Government Operations Committee on April 19th, 2023

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the work you've done on this bill. I think it's incredibly important. Your dedication and your ability to bring people together around this is a credit to you. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions.

Could you talk about the rationale for including the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner in assessing or reviewing internal disclosure processes within organizations, and against what standard the commissioner would assess them?

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

The aim is to ensure that complaints are handled as fairly and efficiently as possible before judicial processes are involved, which are expensive and often discourage whistle-blowers from taking action.

As I explained previously, at the second level of recourse, the tribunal can not only adjudicate compensation, but also review the decision. Personally, I see this as a significant simplification. In addition, whistle-blowers would be given the right to apply to the tribunal and then to the Federal Court. Basically, it gives whistle-blowers an added opportunity to access justice more efficiently.

[Marc-André Roche]

If I understood correctly, you are asking me to comment on giving the commissioner an additional mandate, to assess the work of the departments.

The Information Commissioner does it when assessing whether access to information requests are handled properly. The Commissioner of Official Languages does it when determining if departments are complying with the Official Languages Act. Regarding whistle-blower protection, no neutral third party monitors the work of the government and makes recommendations to help the government to improve.

We believe that the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is in the best position to do this.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Back to the tribunal, on the rationale for requiring a tribunal to accept the commissioner's finding of reprisal, does this change a reprisal proceeding from an administrative investigation to a quasi-judicial hearing?

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

The answer is yes, absolutely. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your previous question. I should listen to the French interpretation.

We believe that having an administrative tribunal, which exists in many other parts of the public sector, would facilitate the process. Furthermore, this would in no way eliminate the opportunity to subsequently file an appeal with the Federal Court.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

I realize that we're coming to the end of this round. Is there anything else that you would like to comment on, such as the timeline around the questioning, or thoughts that you want to bring forward?

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

First, I would like to thank all the parliamentarians. I think that everyone has studied the bill thoroughly, making this a productive discussion, one that will continue into the future.

I want to say one last, very important, thing. A person doesn't choose to be a whistle-blower. They become one out of necessity. Going through this process requires tremendous courage. A person who decides to disclose wrongdoing faces major consequences. Obviously, even with the best bill, this will require a culture change in government and departments. It is a long process, and it is difficult to enshrine in the law. However, it is imperative that the law be improved to minimize all the costs to these people, who are dedicated to serving their employer and the public service. It is of the utmost importance.

Thank you, everyone, for your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have 25 seconds.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I'll be very quick and say thank you, because I think the human face is so important, as is the courage to come forward and really be able to hold a voice in very difficult circumstances.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Ms. Thompson.

MP Garon and Mr. Roche, thank you very much for being with us today. We will excuse you.

Colleagues, we will give our clerk a couple of seconds, so we can set up for the next witnesses. With a bit of luck, they'll be able to do their opening statements. We will probably suspend for the vote then and come back to finish the two rounds.

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, we are back.

Welcome, witnesses.

Welcome back, Ms. Forward. It's wonderful to see you again. I appreciate your joining us, and I appreciate everything you've done in the past helping this committee and with whistle-blowers.

Welcome, Mr. Sabourin.

You each have five-minute opening statements.

We'll start with you, Ms. Forward. Go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Pamela Forward, President and Executive Director, Whistleblowing Canada Research Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Pamela Forward, president and executive director of Whistleblowing Canada Research Society. We appreciate very much the opportunity to speak with everybody today.

Our heartfelt thanks to MPs who, thus far, have supported the private member's bill, Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, and to the Bloc Québécois member of Parliament from Mirabel, Mr. Jean-Denis Garon, for bringing it forward.

This bill is a long-awaited signal. It's a sign of humanity, compassion and respect towards Canada's public servant whistle-blowers. It will make significant, much-needed improvements and hopefully provoke many more to the deficient PSDPA.

In my time with you I will highlight some historical facts, why improvement in Canada's whistle-blowing regime is needed and thoughts on what more can be done.

In terms of history, here are some key facts.

Both of Canada's major parties have had a hand in the creation of the PSDPA, which was implemented in 2007. Clearly, they knew before the fact that the bill would not improve anything for whistle-blowers. Justice Gomery warned of this in his report on the sponsorship scandal in 1995. Instead of encouraging and empowering whistle-blowers, what it really did was control and suppress them.

More missteps perpetuated the suffering and enabled wrongdoers. First, was the 2012 government decision to disobey a statute—an indictable offence. They did not conduct the required independent review of the PSDPA after five years. Next, was the new government leader's decision to ignore the OGGO committee's 2017 unanimous report of its review of the PSDPA, recommending more than 20 amendments, if I remember correctly.

Why are improvements needed then? Studies and whistle-blower cases confirm that truth and truth-tellers in Canada are imperilled by this uncompromising unwillingness—at least up to now—to provide true protection and stop reprisals. This peril includes major catastrophes to both individuals and society at large, up to, and including, death. When truth dies, harm and corruption grow.

The studies and findings are listed in my submission. They confirm our flawed legislation and dysfunctional cultures.

Also, a key finding is that legislation alone will not protect whistle-blowers. The overriding factor for success is culture. If laws are introduced into an unwelcoming, resistant culture, they will not be properly upheld.

Here are a few whistle-blower cases.

This is an old one that has current consequences. Thirty years ago, in the 1990s, national security whistle-blowers from the then Department of External Affairs, the RCMP and CSIS were suppressed and ostracized. Their careers and health were destroyed for just doing their jobs. They reported on corruption in the Canadian high commission in Hong Kong that allowed Chinese Triads—criminals—to flow into Canada and bring along with them drug and human trafficking, money laundering, inflated house prices, etc. The consequences have persisted until today and have grown to include interference in Canada's elections by the CCP.

Here is a current case waiting to be told. This case concerns the Canada Border Services Agency and an officer who simply did his job by refusing to comply with illegal and potentially criminal orders from his superiors. You're going to hear from him in person. What's breathtaking and frightening is the litany of failures of all of the authorities he contacted who should have helped and could have helped, but didn't. That sadly included MPs from most parties. It's a living testimony to the disintegration of our democratic institutions in real time.

That's something else to consider. I'm going to leave it because of the time. I hope it will come up again.

What is needed then is Bill C‑290. It contains eight internationally recognized best practices. There are 20 in all. A few more are needed to give a whistle-blower a reasonable chance to prevail. We urge you to work collaboratively to include as many as possible in the bill. This is not a partisan issue. Our democracy is under stress, and we need—and you need—whistle-blowers to come forward to help defend it.

The problems plaguing the current regime are.... I'm just going to list them and I have listed solutions in a table—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll have to ask you to be very brief, please.

[Pamela Forward]

They are flawed legislation, implementation failure, uncommitted and ineffective leadership, political and administrative cultures that stress information control, and a lack of constructive scrutiny by Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Ms. Forward.

Mr. Sabourin, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Luc Sabourin, Retired Junior Officer, Canada Border Services Agency, As an Individual]

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for having me.

On behalf of my colleagues, I would also like to thank Mr. Garon and Mrs. Vignola.

My name is Luc Sabourin. I'm 55 years old and the father of two young children, a 16‑year‑old girl and a 12‑year‑old boy. I am a whistle-blower who disclosed federal wrongdoings internally.

I was a senior quality control operator for the entry of critical and specific information in a federal database that contributes in part to national and international security. I held the highest security clearances, granted on an extremely limited and restricted basis. I performed my duties in an operational environment for the Canadian government during my 26 years of service, with no incidents in my career file.

My career began on August 13, 1990, and ended tragically and harshly on February 16, 2016. During the period from March 2009 to February 2016, I witnessed a number of criminal wrongdoings in my workplace. On February 16, 2016, I received a constructive administrative dismissal. This administrative procedure was the final step taken by my employer after eight years of psychological, physical and administrative harassment.

This constructive dismissal constituted a major reprisal by my employer for two reasons. First, an outside investigation, but one that was extremely limited and under the administrative control of the branch, revealed and demonstrated that the employer was guilty of harassment towards me.

Second, I used the internal disclosure processes, and religiously followed the employer's internal guidelines and protocols on disclosing wrongdoings and crimes in the federal workplace.

Consequently, management and co‑workers who were the perpetrators undertook a major campaign of reprisals against me just to undermine and destroy me, and to catch me doing something wrong in order to justify my dismissal. For eight years, I was the victim of psychological, physical and administrative harassment in the workplace, as well as a smear campaign, abusive management practices and unwarranted threats from colleagues and members of management. It was so extreme that I suffered a psychological breakdown.

In 2015, I reached the breaking point psychologically and made an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Today, life has given me a second chance to speak on behalf of some of my colleagues who are no longer with us as well as those who are still here. No one should have to go through what internal whistle-blowers experience at the hands of their employer.

I asked for help from the person in charge of my workplace, my Liberal member of Parliament, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice. I also made a complaint to the RCMP, which has been unsuccessful to date.

Today, I am on permanent retirement for medical reasons. I am physically, mentally and financially shattered. My personal life and professional career have been destroyed, and the future is uncertain for me and my family.

I can state with certainty that the Government of Canada and the Canadian people had an experienced honest public servant who represented their interests with integrity and transparency. It is for these same reasons that the employer ended my career as a federal public servant.

It is imperative that each of you support amending the current law by passing Bill C‑290 for whistle-blowers in the federal public service. This will protect them and save lives in the interest of transparency and justice. Democracy and public safety must be protected from potentially destructive and illegal situations in the federal public sector.

Thank you all for listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

We'll start with six minutes for Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Sabourin, I am very sorry to hear your story. Thank you for sharing it with us.

I'm glad to be here today. I hope that things will change from now on. As I said before, there was a report in 2017, but unfortunately, we have not seen any changes under the current government. The bill before us today is at least a start, and I hope that it is just the beginning. Indeed, I do not want other people to have to go through what you did.

Thank you very much.

Madam Forward, did you want to finish your statement? You read your recommendations, but was there anything else you wanted to add? I want to provide you that time to add to it.

[Pamela Forward]

No. I would just like to have the opportunity at some stage to talk about the proposed solutions for the problems that I itemized.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

This could be that opportunity. Please go ahead.

[Pamela Forward]

All right. The first one was—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Are these the Braun amendments that we discussed in our meeting?

[Pamela Forward]

No.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay. Please continue with your solutions. Go ahead.