(Quebec) Six years after the application of the law on whistleblowers, the fear of reprisals and the “culture of omerta” persist, concludes the Public Protector. The disclosure mechanisms also remain little known: one employee in two has never heard of them.
The Public Protector made public on Thursday the results of surveys carried out particularly within the public administration to measure the effects of the Act to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoing against public bodies, adopted in 2017 following the recommendations of the Charbonneau commission on the construction industry.
According to Marc-André Dowd, more than six years after the adoption of the law, there “still remains a lot to do in terms of the credibility” of the measures in place. While half of survey respondents say they trust the disclosure mechanism, another 13% fear being identified. More than 16% of people surveyed also say they fear being victims of reprisals after denouncing a reprehensible situation.
“For many, their workplace is under the influence of a “culture of secrecy”, where the duty of loyalty towards the employer is overvalued (sometimes heavily by the authorities) or presented as having precedence over that of the employer. report possible wrongdoing,” writes the Protector, who adds that these fears are most often expressed in the education and health sectors.
This is a recurring problem in the application of the law which provides that a “responsible for monitoring disclosures” (RSD) must be designated within each ministry to analyze the complaint and follow up on it. in complete confidentiality. However, it was shown in a report from the Secretariat of the Treasury Board, in 2020, that in several organizations, the bosses themselves handled denunciations.
This perpetuates silence and compromises the independence and impartiality of the processing of files, it was indicated. This fear persists, confirms the special report of the Public Protector, tabled Thursday in the National Assembly. “Trust in the disclosure mechanism may be compromised by the designation of an RSD, in some organizations, among the senior internal hierarchy,” writes Mr. Dowd.
The guidelines of the Secretariat of the Treasury Board and the Public Protector were however clear in this regard: the choice of a high-ranking person in the organization can dissuade whistleblowers from taking action.
Marc-André Dowd, public protector
“The impression of living in an environment hostile to whistleblowers comes up several times in the responses. According to people who share this impression, whistleblowers put themselves at high risk of being “hunted”, “tracked” and possibly punished, particularly if the denounced act involves a superior or a high-ranking manager,” relates Marc- Andrew Dowd.
According to data from the Public Protector, another 32% of RSDs are occupied by senior executives and 53% by managers, which is contrary to the spirit of the law. The Protector also requests that the power to process files be withdrawn from the RSDs.
The Public Protector conducted four separate surveys. The first was intended for staff members of organizations subject to the law (such as ministries and agencies), the second targeted staff of exempt organizations (council on the status of women, administrative tribunal of financial markets), the third was addressed the RSD directly and finally, the last one was offered to ethics respondents.
Unknown mechanisms
The exercise aimed at departmental employees demonstrated the extent to which disclosure mechanisms remain unknown, with 56% of respondents saying they had never heard of the law on whistleblowers. A total of 60% of those surveyed do not know if there is such a mechanism within their ministry while 74% do not know if a RSD is designated.
Furthermore, 86% of staff members of the organizations surveyed do not know that it is possible to make a disclosure directly to the Public Protector, which is nevertheless guaranteed by law.
The Press reported this fall that the President of the Treasury Board, Sonia LeBel, wants to reopen the law to correct its flaws. She plans to entrust all processing of disclosures to the Public Protector, as requested by the watchdog.
The first survey had a low participation rate of 24%, despite two waves of invitations, however, the Public Protector nuanced. In addition, a significant rate of abandonments was recorded along the way, as was a high proportion of ” [je] don’t know]” in the responses.
“Low participation rate, combined with high dropout rates and answer choice”[je] don’t know”, leaves me perplexed. It could reflect a lack of knowledge of the subject of the investigation, i.e. whistleblowing in the public service, or a discomfort in expressing themselves among certain respondents,” analyzes Mr. Dowd.