are paid for by the
hard-earned dollars of men and women in Newfoundland and
Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the government opposite committed
to do this. They committed to do it in 2007 when they
were in an election campaign and they wanted people in
the Province to vote for them. They wanted to send a
message that we are an open and accountable government,
and we are going to allow for those kinds of freedoms,
so we will bring in whistleblower legislation at the
first available opportunity. Guess what? They still have
not done it. They still have not done it.
In 2008, they reiterated the
commitment in the Throne Speech to the people of the
Province, yet they still have not done it. The reason
they have not done it, and they are quoted as saying
this, the Leader of the Government was quoted as saying
that they were afraid that people would use it to be
vindictive toward the government, that people who had a
complaint with the government would use it.
Now, how fickle is that? How
fickle and how weak, I say, that they are afraid of
their own hides, and that is the reason they will not
allow for this legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador?
They are afraid that someone out in there in the public
service might have a problem with the government and
they may use it against us. So, we cannot bring that in
now. We promised it to you, we made a commitment to you
that we were going to do it, but we cannot do that now
because we are afraid. We are afraid that someone out
there, someone in the Department of Fisheries, someone
in the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development, someone in the Department of Health,
someone in the Department of Education, someone in the
Department of Labrador Affairs, someone in the
Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, or
someone in some of these departments, Mr. Speaker, might
have a problem with one of us and they may use it
against me. So, I cannot allow for this legislation, Mr.
Speaker. I should have never made this commitment as a
government because now I am afraid to do it because I am
afraid that someone might hold it against me.
I have never heard such a lame
excuse for not doing what is the right and honourable
thing in all of my life. How can you go out there, look
people in the face and look people in the eye in the
middle of an election and make a commitment to them,
make a commitment right to their face, standing on their
doorstep, and then turn your back and not do it because
you are afraid that someone might hold it against you?
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is pretty
weak. It is pretty weak leadership for a government; it
is pretty weak leadership for members who sit in this
House of Assembly, that is what I say, Mr. Speaker. What
we are asking the government to do today is nothing that
they have not committed to. It is absolutely nothing
that they have not committed to.
Someone, Mr. Speaker, on the other
side stood up today and said: well, you know,
whistleblower legislation is not being done in all
provinces. Well, you are exactly right. It is not being
done in all provinces but it is being done in some
provinces, in many provinces. It is being done by the
Government of Canada. It has been done by the Government
of Canada and a number of provincial governments, but is
that a reason not to do it? Is that a reason not to do
it? Why can’t we lead by example, like we did when we
started bringing in things like anti-smoking
regulations?
I remember when we first
introduced the ban on smoking in bars in this Province.
It was not the government opposite; it was a government
that I was a part of at the time. Mr. Speaker, we were
one of the first in the country to bring in that
legislation; one of the first in the country to do it.
Thankfully, other governments saw the merit of building
and enhancing and broadening those particular pieces of
legislation to apply it to other areas. There is nothing
that says there has to be conformity in legislation
right across the country before we stand up in
Newfoundland and Labrador and do it, Mr. Speaker. There
is nothing that says that. That is not a reason not to
do it.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, I think we
should not even look at some of these things. It is nice
to see what other jurisdictions are doing. It is nice to
learn from other jurisdictions, but the fact that
someone in this country is not seeing fit to bring in
whistleblower legislation is not a reason for us not to
do it. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they are afraid of their own
hide, too. Maybe that is why their provinces have not
brought it in as well. They are afraid there might be
someone out there in the public service who could hold
it against them as a government too. So, they are afraid
to bring it in as well. Maybe they are sharing the same
phobia that the Conservative Government in Newfoundland
and Labrador is sharing. Maybe it is a shared phobia in
some jurisdictions, I have no idea. What I am saying is
that if you make a commitment to the people of the
Province you should be able to stand and meet your
commitment.
Mr. Speaker, we already know, we
are not new in Newfoundland and Labrador to having
people break commitments to us. That is nothing new for
us. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had more
commitments made to them in the last couple of years by
a Conservative Government in Ottawa that has broken all
of those commitments than you can probably count on one
hand. I guess that is why the government today in
Newfoundland and Labrador has no problem standing side
by side and supporting the Harper Government, because
they do not see anything wrong with it. They did exactly
the same thing. They went out and made commitments that
they did not keep to the people of the Province and we
are asking them today to honour your word, honour your
commitment. Show the people of the Province that when
you looked them in the eye on the doorstep in 2007 and
said that you were going to bring this into play in
Newfoundland and Labrador, that you will actually do it;
that you will actually do it.
That is what we are challenging
government members to do today, Mr. Speaker. We are
challenging them to make good on their commitment to the
people of the Province. Give public servants in
Newfoundland and Labrador the ability to disclose
information that they feel is important and needs to be
investigated, without being penalized, because we know
there are penalties that can come.
We saw that when I cited an
example earlier of teachers in the Province who spoke
out. Teachers who went to a forum that was being held on
workload issues that were facing teachers in the
Province, and stress issues that were facing teachers.
These two teachers who thought, I am sure, they were
doing nothing wrong, absolutely nothing wrong; I am sure
they thought they were very innocent in standing there
and being honest about the stresses they have and the
workload that they were carrying. What happened, Mr.
Speaker? The CEO of Eastern Health, who happens to be
the Member for Grand Bank today -
AN HON. MEMBER:
Eastern School District.
MS JONES:
Eastern School District, Mr. Speaker, thank you for the
correction.
Mr. Speaker, who used to be the
CEO of Eastern School District, who is now the Member
for Grand Bank and the Minister of Human Resources,
Labour and Employment, actually went out and suspended
them from their job without pay. Suspended these two
teachers, who were so innocent, Mr. Speaker, who were
out there trying to express themselves because of the
workload they were facing in the classroom and within
the education system, and what a heavy, mighty hand that
came down; a mighty, heavy hand that sent them home, Mr.
Speaker, without their paycheques. It was not bad enough
that they went to a workshop on stress. Now, can you
imagine how much stress they had when they went home
without their paycheque? Because they went to tell
people about their stress, Mr. Speaker, they got
suspended and lost their paycheques. I have never seen
anything like it in my life, Mr. Speaker. I have never
seen anything like it in my life.
Those were the actions of the
Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, is
the title the individual holds today. That is the title
the individual holds today. It is no wonder, Mr.
Speaker, that he will not stand in his place today and
support whistleblower legislation in this Province
because he thinks if public servants speak out they
should be suspended from their jobs without pay. He
thinks there is no place for them if they have an issue
that they think should be disclosed to the people of the
Province. I think that is very unfair, very unfair, Mr.
Speaker.
We have heard of other cases. We
actually have letters, Mr. Speaker, letters that were
sent out, notices or whatever, from health corporations
basically saying to people, do not speak out publicly.
You are not supposed to address these issues. It is not
your place to address these issues. That is the same
thing as saying to them, if you work here, you keep your
mouth tight. You do not talk about the issues. You stay
tight lipped and you do no talk about the issues, Mr.
Speaker. That is what they are saying. They are saying
that it is someone else’s job to speak publicly about
these issues, and it is not your job.
We think, Mr. Speaker, on this
side of the House, that we should afford the freedom and
flexibility to public servants in this Province. I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we made a commitment to these
people, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on
their doorstep, if we were looking them in the eye and
making the commitment to them, we would hold that
commitment. We would not let the last three, four years
go by and still take no action whatsoever; but, to turn
around and give an explanation to the people of the
Province that the reason you are not doing it is because
you are afraid people may become vindictive toward the
government if they have an issue with the government.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that
members will have a change of heart and think about the
commitments that they made to the people of the
Province. They do not want to be seen as breaking their
trust to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and breaking a
commitment to them, so I hope they will stand up today
and support the bill that we put forward to implement
the legislation on whistleblowers in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald):
Order, please!
Is the House ready for the
question?
Shall the resolution as put
forward by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition carry?
All those in favour, ‘aye’.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay’.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair declares the motion lost.
On motion, resolution defeated.
