Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My colleagues and I at ACFO have had the opportunity to counsel hundreds of public servants who came forward and wanted to do the right thing. In the vast majority of these cases, those public servants decide not to do anything.
I've heard the committee ask questions about why the numbers are so low. I believe it's not because public servants don't want to come forward and disclose wrongdoing, and not because there is no wrongdoing that exists; it is because these public servants' singular fear is that they will lose their livelihood as a result of doing the right thing.
With that in mind, ACFO submits that in order to have an effective system, we need a single system managed by an independent office that has the power to protect the livelihood of those who come forward.
I'll talk a little about my background. I am ACFO's general counsel and director of labour relations. As such, for every case file that comes into my organization, I either talk to the member or talk to the labour relations adviser, who talks to the member. Until very recently, ACFO discouraged its members from coming forward. We've always discouraged them from going to the departments, because we don't feel they are protected there. Until about two years ago, we discouraged them from going to PSIC, because we did not feel they would be protected there. We think that's changing, and their trajectory is in the right direction now.
I've had the opportunity to represent the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD, representing 62 million workers globally, and 20 million workers at Public Services International before the ILO, working on whistle-blowing and anti-corruption measures. I've also served on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's advisory board, and I'm the chair of Canadians for Tax Fairness, an independent, not-for-profit NGO. In that role, I've referred a number of private sector whistle-blowers to law enforcement, to PSIC, and to the media.
I can tell you that in all these—internationally, private sector, and public sector—there is a fear that blowing the whistle will ruin your life. I think you've heard the evidence already that this does occur.
We have five recommendations we think will help in this regard. I'll indicate where the models are, because these recommendations are tried and tested in other jurisdictions.
The first is, I think, unique to ACFO in terms of what the committee is going to hear. We believe that a public servant who blows the whistle should have a staffing priority. The staffing priority system is well established in the public service. It's typically used for public servants who come back from leave. Let's say they've relocated with their spouse, or they've had military service; when they come back, if they're qualified, they are at the front of the queue for jobs.
I think you've heard other witnesses suggest that pay protection is in order for whistle-blowers, and I agree with that, but I think that before you protect pay, you can give the members an option to use the staffing priority process to find another job outside the context in which they've blown the whistle so that they can continue to contribute. Most of them do want to continue to contribute and not sit at home while a lengthy process takes place. If you look at the U.S. system, the South Korean system, and the whistle-blower protection in South Africa—the provisions are detailed in our brief—you see that there is pay protection, and in some cases staffing priority rights, in those jurisdictions.
Second, we believe—and I know you've heard this, so I won't belabour the point—that a reverse onus is absolutely essential for cases of reprisal. This exists most recently in Quebec. I'm not even sure the legislation is published, but I know through colleagues in Quebec that the Quebec legislation will have reverse onus. It exists in the U.S. and in South Africa.
Third, to echo Mr. Ferguson's point, we believe that there should be an expansion of the jurisdiction so that investigations can follow the trail into the private sector. Too often we hear of investigations stopped because a senior public servant has retired, or the chain of waste goes into the private sector. This needs to change. You need only look to New Zealand or Australia for examples of legislation covering both the public and the private sectors.
Fourth is an incentive system. This is something we're working on internationally quite a bit. We believe that in certain cases whistle-blowers should be rewarded if their information results in the recovery of revenue. If you look at the U.S. system, it's firmly in place there. Actually, it has been in place since the days of Lincoln. In Ontario the securities commission has just put in a program like this, and Korea has a system as well.
The fear that people raise with an incentive-based system is that it will result in a lot of false claims, but the evidence does not bear that out. Much more is recovered. I have spoken to people in the U.S. in particular who work on these files directly. They report that false claims are not an issue and that they have recovered billions of dollars as a result of an incentive-based system.
Strangely enough, it is firmly based in English common law, a principle called qui tam, which has just gone out of practice. It's time to bring it back.
Finally, we believe that there should be a consolidation of the integrity function. The disclosure process in the departments does not work. My members will not use it. They believe and I believe that departmental systems are designed to contain problems, not to deal with them. These systems serve to cause waste to fester, and it comes out when it's much worse. It comes out often in the media, or by other means.
Independence is essential. You can only do that through an independent office, and we had one already.
I have just a few other points.
There is something I would like to read to you. It's a little long, but I think it's worth it. Then I'll close.
It's an impact statement from a member we supported. She was involved in the PSIC case. There was a decision. It was the chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
It's going to sound familiar, because it details gross mismanagement in terms of harassment, as you have seen in some of the more recent cases. I would urge you to read those cases and think about why PSIC is dealing with harassment when it seems so obvious when you read these cases.
The answer, similarly, is that departmental systems for harassment do not work. They're designed—again—to contain harassment, and they're not independent. This is why you're seeing harassment come up through the PSIC process and result in decisions that seem fairly obvious.
Realize that this harassment is often a product of corruption and waste in government and that harassment is a way to suppress people from speaking out, to suppress people from blowing the whistle.
Please bear with me for two minutes.
This is from Doreen Dyet. She has never disclosed her name before. She's a member. She was anonymous in the report, but she wanted you to know her name today.
As a former Director of Financial Services of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal I would like to convey my feelings to the Standing Committee about my experiences in dealing with the wrongdoing of the CHRT Chairperson....
As a manager, staff frequently complained to me about abuse...and her inappropriate conduct. Prior to her appointment, I had received a Chairperson's Award for work I had done in implementing harassment and recourse policies and procedures at the CHRT....
I was involved in a total of four difficult and grueling processes before [PSIC ruled in my favour].
She filed a harassment complaint. She participated in an investigation with the PCO. She filed multiple grievances over multiple years and had no recourse. Doreen Dyet only got a result by going to PSIC, and for that, ACFO supports PSIC and the current commissioner. We also support all 16 recommendations save one, which is that we believe that the legal fees should be at the discretion of the PSIC commissioner, not TBS, in terms of offering whistle-blowers more.
Given the time, I won't read through the whole statement, but I will provide it, translated, to the committee afterwards.
I will say that Doreen Dyet was successful. She won her whistle-blowing complaint. She lost her marriage. She lost her health. She lost her job after 34 years of service.
With the whistle-blowing system that we now have in place, even if you win, you lose. Ultimately, that is why, to 95% of members who call me up, I say, “You shouldn't go forward. If you're worried about feeding your family, if you're worried about your job, if you're worried about your health, it's not in your interest to come forward.”
The changes that I and some of the other witnesses have recommended are important to making a change happen so that people aren't afraid of losing their livelihoods.
Thank you.
