.

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE HAS APPEARED IN THE RECORD July 17, 2002

Canada's first public service
integrity officer

Some of you may remember a column I wrote in January 2000 entitled 'Time for whistle blower legislation" in response to the audit of the Human Resources Development Department. I had suggested that Canada should have the same type of legislation that is prevalent in the United States, where federal and state public-sector employees are protected whenever they blow the whistle on wrongdoings. My contention was that if, as taxpayers, we hoped to curtail the misuse of federal funding, the threat of employer retaliation must first be eliminated in order to encourage government employees to speak up.

At the time I wrote the column the only alternative for our federal employees was to leak the damaging information, which is in direct violation of their general duties of confidentiality and loyalty. Then in November, 2001, the Chrtien government introduced, via the President of the Treasury Board, a very important policy entitled 'internal disclosure of information concerning wrongdoing in the Workplace."

In conjunction with the policy, the Privy Council appointed my brother, Edward, as the first Public Service Integrity Officer (PSIO). During the term of his three-year contract he will be the "neutral, third-party agent" to whom federal civil servants are authorized to blow the whistle on wrongdoings within their department or agency. All that is required is that they believe in good faith that their disclosures cannot be raised in confidence within their organization or that they were not dealt with adequately by the new internal mechanism. Since the success of the policy will depend in large part on the PSIO's reputation and qualifications, my brother was an excellent choice. For one, "Ted" is no political hack and therefore is in an ideal position to project an image of neutrality and independence vis-a-vis a cynical bureaucracy and earn their trust. Before receiving the government nod, he was in the process of taking up writing within a comfortable retirement and didn't need the position.

Equally important, he has all of the right professional credentials having devoted his career to ethics and law issues particularly in the health sector. Prior to his retirement he was head of the Biomedical Ethics Centre in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University. In a nutshell, the government's new policy provides federal employees with two distinct alternatives when it comes to blowing the whistle on wrongdoings within the public service. Wrongdoings, incidentally, include a violation of any law or regulation, misuse of public funds, gross mismanagement and any substantial danger to the life, health and safety of Canadians or the environment.

The general rule is that the disclosure should be made internally. The external disclosure is the exception. Each department must designate a senior officer to whom an employee may disclose in good faith information concerning wrongdoings in his or her workplace. Subject to stringent disciplinary measures, the deputy heads must also ensure that employees who disclose information are treated fairly and are protected from reprisal.

Equally important, the policy provides for the external disclosure process to the PSIO to which I referred to earlier. When justified, the PSIO initiates an investigation of the disclosure by his staff investigators, which is followed by a report for the benefit of both the deputy head and the employee who raised the disclosure of wrongdoing. Seeing that the findings are apt to end up in the PSIO's annual report to the President of the Privy Council for tabling in Parliament, every deputy head will think twice before refusing to implement his recommendations.

If, on the other hand, the information disclosed by the employee concerns criminal activity, the PSIO is expected to refer it to the proper authorities for investigation. Among his other responsibilities, the PSIO must also investigate allegations of job reprisals linked to the allegations of wrongdoing and refer to them in his annual report. As much as the Chrtien government should be lauded for finally implementing a whistle blower policy that has yet to be fully tested, it still doesn't go far enough.


Not only should the policy have been confirmed by legislation, it should have covered all federal crown corporation employees as well. While there are important differences between the governmental structure of the United States and of Canada, the underlying values on whistle blowing are no different. The fact that Treasury Board President Lucienne Robillard believed that a law was not necessary has done little to appease the public service unions. Despite the number of allegations of wrongdoings and mismanagement that have already been disclosed to the office of the PSIO (by April the number had reached 48), the public unions have chosen to adapt a wait-and-see attitude.

Their verdict will very likely depend as much on the rapidity of the investigations as on their results. On the issue of the PSIO's institutional independence, much more will be required to eliminate any apprehension of government interference from a suspicious public. Although the Office of the PSIO takes no direction from the government and makes all of its own decisions, it fails to meet the level of institutional independence of the Auditor General or of the Ombudsman, to name only two. While both officials are answerable to Parliament and can only be removed by Parliament, the PSIO is appointed by an Order in Council and therefore may be removed by an order in council. Removal for cause by Parliament would help to protect the PSIO against any discretionary or arbitrary interference by the very people who are responsible for the appointment. Furthermore, it would reinforce in the eyes of the public the essential qualities of independence and impartiality, which every PSIO must aspire to.

Such values, together with their public perception are of particular importance when a PSIO is caught in the midst of a ferocious tug-of-war involving the government, unions, pressure groups, opposition members, the media and deputy heads. The ongoing war between Information Commissioner John Reid and Prime Minister Jean Chrtien, and his claim of excessive prime ministerial secrecy, is a good illustration of what can happen when the going gets tough.

Finally, a word of caution; my opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my brother who will have ample opportunity to express his own recommendations in his annual report, if not earlier.