|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouimet's office had problems early on
Ian Bron (Letter to the Editor)
Canadians need to understand the connection between the Auditor General's damning report on the now-retired Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, Ms. Christiane Ouimet, the near-death state of the access to information system, and the kind of embarrassing and damaging leaks like the ones that come from WikiLeaks and other non-governmental organizations which facilitate whistleblowing.
Research has shown that whistleblowers tend to be high performers who are strongly dedicated to their jobs. When people like this see wrongdoing or mismanagement, they do their best to address it. Naturally, most would prefer to do it through official channels.
What so few understand, however, is that official mechanisms are usually designed by management, which has an interest in preventing scandals from surfacing. All too often, small-minded and ignorant executives act as if the only way to do so is by stifling all criticism and dissent and by setting an example when a whistleblower persists. This is doubly true when management is implicated in the misconduct being reported.
As a result, most whistleblower protection laws and mechanisms are weak and favour management. There is also a tendency to hand the administration of such regimes to a safe pair of hands. That is, someone who will not enforce the laws rigorously (or at all, as we have seen).
The problem is that this strategy ultimately fails. Once whistleblowers are targeted, they will may see this as a vindication of their concerns and seek any means possible to get the story out. And once internal mechanisms are shown to be corrupted - as the AG makes clear was the case under Ms. Ouimet - potential whistleblowers will avoid internal mechanisms and seek external ones. Indeed, some research suggests that this may be the safest course in any event, as public scrutiny generally forces management to be more honest.
The signs that the Commissioner's office was ineffective and dangerous to those who used it were evident as early as year after Ms. Ouimet took office. Nobody paid attention, though, blithely assuming that it was business as usual.
In this case, we were lucky to have an AG who is as dedicated, honest and blunt as she is - otherwise we might never have known how bad the situation was. It is embarrassing to the government, though, and one would hope that they would learn a lesson from it.
If they don't, they can only blame themselves for future scandals. Trust in the system has been shattered, making it much more likely that employees witnessing misconduct will go outside government when blowing the whistle. This includes doing things like leaking to the media or organizations like WikiLeaks.
Compounding this situation are the worsening problems of the information access regime in Canada. Non-existent information management standards, ridiculous delays, inappropriate use of exemptions and - occasionally - the outright destruction or falsification of documents have made public access to government information a painful and sometimes impossible process.
Naturally, external whistleblowing and leaks will greatly offend many executives and politicians in government. It is accepted doctrine in those circles that such acts are disloyal. But what choice do whistleblowers and ethical dissenters have when internal mechanisms are so obviously corrupted? How else can the truth come out and corruption dealt with?
And, ultimately, who is really being disloyal to the Crown and the public when such systems are allowed to continue unchallenged and unchanged?
Published in the Hill Times December 20, 2010
Created: January 16, 2011
Last updated: January 16, 2011
