Government Operations Committee on April 26th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 63 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Colleagues, one of our witnesses for today, unfortunately, was tied up by their airline and will not be able to make it. That's Mr. Devine, so we have two witnesses today.

Ms. Gualtieri, welcome back. It's fantastic to see you.

[Joanna Gualtieri, Retired Lawyer, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, As an Individual]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I understand you have a five-minute opening statement for us.

[Joanna Gualtieri]

Am I opening?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes.

Please go ahead.

[Joanna Gualtieri]

Sure.

Mr. Chair and members, this is a privilege, and thank you to members Garon and Vignola.

In 2004 I provided the first of many testimonies on the tenets of effective whistle-blowing legislation, but rather than protect truth-tellers, the government imposed oppressive anti-free speech regimes. Today we must, therefore, confront Canada's dehumanizing treatment of whistle-blowers, who, as eye witnesses to the birthplace of scandals, are indispensable to bridge the secrecy gap.

Former prime ministers Chrétien, Martin and Harper all affirmed that, in their governments, whistle-blowers would be safe. A bright light was in 2006, when Pierre Poilievre stated, “The plan is to protect all whistle-blowers regardless of the approach they take to expose the corruption,” but with Justin Trudeau now positioned as the global champion for openness, public servants remain muzzled, seemingly powerless against the hypocrisy.

Thirty-one years ago I joined Global Affairs. My job was to accountably manage billions of dollars of diplomatic housing. Almost immediately, I faced an indulged diplomatic class who, in violating rules, wasted billions on excessively luxurious and palatial accommodations. My duty to hard-working taxpayers prevented my acquiescence. By 1995, with a deep recession engulfing Canada, 33% of urban children lived in poverty, rising to 50% in Montreal. This gross waste was not only unlawful; it was evil.

For six years I worked internally, believing that change would come. It didn't. Instead, the department unleashed a campaign of retribution. It started subtle but became brazen: I was ordered silent at meetings, struck from memos and deprived of essential work tools. I was, as one colleague said, rendered irrelevant. My job was sabotaged, putting my title and salary at risk. Then one day, I was simply stripped of my job in a degrading public statement. Maintenance took my door plaque, computer and phone, and the department expunged me from the directory. Whether a lie, lack of courage or something else, the ADM's betrayal of the promise to get back to me following our meeting left me hanging, subject to more stealth abuse for going up the hierarchy.

The deputy minister stonewalled, and after sending evidence of the unchecked profligacy to the minister Lloyd Axworthy, I was threatened with liable for suggesting any wrongdoing. On my final day, I was invisible and alone, and my director advised that the problem was that I cared too much about doing my job right. The final ignominy was an anonymous call tracked to a phone booth, menacingly warning me to back down or the department would publicize who I was sleeping with. One month later, June 10, 1998, I sued.

Reeling from six years of abuse, weary from constant vigilance, I now faced a justice department that financed 13 years of warfare, using taxpayer money, hell-bent on bankrupting and destroying me. Shamed by nothing, in 2000 the government demanded I pay $360,000 for just one motion. In 2003, they hauled me back into court, claiming I was stalling, because I needed a brief reprieve to breastfeed my newborn.

Now 62 years old....

[A voice]

You can do it.

[Joanna Gualtieri]

Thank you.

I have learned sobering truths. Despite winning, decades of being in a subterfuge of corruption, lies and cover-up leaves lasting wounds, but the deepest cut is loss: loss of time, hope, vocation, community, and most of all, the loss of my little brother who, with special needs, counted on me. Engaged in a war against a formidable government, I couldn't be there when he needed me most, and he died alone.

A year later I went through the same debilitating regret when mom died. We never got to sign up for the sewing classes. I kept deferring. I am so sorry.

Today my husband Serge is here with our sons Zacharie and Sebastien. In the depth of despair, we found grace with their arrival. For their generation, we must find courage and place dignity to people over deference to power. We must pass Bill C-290, establishing this moment as a new beginning in restoring trust not only in our public service but also in Canada's vision for decency and justice.

Martin Luther King said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” Today, pass Bill C-290 and be the force that bends this arc.

Thank you very much. I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

No, that was great. Thank you very much, we appreciate it.

Ms. Dion, you have an opening statement for five minutes, please.

[Julie Dion, Border Service Officer and Trainer, As an Individual]

I want to begin by thanking the committee for listening to our stories. It's important.

My name is Julie Dion. I'm 55 years old, and I worked for the federal government from 2000 to 2015. I defended whistle-blower Luc Sabourin.

I was recruited in February 2008 by the senior analyst in the records section, the very person who was the unit's tormentor.

During my initial interview with the director, she asked me if I was comfortable working in a unit where there were interpersonal problems. I told her that I could do it without any problem, since I was trained as a referral agent to provide support in the employee assistance program. So the director knew there were problems in that unit.

I started in this unit as a team leader where I was responsible for about 15 employees. It was during that year that several employees, including Mr. Sabourin, approached me to complain about harassment, injustice and intimidation within the team. During the 18 months of that mandate, I witnessed reprehensible behaviour that was so serious that I lost my sleep.

As per the current complaint protocol, I forwarded the information to my immediate director. This director had to leave the unit within six months because she herself had become the target of the disruptive agent. At that time, the person responsible for the employee assistance program offered me conflict management training. I approached my director to see if I could attend, and she said I could attend, but I couldn't do anything for our unit.

During this training, I learned that I had to go one level above my director, since she, herself, was involved. The senior person responsible was the vice-president of the Canada Border Services Agency. The complainants and I went to meet with her. The situation went downhill after that. The verbal barbs from my director and the disruptive officer made it clear to me that these two individuals were aware of the complaints and the steps we had taken.

During my short tenure with the unit, I saw at least 25 people come and go because of this situation.

The anguish and nightmares caused by defamatory comments and abusive, aggressive and reprehensible actions were ruining my life. Faced with this chaos and my powerlessness, I asked for a sabbatical year to fulfill a mandate of the Canadian International Development Agency in Haiti. It was a nine-month contract.

I asked my director for help on several occasions to support the training that I sometimes gave to the records unit, which she refused, not surprisingly.

Following the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, the Haitian minister asked me to stay to help manage the state of emergency. I asked my new director for an extension of my mandate to allow me to stay in Haiti, which she refused. She then asked me to return to Canada. In light of this refusal, the Haitian minister asked the Canadian ambassador to intervene with the director to release me. The Canadian ambassador's request was also denied.

An email from CBSA's vice-president of Operations notified me that I was being fired. I found myself without a government job after 11 years of loyal service and literally risking my life to promote the values and security of my country, all because I dared to speak out, because I dared to support a whistle-blower.

In 2013, I was contacted again following an investigation, which Mr. Sabourin talked about in his testimony, to be reinstated in my position, because it had been discovered that I had been wrongfully terminated. In 2014, I was reinstated to a position below mine, in a unit in Sherbrooke that was far from my area of expertise.

I would find out later, through an access to information request, that an order for radio silence had been issued to me by management. That was the death knell of my career; I'm still being targeted.

In 2015, I couldn't take it anymore. Suffering from post-traumatic stress related to this situation, I went on sick leave. I've never been able to return to work.

Being a whistle-blower in the current system is the equivalent of professional suicide. It's David versus Goliath. As a witness to what was going on with Mr. Sabourin, I was also targeted and not protected. If the amendments proposed in Bill C‑290 had been in force, I would have been protected.

I ask the members of the committee and all Canadians to hear my case.

The lack of real protection kills. Wrongdoing, even criminal acts, takes place within the government, and no one says anything because of the lack of protection and the violence of reprisals. All of this breaks whistle-blowers. It can even drive them to suicide; believe me, it's not as rare as we think. Things must change, and Bill C‑290 is part of that change.

Remember that the work you do in Parliament has the potential to save lives. Please stand on the right side.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dion.

Mrs. Kusie, you have six minutes, please.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Ms. Dion, I worked for the Department of Foreign Affairs for 15 years. I was posted to El Salvador, Argentina and, lastly, Dallas, Texas. I remember the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. I was involved in the aid effort at that time.

Thank you both for your service to our country. I think most Canadians don't recognize the service of people who work for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development or who have worked for CIDA.

Madam Gualtieri, I'm just looking at this beautiful picture of you as a younger woman. I was once a younger woman myself. You just wonder how you've changed from then until now. I can't imagine the difference between who this person was, so bright and optimistic, looking outward to the world. After what you've been through, most certainly....

Not to excuse the actions of any government, but I will say that at the time when I was consul for Dallas the foreign minister took some very strong decisions to sell our official residence in Dallas—which had an impact on me—as well as properties in Rome, for example. Certainly I know the injustice that you have faced. It is injustice, but there were those who heard your concerns as outlined within the article in terms of the expectations of Canadians serving abroad. Thank you for that.

Now, I will finally get to the questioning, Madam Gualtieri.

How do you think BillC-290 will impact public servants going forward into the future? What positive aspect is there that could have helped you, were it in place?

[Joanna Gualtieri]

Thank you for that question and for your interest.

I have been involved in this movement for a long time. I am a lawyer as well. I have to say that my initial involvement was very committed to the law. Partly that was my training and I also saw that it was necessary to regulate behaviour through changing the laws. As I've progressed, I've realized—I'm going to read you something by an academic—that the law is really just one part. It has to be there, but we know through any social movement—I always look at the civil rights movement—laws were changed. However, it took decades, years and a lot of sacrifice. There were a lot of deaths and a lot of marches. The culture changed through an amassing of people.

It is essential to pass Bill C-290. To turn it back will send a very grave message to not only the public service but to the people of Canada that they are not important and the truth does not matter, and it's a very cynical manoeuvre. I take it as a given that people will collaborate to pass C-290.

Will it be a panacea? No, it will not. Probably one of the most critical issues is how somebody is supposed to mount a case without legal representation. That is a very big part that we're going to have to discuss how to do.

I want to read you something by an academic. I'll send it to the clerk. This is an article by Brian Martin, who's an Australian academic. He said this:

A whistleblower is, in essence, a person who believes that truth should prevail over power..... [They] are a potential threat to nearly everyone in powerful positions and thus need to be domesticated.

...it is unrealistic to expect a law to undermine powerful hierarchies.

...it cannot be expected that any formal procedure could be enacted and implemented that would enable single individuals, backed solely by truth, to reliably win against powerful organisational elites.

The law is essential. Is it enough? No. We need a major cultural, socio-political shift in embracing whistle-blowing.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you for that. I also want to take this moment to thank your family as well for supporting you, because no one achieves anything without their family. I want to recognize that.

Ms. Dion, I'd like to ask your opinion on the importance of passing the bill before us today.

[Julie Dion]

Protecting whistle-blowers and people who witness wrongdoing and support whistle-blowers in their efforts is crucial. People have lost their lives, their careers, their homes, their relationships. We need a much broader and more detailed framework than what we have now. It would save lives.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

I thought I had 10 seconds, but all right. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid that's the time.

Mr. Fergus, I understand you're next.

Go ahead for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank Ms. Dion and Ms. Gualtieri for their very moving testimony.

Ms. Gualtieri, I wasn't aware of your situation, but I was very aware of Mr. Sabourin's and Ms. Dion's efforts to help him.

I'd like to reassure you that everyone around the table agrees on the substance of this important Bill C‑290. We're trying to improve the legislation to ensure that we avoid the kind of problems like the ones you've experienced or witnessed.

My questions will be a little more specific, and I hope you'll be willing to answer them.

Madam Gualtieri, given your direct experience of this, what are your thoughts on this bill's expansion of protection to public servants, not the actual disclosure of wrongdoing but those who are involved in the disclosure of wrongdoings?

[Joanna Gualtieri]

I'm sorry. I had a very hard time hearing.

What is my impression about the bill regarding the protection of what?

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

We are all in agreement that we should protect the disclosure of wrongdoings. What are your thoughts on also protecting those who are involved in the disclosure of wrongdoings?

[Joanna Gualtieri]

They go hand in glove. We need to investigate what the disclosure is about, but you won't have disclosures unless you protect the person who is doing the disclosing. Wrongdoing will remain buried in secrets, in documents and in private meetings if people are not protected. You can't have disclosure or free speech unless it's protected. By doing that, we protect people. It's axiomatic that they go together.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Dion, I'd like to ask you the same question. Do you think it's important to have provisions to protect the confidentiality of whistle-blowers?

[Julie Dion]

This protection is essential because, when someone blows the whistle, a lot of things are at stake: their emotional state, their physical state, their family, and so on. If no one can protect these people, all that will happen is that nothing will be said, no one will blow the whistle again. You have to be suicidal, ready to lose your career and your life in order to come forward under these conditions. All of you here have a career in which you have put all your efforts. When you decide to talk about abuses that have been committed, you put your career on the line. If the legislation doesn't protect us, what do we have left? Nothing. You have to be a little crazy to blow the whistle.

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

I have another question for you, Ms. Dion.

Bill C‑290 proposes to remove references to good faith or having

“reasonable grounds” in sections of the act.

Do you think this will open the door to unwarranted accusations? Is it better to have a framework that says that people must sincerely believe that a wrong or an injustice has been done?

[Julie Dion]

Mr. Fergus, when a criminal complaint is made, an investigation is conducted. You don't say that you don't believe the person who made the complaint and that you won't investigate. Someone will actually investigate and report back, and then a decision will be made.

If a person files an unwarranted complaint, they will pay with their career. The legislation must govern that.