Groups call for 10 questions to be answered re Dion's appointment

News Conference – December 14, 2011

Charles Lynch Room, Centre Block, Parliament Buildings

Remarks by David Hutton:

Today, FAIR, Canadians for Accountability, Democracy Watch and the 30-member group Government Ethics Coalition are calling on all MPs with integrity to vote against the appointment of Mario Dion as the new Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

There are many reasons to fear that Mr. Dion will prove to be an ineffective commissioner, perhaps no better than disgraced former commissioner Christiane Ouimet. Our organizations have compiled a list of ten questions that we believe must be answered before this appointment is approved, but this has not happened, and no witnesses have been called to testify.

As a result MPs are proceeding towards an extremely important vote with scarcely a clue regarding Mr. Dion’s performance to date.

This is an important appointment because it will largely determine whether government whistleblowers have any protection for coming forward, and whether wrongdoers will face any consequences for their actions – for the next seven years.

It is absurd that no other witnesses besides Mr. Dion have been called to testify regarding this nomination.

Civil society organizations that work with whistleblowers and speak for whistleblowers have a clear right to be called to testify regarding this appointment – yet for the past five years we have been completely shut out. We have been denied any opportunity to speak about this legislation, or the agency it created or the office-holder, even as we sought to draw attention to Christiane Ouimet’s poor performance.

It is because of this shutting out of civil society that for years MPs had no clue of what Oumet was doing. If we had been called to testify following any of her annual reports to Parliament in 2008, 2009 or 2010 then the problems could have been exposed and this entire fiasco could have been nipped in the bud. But that didn’t happen.

For the same reason MPs are now woefully uninformed about the candidate that they are about to vote on. This is not democratic, it is not ethical, it’s not honourable, and it’s not sensible.

The ten questions that we have compiled are based upon concrete information about Mr. Dion’s performance. Unlike Ouimet’s appointment, in this case we have a track record in the job of a full year, and lots of information. Our concerns are not based on theory or predicting the future, they are based on what we have already observed.

Let’s look at who is opposing this nomination.

Dr. Edward Keyserlingk is the former public sector integrity officer, a position created to protect whistleblowers under the Chretien government. Keyserlingk won respect by realizing that his office had inadequate powers and independence (it reported to the PM) and by campaigning vigorously for proper legislation. He is one of the parents if you like of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s office (PSIC).

Dr. Keyserlingk sent a six page letter a year ago to MP Pat Martin the current chair of the government operations committee saying that that he was appalled at the government’s decision to appoint a bureaucrat to the position of interim commissioner, and that this was a disastrous idea.

Our organization FAIR, under my predecessor Joanna Gualtieri, has since 1998 done more than any other organization in Canada to put whistleblower protection on the national agenda and to help bring about whistleblower protection legislation. FAIR is another of PSIC’s parents, and we vigorously oppose this nomination.

Every single whistleblower that we have spoken to opposes this nomination, though unfortunately they have no voice except through others: there are very few whistleblowers in a position to come forward publicly. One of these is Sean Bruyea, who I have been proud to know for the past three years as he has tenaciously fought for justice for injured veterans, in the face of vicious reprisals by Veterans Affairs senior managers.

You should know that out of the hundreds of cases that we know about, Sean’s story is typical, not just in his by mistreatment by VAC, but in the way that his case has been handled by Dion’s office. His case demonstrates clearly that there was wrongdoing at VAC, yet PSIC simply refuses to investigate the wrongdoing that he alleges.

Sean’s case is unique in my experience in that he has largely won his personal battle against reprisal – no thanks to PSIC – although his larger battle for injured veterans continues.

There are literally hundreds of other whistleblowers who, unlike Sean, have no voice except through organizations like FAIR and C4A – because they are terrified of being identified and the intensified reprisals that will surely result. Many of these people are watching, frightened and appalled by the spectacle of this unwise appointment being jammed through parliament.

I’ll now hand over to Sean Bruyea for a few minutes.

Remarks by Sean Bruyea:

On August 6, 2009, I reported to Christiane Ouimet the previous Public Servive Integrity Commissnioner, widespread gross mismanagement, illegal actions and intimidation at Veterans Affairs Canada. Without speaking to me or viewing any of the thousands of pages of documents I offered her office, she closed the case on my allegations.

In May 2011 Mr. Dion claimed that he was carrying out an independent review process which he declared complete in a letter on Nov 9, 2011. This so-called independent review process since May 2011 has been carried out not by an independent agency in my case but by inside legal counsel who worked closely with Mr. Dion in another federal department, Residential Schools. There was absolutely no independence whatsoever in Mr. Dion’s claimed ‘independent’ review process.

Nevertheless, he has chosen to close the file on my allegations without carrying out any investigation or allowing me to verify the accuracy of his review which is riddled with errors of fact. He claims that the terms of the settlement (which he was not privileged to view) addressed the illegal and malicious actions of Veterans Affairs employees.

Even with such a factually flawed approach by Mr. Dion, he is able to confirm the following.

• He agrees that government inappropriately linked my advocacy for disabled veterans as symptomatic of my medical condition.
• He admits that government threats to cut off my treatment could constitute gross mismanagement.
• He acknowledges that it was inappropriate for bureaucrats to intimidate me from accessing my democratic rights to meet with an elected official.

None of these issues were dealt with by the Privacy Commissioner’s findings of Veterans Affairs released one year ago.

Yet Mr. Dion refuses to investigate. He has done exactly what Christiane Ouimet and Veterans Affairs Deputy Minster Suzanne Tining has done for three and  five years respectively: he has protected those that break the law. Furthermore, he has also failed what the law requires of him: to investigate in the public interest.

A settlement of any of my personal concerns has absolutely nothing to do with the public interest. Such a settlement only addresses the interests of me and my young and growing family. I brought my case forward in the hopes that my case would be an example to show that the illegal, abusive and malicious actions of Veterans Affairs employees, or any other federal bureaucrat must be reported, fully investigated and consequently punished, so that it does not ever happen again.

Last month, Canada learned that such illegal actions continue to occur in Veterans Affairs Canada, and still the offending senior bureaucrats remain unpunished.

Instead of using every power of his office to pursue bureaucrats who violate our trust, Mr. Dion appears to use every power of his office to defend such violators while curiously condemning the violations. In doing so, Mr. Dion shows that he is far too immersed in the artificial and highly disconnected world of Canada’s senior federal civil service, a culture of entitlement and excessive privilege.

I think we would all admit that it is a clear conflict of interest to have criminals investigate themselves, to have police investigate possible wrongdoing within the police force, and it is a similar outrageous conflict of interest to have the bureaucracy police themselves by appointing someone like Mr. Dion.

As a military officer who sacrificed much to defend, preserve and show the world all that is good in Canada I am increasingly troubled that my sacrifice is meaning less and less about defending what is good and more to preserve the arrogance of a senior public service which increasingly spends our tax dollars to operate without transparency, accountability or honesty. Our senior federal bureaucrats have become a cabal of impunity and entitlement.

This insular and privileged senior bureaucracy has repeatedly attacked Canadian citizen advocates and conscientious public servants through the organizational violence of harassment and other such mechanisms that destroy the soul and the spirit of individuals brave enough to be concerned about Canada’s well-being and good.

After intimately seeing how Mr. Dion’s office has functioned in the past year I cannot in good conscience recommend that whistleblowers seek or will receive protection in the public sector integrity commissioner with his appointment.

I would instead encourage such whistleblowers to go straight to the media, with the sound guidance of legal advice and the sound wisdom and experience of organizations like FAIR, Canadians for Accountability, and Democracy Watch.

Thank you.