Discover a powerful lineup of experts and thought leaders ready to shed light on critical issues surrounding whistleblowing - workplace culture, psychological safety, reporting mechanisms, legislation and the impacts of retaliation. Our speakers bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the forefront, offering valuable insights into the world of ethics, transparency and accountability.

From legal and financial to ethical and cultural considerations, our roster of speakers will engage, inform, and educate your audience. Whether you’re an organization seeking to foster a safe, "speak-up" culture or hosting a development day looking to inform on the impact of workplace culture, or a topic custom-made for you, our experts are available to you.

Explore our speakers’ profiles, topics and expertise to find the perfect voice for your next event, training session or conference. Demonstrate your organization's commitment to ensuring a culture of transparency and ethical conduct that will attract and retain the best that Canada has to offer.

	Joanna Gualtieri   Lawyer and prominent Canadian whistleblower.  Learn more here			Jennifer Fraser, PhD Award-winning educator, author, speaker, coach and whistleblower. Learn more here
	Julie Gouin, M.A.,  c.o., ASC Guidance Counsellor, consultant in Organizational Psychology and whistleblower. Learn more here			Marc Tasse, MBA, FCPA, FCA, CFF Expert on corporate misconduct, crisis response, and ethical leadership. Learn more here
	Vicky Poirier, CPA, CPA IFA, CFF Expert in Forensic Accounting, owner and president of Quantum Group and ALIAS™, a confidential and anonymous reporting mechanism.  Learn more here			Richard Rappaport, MSW, Psychotherapist Organizational consultant, and author with an interest in “moral injury”. Learn more here
	Dean Baxendale   CEO of Optimum Publishing International & the China Democracy Fund Learn more here			Pamela Forward, MA, GCCR President, Whistleblowing Canada. Mediator, coach, trainer & researcher Learn more here
	Garry Clement  Chief Anti-money Laundering Officer for Versabank; President & CEO Clement Advisory Group Learn more here			Danny Weill, MBA, Q. Med  EVP at ALIAS - leader in helping organizations build a whistleblowing reporting infrastructure. Learn more here
	Jacqueline Garrick, LCSW-C, BCETS, SHRM-CP, WPA Executive Director, FAR Group (SDVOSB) President/CEO, Whistleblowers of America Learn more here			Kelly Donovan  Canadian Police Whistleblower & Author Learn more here

Sherbrooke, September 3, 2023 

Minister Christian Dubé 

Ministry of Health and Social Services 

Catherine-De Longpré building 

1075 Sainte-Foy Road 

Quebec (Quebec) G1S 2M1 

Subject: Law 15, Health Insurance Law, Law 32, protection of whistleblowers and rules of inclusion in Health 

Dear Minister, 

In light of recent articles published in The Guardian concerning the protection of whistleblowers in the British public health sector, it would be appropriate for your Bill 15 to take into account the critical issues of whistleblower protection in the public health system as well as academic freedom in the university medical training setting. These articles highlight problems similar to those afflicting our Quebec health care system (our underlining): 

NHS whistleblowers need stronger legal protection to prevent hospitals using unfair disciplinary procedures to force out doctors who flag problems, the British Medical Association has said. Doctors are being “actively vilified” for speaking out, which has resulted in threats to patient safety, including unnecessary deaths, according to the council chair of the doctors’ union, Phil Banfield. Despite a series of scandals in recent years, it is becoming more common for hospitals to use legal tactics and “phoney investigations” to undermine or force out whistleblowers rather than address their concerns, he warned. Banfield said: “Someone who raises concerns is automatically labelled a troublemaker. We have an NHS that operates in a culture of fear and blame." That has to stop because we should be welcoming concerns, we should be investigating when things are not right. “Whistleblowers are pilloried because some NHS organisations believe the reputational hit is more dangerous than unsafe care,” he added. “Whereas the safety culture in aviation took off after some high-profile airplane crashes in the 70s, the difference is that the aviation industry embraced the need to put things right and understand the systems that led to the disaster – the NHS has not invested in solving the system, it’s been bogged down in blaming the individual instead of the mistake”. Whistleblowers could be afforded greater protection through changes to the law as well as through cultural change in hospitals, including putting an end to many hospitals’ hierarchical “command and control” management style, which prevent more junior staff from airing concerns, he said. 

The calls were echoed (…) by the hospital doctors’ union (HCSA), which is asking for an independent national statutory body to be established outside the health service to protect whistleblowers and those who report safety concerns. “The intolerable cover-up culture by managers that we still see in corners of the NHS is bad for patients and bad for doctors,” said the HCSA president, Dr Naru Narayanan. “For too many doctors, the brave, professionally obligated and morally correct step of reporting safety concerns is rewarded with attempts to silence and force out the individual who reports problems by managers focused on protecting reputations.” The union, which said it had dealt with “a string of cases affecting members” – with some reporting being left on the verge of suicide after raising safety alarms – has also called for a law to be created making it a criminal offence to cause detriment to people who have made protected disclosures. 

In Quebec, the prevention of harassment is governed by section V2 of the Act respecting labor standards. However, this law does not apply to health professionals, as provided for in article 19 of the Health Insurance Act: 

The provisions of the Labour Code (chapter C‐27) and of the Act respecting labour standards (chapter N‐1.1) do not apply to a health professional to whom an agreement made pursuant to this section applies who provides insured services in a facility maintained by or on behalf of an institution.

Sherbrooke, le 3 septembre 2023 

Ministre Christian Dubé Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux Édifice Catherine-De Longpré 1075, chemin Sainte-Foy Québec (Québec) G1S 2M1 

Objet : Loi 15, Loi sur l'assurance maladie, Loi 32, protection des lanceurs d’alerte et règles d’inclusion en Santé 

Monsieur le Ministre, 

À la lumière de récents articles publiés dans The Guardian et concernant la protection des lanceurs d’alerte (whistleblowers) dans le milieu de la Santé britannique, il serait approprié que votre projet de Loi 15 prenne en ligne de compte les enjeux essentiels de la protection des lanceurs d’alerte dans le système de la Santé ainsi que de la liberté académique dans les milieux de formation médicale universitaire. Ces articles mettent en évidence des problèmes similaires à ceux affligeant notre système de santé québécois: (nos traduction et soulignés): 

‘Les lanceurs d’alerte du National Health System (NHS) ont besoin d’une meilleure protection juridique pour empêcher les hôpitaux d’utiliser des procédures disciplinaires injustes pour expulser les médecins qui signalent des problèmes’, a déclaré l’Association médicale britannique. ‘Les médecins sont activement vilipendés parce qu’ils s’expriment, ce qui a pour conséquences menaces à la sécurité des patients et nombre de décès inutiles,’ selon le président du conseil du syndicat des médecins, Phil Banfield. ‘Malgré une série de scandales ces dernières années, il est de plus en plus fréquent pour les hôpitaux d’avoir recours à des tactiques juridiques et des enquêtes bidon pour discréditer ou expulser les lanceurs d’alerte plutôt que de répondre à leurs préoccupations,’ a-t-il prévenu. Banfield a déclaré : ‘Quelqu'un qui fait part de ses inquiétudes est automatiquement qualifié de fauteur de troubles. Nous avons un NHS qui fonctionne dans une culture d’intimidation et de reproche. Cela doit cesser parce que nous devrions accueillir les préoccupations des lanceurs d’alerte, nous devrions enquêter lorsque les choses ne vont pas. Les lanceurs d’alerte sont mis au pilori parce que certaines organisations du NHS estiment qu’une atteinte à leur réputation est plus dangereuse que des soins dangereux’, a-t-il ajouté. ‘Le NHS s’est enlisé dans le blâme de l’individu plutôt que la correction de l’erreur. Les lanceurs d’alerte pourraient bénéficier d’une plus grande protection grâce à des modifications de la Loi ainsi que par un changement culturel dans les hôpitaux, notamment en mettant fin au style de gestion hiérarchique command & control de nombreux hôpitaux qui empêche le personnel subalterne d'exprimer ses préoccupations’, a-t-il déclaré.

Ces appels ont été repris (…) par le Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association (HCSA) qui demande la création d’un organe statutaire national indépendant en dehors du service de santé pour protéger les lanceurs d’alerte et ceux qui signalent des problèmes de sécurité. ‘La culture intolérable de dissimulation de la part des gestionnaires que nous observons encore dans certains coins du NHS est mauvaise pour les patients et mauvaise pour les médecins’, a déclaré le président de la HCSA, le Dr Naru Narayanan. ‘Pour trop de médecins, la démarche courageuse, professionnellement obligatoire et moralement correcte, consistant à signaler les problèmes de sécurité est récompensée par des tentatives de réduire au silence et d'expulser la personne qui signale des problèmes par des gestionnaires plus enclins à protéger leur réputation’ Le syndicat, qui a déclaré avoir traité une série de cas affectant des membres – dont certains poussés au bord du suicide après avoir lancé des alertes de sécurité – a également demandé qu'une loi soit créée qui érigerait en infraction pénale le fait de causer un préjudice aux personnes ayant fait des divulgations protégées. » 

Au Québec, la prévention du harcèlement est encadrée à la section V2 de la Loi sur les normes du travail. Or, cette loi ne s’applique pas aux professionnels de la santé, tel que prévu à l’article 19 de la Loi sur l’assurance maladie:

« Les dispositions du Code du travail (chapitre C‐27) et de la Loi sur les normes du travail (chapitre N‐1.1) ne s’appliquent pas à un professionnel de la santé visé par une entente conclue en vertu du présent article qui rend des services assurés dans une installation maintenue par un établissement ou pour le compte d’un établissement. »

Here is the story of a medical specialist in a university health centre in Quebec, a story that is repeated in other provinces and experienced by other professionals and which affects many people in harmful ways.

It is reasonable to think that if a committee were formed that included a person with a master’s degree in Aerospace Science, another with a PhD in Mathematical Physics, another with a Medical Doctorate and specialist credentials who was capable of highly specialized research and applications, another that was a University Professor and collectively they had received numerous awards; that committee would be considered very credible and well anchored in professional terms.

What if, instead of it being a committee holding all these stellar qualifications and abilities, it was just one man? A man whose credentials and accomplishments encompass all that and more? Most of us would think this is an extraordinary person obviously functioning at a stratospheric level of intelligence with broad scientific and medical understanding.

Just such a man lives in Quebec. He is Doctor Richard Le Blanc, a man who has dedicated his life to learning, teaching and to helping people, some of whom were truly in life and death situations. 

What did he get for all his efforts and dedication? He was bullied by colleagues and unofficially blacklisted by those in positions of authority above him. 

It has taken two full decades for Dr. Le Blanc to make inroads against those in the medical, scientific and academic communities of his province who set out to ostracize him both professionally and socially.

Dr. Le Blanc has never been officially charged or disciplined for any wrongdoing, yet he was treated as if he had broken all the rules of a just society. What was his crime?

He is a qualified scientist who questioned the opinions of a colleague who held a more senior management position. He also questioned the practice of large pharmaceutical corporations funding University research and review of new products – the potential for bias is obvious even to those of us well outside the scientific and medical worlds.

Dr. Le Blanc has worked at the very highest levels of medical research and physical science.  His professions demand that all things that affect humanity at the very core be questioned in the most stringent way. When he attempted to do that, Dr. Le Blanc was not officially chastised in any way.  Instead, he was bullied by his peers and mentors in the very same way a child faces attack and ostracization in the school yard. We are often told “the bullies are always the weak ones”. Perhaps the weakness is not physical but rather weak in self-esteem and maybe also intellect?

If Dr. Le Blanc was deserving of all the harm that landed on him, why didn't "they" attack him in public and make an example of him? Instead, they constructed a wall of silence around the real concerns and discredited him literally beyond belief. The apparent reason - his insights - were valid and damaging to other reputations and financing. Keeping that quiet was job number one so rather than embrace the well-informed considerations of a dedicated man, who raised valid, ethical and scientifically sound questions, a concentrated effort was made to render him as ineffective as possible.  This was apparently aimed at ensuring that reasonable employment, recognition and the ability to have a public voice were denied Dr. Le Blanc.  Colleagues in the Quebec Medical establishment created a self-fulfilling prophecy by first discrediting Dr. Le Blanc, refusing to provide letters of recommendation, restricting access to his own scientific writings and ultimately designing circumstances in which they could assess him unemployable in his chosen fields.