The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada investigates wrongdoing in the federal public sector and helps protect whistleblowers and individuals who participate in investigations from reprisal. 

At a glance

Our Office is an independent federal organization established in 2007 under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Led by Commissioner Harriet Solloway, the Office reports directly to Parliament and has jurisdiction over most federal public sector organizations, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Crown corporations.

Our Office at a glance 
Legal titleOffice of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Applied titleOffice of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
AbbreviationPSIC
Established2007
IncumbentHarriet Solloway (since September 27, 2023)
Term length7 years renewable once
Reports toParliament of Canada
NominatorPrime Minister of Canada
AppointerGovernor in Council
Constituting instrumentPublic Servants Disclosure Protection Act
Our Raison d’être, Vision, and Values

Our Raison d’être

Established in 2007 under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada (the Office) is an independent organization that strengthens accountability in the federal public sector. It investigates and exposes major wrongdoing through reports to Parliament, and investigates complaints of reprisal.

Our Vision

A premier investigative and decision-making body, known for its impartiality and fairness, the Office acts as an Agent of Parliament in the public interest to expose major wrongdoing in the federal public sector.

Our Values

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada operates under a set of values that defines who we are and how we interact with our clients and stakeholders:

Respect for DemocracyWe recognize that elected officials are accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the Canadian people, and that a non-partisan public sector is essential to our democratic system.
Respect for PeopleWe treat all people with respect, dignity and fairness. This is fundamental to our relationship with the Canadian public and colleagues.
ImpartialityWe arrive at impartial and objective conclusions and recommendations independently.
IntegrityWe act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny.
StewardshipWe use and care for public resources responsibly.
ExcellenceWe strive to bring rigour and timeliness as we produce high-quality work.
ConfidentialityWe abide by our confidentiality obligations under the law.
Meet Commissioner Harriet Solloway

Harriet Solloway is an expert in international administrative law, humanitarian law, and criminal law who has dedicated most of her career to the advancement of human rights and the rule of law.

She has worked for the defence and the prosecution, including investigations, and has led reform and capacity-building efforts for the justice sector, including the judiciary. She has also worked extensively in management, operational policymaking, and change management at the senior executive level. She has experience promoting stakeholder engagement, collaboration, and consensus building across a wide range of interlocutors and organizations, where multiple perspectives and interests are at play.

Ms. Solloway began her career in Montréal, working in labour relations and criminal defence. In 1996, she began working internationally, first as an investigator at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and then as a legal adviser, where she guided the investigation conducted by a team of sex crime investigators. She then worked as the Legal Adviser to the Head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Kosovo. She also served in Vienna as the Legal Adviser to the OSCE Secretary General and in The Hague as the Head of the Victims and Witnesses Unit for the International Criminal Court. In 2004, she was appointed Director of the Rule of Law Section at the UN Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where she created and oversaw the work of Prosecution Support Cells composed of Congolese and international investigators that investigated and prosecuted war crimes. This was followed by roles as Military Justice Adviser for the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Legal Adviser and Acting Chief of Staff for the UN Peacekeeping Mission in the Central African Republic. She joined the United Nations (UN) Department of Safety and Security in 2016, where she worked as Chief, Field Support Service and Deputy Director of the Division of Operational Support.

Ms. Solloway holds a Master’s degree in Public International Law from Leiden University, in The Netherlands, a licentiate in Civil Law from the University of Ottawa, and a Bachelor’s degree in Industrial Relations from McGill University.

Office Coordinates

Where to join us

PO Box 987
Ottawa PO B, ON
K1P 5R1

613-941-6400 or 1-866-941-6400 (toll-free)

info@psic-ispc.gc.ca

For inquiries to the Communications team

Bronwyn Johns-O'Hara 
Head of Communications and Parliamentary Affairs

613-415-5185

communications@psic-ispc.gc.ca

Any inquiries on accessibility can be addressed directly to our Accessibility Representative:

Email: accessible@psic-ispc.gc.ca
Telephone: 613-941-6400 or 1-866-941-6400 (toll-free in Canada)
In-person (upon request) or by mail:
Accessibility Representative
Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
PO Box 987
Ottawa PO B, ON
K1P 5R1


Click here to find out more about accessibility at the Office.

Jurisdiction

Our jurisdiction

Our Office can investigate most federal public sector organizations, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and Crown Corporations

The Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over:

  • The Canadian Forces
  • The Canadian Security Intelligence Service 
  • The Communications Security Establishment 
  • Elected officials or their staff
  • Employees of the House of Commons and the Senate
  • Political parties
  • Organizations falling under provincial, territorial, regional and municipal legislation, such as hospitals or schools
  • The private sector
Wrongdoing

Wrongdoing

Our Office investigates cases of wrongdoing that pose a serious threat to the integrity of the public service. In other words, cases that could shake public confidence if not reported and corrected.

Reprisal

Reprisal

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (the Act) protects federal public servants from reprisal in the workplace if they have reported wrongdoing or participated in an investigation into alleged wrongdoing. This protection also applies to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and employees of federal Crown corporations.

Our Office is the only organization that investigates reprisal complaints under the Act. If, during an investigation, the Commissioner finds that it is more likely than not that a reprisal has occurred, the case may be referred to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, which has the authority to order remedies.

Case Reports

Founded cases of wrongdoing are tabled in Parliament and then made public.

The head of your organization receives a copy of the Case Report and a decision letter laying out the grounds for finding wrongdoing and recommendations for corrective action. The head of your organization has two weeks to respond to the Commissioner’s recommendations. The response will be included in the published Case Report.

 

Referrals to the Tribunal

It is the role of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal to determine whether or not a reprisal action has been taken.

The Tribunal has the power to grant appropriate remedies to recipients of reprisals and, when requested by the Commissioner, to order disciplinary action against those who made the reprisal.

Additional information is available on the Tribunal’s website.

See all cases referred to the Tribunal

2025

  • Patrick Martel v. Global Affairs Canada

2024

  • Erik Dumouchel v. Department of National Defence

2023

  • Langille v. Transport Canada et al.

2017

  • Agnaou v. Public Prosecution Service of Canada et al.

2016

  • Dunn v. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada et al.

2014

  • Gardiner v. Blue Water Bridge Canada
  • Joy v. Blue Water Bridge Canada
  • Korosec v. Blue Water Bridge Canada

2012

  • Lambert v. Health Canada

2011

  • El-Helou v. Courts Administration Service et al.
  • Roberts v. Atomic Energy Canada Limited

Service Standards

We implemented service standards to provide greater transparency and certainty to our stakeholders, as well as to have an objective means of measuring our own performance. 

Learn more

As each case is unique, it is difficult to set out a specific timeframe for how long the disclosure process takes.

For example, factors that affect the length of time the process can take include:

  • availability of documentation and key witnesses;
  • complexity of issues;
  • whether specific expertise or research is needed.

We are committed to reporting on the following service standards to achieve our results of dealing with public sector disclosures of wrongdoing and complaints of reprisal in a timely and effective manner.

Service Standards

Yearly Targets

Results

2025–26

2024–25

2023–24

Completing analysis to determine whether to investigate a disclosure of wrongdoing and responding within 90 daysin 80% of files received

57%2

51%2

82%

Completing analysis to determine whether to investigate a reprisal complaint and responding1 within 15 daysin 100% of files received

100%

100%

100%

Completing investigations within one yearin 80% of files

28%2

60%2

61%3

Responding to general inquiries within one working day in 80% of requests

32%2

67%2

80%

Notes:

  1. As required under subsection 19.4(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
  2. As stated in the 2025–26 Annual Report and 2024–25 Annual Report, the Office must still manage an exceptional and sustained increase in the volume of disclosures of wrongdoing, reprisal complaints and general inquiries. This surge in activity is exerting considerable pressure on operational resources, resulting in delays in the processing of files and investigations into allegations are to be expected.
  3. The impact of resource challenges was felt from fall 2023. Though the Office did not achieve the targeted 80% rate for investigations completed within one year in 2023–24, we have made progress compared to previous results, and we continue to make concerted efforts in overcoming a backlog stemming from pandemic-related delays. Read the 2023–24 Annual Report for more details.

Corporate publications

Contact us