Surrey has a pretty bad, perhaps well-deserved rap, but that has changed significantly under the enlightened and progressive leadership of Dianne Watts, mayor and city council. Over the course of the executive leadership at Surrey City hall, they have introduced some excellent and very progressive policies and best practices that aim to reform and improve how the city and community do business together and how the city operates.
The first of these is the Whistleblower (Serious Complaints) Policy, introduced in June 2006:
The Whistleblower Policy is designed to provide a process for City employees to report any conduct that is not consistent with City policies and by-laws without fear of retaliation or penalization. This extensive policy applies to the City’s finances, Code of Conduct, accounting, government laws and rules and regulations.
The policy is the most broad-based and far-reaching of its kind in Canada, with only the City of Toronto having any kind of whistleblower policy whatsoever.
City of Surrey Leads The Way With Whistleblower Policy
June 13, 2006
In September 2008, the Surrey city council also introduced the Lobbyist Registration Policy:
The Policy requires lobbyists who intend to advocate on behalf of applicants for a rezoning, development permit, or an official community plan amendment to register with the City to ensure their activities are part of the public record. Lobbyists will be required to register with the registrar in the Clerk’s office and to update their file whenever they take on new clients.
“Through the Lobbyist Registration Policy we are ensuring the public is aware of those who are advocating when significant land use decisions are being considered by Council and who they represent,” said Mayor Dianne Watts. “We want to ensure the process is open and to send a strong message that this Council is firmly committed to transparent decision-making in government.”
Surrey’s New Lobbyist Registration Policy Increases Accountability and Transparency
September 9, 2008
Why Whistleblowing is Good for Vancouver
Excerpt:
Whistleblower protection, the name usually given to such protective measures, seems to be a no-brainer for the interests of municipal accountability.
As this week's Georgia Straight points out, in cases where employees have blown the whistle on organizational or governmental wrong-doing the perils of not having whistleblower protection have included harassment, intimidation, and loss of employment.
Whistleblower protection is far from a perfect solution but it does provide a modest baseline of security. This type of security is an important component of the system of checks and balances that are in place in our civic institutions. In fact, it's surprising this sort of protection isn't already part of the city's human resources practices.
***
CUPE, the City, and whistles
By Charlie Smith. The Georgia Straight.
Excerpt:
Former federal whistle blower Joanna Gualtieri told the Straight in a phone interview from Ottawa that whistle blowers need to be protected by statutes because policies can be ignored, and because unions sometimes won't pursue a whistle-blowing issue if they're trying to negotiate with governments on issues that could affect hundreds of thousands of employees. "They're not in a position to piss off the government," she said.
The B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act includes a clause protecting provincial-government whistle blowers who bring their concerns "in good faith" to the attention of the information and privacy commissioner.
Whistle-blower protection
30.3 An employer, whether or not a public body, must not dismiss, suspend, demote, discipline, harass or otherwise disadvantage an employee of the employer, or deny that employee a benefit, because
(a) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has notified the minister responsible for this Act under section 30.2,
(b) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has disclosed to the commissioner that the employer or any other person has contravened or is about to contravene this Act,
(c) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has done or stated an intention of doing anything that is required to be done in order to avoid having any person contravene this Act,
(d) the employee, acting in good faith and on the basis of reasonable belief, has refused to do or stated an intention of refusing to do anything that is in contravention of this Act, or
(e) the employer believes that an employee will do anything described in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).
Seven common tactics for stymieing whistle blowers
> Make the whistle blower the issue, and take the focus off the message.
> Isolate the whistle blower, separating him or her from potential allies.
> Destabilize the whistle blower's support base.
> Blow the whistle first to set the agenda, defusing the impact of the whistle blower's action.
> Eliminate the whistle blower's job.
> Prosecute whistle blowers or threaten to take them to court.
> Bring in experts to discredit the disclosure.
Source: Confronting Moral Worlds: Understanding Business Ethics , by Mark N. Wexler (Prentice-Hall Canada, 2000).
Ferreira v. City of Richmond
In separate reasons for judgment, Saunders wrote: "It is not sufficient to say simply that a case concerns 'whistle blowing' to know the proper forum because that moniker may give rise to a plethora of issues, including freedom of speech, defamation, discipline, dismissal, harassment, and unsafe working environment. Thus while the context of this case may fit within the term 'whistle blowing', it is the essence of the case that must be examined to determine whether, at its heart, it is a matter of employment governed by the collective agreement."
Ferreira v. City of Richmond et al, 2004 BCSC 1600 (CanLII) — 2004-12-03
Ferreira v. Richmond (City), 2005 BCCA 66 (CanLII) — 2005-02-10
British Columbia — Court of Appeal
Ferreira v. Richmond (City), 2007 BCCA 131 (CanLII) — 2007-02-28
British Columbia — Court of Appeal
[58]What, then, should be made of the fact that these alleged tortious acts were taken in retaliation for whistleblowing? Whistleblowing is a matter of great public concern, which has been expressed recently by the Supreme Court of Canada: Merk v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, 2005 SCC 70 (CanLII), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 425, 2005 SCC 70; Vaughan, supra. These concerns have also been reflected by the common law's willingness to afford measures of protection for whistleblowers in appropriate circumstances: Initial Services Ltd. v. Putternil et al., [1967] 3 All E.R. 145; Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, 1985 CanLII 14 (S.C.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 455; Read v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 798 (CanLII), [2005] F.C.J. No. 990, 2005 FC 798 (QL).
************
It's time for the courts to realize that they are falling down in recognizing the vast limitations for the civil and human rights of whistleblowers. Most collective agreements, if they even have "whistleblower" language, or organizations that have "policies" are woefully inadequate and considered open to interpretation and manipulation by employers. Patterns of outcomes and personal and professional consequences to whistleblowers, their families and within organizations are quite well-established and there is a great deal of research on these things.
Frankly, the time of arbitrators, unions and employers dealing with these types of issues that arise out of the employer-employee relationship must be ended. None of the parties involved simply have enough experience, education, or balls to deal with the issues and corruption has pervaded the process in many respects. As this Richmond case demonstrates and many others we know of, employers, and union representatives simply don't have a clue how to investigate and resolve these issues adequately and fairly.
Most of us don't believe police forces should investigate themselves, so why do we think that employers will be any better in matters they are quite likely motivated to keep covered up, especially if they concern public funds and management of public services. And, it is precisely the failure of unions to adequately represent whistleblowing employees and those who have been psychologically abused and harassed that lead to many union members feeling alienated and abandoned by their unions in their darkest days. Not that long ago in Beautiful BC we had a terrible example of the kind of tragedy that can occur when workplace issues of harassment aren't adequately and responsibily handled. How many more less violent, but no less damaging, workplace issues occur every day in diverse workplaces, with no corrections, no improvements, or lessons learned?
It is time for the courts to begin to demonstrate some serious leadership in whistleblower cases. As Madame Justice Saunders writes:
[81] It is not sufficient to say simply that a case concerns ‘whistle blowing’ to know the proper forum because that moniker may give rise to a plethora of issues, including freedom of speech, defamation, discipline, dismissal, harassment, and unsafe working environment.
It also isn't enough to have "whistleblower language" in collective agreements, or in policy. Until employers, unions and the courts recognize the personal, professional and organizational costs of corruption, illegal activities, bullying, psychological harassment, intimidation and misuse of managerial power in the workplace everyone will be impacted. There are those among us who believe in justice, in doing the right thing and in seeing an end to corruption and a commitment to improving workplace health, safety and practices. These courageous individuals should be applauded and thanked, not harassed to disability, death and fired, as is the standard modus operandi for most now. We look forward to the day that will be coming when all workers in BC will have the same rights and protections as those in Quebec, the right to work free of psychological harassment and harm, in safety and with dignity.
