Evidence of meeting #7 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Bonjour à tous. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the seventh meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, today regarding the new Veterans Charter.
I just have a couple of quick pieces of business first.
Mr. McColeman.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
As we're well aware, this is the national day of mourning for Poland, and there are a couple of us who have been asked to express condolences at the embassy at 1:15. I'm wondering if I could ask the committee for the meeting to end at 12:45 to allow two of us on this side to be involved in those condolences.
Would that be acceptable to committee members?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
That gives us enough time. It will just be about right, if we can wrap it up at that time.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
That should be fine.
Is there any other business before we get to our witnesses?
Accordingly, I want to welcome Sean Bruyea, a retired captain who has served our nation, and his wife, Carolina. They will be giving testimony regarding the new Veterans Charter.
Sean, I think I've noticed you enough times at meetings here that you actually know the whole drill of submissions by witnesses, and even the rotation of questions. So I'm going to allow you to go ahead, and we'll just keep track of the time so that we stay within the maximum.
April 15th, 2010 / 11:05 a.m.
Sean Bruyea Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual
Thank you, Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me and my wife here today to testify on the new Veterans Charter.
In many ways, Canada's veterans were betrayed by the MPs who sat in the 38th Parliament. They passed the Veterans Charter in mere seconds on May 10, 2005, without even reading it. Their Senate colleagues did little better, granting it just two days of debate. At its heart, Bill C-45, now known as the new Veterans Charter, removed the lifelong disability lump sum for pain and suffering.
In contrast, when the subject of MP pensions, which affects only a privileged few, was raised in the 35th Parliament, it was the focus of a supply day debate, and when Bill C-85 was finally tabled, there was so much debate that a time allocation motion was required. So while changes to MP pensions were hotly debated over months of Parliament, the new Veterans Charter came in like a thief in the night, with the acquiescence of all four parties of the House of Commons. Ironically, the rapid passage of the bill occurred while most members of the committees on veterans affairs of both Houses had just returned from or were still in Europe celebrating VE Day.
Quite simply, VAC betrayed veterans and hoodwinked Parliament, and I am here to ask you to right that wrong.
Unstated at any point during the parliamentary process of debate is the real reason why VAC needed to pass Bill C-45 with such urgency. Its officials had recommended “a shift to greater use of lump sum payments combined with customized rehabilitation services...to regain control of an alarming future liability scenario”. This was, however, hinted at by the testimony of Darragh Mogan when he appeared before the only Senate committee meeting on the Veterans Charter and admitted that the program “would pay for itself over a 15- to 20-year period”. This is the best illustration of a hidden agenda in recent Canadian political history.
Make no mistake about it. The remainder of the programs in the charter for disabled veterans and serving members existed in one form or another before the charter was passed. This was not, as Minister Guarnieri claimed during the May 11 hearing to the Senate national finance committee, “an entirely new vehicle designed to deliver what the current system cannot”. Louise Richard, Harold Leduc, and I were the only Canadians given an opportunity to testify to committee in opposition to the charter as it was written.
Indeed, we were all sold this new legislation based upon short briefings, which used such catch phrases as “opportunity with security”, “widespread consultations”, “case management”, and “psycho-social rehabilitation”, to name a few.
Although Veterans Affairs did not have a vocational rehabilitation or job placement program at the time, the SISIP vocational rehabilitation program had a long and successful history, and the CF had at least three job placement programs in operation.
Minister Guarnieri also claimed that the new system “will take us back to the same position we were in and enable us to provide the same level of re-establishment support we provided following the Second World War”. Then, ministers from each of a half dozen or more departments had been organized into a special committee. Experts from the military, medicine, rehabilitation, and representatives from the highest levels of the federal, all provincial, and most large municipal governments, industry, and community leaders all came together to create what was largely accepted to be the best re-establishment and rehabilitation program in the world at the time. Then, the deputy minister of Veterans Affairs personally recruited 34 individuals straight from the military to act as the senior managers to implement these new programs in Veterans Affairs, because he knew that veterans were the best to understand the needs of other veterans.
Veterans, whether wounded or not, were given health care, low-cost insurance, and financial assistance to re-establish. All were offered a choice of land grants, farming assistance, low-interest mortgages, university, or apprenticeships, as well as small business assistance. Meanwhile, any disabled veterans were provided with all of the above plus greater health care, the best case management and rehabilitation the world had to offer, and a monthly disability pension paid for life.
Whereas there were approximately a million World War II veterans, compared with roughly half a million Canadian Forces veterans, both deserve similar benefits and compassion for injuries suffered during their honourable service to this nation.
Whereas World War II benefits were designed by a committee of ministers, the Veterans Charter and its associated programs were almost solely authored by a modernization task force headed by a VAC director, Darragh Mogan, who called upon another VAC director, Ken Miller, to be his principal salesman. They presented the charter as a fait accompli to the greater Canadian government as well as to Parliament, veterans organizations, and the Canadian public.
To my knowledge, not one member of the task force in VAC has any military background, and reportedly not a single senior manager in Veterans Affairs is a veteran. More disturbingly, they had very little oversight or meaningful revision by superior or elected officials and have seen almost none since.
The minister promised reviews every two to three months in 2005, and later the department talked of regular reviews of perhaps every year or two years. As a result of my testimony in 2005 to the Senate, the department created the special needs advisory group, and then later the new Veterans Charter advisory group, to ensure that all those veterans who are disabled and their families are being appropriately cared for by the charter.
These groups have done good work, making approximately 299 recommendations for change to the charter. However, all suffer from the same process flaw. The people in charge of receiving the recommendations are the very same as those who authored the charter. It is therefore not surprising to note that fewer than half a dozen recommendations have even been partially implemented by VAC in the four years since SNAG's first report was submitted and that no serious consideration has been given to any recommendation that might involve financial consequences.
Had the real intent of the Veterans Charter been any other than saving money, such groups would have been convened before the legislation was tabled, so that all their recommendations could have been part of the original program; moreover, there would have been several committee hearings prior to its passage in the House.
True to the spirit of VAC's hidden agenda, SNAG's reports have never been made public, and the proceedings of these advisory groups are never published. In the same way, when the charter was created, only one or two individuals from each of only six veterans organizations were involved. Each was sworn to confidentiality and agreed to, in effect, unquestionably support the charter. These leaders could not share any details of the charter with their membership.
Amazingly, this is what VAC has called “the most widespread consultation in VAC's history”. It is frightening that they believe this to be true.
For the veteran and CF community, it is as though we are playing hockey by the rules on our side, but VAC's net is far too small to fit the puck and is facing in the opposite direction.
Canada's men and women in uniform have very high respect for our elected members of Parliament, and we ask you to do what we cannot. Please hold Veterans Affairs Canada accountable. It is unacceptable that VAC bureaucrats should be able to accept or reject any recommendations that affect the social contract between Canada and its veterans. It should be Parliament, and especially this committee, that instructs VAC to implement changes.
Somehow along the way, VAC officials and Parliament developed a highly dysfunctional relationship. Bureaucrats believe they can accept or reject whatever Parliament tells them, and Parliament has done very little to change such unbridled arrogance of certain VAC senior managers.
Let me ask some questions.
Would a lifelong disability pension not offer more security than a one-time lump sum?
In a world where university education is a prerequisite for government jobs, how can VAC promote the fast-tracking of veterans while excluding university education?
Would no-interest loans or grants like those offered to World War II veterans not offer more opportunity to start a business while veterans could still count on the security of a lifetime disability pension?
Why is it that public servants can use their rehabilitation time and income to contribute to their retirement pension but veterans cannot?
Why is it that public servants can arrange for a gradual back-to-work schedule, but the Veterans Charter does not allow this?
Why is it that not a single dollar earned by a public servant while on a rehabilitation plan of long-term disability is deducted, but half a dollar is deducted from a veteran on the long-term disability rehabilitation plan?
Should there be specific programs to help those disabled veterans who have been out of the workforce for years, sometimes a decade or more, especially when these veterans, in their thirties, forties, and fifties, still want to contribute, to be productive members of Canadian society?
Each of these questions is complex and deserves a comprehensive answer. Had the Veterans Charter been given proper public hearings before passage, we would know those answers. I hope your committee report will provide guidance in each of these matters as well as of my other 38 recommendations.
As SNAG recommends, the charter must be completely reviewed by both Houses, as if it is being seen for the first time, in its entirety, and the committees must be willing to rewrite the entire charter if necessary. This is because Canada's men and women in harm's way need to know that the Veterans Charter is not the work of cost-cutting bureaucrats in Charlottetown, but of their elected leaders right here in Ottawa.
Indeed, if given a broader mandate, this committee should ask whether the Prime Minister should apologize to those neglected or forgotten veterans from the decade prior to the charter's implementation and whether these veterans and their families should have been given or could still be given access to war veterans' programs. This committee should also examine whether maintaining VAC's headquarters in Charlottetown is a benefit to veterans or simply allows civil servants an even greater distance from their Ottawa political masters. It should also study whether the VAC should be integrated into the Department of National Defence. And not to be overlooked is whether a department charged with the care, treatment, and rehabilitation of veterans should have more than just a symbolic presence of veterans in its ranks.
I know I'm asking a lot, but this minority Parliament is capable of great things. If you're looking for resolve, I ask you to travel to Afghanistan and tell our soldiers that it is too difficult to change the public service because the public service is too powerful. Our soldiers may remind you of the challenges of patrolling the Panjwai district of Kandahar and their willingness to die in the service of the country they love. They hope they can count on you, each and every one of you, to accomplish this important mission.
Finally, I want to remind you that as an active opponent of the Veterans Charter as written, I have been singled out for reprisals by VAC bureaucrats, as documented by nearly 13,000 pages of my personal government information held by Veterans Affairs and obtained through the Privacy Act. Many of you in committee have known me for several years. You may also know that I take great pride in my advocacy work, work which I hope will help Canada take the best care possible of its disabled veterans and their families.
In May 2005, while I was calling for Parliament to send the charter to committee for study, just as you are doing now, certain officials at Veterans Affairs coordinated their efforts to seek reprisals against me, principally for my opposition to the charter as it was written as well as my support for a veterans ombudsman. I now have in my possession these 13,000 pages of Privacy Act information that the department holds on me and on my activities as an advocate. At least 10,000 more pages exist, but they have yet to be provided to me.
What emerges from this information is a clearly documented and disturbing picture of public servants seeking reprisals against me specifically for my advocacy work. In possible violation of ethical boundaries and privacy legislation, policy officials who designed the charter, such as Ken Miller, worked together with treatment officials, such as Orlanda Drebit and Jane Hicks, to blend my advocacy efforts with my medical files. They blended them into briefing notes seen by cabinet ministers and MPs in an attempt to discredit me personally and my work. Their plan was twofold: first, to attack my credibility by falsely accusing me of defrauding the crown, while attempting to force me to be admitted to Ste. Anne's Hospital for a psychiatric assessment reminiscent of Stalinist tactics. The second part of the plan was for these officials to use highly personal information and distortions thereof in briefing notes.
11:20 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Mr. Chairman, can you ask our witness to speak a little more slowly because the interpreters can't keep up with the speed of his remarks?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual
These briefing notes were given to the sitting minister whenever I carried out my advocacy work. The notes were principally 10 pages long and included the most intimate details of my pharmacological drug use, my financial benefits, my bladder functions, my mental health state, and excerpts from psychiatric and other medical reports. The briefing notes concluded that the only reason that I advocated was because I was mentally unwell, in the sense that in their opinion one would have to be crazy to advocate for change.
These briefing notes were sent to almost all of the VAC senior managers involved in the sections of policy and treatment. In fact, more than 400 Veterans Affairs employees have seen some aspect of my personal files. When I reported these allegations of reprisals to two separate ministers, the response--on the advice of bureaucrats, including Veterans Charter authors--was to ignore my allegations and instead refer me to a VAC psychologist.
When I reported the matter to the Prime Minister's Office, documents in my possession clearly show that the minister's chief of staff and the two most senior VAC officials briefed the Prime Minister's Office that although they could not talk about my allegations due to privacy, many soldiers in the Canadian Forces distrust authority, and that whenever VAC denies a request, the soldiers imagine a “conspiracy”. Furthermore, these VAC officials told the PMO staff that PTSD is like alcoholism, and that the way to deal with my allegations was to refer me to a VAC psychologist.
I bring this matter to you to emphasize the almost unbelievable lengths to which certain VAC officials have gone to prevent any meaningful debate on the Veterans Charter and to resist all attempts to impose transparency on the department and this controversial new legislation. As a sufferer of PTSD and other service-related injuries, I'm a client of Veterans Affairs. At no time in my military service did it ever occur to me that I would face personal reprisals from bureaucrats for exercising the very rights I defended while I wore a uniform; I never imagined I would lose far more of myself, my health, and my dignity through malicious and vengeful actions of the government I fought to defend so that the same government could destroy me and my attempts to help all those disabled veterans and their families who need help the most.
By the grace of God and through the support of good friends and the love of my wife, we stood up to the department, and I'm still here.
I suspect that other veterans and Canadians who are thinking of speaking out are waiting to see whether anyone can call these bureaucrats to account. I hereby give Parliament responsibility to investigate and call to account those responsible for such grievous wrongdoing. If what happened to me is not addressed by Parliament, then there is nothing to stop VAC or any other government official from attacking those current or future clients of VAC, or clients of any other federal department, who would advocate for policy change. If VAC were as busy improving the Veterans Charter as they are at targeting their critics, our nation would be well served indeed.
Thank you.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Bruyea.
Now we'll go to our first round of questioning. We'll go to Mr. Oliphant for seven minutes.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Oh, I apologize. Does your wife have opening remarks too, Mr. Bruyea?
I apologize. Mrs. Bruyea, how long are your remarks? You're saying about three minutes.
Please, with my apologies, go ahead.
11:25 a.m.
Carolina Bruyea Veteran's Spouse, As an Individual
Thank you.
When I met and married Sean, I wasn't a Canadian citizen. I moved to Canada and worked hard, like most immigrants, in order to become a valuable Canadian, receiving my professional accounting designation.
I was amazed by Sean's hard work in advocating for veterans and families, but since free speech hasn't always been possible in my country of origin, I was at the same time terrified for him. Sean reassured me that he and generations before him had sacrificed much so that any Canadian could exercise free speech without fear of reprisals, especially from government.
This inspired me, and then I started to believe that any Canadian could exercise his or her rights of free speech to bring about change. When Veterans Affairs first began their reprisals against Sean, I couldn't and didn't want to believe that such behaviour by Canada's government was possible. When we saw the reality of the intent and actions of the bureaucrats in successfully destroying Sean's commendable reputation to many politicians, including the Prime Minister's Office, I was shocked.
When I took my oath of citizenship, I wasn't as proud of the behaviour of my new country's government as I wanted to be. My husband and I suffered much personal loss during and after the reprisals carried out by certain Veterans Affairs employees. We lived in uncertainty and helplessness. If federal government employees can get away with such attacks, are we really safe in Canada?
Sean is a very good husband, and his dedication and sacrifice to help veterans is often beyond description, especially in light of the reprisals from Veterans Affairs that he has suffered. He hasn't received a single penny, commendation, or appointment for his advocacy work over the past 11 years, and yet he continues to help those who need help the most. He has done all this while suffering his disabilities and under negative actions from Veterans Affairs officials.
I plead with you and the rest of Parliament to investigate what happened to my husband, to shine a light on the public service officials responsible.
I came to this country believing it is a just society that doesn't permit autocratic and unethical behaviour by its government employees. Please prove to me that Canada is this just society.
Thank you.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Ms. Bruyea. Again I offer my apologies for not being aware of your opening remarks.
Now we will go to our first round of questioning, to Mr. Oliphant for seven minutes.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Thank you both for being here, and thank you, Sean, for being here again.
I'm going to try to narrow down to a couple of areas. Of the two I want to talk about, one is the inclusion of pre-Veterans Charter veterans into the charter, which is an issue you've raised that we have not talked about here: we have been talking about the review of the charter. The second thing will be particularly on income support and lump sum benefits. Those are the two areas.
I might preface this by saying that you may think you're not heard, but we are reviewing the new Veterans Charter. You may think you're not heard, but the Conservative government did appoint an ombudsman. There have been things that have happened that I don't think happened without your advocacy. Obviously you have a thousand recommendations—maybe give or take a couple of hundred. We're getting there, so hang in.
Let's go to the lump sum first. The minister has been here and has talked about the fact that the lump sum is part of the compensation for injury that, under the new Veterans Charter, people receive. There is an earnings loss benefit, there are possibilities for some other financial supports, and there is lump sum compensation.
Particularly, do you think we need to simply not have any lump sum, or do you think we need to have a lump sum plus ongoing sums, or a larger lump sum, as in the British system, with almost $1 million Canadian of lump sum?
Obviously there are two portions of income support. Lump sum is one, and the earnings loss benefit is another. But there are some options. What are you recommending to us to look into further?
11:30 a.m.
Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual
Thanks for the kind words about my advocacy, first of all. I really appreciate them.
Regarding the lump sum, Mr. Oliphant, the reason they implemented the lump sum, the national finance committee of the Senate was told, is that this lump sum will help people get a start up in life. They can use their disability lump sum to buy a house, start a business, or whatever else they need.
I have a serious problem with the fact that the lump sum is being recommended to be used for something that World War II veterans had in separate programs. They had small business start-up loans; they had mortgage assistance. So the reasons for creating the lump sum, for me, are bogus under those auspices. Given that a lump sum is given to disabled people, I think it is a bit morally or ethically questionable that we give a lump sum to people in their time of greatest need and distress, and that's usually at the time that they transition out of the military. It's a very difficult time in most people's lives. Even for the most level-headed people, it would be a far stretch for them to manage that money well.
Why are we breaking 90 years of a proven track record of providing a lifetime disability pension award to those people for a disability that lasts a lifetime? Why don't we continue doing it?
In addition, to get back to your question about the lump sum existing with other benefits, if we compare the chart of what benefits exist in the charter after April 1 with those that existed before April 1, you will find that, all things being equal, the only thing that dramatically changed was that Veterans Affairs now decided to take on or duplicate programs that already existed—SISIP, long-term disability, as well as vocational rehab. Take, for instance, the Canadian Forces income support for low-income support: barring the fact that it is a completely inadequate amount to help anyone who is in dire need, it existed in the same amounts in the war veterans' allowance.
11:30 a.m.
Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual
It was a complete repackaging. It was more of a turf war than anything. Veterans Affairs had been criticized for years for not taking care of these programs. Veterans Affairs should have implemented something like SISIP 30 years ago. Once again, National Defence took the lead where Veterans Affairs failed. National Defence continues to do that, implementing programs, helping people while they're in the service, getting them job training, instituting gradual back-to-work programs. Veterans Affairs is far behind in doing any of that, and it needs to be done. If the charter is to help the most disabled people, then why aren't there programs that are specifically geared to that, instead of to those who are lightly disabled and just need a new job? That's my take on it.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Can we talk a little bit about inclusion essentially of Cold War peacekeeping veterans and Gulf War veterans into the new Veterans Charter—if it's fixed, I guess? There's a little problem there: you might not want to include them, if it's worse. But talk a little bit about that, about where we should be looking at inclusion dates and whether we can do retroactive work, in your mind.
11:30 a.m.
Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual
I think the concept of the original Veterans Charter after World War II is a good concept. I think the repackaging took catch words and catch phrases from World War II but didn't provide the substance. If we provide the same substance as existed in World War II programs to help people re-establish, then I think we can make a big step forward.
In terms of the pre-Veterans Charter population, in 1999 the study that started it all was called the Review of Veterans' Care Needs. In that study they said that the average age of CF veterans at the time was 59. Ten years later, with statistics and everything, we can probably assume that the average age has gone up maybe five or six years. So when talking about the average CF veteran, we're too late to help a lot of them, because they're over 65, for the most part, and it would be very difficult to integrate them into the workforce. But there are still, if you look at SISIP rosters, about 1,500 long-term disability clients who need some specific programs to help them integrate.
It would be my rough estimate that if we made these programs available, there might be somewhat fewer than 50,000 veterans. There are only 50,000 CF veteran clients of VAC right now. So we're not talking about a monumental expenditure of money, but we do have to consider including those CF veterans, because they were the reason—what they went through in their neglect was the reason—that the charter was created in the first place. The fact that there are not programs specifically for them is a severe tragedy.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Bruyea.
Now we'll move on to Monsieur André, pour sept minutes.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Welcome to the committee. This is surprising testimony.
I'm going to speak from the same perspective as Mr. Oliphant. We are currently reviewing the New Veterans Charter, and a number of people have come to meet with us on the subject. I hope the government will consider the report that is prepared and the many recommendations that will be made. That's always desirable.
You nevertheless said you had experienced reprisals in your efforts to obtain justice with regard to your rights. As regards the public service, I would like you to explain to us a little about the type of reprisals you have experienced. And I'd also like you to give us some recommendations on the kind of assistance and support you would have liked to receive, but that you did not receive, from Veterans Affairs in your efforts over the past few years.
11:35 a.m.
Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Monsieur André.
Just to clarify, is it that you would like to know the type of accompaniment that would be applicable to the reprisals?
So it is resolutions to help fix or prevent reprisals in the future—si je comprends bien.
11:35 a.m.
Retired Captain (Air Force), Advocate and Journalist, As an Individual
What I would like to say is that, first of all, I'm more than willing to divulge to this committee or any official body all of the body of the 13,000 documents. I've done a lot of research and summary, so I can provide you with all those details. I can give you some general areas. For instance, in addition to what I already pointed out, that when I handled my advocacy work a briefing note was.... For instance, on March 21 I held a press conference to recommend that the charter be sent to committee before it went into force, to have a last-minute look to see whether it needed improving. A briefing note was slapped on the minister's desk. It acknowledged that the purpose of the briefing note was that I was holding a press conference on the charter. In the briefing note was everything from, as I said, my medical details to excerpts from my psychiatric report, such as that I was experiencing “suicidal ideation”.
I am trying to understand how that medical information had anything to do with applicability to my holding a press conference on sending the charter back to committee. The only rational reason is that they deliberately breached Privacy Act laws so that they could influence the minister, this from a party upon which, prior to their ascension to government, I had much influence. After these briefing notes started circulating, I started not receiving contact from, for instance, the previous parliamentary secretary. The minister, at the first meeting I had with him, promised he would follow up. He never followed up with meetings with me.
So it was very clear that they were effective about destroying my reputation, especially within the governing party.
In addition to that, I received phone calls. When I tried to meet with Minister Thompson, there were phone calls from two senior VAC bureaucrats. The gist of their phone calls was: “We know you're trying to talk to the minister. We recommend you don't try to do that. And by the way, you have no hope whatsoever of stopping this charter from coming into force.”
That may not sound like threatening words. They control my financial security; they control my financial future. They controlled my medical care. It doesn't take someone to say nasty or incriminating words to scare the heck out of me and to scare the heck out of my wife. They have the power. They know what buttons to push, and they did.
What kinds of things would I like to see to remedy this situation? First would be a truly independent and powerful public service integrity commissioner; an accountability law that actually protects public servants coming forward. As you well know from the record of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, there hasn't been a single investigation in two years. Apparently there is no wrongdoing in the public service.
I submitted my report to her. She came back.... First of all, as a Canadian citizen, I am not protected from reprisals. In fact, according to her definition, I can't suffer them: it's impossible, because the legislation doesn't say I can. Furthermore, she said in the follow-up letter that public servants could not have harassed me, because public servants can't instruct other public servants to commit wrongdoing.
I'm not sure what bizarre world of logic that comes from, but it shows an office completely loyal to the public service and not to protecting the rights of Canadians.