| An Email to Joe Clark Sent: Thu 8/21/2008 12:18 PM Subject: A Whistleblower’s Tale CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL Dear Mr. Clark, I was talking to former ambassador Raymond Chrétien last month. His memory of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of the first Foreign Affairs’ whistleblower is understandably fuzzy, as I am sure it will be for you. This is not a criticism. I realize that the dismissal of a lowly employee on bogus insubordination charges so many years ago would have barely registered with people with busy schedules and important things to do. When I decided to write my story, I found the only way I could do it with any kind of detachment and objectivity was from an observer’s point of view. A Whistleblower’s Tale is written in the third-person. This unusual way of telling a personal story may account for former Ambassador Chrétien’s confusion as to the identity of the whistleblower mentioned in the title. About fifteen or twenty minutes into our conversation, he asked if I wouldn’t mind telling him the name of the whistleblower. When I did, it dawned on him: “you mean, you’re the guy who discovered that posts were not returning millions of dollars to Ottawa,” he almost shouted. But I did not get in touch with you to give you an account of my conversation with Mr. Chrétien. On May 7, 1985 David Kilgour, then your Parliamentary Secretary, delivered to you, on my behalf, a letter about corruption and mismanagement at Foreign Affairs (then External Affairs) in which I offered to resign if I could not prove my allegations. That same day, guards came to my office and I was summarily dismissed for alleged insubordination. Less than a week later, you wrote back, expressing complete confidence in your officials. There was no mention of my offer to resign if I could not prove your officials not worthy of your trust. One of your aides, at the time, said that you had a conversation with your Under-Secretary of State, Marcel Massé about my letter and my offer to resign, but Massé convinced you that to allow me to resign would be a mistake—something about making an example of me. I am going to assume Mr. Clark, that you have no memory of these distant events—Ambassador Chretien might have been a busy man (when I met with him he was between diplomatic assignment as Inspector General), but I am sure it doesn’t come close to what your schedule and work load must have been like. In any event, I am not writing to find out what you remember, if anything, about what happened so long ago—that would be unfair. I am writing to you about the official record, of which, I am convinced, you have no knowledge. 1. After three days of hearing before Adjudicator Thomas W. Brown, the lawyers for Treasury Board didn’t even try to refute a single piece of the mountain of evidence presented. Leduc simply opened his briefcase and said: “I have here a letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Right Honourable Joe Clark to Mr. Payeur in which he expresses complete confidence in his officials.” He placed the letter in front of Thomas W. Brown and asked him, point blank, if he was prepared to call you, a former Prime Minister and respected statesman, a liar! 2.After the hearing, Mr. Brown met with my representative to tell her he was not about to call you a liar, that I should seek a settlement with Treasury Board. I am also convinced that, if your officials had been honest with you, you would never have allowed them to ... Sincerely Yours Bernard Payeur ... In the event that this email is mistaken for anything less than a legitimate communication, a copy by regular post will follow.
|
