Over the years, I’ve known of situations that existed. They were fairly well known. It didn’t seem like the government could get a handle on them or document them or do anything about them. And the people who worked in those divisions didn’t really want to say anything.
I think there’s a contradiction there. To say you could have whistleblower protection for people to make complaints anonymously or identify situations anonymously — well, if they can do it anonymously, you don’t need whistleblower protection because nobody would know who did it, right? I think the idea is to let people feel they could step forward — they could bring something to the government’s attention, to the department’s attention — and they would not suffer reprisal as a result. I think that’s the gist of whistleblower protection. I wouldn’t get hung up on whether it’s anonymous or not. It’s just an avenue that needs to be there, whether people choose to take it or not. I guess they would weigh their options.
I think the more opportunities we have for people to feel like they’re engaged in the process…. Sometimes when there’s some wrongdoing going on, say even at the management level, it kind of demoralises the whole organization that’s underneath that. Sometimes, even, it sets a standard. Let’s use an example: a manager is — I don’t know — using a government facility like a shop or something in a community to service their own vehicles, maybe their friends’ and their family’s. And they say, Well, I’m doing it; if you don’t say anything about it, then you can use it too. Then you sort of get buy-in and everybody starts getting into questionable practices with government resources. It tends to have a bit of a domino effect. We’ve all heard of situations like that.
I think it would be good to pursue it and keep the issue alive, keep proceeding down that path.