Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Annual Report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act 2020 to 2021

From: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

The Annual Report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act provides an overview of the activities respecting disclosures made in federal public sector organizations.

On this page

2020 to 2021 Annual Report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act
(PDF, 1,338 KB)

Message from the Chief Human Resources Officer

It is my pleasure to present the 14th annual report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to the President of the Treasury Board of Canada for tabling in Parliament.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act promotes trust in the public sector by fostering an environment where public servants feel that they can come forward with enquiries or allegations about possible wrongdoing. This report provides information on activities related to such disclosures in federal public sector organizations and includes details on the actions taken by organizations in response to allegations of wrongdoing.

This year’s findings from the Public Service Employee Survey show that, overall, public servants perceive their workplace to be more ethical than in the previous year, suggesting that ongoing education and awareness activities are having an impact. While a positive trend, there is still more work to do as this is not evenly distributed across the public service.

My office has continued to support federal organizations in creating and sustaining an ethical workplace where employees feel comfortable coming forward with disclosures of wrongdoing. With the implementation of the new Policy on People Management and its associated directives, including the Directive on Conflict of Interest, deputy heads’ accountability to prevent and respond to matters that impact the ethical culture of the workplace has been reinforced. The creation of the Centre on Diversity and Inclusion in September 2020 and continued work to prevent harassment and discrimination have helped to create healthy workplaces that support mental health and are part of our ongoing support to deputy heads and leaders at all levels.

Through these efforts, we will continue to foster an ethical workplace culture that is respectful, healthy, diverse and inclusive. At the same time, we will continue to raise awareness among public servants about the disclosure process available to them, including protections against acts of reprisal so that public servants feel safe and supported in reporting possible wrongdoing now and in the future.

Original signed by

Christine Donoghue
Chief Human Resources Officer
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

About this report

This annual report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (the Act) covers the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021. The report contains information on disclosure activities in the federal public sector, which includes departments, agencies, and Crown corporations as defined in section 2 of the Act. The report also contains information on the activities the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) has undertaken over the same period to foster an ethical workplace culture.

Every organization subject to the Act is required to designate a senior officer for internal disclosure who is responsible for addressing disclosures made under the Act and for establishing internal procedures to manage disclosures. Alternatively, organizations that are too small to designate a senior officer or establish their own internal procedures can have disclosures handled directly by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada (PSIC). This report does not contain information on disclosures or reprisal complaints made to the PSIC, other recourse mechanisms or anonymous disclosures.

Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer: activities to support ethical workplaces

In this section

Senior officers and communities of practice

To better equip senior officers for disclosure of wrongdoing and managers to support public servants in their organizations, OCHRO continued to develop and provide them with guides, tools and advice. OCHRO also continued to deliver one-on-one orientation sessions for newly designated senior officers for disclosure of wrongdoing and their teams to ensure that they understand their accountabilities under the Act.

In addition, OCHRO continued to facilitate a government-wide community of practice to share promising strategies and discussions of recent developments in the fields of values and ethics, disclosure of wrongdoing, reprisal protections, and conflict of interest resolution. This facilitation included hosting nine meetings of the Interdepartmental Network on Values and Ethics and supporting six meetings of the Internal Disclosure Working Group.

In 2020, OCHRO published an evergreen guidebook for departments to support the delivery of programs and services to Canadians during a gradual, safe, and sustainable easing of COVID-19 restrictions. Additionally, we provided information online to support public servants’ physical and mental health and to help public servants adapt to working remotely. While these supports did not provide specific advice on disclosure, they contributed to supporting a healthy and ethical workplace. OCHRO will continue to monitor the effects of remote work and adapt its support accordingly.

Policy on People Management and Directive on Conflict of Interest

The new Policy on People Management and the accompanying Directive on Conflict of Interest came into effect on April 1, 2020. To support deputy heads in their obligations to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest and conflicts of duties, OCHRO developed and distributed several guides and held remote awareness sessions on these issues for values and ethics practitioners and designated senior officials.

The new policy and directive complement chief executives’ obligations, under the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, to ensure that public servants can obtain appropriate advice on ethical issues within their organization.

Diversity and inclusion in the workplace

A public service that is diverse and inclusive is important for a workplace culture where public servants from equity-seeking groups feel comfortable in disclosing wrongdoing.

The Centre on Diversity and Inclusion (CDI) was established in September 2020 to help deputy heads and leaders at all levels create a more inclusive and diverse public service. CDI initiated the development of programs and activities that focus on enterprise-wide solutions by partnering with employment equity groups, equity-seeking groups and stakeholders. Activities included a mentorship program to better support leadership development; a community of practice for designated senior officials for employment equity, diversity and inclusion; and a platform for public servants from diverse groups to share lived experiences.

In 2020–21, OCHRO conducted several activities that contributed to the modernization of the employment equity regime and public service attitudes toward diversity and inclusion. These activities included providing support for the development and adoption of amendments to the Public Service Employment Act. The activities aimed to remove or reduce systemic barriers and challenges faced by equity-seeking groups, and to engage with key federal departments on modernizing the collection and analysis of employment equity data to advance discussions on self-identification.

Preventing and resolving harassment and violence in the workplace

A workplace that is free of harassment and violence is an essential part of an environment where employees feel safe to come forward with disclosures of wrongdoing.

Employment and Social Development Canada’s (ESDC’s) Labour Program developed new regulations in 2019–20 to better protect employees from harassment and violence in federally regulated workplaces. To ensure that harassment and violence are not tolerated, condoned or ignored in the public service, we worked with bargaining agents and released a new Directive on the Prevention and Resolution of Workplace Harassment and Violence in December 2020.

OCHRO also worked with the Canada School of Public Service (CSPS) and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety to support the development of three workplace harassment and violence prevention courses specifically for public service employees, supervisors, managers, departmental occupational health and safety committee members, and designated recipients.Footnote 1

Mental health in the workplace

Having the right workplace conditions to support mental health and wellness generates higher levels of employee engagement and adds to public servants’ confidence in coming forward with concerns about wrongdoing.

OCHRO’s Centre of Expertise on Mental Health in the Workplace supports federal organizations in aligning with the National Standard of Canada: Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace and advances the Federal Public Service Workplace Mental Health Strategy.

Departmental “pulse-check” survey results over the past year indicated that working from home is having varying mental health–related impacts. Some respondents reported positive impacts and a healthier work environment, whereas others reported negative impacts due to feelings of anxiety in the face of uncertainty and loneliness. Results of the 2020 Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) showed overall improvements in mental health awareness, satisfaction with actions taken by managers to support employees’ mental health, and incidents of harassment and violence. At the same time, stresses related to workload, social isolation, long hours, and balancing family responsibilities have increased and are now the main factors affecting the mental health of the public service.

In 2020, the Centre of Expertise created a curated suite of mental health resources for public servants. The suite provides tools for employees who face challenges while working remotely, such as balancing family life and caregiving with work.

International engagement

OCHRO continues to collaborate with international organizations on global integrity and anti-corruption efforts. These international engagements help OCHRO to stay up to date on global activities, research, and best practices in the areas of integrity, anti-corruption and disclosure regimes. The engagements also allow OCHRO to continue to share and promote Canada’s successful strategies, including:

Education and awareness-raising activities

In this section

Enterprise-wide

Complementary to OCHRO’s activities to promote ethical practices and a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoing across the public service, the CSPS provides enterprise-wide training to promote values and ethics in the workplace.

In 2021, the CSPS saw a 25% increase in the completion of the values and ethics courses they offer, compared to 2020:

Federal public sector organizations

As in previous years, federal public sector organizations acted to raise awareness among public servants, provide education about the disclosure process and support those public servants who wish to make a disclosure. Examples of activities included:

Some specific examples of how some organizations worked to create awareness of the disclosure process and educate public servants in 2020–21 include:

Overall, while the CSPS saw an increase in the number of public servants who completed their courses, individual federal public sector organizations reported that they provided fewer complementary internal values and ethics training activities to employees compared to 2019–20, with some citing the pandemic as a reason for the reduction in training activity.

In addition to the CSPS training, about one in five organizations reported:

Public Service Employee Survey: ethics in the workplace

In this section

Each year, OCHRO conducts the Public Service Employee Survey (PSES), which allows the public service to gauge what it is doing well and what it could be doing better to ensure the continual improvement of people management practices in government.Footnote 2

The survey includes three questions on public servants’ perception of an ethical environment in their workplace. The results provide insights into how public servants are being equipped to address issues, such as values and ethics dilemmas. In addition, the results can be disaggregated, including based on demographics, region or organization.Footnote 3

Results for the public service as a whole

The 2020 PSES results show a more positive perception of ethics in the workplace for the public service as a whole compared to recent years:

Disaggregated results

The results of the PSES ethics questions were analyzed by disaggregating the data by gender, province and territory, employment equity group, employment community, and organizational mandate, to better understand the federal public service values and ethics landscape. This analysis provided insights into areas where there are noticeable differences in the views of specific communities of public servants compared to those of other groups or the public service overall.Footnote 5 For example:

These insights will inform OCHRO and chief executives of where targeted outreach can be concentrated in order to further promote ethical practices and a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoings in the public sector.

Organizational disclosure activity

In this section

Reported enquiries and disclosure activity

As part of continuing efforts to improve reporting on public sector disclosure activity, in 2020–21, OCHRO asked organizations to report on the number of allegations of wrongdoing received through each disclosure brought forward by public servants to their supervisor or the senior disclosure officer. OCHRO’s request reflects that a single act of disclosure may include more than one allegation of wrongdoing, as outlined in section 8 of the Act. Reporting both the number of allegations and the number of disclosures enhances clarity compared to previous reports where each allegation was counted as a separate disclosure. Appendix D contains a glossary on the key terms used in this report.

Enquiries

Public servants may make enquiries about the disclosure process without making a formal disclosure or allegation. The number of enquiries about the Act decreased substantially in 2020–21 to 172: the lowest number in the past five years. As shown in Figure 1, the number of enquiries and allegations show a similar trend.

Figure 1: trend in enquiries about the Act and allegations under the Act, 2016–17 to 2020–21
Figure 1: trend in enquiries about the Act and allegations under the Act, 2016–17 to 2020–21
Figure 1 - Text version
Type 2016 to 2017 2017 to 2018 2018 to 2019 2019 to 2020 2020 to 2021
Number of enquiries about the Act 212 293 323 250 172
Number of allegations under the Act 210 296 272 220 174

It is difficult to say precisely what is contributing to the downward trend in the number of enquiries shown in Figure 1. The trend may suggest that efforts to raise awareness of the Act, as well as other recourse mechanisms, have improved public servants’ understanding of the mechanisms available. The trend could also be a result of public servants working remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions over the past year and having fewer opportunities to observe activity that could lead to a disclosure. The trend may also be influenced by other factors beyond these, as the data does not permit a conclusion on this point.

Steps in the process of disclosing wrongdoingFootnote 6

Step 1: disclosures and allegations received

Disclosures containing one or more allegations of possible wrongdoing are received.

Step 2: allegations assessed

Allegations are assessed to determine whether they are admissible under the Act.

Step 3: allegations investigated

If the allegations are admissible, an investigation is conducted. If not, other remedial action or recourse processes are considered.

Step 4: findings and corrective measures reported

Findings are made and corrective measures are taken as appropriate.

Step 1: disclosures and allegations received

In 2020–21, 123 public servants made 101 disclosures containing 174 allegations, which is the lowest number of new allegations made in the last five years (Figure 2).Footnote 7

Figure 2: new allegations and allegations carried over from previous years, 2016–17 to 2020–21
Figure 2: new allegations and allegations carried over from previous years, 2016–17 to 2020–21
Figure 2 - Text version
Type 2016 to 2017 2017 to 2018 2018 to 2019 2019 to 2020 2020 to 2021
Number of allegations carried over from previous fiscal year 122 128 173 238 193
New allegations received in disclosures that fiscal year 209 291 269 220 174

There was a decrease in the number of allegations that were carried over from the previous fiscal year from 238 allegations in 2019–20 to 193 allegations in 2020–21. Of the 193 allegations carried over into 2020–21, 101 (52%) were originally received in 2019–20 and 92 (48%) were originally received in 2018–19 or earlier.

Federal public sector organizations have indicated that one barrier to being able to resolve disclosures quickly is a lack of internal investigative capacity. To address this barrier, in 2018, OCHRO put in place a National Master Standing Offer (NMSO) for investigative services, and this list of available service providers is regularly updated.

Six large organizations and one small organization used the NMSO in 2020–21. Both large and small organizations have responded positively to the NMSO. Organizations have noted, for example, that the NMSO helps them secure qualified and bilingual investigative services easily and quickly. This is particularly true for organizations that don’t have internal investigative capacity. A small number of organizations indicated that the NMSO has had no impact on their investigative capacity because they have their own investigators on staff or because the NMSO does not apply, which is the case for Crown corporations.

Step 2: allegations assessed

Each allegation is assessed by the organization’s senior officer for internal disclosure to determine whether the allegation meets the definition of wrongdoing and warrants further action.

In 2020–21, 51% of total allegations were assessed (188 of 367).Footnote 8 This percentage is a decrease in comparison to the upward trend in the previous four years, where the rate of assessment of allegations varied between 54% in 2017–18 and 61% in 2019–20 (Figure 3).

Of the 188 allegations assessed in 2020–21, 102 (54%) were carried over from previous years, including 65 (35%) that were received in 2019–20 and 37 (19%) that were received in 2018–19 or earlier.

Figure 3: total allegations and allegations assessed, 2016–17 to 2020–21
Figure 3: total allegations and allegations assessed, 2016–17 to 2020–21
Figure 3 - Text version
Type 2016 to 2017 2017 to 2018 2018 to 2019 2019 to 2020 2020 to 2021
Total allegations 332 424 445 458 367
Allegations assessed 195 230 243 280 188

Allegations by type of wrongdoing

Compared to the previous year, the percentage of allegations about:

The percentage of allegations that dealt with gross mismanagement in the public sector increased from 17% in 2019–20 to 27% in 2020–21 (Figure 4).

While the number of allegations of a serious breach of a code of conduct decreased over the last two years, it is still the most prevalent allegation of wrongdoing. This is possibly because codes of conduct include explicit standards for expected behaviours, which may make it easier for public servants to identify serious breaches.

Figure 4: breakdown of new allegations by type of wrongdoing, 2020–21
Figure 4: breakdown of new allegations by type of wrongdoing, 2020–21
Figure 4 - Text version >
Type Percentage of the 174 new allegations received in 2020 to 2021
A serious breach of a code of conduct 36%
A gross mismanagement in the public sector 27%
A contravention of any act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province 14%
A misuse of public funds or a public asset 11%
Knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing 6%
An act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons, or the environment 6%

Allegations acted upon and not acted upon

In 2020–21, of the 188 allegations assessed, 112 were found to have met the definition of wrongdoing and were acted upon under the Act. As shown in Figure 5, these 112 allegations included 43 received in 2020–21, 40 received in 2019–20, and 29 received in 2018–19 or earlier.

In addition, 76 of the 188 allegations assessed did not meet the definition of wrongdoing and were not acted upon under the Act. These 76 allegations included 43 received in 2020–21, 25 received in 2019–20, and eight received in 2018–19 or earlier.

Figure 5: allegations acted upon or not acted upon in 2020–21, by year in which allegation was received
Figure 5: allegations acted upon or not acted upon in 2020–21, by year in which allegation was received
Figure 5 - Text version
Type Received in 2018 to 2019 or before Received in 2019 to 2020 Received in 2020 to 2021
Allegations of wrongdoing that were acted upon 29 40 43
Allegations of wrongdoing that were not acted upon 8 25 43

As shown in Figure 6, over the four previous years, the number of allegations that met the definition of wrongdoing and were acted upon under the Act has fluctuated. In 2017–18, 60% of allegations (139 of 230) were acted upon compared to 41% of allegations (116 of 280) in 2019–20.

Figure 6: total allegations assessed that were acted upon or not acted upon
Figure 6: total allegations assessed that were acted upon or not acted upon
Figure 6 - Text version
Type 2016 to 2017 2017 to 2018 2018 to 2019 2019 to 2020 2020 to 2021
Allegations of wrongdoing not acted upon 97 91 129 164 76
Allegations of wrongdoing acted upon 98 139 114 116 112
Total allegations assessed in that fiscal year 195 230 243 280 188

In 2020–21, there were 76 allegations that did not meet the definition of wrongdoing and were not acted upon under the Act.Footnote 9 Highlights in Figure 7 include:

Figure 7: breakdown of what happened to allegations that did not meet the definition of wrongdoing in 2020–21Footnote 10
Figure 7: breakdown of what happened to allegations that did not meet the definition of wrongdoing in 2020–21
Figure 7 - Text version
Type Percentage of the 76 allegations that did not meet the definition of wrongdoing in 2020 to 2021
Other action taken 30%
Not referred to a recourse process listed below 27%
Referred to the harassment and violence complaint process, provided for under the Canada Labour Code 22%
Referred to human rights complaint process, provided for under the Canadian Human Rights Act 12%
Referred to the grievance process, provided for under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act 4%
Referred to staffing complaint process, provided for under the Public Service Employment Act 2%
Referred to the privacy complaint process, provided for under the Privacy Act 2%

As noted above, allegations that did not meet the definition of wrongdoing and were not acted upon under the Act are, in many cases, referred to more appropriate recourse mechanisms. Doing so provides an opportunity to assess whether any additional interventions or supports may be needed.

Step 3: allegations investigated

In 2020–21, 63 formal investigationsFootnote 11 were launched: the highest number in the past four years. Most of these investigations examined one or two allegations whereas some examined up to nine. Of the 63 investigations, 31 were based on allegations made in 2020–21, 20 were based on allegations made in 2019–20, and 12 were based on allegations made in 2018–19 or earlier (Figure 8).

By March 31, 2021, 30 investigations were closed. Of these, nine examined 23 allegations made in 2020–21, 12 examined 18 allegations made in 2019–20, and nine examined 33 allegations made in 2018–19 or earlier.

Finally, there were 33 investigations still ongoing at the end of the reporting period and these will be carried over to the next fiscal year. Of these, 22 investigations are examining allegations made in 2020–21, eight are examining allegations made in 2019–20, and three are examining allegations made in 2018–19 or earlier.

Figure 8: investigations launched and closed in 2020–21 by year in which allegation was received
Figure 8: investigations launched and closed in 2020–21 by year in which allegation was received
Figure 8 - Text version
Type Received in 2018 to 2019 or before Received in 2019 to 2020 Received in 2020 to 2021
Investigation launched in 2020–21 12 20 31
Investigation closed by March 2021 9 12 9
Investigation carried over into 2021–22 3 8 22

Step 4: findings and corrective measures reported

In 2020–21, the 30 investigations that were closed by March 31, 2021, examined 74 allegations and resulted in 12 allegations that led to a finding of wrongdoing and 19 allegations that led to corrective measures. For seven of the 19 allegations that led to corrective measures, there was no wrongdoing found (Figure 9).Footnote 12

A few trends were observed:

Figure 9: outcomes of investigations into allegations, 2016–17 to 2020–21
Figure 9: outcomes of investigations into allegations, 2016–17 to 2020–21
Figure 9 - Text version
Type 2016 to 2017 2017 to 2018 2018 to 2019 2019 to 2020 2020 to 2021
Allegations that led to a finding of wrongdoing and corrective measures 10 16 7 3 12
Allegations that led to corrective measures without a finding of wrongdoing 17 28 20 11 7
Total corrective measures 27 44 27 14 19

Appendix A: summary of organizational activity related to disclosures under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act

In this section

Subsection 38.1(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (the Act) requires chief executives to prepare a report on the activities related to disclosures made in their organizations and to submit it to the Chief Human Resources Officer within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year. The statistics in this report are based on those reports. In the sections that follow, statistics from the four previous years are also provided to allow comparison. While these statistics provide a snapshot of internal disclosure activities under the Act, it is difficult to draw conclusions because of the differences between organizations. Employee concerns or issues, for example, may be addressed through different recourse mechanisms and processes in different organizations.

Although the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) are excluded from the Act by virtue of section 52 of the Act, they are required to establish their own procedures for the disclosure of wrongdoing, including for protecting persons who disclose wrongdoing. These procedures must be approved by the Treasury Board as being similar to those set out in the Act. CSIS’s procedures were approved in December 2009, CSEC’s procedures were approved in June 2011, and the CAF’s procedures were approved in April 2012.

A.1 Disclosure activity, 2016–17 to 2020–21

General enquiries 2020–21 2019–20 2018–19 2017–18 2016–17
Number of general enquiries related to the Act 172 250 323 293 212
Disclosure activity 2020–21 2019–20 2018–19 2017–18 2016–17
Number of public servants who made disclosures 123 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Number of allegations received in disclosures under the Act 169 216 269 291 209
Number of referrals resulting from allegations received in disclosures made in another public sector organization 5 4 3 5 1
Number of cases carried over on the basis of allegations made in previous years 193 238 173 128 122
Total number of allegations (allegations received, referred, carried over) 367 458 445 424 332
Number of allegations that met the definition of wrongdoingFootnote a 112 116 114 139 98
Number of allegations that did not meet the definition of wrongdoingFootnote b 76 164 129 91 97
Number of investigations commenced as a result of disclosures received 63 38 59 71 61
Number of allegations that led to a finding of wrongdoing 12 3 7 16 10
Number of allegations that led to corrective measures 19 11 20 28 17
Organizations reporting 2020–21 2019–20 2018–19 2017–18 2016–17
Number of active organizations 137 133 134 134 133
Number of organizations that reported enquiries 30 33 35 36 36
Number of organizations that reported allegations received in disclosures 27 24 29 35 22
Number of organizations that reported findings of wrongdoing 3 3 3 4 4
Number of organizations that reported corrective measures 6 4 8 8 7
Number of organizations that reported finding systemic problems that gave rise to wrongdoing 2 0 3 2 0
Number of organizations that did not disclose information about findings of wrongdoing within 60 days 2 1 1 2 1

A.2 Organizations reporting activity under the Act in 2020–21

Organization General enquiries Allegations received in disclosures Investigations commenced Allegations received in disclosures that led to
Received Referred Carried over from 2019–20 Acted upon Not acted upon Carried over into 2021–22 Finding of wrongdoing Corrective measures
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
Canada Border Services Agency 8 24 0 74 24 13 61 5 0 1
Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Canada Revenue Agency 5 1 0 3 3 1 0 3 0 0
Canadian Food Inspection Agency 0 4 0 17 3 18 0 0 0 0
Canadian Heritage 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Correctional Service Canada 42 5 0 2 2 4 1 1 0 0
Department of Justice Canada 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Employment and Social Development Canada and Canada Employment Insurance Commission 12 15 1 9 16 9 0 10 3 4
Environment and Climate Change Canada 2 15 0 4 6 0 13 0 0 0
Export Development Canada 12 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0
Farm Credit Canada 0 27 0 0 26 0 1 3 0 4
Fisheries and Oceans Canada 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0
Global Affairs Canada 4 28 1 16 8 4 33 13 6 6
Health Canada 4 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada 0 7 0 1 3 3 2 3 3 3
Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indian Oil and Gas Canada 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indigenous Services Canada 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
Infrastructure Canada 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada 6 5 0 4 0 2 7 1 0 0
International Development Research Centre 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
National Capital Commission 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
National Defence 12 8 2 31 11 1 29 6 0 0
National Research Council Canada 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Natural Resources Canada, Energy Supplies Allocation Board, and Northern Pipeline Agency Canada 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Parks Canada 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public Health Agency of Canada 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Public Service Commission of Canada 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public Services and Procurement Canada 2 4 0 22 5 0 21 13 0 0
Royal Canadian Mint 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Royal Canadian Mounted Police 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
Statistics Canada 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Transport Canada 0 1 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 0
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
Veterans Affairs Canada and Veterans Review and Appeal Board 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VIA Rail Canada Inc. 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Total 172 169 5 193 112 76 179 63 12 19

A.3 Organizations reporting a finding of wrongdoing under the Act in 2020–21

Organization Finding of wrongdoing Corrective measures
Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)

Knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing set out in any of paragraphs (a) to (e) (paragraph 8(f) of the Act)

Serious breach of a code of conduct established under section 5 or 6 (paragraph 8(e) of the Act)

A contravention of any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, or of any regulations made under any such Act

(paragraph 8(a) of the Act)

Case report: Acts of Founded Wrongdoing: PSDPA 2018-2019-006

An investigation into a disclosure was conducted and a manager was found to have committed wrongdoing by directing or counselling an employee to commit wrongdoing, and seriously breaching the Departmental Code of Conduct.

The investigation also found that the Internal Integrity and Security Office in the Western Canada and Territories region had committed wrongdoing by contravening the Government Contracts Regulations and the Contracting Policy.

The appropriate corrective or administrative measures are being determined for the individual(s) found to have committed, or been involved in, wrongdoing.

Additional control measures are being implemented to prevent, avoid and address the inappropriate use of government acquisition cards:

  • A team of procurement specialists from the Chief Financial Officer Branch have been communicating with regional security officials since May 2018 to assess the security requirements across the department. The goal is to arrive at an overall procurement strategy that will result in larger competitive contracts being put in place that managers in the Internal Integrity and Security offices can leverage to satisfy their security needs.
  • Government acquisition cardholders will continue to be advised to not use their acquisition cards for anything that requires a statement of work or that requires clauses to address security clearances, protection of personal information or the creation of intellectual property.
  • The Government Acquisition Cardholders Quick Reference Guide and the Acquisition Card Policy will continue to be regularly updated to mitigate the risk of misuse.
  • The Chief Financial Officer Branch will review the past and ongoing transactions between ESDC and the private security company, identify any unacceptable transactions, and implement corrective measures to ensure that the proper procurement practices are put in place immediately with regard to the procurement of security services.
  • The directorate that monitors the use of acquisition cards within the Chief Financial Officer Branch will consider recommendations from Internal Audit Services, and the Annual Stewardship Validation Process, which is a regional practice, as a reference guide and source of best practices for managers in validating the issuance and usage of acquisition cards.
Employment and Social Development Canada

A misuse of public funds or a public asset (paragraph 8(b) of the Act)Footnote 13

Case report: Acts of Founded Wrongdoing: PSDPA 2019-2020-007

An investigation was conducted in response to a disclosure, and an employee was found to have committed wrongdoing by making unauthorized use of government property. The employee failed to return a Government of Canada Blackberry cellphone and continued to use the cellphone after retiring from the public service.

The Assistant Deputy Minister of Ontario region has already recovered the Government of Canada Blackberry cellphone and disconnected the cellphone account.

In addition, the Ontario region has put in place a rigorous process in off-boarding employees, and the Innovation Information and Technology Branch now meticulously monitors the use of departmental cellphones and other devices to prevent these types of situations from occurring.
Global Affairs Canada

A serious breach of a code of conduct established under section 5 or 6 (paragraph 8(e) under the Act)

Case report: Acts of Founded Wrongdoing: FW-2018-Q1-00002

The Values and Ethics Unit received disclosures of wrongdoing against an executive employee outlining allegations of gross mismanagement and serious breaches of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, which would breach paragraphs 8(c) and (e) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. It was alleged that the respondent was involved in staffing irregularities and repeatedly made inappropriate comments to employees, some of which were of a sexual nature. It was also alleged that the respondent engaged in inappropriate behaviours that could constitute systemic harassment.

The investigation concluded that the allegations of gross mismanagement and staffing irregularities were not founded. However, it was determined that most of the allegations of inappropriate sexual comments and behaviours were founded, and therefore constitute a serious breach of the departmental Values and Ethics Code. The disclosure was therefore deemed to be partially founded. The preponderance of evidence and the balance of probabilities supported findings of wrongdoing in accordance with paragraph 8(e) of the Act, a serious breach of a code of conduct established under section 5 or 6 of the Act.

Administrative measures were taken with respect to the executive employee by the delegated authority during the course of the investigation. These measures included sensitivity training and coaching. The respondent left the public service before the conclusion of the investigation.

Actions will also be taken by Global Affairs Canada to restore the work environment within the organizational unit involved.
Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada

A gross mismanagement in the public sector (paragraph 8(c) under the Act)

Case report: Acts of founded wrongdoing: FW-2021-Q1-00001

The Internal Disclosure Office received a disclosure of wrongdoing by a director at their national headquarters. It was alleged that the director bullied and marginalized another employee under their supervision (including using vulgar language and inappropriate racial comments), failed to disclose a conflict of interest in the promotion of another employee in which a personal relationship existed, and failed to disclose a conflict of interest in the approval of a sole-source contract with a third-party organization in which a financial stake was held.

The investigation concluded that the allegations were founded and that the director’s actions constitute wrongdoing under the Act in relation to paragraph 8(c), “a gross mismanagement in the public sector.”

While the director resigned before the investigation was concluded, it has been recommended that departmental senior officials ensure policy directives and oversight mechanisms are strengthened for prevention and early determination of potential similar acts of misappropriation. Management agrees with the report’s recommendation and has developed an action plan to address it.

A.4 Organizations reporting no disclosure activities in 2020–21

  1. Accessibility Standards Canada
  2. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
  3. Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada
  4. Bank of Canada
  5. Business Development Bank of Canada
  6. Canada Council for the Arts
  7. Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
  8. Canada Development Investment Corporation
  9. Canada Energy Regulator
  10. Canada Infrastructure Bank
  11. Canada Post
  12. Canada School of Public Service
  13. Canada Science and Technology Museum
  14. Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
  15. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
  16. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
  17. Canadian Commercial Corporation
  18. Canadian Grain Commission
  19. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  20. Canadian Museum for Human Rights
  21. Canadian Museum of History and Canadian War Museum
  22. Canadian Museum of Nature
  23. Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency
  24. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
  25. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
  26. Canadian Space Agency
  27. Canadian Transportation Agency
  28. Courts Administration Service
  29. Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada
  30. Defence Construction Canada
  31. Department of Finance Canada
  32. Destination Canada
  33. Farm Products Council of Canada
  34. Federal Bridge Corporation
  35. Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
  36. Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
  37. Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
  38. Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
  39. Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Canada
  40. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
  41. International Joint Commission (Canadian section)
  42. Invest in Canada Hub
  43. Laurentian Pilotage Authority Canada
  44. Library and Archives Canada
  45. Marine Atlantic Inc.
  46. Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada
  47. National Arts Centre
  48. National Gallery of Canada
  49. National Security and Intelligence Review Agency Secretariat
  50. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  51. Office of the Auditor General of Canada
  52. Office of the Chief Electoral Officer
  53. Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada
  54. Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
  55. Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
  56. Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada
  57. Office of the Secretary to the Governor General
  58. Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada
  59. Pacific Pilotage Authority Canada
  60. Parole Board of Canada
  61. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Canada
  62. Privy Council Office
  63. Public Prosecution Service of Canada
  64. Public Safety Canada
  65. Public Sector Pension Investment Board
  66. Shared Services Canada
  67. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  68. Statistical Survey Operations
  69. The Correctional Investigator Canada
  70. The National Battlefields Commission
  71. Western Economic Diversification Canada
  72. Women and Gender Equality Canada

A.5 Organizations that do not have a senior officer for disclosure of wrongdoing pursuant to subsection 10(4) of the Act

  1. Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada
  2. Canada Lands Company Limited
  3. Canadian Dairy Commission
  4. Canadian Human Rights Commission
  5. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
  6. Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21
  7. Canadian Race Relations Foundation
  8. Copyright Board Canada
  9. Military Grievances External Review Committee
  10. National Film Board
  11. Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada
  12. Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages
  13. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
  14. Polar Knowledge Canada
  15. RCMP External Review Committee
  16. Standards Council of Canada
  17. Telefilm Canada
  18. Transportation Safety Board of Canada

A.6 Inactive organizations for the purposes of reporting

  1. The Director, The Veterans’ Land Act
  2. The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc.
  3. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

Appendix B: Public Service Employee Survey – ethics in the workplace

In this section

The data presented in this appendix is sourced from the 2020 Public Service Employee Survey (PSES) results for the public service.Footnote 14

Figure 10: positive answers to PSES Question 38 – “If I am faced with an ethical dilemma or a conflict between values in the workplace, I know where to go for help in resolving the situation,” 2008 to 2020
Figure 10: positive answers to PSES Question 38 – “If I am faced with an ethical dilemma or a conflict between values in the workplace, I know where to go for help in resolving the situation,” 2008 to 2020
Figure 10 - Text version
Survey year Positive answers
2008 70%
2011 74%
2014 77%
2017 74%
2018 71%
2019 71%
2020 73%
Figure 11: positive answers to PSES Question 40 – “I feel I can initiate a formal recourse process (for example, grievance, complaint, appeal) without fear of reprisal,” 2011 to 2020
Figure 11: positive answers to PSES Question 40 – “I feel I can initiate a formal recourse process (for example, grievance, complaint, appeal) without fear of reprisal,” 2011 to 2020
Figure 11 - Text version
Survey year Positive answers
2011 44%
2014 45%
2017 48%
2018 48%
2019 50%
2020 55%
Figure 12: positive answers to PSES Question 31 – “Senior managers in my department or agency lead by example in ethical behaviour,” 2011 to 2020
Figure 12: positive answers to PSES Question 31 – “Senior managers in my department or agency lead by example in ethical behaviour,” 2011 to 2020
Figure 12 - Text version
Survey year Positive answers
2011 58%
2014 62%
2017 64%
2018 63%
2019 68%
2020 73%

Disaggregated analysis by demography, region and sector

Demography

Figure 13: percentages of positive answers to three questions in the 2020 PSES, by employment equity group and public service overall
Figure 13: percentages of positive answers to three questions in the 2020 PSES, by employment equity group and public service overall
Figure 13 - Text version
Question Indigenous peoples Persons with disabilities Members of visible minorities Women Public service
Question 38. If I am faced with an ethical dilemma or a conflict between values in the workplace, I know where I can go for help in resolving the situation. 69% 66% 71% 75% 73%
Question 39. My department or agency does a good job of promoting values and ethics in the workplace. 68% 64% 74% 76% 74%
Question 40. I feel I can initiate a formal recourse process (for example, grievance, complaint, appeal) without fear of reprisal. 51% 43% 54% 55% 55%
Figure 14: percentage of “yes” answers to PSES Question 55, by group – “Having carefully read the definition of harassment, have you been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 12 months?”
Figure 14: percentage of “yes” answers to PSES Question 55, by group – “Having carefully read the definition of harassment, have you been the victim of harassment on the job in the past 12 months?”
Figure 14 - Text version
Year Gender-diverse people Indigenous peoples Persons with disabilities Members of visible minorities Women Public service
2018 30% 25% 32% 16% 16% 15%
2019 29% 22% 29% 14% 14% 14%
2020 21% 18% 23% 12% 11% 11%
Figure 15: percentage of “yes” answers to PSES Question 62, by group – “Having carefully read the definition of discrimination, have you been the victim of discrimination on the job in the past 12 months?”
Figure 15: percentage of “yes” answers to PSES Question 62, by group – “Having carefully read the definition of discrimination, have you been the victim of discrimination on the job in the past 12 months?”
Figure 15 - Text version
Year Gender-diverse people Indigenous peoples Persons with disabilities Members of visible minorities Women Public service
2018 23% 15% 25% 12% 8% 8%
2019 20% 14% 23% 12% 8% 8%
2020 20% 12% 19% 11% 7% 7%

Region

Table 1: percentages of positive answers to three questions in the 2020 PSES, by province, territory and the National Capital Region
Provinces, territory or National Capital Region Question 38. If I am faced with an ethical dilemma or a conflict between values in the workplace, I know where I can go for help in resolving the situation. (%) Question 39. My department or agency does a good job of promoting values and ethics in the workplace. (%) Question 40. I feel I can initiate a formal recourse process (e.g., grievance, complaint, appeal) without fear of reprisal. (%)
Alberta 71 70 53
British Columbia 70 69 52
Manitoba 73 74 56
National Capital Region 74 77 56
New Brunswick 77 76 61
Newfoundland and Labrador 80 83 66
Northwest Territories 73 72 57
Nova Scotia 70 70 55
Nunavut 71 74 56
Ontario (excluding National Capital Region) 72 72 55
Outside of Canada 80 71 41
Prince Edward Island 79 81 62
Quebec (excluding National Capital Region) 71 74 58
Saskatchewan 71 69 52
Yukon 72 69 58

Sector

Table 2: percentages of positive answers to three questions in the 2020 PSES, by organizational mandate and the public service overall
Organizational mandate Question 38. If I am faced with an ethical dilemma or a conflict between values in the workplace, I know where I can go for help in resolving the situation. (%) Question 39. My department or agency does a good job of promoting values and ethics in the workplace. (%) Question 40. I feel I can initiate a formal recourse process (e.g., grievance, complaint, appeal) without fear of reprisal. (%)
Agents of Parliament 78 82 65
Business and economic development 70 73 52
Central agency and government operations 76 78 59
Enforcement and regulatory 77 81 61
Justice, courts and tribunal 74 75 50
Science-based 72 74 55
Security and military 67 65 51
Social and cultural 77 79 58
Public service 73 74 55

Table 3: percentages of positive answers to three questions in the 2020 PSES, by employment community
Employment community Question 38. If I am faced with an ethical dilemma or a conflict between values in the workplace,  I know where I can go for help in resolving the situation. (%) Question 39. My department or agency does a good job of promoting values and ethics in the workplace. (%) Question 40. I feel I can initiate a formal recourse process (e.g., grievance, complaint, appeal) without fear of reprisal. (%)
Access to information and privacy 79 81 61
Administration and operations 77 77 58
Client contact centre 77 81 63
Communications or public affairs 74 76 56
Compliance, inspection and enforcement 72 71 52
Data sciences 72 77 59
Evaluation 73 77 54
Federal regulators 73 73 52
Financial management 76 79 58
Health care practitioners 67 65 49
Human resources 80 80 61
Information management 74 77 59
Information technology 76 79 62
Internal audit 79 82 61
Legal services 74 74 46
Library services 73 73 56
Materiel management 71 72 60
None of the above 69 68 51
Other services to the public 73 73 56
Policy 73 74 51
Procurement 78 79 61
Project management 74 76 54
Real property 71 72 57
Science and technology 69 73 55
Security 57 51 40

Appendix C: disclosure process under the Act

Appendix C
Appendix C - Text version

Disclosure of wrongdoing is received

Initial case review

During the initial case review:

  • all information provided is reviewed
  • the nature of the allegations helps to determine if they meet the definition of wrongdoing under the Act

Could the case be considered wrongdoing under the Act?

If no: Parties are advised that the case is closed

If yes: Investigation and final investigation report

During the investigation:

  • the investigator gathers evidence and speaks to witnesses
  • natural justice and procedural fairness are respected throughout the investigation process
  • the preliminary report is shared with all affected parties for comments and any additional information
  • the investigator finalizes the report for the Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure’s decision

Throughout the investigation process, identities are kept confidential

Senior Officer for Internal Disclosure finds wrongdoing?

If no: Parties are advised and the case is closed

If yes: Parties are advised and the case report is made public

What other recourse processes may be available if the disclosure does not meet the definition of wrongdoing?

  • Harassment and violence complaint (Canada Labour Code)
  • Human rights complaint (Canadian Human Rights Act)
  • Grievance (Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act)
  • Staffing complaint (Public Service Employment Act)
  • Privacy complaint (Privacy Act)
  • Official languages complaint (Official Languages Act)

Appendix D: key terms

In this section

For the purposes of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (the Act) and this report, “public servant” means every person employed in the public sector. This includes the deputy heads and chief executives of public sector organizations, but it does not include other Governor in Council appointees (for example, judges or board members of Crown corporations) or parliamentarians and their staff.

The Act defines wrongdoing as any of the following actions in, or relating to, the public sector:

A protected disclosure is a disclosure that is made in good faith by a public servant under any of the following conditions:

The Act defines reprisal as any of the following measures taken against a public servant who has made a protected disclosure or who has, in good faith, cooperated in an investigation into a disclosure:

Every organization subject to the Act is required to establish internal procedures to manage disclosures made in the organization. Organizations that are too small to establish their own internal procedures can declare an exception under subsection 10(4) of the Act.

In organizations that have declared an exception, disclosures under the Act may be made to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.

The senior officer for disclosure of wrongdoing is the person designated in each organization to receive and deal with disclosures made under the Act. Senior officers have the following key leadership roles for implementing the Act in their organizations:

Other relevant terms

allegation of wrongdoing
The communication of a potential instance of wrongdoing as defined in section 8 of the Act. The allegation must be made in good faith, and the person making it must have reasonable grounds to believe that it is true.
disclosure
The provision of information by a public servant to their immediate supervisor or to a senior officer for disclosure of wrongdoing that includes one or more allegations of possible wrongdoing in the public sector, in accordance with section 12 of the Act.
disclosure that was acted upon (admissible disclosure)
An allegation received in a disclosure where action, including preliminary analysis, fact‑finding and investigation, was taken to determine whether wrongdoing occurred and where that determination was made during the reporting period.
disclosure that was not acted upon (inadmissible disclosure)
An allegation received in a disclosure for which the designated senior officer for disclosure of wrongdoing determined that the definition of wrongdoing under the Act was not met. The allegation in the disclosure was either referred to another process or required no further action.
general enquiry
An enquiry about procedures established under the Act or about possible wrongdoings, not including actual disclosures.
investigation
A formal investigation triggered by a disclosure. An investigation may look into one or more allegations that result from a disclosure of possible wrongdoing.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the President of the Treasury Board, 2021,
Catalogue No.BT1-18E-PDF, ISSN: 2292-048X

Page details

Date modified: