Evidence of meeting #64 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was whistle-blower.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks, Ms. Thompson.
Mrs. Vignola, you have two and a half minutes, please.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I invite each witness to answer my next question very briefly.
Are you able to assess the level of good faith I have in supporting Bill C‑290?
In other words, am I doing it for personal glory or vengeance? After all, I'm a nasty separatist!
Why do you think it's important for me to support the bill? Are you able to assess the value of my motives?
4:40 p.m.
Legal Director, Government Accountability Project
Well, if we each get a chance, I would take the first crack.
It means that you have to read their mind. That's why it's an inherent wild card. It's very vulnerable to subjective judgments. You need to have objective standards for these rights. Good faith leaves it all up to non-objective considerations.
Frankly, whistle-blowers are exposing the truth about abuses of power that betray the public. Does it really matter why they are exposing the truth? They're witnesses for the public interest.
In the United States, some of the most significant witnesses in history were mafia hit men. They weren't testifying and exposing crimes because of their values. They were doing it for self-interest, but we needed their testimony, so we guarded their lives whether or not we thought they were good-faith human beings.
4:40 p.m.
Retired Lawyer, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, As an Individual
I just want to add, as somebody who dealt with the system as a whistle-blower and, obviously, as a lawyer: Our common law system proceeds on objective evaluation of things. The introduction of “good faith”, which has served only as a weapon against whistle-blowers, is really at odds with the way the law functions, which is to evaluate things from an objective standard. It has no place in this law.
4:40 p.m.
Retired Captain, As an Individual
I completely agree.
It would be one of those obstacles that I was talking about that makes this act discriminatory. Removing “good faith” would be very important, because there's already enough focus on questioning the whistle-blower. The whistle-blower already goes through enough self-questioning about their loyalty to the organization.
Please, let's not question the whistle-blower anymore. Let's get on with identifying the wrongdoing.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks.
I'm afraid we don't have any more time. Perhaps Dr. Brill-Edwards and Ms. Myers could provide it in writing to us.
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
It's the wrong question.
The real question is, does the disclosure serve the public interest? Is the information valuable in the public interest?
Thank you.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Well, I'm going to let Dr. Brill-Edwards finish what she was going to say.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Okay. That's great.
I'm going to you, Dr. Brill-Edwards, because we know the legislative changes are critical in Bill C-290.
Can you speak about the importance of the culture in the public service? That needs to change. Do you have some suggestions on that?
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes.
The main thrust of my concerns is exactly that the committee understand the nature of the public service and the many constraints under which public servants work on a daily basis.
What is really required is to realize that unless there are legislative sanctions on retaliation against speaking up, then whistle-blowers are in jeopardy in a system that, in a broad sense, requires loyalty and adherence to the overall thrust and overall quest of the public service to serve the government. That's a part of our democracy.
Things go off the rails when individuals within that system are undertaking actions or decisions that do not serve the public interest. Joanna has mentioned that. If we have a scenario in which everyone feels compelled to get along and go along with the decisions that are being made and if one speaks up against decisions that are either wrong or very questionable and put lives at risk—for example, in the case of medicines—and if there is that kind of pressure against speaking up, knowing there's going to be retaliation, then we cannot expect people to do the right thing and speak up.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
4:45 p.m.
Retired Lawyer, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, As an Individual
I do.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Retired Lawyer, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, As an Individual
Yes. It's a bit off-point, but one thing that has not been adequately discussed in committee is the role of the media. Whistle-blowers in the States taught....
This issue should really go back to Tom.
The media is an essential ally. It's not a friend of the whistle-blower, but it is an ally in the public interest. It is the conduit that is essential to bringing wrongdoing to the public, which then demands change through our electoral process. I have always been an advocate that ultimately whistle-blowing to the media has to be one of the avenues.
Maybe Tom can comment on that.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm afraid we don't have time. We're way past your two and a half.
We'll finish up with two more five-minute interventions. It's to Ms. Kusie for five, please.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I want to hear from each of our witnesses what the greatest thing is that you have learned in the journey that brought you before this committee today. Would you change anything from the journey you've gone on, and what would that be? That's from each of the witnesses, please.
4:45 p.m.
Legal Director, Government Accountability Project
From my perspective, I've learned that nothing is more powerful than the truth, if you have a fair chance to share it. It's more powerful than money, than conventional authority. Over and over again, in my experience, David has beat Goliath because he had the truth in his slingshot.
As far as what I'd like to change is concerned, it's the glacial pace of the evolution of whistle-blower rights. Far too many laws.... Canada's not alone. Most laws that are pioneer laws in establishing a right establish a principle, but they don't have all the infrastructure necessary to effectively implement it, because it was so hard just to establish the principle. They haven't had the experience of lessons learned.
That's why I'm so grateful to this committee for its persistence in monitoring the track record of the PSDPA and for acting on those lessons learned. The one out of 20 criteria that Canada passed was review. That was a criterion on paper. Your committee has made it in reality.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Whistleblowing International Network
If I could just jump in quickly, I was just going to say that what Tom and I have been arguing internationally and what he said so eloquently is that whistle-blowing is really about institutional accountability. It isn't really about the whistle-blower. I think that is what gets missed when these laws are passed: We focus so much on how the individual delivers the message, and whether they did it in the appropriate way. If you think about the purpose of the law being ensuring the free flow of information for institutional accountability, that's absolutely essential. That's what's kept me going.
The other thing I would say is all the witnesses.... It is a citizen's charter, really, and it does depend on that. I set up and helped to work with the Whistleblowing International Network because civil society engagement means that it keeps everyone—including charities, and I run a charity—on their toes for their decision-making. It is so important that you're listening to the whistle-blowers and you're listening to those who have been working in the field of non-profits. They're the ones, with journalists as well, trying to hold power to account in a way that works for us all. It's not about the blame game. It's about making it work.
4:50 p.m.
Retired Captain, As an Individual
To go back and have 20/20 hindsight about what I learned is difficult, because I couldn't have done it any other way. The military so deeply indoctrinates us, just like the public service does to a similar degree, to be loyal, to never question authority. To go to the media is absolutely anathema to being in the military, because we're taught in the military that the media wants only to criticize the military.
I had to learn along the way to find myself, to separate myself from these powerful messages of indoctrination, and I beat myself up endlessly, wasting endless resources and my family, trying to convince the people in Veterans Affairs that something was going wrong. That was stupid, in hindsight, but I couldn't have done it any other way.
Perhaps the best thing I can learn to do is to forgive myself, because I didn't have a choice.
4:50 p.m.
Retired Lawyer, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, As an Individual
I just want to make this point: When betrayed or abandoned by my government, I learned that I was embraced by our people. I have spoken to churches, to universities, to professional associations. What I learned was that they universally cared. The people cared about whistle-blowers and about the opportunity for truth to come forward.
I say to you as politicians, know that you are supported by the people in your quest to get this done right.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I think I've learned overall that integrity matters, that it's important for each of us to speak up lest others be harmed. When I was in the midst of the difficulties at Health Canada, with senior people who were quite willing to let other people die, I really felt that it was probably time for me to leave. I said to my mother, who had had a number of strokes because of all this stress, that I would leave, not wanting to lose her in order to fight these battles. Her answer to me still rings in my ears. She said, “Michèle, if for one moment I thought that on my account you would fail to do the thing that you know to be the right thing to do, that surely would kill me.”
Those were my marching orders. That's the lesson that stays with me throughout all of this. I keep encouraging friends and neighbours and anyone who will listen to speak up and not accept what you feel is not right.