Government Operations Committee on April 19th, 2023

[Pamela Forward]

Just briefly, in terms of flawed legislation, I would like to suggest that everybody here knows what effective legislation looks like. You have access to international experts. You have the work of the 2017 committee. It just remains for you to do it and to do what needs to be done.

There's no rational reason, from my perspective, that Canadians should not have all 20 best practices in the law. Why should we just stick with the eight that are there now and the three or four more that are really imperative if we want to be able to hold our heads up and at least be at some kind of a level status with other countries, our peer countries, other democracies around the world? That is what I have to say there. Please don't stop. As many best practices as possible are needed.

In terms of implementation failure, as has been mentioned here today, we need to provide adequate internal and external disclosure mechanisms, which provide the necessary functions for success. That includes advisory, internally and if they decide to go to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. That includes awareness-raising training, legal support, psychological support and all of those things that have been mentioned.

The investigation of wrongdoing and reprisals should be included internally as well. As has been mentioned, adjudicative supportive action, protection of the disclosure and prevention of harm should all be part and parcel of what an internal disclosure mechanism looks like. It doesn't exist right now.

It means that people need to learn how to actively listen. They need to become aware of the invisible forces driving reprisals, the psychological and unconscious forces, such as conformity in groups, obedience to authority and how we behave when we perceive threats. Our automatic response that we're often not aware of is to destroy the threat. It's a holdover from our days as cavemen. We're trying to survive, so we fight.

Then, in terms of uncommitted and ineffective leadership, leaders need to lead the change, and that's been the problem. They need to be a visible part of the behaviour-change communication plan. That's the next step. It's not just legislation. That is essential to culture change. There should be no gap between what a leader says and what a leader does. There have been huge gaps. The leaders say one thing....

We have this wonderful law, but when it came to ensuring that all the things that the law says should be done to ensure that we have a workable mechanism were done and that the law was being translated in the public service, we didn't follow up. Those things did not take place. There was no training, no awareness raising and no leadership, really. If there is a gap, what that signals is insincerity, and trust will be lost again, leading to failure.

Political and administrative cultures that stress control over information—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Ms. Forward, but that is our time.

[Pamela Forward]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have to try to get a couple more folks in before we suspend for the vote.

[Pamela Forward]

I have just a few more points.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There will be a lot of time in the second go-around.

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank our two witnesses today.

I would especially like to commend Mr. Sabourin for his courage in appearing before the committee. It was an extremely difficult situation, as I recall.

Madam Forward, before I get into my questions, perhaps I'll leave you the opportunity to just finish off your answer to Mrs. Kusie. If you don't mind continuing just to finish off that part, then I'll get your questions.

[Pamela Forward]

Yes, it's very short.

In terms of political and administrative cultures, my suggestion is that what is needed is to develop open, listening and reflective cultures to replace defensive, controlling ones, if public trust is to be maintained. We need to shift from command and control public administration to listening and learning approaches. We need to admit errors, accept responsibility, correct them and learn.

There are actually organizations. There's a Centre for Public Impact that's working with governments around the world to implement exactly this change. I really would highly recommend you ask somebody from there to come and present to you. It's amazing the work that they're doing.

Then on the last point, the lack of constructive scrutiny by Parliament, I recommend that there be an ongoing parliamentary committee with oversight functions that would interact with NGOs and whistle-blowers to ensure system feedback and ongoing maintenance.

I'm taking part now in an international movement. There's actually a committee being led by the U.K. It's amazing the work that they're doing. They're passing a new law. It's a private member's bill that's just whooshing it's way through Parliament. There's an all-party parliamentary group that is working intimately with civil society whistle-blower support groups. WhistleblowersUK is providing the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary group. They are in the process of passing a law to establish an office of the whistle-blower, which has teeth and can issue sanctions against wrongdoers.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

You're getting into my next question for you, Ms. Forward.

Regarding an international comparison, we know we've heard that there are different bodies that would rate Canada poorly, but it's one of those things where you can have a great legal framework and you have no follow-up at all in practicality. I'm not certain about that international comparison.

According to you, which country has the best example and the best balance between a legislative framework and a culture that actually respects that legislative framework?

[Pamela Forward]

I don't know—

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

What's the standard we should look to?

[Pamela Forward]

—that there's any country that's best.

The United States is known as pretty much the inventor of whistle-blowing. They've had whistle-blowing since their first act in the 1700s, when contractors were cheating the government. There was a war going on or something. I don't remember.

They've had whistle-blowing legislation since 1979 and various iterations and improvements. What happens is that they still have culture problems. The government, actually.... The difference I think is that the government takes whistle-blowing seriously. They think it's important to have proper legislation.

In terms of culture, what seems to have happened is that, whenever they pass an amendment to block some kind of a gap and improve things, people in the organizations work very hard to try to find ways around it, even if that means reclassifying jobs so that they are now security sensitive. Then they lay criminal charges against whistle-blowers.

There are culture problems wherever you go.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Ms. Forward and Mr. Sabourin, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Fergus.

Ms. Vignola, go ahead, please, for six.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Forward, thank you for being here today.

Mr. Sabourin, thank you very much. My questions are for you. If you find them too intrusive or if you have difficulty answering them, please do not hesitate to tell me. I can take it.

In your opening remarks, you said that you had suffered reprisals. Could you describe a few of them, so that it is really clear to the public how far this can go? You spoke about your suicide attempt. I am happy to see that you are still here. It is one of the ultimate consequences of reprisals, but what happened before that?

[Luc Sabourin]

After I reported my observations to management, they began to push me aside. Either I had no work at all, or they gave me tasks that were beneath my skills. They took away tasks that I had been hired to perform. After that, I could go several days without work. Then, on Thursday evening, someone would come and put a pile of files on my desk, the equivalent of a full week of work. I could not meet the Friday deadline. What concerned me about this way of doing things was that it involved operational work important for our border officers. They needed to have these files to be able to perform their duties.

Then, when they saw that they could not hang something on me this way, they began to sabotage my work. That was not successful, so they vandalized my office. I provided you with photos of that. It took me several days to find everything.

Next, they tried to launch investigations on me just to undermine me. One day, I helped a new colleague who did not know the difference between a trip number, an authorization number and a tax identification number. I was accused of accessing information that I did not have authorization to access. I went through a management investigation, until the head of security confirmed that I had been doing my job, that I had been helping a colleague and that I had done nothing wrong.

Then, I got sick several times. There was no explanation. One morning, Purell was found in my coffee. This was one of the triggers.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

If I understand your last sentence correctly, the intimidation went as far as—

[Luc Sabourin]

—as far as trying to poison me.

I asked CBSA's professional standards unit to install cameras in my office so that the perpetrators could be identified, but my request was denied.

Senior management told me that, if the person responsible for these acts was found guilty, all the cases that they had defended at the Federal Court would have to be reopened, which could be embarrassing for the department.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Avoiding embarrassment to the department was worth more than your life.

[Luc Sabourin]

Yes, madam.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That is the message that you got.

[Luc Sabourin]

Yes, and it went further than that.

As part of my duties, I had to testify on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency against members of organized crime.

A few weeks before I was to testify, I was threatened. Someone had disclosed my home address. My children were threatened directly. I had to request security measures for my children at school.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

If I understand correctly, the intimidation involved not only attempted poisoning, but also the providing of your address and personal details to organized criminals.

[Luc Sabourin]

No. Someone gave my information and my home address. People showed up near my house. They targeted me, threatened me and directly threatened my children a few weeks before I was to testify.

The only place that could disclose this information was my office.

When you testify, you have to give your work address.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The actions you're describing appear to be criminal acts.