This document lists more than two dozen significant shortcomings under the following eight headings:[4] 1) The scope of the law is very narrow 2) The range of avenues (for seeking investigation and redress) has been restricted rather than expanded 3) The coverage of wrongdoing excludes most real-life situations 4) The provisions for investigations and corrective action are weak 5) Most complaints of reprisal are likely to be rejected 6) The tribunal is unlikely to protect anyone 7) The entire process is shrouded in impenetrable secrecy 8) The legal strategy is perverse and ill-conceived The agency created to administer the Act – the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (OPSIC) – has had a troubled history.
Critics claimed that it is implausible that there is no wrongdoing to be found: the agency is mandated to protect about 400,000 public servants working within a system that disposes of more than half a billion dollars each day.
[6][7][8][9][10] In October 2010 the head of OPSIC, Public Sector Integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet, unexpectedly resigned less than halfway through her seven-year term, following media reports that she was under investigation by Canada's Auditor General.
The Auditor General's report, published in December 2010, was highly critical of Ouimet and concluded that the commissioner had failed to do her job, had been an abusive manager, and had taken reprisals against former staff members.
The Committee carried out a thorough, in-depth review, conducting 12 meetings, hearing from 52 witnesses and receiving 12 written briefs.
[14] In March 2021, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and the International Bar Association (IBA) published a joint report, the result of a study of national whistleblower laws in 37 countries.
Each jurisdiction was awarded a number of points out of 20, based on GAP's 20 International Best Practices for Whistleblower Policies.