The conclusions of the Gomery Report should not only shock Canadians but also propel us into action. Instead of just asking how could this have happened, we should be asking, how can we prevent it from happening again In addition to scrapping partisan slush funds like sponsorships, advertising, polling and corporate welfare, Canada's institutional and bureaucratic culture needs to change.

Justice Gomery referred to a "culture of entitlement" that characterized the Sponsorship scandal players. This attitude of arrogance resulted in reporting requirements skirted, guidelines sidestepped and the public trust usurped. The point is that there were rules, regulations and reporting requirements in place when the Sponsorship scandal was orchestrated. There is always the potential for corruption, greed and maladministration to ferment even in democratic governments and the public service. Rules, codes and guidelines are not always enforced and do not always act as a deterrent to such behaviour. That is why it is critically important to offer protection to civil servants, who are the public's last line of defense, when all other systems fail.

Whistleblower protection has been talked about in Ottawa for years. It has been studied, reported on and recommended. Almost two-thirds of all OECD countries have some sort of protection for civil servants who expose illegal, wrongdoing, maladministration, waste or fraud within government and/or bureaucracy. Canada, despite having a whole host of examples to demonstrate why we need such protection, has yet to adopt a similar law.

The federal government has drafted a bill aimed at protecting whistleblowers but it has been rightly criticized as inadequate. It is currently awaiting the Senate's rubber stamp of approval. One of the fatal flaws in the proposed bill is that it requires that the whistleblower first to try to seek resolution within their own department. Such a provision is absolutely laughable. For example it would have done nothing to protect the Sponsorship's whistleblower, Allan Cutler.

Cutler worked with the infamous bureaucrat Chuck Guite in 1994. They both handled advertising and public opinion research in Public Works. Guite- who allegedly had the vanity license plate "gravy"-- began to interfere with some files and contracts. Cutler noted several contracting irregularities and refused to sign off on them. He submitted his concerns to both his department supervisor and to the internal audit branch. Cutler was demoted while Guite continued to move up and eventually headed what we now know as the Sponsorship program.

The federal government's bill would have done nothing to protect Allan Cutler who did report problems to his department head only to be punished with a demotion. The proposed legislation will do nothing to change the current culture in Ottawa and it will not protect those civil servants concerned with the public interest. It is nothing more than a paper tiger. And that's not good enough.

There are plenty of international models of whistleblower protection to choose from and although a well crafted bill may prove embarrassing for any sitting government, legislators must remember they are there to represent and safeguard the public's interest-not their own. Model whistleblower legislation would include: more than one reporting avenue, an independent investigation branch and a separate mechanism that handles complaints against employer reprisals.


Critics have shallowly argued that such protection would result in disgruntled employees making false or self-serving claims. There are plenty of ways to mitigate illegitimate claims. In Australia for example, it is a punishable offence to purposefully make false claims.

There are lots of models to choose from and countless reasons to institute whistleblower protection. It remains to be seen, however, if this scandal and its fall-out will finally create the political will to make it happen.