Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Would you take a question, Senator Dalphond?

Senator Dalphond: Of course.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I tend to agree with this bill in that whistle-blowers are very important for our democracy. I’m wondering how this bill strikes the necessary balance. You said that the burden of proof has been reduced and that the term “gross negligence” has been replaced with “negligence” or something to that effect. Those may not be the exact words. You said that there has already been an increase in complaints. By reducing the burden of proof, isn’t there a risk of being inundated with complaints, some of which may be frivolous? We know that sometimes complaints are filed for revenge and all sorts of other reasons. How can we separate all of that?

I don’t imagine there is a simple answer, but I’m sure that you have thought about the balance that we need to strike.

Senator Dalphond: That’s an excellent question. I asked the same thing this morning of the commissioner when she appeared before the National Finance Committee. I also asked whether she was concerned that passing this bill would provoke a flood of complaints. She replied that she already needs more funding, and that if the bill passes, even more money would be needed, because she does anticipate more complaints.

Does she anticipate a flood of complaints? No. She has expressed her support for the bill and hopes it will pass. However, she will have to be given the resources needed to do her job. Of course, the concept of a public servant who discloses in good faith implies that if the whistle-blowing is done out of revenge, the complaint won’t be accepted. Nevertheless, even if it’s out of revenge, the whistle-blower could still disclose a wrongdoing that goes against the public interest and deserves to be denounced. Casting doubt on his or her motives may not be the right approach. The agreement should be reviewed and investigated, and if it turns out that the facts reported are reprehensible under the law, they should be investigated, regardless of the motivation that led this public servant to turn a blind eye at first, only to eventually do the right thing. So much the better if he or she discloses practices that must be stopped.

The legislation contains provisions that allow the commissioner not to address the complaints, but refer them to other organizations that may be better equipped to deal with them. For example, a unionized public servant might report that a supervisor is psychologically harassing him because he was a whistle-blower, no one took action and now he has to deal with the situation. Perhaps in some cases he might be asked to file a grievance; his union could deal with it and everything could be handled more quickly because the apparatus is equipped to address this type of thing. Maybe other cases will be presented by the Human Rights Commission. The commission has the capacity to refer the files, even to the police in the most serious cases. After filtering the information, the commission would transfer the case to the police, as in the case of this communications director who had a beautiful ranch, a lot of horses and a lot of beautiful properties and who seemed to be getting rewarded by the people getting contracts from him.