On Monday, 21 October, WSIC audience members participated in a powerful debate on information privacy in Canada and discussed the level of protection to be afforded to whistleblowers that expose information to the public. WSIC was proud to host Stephen McCammon, counsel to the Ontario Privacy and Information Commissioner, David W. Hutton, Executive Director of FAIR (Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform), and Joanna Gualtieri, the founder of FAIR and a whistleblower who suffered years of harassment as a result of exposing waste of public funds in the course of her work at Foreign Affairs.
Stephen began the discussion by emphasizing the need to bust a key myth that privacy is about hiding and secrecy. In fact, privacy is about our dignity as human beings and about each of our individual rights to exercise some degree of control over information we share on ourselves. The revelations made by Edward Snowden have succeeded in engaging citizens and allowing them to push the government to be more transparent in the course of its information collection on its citizens. While the government may have legitimate reasons for engaging in this type of conduct (for example, public safety or national security) the question is whether there is an adequate governance system in place so that it is accountable for its actions. The problem now is that citizens are seeing the government doing a great deal of secretive activity without disclosure to the public. A surveillance or oversight regime is necessary. There is no framework in place governing what can or cannot be done with our private information.
Over the last 6 years at FAIR, David has taken calls from over 350 whistleblowers that often find themselves in desperate situations simply because they followed their conscience and job roles appropriately and are now being persecuted as a result. FAIR offers assistance to those people, helping them plot a strategy for dealing with their circumstances.
Joanna described her background as an employee in Foreign Affairs in 1992 and her ascertaining quite quickly that there were severe and systemic problems with the fiscal management of the real estate portfolio for diplomats abroad. However, when she attempted to address her findings she was subject to harassment by her employers over many years and was eventually embroiled in a long standing legal dispute with the government that amounted to an abuse of process and which came at the expense of her career and tremendous personal sacrifice.
During the open discussion segment of the evening, all three speakers acknowledged that there are threats to public safety and national concern interests which could, on occasion, justify public surveillance powers by the government. However, Joanna was quick to highlight that any surveillance conducted should be in accordance with the Canadian constitution and our rule of law. Stephen emphasized the matter of government accountability and to ensure that the government does what the law says and that it stays within its legislative boundaries.
David reminded us to abandon the misconception of whistleblowers as irresponsible individuals who meddle in affairs that are not their business and run to the media for publicity sake. This portrayal carries weight only because it’s the attack made towards everyone that comes forward. In reality, the typical whistleblower is an honest employee simply doing their job, in the course of which he or she has come across suspicious activities and cannot get a satisfactory resolution by going up the chain of management.
Another key point which united the WSIC panellists was the importance of enacting legislation that would protect whisteblowers in the event information was disclosed to the public. All three speakers agreed this was vital to ensure individuals could come forward without fear of persecution for their actions. Joanna highlighted that any statute would need to be drafted in a way that provides no loopholes in what can be disclosed, in order to avoid situations where individuals bravely come forward with their findings only to subsequently realize they are disqualified from statutory protection due to, for example, time limitations or disclosure to the wrong party. Also key would be the establishment of a neutral and independent agency geared towards investigating the nature of the information disclosed. While there is no precedent for this type of legislation in Canada, there are numerous documents that have been put together by experts in other jurisdictions, and based on decades of experience, showing how this could be structured. The problem to date in Canada is that legislators just aren’t paying attention.
An important takeaway message on whistleblowing was that those deciding whether to go public with findings of suspicious activity ought to think very carefully about the significance of what they are disclosing and the potential repercussions they will face. Most whistleblowers have suffered significant negative ramifications and emotional stress as a result of their actions. Edward Snowden is just one example of an individual who, as a result of his conduct, may very likely never be allowed back on U.S. soil again. While whistleblowers should be encouraged for disclosing the truth on activities of a suspicious nature, the current reality is that they often pay dearly for their conduct. Let us hope that this will change in the years to come.
Opening Remarks from each of our speakers are below.
Steve McCammon
David Hutton
Joanna Gualiteri