Table 3 has been asked by the four PSAC Treasury Board bargaining tables to take the lead on a whistleblower protection demand during this round of negotiations.

In the PSAC’s opinion, it’s an issue that should have been addressed in the legislative arena many years ago.

Legislation was promised by the current government during the 1993 election. That it has not been enacted has led the PSAC to advance a demand during this bargaining round.

Slide 2

It’s been more than 10 years since the current government promised, during an election campaign, that it would introduce legislation protecting workers who blow the whistle on wrongdoing from reprisal.

Moreover, and despite revelations of wrongdoing on the part of the Privacy Commissioner and others, support for legislated whistleblower legislation within the current government is luke warm at best. Without legislative protection, incorporating whistleblower protection in collective agreements is imperative.

Slide 3

And even if legislation is adopted, collective agreements should include provisions that reinforce the legislative protection. That’s why the PSAC has developed a specific demand that would provide that No Employee can be disciplined, or otherwise penalized for disclosing any wrongful act.

Before addressing the demand in detail, let me summarize the state of play when it comes to whistleblower protection in the federal public sector today.

Slide 4

If there was any doubt that protection, both legislative and under collective agreements, was needed, it was dispelled in the late spring and early summer of 2003. That’s when PSAC members and other workers employed by the Privacy Commission blew the whistle on Commissioner Radwanski.

Slide 5

The subsequent resignation of Commissioner Radwanski and the government’s decision to implement a series of investigations within the Privacy Commission took away the threat of reprisal. But according to the fifth report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, former Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski, told his management team that "if the "rat" were ever discovered, this person would have no future in the public service".

The fact that a very senior government official would make such a statement is alarming. Equally troubling is the fact that Mr. Radwanski made the statement "during the week of intensive committee hearings" in what can only be regarded as an attempt to silence workers getting ready to testify before a Committee of Parliament.

Slide 6

In the wake of the Radwanski affair, a number of federal agencies and institutions have outlined the inadequacy of the existing regime and, in some cases, called for the introduction of legislation aimed at protecting workers from reprisals that result from whistleblowing.

In addition, as an Environics Research Group opinion poll commissioned, and released by the PSAC, has confirmed, fully 89% of Canadians believe that legislation protecting whistleblowers from reprisals should be enacted.

Over the few slides, I will provide a little more detail on what is being said and why.

Slide 7

The first Report of the Public Service Integrity Officer is damming in its indictment of the existing regime. According to Dr. Edward W. Keyserlingk, serious consideration should be given to making this Office or a successor agency legislatively-based instead of policy-based. Such legislation should not be added to existing or new statutes. Instead, it should focus exclusively on providing a legal framework to enable the disclosure of wrongdoing and to provide legal protection for disclosers.

The protection from reprisal umbrella should be widened by allowing this Office or successor agency to investigate allegations of reprisal even when the original disclosure of wrongdoing was made internally to a department, or when justified made externally outside the government, or made by witnesses to Parliamentary Committees or other agencies.

Slide 8

When commenting on the Radwanski file, Auditor General Sheila Fraser, was equally blunt, finding the treatment of employees saddening, and the actions of the Privacy Commissioner outrageous.

Slide 9

The Public Service Commission rounds out the list of agencies that have been involved in investigating the abuse alleged by Privacy Commissioner staff whistleblowers and confirmed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The Public Service Commission found that the Privacy Commission failed in its staffing obligations in a great many cases.

Slide 10

Finally, an opinion poll commissioned by the PSAC confirms that Canadians want to see workers protected when they blow the whistle.

And it doesn't matter where you work, how much education you have or what political party you support. Across the board, by income, language, age, gender or marital status, between 86 and 94% of you support whistleblower protection legislation at the federal and provincial level.

Numbers like these are unheard of on a public policy question. And while government should not be run by opinion polls, it should clearly take notice when such a clear and unambiguous consensus emerges on a question of this nature.

Slide 11

This brings me back to the PSAC bargaining demand and why it is so fundamentally important.

Respected voices within the government of Canada acknowledge that the current system does not work. Voices from the Auditor General to the government of Canada Integrity Officer are on record as believing that the existing system is inadequate, and that the reputation of the public sector is undermined when workers – fearing reprisal – fail to act in the face of extraordinary and perhaps criminal wrongdoing.

There are only two ways to correct the situation, the legislative option and the collective bargaining route. While they should go hand in hand, the representatives on the PSAC/Treasury Board bargaining groups and the representatives of the federal employer have an opportunity to move the line and entrench protection for whistleblowers during this round of bargaining.

Slide 12

As a result, I would urge you to review the proposed demand carefully and act to ensure that PSAC members can act in the public interest, can report wrongdoing, government waste and errors and omissions likely to engender public health and safety without fear of reprisal.

To do otherwise in the light of Radwanski would be to silence workers and undermine the public interest.

Thank you.