Annual Report on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act 2008-09

Message from the Chief Human Resources Officer

I am pleased to present this report on activities related to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act as carried out by federal public sector organizations during 2008–09.

It is clear that organizations across the public sector have continued with effective implementation of the Act and that the Act’s reprisal protections have been effective in supporting public servants who make disclosures under the Act. The activity reflected in this report is a sign that the procedures established under the Act are contributing to integrity in public sector organizations.

Public service renewal was a high priority in 2008–09, and it remains a high priority in 2009-10. Work related to the codes of conduct required under the Act will continue to be an essential part of our activities. The importance of our public sector values cannot be overstated, especially in times of significant change.

We look forward to continuing to support chief executives in carrying out their responsibilities under the Act. At the same time, within our mandate as the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer for the Government of Canada, we will continue to provide leadership in values and ethics and promote ethical practices across the public sector.

Original signed by

Daphne Meredith, Chief Human Resources Officer
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Introduction

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) is a significant part of the federal 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 effective and efficient operation of public sector organizations and Canadians’ confidence in those organizations.

Section 38.1 of the PSDPA requires that the Chief Human Resources Officer prepare an annual report for the President of the Treasury Board to table in Parliament. The report must provide information on activities related to the disclosures made in public sector organizations that are subject to the Act, including:

• 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 Chief Human Resources Officer deems necessary.

This document, the second annual report under the PSDPA, covers these reporting requirements for the period of April 1, 2008, to March 31, 2009. It is divided into the following sections:

• Background—A brief summary of the purpose of the Act and its key concepts.
• Promoting Ethical Practices—A summary of activities related to the promotion of ethical practices in the public sector and a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoings, in light of section 4 of the Act.
• Reported Disclosure Activity—Information about specific activities related to disclosures of possible wrongdoing reported by organizations subject to the Act.
• Observations—An interpretation of reported activity under the Act in the context of other measures related to values and ethics, followed by a summary of next steps related to achieving the principal objectives of the Act.

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

Background

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act establishes procedures for handling alleged wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal and provides concrete support for grounding public sector culture firmly in values and ethics. Through its 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. For details of the origins and intent of the Act, please see the 2007–08 PSDPA annual report^[1] and the website of the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer.^[2]

Key terms

The Act applies to most organizations in the federal public sector, namely the core public administration, separate employers, and parent Crown corporations.^[3] The Canadian Forces, Communications Security Establishment Canada, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are excluded, but the Act requires that these organizations establish comparable disclosure protection regimes.

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 (wrongdoing is not restricted to the 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, as follows:

• in accordance with the Act and made to the public servant’s immediate supervisor, to the Senior Officer, or to 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.

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, employees of such organizations can make protected disclosures to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

The Senior Officer is the person appointed within each organization to receive and deal with disclosures made under the Act. The Senior Officer has a key leadership role in the Act’s implementation in the organization and is responsible for the following:

• providing information and advice to employees and supervisors about 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 code of conduct for the public sector, which is currently under development, will further define the Senior Officer’s duties and powers.

Scope of this report

This report includes information provided by public sector organizations related to disclosures made according to internal procedures established under the Act, as reported to the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer by the Senior Officer of each of those organizations. It does not cover disclosures or reprisal complaints made to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, which are counted in the Commissioner’s own report to Parliament.

Promoting Ethical Practices

Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO)

The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) came into being on March 2, 2009, as a consolidation of the Canada Public Service Agency and those parts of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat that dealt with compensation and human resources issues. Further to the 2008–09 Public Service Renewal Action Plan, the OCHRO’s mandate recognizes, supports, and creates the conditions for deputy heads to take full responsibility for people management in their organizations. The OCHRO is therefore the centre of leadership for the Act and continues to support the President of the Treasury Board in promoting ethical practices and a positive environment for disclosing wrongdoings, as required under section 4 of the Act.

The OCHRO provides advice and guidance on the PSDPA to chief executives and the appointed Senior Officers as they exercise their responsibilities under the Act. The OCHRO also continues work to establish a public sector-wide code of conduct, as required under section 5 of the Act. All public sector organizations have been consulted on this code, and more than 5,000 individual public servants have provided feedback on the possible content of the code. In addition, bargaining agents have been consulted. In 2009–10, the OCHRO will analyze the feedback received and produce a final draft of the code of conduct for consideration by Treasury Board. The code will be accompanied by an implementation strategy, which will be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders in the public sector. The code and its implementation strategy together will aim to strengthen the culture of integrity in the public sector.

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

As an Agent of Parliament, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has an independent function under the Act and reports directly to Parliament on her Office’s activities, including disclosures and reprisal complaints received. For more details, please see the Commissioner’s 2008–09 report, Inform. Protect. Prevent. Building trust together: A shared responsibility, which was released on April 29, 2009. More information may be found on the Public Sector Integrity Canada website at http://www.psic-ispc.gc.ca.

Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal has not yet heard any cases of alleged reprisal, which must be referred to the Tribunal by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. It stands to reason that there may be a lack of awareness concerning the legal protection against reprisals. In particular, many public servants who are fearful of the consequences of making a disclosure may not be aware of the full range of protection available to them, including that the Tribunal, composed of Federal Court judges, was established for the express purpose of protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoing against reprisals. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal has the power to grant remedies to public servants who experience reprisals and to order disciplinary action against managers who take reprisals against employees who disclose wrongdoing. Although several jurisdictions in Canada and abroad have disclosure regimes in place, none offers as much protection to public servants as Canada’s federal government.

More information about the Tribunal can be found on its website at http://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.^[4] These organizations inform the OCHRO of Senior Officer appointments under the Act. Pursuant to section 10(4) of the Act, 31 organizations have declared that they would not establish internal disclosure procedures or appoint a Senior Officer as the size of the organization made it impractical to do so.

This year as last year, which was the first year under the Act, many organizations have reported that information about the PSDPA is included in employee training materials and on internal websites and is delivered through presentations to managers and employees across the country. In addition to providing PSDPA communications to staff, a growing number of organizations reported that articles about disclosure are included in organizational newsletters and pocket- or wallet-sized cards with PSDPA information and contacts for making disclosures are distributed to employees. Many organizations also reported that some or all of their employees were consulted on the development of the code of conduct for the public sector, through employee focus groups for example, which resulted in the significant feedback to the OCHRO described above.

Progress was made in 2008–09 by the few organizations that have specific legal obligations under the PSDPA. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), as part of its work in response to recommendations made by the Task Force on Governance and Cultural Change in the RCMP, has officially recognized a Member’s disclosure to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, without prior internal disclosure, as fulfilling the Member’s obligations under the RCMP Regulations. This change allows RCMP members to choose among the same options for making a disclosure as other public servants. In the context of its renewal and change process, the RCMP is also continuing its extensive work to support PSDPA implementation, which includes national consultation on a PSDPA business process designed to support effective internal disclosure procedures and a trend analysis on recent concerns raised to the Office of the Ethics Advisor.

The Canadian Forces, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and Communications Security Establishment Canada, organizations otherwise excluded from the requirements of the Act because of their unique mandates, have continued their work to establish internal disclosure procedures similar to those contained in the Act. These organizations have been consulting with the OCHRO and expect to present their procedures to Treasury Board in 2009–10.

Adding to the selection of best practices described in last year’s PSDPA report, the following are best practices drawn from the annual reports submitted by public sector organizations to the OCHRO for 2008–09:

• The Bank of Canada has introduced an annual Disclosures of Wrongdoing Certification for designated senior managers, given in recognition of their awareness of the Bank’s legislated reporting requirements and to certify whether or not they have received any enquiries or disclosures under the PSDPA for the reporting period.
• The senior officer and the Director, Professional Practices and Corporate Services at the Canada Revenue Agency gave 37 presentations on the PSDPA and the Agency’s internal disclosure procedures to over 2,200 managers and staff across the Agency. In addition, all executives of the CRA had a commitment included in their accountability contracts for 2008‑09 to ensure that employees are aware of the PSDPA.
• Canadian Heritage increased employee awareness of the PSDPA by providing information and delivering presentations to specific groups in its regional offices, such as new employees, administrative assistants, and managers.
• Human Resources and Skills Development Canada has implemented an outreach strategy for delivering information and awareness sessions on the PSDPA in person and online, available to all employees and managers. In 2008–09, 40 sessions were held. Other PSDPA information sessions were also delivered to employees in regional offices, and more are planned for 2009-10.
• Passport Canada has created a new section on its intranet site called “Employees’ Corner,” which describes the various recourse mechanisms available for different workplace issues, including disclosures of wrongdoing.

5Reported Disclosure Activity

Section 38.1 of the Act requires each chief executive to prepare and submit to the OCHRO, within 60 days after the end of every fiscal year, 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 active organizations	153
Number of general inquiries relating to the Act*	186
Number of organizations that reported inquiries	28
Number of disclosures received according to the Act	181
Number of organizations that reported disclosures	27
Number of referrals resulting from a disclosure made in another public sector organization	2
Number of cases carried over based on disclosures made in 2007–08	25
Total number of disclosures handled in 2008–09 (new disclosures plus cases carried over and referrals)	208
Number of disclosures received that were acted upon	162
Number of disclosures received that were not acted upon	45
Number of investigations commenced as a result of disclosures received	60
Number of disclosures received that led to a finding of wrongdoing	6
Number of organizations that reported findings of wrongdoing	3
Number of disclosures received that led to corrective measures**	38
Number of organizations that reported corrective measures	13
Number of organizations that reported finding systemic problems that gave rise to wrongdoings	1

* One organization reported “5 to 10” inquiries, of which 5 are included in the total number of inquiries.
** 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 Act’s definition of “wrongdoing” may bring to light minor issues that the organizations have addressed.

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 paragraph 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.

Observations

In the more than two years that have passed since the PSDPA came into force on April 15, 2007, public sector organizations have done a great deal of work to establish their internal disclosure procedures, provide information about the PSDPA to their employees, and in many cases, handle internal disclosures made in accordance with the PSDPA. These essential steps should help increase awareness among public servants that making a disclosure in good faith is an ethical act and their trust that organizations will act with integrity in handling allegations of possible wrongdoing. More broadly, along with the establishment of a new code of conduct by Treasury Board and of internal codes of conduct by federal organizations, these steps aim to entrench public sector values more deeply in government organizations and enrich the public sector’s ethical culture.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine clearly the degree to which individual organizations may, through their PSDPA-related efforts, be achieving these goals. Clearly, a count of disclosures does not necessarily correlate with the steps taken by organizations to establish internal disclosure procedures and communicate those procedures to employees. As well, the disclosures reported by organizations account for only a small portion of disclosures made under protection of the Act. Protected disclosures made without invoking the PSDPA include those made to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, those made through procedures established under other Acts of Parliament, as well as those made by public servants to their supervisors, which are dealt with as part of good management.

The disclosures reported here nevertheless provide a useful snapshot of activity under the PSDPA and a measure of whether PSDPA processes are used by employees. Reported activity under the PSDPA, in combination with information about the consequences of disclosures, such as whether they led to corrective measures, also demonstrates whether disclosures are achieving one of the goals of the PSDPA, which is to encourage employees to come forward with information about possible wrongdoing. Disclosure activity in 2008–09 was significant. Every two days, a public servant made a disclosure using his or her organization’s internal disclosure procedures. About every ten days, a federal public sector organization implemented corrective measures as a result of a disclosure. This level of activity is encouraging. While serious wrongdoing is extremely rare in the federal public sector and ethical behaviour is the norm for public servants, internal procedures established under the PSDPA are nevertheless leading to the discovery of wrongdoings and to actions to correct them.

Looking forward, the substantial progress made in the first two years since the implementation of the PSDPA should not lead to complacency. Much work remains to be done.

• The results of the 2008 Public Service Employee Survey^[5] have confirmed the view that many public servants fear reprisal—a concern also raised by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner in her 2008–09 annual report. Though the survey did not ask specifically about disclosing wrongdoing, only 46 per cent of respondents agreed that they could initiate a formal redress process without fear of reprisal. It is clear that earning the trust of employees requires an increased effort by organizations and work focussed on public sector values and ethics.
• There continues to be varying levels of awareness of the Act in different public sector organizations. All public servants, regardless of their position and level, should know how to make a disclosure and how they are protected if they do so, and they should understand that if they have knowledge of possible wrongdoing, making a disclosure in good faith is the right thing to do. Ongoing communication of the basic elements of the PSDPA is therefore necessary, and public sector organizations should embed information about the PSDPA in the essential resource material available to all employees.
• Organizations, and particularly the Senior Officers appointed under the Act, need continued support as they ensure that the requirements of the PSDPA are fully met, especially because the relative infrequency of disclosures means that, except at the largest organizations, few Senior Officers devote all their time to handling PSDPA matters. As it undertakes its new mandate, the OCHRO will maintain its leadership role and continue to assist senior officers when necessary, while respecting the responsibilities of public sector organizations under the PSDPA.

Public sector values are reflected in the day-to-day activities of public sector organizations, from the most basic employee interactions to the most significant decisions of senior leaders. Further, the values of an organization are directly related to its ability to attract and engage employees who are committed to excellence in public service, a fact that will be considered by the Public Service Renewal Committee of Deputy Ministers and the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service. The codes of conduct required under the PSDPA are intended to embody these notions. The public sector-wide code of conduct will describe values in a general way so that they can be applied to all organizations, while organizational codes will translate those values into specific organizational expectations. In this way, it should be easy for employees to see how the high-level values translate into behavioural expectations relevant to their specific organizational mandate and culture.

Once established, these codes of conduct will provide a normative foundation for ethical culture in the federal public sector. They will reflect the values that have long defined public service in Canada and will also provide the public sector with a statement of the values and commitments that must be embodied in public sector work.

Following analysis of the feedback received from employees, organizations, and bargaining agents, the OCHRO anticipates the code of conduct for the federal public sector to be established in 2009–10. The establishment of this code, and the corresponding work organizations perform on their internal codes of conduct, will provide all public sector organizations with an opportunity to engage their employees in discussion about public sector values and the elements that support an ethical organizational culture, which include the following:

• a way to report observed violations without fear of reprisal (the procedures established under the PSDPA);
• a mechanism for employees to seek advice on ethical matters;
• training for all employees on code of conduct and ethics policies;
• a mechanism to discipline employees that violate the code or ethics policies; and
• evaluation of ethical behaviour as a part of regular performance reviews.

Ultimately, values and ethics are not separate functions or responsibilities independent from other aspects of work; they form the foundation of everything we do. Therefore, within its new mandate, the OCHRO remains committed to the promotion of public sector values.

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	carried over from 2007–08	acted upon	not acted upon		a finding of wrong-doing	corrective measures
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada	0	3	0	2	4	1	2	3	4
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited	1	27	0	2	29	0	7	0	4
Canada Border Services Agency	4	16	0	1	5	12	5	0	4
Canada Revenue Agency	15	6	0	0	4	2	1	0	0
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Canadian Food Inspection Agency	3	3	0	0	2	1	2	0	0
Canadian Heritage	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Canadian International Development Agency	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Canadian Space Agency	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Correctional Service Canada	0	4	0	0	1	3	0	0	0
Department of Justice Canada	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Environment Canada	5	7	0	2	9	0	7	0	8
Fisheries and Oceans Canada	5	14	0	5	19	0	3	0	5
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada	2	4	0	2	6	0	0	0	0
Health Canada	37	11	0	0	7	4	7	0	2
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada	4	16	0	0	12	4	0	0	0
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	0	0
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada	6	2	1	1	4	0	3	0	0
Industry Canada	0	16	0	0	16	0	0	0	0
Infrastructure Canada	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
International Development Research Centre	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Library and Archives Canada	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
National Capital Commission	3	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
National Defence	14	8	1	2	9	2	3	0	0
Natural Resources Canada	2	7	0	0	2	5	2	0	2
National Research Council Canada	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	0	1
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer (Elections Canada)	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Parks Canada	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Passport Canada	4	10	0	0	4	6	0	0	0
Privy Council Office	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	0
Public Health Agency of Canada	0	8	0	0	8	0	8	2*	3
Public Service Commission of Canada	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Public Works and Government Services Canada	20	5	0	2	7	0	5	1	0
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	8	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0
Status of Women Canada	5 to 10	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Transport Canada	13	3	0	1	3	1	2	0	2
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat	0	3	0	0	0	3	0	0	0
Veterans Affairs Canada	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1
Western Economic Diversification Canada	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1
Totals	186	181	2	25	162	45	60	6	38

* 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 Oppportunities Agency
Atlantic Pilotage Authority Canada
Bank of Canada
Blue Water Bridge Canada
Business Development Bank of Canada
Canada Council for the Arts
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation
Canada Development Investment Corporation
Canada Employment Insurance Commission
Canada Industrial Relations Board
Canada Lands Company Limited
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Canada Post Corporation
Canada School of Public Service
Canada Science and Technology Museum
Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety
Canadian Commercial Corporation
Canadian Dairy Commission
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Canadian Forces Grievance Board
Canadian Grain Commission
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
Canadian Museum for Human Rights
Canadian Museum of Civilization
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
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Copyright Board Canada
Correctional Investigator Canada, The
Courts Administration Service
Defence Construction Canada
Department of Finance Canada
Director of Soldier Settlement
Director, Veterans’ Land Act
Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec
Energy Supplies Allocation Board
Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation
Export Development Canada
Farm Credit Canada
Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, The
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission Canada
Human Rights Tribunal of Canada
Indian Oil and Gas Canada
Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission Secretariat
International Joint Commission (Canadian Section)
Laurentian Pilotage Authority Canada
Marine Atlantic Inc.
Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada
NAFTA Secretariat – Canadian Section
National Arts Centre Corporation
National Battlefields Commission, The
National Energy Board
National Farm Products Council
National Film Board
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 Canada
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs
Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada
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 Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada
Pacific Pilotage Authority
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Canada
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration
Public Appointments Commission Secretariat
Public Prosecution Service of Canada
Public Safety Canada
Public Sector Integrity Canada
Public Sector Pension Investment Board
Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal Canada
Public Service Labour Relations Board
Public Service Staffing Tribunal
RCMP External Review Committee
Registry of the Competition Tribunal
Registry of the Specific Claims Tribunal
Ridley Terminals Inc.
Royal Canadian Mint
Security Intelligence Review Committee
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces
Staff of the Supreme Court
Standards Council of Canada
Statistics Canada
Statistics Survey Operations
Telefilm Canada
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Veterans Review and Appeal Board
VIA Rail Canada Inc.

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

Assisted Human Reproduction Canada
Blue Water Bridge Canada
Canada Lands Company Limited
Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal
Canadian Dairy Commission
Canadian Forces Grievance Board
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat
Canadian Museum of Nature
Canadian Polar Commission
Copyright Board Canada
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada
Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada
Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission Canada
International Joint Commission (Canadian Section)
Laurentian Pilotage Authority Canada
National Farm Products Council
National Gallery of Canada
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada
Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner
Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Patented Medicine Prices Review Board
Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal Canada
Public Service Labour Relations Board
Public Service Staffing Tribunal
Registry of the Competition Tribunal
Security Intelligence Review Committee
Telefilm Canada
Transportation Appeal Tribunal of 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
First Nations Statistical Institute

---

[1]. /ve/pda0708-eng.asp

[2]. /ve/pda-eng.asp

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

[4]. 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 Communications Security Establishment Canada) 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 part 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 First Nations Statistical Institute).

[5]. /pses-saff/2008/index-eng.asp