Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance

Issue 11 - Evidence

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill S-13, to assist in the prevention of wrongdoing in the Public Service by establishing a framework for education on ethical practices in the workplace, for dealing with allegations of wrongdoing and for protecting whistle-blowers, met this day at 5:53 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Anne C. Cools (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Deputy Chairman: The order of reference before us is Bill S-13. As honourable senators know, this is a private member's bill and the product of a substantial amount of work. Our witnesses today are from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Ms Joanne Toews, Assistant Secretary, Strategic Planning and Analysis, Human Resources Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat: We thank you very much for inviting us to speak on the proposed bill. This topic is of great interest to the Treasury Board Secretariat and we are pleased that we have the opportunity to brief you on what we have been doing on issues related to values and ethics in the public service and, by extension, in the area of whistle-blowing.

First, we want to provide some context on the reality of the public service at this time. In our view, whistle-blowing cannot be dealt with in isolation. It must be put in terms of the context and the culture of the federal public service. As you are all aware, the Public Service of Canada has undergone tremendous changes over the last 10 years, starting with Public Service 2000 and including a whole series of reforms that have changed the climate of the public service.

One thing that has remained constant, however, has been the need for high ethical standards. In fact, over the past five years, special attention has been paid to the area of values and ethics. I should like to speak to a number of areas where values and ethics have had real prominence over the past five years.

The first issue I should like to refer to is the 1995 Report of the Auditor General of Canada. That report contained a chapter entitled "Ethics and Fraud Awareness in Government." The report concluded that the federal government has a strong base of ethical standards but pointed out areas of vulnerability. The report also recommended the implementation of a framework for ethics in government. That framework contained a number of specific components, including a statement of principles, a clarification of the role of leadership, a clarification of the role of individual public servants, the need for transparency of decision making, the need for ethics-related training in government, and a mechanism for discussing and reporting concerns so that public servants could voice concerns without fear of reprisal.

In effect, the Auditor General was recommending a full values and ethics framework for government. We believe that it is necessary to have such a full values and ethics framework. Responding only to one aspect or moving forward with but a few elements in isolation would not necessarily bring the intended results.

Another key milestone in the last five years was the report of the Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics, which was published at the end of 1996. That report, entitled "A Strong Foundation", is better known as the John Tait report. I believe you are familiar with it. This initiative was launched in 1995 at the annual retreat of deputy ministers. Values and ethics were identified as one of nine key components of the agenda for change and renewal in the public service.

The Tait report identified four sets of public values. It identified the need for the public service to talk about these values, rediscover them, recommit to them and sustain a dialogue around values and ethics. The objective of that dialogue was, first, to raise awareness of public servants to public service values, to identify the real issues and problems in workplaces and to take action to address or remedy those problems.

A third key milestone was that in 1996 the government introduced "Modernization of Comptrollership in the Government of Canada". An independent review panel composed of public and private sector experts prepared that report. It proposed a new management philosophy and approach. The Treasury Board ministers approved the recommendations of that report in 1997, and in 1998 a project was launched to implement those recommendations. Five major pilot departments were engaged in that process. Twelve departments are now engaged in the process of dealing with those recommendations.

That report advocated a management based on four pillars: performance information -- a linking of financial and non- financial information with more emphasis on performance measurement; a framework for risk management within the public service; a review of the control systems and accountability processes of government; and values and ethics. The aim of the new modern management reform in values and ethics was to ensure that ethical practices and values are in place and at the core of management leadership in the management decision-making process.

In early 1999, the Clerk of the Privy Council again emphasized the need for renewed dialogue on values and ethics and appointed two deputy ministers as champions for values and ethic -- Mrs. Janice Cochrane, Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and Mr. Scott Serson, President of the Public Service Commission. At the same time, the Treasury Board Secretariat created a new office of values and ethics in the public service. Ted Marks, my colleague, is the executive director of that office, which works with the two co-champions to support the values and ethics efforts of government. There is also an advisory committee composed of departmental, interest group, union and regional representatives.

The two co-champions, supported by the Office of Values and Ethics, have taken stock of the progress accomplished since the Tait report. They found that efforts were uneven across departments in terms of the values and ethics dialogue. Some departments had implemented excellent ethics programs and were sustaining the dialogue on values, while some departments had set up ombudspersons in their organizations to provide their employees with a place where they could express their concerns and gain advice outside of the formal reporting structure.

As a result of those early reviews of what was happening in the public service, on January 13 of this year the two co-champions presented to deputy ministers an agenda on public service values and ethics. That agenda is an action plan for the next two years and will focus on the implementation of an ethics framework for the public service, with emphasis on intensifying the dialogue to raise awareness of the public service values. The agenda also includes the development of a policy option and a look at policy options on whistle-blowing to provide an avenue for the internal disclosure of wrongdoing by employees.

It is important that we present this context because any reform in the area of values and ethics must occur within the management framework of government and must respond to the culture of the public service.

Before I ask Mr. Marks to talk about the bill, I should like to emphasize two things. First, we agree with you that it is time to address the subject of whistle-blowing. Second, we consider this subject to be a sensitive one that cannot be addressed in isolation but must be looked at as part of the implementation of a framework on ethics and values for the government as a whole.

Mr. Ted Marks, Executive Director, Office of Values and Ethics, Human Resources Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat: We have identified three major areas of concern and a few that are more technical. I will address them in order of importance.

First is the power of the commissioner and the notification to a minister. Ministerial and deputy ministerial accountability are the underpinning of good governance in our democratic society. Bill S-13 may undermine that accountability in the following ways: Clauses 13 and 14 seem to give the commissioner the power to accept or reject a notice of allegation, investigate an allegation, and develop a written report of findings and recommendations. That is a third party imposing on the operational responsibilities of a deputy minister. It seems to be limited to recommendations, but subclause 4(3) would allow the commissioner to exercise any power granted to a public service commissioner under the Public Service Employment Act. That means that the commissioner could have the power not only to recommend but to approve appropriate measures and, under sections 7.1 to 7.5 of the Public Service Employment Act, to enforce the measures herself or himself. That is a third party imposing a decision on the minister and the deputy minister.

In providing for notification to a minister, the proposed structure could erode a deputy head's internal management authority and accountability. The minister would not be able to maintain a distance from being involved in people management issues in the department. We would suggest that a deputy minister is better positioned to attend to and manage internal disclosures of wrongdoing. By virtue of their management authority, deputy ministers are ideally positioned, as well, to provide the protection from reprisal.

The second point concerns the area of confidentiality. Bill S-13 would be subject to the Privacy Act unless there is an intention to seek exemption or exclusion. We believe that the implication is that one cannot accord absolute confidential treatment of the identify of an individual making a disclosure, particularly if, in filing a notice of allegation, the individual is pointedly addressing the conduct of another public servant. The accused has the right to know his or her accuser and the nature of the allegations. If not already done, we would recommend consultation with the Privacy Commissioner. At present, employees must be clearly informed of the limits of confidentiality before making any disclosures.

The third point concerns the application of the scope of the bill as proposed. Section 3 of the act defines the public service as that part of the Public Service of Canada to which the Public Service Staff Relations Act applies. "Employee" is defined within the meaning of the Public Service Employment Act. Those two acts differ in scope.

That would create inconsistencies in the eligibility to make a disclosure and in the entitlement to the protection afforded by this bill. For example, Bill S-13 would afford protection to departmental employees, but employees of separate employers or agencies not subject to the Public Service Employment Act, for example the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, would not be protected. A disclosure made by an agency employee would not be covered. The same disclosure made by a departmental employee, even if that disclosure was with respect to a situation in an agency, would trigger the full application of Bill S-13 as proposed.

In respect of education, given the extensive work underway in departments and the considerable contribution to the integration of values and ethics in all leadership and management development programs undertaken by the Canadian Centre for Management Development, it is difficult to see where a single, part-time commissioner with limited resources might fit in without causing any overlap or confusion.

Under the concept of seniority, subclause 19(2) defines disciplinary action as an action that adversely affects the employee or any term or condition of the employee's employment, including, under paragraph (c), action affecting seniority. We would suggest that "seniority" be deleted. It does not apply within the public service, as we work on the merit principle, not on seniority.

The last comment I should like to make is with respect to sanctions. We believe that the imposition of criminal sanctions on public servants, as proposed in Bill S-13, would add divisive stress to the workplace at a time when we are working to reinforce openness, cohesion and a strong sense of organizational values.

In summary, we are well aware that there is more to be done in the area of values and ethics and that we can do better. We are aware that we have not necessarily provided staff with the support to ensure that any complaints and concerns that they have made to the system in good faith can be expressed without fear of reprisal. We recognize that the fact that we do not have a clear policy framework does not adequately support the modern management reforms of which I spoke -- in particular, making sure that we have an open, accessible, values-based and results-oriented environment. We also realize that the issue of values and ethics is not a simple matter and is an important element in the health of the public service.

Internationally, Canada is regarded as one of the finest countries in the world. We rank fifth on the corruption perception index developed by Transparency International. Canada is also a highly respected participant in OECD discussions on values and ethics. Nationally, a number of surveys conducted over the last few years indicate that citizens have a high level of confidence in public service.

We know, however, that within the public service we do have room to improve. We want to emphasize that many initiatives are underway in the action plan of the two champions. We are developing tools to assist departments in their dialogue process in partnership with the Canadian Centre for Management Development. We are holding monthly round tables with public servants to discuss ethical dilemmas. We are currently reviewing the conflict-of-interest policies and the post-employment code for the public service. We are developing learning and training modules for front-line managers and new recruits to complement the learning provided by the Canadian Centre for Management Development. We are working with the regional councils on the promotion of public service management based on values and ethics. We are working with the controllership modernization office and the departments to improve the implementation of the values and ethics component of the management reform. Over the next few months, we will be creating a Web site on values and ethics to provide a centre of information and communication to staff to provide quick and easy access to best practices and interpretations of policies.

In conclusion, Treasury Board Secretariat would prefer an approach to whistle-blowing that is anchored in a full values and ethics framework. We are working on that framework, including policy options around disclosure or whistle-blowing. We would be pleased to return to this committee to update you on our work as it advances.

Senator Bolduc: Are you against or for the bill? You have been diplomatic in your explanation. You gave us the necessary framework, but I should like to know where you stand on the bill. I know that it is embarrassing for civil servants to express direct views on public policy, but I have the impression that you would prefer not to have that bill. I must tell you that I am surprised.

Ms Toews: Our preference is to have a full values and ethics framework discussion. Included in that, we would like to look at the policy options around whistle-blowing, which might include legislation at some point.

Senator Bolduc: Your arguments are not very strong. They are not strong on the powers, the notification to the minister, and the problem of accountability of the minister. We do not change that. The bill is within that framework, precisely. I am a bit surprised. I can understand the problem concerning the scope of the bill, but if you wait until everyone is educated in the public service so that there will not be a problem, we will die before that.

Senator Kinsella: I wish to thank the witnesses from the Treasury Board. The work that you do at Treasury Board in these areas is very important. I salute all who are participating in that work.

First, concerning the document that was issued in January of 2000, the action plan, could you tell us a bit more about that in detail? Would we be able to get a copy of that document?

Mr. Marks: We left a copy of the action plan with the clerk. The explanations of the initiatives underway have been left there.

Senator Kinsella: Could you provide a brief overview of that and how the problem that the whistle-blowing legislation addresses fits into that?

Mr. Marks: The primary purpose in terms of the action plan is with respect to dialogue throughout the public service. In particular, within the context of departments, an active dialogue is being encouraged that will allow public servants to engage in the expression of values and the consideration of ethical dilemmas. It is a learning experience. It is a development and articulation of values as they might pertain to various departments. As we know, the programs in various departments are very different and therefore support a hierarchy of values that are different. The engagement is with respect to all regions and employees at all levels. The co-champions are dedicated to supporting their colleague deputy ministers throughout the public service in initiating and undertaking this dialogue.

One aspect of the action plan that you are asking about specifically relates to disclosure of wrongdoing. Disclosures made internally are part of the action plan that was developed last spring and tabled with deputies in January. It is based on good faith intervention of employees with concerns, and there is a recognition that there is a gap in the system, as Ms Toews has pointed out, where we have not communicated adequately and given input and considered the options with respect to the establishment of support mechanisms throughout the public service, both for employees and for others.

Senator Kinsella: Certainly that is a laudable plan of action. I wish to encourage those who are participating in it to pursue your objectives.

I agree with the principle that seems to be contained in that action plan. It is very important to have problems that arise within an organization resolved within that organization. In other words, the departments are the best model for dealing with attacks of conscience and whistle-blowing. There should be a mechanism that involves the departments. Bill S-13 and that objective are operating from the same principle. The public education, the ongoing sensitivity and the various methods of an aware public service -- and aware not only of the values, the principles and the norms, but also the mechanisms to deal with things that become practical problems -- are also embraced by the bill.

As the proponent of this bill, I am looking to find a practical, workable solution. We need whistle-blowing legislation and it is very important to me that we find the right model.

You have reflected upon this initiative, but did you do any comparative studies with other jurisdictions around the world? You alluded to some of the international studies that have been done, and I agree that in Canada we are fortunate to have a first-class public service. Do other jurisdictions not have a mechanism that deals with this? Can we learn from those?

Ms Toews: Yes, we do. We have looked at some of the ways that this issue is dealt with in other countries. I will ask Mr. Marks to refer to the analysis that we have done in that area.

Mr. Marks: The research that we are doing is underway, but it is incomplete in terms of an analysis. The whistle-blowing legislation in the United States has much more of a watch dog type of orientation, and it is being used primarily as a remedy against wrongful dismissal, as opposed to as an effective disclosure process. That watch dog type of legislation exists in a highly regulated, aggressive, adversarial and litigious environment in the United States. We fear that the complex legislation in the United Kingdom will take on the same kind of character.

Senator Kinsella: Basically, what is the difference between the American model and the British model?

Mr. Marks: The British model has three levels of reporting in terms of disclosure. I will not say that I am familiar with all of them, because I am not. I can give you reference, but I do not have the off-the-cuff completion of that analysis. The American model is a federal promotion and reward for disclosure of mostly misuse and abuse of resources of the government at the federal level. Many of the individual states have not adopted similar legislation, although some have.

Senator Kinsella: Within Canada, what kind of agencies of the Crown or officers of the state do we have that might work? For example, we have a series of ombudspersons across Canada. We have human rights agencies across Canada, and there are other similar types of agencies that protect the rights of citizens. Did you look at some of those models and the Canadian experience to see whether we could learn from that as we develop a uniquely Canadian response to this need?

Mr. Marks: Yes, we are looking at them. We have experiences in British Columbia with an active piece of legislation. In Ontario, the legislation was passed but never promulgated with change of government a few years back.

You are quite correct; you know the organization of human rights organizations across the country very well.

In the federal government, we have ombudsmen, commissioners, and the Privacy Commissioner and the Official Language Commissioner, who are types of ombudspeople, as well. There is a lot of research going on there. I have examples of legislation from various provinces.

As Ms Toews said earlier, this work is underway. The framework study is very important to us. We do want to get it right. We are learning from these pieces.

Senator Kinsella: At the federal level we have, in the environment legislation adopted by Parliament last year, a provision for a whistle-blowing process and protection for the whistle-blower. How do you see that? What can we learn from it as we are attempting to draft a bill that will apply across the system? I was interested in placing this bill within this environment of ethics and values. Is the experience that we are gaining with these specific whistle-blowing mechanisms, as in the environment legislation, contextualized in terms of ethics and values, or is that missing? What can we learn from our own experience in these few examples that we do have?

Mr. Marks: The recent amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provides for support for individuals who in the public interest are reporting contraventions of that act. That extends to employees of firms in the private sector who might run afoul of the act. The purpose, therefore, is significantly different. The principle, though, is found within the context of values and ethics in the sense that it is very solidly in the public interest. The same would apply to the other examples with the Privacy Act and the Department of Industry Act.

Senator Kinsella: We have to do something so that the individual public servant participating in the various dialogues and wanting to have his or her conduct always at the level of the highest standard, when faced with a wrongdoing or with what he or she perceives to be illegality, would, in the public interest, bring that forward to the proper authority but not have to place his or her career at risk by doing so. That is the crunch. Maybe it is a practical judgment that an individual makes -- but then conscience is nothing but a practical judgment; is that not so? People weigh many kinds of factors, and it is reasonable, is it not, that they should weigh the impact of blowing the whistle on an illegal or immoral process in terms of the repercussions with respect to career progress. They should not have to carry the burden of that on their own shoulders.

Ms Toews: That is a gap. As we look at the policy options, we want to look at what mechanisms should be in place within a department so that employees can, if they feel there is an ethical issue, safely, with respect to their careers, make that declaration within their own organizations or elsewhere. That is definitely what we are looking at. We share your concern about needing to fill that gap.

Senator Kinsella: All the experience and evidence available shows that the perpetrators of retaliation tend to be, to use public service terminology, people in their own department. How do you break out of that problem? Although I noted your concern about the public service commissioner being the third party, does the idea of having a third party intervening interfere with the problem-solving responsibility that, at the same time, we want to keep in the hands of the deputy minister? In terms of practicality, the person who authorizes the job discipline is the deputy minister. How do you get around that problem?

Ms Toews: Mechanisms could be put in place within departments and, in fact, some already exist in some departments with the ombudsperson role. Using audit and evaluation offices, there are already mechanisms that allow employees, within the structure of their own organization, to make a disclosure without having to go through a reporting channel or through people who they feel are involved in the unethical conduct. That needs to be formalized. We need to think about the gap that occurs when those methodologies do not work within a department. What should we do next? Clearly, we know that there is a gap within departments and we know that we must do something else if those mechanisms are not working within the department.

Senator Finestone: You face an interesting dilemma. My dilemma is the incredible delay in addressing this issue. I was delighted when Senator Kinsella tabled this bill. It was more than on time, as we work in a just-in-time environment and our staff is very much under stress.

A report tabled in 1995 must have started early in the 1990s. We are now in the next century. Are you not being a bit slow and pedantic? This document refers to dialogue, to re-energizing, focusing on a statement and corporate issues. You will even define a lexicon.

If I were an employee looking for redress for something that has disturbed my life, probably disturbed my sleep and disturbed my family, I would not be very encouraged. Hopefully I would not be relying on Prozac because the newspaper today says it is not healthy.

Ms Toews: First, mechanisms already exist within departments and they are used by employees. Those mechanisms have been used for many years.

Second, the formal process has taken some time. The culture of the public service has changed. As you acknowledged, we have gone through a major program review. We are working with fewer resources. Many organizations have moved into alternative service delivery. At the same time, we have been introducing openness and transparency in our work with the public. The public service has a new process of accountability. Reforms have been coming one after another. Values and ethics are key issues in those reforms, and building those reforms takes time.

In the past year, we have realized that we must move faster not just in dialogue but also in identifying the policy gaps. Yes, there has been a delay, but for some good reasons. The culture of the organization has changed dramatically over the last five years in terms of how we work internally and with the public.

Senator Finestone: One of the key values for Canadian workers is diversity. Gender analysis and cultural diversity impact on the lives of men and women. Have you not been awfully slow off the mark? Canada has been multicultural for quite some time.

Ms Toews: Are you asking with respect to the issue of whistle-blowing or with respect to values and ethics?

Senator Finestone: I will give an example. For many years, I have heard complaints in my office about discrimination, lack of access, loss of promotional opportunities, not only by women but also by visible minorities, some who have been here 25 years. They complain that the public service allows no access and no mobility. Can you acknowledge that the difference between affirmative action and employment equity is an upward movement, not just an opening up of the entry levels? That situation is subject to complaint and potential whistle-blowing and it has been that way for quite some time. There are many hurt people out there.

Ms Toews: I understand the issue you are raising. The Canadian Human Rights Act allows people to make a complaint of discrimination.

Senator Finestone: That takes about five or ten years and much difficult work.

Ms Toews: I am not sure that your legislation deals with issues of that sort. We are being proactive on the issue of employment equity. One task force is actively looking at visible minority issues and another is addressing a more inclusive, more representative public service. There is legislation in place, but we want to be proactive.

Senator Finestone: You say that you will -- though you have not done it yet -- re-energize and refocus and reactivate a dialogue. Then you will define the lexicon and simplify the language.

The Canadian Constitution, at section 15, already defines the value system. We are to represent the diversity of Canada and our demographics, depending in which part of our vast country we happen to live. Discrimination has been around. When I read your intentions here, I get nervous that this may take forever. The whistle-blowing bill is here and we need it now. If there are constructive amendments to this piece of legislation, I would appreciate knowing about them. Scrapping it because the deputy minister might be upset because he did not have a word to say is not a reason.

The Deputy Chairman: Senator Finestone, you were attracting a following. On a question of order, this is a committee of the Senate and, while I appreciate that individuals in the audience may have strong feelings one way or the other, we can tolerate no applause. You can feel as much as you want.

Senator Finestone: I am sorry. I was not trying to be facetious in any way. We have been dragging our feet in an important area of human rights. When you say employees already have access to the commission on human rights, I must say that is an ineffective avenue for most people. It takes too much time out of their lives.

I was also not joking about Prozac earlier. It has very detrimental effects on your own personal ability to cope. That can impact on your family and on your children. It is not healthy.

How can we fix this whistle-blowing bill so that the deputy minister is happy and so that this important issue is addressed? Does either of you have an answer, other than scrapping the bill?

Mr. Marks: No, I do not.

Ms Toews: I do not have an answer.

Senator Kinsella: I think we all are rowing in the same direction. I accept what the witnesses are telling us. There is a recognition that the world has changed, that corporations, including public corporations and corporations of the Government of Canada, not only recognize this but are desirous to work in that direction. We need to find the mechanisms. We want to ensure that the bill that this committee is working on is the best possible bill. We are very thankful for your contribution so that we can understand what you are doing. We do not have a closed mind. Members of this committee are open to receive the kind of advice that you are giving.

Senator Finestone: The Treasury Board supervises many things. In Bill C-6, which was just sanctioned, my colleague talked about the environment bill. I should like to bring to your attention the whistle-blowing sections of the privacy and economy bills. Why are you able to put in through government a bill that is quite substantive on whistle-blowing, which the deputy minister obviously liked? What is wrong with your deputy ministers?

Senator Kinsella: Do not go there.

Senator Finestone: I cannot do that; you are right. I withdraw that question. I should not have asked that.

Was this looked at, though? Are you aware of the extent of this whistle-blowing provision?

Ms Toews: We are aware of those bills, yes, and we have been looking at them.

Senator Finestone: Would you think that they could be a guide to where you could go in the work that needs to be done?

Mr. Marks: The legislation that we find in the provinces, as well as our federal experience, is guiding us, yes, but the study that we have underway, the learning experience, has only recently begun. I am sorry about that, but we are advancing as quickly as possible. As Ms Toews said, we would be more than pleased to report back to this committee.

Senator Finestone: My last question deals with the whistle-blower protection in the United States. I have an interesting speech by Elaine Kaplan. I agree with you that the major focus of their legislation is to fight government corruption. Canada, I would hope, would look in a different direction, not just at corruption. Is that the point that you were making?

Mr. Marks: That is it.

Senator Finestone: It would be broader and based on ethics and values?

Ms Toews: Yes, exactly.

Senator Finestone: You do not need to define ethics and values, do you?

Ms Toews: We are looking at ethics and values. One of the important documents for us as we go into this exercise is the John Tait report, which describes in detail four sets of values that must be apparent in the everyday work of public servants. We have been guided in our approach by what he said. That is the basis of the dialogue that we are conducting. That is the dialogue we want to sustain. For many public servants, John Tait epitomized what we want in terms of how we work together. Although there are definitions of ethics and values in the act, the definition that we use and that is fundamental to us is the one we see in John Tait's work.

Senator Finestone: I hope that John Tait's book is acted on very quickly. Good luck to you.

Ms Toews: We hope so, too.

Senator Stratton: Do you not feel that it is important for the Canadian public that there be a whistle-blower's bill, as it is called? Most Canadians would question why other Western nations have one when we do not. What makes us so special that we do not need one? As far as the public's perception is concerned, would you not agree that we should have one?

Ms Toews: I would agree that Canadians want to see that their government's and public servants' work is done in an ethical way. Whether that is through whistle-blowing legislation is a question we need to do more work on.

Senator Stratton: You will have to sell that to the Canadian public as well, because they would want to have assurances that the whistle-blower bill completely protected those who blew the whistle and was not tied in to bureaucracy.

Ms Toews: We are also trying to ensure that we do this in a way that reflects Canada and the Canadian public service.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much for appearing before us.

Our next witnesses are from the National Farmers Union. Good evening and welcome. Please proceed with your presentation.

Ms Shannon Storey, Women's President, National Farmers Union: First, I should like to thank the committee for inviting us here tonight. Our presentation will be somewhat different from the previous one. For one thing, we are very glad to see that Senator Kinsella has chosen to table this legislation. As several people have already said this evening, this legislation has been badly needed for a long time. The suggestions we will be making are for the purpose of strengthening it.

Bill S-13 is an important development in Canadian law-making. The people of a democratic country rely heavily on the dedication of their public servants for the preservation of democracy. Yet, until now, Canadian public servants have had to risk serious consequences if they decided to blow the whistle on some colleague or superior whose actions were contrary to the best interests of the people.

Public servants are required to choose between their careers and the public interest. The best of them choose the public interest. I was glad to hear Senator Stratton address that as a serious concern. Those people deserve to be rewarded; instead, many of them face sanctions that can even include the loss of their careers and can include any level of harassment up to that point. Those people, who have proven their worth to the people of Canada, are restricted in their ability to continue serving the people of Canada. That must change.

The Senate's decision to take action in support of those dedicated people is a most welcome development. However, Bill S-13 as it stands fails to highlight the key issue in this debate, which is the fact that the most important role of a democratic government is to act in the best interests of its citizens. The first duty of those who are employed in the public service is to serve the public interest.

The National Farmers Union has been heavily involved in two cases in which dedicated public servants have chosen to do exactly what they should do -- serve the public interest. In both cases, they have been punished, directly or indirectly, by their management.

In our review of the proposed legislation, we have continually asked ourselves two questions: First, has the public interest been accorded its proper importance? Second, would the people who took the risks in those two cases be protected? We found a number of places where the answer is uncertain and other places where the answer is still no. There are many places in this legislation where a start has been made but needs to be strengthened.

To set the stage for our recommendations to improve the proposed bill, we would like to discuss our experiences and observations with regard to Health Canada and the Canadian Grain Commission.

Mr. Richard Lloyd, Former Ontario Office Manager, National Farmers Union: Senators, I am happy to be here today. This is an extremely important issue. I thank Senator Kinsella for bringing it forward and the committee for studying it.

It has been a long hill to climb for us farmers from discovering that cows would get sick from rBST to discussing ideas involving whistle-blowing legislation. We always dreamed that we would get into these areas, but it is shocking that we are here now.

I will describe how the National Farmers Union and I have been around the BST food safety and related issues for over a decade. The first case involves the drug evaluators at Health Canada in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs in the Health Protection Branch. They assert that there is intense pressure to approve drugs of questionable safety by senior bureaucrats at Health Canada. They contend that this is because of immense interference from the giant drug industry. Despite great threats to their careers, they feel strongly that these drug approvals put Canadian food safety at risk and have decided to resist attempts at subverting their duty to uphold public safety under the Food and Drugs Act.

The scientists have attempted to change this serious situation by every proper means available. Internal grievance procedures within Health Canada were perfunctorily dismissed. Attempts to alert the Canadian public through the media resulted in written gag orders and threats of dismissal from Health Canada management. Formal hearings by the Public Service Staff Relations Board were dismissed because the adjudicator ruled the case was too technical and beyond the board's jurisdiction.

Some of the scientists gave shocking testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry studying the synthetic growth hormone rBST for dairy cows. That was after much difficulty, including the refusal by Health Canada to release to the Senate committee a key scientific report.

The gag order not to engage in public activity was repeated by Health Canada management. One scientist was suspended without pay for five days on what we believe were trumped up charges, but in reality it was a pre-emptive warning to everyone to keep quiet. The Senate Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders began hearings on whether the suspension was a result of previous testimony before a Senate committee and, thus, a contempt of Parliament.

All seven drug evaluators from the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs gave extensive testimony under oath and the protection of the committee only to see the investigation possibly curtailed prematurely before the committee pursued essential testimony from key management witnesses.

There is a pending Federal Court case against the gag order in the interests of the public's right to know what is going on at Health Canada. The National Farmers Union is an intervener in that case.

Now we have this committee studying a bill proposed to protect public servant whistle-blowers with the NFU as a witness. Let me explain briefly the background that led me here. The involvement of the National Farmers Union in these issues began about 12 years ago, when members at our national convention passed a motion opposing rBST. Throughout the decade-long struggle, the NFU's main concerns were the health of Canadian dairy cows and the health of the Canadian dairy industry.

There was some success in 1988 with strong and immediate public pressure to prevent milk from rBST test herds being mixed into the overall milk supply. In 1994, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture held hearings on rBST, which resulted in a one-year moratorium on approval of the drug. The public was reacting in massive numbers against rBST. They knew this was an unproven and unnecessary drug and that there was an intense debate about the risks.

Despite that, Health Canada appeared intent on approving the drug. We began to hear about the drug industry pressure within Health Canada management to approve drugs of questionable safety. The rBST issue became one of questioning the larger issues of trust in the Canadian regulatory system, food safety and the public's right to know.

Although our interest and expertise has always been and remains in cows and farmers, we could not avoid involvement in these larger public interest issues. Indeed, we now work with other groups and individuals around the globe.

We have heard allegations of other veterinary drugs of questionable safety getting Health Canada approval and we suspect there are many more. Canadians have a right to know what is going on. The NFU has closely followed the multiple attempts by the scientists, all of whom followed prescribed channels in their efforts to alert Canadians of dangers to public health. Yet, they are still gagged from telling us what they know. That is completely unacceptable and must be remedied with haste. Canadians demand this and are looking for effective ways to ensure that this type of thing cannot and will not happen again.

Ms Storey: The second case in which we as farmers have a deep and current interest is that of Mr. Dave Lewicki and the Canadian Grain Commission. Section 13 of the Canada Grain Act, which governs the CGC, states specifically that the commission shall, in the interests of grain producers, establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regular grain handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets.

Despite this clear legislative directive, senior members of the CGC have been promoting changes to standards and inspection procedures that would be very likely to work against the interests of grain producers, that is, farmers who are citizens of Canada, and in favour of the interests of grain companies. The only explanation for a number of the proposed changes is that they want to favour the interests of grain companies. That is contrary to the interests of both Canadian farmers and consumers, eaters of grain. It is a violation of both the CGC's mandate and of the general principle that Canadian public servants will serve the public interest.

Mr. Lewicki was unable to change the policy direction of his superiors through internal processes. As a dedicated public servant and also as a representative of his union, Mr. Lewicki felt obliged to take his concerns to elected representatives of Canadian farmers. Thanks to Mr. Lewicki, those farmer representatives were able to lobby effectively to forestall a number of changes that would be bad for Canadians. In return for this exemplary public service, Mr. Lewicki has been suspended and ordered not to discuss any aspect of the CGC with anyone at any time ever again.

As it stands, Bill S-13 would not protect Mr. Lewicki or ensure his compensation for the long-term harassment he has endured. The present bill specifically is not intended to apply to cases already in progress, and we simply feel that is wrong. The most dedicated of our public servants are the ones who have already chosen to act in the public interest, knowing that they had no effective protection. That means they are the people who most deserve protection.

Another problem in the Lewicki case is that Bill S-13 provides no mechanism to ensure swift public response to wrongdoing or mistakes that may have swift, negative effects on Canadians. If groups acting in the public interest had not been able to get information about problems within CGC's decision-making processes when they did, farmers' costs would have gone up and Canada's reputation for a high standard of quality control in grain exports might have been permanently damaged. We are still working on long-term issues around that.

Sometimes the public needs to know quickly -- much more quickly than a long process via a commissioner would permit. In addition, the proposed act leaves the question of reporting misdeeds for the public record to the discretion of a single commissioner, who will be overworked. He or she is charged with deciding whether or not the public has a need to know. That is not acceptable. The public always has a need to know whether the public service they pay for is doing its job in the public interest.

We need an act that provides meaningful protection for the Dave Lewickis and Shiv Chopras of this country, people who really believe that public servants are there to serve the public and who have the moral courage to do so. More important, we need an act that puts the public interest ahead of all else. The dividing line between government and industry is getting thinner all the time, as both these cases demonstrate. Industry's priorities are those of its shareholders, not of the general Canadian public. As industry becomes more influential in government circles, which unfortunately is happening, the public's need for real protection becomes greater.

We would like to direct your attention to our proposed redrafting of the text of Bill S-13. I will not go through this point by point. I am hoping you were able to skim through it and will raise particular issues of interest to you. Most of the changes that we have suggested are based on these two key questions: Is the public interest first? Are the people who took risks protected? Some of them are not.

The first change is a change of the short title to "Public Interest Whistleblowing Act," because we feel that needs to be highlighted and kept at the front of everyone's mind as the bill is reviewed and proceeds to passage.

Mr. Lloyd: I will quickly go through a few other concepts. We have read all the testimony from your previous two sessions. In general, there is growing agreement that the definition must be expanded from just the public service to include other agencies. We would agree with that.

Ms Storey: Approximately 30 per cent of employees would not be protected as the legislation stands, and they need to be protected.

Mr. Lloyd: Up to the middle of page two is wording changes. The next important thing is found in the middle of page two, where we speak of a panel rather than a commissioner. Ms Storey spoke to our explanation for that. We do not think one person should be responsible for the kinds of decisions that will need to be made. Also, as we learned watching the Public Service Staff Relations Board hearings, many of these issues will be far too technical for one person to handle and there will have to be a broader expertise.

Ms Storey: There is also the need to appeal if the panel chooses not to hear a case.

Under the heading "Investigation and Report" there are two issues. First, we need to have placed on the public record a copy of any report made, because the public needs to know what the possible wrongdoings are.

Under "Prohibitions," we do not like the two-year cap on the assumption that a public servant is possibly being punished for whistle-blowing. Some of these people will be working together for 20 years, and sanctions could go on for those 20 years. We do not feel that the two-year cap is adequate or appropriate.

There is another place where we allude to an appeal. If the panel or commissioner decides, for whatever reason, that there are not grounds to hear evidence given by a public servant of someone's wrongdoing or omission, there needs to be an appeal process. We have suggested that perhaps the Federal Court would be one place where that could be done. There may be other places as well. However, it should not just stop because one body has said no.

If the public servant has notified the commissioner or the panel of a potential wrongdoing or omission, in order to stop the problem that public servant may in good faith feel that he or she must go to the media or to some other group that may be affected by the wrongdoing. If proper notice has been given, if the wrongdoer knows that this person has lodged a complaint with a panel or commissioner, it may be that the whistle-blower needs to take it a step farther and go to the public or the media or the particular sector of society that will be hurt, because sometimes action must be quick.

Finally, at the very end of the brief, people who have in the past chosen to take a stand need to be protected. We do not like the exclusion of cases that are already in progress. If people have already decided to take a stand against wrongdoing, those people need to be protected under this proposed legislation. It may not be possible to punish their superiors or co-workers who are responsible for the wrongdoing, but certainly the people who have already taken stands and risked themselves need to be protected. That is the other major thing we would like to see included in the bill.

Mr. Lloyd: On the second last page, under "Prohibitions," clause 2, a whistle-blower may be punished by devious means that may be difficult to prove. Please refer to the discussion by Steve Hindle, President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. I think it is important to nail that down in this whistle-blowing legislation. For instance, although they were given a narrow mandate, the members of the Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders Committee have been exposed to how hard it is to prove allegations that someone is being harassed. You need broad eyes to see it.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. That was a thoughtful presentation, and your testimony speaks to concerns that many of us around this table have had.

Senator Kinsella: On page nine of the bill, paragraph 19(1)(a) was intended to say that a person could make public the fact that he or she has taken the matter to the panel or to the commission or commissioner and could not be subject to discipline for having done so. It states:

No person shall take disciplinary action against an employee because

(a) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has disclosed or stated an intention to disclose to the Commissioner that a person working for the Public Service or in the Public Service workplace has committed a wrongful act or omission.

Ms Storey: Our problem with that is that it was restricted to the commissioner. As it is phrased, that is the way it looked. It may be interpreted differently, but that was our thought about it.

Senator Kinsella: Your point is well made. We will certainly look at that. Is it not your principle that one of the best defences, one of the best shields often, is if the public knows about this?

Ms Storey: Absolutely.

Senator Kinsella: I certainly would agree with that.

Mr. Lloyd: As I read the testimony of the two previous sessions and heard the testimony from the Treasury Board here today, I found everything to be fairly "clubby." The civil service, government and everyone are looking after themselves, and they want to do some in public and some in secret. We must protect this and that. However, the public is our interest.

Senator Kinsella: Yes. That was the reason I used the terminology "public interest commissioner." I do not think we are married to this terminology or that agency. One of the reasons for identifying a current umbrella agency was to get around the problem of what we call money bills in order to introduce legislation that would be in order. We may not initiate them through money bills causing an expenditure of public funds.

Ms Storey: We appreciate that restriction on the Senate and on this committee. We are doing a little dreaming in here, certainly. This is what we would like to see. If you could figure out some way to wangle it, we would love that.

Senator Kinsella: That is certainly helpful.

Let me turn to another important point that you raise: retroactivity. That always comes up when examining legislation of any genre. Some people argue that to pass legislation that would impose a sanction on conduct that was executed prior to there being a statute is unacceptable. This proposed legislation would actually be concerned not with imposing a sanction but rather with providing a benefit. That is the distinction.

Ms Storey: Exactly. If someone is in jail for committing a crime that suddenly is no longer a crime because of changes in the Criminal Code, that person is generally released from jail. This would follow the same principle.

Senator Stratton: As you may recall, I was part of the Senate Agriculture Committee that dealt with rBST. I thought it took a great deal of courage for those people to come forward. I did suggest to them at the time that if they were harassed or otherwise ill-treated they should notify us.

For balance, rBST is there in theory to improve production. You can produce more milk with fewer cows. In the dairy industry, there are quotas, as you know. Therefore, you are always looking for ways and means of increasing your productivity, and the theory is that rBST would allow you to produce the same amount of milk with fewer cows. In balance, that is the principle that drove the rBST issue.

When you have dealt with scientists for a number of years, you get to know that, as in many instances, specialists or researchers differ on conclusions reached. They do it all the time and it gets quite controversial. There must be some measure within any organization to bring about a peaceful resolution to those differences of opinion. That happens all the time in science.

I question the process that Health Canada used in resolving those disagreements. In my mind, that is the core of the issue. If you have a controversial topic and you are dealing with matters of patent, the matter must remain confidential to protect the aspects of the patent that the company has applied for. In some way, this must be resolved. While I agree with what you have said, I also think there must be a point at which you say as well that there has to be due process that is gone through in anything that is dealt with in order to protect the interests of whatever is taking place in that scientific field and, as well, to protect the individual scientists. You must reach a balance of some kind, obviously. What I fear is that if we go too far with what we are trying to achieve -- and you must be careful about this -- the system will not work. I believe the system was wrong in how it handled things, but I still think it can be improved. I am talking specifically about the rBST issue, because it was a fairly large and significant issue with a fair number of scientists coming forward.

Do you not feel that you should also comment on the background to all this? You have to examine those issues so that, if a scientist comes forward and goes public -- in other words, blows the whistle -- you know that, in effect, he has tried all other avenues and has been dealt with, he believes, unfairly. I have a problem with a balance there and how you achieve that balance. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not know how far back and detailed you want to get on this, but the words that kept coming to my mind when you were asking for balance were "a precautionary principle in the public interest."

Senator Stratton: Yes.

Mr. Lloyd: When it comes to endangering the public health, I do not see patent rights and privacy rights as having primacy.

Senator Stratton: However, confidentiality is the law.

Ms Storey: You must also consider that within the existing text there are already phrases referring to "reasonable belief" and "good faith." That should cover a good part of your concern. I believe an intelligent public servant would also be aware of many of those issues surrounding cases where a breach of confidentiality would place the public interest at risk.

I have been farming for 10 years but I come out of a public service family. My father was president of the Saskatchewan Government and General Employees' Union for five years, and he was also a superintendent of schools for a good many years. He dealt with a number of those issues constantly. What do you disclose? What would be bad for schooling and education? What would be bad for your fellow workers if it were disclosed? I believe that someone acting on reasonable belief and in good faith would take those principles into account and would try to balance out what really would be in the public interest before he or she made any disclosures of that kind. Certainly the scientists involved in the rBST case went through a good many procedures in trying to resolve the situation. Looking at that, you can often tell whether or not someone is acting in good faith.

Mr. Lloyd: I have one other specific item regarding scientific debate in the rBST issue. Although it was purported by Health Canada that there was never a consensus within that branch on the issue of rBST, you will remember the extremely important gaps analysis report, which was signed by all four of its authors. There was a consensus then, although Health Canada worked hard afterwards through its external committees to split apart the consensus in the report. However, when there was no pressure and before all the games started to happen, four scientists, two from the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs and two from outside the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, signed the first gaps analysis report.

I have attended most of the hearings of the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Privileges Committee. This is the first hearing of your committee that I have been at. I heard Deputy Minister Dodge give testimony to the Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders about this scientific debate. He said that when we do not have it, we have to go outside and keep going outside. One senator looked up and said, "Oh, I see, deputy minister, you keep going outside until you find the answer that you want." I do not recall which senator said that, but in my opinion he had the correct response. There is a huge amount of truth in that from the experience of the rBST issue.

Senator Finestone: I am concerned about the extent of undue influence of industry in the public interest. That is what I sense from some of what you have said. How would moving this whistle-blowing bill stop that?

Mr. Lloyd: You understand by now that my specialty was single-mindedly the rBST and health issue.

Senator Finestone: It is important to have first-hand knowledge of a case that was a very trying and sad situation, and I am glad to see that we stopped that whole process. From what you learned in that experience, do you believe there was a way to stop the influence of industry or the pharmaceutical companies who were interested in their product?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I think this whistle-blowing legislation would have been extremely useful. The gaps analysis report refers to a study of whether there were any gaps in Health Canada's review before giving approval. The gaps started happening back in about 1990, two weeks after the first submission was given, when the reviewer signed off on human health. How could that possibly have happened? Someone within that bureau could have blown the whistle on that. They could have blown the whistle on the influence on the appointment of certain directors of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. They could have blown the whistle on the fact that they were being asked to sign their approval on drugs when they had not nearly completed the review. They could have blown the whistle on a lot of what I have learned to be threats at meetings, and so on. They could have blown the whistle on the fact that a committee that meets to give advice to management concerning how to run the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs included representatives from the veterinary drug industry lobby, representatives from the Canadian Animal Health Institute, and representatives of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, all of whom have immense vested interest in having drugs approved. Those people were making representations as to who should become management.

Had the Canadian public known about all of those things and more, what was already a huge public expression of disapproval of this drug would have turned into a firestorm.

Senator Finestone: That leads me to my next question. We talk about the role of government in a civil society and how elected members of a Parliament or senators from their seats should be able to reflect or make that bridge from civil society and the NGOs through to the bridge to the executive. Given some of your experience, what do you think we could do to ensure that in the public interest that need to know builds up to what you called the "firestorm"? The process is slow. No matter what we do, the process will be slow. However, there certainly can be some public action in terms of information sharing and raising awareness of issues. Do you not feel that that is also part and parcel of this? I think education is an important aspect -- not only education in terms of values, but education in terms of responsibility to get the information out.

Ms Storey: Mr. Lloyd is looking at a long session of appearing before committees and writing briefs on exactly that question.

This proposed legislation could permit earlier whistle-blowing. At the moment, we are very much dependent on that handful of people who not only are dedicated, as most public servants are, but who also get to the point that they feel they cannot in conscience let it go on anymore. In most cases, people do not blow the whistle until things are incredibly bad. Had been a mechanism that made employees feel more comfortable coming forward with their concerns about conflicts of interest, undue influence and so on much earlier in the process, things would not have had to get so bad.

Firestorms can be very useful but we should not need them if everything is working right. Of course, things will always slip by to the point that there will be a need for a firestorm, but it should not be necessary as often as it is to stop some of the more unfortunate incidents that have happened. Things should not have gotten as bad as they did with bovine growth hormone before the whole process was rerouted and derailed.

With the Canadian Grain Commission case, someone literally has taken on himself all of the fallout from a process that could have been extremely bad for farmers. Other assistant commissioners were willing to do a bit of the same thing, but they could not run the risk that the one person who has been punished finally decided he had to run on their behalf. We should not be asking people to make those sacrifices. We should be able to stop these things before they get that bad. That is how this would help.

Senator Finestone: Do genetically modified food concerns fall somewhat within what you have been talking about regarding rBST? Let us say in terms of cattle, cattle feeding and certainly the modified wheat.

Mr. Lloyd: That is in the same vein as some of the discussion we had before you arrived. There are, of course, all the suspicions of the public about hasty approval.

I will get to the farm stuff but I just want to mention, in passing, the expression "substantial equivalents," which is given as the reason for approving these foods over at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That brings another whole debate: Where should the body to uphold food safety issues exist? Should it be over at Agriculture Canada where they are supposed to be selling our products and not creating suspicions, or should it be back at Health Canada as a separate mandate?

Having placed on the record some of those larger issues that do not get much press, there are many specific farm issues. Is there a crop yield increase in the use of genetically modified foods? We are beginning to find out that there is not, especially two or three years down the road. Being from the West, Ms Storey is more knowledgeable than I am on canola. Within three years of using genetically modified canola there, cross-fertilization has occurred, which can ruin markets for organic canola.

The ramifications apply across the board. Europe and other large markets are demanding non-GMO products. Many farmers are finding good premiums in growing organic but there are problems with cross-pollination. There will soon be problems with resistant weeds that cannot be killed by Roundup. Resistant corn borers will soon come to the fields of potatoes and corn that are supposedly now being protected now with an implanted gene that kills present corn borers. This is a nest of snakes. We do not know what we will face. We already can foresee many problems.

Senator Finestone: I must say, I am a city girl. I do not really know too much about farm life, but if a crop can kill a corn borer it must not be very good for our tummies.

Ms Storey: It is definitely bad for Monarch butterflies. There has been a drop-off in the population in Mexico over the past winter and the cause is being debated.

Consumers are beginning a GMO rebellion. When one looks closer at the whole genetically modified research engine and market, the same corporate names appear that we saw in the rBST debate. The public already has reason to be suspicious of those particular corporations because of the approval process around rBST. Those same corporations have been urging rapid approval of GMOs and, as a result, people are even more suspicious of GMOs and potential health problems than they need to be. If the research process had happened more slowly with proper safety testing being done over a long period, consumer resistance to GMOs might have ended up being smaller simply because consumers felt that those companies, which they do not trust, were being adequately checked.

Senator Finestone: We visited Mongolia last year for a trade initiative. They requested Canadian wheat. As I said, I do not know much about this but they did show me the difference between their indigenous wheat, the Russian wheat seed, and the product that can be bought from Canada. The Canadian seed is much larger and produces a higher quality of protein. It also is hardier in winter. Mongolia's climate and soil are similar to ours. Our seeds were therefore desirable but Mongolia had a serious concern about GMO.

Ms Storey: No GMO wheat has been approved for commercial growth in Canada. Some strains are under research. Whatever they were shown was almost certainly a variety developed through normal, traditional crossbreeding processes.

You saw the potential reaction occurring simply because the companies are not trusted. The long-term safety research has not been done. People are getting very nervous. That distrust could have been forestalled if the process were more open. That is where the whistle-blower act can help.

Senator Finestone: Thank you.

The Deputy Chairman: The more I learn, the more I am overwhelmed by the greater need for corrective action.

Senator Kinsella: Mr. Lloyd mentioned the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders. That Senate committee examined a question of parliamentary privilege, which I raised. That report has been tabled in the Senate but the debate has not yet commenced. I expect it will begin tomorrow and it will go on for a period of time. It is a very important report and it touches on a number of different issues.

To pick up where Senator Stratton left off, that report gives a very clear signal that parliamentary committees will protect their witnesses. The signal has gone out loud and clear, particularly across the bureaucracy, that there is to be no tampering with witnesses who come before Senate committees. The Senate will be around for a little while longer and we obviously take this matter very seriously.

I raised that question about my own privilege and not about the privilege of any key witness. Some reports show a misunderstanding, as though the witnesses had approved something. We raised the question of privilege and the committee report has identified that the breach of parliamentary privilege is a serious matter requiring a high standard of proof.

The committee report also underscored in a significant way the apprehension of a poisoned environment in Health Canada. I am sure there will be much comment and perhaps some action taken by the Senate on that particular matter.

A further focus of the committee in that report is the matter now before us, namely whistle-blowing, and the need for some type of framework to deal with that. Furthermore, in its report, the committee also draws attention to the discussion we have just been having with Senator Finestone: namely, how to secure the safety, in the public interest of Canadians, of the use of genetic engineering, genetically modified organisms, et cetera. This is a very contemporary issue.

The Deputy Chairman: It is extremely useful to put it on the record. I am certain that I spoke in support when Senator Kinsella raised that question of privilege in the Senate chamber. As the current debate on the report in the chamber goes forward, it would be useful if people were to follow it very closely. We could mention on the record in the Senate some of this testimony.

I wish to commend people like you. The average Canadian depends on their government to ensure that everything is safe. This kind of study reminds us of how vulnerable and in need of protection people are.

Mr. Lloyd: In reference to several things that Senator Kinsella said, I do not think that the Committee on Privileges finished its business. I recently read an excellent letter by Helen Forsey in the Ottawa Citizen about what has been going on. She got away from the emotional aspects and said that, in her opinion, had the committee pursued the matter further, it probably could have had a great probability of finding that contempt.

I was at the last session and I was delighted to hear the last words of the chairman, who said that it is obvious from testimony we have heard that Dr. Lachance is a key witness from whom we must hear. Then when I got the press release of the final report, I was floored, because the work was just beginning.

You pointed out at the beginning of those hearings how difficult it is, as we have alluded to in parts of the bill, to prove that an employee is being punished. You have to look at that very broadly. I understood all along the narrowness of the question that came from the Senate, but I think Ms Forsey has expressed that that is all still out in the open. We are hoping that the report will continue to be tabled and not accepted and that the committee will start up again.

I have one final overriding comment: When you are examining things, the two key words "precautionary principle" should guide everything.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you very much. Senator Kinsella, I understand Mr. Lloyd to be saying that the report that is currently before the Senate is deficient and that the issues need additional study.

Senator Finestone: So you will say that in the house.

The Deputy Chairman: Now that Mr. Lloyd has said that, we should be extremely diligent and bring that opinion forward to the chamber. I must confess I have not looked at the report yet and I was not a member of the committee that studied it. I played a small role in getting it to the committee, but I was not a member of the committee. I shall certainly make sure that your point of view is heard.

Mr. Lloyd: I want to repeat, it is most eloquently said by Ms Forsey in her letter to the Ottawa Citizen.

Senator Finestone: Of what date?

The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps we could put that on the record. Do you have a copy with you?

Mr. Lloyd: I am missing it but Senator Kinsella is nodding. Perhaps he has it.

The Deputy Chairman: Does anyone here know the date of the letter?

Senator Finestone: We will get it from Senator Kinsella during the course of the debate.

The Deputy Chairman: I was trying to get it on the record here.

In any event, what I have heard from you is that it is a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen. Do you have any idea when it appeared?

Mr. Lloyd: Some time within the last week.

The Deputy Chairman: what is the spelling of the name of the person who signed it?

Mr. Lloyd: The same as former senator Eugene Forsey.

Senator Finestone: Any relation?

Ms Storey: She is his daughter.

The Deputy Chairman: The researcher has undertaken to find it tomorrow.

I thank the witnesses for their thoughtful testimony.

The committee adjourned.