Government Operations committee  I'll take the first crack at that. It's through application. All the studies on the impact of whistle-blowing have shown that it's extremely beneficial for the organization. It may be a problem for the individuals who are engaging in illegality and corruption or abusing their power, but for the organization it's very advantageous.

Government Operations committee  The U.S. contractor laws are tied to federal funding, but they're the most significant aspect of public policy benefits from whistle-blower protection. I'll give the example of fraud. In 1986 we deputized whistle-blowers to file lawsuits against fraud in government contracts. Before that, the justice department in our country, acting alone, would average about $10 million a year in civil fraud recoveries.

Government Operations committee  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.

Government Operations committee  I don't think there's really any public policy credibility to challenge your suggestion. Conflict of interest is at the core of most abuses of power. Generally, whistle-blowers are challenging the impact from conflicts of interest, so you're getting right to the heart of it.

Government Operations committee  I prepared an extensive written testimony, but it was too late to be translated for this forum. I'd recommend studying that. I put a lot of effort into it. The Whistleblowing International Network and the work I did with Anna Myers regarding the criteria for the European Union whistle-blower directive will give you a bit of an introductory course on that precedent, which we've all been endorsing.

Government Operations committee  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.

Government Operations committee  Absolutely. It can be refined. The bill establishes the principle, but implementing that principle will require some hard work. It could be done through amendments now, or through the national review coming up. It's absolutely essential. Whistle-blowers are flying blind. They don't know what their rights are oftentimes.

Government Operations committee  As a matter of fact, most whistle-blowers, the overwhelming majority, make their disclosures to their boss. They're not looking for trouble. They see a problem, and they say, “Boss, we have a problem. We need to deal with this.” In response to the earlier question on loyalty, the studies have consistently shown 90%-96% of whistle-blowers never break ranks, because they think they're defending the organization and its mission.

Government Operations committee  I can help with that question. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is the federal whistle-blower protection agency in the United States. It's had a very “roller-coaster” history. There have been many extended periods in which whistle-blowers have had the same perspective that you folks have had towards the Integrity Commissioner.

Government Operations committee  Yes, sir, the “good faith” test has been very dangerous, but the “reasonable belief” test is actually a universally accepted, legitimate merits test for whether a whistle-blowing disclosure deserves to be protected. The elements for it have generally been that you genuinely believe the issues you're raising, and that peers who have similar knowledge and experience could agree with you—not that they have to.

Government Operations committee  It avoids subjective judgments about whether speech should be protected. When you put the whistle-blower's motives on trial, it becomes a personal judgment of the person. The reasonable belief test means that we're going to be focusing on the credibility of the evidence that the whistle-blower is presenting.

Government Operations committee  To avoid arbitrary decisions, you have to have rules of the game for how much evidence it takes to win and to prove your charges. Right now, Canada's law is one of the few in the world that don't have any standards for what it takes to prove retaliation. Those standards have been very well developed over the decades.

Government Operations committee  The EU directive burdens of proof have been very flexible for countries with a variety of national legal systems, because they are kind of core principles. It doesn't matter so much from country to country how much evidence it takes to prove your point. There might be different points you have to prove.

Government Operations committee  —certification, the success rate is 80% compared to 20% globally for whistle-blower cases.

Government Operations committee  Yes, Madam. I think the highest priority is to make sure that the rights can't be cancelled at will by the institutions that may be abusing power. It's a very common tactic to make waiving your rights a prerequisite for a job—as another witness described it in a different context—and to cancel...to have agency regulations that cancel the rights.