Survey Results of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act Review Task Force

Who were respondents likely to discuss this situation with?

Survey respondents were asked to whom they would talk if they witnessed someone belittling a colleague or dismissing their ideas. Figure 9 indicates how likely or unlikely respondents would be to discuss this situation with each resource, listed as categories (a) to (g). The proportion of respondents selecting each option (very likely, somewhat likely and so on) appears in different colours, as shown below.

Figure 9 - Text version

I would discuss this situation with:
(3,493 respondents)

Choice	Very likely	Somewhat likely	Neutral	Somewhat unlikely	Very unlikely	Total
a) my colleague who made the comments to point out their impact	22.82% 786	41.03% 1,413	13.15% 453	15.10% 520	7.90% 272	3,444
b) my colleague(s) whose ideas are being belittled/dismissed	37.47% 1,284	42.08% 1,442	10.59% 363	5.66% 194	4.20% 144	3,427
c) my supervisor	28.56% 988	40.19% 1,390	13.21% 457	10.67% 369	7.37% 255	3,459
d) other colleague(s)	10.24% 345	29.63% 998	22.03% 742	19.95% 672	18.14% 611	3,368
e) my union	3.94% 132	7.94% 266	17.07% 572	22.35% 749	48.70% 1,632	3,351
f) my organizational Ethics/Ombuds Office	2.40% 81	7.46% 252	17.47% 590	24.93% 842	47.73% 1,612	3,377
g) my Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) office	2.90% 98	8.65% 292	18.77% 634	23.33% 788	46.34% 1,565	3,377

The “Total” column in this figure shows the number of respondents who selected each option; the numbers on each line differ because not all respondents selected every option. The results in Figure 9 show that:

• almost 80% reported that they would likely reach out to the colleague who was the subject of the belittling or dismissive behaviour, a result that demonstrates an impressive willingness to support colleagues
• 69% reported that they would likely discuss the incident with their supervisor
• 64% reported that they would likely discuss this situation with the colleague responsible for the belittling or dismissive behaviour to point out the impact of their behaviour, a very positive finding with close to two thirds of respondents reporting a willingness to intervene in this situation

Forty percent of respondents reported that they were likely to discuss this situation with other colleagues, and 12% said that they would likely discuss it with their union. The same proportion (12%) said that they would likely discuss it with the ethics or ombuds office of their organization, and 10% said that they would likely reach out to their Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) group.

If belittling behaviour continued, to whom would respondents report?

The survey results in Figure 10 reveal that if the colleague’s belittling or dismissive behaviour continued, the number of respondents who would likely report this misconduct to their supervisor increases from 69% to 87%. Respondents reported that their use of other avenues, such as union representatives, the ethics or ombuds office, or ICMS office, would also increase, as shown below.

Figure 10 - Text version

If my colleague continues their belittling/dismissive behaviour, I would report my concern(s) to:
(3,496 respondents)

Choice	Very likely	Somewhat likely	Neutral	Somewhat unlikely	Very unlikely	Total
a) my supervisor	58.53% 2,038	28.78% 1,002	3.76% 131	3.50% 122	5.43% 189	3,482
b) other colleague(s)	11.52% 384	29.31% 977	20.43% 681	19.50% 650	19.23% 641	3,333
c) my union	6.86% 230	11.55% 387	19.15% 642	22.82% 765	39.62% 1,328	3,352
d) my organizational Ethics/Ombuds Office	7.47% 253	16.11% 546	19.21% 651	21.45% 727	35.76% 1,212	3,389
e) my Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) office	8.47% 287	17.18% 582	18.57% 629	19.63% 665	36.16% 1,225	3,388

In this scenario:

• 41% reported that they would likely report their concerns to other colleagues
• 24% would report them to their ethics or ombuds office
• 26% would report them to their ICMS office
• 18% would likely reach out to their union

The totals shown at the end of each line in the table in Figure 10 represent the number of responses received for each of the resource options. The percentages in each column reflect the proportion of responses associated with each option (very likely, somewhat likely, neutral and so on).

What should happen if an investigation found improper behaviour?

If an investigation determined that there was improper behaviour, respondents were asked what they thought should happen; they were able to select more than one option. The numbers in the “Frequency” column in the table in Figure 11 show how many respondents selected each option.

Figure 11 - Text version

If an investigation finds continued improper behaviour, what do you think should happen? Assume they have no recorded discipline.
(3,496 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Nothing	0.63%	22
My supervisor should talk with my colleague	75.20%	2,629
Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) intervention	47.85%	1,673
Respectful workplace training	70.31%	2,458
Verbal reprimand	48.40%	1,692
Written reprimand	46.54%	1,627
Other	6.04%	211

The “Total” number on the bottom line represents the number of respondents who completed the question, not the sum of numbers in the “Frequency” column. The survey results show that if the behaviour continued:

• 75% of respondents thought that their supervisor should talk to the colleague who behaved improperly
• 70% thought that the colleague should receive training on respectful workplaces
• 48% thought that a verbal reprimand should be given, the same percentage who thought that ICMS should be used
• 47% thought that a written reprimand should be issued
• less than 1% of respondents thought that nothing should be done in this situation

Overall, most respondents chose a supportive approach to dealing with this continued disrespectful behaviour, although many chose a disciplinary approach (for example, 48% for a verbal reprimand and 47% for a written reprimand). Of the 6% of respondents who selected the “Other” category, responses also revealed remedial and disciplinary options. Some suggestions were unique; they included:

• tools, training and mentorship
• apologies to those affected
• restorative justice approaches to address behaviour and rebuild trust
• the clear communication of expectations and consequences

These responses reflect a balanced view between punitive and supportive measures. The feedback underscores the importance of context, clear communication and transparency in handling continued improper behaviour in the workplace.

What would happen if an investigation found improper behaviour?

In contrast, respondents were asked what they thought would happen if an investigation found improper behaviour. Figure 12 illustrates their responses.

Figure 12 - Text version

If an investigation finds continued improper behaviour, what do you think would happen? Assume they have no recorded discipline.
(3,491 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Nothing	16.81%	587
My supervisor would talk with my colleague	61.01%	2,130
Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) intervention	27.64%	965
Respectful workplace training	38.21%	1,334
Verbal reprimand	31.74%	1,108
Written reprimand	28.53%	996
Other	4.84%	169

The results show that:

• the majority of respondents (61%) thought that their supervisor would talk with the colleague, down from 75% who thought they should
• the next most popular choice was that the colleague would receive training on respectful workplaces (38%), down from 70% who thought they should
• 32% thought a verbal reprimand would be given, less than the 48% who thought one should be given
• 29% thought a written reprimand would be given, compared to 47% who thought one should be given
• slightly fewer respondents (28%) thought that intervention with the ICMS team would occur
• 17% of respondents thought that nothing would be done

The 4.8% of respondents who selected the “Other” category expressed skepticism about meaningful consequences in comments such as “nothing happens” and reported that management often fails to take appropriate action, leading to a culture where misconduct is tolerated. They also expressed that management often protects individuals in positions of power, leading to a culture of impunity. They emphasized the importance of transparent processes and accountability.

The feedback from respondents who selected the “Other” category highlights the following:

• a pervasive belief that management often fails to act decisively against misconduct
• the need for:
  • clearer disciplinary processes
  • greater accountability
  • clear communication about the outcomes of investigations
  • a shift in workplace culture to ensure that all employees feel safe and respected

Who were respondents likely to discuss this situation with?

In the case of more serious misconduct, where a colleague regularly makes racist remarks despite various interventions, respondents’ choice of parties is illustrated in Figure 13.

Figure 13 - Text version

I would discuss this situation with:
(3,494 respondents)

Choice	Very likely	Somewhat likely	Neutral	Somewhat unlikely	Very unlikely	Total
a) the colleague making the remarks	27.96% 927	27.12% 899	10.65% 353	16.53% 548	17.74% 588	3,315
b) our supervisor	54.45% 1,858	28.17961	5.30% 181	5.33% 182	6.74% 230	3,412
c) other colleague(s)	19.76% 639	30.83% 997	18.46% 597	14.69% 475	16.26% 526	3,234
d) my union	9.89% 323	13.11% 428	19.30% 630	19.45% 635	38.25% 1,249	3,265
e) my organizational Ethics/Ombuds Office	13.41% 445	22.15% 735	17.26% 573	16.15% 536	31.03% 1,030	3,319
f) my Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) office	12.02% 394	18.82% 617	19.46% 638	17.44% 572	32.27% 1,058	3,279
g) a higher official in my organization, other than the Senior Officer for Disclosure	11.10% 365	15.88% 522	18.58% 611	20.16% 663	34.28% 1,127	3,288
h) my organization's designated Senior Officer for Disclosure	10.07% 332	16.77% 553	18.71% 617	18.71% 617	35.75% 1,179	3,298
i) the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC)	5.58% 182	9.11% 297	20.27% 661	20.64% 673	44.40% 1,448	3,261

These results show that:

• 83% of respondents indicated that they were likely to discuss this situation with their supervisor
• 55% reported that they would likely speak to the colleague who made the remarks
• 51% would likely discuss the situation with other colleagues
• 36% reported that they were likely to contact their ethics or ombuds office
• 31% said that they would consult their ICMS team
• the same number of respondents selected the “higher official” and “senior officer for disclosure” options (both 27%)
• 23% of respondents would likely reach out to a union
• only 15% said that they would discuss it with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

The totals shown at the end of each line in the table in Figure 13 represent the number of responses received for each of the resource options. The percentages in each column reflect the proportion of those responses associated with each option (very likely, somewhat likely, neutral and so on).

The survey results clearly show that in a situation of more serious misconduct, employees would be much more likely to talk to their supervisor about it than anyone else. They would also be less likely (9% less) than in Scenario 1a to speak with their colleague who made the remarks, suggesting that the more serious the misconduct, the less willing witnesses might be to intervene. However, the number who would intervene in this way is still quite significant, at 55%.

What should happen if an investigation found improper behaviour?

Figure 14 illustrates the options chosen by respondents in a situation where an investigation determines that allegations of improper behaviour were founded.

Figure 14 - Text version

If an investigation found improper behaviour, what do you think should happen? Assume they have no recorded discipline.
(3,494 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Nothing	0.60%	21
Our supervisor should talk again with the colleague	55.72%	1,947
Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) intervention	46.11%	1,611
Further equity, diversity, and inclusion training	63.88%	2,232
Verbal reprimand	40.56%	1,417
Written reprimand	70.72%	2,471
Suspension	42.16%	1,473
Dismissal	13.71%	479
Other	3.32%	116

The results show that:

• the most favoured option chosen to address the ongoing racist behaviour, selected by 71% of respondents, is a written reprimand
• 64% of respondents suggested that further equity, diversity and inclusion training should be required
• 56% felt that the supervisor should talk to the colleague again

The remaining options were selected by fewer than 50% of respondents:

• 46% thought that an ICMS intervention should occur
• 42% thought that the colleague should be suspended
• 41% thought that a verbal reprimand was in order
• 14% thought that the colleague should be dismissed

Of those who selected the “Other” category, their responses reflect a balanced view between punitive and supportive measures. Although some respondents suggest discipline should involve a written reprimand, many believe that the person’s actions should result in suspension without pay or dismissal. Others suggest supportive measures such as:

• additional training (particularly in respectful workplace behaviour and leadership skills)
• mentorship to correct behaviours, especially for supervisors
• apologizing to those affected
• restorative justice frameworks, including facilitated discussions to address the impact of the behaviour and rebuild trust

The need for nuanced approaches that consider the context was also mentioned (for example, the specific circumstances and individuals involved) with the nature and severity of the improper behaviour dictating the response.

Respondents who selected the “Other” category also mentioned:

• the need for transparency
• holding individuals accountable while providing opportunities for improvement
• clear communication on expectations and consequences to demonstrate a commitment to values and to deter future misconduct

What would happen if an investigation found improper behaviour?

Figure 15 illustrates public servants’ responses when asked what they think would happen if this situation occurred in the workplace. Many respondents favoured the option of a written reprimand for what should happen, while significantly fewer respondents believed this would happen.

Figure 15 - Text version

If an investigation found improper behaviour, what do you think would happen? Assume they have no recorded discipline.
(3,484 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Nothing	11.31%	394
Our supervisor would talk again with the colleague	56.06%	1,953
Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) intervention	29.56%	1,030
Further equity, diversity, and inclusion training	48.68%	1,696
Verbal reprimand	34.76%	1,211
Written reprimand	39.32%	1,370
Suspension	19.58%	682
Dismissal	7.18%	250
Other	3.21%	112

It is noteworthy that 11% of respondents thought that nothing would happen if the allegations of improper behaviour were deemed to be founded.

The results also showed that:

• the second-highest percentage of respondents (56%) indicated that what would happen is that their supervisor would talk to the colleague again, similar to 56% who thought this should happen
• 49% indicated that further equity, diversity and inclusion training would be the likely organizational response, compared to 64% who thought it should happen
• 35% thought that a verbal reprimand would occur, compared to 41% who thought one should occur
• 39% thought that a written reprimand would occur, compared to 71% who thought one should occur

Of the 3.2% who selected the “Other” category, results indicated a deep-seated skepticism regarding the effectiveness of disciplinary actions in response to improper behaviour; many also expressed doubts that any significant action would be taken. In addition, some believed that the consequences of improper behaviour vary significantly based on the person’s position within the organization and that individuals in higher positions often evade consequences, leading to a culture of impunity. Representative comments include:

• the need for “progressive disciplinary measures”
• “the person would likely be moved to another position with little to no consequence”
• “it would depend on who the person is, the higher the position the more likely nothing would happen”

Their responses are a clear call for systemic changes to ensure accountability and support for those who report misconduct.

What should happen if an investigation found improper behaviour?

Figure 17 illustrates how respondents answered when asked what they think should happen if an investigation found improper behaviour by the supervisor.

Figure 17 - Text version

If an investigation found improper behaviour, what do you think should happen? Assume they have no recorded discipline.
(3,484 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Nothing	1.55%	54
My supervisor's manager should talk with my supervisor	77.18%	2,689
Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) intervention	26.81%	934
Further management training	67.94%	2,367
Verbal reprimand	44.58%	1,553
Written reprimand	43.86%	1,528
Other	6.00%	209

These results indicate that:

• more than three quarters of respondents (77%) believed that the supervisor’s manager should talk to them about it (although nearly 20% fewer respondents thought that this would happen, as shown in the next section)
• 68% thought that additional management training should occur
• 45% selected “verbal reprimand”
• 44% selected “written reprimand”
• 27% thought that an ICMS intervention was appropriate
• only a small fraction of respondents (less than 2%) thought that nothing should happen.

Of the 6% who selected the “Other” category, there were strong calls for accountability. Many of these respondents felt that continued improper behaviour should lead to significant disciplinary actions, including suspension without pay and “immediate dismissal” for severe cases, reflecting a desire for a zero-tolerance policy in response to this misconduct on the part of a manager.

The feedback also demonstrated clear concerns about favouritism and nepotism, with many calling for systemic changes to ensure fairness in hiring and promotion practices. Although some people advocated for additional management training, respondents expressed skepticism about its effectiveness in addressing deep-rooted issues.

What would happen if an investigation found improper behaviour?

Figure 18 provides results for what respondents thought would happen if an investigation found improper behaviour by the supervisor.

Figure 18 - Text version

If an investigation found improper behaviour, what do you think would happen? Assume they have no recorded discipline.
(3,476 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Nothing	24.25%	843
My supervisor's manager would talk with my supervisor	57.85%	2,011
Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) intervention	18.07%	628
Further management training	37.77%	1,313
Verbal reprimand	28.14%	978
Written reprimand	22.93%	797
Other	3.34%	116

The results show that:

• the majority of respondents (58%) thought that their supervisor’s manager would talk to their supervisor, compared to 78% who thought this should happen
• 38% thought that further management training would be the organizational response, compared to 68% who thought it should be
• 28% thought that a verbal reprimand would occur, compared to 45% who thought one should occur
• 24% thought that nothing would happen, compared to only 2% who thought that there should be no action taken in this situation, revealing a significant disparity
• 23% thought a written reprimand would be given compared to 44% who thought one should be given
• 18% thought that ICMS intervention would follow the misconduct, compared to 27% who thought it should

Among the 3.3% responses in the “Other” category, there was an overarching sense of disillusionment regarding the handling of improper behaviour. Many respondents believed that little to no action would be taken against those who have engaged in improper behaviour. A representative response was “Nothing happens – this type of behaviour seems to be the norm now.”

Many also expressed concerns about potential reprisals for those who report misconduct. Representative comments included:

• “employees would face gaslighting, stalking-type behaviour”
• “the complainant would be removed, demoted, or pressured to resign”

Those who provided feedback in the “Other” category also told us that misconduct is often overlooked or inadequately addressed, leading to a culture of fear and favouritism. Although there are calls for accountability and serious consequences, the prevailing sentiment is one of skepticism about the effectiveness of existing processes.

Who were respondents likely to discuss this situation with?

This scenario involves a senior leader who yells at, belittles and ostracizes people, and who is known for giving contracts to friends and inappropriately expensing extravagant lunches. Figure 19 displays results for who respondents would reach out to in this serious misconduct situation.

Figure 19 - Text version

I would discuss this situation with:
(3,493 respondents)

Choice	Very likely	Somewhat likely	Neutral	Somewhat unlikely	Very unlikely	Total
a) my supervisor	44.59% 1,509	24.82% 840	6.24% 211	8.19% 277	16.16% 547	3,384
b) other colleague(s)	35.41% 1,167	32.25% 1,063	10.74% 354	7.89% 260	13.71% 452	3,296
c) my union	17.30% 566	16.90% 553	16.14% 528	14.58% 477	35.09% 1,148	3,272
d) my organizational Ethics/Ombuds Office	22.69% 757	23.53% 785	13.55% 452	12.50% 417	27.73% 925	3,336
e) my Informal Conflict Management Services (ICMS) office	11.20% 361	13.03% 420	17.87% 576	18.46% 595	39.44% 1,271	3,223
f) a higher official in my organization, other than the Senior Officer for Disclosure	14.59% 476	14.68% 479	16.92% 552	16.68% 544	37.12% 1,211	3,262
g) my organization's designated Senior Officer for Disclosure	16.76% 554	16.73% 553	16.25% 537	15.43% 510	34.83% 1,151	3,305
h) the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC)	12.46% 404	13.23% 429	18.97% 615	16.84% 546	38.49% 1,248	3,242

The results illustrate that:

• 69% of respondents reported that they were likely to discuss this situation with their supervisor
• nearly the same proportion (68%) said that they would likely discuss it with other colleagues
• 46% reported that they would likely talk to their ethics or ombuds office
• the proportion of respondents who would reach out to a union or the senior officer for internal disclosure is the same, at 34% for each
• the next highest-rated choice was a higher official (29%)
• 26% would contact the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
• 24% would contact the ICMS office

What should happen if an investigation found improper behaviour?

Figure 20 shows what respondents think should happen if an investigation found improper behaviour by the senior leader.

Figure 20 - Text version

If an investigation found improper behaviour, what do you think should happen? Assume they have no recorded discipline
(3,493 respondents).

Choice	%	Frequency
Nothing	0.66%	23
Senior management should talk with this senior leader	65.22%	2,278
Reassignment to another portfolio	21.87%	764
Written reprimand	63.44%	2,216
Suspension	50.39%	1,760
Senior leader resigns	29.92%	1,045
Dismissal	39.54%	1,381
Other	4.52%	158

The results indicate that:

• about two thirds of respondents (65%) believed that senior management should talk to the senior leader about it
• slightly fewer (63%) thought a “written reprimand” should be given
• half of respondents (50%) selected “suspension”
• 40% of respondents thought that “dismissal” was appropriate
• 30% thought that the senior leader should resign
• only 22% of respondents thought that the senior leader should be reassigned to another portfolio
• less than 1% felt that nothing should happen

Of the 4.1% of respondents who selected the “Other” category, the results reveal a strong consensus that continued improper behaviour should lead to significant disciplinary actions, including suspension and dismissal. There was clear concern about favouritism and nepotism within the organization, with many calling for systemic changes to ensure fairness in hiring and promotion practices. In addition, some respondents advocated for supportive measures to help employees get the assistance they need. Overall, the responses highlighted the urgent need for a transparent and accountable workplace culture.

What would happen if an investigation found improper behaviour?

Respondents selected a range of responses to this scenario, as shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21 - Text version

If an investigation found improper behaviour, what do you think would happen? Assume they have no recorded discipline.
(3,480 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Nothing	19.57%	681
Senior management would talk with this senior leader	52.82%	1,838
Reassignment to another portfolio	38.74%	1,348
Written reprimand	31.12%	1,083
Suspension	19.71%	686
Senior leader resigns	12.07%	420
Dismissal	13.16%	458
Other	3.94%	137

The results are as follows:

• the majority (53%) thought that senior management would talk to their supervisor, compared to 65% who thought they should
• 39% thought that the senior leader would be reassigned to another portfolio, compared to 22% who thought they should
• 31% thought that a written reprimand would be given, compared to 63% who thought one should be
• 20% of respondents thought that the senior leader would be suspended, compared to 50% who thought they should be
• the same proportion (20%) thought that nothing would happen, compared to only 2% who thought that there should be no action taken in this situation
• a smaller proportion indicated that the leader:
  • would be dismissed (13%), compared to 40% who thought they should be
  • would resign (12%), compared to 30% who thought they should

Among the nearly 4% of responses in the “Other” category, a common sentiment was that little to no action would be taken against a senior leader. Many responses indicated a belief that a “senior leader resigns but simply gets a job at another department,” and many expressed concerns about potential reprisals for those who report misconduct. They advocated for serious consequences for such misconduct, reflecting a desire for a more ethical workplace. There were also calls for training on communication, harassment and ethical behaviour.

In conclusion, the survey results on the four scenarios revealed a significant gap between what respondents thought should happen and what they thought would happen in these situations regarding handling of improper behaviour within the organization. Although there are calls for accountability and serious consequences, the prevailing sentiment is one of skepticism about the effectiveness of existing processes. The responses highlight the urgent need for systemic changes to foster a more accountable and transparent workplace.

Does the culture support voicing concerns and reporting serious misconduct?

Figure 22 provides results regarding respondents’ views on their organization’s support for voicing concerns.

Figure 22 - Text version

How much does that culture support voicing concerns?
(3,438 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Fully	10.18%	350
Largely	21.06%	724
Moderately	26.24%	902
Slightly	20.42%	702
Not at all	22.11%	760
Total	100%	3,438

The results indicate that:

• only 31% of respondents believe that their workplace culture fully or largely supports voicing concerns
• 42% believe that their workplace does not support it at all or supports it only slightly
• 26% define their workplace’s support as moderate

Figure 23 illustrates respondents’ views on their organization’s support for reporting misconduct.

Figure 23 - Text version

How much does that culture support reporting serious misconduct?
(3,421 respondents)

Choice	%	Frequency
Fully	13.10%	448
Largely	21.72%	743
Moderately	25.90%	886
Slightly	19.79%	677
Not at all	19.50%	667
Total	100%	3,421

The survey results indicate that:

• 35% of respondents believe that their workplace culture fully or largely supports reporting serious misconduct
• 40% believe that their workplace does not support it at all or supports it only slightly
• 26% characterize their workplace’s support as moderate

The results align with the overarching theme among respondents that their workplace culture reflects a challenging and, in many cases, a psychologically unsafe working environment.

Transparency and reporting mechanisms

• Transparency and accessibility: Respondents emphasized the need for clear and accessible reporting mechanisms. They want to know how to report misconduct and what the processes entail. They reported that transparency in these processes builds trust and encourages reporting.
• Communication: Open lines of communication are necessary for fostering a culture of trust. Regular updates on the status of reported concerns can help employees feel valued and heard.

Psychological safety and support

• Psychological safety: A recurring theme was the importance of psychological safety. Respondents expressed a desire for an environment where they can voice concerns without fear of retaliation. They reported that safety is crucial for fostering open communication.
• Supportive environment: A supportive culture was characterized by management that actively encourages employees to report concerns. This includes regular training and reminders about the importance of reporting misconduct.

Accountability and ethical leadership

• Accountability: Respondents reported that accountability at all levels was essential. They wanted to see that misconduct is addressed appropriately, with clear consequences for those found culpable. This included disciplinary actions that are visible and communicated to the workforce.
• Leadership by example: Respondents mentioned that senior management must model the behaviour they wish to see. They also indicated that leaders should openly discuss the importance of ethical conduct and demonstrate a commitment to addressing misconduct.

Impartial investigations and training

• Impartial investigations: Many respondents highlighted the necessity for investigations to be conducted impartially and thoroughly. There was a strong call for independent bodies to handle allegations of misconduct to ensure fairness.
• Training and education: Respondents reported that regular training on ethical standards and reporting procedures is vital. They also suggested they should be educated about their rights and the processes available to them.

Fear and safety concerns

• Fear of retaliation: A prevalent concern among respondents is the fear of reprisals for reporting misconduct. Many believe that coming forward could jeopardize their careers, leading to a culture of silence.
• Support for whistleblowers: Respondents called for stronger protections for whistleblowers, emphasizing that those who report misconduct should feel safe and supported throughout the process.

Accountability and reporting mechanisms

• Accountability and consequences: There was a strong call for greater accountability for both employees and management. Respondents expressed frustration over the perception that senior officials often escape consequences for misconduct.
• Need for clear reporting mechanisms: Many respondents highlighted the lack of clarity regarding how to report misconduct as well as the processes involved. They expressed a demand for more accessible and straightforward reporting channels.

Cultural change and training

• Cultural change: A significant number of responses indicated a desire for a cultural shift within the public sector, emphasizing the need for transparency, integrity and ethical leadership.
• Training and awareness: There was a consensus on the need for ongoing training regarding misconduct reporting and the ethical standards expected within the public sector.

Feedback from other respondents

Although the number of respondents who were not currently public servants (former public servants, contractors and members of the public) was small, we believe that the following main points are worth sharing when it comes to their experiences of the public sector culture:

• Former public servants provided a mixed representation of the public sector culture. The negative aspects included:
  • the presence of bullying and harassment
  • a hierarchical structure that limits engagement
  • fear of reprisal impacting the reporting of wrongdoing
  • lack of accountability for dealing with misconduct and nepotism
  • a disconnect between the leadership and employee realities

The positive aspects included the existence of respect, professionalism, transparency and open communication in some workplace environments.

• Contractors indicated that the public service culture varies significantly across organizations:
  • although many organizations work to protect and improve public interests, some suffer from dysfunction due to personal agendas and siloed working, which negatively impacts teams and project success
  • low morale, inexperienced employees, lack of leadership competencies, uneven work distribution and unfair treatment of consultants were the main issues they reported within workplace environments
  • misconduct at higher levels erodes public trust and negatively impacts the willingness to raise concerns
• Among members of the public, a variety of key aspects, both positive and negative, were indicated, reflecting a multifaceted public sector culture:
  • in some cases, the culture represented a supportive environment with an emphasis on collaboration, diversity and mutual respect
  • in other instances, the culture included excessive bureaucracy, unqualified managers, harassment and distrust, and an avoidance of unanticipated negative news

“Other” category

Results under the “Other” category indicated common themes of:

• fear of reprisal
• lack of trust in official reporting channels
• a preference for direct confrontation or external advice

Many respondents who added feedback in this category also emphasized the importance of documenting information to protect themselves.

“Other” category

The respondents who selected the “Other” category underscored the importance of creating a supportive and transparent environment for whistleblowers, leading to a healthier workplace culture overall and contributing to employees’ willingness to report serious misconduct.

Respondents who reported serious misconduct

We wanted to further explore the reasons why respondents who had witnessed and subsequently reported serious misconduct had reported the behaviour. The following key themes emerged from the input of 775 respondents.

• Ethical responsibility: Many respondents reported a strong sense of ethical duty and personal integrity. They felt that it was the right thing to do to uphold the values and ethics of their organization.
• Protection of others: Many respondents were motivated to protect their colleagues from experiencing similar issues. They wanted to prevent further harm and create a safer work environment.
• Personal impact: A number of respondents reported the misconduct because it directly affected them, causing stress, anxiety or other negative impacts on their mental health and well-being.
• Desire for change: Many respondents hoped that reporting misconduct would lead to positive changes within their organization, such as improved policies and accountability and a more respectful workplace culture.
• Fear of reprisal: Some respondents expressed fear of retaliation or negative consequences for reporting misconduct, which sometimes deterred them from coming forward sooner.

Feedback on how the serious misconduct was handled

We wanted to know whether respondents who had reported serious misconduct were satisfied with what happened after they reported. The following key themes emerged based on 783 responses:

• General dissatisfaction: A predominant theme was a dissatisfaction with the handling of reports. Many respondents felt that their concerns were not taken seriously, which led to feelings of frustration and betrayal. Common responses included phrases such as “nothing happened,” “management ignored my report” and “the perpetrator faced no consequences.”
• Lack of transparency and communication: Many respondents expressed a lack of communication regarding the outcomes of their complaints. Respondents often reported feeling left in the dark about any actions taken, which contributed to a sense of being unheard. For example, one respondent noted, “I still don’t know if the risk was even worth taking,” highlighting the uncertainty surrounding the reporting process.
• Fear of retaliation: A number of responses indicated a fear of reprisals for speaking up. Individuals reported feeling isolated or targeted after making their complaints, which discouraged future reporting. Phrases such as “I was labelled a troublemaker” and “I faced reprisals” were common, illustrating the chilling effect of a lack of protective measures.
• Some positive outcomes: Although many expressed dissatisfaction, some respondents reported positive outcomes. A few noted that their reports led to meaningful changes, such as the removal of problematic individuals or improvements in workplace conditions. For instance, one respondent mentioned, “I was satisfied because the issues were looked at objectively,” indicating that not all experiences were negative.
• Cultural issues: The responses highlighted systemic issues within organizations, such as a culture that protects wrongdoers, particularly those in positions of power. Many felt that senior management prioritized maintaining the status quo over addressing misconduct. Comments such as “management protected each other” and “the old boys’ club” reflect a pervasive culture that undermines accountability.

Respondents who did not report the serious misconduct

Survey respondents were asked, to the extent that they were comfortable and willing to say, why they did not report the serious misconduct they had witnessed. The key themes that emerged from the 554 responses are provided below.

Reporting mechanisms and procedures

• Anonymous reporting options: Many respondents recommended more robust anonymous reporting options to help alleviate fears of retaliation and ensure confidentiality.
• Clear and simple reporting procedures: Respondents emphasized the need for clear, simple and straightforward reporting procedures. Complicated processes can deter individuals from reporting misconduct.

Support and protection

• Support systems: Respondents highlighted the need for better support systems, including counselling and legal support, for those who report misconduct.
• Protection against retaliation: The need for stronger protections against retaliation was frequently mentioned. Respondents wanted assurances that they would not face negative consequences for reporting misconduct.

Training and transparency

• Training and awareness programs: There were numerous suggestions for regular training and awareness programs to educate employees about the reporting process and the importance of reporting misconduct.
• Transparency and accountability: Many respondents called for greater transparency and accountability in handling reports of misconduct. They wanted to be informed about the actions taken in response to their reports.

Suggestions for improving current mechanisms and processes for reporting serious misconduct

Respondents were asked to provide comments or suggestions for improving current mechanisms and processes for reporting serious misconduct. The common themes and suggestions from the 1,424 respondents are provided below.

Feedback from other respondents

The following key points come from former public servants and contractors who indicated their views on familiarity with the disclosure process and their experiences as witnesses of serious misconduct:

• Over 50% of former public servants who responded indicated that they were familiar with the disclosure process; however, 39% of them were not at all familiar with it. Over 60% had witnessed serious misconduct, and the majority had reported the incident. Among those who reported, the common reasons for reporting included:
  • a sense of duty and justice
  • the importance of protecting the team’s and their own well-being
  • the severity of the misconduct

  The overall sentiment related to the handling of the misconduct was negative, as the majority did not believe that the person who committed the misconduct was properly held accountable. Some individuals had also suffered reprisals.

• Contractors indicated that their familiarity with the process was minimal. In cases where they had witnessed misconduct and reported it, they were dissatisfied because of the reprisals they subsequently experienced.
• Overall, respondents’ strategies for improving these processes reflect the themes identified above by current public servants such as proper accountability, protections and supports.

Feedback on how the reprisal was handled

Survey respondents who reported a reprisal were asked if they were satisfied with what happened after their report. An overview of the 288 responses is provided below.

Respondents who did not report the reprisal

Survey respondents who did not report the reprisal were asked, to the extent that they were comfortable and willing to say, why they did not report the reprisal they had witnessed or experienced. The key themes from the 667 responses are provided below.

• Fear of reprisal: A significant number of respondents did not report reprisals due to fear of further retaliation. This fear was often based on past experiences or observations of others facing negative consequences after reporting.
• Lack of trust in the system: Many respondents expressed a lack of faith in the reporting system, believing that nothing would be done or that the system was biased in favour of management.
• Lack of evidence: Some respondents felt they did not have enough concrete evidence to support their claims, making them hesitant to report.
• Impact on career: Concerns about potential negative impacts on their careers, such as being sidelined, losing opportunities or being blacklisted, were frequently mentioned.
• Management involvement: In many cases, the individuals responsible for the reprisals were in positions of power, making it difficult for respondents to find a safe and impartial avenue to report the issues.

Confidentiality and oversight

• Confidentiality and anonymity: Many respondents emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality and providing anonymous reporting options to protect disclosers from reprisals.
• Independent oversight and reporting mechanisms: There was a strong call for independent bodies to handle reports of misconduct and reprisals, ensuring unbiased investigations and decisions.

Support and legal frameworks

• Support services: Respondents suggested providing comprehensive support services – including legal aid, counselling and career guidance – to help disclosers navigate the reporting process and any subsequent challenges.
• Legal and policy frameworks: Suggestions included strengthening legal protections and ensuring clear, accessible policies and procedures for reporting misconduct and handling reprisals.
• Monitoring and follow-up: Respondents recommended implementing mechanisms for regular follow-up with disclosers to ensure they are not experiencing reprisals and to provide ongoing support.

Education and cultural change

• Education and training: Regular training and awareness programs were recommended for all employees, including management, on the importance of whistleblowing, the protections available and the consequences of reprisals.
• Cultural change: Recommendations included building a workplace culture that supports honesty, inclusion and openness, and that actively discourages misconduct and reprisals.

Strengthening reporting and protection mechanisms

Strengthening reporting mechanisms

• Establish centralized and independent reporting systems outside individual organizations to reduce fear of retaliation.
• Provide multiple reporting channels (online, phone and in person) and ensure that procedures are clear and accessible.

Protecting whistleblowers

• Reinforce legal protections and prohibit all forms of retaliation.
• Offer guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality throughout investigations.
• Provide comprehensive support services for victims of retaliation, including legal aid, counselling and career guidance.

Accountability and transparency

Accountability and consequences

• Hold senior officials accountable for their actions and decisions related to misconduct.
• Include accountability in performance management assessments for senior officials.
• Ensure that those who engage in reprisals face appropriate consequences.

Transparency and communication

• Implement standardized procedures for investigations and follow-ups across all organizations.
• Mandate clear communication of investigative results while respecting confidentiality.
• Publish anonymized reports on misconduct cases to foster public trust.

Education and cultural change

Education and training

• Provide continuous education and training for all employees, including upper management, on accountability, trust, confidentiality, professionalism and the importance of protecting whistleblowers.

Cultural change

• Promote a culture of transparency, ethical conduct and open communication.
• Encourage senior officials to lead by example and demonstrate a commitment to addressing wrongdoing.

Acting on existing advice

• Ensure that federal organizations act on the advice and suggestions that have been provided over the years in various reports.

Transparency and communication

• Many respondents emphasized the need for better communication and transparency about the roles and processes of central offices such as OCHRO, TBS and PSIC.
• Suggestions included regular updates, clear guidelines and public reporting on the outcomes of investigations.

Training and support for whistleblowers

Training and education

• There was a strong call for comprehensive training programs for both employees and management on their rights and responsibilities under the disclosure and reprisal protection regimes.
• Respondents suggested that training should cover how to report misconduct, the support available to whistleblowers, and the consequences of reprisals.

Support for whistleblowers

• Providing robust support systems for whistleblowers, including legal assistance, counselling and protection against retaliation was a common theme.
• Ensuring confidentiality and security for those who report misconduct was seen as crucial.

Independent oversight and accountability

Independent oversight and investigations

• Many responses highlighted the importance of having independent bodies to oversee and investigate allegations of misconduct and reprisals.
• The need for impartial and thorough investigations was frequently mentioned, with some respondents suggesting the establishment of a central office where all incidents are initially reported.

Accountability and consequences

• Respondents stressed the importance of holding wrongdoers accountable and ensuring that there are real consequences for misconduct and reprisals.
• Some suggested that senior officials should face stricter penalties for failing to address or for covering up misconduct.

Monitoring and evaluation

• Regular audits, reviews and assessments of organizational practices and performance in handling disclosures were recommended.
• Monitoring compliance with policies and procedures was seen as essential to ensure the effectiveness of the regime.

Feedback from other respondents

The following key points came from former public servants, contractors and members of the public, who indicated their views on accountability, oversight and public reporting:

• A number of points were raised regarding the importance of accountability, both in reporting serious misconduct and in reprisal protection. These include:
  • the requirement for meaningful consequences
  • ongoing communication and transparency in reporting
  • a focus on expected behaviours identified in the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector
  • increased union support
  • independent external processes and oversight
  • improved internal mechanisms, evaluation, leadership accountability, organizational support, cultural sensitivity and public reporting
• These respondents also made suggestions for improving oversight of the disclosure process and reprisal protection regime, including:
  • increasing public reporting
  • improving the transparency and accountability of decisions
  • having a central body for oversight
  • ensuring independence
  • having a central agency set standards to increase support and training
  • improving protections
  • increasing collaboration with stakeholders
  • conducting audits
• The following feedback was provided on ways to improve public reporting on the disclosure and reprisal protection regimes under the PSDPA:
  • enhancing transparency
  • ensuring confidentiality
  • increasing awareness
  • independent oversight
  • regular updates
  • support for whistleblowers

Cultural change and ethical leadership

Need for cultural change

• Ethical leadership: Many respondents emphasized the importance of ethical leadership and a culture that promotes integrity and accountability at all levels.
• Support for whistleblowers: There was a strong call for creating a supportive environment where whistleblowers are respected and protected.

Training and awareness

• Education: Many responses highlighted the need for better education and training on the disclosure process and reprisal protection, including mandatory training for all employees.
• Visibility: Increasing the visibility of the PSDPA and related resources through regular communication and training sessions was frequently mentioned.

Transparency, accountability and oversight

Transparency and accountability

• Public reporting: Respondents suggested that public reporting of investigation findings and disciplinary actions is necessary to build trust and demonstrate accountability.
• Consequences for wrongdoers: There was a demand for harsher penalties and clear consequences for those found guilty of misconduct, including senior officials.

Independent oversight

• External investigations: A significant number of respondents called for independent bodies to handle investigations to ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

Process improvements

• Simplified reporting: Respondents suggested simplifying the reporting process to make it more accessible and less burdensome.
• Timeliness: There was a call for quicker investigations and timely resolution of cases to prevent prolonged stress for those involved.

Support and protection for whistleblowers

Protection and support for whistleblowers

• Anonymity and confidentiality: Ensuring the anonymity and confidentiality of whistleblowers was seen as crucial to encourage reporting.
• Support systems: Providing legal, emotional and career support to whistleblowers was frequently mentioned as necessary to protect them from reprisals.

Consistency across organizations

• Standardization: Respondents reported the need for standardized procedures and consistent application of the PSDPA across all federal public sector organizations to ensure fairness and effectiveness.
• Clear guidelines: Providing clear guidelines and examples of what constitutes wrongdoing and how to report it was seen as essential.

Note to readers of this report

Depending on how respondents answered the first question in the survey, they were automatically directed to the appropriate series of questions based on which respondent group they belonged to. Each survey question below includes a label indicating which group of respondents answered the question. The respondent groups were:

[PS] Current or former federal public servant

[C] Current or former contractor

[GP] A member of the general public

[All] All respondents

[All] Which of the following best describes you? (Check one)

• A current or former federal public servant (including working for Crown corporations/agencies (Crowns), the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP))
• Someone who works/worked as or for a current/former contractor to the federal public sector (including Crowns, CAF, CSIS, CSE, and RCMP)
• A member of the general public

[PS] Which of the following best describes you? (Check one)

• A current federal public servant
• A former federal public servant

[PS] Which of the following best describes your status/appointment? (Check one)

• Indeterminate
• Determinate (e.g., Term, Seasonal, Student)
• Other, please describe (maximum of 100 characters):

[C] Which of the following best describes you? Someone who works/worked as or for… (required) (Check one)

• A current contractor to the federal public sectors
• A former contractor to the federal public sector

[C] Which of the following best describes your contractor’s general role to the federal public sector? (required) (Check one)

• A consultant
• Providing large-scale infrastructure, equipment, or upgrades
• Providing other goods/equipment/services
• Other, please describe (maximum of 200 characters):

[PS] [C] Do/did you work for, or provide goods/equipment/services to, primarily the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or the Communications Security Establishment?

• Yes
• No
• Prefer not to answer

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] What is your gender? (Check one)

• Woman
• Man
• Another gender (self-identify if you wish – maximum of 100 characters):
• Prefer not to answer

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] Do you identify as any of the following? Please check all that apply. If none apply, do not select any responses.

• A member of a racialized group
• An Indigenous person (First Nations, Inuk (Inuit), or Métis)
• A person with a disability
• 2SLGBTQIA+
• Another equity-seeking group (specify if you wish – maximum of 200 characters):
• Prefer not to answer

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[C] Which factors are most important to encourage and support you to disclose serious misconduct? Rank up to 4 responses, with 1 being the most important.

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[C] As a consultant, you may be able to answer the following question based on your work with the public service. If not, please skip this question.

[C] Please indicate your level of agreement to the following statements.

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] Which factors are most important to encourage and support employees to disclose serious misconduct? Rank up to 5 responses, with 1 being the most important.

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] Please indicate your level of agreement to the following statements.

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

Scenario 1a

Scenario 1b

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

[PS] How would you describe your organization’s culture? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[C] [GP] How would you describe the public service’s culture? (maximum of 5,000 characters).

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] How much does that culture support voicing concerns?

• Fully
• Largely
• Moderately
• Slightly
• Not at all

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] How much does that culture support reporting serious misconduct?

• Fully
• Largely
• Moderately
• Slightly
• Not at all

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] Describe a culture that supports voicing concerns and reporting serious misconduct (maximum of 5,000 characters). Please do not include any sensitive, confidential, or personal information about yourself or any other individual in your response.

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] Is there anything you would like to add concerning possible issues or improvements regarding the federal public sector’s culture in relation to reporting serious misconduct? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] How would you rate your familiarity with disclosure processes under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA)?

• Extremely familiar
• Moderately familiar
• Somewhat familiar
• Slightly familiar
• Not at all familiar

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[C] [GP] What options are available to you for reporting serious misconduct? (maximum of 5000 characters).

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] If you witnessed serious misconduct in the workplace, what actions would you most likely take? Rank up to 5 responses, with 1 being the most likely.

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[C] If you witnessed serious misconduct while working as or for a federal contractor, what actions would you most likely take? Rank up to 5 responses, with 1 being the most likely.

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] What factors/concerns would most likely discourage you from reporting serious misconduct? Rank up to 5 responses, with 1 being the most likely.

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] What factors would most likely encourage you to report serious misconduct?

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] Have you seen serious misconduct in your workplace?

• Yes
• No

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[C] Have you seen serious misconduct while working as or for a federal contractor?

• Yes
• No

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] Was seeing the serious misconduct a traumatic experience for you?

• Yes
• No

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] Did you report the serious misconduct?

• Yes
• No

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] To the extent you are comfortable and willing, why did you report the serious misconduct? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] To the extent you are comfortable and willing, were you satisfied with what happened after your report? Why or why not? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] To the extent you are comfortable and willing, why did you not report the serious misconduct? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] How can the federal government make it easier for you to report serious misconduct? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] Do you have any comments or suggestions for improving current mechanisms and processes for reporting serious misconduct? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] How would you rate your familiarity with potential reprisal issues, protections, and supports under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA)?

• Extremely familiar
• Moderately familiar
• Somewhat familiar
• Slightly familiar
• Not at all familiar

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] Have you seen reprisal(s) occur in your workplace?

• Yes
• No

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[C] Have you seen reprisal(s) occur while working as or for a federal contractor?

• Yes
• No

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] Was seeing the reprisal(s) a traumatic experience for you?

• Yes
• No

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] Did you report the reprisal(s)?

• Yes
• No

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] To the extent you are comfortable and willing, why did you report the reprisal(s)? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] To the extent you are comfortable and willing, were you satisfied with what happened after your report? Why or why not? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] [C] To the extent you are comfortable and willing, why did you not report the reprisal(s)? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] Do you have any comments or suggestions on what protections and supports should be in place so that disclosers are not subject to a reprisal before, during, or after they report serious misconduct? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] How could federal organizations and their senior officials improve accountability to better support disclosures of serious misconduct and protect against reprisal? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[C] [GP] How could central offices/bodies (e.g., the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner) provide effective oversight of the federal disclosure and reprisal protection regime? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[PS] How could central offices/bodies (e.g. the Chief Human Resources Officer, the Treasury Board Secretariat, or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner) provide effective oversight of the federal disclosure and reprisal protection regime? (maximum of 5,000 characters).

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] Do you have any suggestions for how public reporting could be improved for the federal disclosure and reprisal protection regime? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”

[All] Is there anything else you would like to add concerning possible issues with or improvements to the federal government’s disclosure of wrongdoing and reprisal protection regime? (maximum of 5,000 characters)

If you want to end the survey and delete all your answers, please check this box and click “Next page.”