|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Makes a Whistleblower
Ian Bron, Haiyan Zhang and Allan Cutler
Richard Colvin's dramatic testimony in Parliamentary Committee two weeks ago blew the lid off politics as usual in Ottawa last week. Besides the gravity of the allegations he made, the events he set into motion shows - once again - the sad prognosis for government whistleblowers and accountability in Canada.
The back story: Mr. Colvin, after having to go to some lengths to get his concerns on record - including preparing a sworn affidavit after the government tried to prevent him from testifying at the Military Police Complaints Commission - testified about the probable torture of detainees turned over by the Canadian Forces to Afghan authorities.
The government responded vigorously. Mr. Colvin wasn't credible, they first insisted. There wasn't any objective, specific evidence of torture. He didn't use the word "torture" in his communications; nothing he wrote was alarming. Some, even those who support Mr. Colvin, question whether he should be called a whistleblower.
They are wrong, of course. Sub-section 8(d) of the PSDPA defines wrongdoing as "an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons". Internationally accepted definitions call whistleblowing an act by a person or group to disclose to authorities or to the public acts of significant wrongdoing. Both state that as long as a person reports wrongdoing in good faith, they should be protected - even if they don't have all the facts.
The resistance to the term may come from misconceptions and prejudices. Many imagine that a whistleblower can only be a person who slips a brown envelop into the mail, perhaps on a quixotic crusade.
People like this do exist, of course, but most whistleblowers are like Mr. Colvin: top performers, dedicated to the official goals and values of their organizations, and have made efforts to have the problem dealt with internally. Perhaps most importantly, they're determined. Like Mr. Colvin, they see raising the alarm as their professional and ethical duty - part of their job. They are usually quite surprised when their organizations turn against them.
Sadly, though, too many people still equate a whistleblower with a snitch - someone who speaks out with the intent to harm another, not correct a wrong.
In any event, using this litmus test, Mr. Colvin does appear to be a whistleblower.
Which brings us to the next important question: Are public service whistleblowers really protected?
The backlash against Mr. Colvin certainly suggests not. Nor is his experience unique: other whistleblowers who have approached Canadians for Accountability have also reported ongoing reprisals.
For another recent example, one need only look at the inquiry into the 2008 listeriosis outbreak. In that case, the only person punished was Luc Pomerleau, who warned his union about possible impacts of staffing cuts to food safety. He was fired just weeks before people started dying.
Instead of dealing with the serious issue he raised, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency shot the messenger, a common practice used to cover-up wrongdoing in many legitimate whistleblower cases.
Although Mr. Colvin hasn't been punished overtly (yet), the attack on his credibility is nothing but thinly-veiled character assassination - more typical treatment dished out to whistleblowers. Despite his bearing, composure and clarity, these efforts will have a corrosive effect on his reputation.
As to accountability, some senior public servants and pundits blame the current fiasco on the Federal Accountability Act. They argue that where ministers were once held accountable, bureaucrats are now also routinely attacked. Naturally, the bureaucrats would prefer not to be attacked - or accountable. But this is nonsense: first of all, deputy ministers are responsible for the operations of their departments, and they delegate that responsibility downwards. If any in this chain fail to perform their duties properly, why shouldn't they be held accountable? It also ignores the fact that reports of wrongdoing in government - and most reprisals made against whistleblowers - involve bureaucrats.
Secondly, this view is inconsistent with the reality of modern, participative government, which has made bureaucrats much more visible. It is also incompatible with the democratic requirement for transparency. Modern democracy requires that the public - voters - be able to see how their government works. But perhaps the same impulse which makes senior bureaucrats hate access to information legislation drives the opposition to direct accountability: the fear of inconvenient truths.
Or perhaps Colin's greatest sin is that by pointing out the inadequacies of his bosses, he has broken the unwritten cardinal rule of the bureaucracy: loyalty to those higher up, and not to the public interest. Accordingly, as shameful as it is and like so many before him, he will likely pay a high price. As for the rest of us, accountability and the public good will continue to be empty words tossed around by opportunistic politicians and self-serving bureaucrats.
Published in the Hill Times December 7, 2009
Created: December 7, 2009
Last updated: December 7, 2009
