Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've already condensed it, so hopefully we'll be under two minutes.
With Tom's absence last week, I return to provide testimony that Tom and I had collaborated on.
At FAIR, the whistle-blowing charity I founded and where Mr. Hutton came to volunteer, I wrote standards for a good law, adopting Tom's work. Mr. Hutton shared some with you, but never did I foresee the vengeance that would be marshalled against Canadian whistle-blowers, rendering these standards problematic.
In Canada, free speech and due process, fundamental to any whistle-blower, are handicapped. Former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin put it this way: “[W]e in Canada are more tolerant of state limitation on free expression than are Americans. Similar points can be made about other constitutional rights.” She continued by saying, “[T]he Canadian approach is more nuanced than that of the United States in relation to due process” and, “We are comfortable with ambiguity.”
The nail in the coffin was eloquently warned about by our current Chief Justice Wagner, quoting Balzac: “Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught.” Foundational to culture, these authoritative statements are ominous, especially since the whistle-blower is always the small fly.
You have repeatedly asked what this committee should do. First, take ownership of the crisis. For too long, ordinary Canadians have been doing Parliament's job.
Second, commit to signing an unambiguous public statement affirming full free speech rights for whistle-blowers, and incorporate it in Bill C-290.
Third, identify and bulldoze the due process nuances currently weaponized by our government, courts and tribunals to suppress whistle-blowers' human rights.
Committee has referenced the role of good faith. Please employ your own. Pass C-290, not as an end but as the beginning of a wholesome culture of truth-telling.
Thank you very much.