ARCHIVED - Public Sector Integrity Canada

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Commissioner's Message

As Canada's Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, I am pleased to present the Report on Plans and Priorities for 2010-11.

Since the creation of my Office in 2007, our priorities have largely focused on informing the public sector about our role and mandate, establishing effective investigation procedures and internal processes, as well as working in collaboration with key partners to promote a culture of integrity in the workplace.

During 2010-11, my Office will continue establishing itself as an organization with a strong sense of governance and accountability. This will be achieved by:

• providing an efficient, safe and confidential disclosure mechanism and protecting against reprisals disclosers and those who participate in investigations;
• continuing to inform public servants and Canadians about the role and mandate of the Office;
• promoting a workplace culture in the federal public service that is open to disclosure and protects from reprisals;
• establishing a management infrastructure that is solid and consistent with federal government standards; and
• implementing management practices aimed at fostering a culture that reflects the values of integrity, respect, fairness and professionalism.

Since 2007, we have reached important milestones that attest to our strong commitment to our mandate. These include a comprehensive Strategic Plan, an in-depth review of our investigation processes under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, a Corporate Risk Profile, and a Risk-based Internal Audit and Evaluation Plan. The Office is also preparing for its legislated five-year independent review, and is re-examining its strategic outcome, program activities and performance management framework.

Many of our strategic priorities require an ongoing commitment, such as leading-edge training for our investigators, continuous liaison with our multiple stakeholders, and sharing best practices with the public sector, our provincial counterparts and our international partners. The Office also continues to strengthen the impact of its work by analysing key risk areas and addressing systemic vulnerabilities.

Promoting integrity, preventing wrongdoing and protecting disclosers against reprisals does not rest solely with my Office - it is a shared responsibility. In fact, it is only together that we can see real change occur.

Christiane Ouimet
Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada

Section I: Overview

Raison d'être and Responsibilities

The Office is headed by a Commissioner who is appointed by Order in Council as an Agent of Parliament, and the appointment is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.  The Commissioner reports directly to Parliament, and has the rank, powers, authorities and accountabilities of a deputy head of a department or agency.

The Commissioner has jurisdiction over the entire public sector, including separate agencies and parent Crown corporations.  However, the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment and the Canadian Forces, each of which is required under the PSDPA to establish its own internal procedures for disclosure of wrongdoing and protection against reprisal.  The Commissioner's mandate covers approximately 400,000 public servants.  In addition, the PSDPA specifies that members of the public can come forward with information about a possible wrongdoing in the federal public sector.

The Commissioner conducts independent reviews and investigations of disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal in a fair and timely manner.  She issues findings and makes recommendations to chief executives for corrective action.  The Commissioner also exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the review, conciliation and settlement of complaints of reprisal.  This includes making applications to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal to determine if reprisals have taken place and to order appropriate remedial and disciplinary action.

The Commissioner has authority to provide public servants and any Canadian who may be considering making a disclosure of wrongdoing, access to legal advice valued up to $1,500 and up to $3,000 in exceptional circumstances.  Access to legal advice may also be extended to public servants who are considering making a complaint of reprisal to the Commissioner, and any person who is involved in an investigation or proceeding under the PSDPA.

The Commissioner submits an annual report to Parliament, and also reports to Parliament on cases of founded wrongdoing.  She may also submit special reports at any time to Parliament, Ministers or Boards of Directors of Crown corporations.

It should be noted that promoting integrity and protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoing are shared responsibilities.  Success in applying the PSDPA and achieving the Office's strategic outcome will come from the efforts of a large number of people working together.  It is only if everyone, the Office, Ministers responsible, Parliamentarians, central agencies, deputy heads, union leaders and all public servants play their part that success will be achieved.

The Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for establishing a code of conduct applicable to the entire public sector.  In addition, every chief executive is responsible for establishing a code of conduct for the portions of the public sector under their authority.  Each chief executive must also establish internal disclosure procedures and designate a senior officer responsible for receiving and dealing with disclosures made under the PSDPA by their employees (unless the chief executive has claimed an exception under Section 10 (4) of the PSDPA in which case all of their employee disclosures are to be managed by the Office).  With the exception of Section 10 (4) notices, public servants have the option to make a disclosure within their own organization, or make a disclosure to the Office.  Members of the general public may also disclose information with the Office.

More information about the Office's mandate, roles, responsibilities, activities, statutory reports and the PSDPA can be found on its website at www.psic-ispc.gc.ca.

Strategic Outcome and Program Activity Architecture

The Office has one strategic outcome that guides the pursuit of its mandate and reflects the long-term benefits sought for Canadians as demonstrated in the following chart.  The Office will review its strategic outcome, program activity architecture and performance management framework during 2010-11.

[D]

Planning Summary

Financial Resources ($ thousands)

Human Resources (Full-Time Equivalent—FTE)

*  Please refer to Section II Expenditure Profile for explanations relating to Forecast Spending in comparison with Planned Spending for future years.

Contribution of Priorities to the Strategic Outcome

The Office has one strategic outcome, and all of the following operational and management priorities contribute to the achievement of the strategic outcome.

Risk Analysis

The Office has a highly visible profile due to the sensitivity of its mandate.  As an Agent of Parliament, the Office operates in a highly dynamic environment that includes new and evolving expectations.  The Office is addressing these challenges while continuing to provide effective services.  A corporate risk profile has been developed.  It identifies and assesses risks of strategic importance.  Risk mitigation actions have also been identified, and these are being integrated with business planning and day to day program activities.

Information Security

Information security is critical in the context of disclosures, investigations and the need for preserving confidentiality.  Sensitive or private information must be protected from potential loss or inappropriate access in order to avoid potential litigation, damaged reputation and further reluctance in coming forward.  The Office has implemented many practices aimed at ensuring the security of information, which include briefing and confidentiality agreements, random information security checks within premises, controlled access for the storage of sensitive information, and a "threat risk assessment" of information management and information technology security was conducted.  A new Case Management System will also be implemented, resulting in strengthened access and security features.

Awareness of the Office's Mandate

Public servants and Canadians may be unaware of services provided by the Office, or may be reluctant to use such services.  Limited awareness and trust, in particular among public servants, can directly impact the Office's ability to achieve its mandate.  Public servants are less likely to make disclosures if they do not have a clear understanding of the services available or if they lack trust that they will be adequately protected.  To continue to create mandate awareness and further develop confidence, the Office is increasing its visibility using multiple communication channels, outreach initiatives, and partnering with key stakeholders and experts.

Internal capacity

Maintaining human resources, namely through attraction, development and retention of employees with adequate competencies, skills and experience is a demanding management responsibility.  The high mobility of skilled professionals and the greater impact of turnover on small organizations can create challenges for knowledge transfer, succession planning and corporate memory.  To ensure that human resources are maintained and further enhanced, the Office is reviewing its positions and classifications, and conducting a gap analysis of competencies and skills in relation to operational requirements.  Results of the review and gap analysis will be incorporated in the human resource management plan.  New procurement mechanisms may also be implemented for facilitating the use of external contractors, thereby resulting in enhanced organizational capacity and flexibility.

Expenditure Profile

For the 2010-11 fiscal year, the Office has spending authorities of $6.5M to meet the expected results of its program activities and contribute to its strategic outcome.

[D]

Explanations Relating to the 2009-10 Fluctuation in Spending Authorities

An amount of Spending Authority totalling $1.2M was reprofiled from 2009-10 to 2011-12, which explains the decrease in Spending Authority for 2009-10 and the corresponding increase in Spending Authority for 2011-12 from previously reported amounts.  This $1.2M reprofile represents expenditures that will materialize at a later time than initially anticipated.  These expenditures include additional office space, the implementation of a new Case Management System, and costs related to preparation for the independent review that will be conducted five years after the PSDPA came into effect, which was April 1, 2007.

Explanations Relating to Actual Spending Lower than Spending Authorities

The Office has spent less than initially anticipated since its creation in April 2007.  Differences between spending authorities and actual spending are mainly due to the complexities of trying to estimate resource requirements, program expenditures and case volumes in the context of a newly established organization.  Spending authorities were allocated on the basis of a fully established organization from the onset, whereas the Office was established on a more gradual basis than perhaps initially anticipated.  It is never possible to accurately predict volumes of enquiries and caseloads upon establishing a new organization.  Moreover, the Office has achieved efficiencies through shared service arrangements for many of its management processes and systems, namely financial, human resources and information technology.

Actual spending should increase in future years, as the Office continues to deal with inquiries and disclosures, and places greater emphasis on increasing awareness of its mandate through outreach and communication initiatives, implementing various components of a prevention strategy relating to wrongdoing, and determining possible measures for addressing systemic issues that could give rise to wrongdoing in the federal public sector as well as reprisal protection issues.  These and other planned initiatives will contribute to fostering a public service culture open to disclosure, and strengthening the Office's management practices and reputation as a trusted avenue for making disclosures and seeking protection from reprisal.  It should be noted that the PSDPA, as well as the Office's administration and operations will be reviewed as part of the independent review that will be conducted five years after the PSDPA came into effect, which was April 1, 2007.

Voted and Statutory Items

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page