If I asked 10 people off the street two weeks ago who George Radwanski was, I'd wager that only one of them could have told me he was Canada's Privacy Commissioner. But if asked today, at least six of these folks would likely finger him as the guy with the big expense account and a penchant for fine dining and exquisitely appointed accommodations.

Heck, this guy's two year binge courtesy of Canadian taxpayers even has one or two Americans (I'm at a conference in Washington, DC) asking what's going on. Admittedly these are news junkies with former ties to Canada, but you know things are bad when the expense account abuses of a high-ranking Canadian public servant get the attention of folks in a foreign city that runs on the expense accounts of politicians, lobbyists and media hounds.

Mr. Radwanski is - at least as I write this column on Friday morning - still the Privacy Commissioner. Like the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner, he is an order-in-council appointee that reports directly to Parliament and can only be removed from office if convicted of a criminal code violation or if both Houses of Parliament muster up the courage to rescind his appointment.

And as we all know by now, Mr. Radwanski ran up a $500,000 tab in meals, hotel rooms and travel expenses over the past two years for himself and one or two other senior members of his staff. While in Ottawa, he spent $9,000 on lunches and dinners including a $444 lunch. With all this fine dining he could have moonlighted as a food critic.

It has been reported that he sometimes needed to get out of his office to think and write speeches … over a nice rack of lamb and a bottle or two of wine? I too sometimes run away from the phones, email and TV of the office for a different surrounding to think and write. For me it's the atrium at 99 Bank Street (the Clarica Centre) and a grande non-fat latte from Starbucks … but I never thought to expense my java fix. Hmmm? But I digress.

Back to Georgie Porgie and his spending orgy. His expenses were on top of his $210,000 annual salary, annual post-tax $1,200 month housing allowance and payments for weekend trips to Toronto. Not a bad gig if you can get it.

This issue is now bigger than Mr. Radwanksi; the institution of his office has now been tainted. The spending habits of other officers of Parliament are now being investigated. And public servants in general are now being unfairly tarnished with the Radwanski brush.

In terms of his conduct, Mr. Radwanski did an admirable job in poking holes in the government's anti-terrorism legislation. He spoke eloquently to the need for Canadians to be vigilant in safeguarding their own privacy from invasions by RCMP security cameras to the threats posed by plans for a national identity card.

However, he - like every other public servant from the Prime Minister down to a CR2 clerk - must also be measured by how he acted as a steward of taxpayer dollars in discharging his duties as Privacy Commissioner. And it is here where he failed, and failed miserably and repeatedly.

Granted there are no set guidelines for expenses incurred by officers of Parliament - a larger problem that should now be addressed. But in the absence of such guidelines, the principles of prudence and probity should have been followed. Clearly they were not.

Mr. Radwanski should have adhered to or closely followed Treasury Board guidelines for senior public servants if he was in doubt as to the limits and scope of his ability to incur legitimate expenses. While yours truly is not familiar with these guidelines in intimate detail, it's a pretty safe bet that half a million dollars over two years was just a tad over the line (how's that for understatement) of what he was eligible to expense.

To add insult to injury, Mr. Radwanski's personal and business finance history along with previous bankruptcy proceedings - including forgiveness of taxes owing to Revenue Canada a day before his appointment as Privacy czar - have now entered into the equation. While this revelation will add intrigue and further the media feeding frenzy now into its third or fourth main course, these issues are irrelevant to his conduct and abuse of expense privileges.

For the sake of the brief legacy of good work he has done as the Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski should resign, and resign immediately. The spectacle of closed door commons committee hearings and the privacy commissioner's staff revolting in protest has to end, and end now.

As he wined and dined on our tab, Mr. Radwanski probably said these two words a lot: "Cheque please." Here are the only two words left for Mr. Radwanski to utter: "I resign."