With the Radwanski expense account fiasco still fresh in many people's minds, media and public attention has rightfully and thankfully turned to the appalling lack of whistle-blower protection legislation, at all orders of government, in Canada. Indeed the images of public servants protesting with gags over their mouths were disturbing in the extreme for open government advocates.

What if staff in the Privacy Commissioner's office were protected by a law that would have allowed them to expose his expense account largesse before it reached 6/49 jackpot proportions? Would things have been different? Yours truly would venture to say yes.

This sad episode reminds this scribe of the 1998 saga of one staffer - Ms. Joanna Gualtieri - at the Department of Foreign Affairs who blew the whistle on "careerism and opportunism" which had allegedly cost taxpayers at least $2 billion in the previous decade. She worked in the Department of Foreign Affairs bureau of physical resources, which managed a $3 billion portfolio of real estate assets (missions, accommodations, etc.) around the globe.

For years she tried to highlight abuses of policies through the proper channels inside Foreign Affairs. But instead of being thanked or promoted for her public service, she was harassed and ridiculed in the workplace. So in 1998 she filed an unprecedented $33 million lawsuit against the Government of Canada claiming that their bureau was primarily run by folks "with a fixation on securing for themselves, while posted abroad, grandiose and luxurious accommodations and lifestyles at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer."

Examples of such waste and mismanagement ranged from leaving a Tokyo mansion vacant for three years (while paying $350K in rent per year) to buying overpriced condominiums in Guatemala to retaining lavish accommodations in Copenhagen, Denmark.

And in an ironic twist, lavish residences in Dublin, Oslo, Brasilia, London and Copenhagen were put on the block as part of a cost cutting directive in the dying days in the Mulroney-Campbell administration. Sadly, once Jean Chrétien's Liberals swept to power, these plans were abandoned. So much for the Chevy vs. Cadillac PM frugality image Ti-Jean tried to portray.

Of the $33 million, $3 million was for personal damages and the remaining $30 million was to set up a permanent non-profit organization to protect government employees who blow the whistle. Canada is still the only major industrial democracy without adequate whistle-blower protection for public servants.

The feds tried to stifle this lawsuit for four years claiming Ms. Gualtieri had no right to sue instead arguing that the union grievance process was the path she should have followed. At first the superior court of Ontario agreed, but thankfully the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously overturned this decision and confirmed the right of public servants to sue their employer: A right that we in the private sector take for granted.

Her story is a black mark in our history: A public servant tries to do the honourable thing and becomes ostracized and a pariah in her own workplace and ultimately is forced out ending a once promising career.

Ms. Gualtieri has now started up FAIR, the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform and has pledged to devote her efforts to help other federal public servants who wish to expose government waste and corruption. No doubt, a few folks in the Privacy Commissioner's office could have used - or may still need - her help

Government defenders now point to Integrity Officers in each department and an overall integrity czar for the federal public service to whom whistleblowers can turn for help. But it is clearly not enough as the recent Radwanski scandal clearly demonstrates. And even worse, an obscure clause in Bill C-25, the Public Service Modernization Act seeks stack the deck against public servants again.

Section 236 of this Bill - which ominously reads "No Right of Action" - is a sneaky way of overturning the right to sue that Ms. Gualtieri won in the courts on behalf of all public servants. This Bill, which is still before Parliament, reads as follows:

"Disputes relating to employment. 236. (1) The right of an employee to seek redress by way of grievance for any dispute relating to his or her terms or conditions of employment is in lieu of any right of action that the employee may have in relation to any act or omission giving rise to the dispute.

" Application. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the employee avails himself or herself of the right to present a grievance in any particular case and whether or not the grievance could be referred to adjudication.

" Exception. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of an employee of a separate agency that has not been designated under subsection 209(3) if the dispute relates to his or her termination of employment for any reason that does not relate to a breach of discipline or misconduct."

An informal survey of whistle-blowing statutes prevalent in other jurisdictions yields five key elements that must be included in any future Canadian law:

1) A requirement that the whistle-blowers allegation of unethical activity must be supported through physical evidence and/or evidence of "gross mismanagement" in the supervisory chain;

2) The ability for the whistle-blower to make his/her claim to an independent body which is not subject to political influence;

3) Affording protection to the whistle-blower from reprisals such as loss of employment, discrimination through declined labour mobility, financial losses, benefit claw-backs, harassment in the workplace, etc;

4) Adequate retribution and disciplinary measures for those individuals who seek to use the legislation as a shield to attack government policy or abuse the legislation with intent to personally harm others; and

5) A mechanism which allows for reporting through to appropriate legislative officials on recommendations (if applicable) for changes to various statutes.

Today, public servants are not adequately protected if they expose wrongdoing or corruption. It fosters a climate of fear and ultimately decay. In turn, taxpayers pay the price through compromised government, a disillusioned public workforce and staggering costs.