Annual Report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act 2007-08

Message from the President of the Canada Public Service Agency

As the policy centre for the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Canada Public Service Agency is pleased to provide this report on activities related to the Act as carried out by federal public sector organizations during 2007–08.

A great deal of progress has been made during the first year of the Act's implementation. Knowledge and understanding of the Act is spreading throughout the public sector, thanks to innovative communications activities and training for employees. We have also seen organizations take significant steps toward establishing their own codes of conduct. As this report shows, federal public sector employees have also begun to use the Act.

We are off to a strong start. In 2008–09, we will continue to support chief executives and their employees in building awareness of the Act and finding ways to facilitate its administration. We will also continue to provide organizations with leadership on values and ethics and work with stakeholders to promote ethical practices throughout the public sector.

The paper version was signed by

Nicole Jauvin, President Canada Public Service Agency

Summary

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) is a significant part of the Government's actions to increase the trust and confidence of Canadians in the public sector. While wrongdoing is rare in the Canadian public sector, it is important to have mechanisms in place that allow each case of suspected wrongdoing to be dealt with in a manner that maintains the confidence of Canadians, while allowing effective and efficient operation of public sector organizations.

The Act requires that public sector organizations report annually to the Canada Public Service Agency on activities related to disclosures made under the Act and that the Agency submit a report outlining these activities to the Minister for tabling in each House of Parliament. This is the first such report, and it presents an analysis of initial activities under the Act.

During the first year since the Act came into force, there has been a great deal of progress in implementation throughout the public sector. Organizations have taken significant steps to embody the key concepts of the Act in their activities, and are responding appropriately to allegations of wrongdoing. Likewise, public sector employees have responded by trusting and using the procedures established under the Act.

Nevertheless, more work remains ahead to ensure that all public sector employees are well informed of the protections provided by the Act, and that leaders at all levels clearly understand their responsibilities with respect to disclosure and, more generally, in promoting ethical practices in the workplace.

The Agency will continue to support implementation of the PSDPA and looks forward to the establishment of the new code of conduct for the federal public sector and related codes in federal public sector organizations.

Introduction

Section 38.1 of the PSDPA requires that the President of the Treasury Board annually table the following information in Parliament with regard to the activities respecting disclosures made in public sector organizations that are subject to the Act:

• the number of general inquiries relating to the Act;

• the number of disclosures received under the Act and whether they were acted upon;

• the number of investigations commenced;

• whether any systemic problems were found that lead to wrongdoing; and

• any other matter that the President of the Canada Public Service Agency deems necessary.

This document addresses these requirements and is divided into the following chapters:

• Overview – a background and outline of the Act and definitions of key terms.

• Promoting Ethical Practices: Implementing the Act – a summary of activities related to values and ethics in the public sector, in light of the Act's requirement that the President of the Treasury Board promote ethical practices in the public sector and a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoings.

• Reported Disclosure Activity – information about specific activities related to disclosures of possible wrongdoing reported by organizations subject to the Act.

• Analysis: Looking Back – an interpretation of reported activity under the Act in the context of other measures related to values and ethics.

• Conclusion: Looking Ahead – a summary of next steps related to implementation of the Act, situating those results among the principal objectives of the Act.

An appendix provides more detailed information reported by public sector organizations.

Overview

Background of the Act

The PSDPA represents a new phase in the movement to build greater trust in Canada's public sector. This movement first had clear expression in A Strong Foundation: Report of the Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics (best known as the "Tait Report"), released in 1996. The report included the recommendation that, as part of a proper ethics regime, "there must be means, consistent with public service values, for public servants to express concern about actions that are potentially illegal, unethical or inconsistent with public service values, and to have those concerns acted upon in a fair and impartial manner."

Following recommendations made in 2000 by the Auditor General on values and ethics in the Public Service, the Treasury Board adopted the policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace in 2001. This policy required organizations in the core public administration to establish procedures for reporting wrongdoing and created the position of Public Service Integrity Officer as a neutral third party for investigating alleged wrongdoing in the workplace. With the adoption of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service in 2003, the policy was reinforced by adding breaches of the Code to its definition of wrongdoing.

In 2003 and 2004, accompanying the Auditor General's release of her report on the Sponsorship Program, the reports of both the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and of a Working Group on the Disclosure of Wrongdoing recommended a new, legislated regime for the disclosure of wrongdoing in the federal public sector, including Crown corporations. The first version of the Act was introduced in Parliament on March 22, 2004. A revised version was introduced on October 8, 2004, while Parliament was also focusing attention on the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities (the Gomery Inquiry). After extensive study and amendment by Parliament, the Act received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005.

Parliament subsequently amended the PSDPA as part of the Federal Accountability Act and Action Plan. The amended Act came into force on April 15, 2007, and forms a key element of the values and ethics regime of the federal public service.

Outline of the Act

The Act is a significant part of the Government's actions to increase the trust and confidence of Canadians in the public sector. It establishes procedures for handling alleged wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal, and provides concrete support to a positive public sector culture that is grounded firmly in values and ethics. In doing so, the Act strikes a balance between the principle of freedom of expression and the duty of loyalty to the employer.

The Act encourages employees in the public sector to come forward if they have reason to believe that serious wrongdoing has taken place, and provides protections for them against reprisal when they do so. It allows any person to provide the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner with information about possible wrongdoing in the public sector. The Act also allows employees to make disclosures to their supervisors or to the Senior Officer designated for their organization, and created the Public Sector Disclosure Protection Tribunal to address alleged cases of reprisal. Through these provisions, the Act is expected to enhance the ability of organizations to identify and resolve incidents of wrongdoing, while supporting employees who disclose wrongdoing and protecting them from reprisal.

The Act requires allegations of wrongdoing to be treated with an appropriate degree of confidentiality. Organizations must protect any information they collect about disclosures, including the identities of those making disclosures and of others involved, subject to other Acts of Parliament and the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. In this way, the PSDPA provides a fair and objective process for those against whom allegations are made. The PSDPA amended the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act to ensure that information created for the purpose of making a disclosure or in the course of an investigation into a disclosure or reprisal complaint cannot be released under requests for information under either of those Acts. To balance these provisions with the need for transparency with respect to public sector wrongdoings, the Act requires chief executives and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to provide prompt public access to information that describes incidents of wrongdoing found as a result of disclosures made under the Act, and any corrective action taken as a result.

The establishment of procedures for handling alleged wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal are only one feature of the Act. More broadly, the Act supports a positive public sector culture that is grounded in values and ethics. It requires that the Government establish a new code of conduct applicable to the entire federal public sector, and that each public sector organization establish a code of conduct consistent with the public sector code. It also requires that the President of the Treasury Board promote ethical practices and a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoing in the public sector. Supported by these efforts, leaders in public sector organizations should model ethical leadership and inspire employees to make public sector values and ethics part of their everyday actions and decisions. Ultimately, the Act will help to sustain and support an ethical culture, thereby reinforcing the federal public sector as a workplace of choice.

The Act applies to most organizations in the federal public sector, which includes the core public administration, separate employers and parent Crown corporations. The Canadian Forces, the Communications Security Establishment and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are excluded, but the Act requires that these organizations establish comparable disclosure protection regimes.

Key terms

For the purposes of the Act, and of this report, public servant denotes every person employed in the public sector. This includes the deputy heads and chief executives of public sector organizations, but does not include other Governor in Council appointees (such as judges or boards of directors of Crown corporations), or parliamentarians or their staff.

The Act defines wrongdoing as any of the following actions in or relating to the public sector (it is not restricted to activities of public servants):

• the violation of a federal or provincial law or regulation;

• a misuse of public funds or assets;

• gross mismanagement in the public sector;

• a serious breach of a code of conduct established under the Act;

• an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health and safety of Canadians or the environment; or

• knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit a wrongdoing.

A protected disclosure is a disclosure that is made in good faith by a public servant:

• in accordance with the Act, to the public servant's immediate supervisor, Senior Officer or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner;

• in the course of a parliamentary proceeding;

• in the course of a procedure established under any other Act of Parliament; or

• when lawfully required to do so.

Furthermore, any person can provide information about public sector wrongdoing to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC).

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, co-operated in an investigation into a disclosure:

• any disciplinary measure;

• the demotion of the public servant;

• the termination of employment of the public servant;

• the taking of any measure that adversely affects the employment or working conditions of the public servant; or

• a threat to do any of those things or to direct a person to do them.

Each 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 request an exception under section 10(4) of the Act. In this case, disclosures related to the Act would be handled directly by the PSIC or the Senior Officer of a related organization.

A Senior Officer is the person appointed within each organization to receive and deal with disclosures made under the Act. Senior Officers have key leadership roles in the implementation of the Act in their organizations by:

• providing information and advice to employees and supervisors on the Act;

• receiving, recording and reviewing disclosures of wrongdoing; and

• leading investigations of disclosures and recommending to the chief executive measures that could be taken to correct any incidents of wrongdoing found.

The forthcoming code of conduct for the public sector will further define the duties and powers of Senior Officers.

Promoting Ethical Practices: Implementing the Act

Canada Public Service Agency

The Canada Public Service Agency is the policy centre for the Act and has been working on implementation of the Act since before it came into force. The Agency worked with the former Public Service Integrity Office to ensure that the necessary infrastructure was in place to establish the position and office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner as an independent Agent of Parliament. The Agency also led the establishment of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal and did the initial work to set up the Registry that supports the Tribunal. Both the Commissioner's office and the Tribunal's Registry were in place at the time the Act came into force, and the Commissioner and Tribunal members were appointed shortly thereafter.

Since the fall of 2006, the Canada Public Service Agency has provided briefings to chief executives, senior officers, key personnel and bargaining agents. The Agency also provided chief executives with communiqués and information for distribution to employees at the time the Act came into force.

The Agency realizes the importance of supporting Senior Officers designated under the PSDPA, and is committed to building and maintaining this key community. The Agency hosted seven two-day workshops for Senior Officers[2] and, throughout the year, has handled many of their questions related to the Act. The Agency also developed and delivered other learning and communications tools to help organizations in their implementation of the Act. This includes several technical guides, which were posted on the Agency's website before the Act came into force. The Agency has also provided ongoing policy support to organizations as they develop and implement their own internal procedures for managing disclosures and as they handle the first disclosures made under the Act. Supported by an implementation working group, the Agency continues to develop and update learning and communications products related to the Act.

The Agency continues to help federal public sector organizations to implement the Act and to build on initial successes so that the long-term objectives of the Act will be achieved. A central part of this implementation will be the Treasury Board's establishment of a code of conduct applicable to the public sector, as required by section 5 of the Act, to guide values and ethics in the federal workforce. The Act also requires that bargaining agents be consulted in the development of this code. In September 2006, the Human Resources Management Advisory Committee directed the Agency to commence work on the development of a code of conduct that would meet these requirements.

The Agency has begun consultations with public sector organizations and bargaining agents on a draft version of this code and expects to submit it for final approval in the spring of 2009. After that, the Agency will continue to provide expert advice and guidance to organizations as they work toward implementation.

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

Ms. Christiane Ouimet was appointed as the first Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and took office on August 6, 2007. Her office is now fully established and is receiving disclosures and reprisal complaints. She is also performing outreach throughout the federal public sector.

The Commissioner receives and investigates disclosures about potential wrongdoing in the federal public sector, as well as complaints of reprisal from federal public sector employees. The Commissioner may also investigate possible wrongdoing in response to information provided by any member of the public. As an Agent of Parliament, the Commissioner reports directly to Parliament, and complements the Agency's work in supporting organizations and Senior Officers as they establish internal disclosure procedures and handle disclosures.

While this report describes activities related to disclosures made in public sector organizations subject to the Act, the Commissioner is also required to report annually to Parliament on the activities of her office, including disclosures made directly to her. For more details, and an elaboration of the Commissioner's role under the Act, please see the Commissioner's first annual report, Inform. Protect. Prevent. Building Trust Together, which was tabled in Parliament on May 28, 2008.

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal

The inaugural members of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal were appointed on July 3, 2007, and the Tribunal is ready to hear cases of possible reprisal under the Act referred by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. The Tribunal currently consists of three Federal Court judges, the Honourable Richard Mosley, the Honourable Judith A. Snider, and the Honourable Luc Martineau. The Chairperson's position has been vacant since February 20, 2008, the date the Honourable Pierre Blais was appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal is supported by the Registry of the Tribunal. The Registrar of the Tribunal and the other staff of the Registry have been appointed under the Public Service Employment Act. The Registry has created processes for the handling of cases and, in consultation with all interested parties, has developed rules of procedure for the Tribunal. More information about the Tribunal can be found on its new website at www.psdpt-tpfd.gc.ca

Organizations subject to the Act

There are 153 active organizations in the federal public sector that are currently subject to the Act.[3] These organizations inform the Canada Public Service Agency of the appointment of Senior Officers under the Act. Among these organizations, 24 declared during the reporting period that, in accordance with section 10(4) of the Act, they would not establish internal disclosure procedures or appoint a Senior Officer as their organizational size made it impractical to do so. An additional 12 organizations had exercised the option under section 10(3) of the Act to have a Senior Officer from another organization.

Some organizations reported that their internal disclosure procedures are being finalized, or are already in place, though there is insufficient information available to determine the extent to which this requirement has been satisfied. The majority of organizations reported that they had delivered general communications about the Act to their employees, most commonly by e-mail and internal websites. Some organizations reported making presentations to employees about the Act, including some targeted specifically to senior management.

Many organizations reported having provided or developed some form of training on the Act, such as including information about the Act in employee orientation. Generally, organizations appreciate that training is an essential element of promoting the Act, and that such training must be provided to employees at all levels.

A significant number of organizations reported that they had begun work on an organizational code of conduct such as by performing risk assessments or holding consultations on existing or draft codes. Many of these organizations indicated that they will not finalize their organizational codes of conduct until Treasury Board has established the code applicable to the entire public sector. Some organizations, however, have gone ahead and established an organizational code of conduct as a code under the Act, which they will review after the public sector code is established. One such organization, Health Canada, reported that approximately half the disclosures made internally related to their organizational code of conduct, which may be a reason why they reported a relatively high number of disclosures (see Appendix).

Some other organizations deserve specific mention. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is currently undergoing a substantial renewal and change process, under the guidance of the RCMP Change Management Team. This team is responsible for developing and coordinating the RCMP Change Management Implementation Plan, which will include actions being taken to respond to recommendations of the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP. In this context, the RCMP has recently completed a comprehensive national stakeholder consultation, which has included senior management and the Change Management Team, to support the development of a sustainable internal disclosure process under the Act.

In consultation with the Agency, and as required by the Act, the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment have each begun work to establish internal disclosure procedures similar to those provided for in the Act. Each of these organizations is otherwise excluded from the requirements of the Act, due to their unique mandates. These organizations have been consulting with the Canada Public Service Agency and are expected to finalize their procedures in 2008–09.

As a whole, the details that organizations have provided on their activities to promote the Act demonstrate that there is a growing understanding of the Act and its requirements throughout the public sector. It is clear, however, that many organizations are still in the process of finalizing and promoting internal disclosure procedures. Furthermore, some anecdotal evidence suggests that many employees are not yet fully aware of the Act and its provisions.

A selection of best practices

Federal public sector organizations can learn a lot from one another about implementing the Act effectively, despite the diversity of their operational and organizational structures. In her first annual report, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner cited a variety of best practices that demonstrate "leadership in promoting integrity through prevention."

The following selection of best practices is drawn from information submitted in annual reports to the Agency as well as from information collected as part of Round V of the Management Accountability Framework assessments.

• At the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, all employees are required to acknowledge familiarity with the Act and its procedures as part of the annual performance-review process. Each employee is provided with information about the Act on the Annual Employee Performance Agreement, helping to ensure a very high level of awareness of the Act throughout the organization.

• The Canada Border Services Agency has established an Internal Disclosure Advisory Committee, made up of representatives from Internal Affairs, Internal Audit, Access to Information and Privacy, Labour Relations, Legal Services and Values and Ethics to support the Senior Officer in the analysis of the disclosure cases and to offer advice and guidance on the disclosure process.

• Many organizations reported including details about the Act in existing required training and orientation materials, and some have established specific training materials on the Act. For example, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has developed an online course on internal disclosure for all employees.

• Many organizations report having delivered numerous presentations on the Act throughout their organizations, including to senior management teams and in regional offices. For example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada delivered information sessions to each of its regional management committees and to employees at all-staff forums and provided additional training for supervisors. Organizations that reported giving presentations indicated that they generated a great deal of interest from their audiences and this represented a key activity in disseminating information about the Act.

• National Defence provides a manual on disclosure of wrongdoing to supervisors, managers and employees and covers information on the Act in workshops on risk management.

Reported Disclosure Activity

Section 38.1 of the Act requires that, within 60 days after the end of every financial year, each chief executive must prepare and submit to the Agency a report on the activities related to disclosures made to the Senior Officer or supervisors in his or her organization. The following is a summary of those reports.

Number of reporting organizations	153
Number of general inquiries relating to the Act[4]      Number of organizations that reported inquiries	259 35
Number of disclosures received according to the Act      Number of organizations that reported disclosures	234 30
Number of referrals resulting from a disclosure made in another    public sector organization	1
Number of disclosures received that were acted upon[5]	179 (76% of disclosures)
Number of disclosures received that were not acted upon[5]	50 (21% of disclosures)
Number of investigations commenced as a result of disclosures    received	87 (37% of disclosures)
Number of disclosures received that led to a finding of wrongdoing      Number of organizations that reported findings of wrongdoing	7 (3% of disclosures) 6 (4% of organizations)
Number of disclosures received that led to corrective measures[6]      Number of organizations that reported corrective measures	26 (11% of disclosures) 14 (9% of organizations)
Number of organizations that reported finding systemic problems    that give rise to wrongdoings	2 (1% of organizations)

Every organization that reported findings of wrongdoing under the Act, including those that reported a systemic problem that gave rise to wrongdoing, also reported subsequent corrective measures. In accordance with section 11(1)(c) of the Act, it is the responsibility of each organization to provide public access to information describing findings of wrongdoing and any follow-up action taken. This information is not repeated in this report.

Statistics on departmental reports of activities related to disclosures made under the Act are available in the Appendix.

Analysis: Looking Back

After one year of implementation, it is too early to draw firm or specific conclusions about activities related to disclosures made in public sector organizations under the Act. Organizations have been focusing their efforts on establishing internal disclosure procedures and communicating basic information about the Act to their employees. The Agency has observed that there are varying levels of awareness of the Act in different public sector organizations. Many organizations are still in the process of making their employees fully aware of the Act, its procedures and its protections. In particular, they must ensure that their managers are aware of their specific responsibilities under the Act.

While these efforts continue to raise awareness of the Act, the clearest indicator that the established procedures are being understood and their benefits appreciated is the disclosure activity reported by public sector organizations. Even these statistics must be carefully examined, however. The total number of disclosures is more than double what was typically reported under the policy on the Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace, but the frequency of disclosures is comparable because that policy applied only to the organizations in the core public administration and not to separate agencies or Crown corporations as the PSDPA does. Consequently, with more than double the number of employees covered (from 180,000 in the core public administration to nearly 400,000 in the public sector subject to the Act), employees appear as willing to disclose wrongdoing under the Act as under the former policy.

While this observation may seem not to reflect the increased protections provided by the Act, two other factors must be considered:

• The process of embedding the principles of the Act in each organization's operations and culture will take time. Employees must understand that procedures and protections are in place and trust that those procedures and protections are effective. As organizations continue to implement the Act, employees will better understand and appreciate the related principles and procedures. The establishment of a new code of conduct for the public sector and the corresponding organizational codes of conduct are expected to contribute to this effect.

• Even once there is broad awareness of the Act, it remains unlikely that there will be more than a small number of disclosures relative to the size of the public sector. Wrongdoing of the sort defined in the Act is rare: ethical behaviour is the norm in the public sector, and the information reported under the Act is consistent with this fact. Furthermore, as was the case under the former policy on internal disclosure, the majority of disclosures do not lead to the discovery of wrongdoing as defined in the Act. Many disclosures concern workplace matters such as interpersonal relationships with colleagues, harassment, labour relations or performance management. The Act is not intended to replace mechanisms already in place for these matters. Nevertheless, the fact that employees choose to disclose matters not related to wrongdoing is a sign that disclosure procedures are trusted and that supervisors and Senior Officers are seen as having an important leadership role in values and ethics.

Conclusion: Looking Ahead

The Clerk of the Privy Council has noted that too great a focus on wrongdoing and individual accountability risks "creating a government environment in which public servants are more concerned with not being accused of doing the wrong thing than with doing the right thing."[7] Accordingly, the Act must always be considered only one of the key elements that strengthen the culture and practice of values and ethics throughout the federal public sector and help sustain the federal public sector as a top employer.

The Agency is pleased that public sector organizations have reported extensive activity related to the Act: not only disclosures and investigations, but also the incorporation of the principles of the Act in training and overall messaging in support of public sector values and ethics. Much work remains, however. Public sector organizations must continue to communicate to their employees about the Act, its procedures and its principles. Employees must understand that "doing the right thing" includes reporting perceived wrongdoing appropriately, and that if they do, they are protected from reprisal. Furthermore, managers at all levels need to understand and appreciate their responsibilities under the Act. Leaders at all levels must embody the principles of the Act—ensuring that public sector employees act with integrity, that wrongdoing is handled efficiently and fairly and that reprisal is not tolerated—to reinforce the ethical culture of Canada's public sector. This requires a sustained effort.

The Agency will continue to assist public sector organizations in implementing the Act by supporting Senior Officers, improving and expanding communications and developing further knowledge about effective internal disclosure procedures and promotion. The Agency will also encourage organizations to balance messages about disclosures and reprisal protection with a positive emphasis on public sector values and ethics. In future years, we anticipate reporting that public sector organizations have not only fulfilled their responsibilities, but also taken proactive steps to further infuse public sector values and ethics into their organizational cultures. As public sector organizations further establish and refine their internal disclosure procedures, and as the Agency increases its understanding of the implementation of the Act, more detailed analysis should be possible in future reports.

Central to the Agency's work in 2008–09 will be work on the development of a new public sector code of conduct. We look forward to consultations across the public sector as we ensure that the new code not only embodies our long established values, but also anticipates renewal. We also look forward to supporting public sector organizations as they establish related codes of conduct applicable to their own organizations.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, in addition to protecting those who disclose, is about the ongoing promotion of ethical practices. It is ultimately intended to maintain and enhance public confidence in the integrity of public sector employees—something that we depend on if we are to continue to serve the Canadian public effectively.

Appendix

Summary of departmental activity related to disclosures made under the Act

A. Organizations reporting activity under the Act

Organization	General inquiries	Disclosures				investigations commenced	Disclosures that led to
		received	referred	acted upon	not acted upon		a finding of wrongdoing	corrective measures
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada	0	5	0	5	0	3	0	3
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	5	11	0	7	4	5	0	0
Canada Border Services Agency	5	26	0	22	4	1	0	1
Canada Council for the Arts	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation	3	1	0	1	0	1	1	1
Canada Revenue Agency	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	2	1	0	1	0	1	0	0
Canadian Commercial Corporation	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Canadian Food Inspection Agency	19	17	0	17	0	4	0	1
Canadian Heritage	5	2	0	2	0	0	0	0
Canadian International Development Agency	0	2	0	2	0	2	1*	1
Canadian International Trade Tribunal	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Canadian Space Agency	0	3	0	1	2	1	0	0
Citizenship and Immigration Canada	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Correctional Service of Canada	7	13	0	1	12	0	0	0
Environment Canada	2	6	0	5	1	2	0	2
Fisheries and Oceans Canada	26	9	0	9	0	4	1*	4
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada	0	6	0	5	1	2	1	1
Health Canada	18	15	0	9	1	8	2	2
Human Resources and Social Development
Canada	65	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada	0	5	0	2	3	1	0	0
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada	5	10	0	9	1	6	1	1
Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0
Industry Canada	3	7	0	7	0	0	0	0
Infrastructure Canada	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
International Development Research Centre	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	0
National Capital Commission	3	1	0	1	0	1	0	0
National Defence	17	27	0	12	15	3	0	0
Natural Resources Canada	5	7	0	2	5	2	0	2
National Research Council Canada	fewer than 10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Parks Canada	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Passport Canada	5	1	0	1	0	0	0	1
Public Health Agency of Canada	0	7	1	7	0	7	0	0
Public Service Commission of Canada	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Public Works and Government Services Canada	2	6	0	5	1	4	0	0
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Status of Women Canada	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Supreme Court of Canada, Office of the Registrar	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Transport Canada	14	3	0	3	0	3	0	1
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Veterans Affairs Canada	1	2	0	2	0	0	0	0
VIA Rail Canada Inc.	0	37	0	37	0	24	0	5
Western Economic Diversification Canada	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Totals	259	234	1	179	50	87	7	26

* This organization also reported a related systemic problem that has been addressed in the corrective measures taken as a result of the finding of wrongdoing.

B. Organizations that reported no activities related to disclosure in the reporting period

Assisted Human Reproduction Canada

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Atlantic Pilotage Authority

Bank of Canada

Blue Water Bridge Canada

Business Development Bank of Canada

Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation

Canada Development Investment Corporation

Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Canada Industrial Relations Board

Canada Lands Company Limited

Canada Post Corporation

Canada Public Service Agency

Canada School of Public Service

Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation

Canadian Air Transport Security Authority

Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety

Canadian Dairy Commission

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Canadian Forces Grievance Board

Canadian Grain Commission

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat

Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation

Canadian Museum of Nature

Canadian Polar Commission

Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission

Canadian Tourism Commission

Canadian Transportation Agency

Cape Breton Development Corporation

Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Copyright Board of Canada

Courts Administration Service

Defence Construction Canada

Department of Finance Canada

Department of Justice Canada

Director of Soldier Settlement

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

Energy Supplies Allocation Board

Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation

Export Development Canada

Farm Credit Canada

Financial Consumer Agency of Canada

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada

First Nations Statistical Institute

Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation

Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Canada

Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission

Indian Oil and Gas Canada

International Joint Commission (Canadian  Section)

Laurentian Pilotage Authority

Library and Archives Canada

Marine Atlantic Inc.

Military Police Complaints Commission

NAFTA Secretariat – Canadian Section

National Arts Centre Corporation

National Battlefields Commission

National Energy Board

National Farm Products Council

National Film Board of Canada

National Gallery of Canada

National Parole Board

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Northern Pipeline Agency

Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Office of the Chief Electoral Officer (Elections Canada)

Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs

Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages

Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner

Office of the Governor General's Secretary

Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists

Office of the Superintendent of  Bankruptcy

Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions

Pacific Pilotage Authority

Patented Medicine Prices Review Board

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration

Privy Council Office Public Appointments Commission Secretariat

Public Prosecution Service of Canada

Public Safety Canada

Public Sector Integrity Canada (Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner)

Public Sector Pension Investment Board

Public Service Labour Relations Board

Public Service Staffing Tribunal

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal

Registry of the Competition Tribunal

Ridley Terminals Inc.

Royal Canadian Mint

Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee

Security Intelligence Review Committee

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces

Standards Council of Canada

Statistics Canada

Statistics Survey Operations

Telefilm Canada

The Correctional Investigator Canada

The Director, The Veterans' Land Act

The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited

Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada

Transportation Safety Board of Canada

Veterans Review and Appeal Board

C. Organizations that do not have a Senior Officer or internal disclosure procedures as of the end of the reporting period, pursuant to section 10(4) of the Act

Blue Water Bridge Authority

Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal

Canadian Forces Grievance Board

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat

Canadian Museum of Nature

Canadian Polar Commission

Copyright Board of Canada

Financial Consumer Agency of Canada

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada

International Joint Commission (Canadian Section)

Laurentian Pilotage Authority

National Farm Products Council

National Gallery of Canada

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

Office of the Information Commissioner

Office of the Privacy Commissioner

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists

Patented Medicine Prices Review Board

Public Service Labour Relations Board

Registry of the Competition Tribunal

Registry of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal

Security Intelligence Review Committee

Telefilm Canada

D. Inactive organizations that are subject to the Act

Canada Emission Reduction Incentives  Agency

Canada Investment and Savings

Corporation for the Mitigation of Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts

Queens Quay West Land Corporation

---

[1] The Act applies to the organizations named on Schedules I-V of the Financial Administration Act and the Crown corporations and the other public bodies set out in Schedule 1 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

[2] In 2007, workshops took place on March 13-14, March 21-22, April 3-4 and June 5-6. In 2008, workshops took place on February 13-14, February 19-20 and March 26-27.

[3] This figure does not include the three organizations excluded from the definition of "public sector" in the Act (the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment) or the organization that requires an Order in Council to become subject to the Act (the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board). Special operating agencies are considered to be a portion of their parent organizations, with the exception of Passport Canada. There are four organizations that are not currently ­operational (Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency, Canada Investment and Savings, the Corporation for the Mitigation of Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts and the Queens Quay West Land Corporation).

[4] One organization reported "fewer than 10" inquiries, which are not included in the total number of inquiries.

[5] The sum of disclosures acted upon and not acted upon is five fewer than the total number of disclosures made. This is likely because decisions had not yet been made concerning whether to act on the remaining ­disclosures by the end of the reporting period.

[6] Some organizations reported corrective measures without having found wrongdoing or systemic problems. This is explained by the fact that some incidents or situations that do not fall under the definition of ­"wrongdoing" in the Act may bring to light minor issues that the organizations have addressed.

[7] Fourteenth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada, Canada: Privy Council Office, 2007, p. 12.