Early in May, THE EQUITY heard from four firefighters who allege that a number of shortcomings in the Municipality of Pontiac fire department undermine public safety.
Two of the firefighters, who no longer work for the municipality, were willing to speak on the record and did not feel the need for their names to be withheld.
The other two, who continue to work as volunteer firefighters with the MoP, were willing to speak with THE EQUITY only on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal.
It turns out they weren’t wrong.
A few weeks ago, a rumour was circulating that . . .
the Municipality of Pontiac was demanding that the two former firefighters named in the article retract their comments. Since then, it was confirmed to THE EQUITY by a member of MoP council that a letter to that effect had indeed been sent, carrying the threat of possible legal action if they do not comply.
The need to protect whistleblowers from reprisal by their employers was among the recommendations of the Charbonneau Commission following its investigation into corruption across Quebec. In 2015, the Quebec government introduced whistleblower protection legislation to do just that.
Under the law, the normal procedure is for a public servant who sees negligence, corruption or other form of wrong-doing in their workplace to report it to an ombudsman who will pursue the matter without disclosing the whistleblower’s identity. In more urgent matters where public health and safety or the environment are in jeopardy, the law can accommodate the disclosure of the concern to the media.
In a 2019 case, an employee with the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture lost his job for leaking documents to Radio-Canada that suggested the ministry had suppressed research findings on the harmful effects of neonicotinoids on bees. The ombudsman intervened, saying the whistleblower law had not been properly respected. The whistleblower was given back his job and the deputy-minister of agriculture lost his.
Closer to home, several firefighters with the MoP brigade have been willing to stick their necks out to raise public awareness of conditions that they, in their professional judgement, believe pose a risk to public safety, not to mention the safety of firefighters themselves.
It is not obvious what form of legal repercussions the council has in mind for them if they don’t withdraw their comments, given that the two firefighters who were identified in the article are no longer employed by the MoP, while the two who are still employed by the municipality were not identified.
Much to their credit, the firefighters – as firefighters do – are standing their ground.
Rather than attempt to intimidate them into retracting their comments, a better response by the municipal council would be to conduct an examination of the concerns they have raised to see what, if anything, needs to be done to improve the situation.
The firefighters could have said nothing, but that’s not who these people are. They are people who put themselves in danger to keep the rest of us safe every time they answer a call.
They have our backs. We need to have theirs.
Charles Dickson
