Big Money, For Little Protection: Blowing the Whistle on a Sham Tribunal

Little Known, Little Used Whistleblower Panel Budgets $8.1 million
Amy Minsky, October 25, 2010. Postmedia News.

OTTAWA — A little-known, never-used government tribunal will spend as much as $8.1 million of taxpayers' money by the end of 2012-13, federal documents show.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal was set up in 2007 to protect public servants from retaliation after reporting immoral or illegal activities in government. Since then, it hasn't heard a single case.

The fact that the tribunal hasn't been used comes to light following the sudden departure on Oct. 18 of Christiane Ouimet, the first federal public sector integrity commissioner, while her office was being investigated by Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

The tribunal would take cases referred by the Ouimet's office. In three years, the commissioner didn't find any wrongdoing in any of the 170 complaints her office received.

Fifty-eight whistleblowers complained to the commissioner's office since 2007-2008, saying they were mistreated or violated after filing a report. The commissioner launched only four investigations as a consequence of those complaints, and only two have been completed.

Because neither had findings of reprisal, the tribunal has never been referred a case.

"It's clearly a waste of money," said David Hutton, executive director with the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform (FAIR), a registered charity advocating for whistleblower protection. "This whole expensive system has achieved absolutely nothing. In fact, it has made things worse."

Hutton said to the integrity com the tribunal gives whistleblowers an "illusion of protection" when the reality is civil servants are left without recourse after filing a complaintmissioner about irresponsible, immoral or illegal government activities.

The tribunal spent $836,000 in 2008-09, according to its performance report from that year, and has tabled spending estimates of $1.83 million for each successive year until 2012-13.

Lisanne Lacroix, the registrar and deputy head of the tribunal's office, said she is surprised they haven't received a single case in three years. But, as she pointed out, the lack of work has meant less money actually spent.

"I have $1.828 million in my budget," she said. "But since we haven't had any cases, I haven't spent it."

Money not used is returned to the government each year.

While waiting for a case, the office has established rules and guidelines, trained staff and become familiar with legislation, Lacroix said.

She said the office currently employs four full-time and two part-time employees.

But if and when the tribunal eventually hears a case, there is virtually no chance the public servant will win, Hutton argues.

An equivalent "kangaroo court" in the United States heard 2,000 complaints, and only four cases prevailed, Hutton said. "It's virtually impossible for an employee to prove that an employer took reprisal against them. It's very hard to look at this system and come to any conclusion other than this is for show."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper created an independent Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to protect whistleblowers in 2007, with the intention of making civil servants feel protected when calling government on a misdoing.

But some opposition MPs say it's clear the legislation isn't working.

"I think you can safely say the Conservatives broken promises are expensive," NDP MP Pat Martin said. "It's a smoke-and-mirror illusion of whistleblower protection, when really, the legislation is inadequate to really protect them in any case."

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Editorial: Effective Whistleblowing Protection Needed

What the public knows about the Basi/Virk case is the tip of the iceberg. And the people who know the most have been protected and indemnified. It pays so well to be in politics, for some.

BC Needs Effective Legislation to Protect Whistleblowers
Editor, Burnaby Now, Oct. 21, 2010

In the week following the dramatic rescue of 33 trapped workers from a Chilean mine, Chile’s president was pressured to ratify an international convention protecting whistleblowers who bring to light safety concerns at work.

The need to protect whistleblowers sounds like a problem from the developing world.

Surely Canadians have this all worked out. Or have we?

The recent Basi-Virk case, in which the duo pled guilty to breach of trust and accepting benefits relating to the sale of BC Rail, doesn’t just raise questions about the honest dealings of public employees involved in big-money projects.

It also questions the safeguards in place to protect those who may be aware of wrongdoing, but fear the repercussions of going public.

In British Columbia, the NDP introduced Whistleblower legislation in 2007 but it died on the vine. At the federal level, however, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was enacted the same year, and is supposed to protect federal civil servants from the repercussions of whistleblowing.

That said, according to a report from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the sentiment amongst civil servants is that the law doesn’t do enough to protect people who bring questionable conduct to light.

This sentiment is echoed by the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform, FAIR.

One FAIR statement rings especially true in light of recent events in B.C.:

“Virtually every scandal—in government or in the public sector—has a whistleblower dimension: either because the story has come to light through information provided by insiders, and/or because the problem was preventable if the organization had listened to these insiders and fixed the problem, instead of covering up.”

One can’t help but wonder if effective whistleblower legislation in B.C. could have prevented the Basi-Virk affair in the first place.