Whistleblowers: our last line of defense

Many Canadians have come to realize that changes to Ottawa’s political structures and institutions are as important – and perhaps even more so – than the representatives that will be elected to Parliament on January 23rd. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation will release seven commentaries during this campaign that focus on broad themes of accountability, systemic and democratic reform measures. This first commentary in the series is written by the CTF’s British Columbia director Sara MacIntyre on the subject of whistleblower legislation. Sara is available for media interviews or comment on this subject by calling 250-388-3660 or e-mailing her at smacintyre@telus.net.

December 8, 2005

Whistleblowers: our last line of defense

The conclusions of the Gomery Report should not only shock Canadians but also propel us into action. Instead of just asking how could this have happened, we should be asking, how can we prevent it from happening again? In addition to scrapping partisan slush funds like sponsorships, advertising, polling and corporate welfare, Canada needs to implement a workable whistleblower law.

Justice Gomery referred to a “culture of entitlement” that characterized the Sponsorship scandal players. This attitude of arrogance resulted in reporting requirements skirted, guidelines sidestepped and the public trust usurped. The point is that there were rules, regulations and reporting requirements in place when the Sponsorship scandal was orchestrated. That is why it is critically important to offer protection to civil servants, who are the public’s last line of defense, when all other systems fail. Civil servants are the final check of accountability in a system that has thrived upon secrecy.

Whistleblower protection has been talked about in Ottawa for years. It has been studied, reported on and recommended. Almost two-thirds of all OECD countries have some sort of protection for civil servants who expose illegal, wrongdoing, maladministration, waste or fraud within government and/or bureaucracy. Canada, despite having a whole host of examples to demonstrate why we need such protection just recently passed what has been widely condemned as fundamentally and fatally flawed whistleblower law.

One of the biggest failures of the law is that it requires the whistleblower first seek resolution within their own department. Such a provision is absolutely laughable. For example, it would have done nothing to protect the Sponsorship’s whistleblower, Allan Cutler.

Cutler worked with the infamous bureaucrat Chuck Guite in 1994. They both handled advertising and public opinion research in Public Works. Guite- who allegedly had the vanity license plate “gravy”-- began to interfere with some files and contracts. Cutler noted several contracting irregularities and refused to sign off on them. He submitted his concerns to both his department supervisor and to the internal audit branch. Cutler was demoted while Guite continued to move up and eventually headed what we now know as the Sponsorship program.

The new law would have done nothing to protect Allan Cutler who did report problems to his department head only to be punished with a demotion. In fact, the new law includes a provision that prevents such disclosures be made public. So, taxpayers would have never known the name Alan Cutler or the wrongdoing he tried to expose. The legislation will do nothing to change the current culture in Ottawa and it will not protect those civil servants concerned with the public interest. It is nothing more than a paper tiger. And that’s not good enough.

The Conservative Party’s “Accountability Plan” addresses the weaknesses of the current whistleblower law and provides several remedial measures including: giving an independent office the power to enforce compliance, disclosure of information revealed by whistleblowers and has even added a monetary incentive for those that expose wrongdoing or save taxpayers dollars.

There are plenty of international models of whistleblower protection to choose from and although a well crafted bill may prove embarrassing for any sitting government, legislators must remember they are there to represent and safeguard the public’s interest—not their own. Model whistleblower legislation would include: more than one reporting avenue, an independent investigation branch and a separate mechanism that handles complaints against employer reprisals.

Critics have argued that such protection would result in disgruntled employees making false or self-serving claims. There are plenty of ways to mitigate illegitimate claims. In Australia for example, it is a punishable offence to purposefully make false claims.

There are lots of models to choose from and countless reasons to institute effective whistleblower protection. Hopefully, frustrated voters making their voices heard this election campaign will create the political will to make it happen. Accountable and transparent government requires no less.

Sara MacIntyre
British Columbia Director
Canadian Taxpayers Federation