Government Operations Committee on Oct. 9th, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Hello, everyone. Welcome back.

We are at meeting number seven of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Welcome back, Ms. Solloway and Mr. Radford. We have you in for the hour for a briefing and update. We'll start with a five-minute opening statement from you.

The statement as well as other supporting documents have been distributed in both languages to the committee.

We look forward to your testimony today.

Please go ahead.

[Harriet Solloway, Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm grateful for the opportunity to address the committee today.

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada is an impartial investigative and quasi-judicial decision-making body. As an agent of Parliament, the office works in the public interest to expose major wrongdoing in the federal public sector.

It investigates disclosures of alleged wrongdoing, such as gross mismanagement and serious breaches of codes of conduct, as well as alleged reprisals suffered by public servants who take the brave step of coming forward.

At the end of each investigation, often involving 20 or more witnesses, and after careful analysis of the facts and the law, I render a quasi-judicial decision that is subject to judicial review. Investigation reports of 80 pages are not uncommon, and decisions often exceed 30 pages.

This work is accomplished by nine lawyers, who also have other duties including in-house counsel, as well as six investigators and three team leaders. With the support of the legal team, four admissibility analysts provide me with recommendations on questions of admissibility. My decisions on admissibility are also subject to judicial review.

Since 2023, the office has seen a sustained increase in submissions. No plateau is in sight. Small budget increases in 2024 have allowed us to increase output, but our funding falls far short of needs. For example, thus far in 2025, I have rendered approximately 350 admissibility decisions on some 800 allegations, more than the 327 submissions received in all of 2024.

Despite increased productivity, we continue to fall behind as new submissions far exceed the completion rate. Currently, we have nearly 300 active files including approximately 66 investigations into 163 allegations.

In 2024, following investigations, I rendered reasoned decisions on 56 separate allegations.

For both disclosures of wrongdoing and reprisal complaints, I cannot overstate the importance of providing whistle-blowers, respondents and other parties with reasoned decisions based on thorough investigations, regardless of whether or not there's a finding of wrongdoing. That is at the heart of our raison d'être and is critical in maintaining trust in our public institutions. Whistle-blowers must be able to see that their concerns are our concerns and that no stone is left unturned.

With our current level of funding, there is a risk that some allegations may never see the light of day. Consequently, my office is preparing to submit a request for urgently needed support.

As an independent agent of Parliament, I have the duty to highlight to you, members of Parliament, that the current budget process has the potential to place my independence at risk. I appeal for a review of that process.

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, or PSIC, budget requests are submitted through the President of the Treasury Board and then the Minister of Finance, before submission to the Treasury Board for consideration. This process opens the door to public servants' having significant influence over the timing and substance of what is ultimately presented to the Treasury Board, and then to Parliament. As PSIC has jurisdiction over public servants in these departments, this can create a real or apparent conflict of interest.

To be clear, I am not alleging that any public servant has acted inappropriately, yet the risk and the possible perception are clear.

Respectfully, it is my view that to protect not only the independence of the office but also the appearance of independence, Parliament itself should determine the office's budget.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act notes that it is “in the public interest to maintain and enhance public confidence in the integrity of public servants”.

The act is one of the many vital checks and balances to enhance public confidence, and delays in investigations not only impact the quality of those investigations but can also have a negative effect on the confidence in the federal public sector.

We owe all Canadians a duty to expose wrongdoing. At the same time, we owe every person who places their trust in us, including those who were themselves accused of wrongdoing, an impartial and timely outcome based on the serious consideration of all the facts.

I thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and welcome any questions that you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much, Ms. Solloway.

We'll now start with Mrs. Block for six minutes, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Ms. Solloway, to you and your colleagues for joining us today to share with our committee the role of your office, your mandate and some of the pressures you find yourself under.

You shared some information in your opening statement today, and the numbers are somewhat alarming in terms of your ability to keep up with the pressure. I think you said in your comments that there is no plateau in sight. The numbers just keep adding up.

With those comments in mind and taking all of that into consideration, do you believe that your office is able to fulfill its mandate?

[Harriet Solloway]

Yes, but not as efficiently and effectively as I'd like.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I believe there is a risk that there could come a time when there may be allegations that do not see the light of day.

We are working diligently to make sure that doesn't happen, but, at this point in time, I cannot guarantee that we will be able to get to everything.

We haven't given up yet, and, as I mentioned, we are going to be asking for increased support, but there is a very real risk that we will not be able to deal with all the cases before us.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

I'm taking a look back at your opening comments. Did you provide us with the average length of time it takes you to render a decision on a complaint that's been submitted?

[Harriet Solloway]

I did not.

I believe that we are currently looking at some cases awaiting a decision on admissibility that are, give or take, a year old. As late as last month, I was looking at 14 months, but I think we might have it down to 12 months now.

If you want a definitive answer, I'd have to get back to you on that.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

You may not be able to answer this question, but what actually happens for that individual who has launched a complaint and is waiting to find out if it's admissible? Do they simply go back to the work they've been doing and wait for a response from your office?

[Harriet Solloway]

It's important to highlight that there are two tracks.

We have submissions that are disclosures of wrongdoing or information indicating that there might be wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing; then we have complaints of reprisal against somebody who might have submitted an alleged disclosure.

With respect to the reprisals, under the statute we're required to provide an answer within 15 days, and we do that.

Anybody who alleges that they've been reprised against will receive a response within 15 days as to whether we're going to be investigating it. The time it takes to investigate, however, is a completely different story.

On the disclosure side, it's about letting potential.... There are a number of different implications to that. One is that, if there is something to the disclosure, if it's something that should be investigated, it is allowed to fester for that much longer. If it is the kind of conduct that could be.... For example, in a recent case I had, which is available on our website, there was a person in a very senior capacity who was a serial harasser for a long period of time. That was wrongdoing. If we don't get to something like that, obviously people continue to suffer over a longer period of time.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute claims that our laws protect wrongdoers more than whistle-blowers.

Can you comment on that?

[Harriet Solloway]

I'm not really sure what they mean by that. I would have to ask them what they meant by that.

In order to arrive at a finding of wrongdoing, there has to be evidence on a balance of probabilities. I'm only guessing now, but it may be that some perceive that to be tipping the scales in favour of the respondent in the cases. If we have some information or some indication, but not on a balance of probabilities, I could not, under the law, come to a conclusion that there has been wrongdoing.

It is possible that some people perceive that to be tipping the scales in favour of an alleged wrongdoer. At the same time, principles of natural justice apply and due process applies. The balance of probabilities is the test that I am required to apply.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Of the 15 recommendations that were tabled by the committee in 2017, how many have been adopted and are currently part of your office now?

[Harriet Solloway]

I'm going to have to refer that question to Brian Radford, as I was not around in 2017.

Go ahead, Brian.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to have to interrupt because that is the end of our time. Perhaps we can get to that answer in the next round, or perhaps you can provide that to us in writing.

We will now go over to Ms. Rochefort for six minutes, please.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Madam Solloway and Mr. Radford.

I would like to ask a few questions.

In your letter, you say that it is your view that to protect the independence of the office, it should come to Parliament for the budget.

In relation to that, I noted that they list online all of the offices of the ombudsman. Your office is included. The Integrity Commissioner is included. I think there are about 15 different ones—the Canada Post ombudsman, the National Capital Commission ombudsman, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and so on. You are included in that list of what they say are similar organizations within the public service. That's how they positioned it.

How would you define the differences between the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the other ombudsman offices that are listed on the public sector website?

[Harriet Solloway]

I'm not aware of that website. I'm happy to address the differences between ombuds and what we do.

There is an exception to this, but mostly speaking, it is not our role to mediate disputes or look for a mutually agreeable solution when we're dealing with disclosures. I'll talk about reprisals in a moment because it's a bit different.

In terms of disclosures, they are disclosures of wrongdoing. People are coming forward saying that they have evidence and there's enough to say that there is something untoward going on. We investigate that with a view to getting to a point where we can have accountability for that wrongdoing, if indeed there is wrongdoing. The discloser is not personally involved in the disclosure, even if they might be one of the persons in the event, depending on what the nature of the disclosure is.

On the reprisal side, we have a mechanism whereby we can offer conciliation to the parties, but we actually don't do that. We typically get the services of an objective conciliator, who takes it off-line, and we see whether they can reach an agreement.

For the most part, there's a fundamental difference. They want to see issues resolved between parties. Our mandate is to find wrongdoing if it exists and to ensure that there is accountability. It's a very different mandate.

I'm not sure if I've explained it very well. Brian can do a much better job from a legal standpoint, for sure.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

That's an excellent description.

At the same time, the ombudsman offices look at services of government that are provided by public servants. Public servants would say that for them, it is important that there be some impartiality in terms of budgets.

Would that be a fair statement?

[Harriet Solloway]

I would have to look at the specific mandates of the organizations.

I would add one other thing. It's not even that we look at wrongdoing. In terms of the definition of wrongdoing under the act, it's critical to understand that it's the type of wrongdoing that is of an order of magnitude that could shake public confidence in the public sector. It is not every wrongdoing that somebody could perpetrate; it is a wrongdoing that has so much import.... Those are the types of things that we investigate, as opposed to individuals' issues, which typically ombudspeople do.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

My next question is in the area of funding and the budget.

I come from the world of the municipal sector. I understand it's not quite the same, but there are some similarities from the perspective that we know that there have been quite a few complaints in Ontario at an integrity commissioner level.

The CBC had an excellent interview late last fall in which they said that, due to “a lack of provincial oversight and standardized processes, taxpayers can be footing 'excessive billing'” overall with respect to integrity commissioner complaints and files that are being investigated. In fact, they describe Ontario's local ethics watchdog system as “a cash cow in [the] Wild West,” because of the need for reform in that particular environment.

For me, it's about trying to understand what's reasonable at a federal level when we talk in terms of budget. I was just trying to compare. For example, I tried to compare it with provincial integrity commissioners, but they're difficult to find. I found, for example, that the City of Toronto has an integrity commissioner. You have a budget of $6 million, which will increase to almost $8 million, for 419 files. For example, in that same year of comparison, 2023-24, their budget was about $800,000 for 280 direct inquiries.

I'm just trying to understand. I know these are somewhat apples and oranges—I understand that—but how do we get to what is a reasonable budget? That, for me, is the concern of a budget coming to a parliament versus within a treasury board, where they would have standards to compare and evaluate.

What would be your comment with respect to that?

[Harriet Solloway]

It's apples to oranges. The mandates are completely different. It is not because we have the word “integrity” in our titles that there is in any way a parallel or—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Ms. Solloway, but we've reached our six minutes.

Perhaps you could provide a more fulsome response in writing, or perhaps the next time we go to the Liberal side.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Yes, of course.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll now go to Ms. Gaudreau, please, for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you for those details, Ms. Solloway.

What is the collateral damage of not having the necessary resources to do your work effectively and meet expectations?

[Harriet Solloway]

Without sufficient resources, there is a risk that some allegations may never be investigated. Some investigations might take so long that those involved, whether it's the person who brought forward the complaint, the whistle-blower or the person accused of wrongdoing, find themselves in a difficult position. Being accused of something and waiting for the situation to be resolved is not easy.

I'll give you an example. We investigated a case in which contaminated water had leaked into the ground at the Matsqui Institution. The report is on our website, if you're interested. When it takes too long to resolve cases like this, the delays can end up causing more harm.

Each case has its own consequences, but the biggest challenge when you lack resources is convincing the public that there's enough oversight of federal institutions to make sure everything's in order. I think it can undermine the public's confidence in public institutions.