Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (Canada)

Judith Fiagbey, PPAL 6130 Ethics, Privacy and Access to Information

 

History In 2000, the Auditor General published reports on ethics and values in the

public service and concluded that a method to allow employees to disclose ethical issues with appropriate protection for all concerned is required.

In 2001, Treasury Board adopted a policy on the internal disclosure of wrongdoing and established the position of Public Service Integrity Officer (PSIO) within its organization.

However, in 2003, the PSIO reported that he had to be independent of the government to be credible.

In 2003, external experts also advised a legislative approach to an external disclosure regime. Two bills were put forward in March and October of 2004 respectively, but neither came into force.

On April 15th 2007, the Public Servant Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) came into force, after being amended by the Federal Accountability Act.

………………...Office of PSIC Annual Report, 2007-2008…………….............

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA)

guarantees Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) is a mechanism for disclosing

information about wrongdoings committed in the public sector.

The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC) is independent of government, and reports directly to Parliament and is responsible for the following:

Listen to members of the public as well as civil servants, to promote integrity and increase confidence in the public sector.

Receives, reviews and fairly investigates allegations of wrongdoing within the public sector.

Ensure that information obtained during a disclosure investigation is protected under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Emphasize prevention, dispute resolution and education about values and ethics.

Protect the identity of persons who discloses that a wrongdoing has been committed or is about to be committed in the public sector, to the extent possible.

Protects public sector employees from reprisals.

Procedural Details for Disclosure Public servants and members of the public can

disclose information about a suspected wrongdoing (unethical behaviour).

Public servants may contact: Immediate supervisor The designated senior officer in your organization The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner directly

Members of the public may contact: The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner directly

Advantages Appointment of a Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to

regulate Canadian values and ethical standards of the public servants.

Promote ethical behaviour and discourage wrongdoing in the workplace.

Promotes the integrity of the public sector.

Determine if reprisals have occurred and purports to resolve them.

Disadvantages

Despite Public Servant Disclosure Protection Act’s purported guarantees, it is unclear what protection the informant will have if the commissioner does not recognize the trust of the allegation; or the allegation is considered false or misinformed.

Despite its intentions it fails to protect against public servants in the interim between the reporting of a possible wrong doing and its investigation by the commissioner.

The chain of command within an organization can be broken if civil servants have an option of reporting to the Public Servants Integrity Commissioner directly.

Public servants must contact PSIC within 60 days of becoming aware of and believing a reprisal has been taken against them.

Conclusion

Statement of policy is explicit and guarantees of non reprisals have also been articulated.

In practice, reprisals are on record without the follow-up one would have expected from the commissioner’s office.

Claims to restore those affected to their positions without demotion or dismissals to ensure that no prejudice will stand against their subsequent prospects.

Conclusion CONT…D

DisclosuresDisclosures received from public sector employees and information received from the members of the public

59

Disclosures reviewed to determine if they fall under the jurisdiction of the PSDPA Act

49

Files closed after preliminary review and analysis (not acted on) 25

Files still in process as of March 31, 2008 19

Files carried forward for further analysis and verification (acted on) 2

Investigations of disclosures commenced under this Act, as well as one

carried over from the previous Public Service Integrity Office

3

In support of the conclusion, the statistics below illustrate the ineffectiveness of the disclosure policy in terms of its implementation.

Conclusion CONT…D

ReprisalsComplaints made in relation to reprisals 22

Complaints of reprisals that were reviewed and analyzed to determine jurisdiction and admissibility under the Act

22

Files closed after preliminary review (not acted on) 18

Files carried forward for further analysis and verification (acted on) 0

Files still in process as of March 31, 2008 2

Investigations of reprisals commenced under this Act, as well as one carried over from the previous Public Service Integrity Office

2

In support of the conclusion, the statistics below illustrate the ineffectiveness of the reprisal policy in terms of its implementation.

Recommendation Confidentiality can only exist if allegations of breach of ethics is reported directly to a

commissioner’s office and not to the supervisors of the organization, which may decrease reprisals.

Procedurally, no problem should be aired within an organization except if the rule of total confidentiality is in place and upheld.

To maintain confidentiality for the whistleblowers, the PSIC should have separate departments for investigating the legitimacy of a complaint and for conducting and resolving the allegation. While the department that first hears complaint would know the identity of the whistleblower once the complaint has been verified and it is passed to the resolution department the original whistleblower’s identity is concealed as in witness relocation programs.

Consequently, if allegations were proved to be hearsay, only the commissioner’s office would know that a complaint was ever made even if the allegation was unjustified.

Merci Beaucoup!