Bill C-11 Whistleblowers and Quotations: Cutler, Selwyn, Read (RCMP), McAdam (Foreign Service Officer)

Bill C-11 Whistleblowers, Introduction: Mr. Leon Benoit CPC -- EVIDENCE-Quotes from Mr. Allan Cutler, Mr. Selwyn Pieters, ex-foreign service officer in Hong Kong, Brian McAdam and ex-RCMP Corporal Read -- CHECK BACK LATER

Quick Quotes:

"In my case, it was clear that my immediate supervisors did not appreciate my raising concerns. In April 1996 I was told I would suffer the consequences and pay the price if I continued to refuse to sign the documents that were improper." -- Mr. Allan Cutler

"I was assaulted by the regional director in Toronto. I was subjected to a disciplinary hearing for seeking the advice and assistance of a lawyer. I was harassed by IRB managers when I was on sick leave. The IRB engaged in a cover-up sanctioned at the highest level of that organization. My health and dental benefits were cut off effective July 1, 2004, and I have not received any pay from the government since March 15, 2004." -- Mr. Selwyn Pieters

"My 30-year foreign service career ended, taking a huge toll on my health, reputation, and credibility. I wrote and spoke about the negligence and corruption at the Canadian consulate in Hong Kong and the threat that Chinese organized crime groups, known as triads, and the Chinese government posed to Canada. This was actually part of my job description, but I apparently was not supposed to do it. Telling the truth in the Canadian bureaucracy can be career suicide and dangerous. " -- Mr. Brian McAdam, ex-foreign service officer in Hong Kong

"What I discovered was that when Mr. McAdam made his complaint in 1991 and it was investigated by the RCMP in 1992, the RCMP discovered that the computer in Hong Kong was entirely vulnerable, that the safeguards were not put into effect. Anyone and everyone who had access to the system could issue visas in Hong Kong, that is, anyone in the high commission in Hong Kong who had access to the computer, with a little bit of knowledge, could issue visas. It appeared that this had been happening for years . . . . The RCMP and his superiors told him everything was under control and in good hands. It was in their hands, but what they were in fact doing was covering up the facts from Mr. McAdam

The thing was that they knew before he did; they knew that the RCMP had found this. Their own technician, Mr. Balser, had found this and had told them they had a disaster here. It was a disaster beyond bureaucratic scope. It was actually a political silver bullet, which it would have been a disaster to report honestly. So they kept this from Mr. McAdam, because he was not someone who could be told to keep it under his hat. . . . the RCMP were going to continue this cover-up, which I believed at that time was perpetrated by Immigration and Foreign Affairs. [. . . . ]


What happened after that was that they cornered me in a bureaucratic way. It appeared that I was going to be stabbed in the back, so what I did was go public. This was now in September 1999, and I went public in a newspaper. I didn't really understand this at the time, but I believe now that this was in fact done expressly, that my bosses in fact had made a decision and put this pinch on me and made me go public. . . .

The reason the RCMP would do this, I think, was for fear of national security. " -- Corporal Robert Read



The plot thickens.

Was it that the only way to get this information out and into the public forum was to "use" a decent officer?

I simply do not know yet. There is much more to read.

If that is not a reason to continue reading . . . . you deserve the government(s) you have had. All four of the individuals who have given evidence have suffered for their whistleblowing. There is more juicy stuff yet to come. All this comes from the document--see link--and as a citizen, you should know what is going on.

MORE WILL COME; MEANWHILE -- Download a copy of the .pdf file -- readable with the free Adobe Reader and find out for yourself.

38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION -- Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates -- EVIDENCE from Allan Cutler and Selwyn Pieters; next, ex-RCMP Corporal Robert Read, ex-foreign service officer, the blunt ex-foreign service officer Brian Adams -- and more February 3, 2005, -- sections 1530 - 1550 only -- The excerpts above Read and McAdam are from further down in this file. Search their names if you are in a hurry.




Bill C-11 Introduction to EVIDENCE: The Chair (Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC))

[]We're here today pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, October 18, Bill C-11, An Act to establish a procedure for the disclosure of wrongdoings in the public sector, including the protection of persons who disclose the wrongdoings. I deliberately wanted to read the formal name of the legislation that's being proposed because of course it applies in a very special way, I would suggest, to the four individuals who I welcome to our committee today.

We welcome four individuals whose testimony will remind us all of why we're studying this important piece of legislation. It is individuals like the four of you here today in fact who this legislation is intended to protect, and that's indeed why we are here today. I'd like to welcome Mr. Allan Cutler, Mr. Brian McAdam, and Mr. Selwyn Pieters. Corporal Read, I believe, will be here in the near future.

[. . . . Every ] one of you has been put in a very difficult situation as a result of the service you provided.



EVIDENCE: Mr. Allan Cutler

[. . . . ] Mr. Allan Cutler: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear here. I hope my experience will shed some light on the issues you're dealing with in consideration of Bill C-11.

In the mid-1990s, I became aware of persistent irregularities in the procurement of advertising and related services within Mr. Guité's group at PWGSC. At first I didn't think of myself as a whistle-blower. I simply thought there was a serious abuse of the contracting rules that needed to be rectified.

What I observed going on was totally outside my experience as a long-time procurement officer at PWGSC. This relates to the first point I would like to make. Where there is a culture of integrity and ethical behaviour in an organization, employees will be prepared to come forward when they see wrongdoing, but if employees are cynical about the integrity of an organization where ethical standards at the top are lax, then employees will have little motivation to disclose wrongdoing. Only when there is confidence that abuses will actually be corrected will employees be prepared to come forward.

In my case, it was clear that my immediate supervisors did not appreciate my raising concerns. In April 1996 I was told I would suffer the consequences and pay the price if I continued to refuse to sign the documents that were improper.

Because there was no established procedure for reporting wrongdoing within the department, I approached my union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service, for advice. The union wrote to my ADM outlining my concerns about contracting irregularities. I was asked to go to the internal audit branch within PWGSC.

When I reported the situation to internal audit, I was promised protection from retaliation. I knew I would quickly be identified as the source of the disclosure; that went without saying. For that reason, I considered the promised protection from retaliation to be essential. Unfortunately, the promised protection wasn't there when I needed it. Shortly after I went to internal audit, Mr. Guité called me in and told me I would be declared surplus.

[. . . . filing a grievance] I received a letter of apology and a written assurance that the concerns I had raised about contracting practices in Mr. Guité's unit had been corrected. We know now that didn't happen.

(1535)

One of the reasons it didn't happen was that others had seen what I went through. . . .

[. . . . ] I saw people who had turned a blind eye to what was happening getting promotions and a raise. Retirement income reflects promotions; therefore, rewards or penalties last a lifetime.

[. . . . reprisals against whistle-blowers will often be subtle. . . . duty of loyalty . . . ]

Bill C-11 restricts compensation for reprisals to loss of pay and direct out-of-pocket expenses. I feel that's too narrow. I realize that losses such as loss of reputation, mental distress, and loss of career advancement are harder to quantify, but those losses are very real.

[. . . the employee has the onus of proving there was a reprisal . . . . independent agency . . . . Auditor General. . . ]

When the Auditor General made her initial report public in 2002, she stressed that any public servant who had relevant information should come forward. In May 2002, I sent an e-mail to PWGSC requesting permission to go to the Auditor General and asking for confirmation that there would be no reprisals for doing so. The next day I was told that I would have to meet with the manager of internal disclosure at PWGSC. I was informed this authorization would not be granted for me to provide information to the Auditor General until managers in the department had an opportunity to vet the information. Nothing at all was said about protection from reprisals. [. . . . ]
(1540) [. . . . ]

EVIDENCE: Mr. Selwyn Pieters

"[C]hallenging unethical workplace conduct comes at a price. That price includes threats to one's physical, psychological, and financial integrity. The current system and the proposed system for dealing with these matters are inadequate"-- Bill C-11

Mr. Selwyn Pieters (As Individual): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am employed as a refugee protection officer at the Immigration and Refugee Board, and I'm currently on a leave of absence for a year without pay. This leave of absence directly relates to my coming forward with allegations of wrongdoing in the reasons-writing and decision-making process at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I should tell you that my complaints were investigated by the Public Service Integrity Office, and the office has found four of the five allegations to be substantiated. I say that from the inception, just to dispel any aspersions that the allegations had no merit.

When I came forward and blew the whistle on the refugee board, a number of negative reactions occurred. They included an anonymous note. . . . my access to the office should be denied, and my access card was deactivated. The executive director then wrote me a letter and said, well, we told you that your access card was deactivated and we also told you how you could access the building. In fact, no such directions were given, and through the Access to Information Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Privacy Act, I received that information.

I was assaulted by the regional director in Toronto. I was subjected to a disciplinary hearing for seeking the advice and assistance of a lawyer. I was harassed by IRB managers when I was on sick leave. The IRB engaged in a cover-up sanctioned at the highest level of that organization. My health and dental benefits were cut off effective July 1, 2004, and I have not received any pay from the government since March 15, 2004.

[. . . . ] Mr. Cutler, in his testimony, mentioned to you the inefficacy of having the Public Service Commission deal with these matters. He's right, because I can tell you, for example, that the executive director of the IRB and the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board were both senior officials at the Public Service Commission, and that is the body to which I would have to complain. If I'm at the refugee board, these people have a direct link to the executives there because, of course, they probably were their bosses before.

[. . . . ] Where should a person go when they have to make a complaint of wrongdoing? My view is that an employee should be able to go directly to a neutral third-party entity . . . .

(1545)

. . . I believe that public servants who reveal wrongdoing in the workplace and suffer financial loss should be compensated. This is something that is in the legislation and that should be strongly pushed forward.

There should also be provisions in the legislation for independent legal advice for public servants who are contemplating internal or external disclosure of wrongdoing, and legal assistance for public servants throughout the process. As an example, the departments have teams of lawyers who deal with these matters. In my case with the IRB there are about four or five lawyers who are almost working full-time dealing with these matters. I went to some lawyer who was helping me pro bono and they actually called a disciplinary hearing, . . . .

[. . . Who] should be responsible for investigations of complaints. . . . an independent integrity officer. . . . appeal mechanisms, I believe that a finding from an independent neutral body should be appealable directly to the Federal Court and not to the Public Service Staff Relations Board.

[. . . The] legislation as it is should not be passed.

The second one is that there should be protection of wages, salary, benefits, pensions, overtime and, most of all, protection from reprisals.

My third recommendation . . . independent legal advice for employees who wish to make a disclosure of wrongdoing and who have made a disclosure to assist them throughout what can be described as an unfair, biased, convoluted, and inaccessible system. This can be in the form of having a duty counsel available through a 1-800 number or through the establishment of an employee adviser office.

The fourth recommendation is that a truly independent body be legislated to handle claims of wrongdoing in the workplace. . . .

And the fifth is that the independent body should report directly to Parliament [. . . . ]

(1550)