2 Result(s)
Overview
Background and purpose
The purpose of the 2024 Survey of Public Office Holders was to gather new baseline measures, track progress over time,[i] learn what is working well, and continue to gather general insights into how the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (Office) can improve the way in which it communicates and engages with public office holders who are subject to the Conflict of Interest Act (Act).
Research objectives
To obtain updated measures of:
Knowledge of the Office's mandate/purposeInteraction frequency with the OfficePerceived value of the OfficePerceived level of the Office's trustworthinessPerceived level of the Office's credibilityPerceived level of the Office's timeliness/proactivitySatisfaction with most recent Office interaction
To obtain the latest feedback regarding:
Preferred Office communication vehicles/channelsGeneral interest in receiving information from the OfficePreferred frequency of Office communicationPerceived level of satisfaction with trainingInterest in Office training opportunitiesPreferred Office training formatPreferred Office training frequencyWays in which the Office can improve to better serve its key audiences
This survey research was designed to align with the Office's 2021-2024 Strategic Plan, specifically, the Communications & Engagement focus area. The goal for this focus area is to increase trust in, and credibility of the Office with key audiences so that they become stronger allies in the delivery of the mandate of the Office and can effectively manage conflict of interest issues.
Methodology
The survey was developed, tested, and deployed on the House of Commons Survey Tool.A total of 2,500 public office holders subject to the Act were invited to take the survey via an email sent directly to them from the Commissioner's email account.A follow-up reminder email was sent out a few days before the survey was closed.The survey was officially open for 12 days, from January 22 to February 2, 2024.There were 454 survey respondents, resulting in an 18% response rate.The average survey completion time was just over 4 minutes.Respondents could complete the survey in the official language of their choice (87% opted for English and 13% for French).
Statistical significance
For questions where everyone responded (n=454) it can be stated that the survey responses represent the views of all public office holders subject to the Act within ±4.25 percentage points at a 95% confidence level.This assertion does not extend to qualitative open-ended responses or follow-up questions to certain subgroups. For these, the sample size (n) and/or a revised margin of error are provided for reference.
Note to readers
Key findings are presented in the sections that follow. An exact copy of the survey questions and survey instrument used has been provided in Appendix B.
Key overall takeaways
Positive overall impression of the Office: Most respondents believe that the Office is a credible (79%), impartial (77%), helpful (70%), and trustworthy (81%) organization.
High familiarity with obligations under the Act: The overwhelming majority of respondents (97%) stated they are familiar with their obligations under the Act.
High satisfaction with one-on-one service delivery: Most respondents that have recently interacted with an Office employee (one-on-one) were satisfied with their experience (88%) and thought that the employee was courteous and helpful (94%), provided a timely and accurate response (91%), and provided them with the information they needed (87%).
Satisfaction with training/education provided by the Office: Most respondents reported overall satisfaction (83%) with the most recent educational session they attended.
Strong appreciation of personalized service: Respondents identified personal interactions with advisors as the greatest added value the Office provides for them.
Preference for online training: When asked about preferred training methods, most respondents stated they prefer online training with a live presenter.
The top three preferred training topics are (in order):[iii]
Initial compliance processMaterial changes (assets, activities, etc.)Gift rules and reporting
In general, similar results as the 2022 survey: The survey results were once again positive overall with further improvements in certain areas.
Comparison to the 2022 Survey of Public Office Holders
In January 2022, the Office conducted its first survey of public office holders. The 2024 survey of public office holders is the second survey of its kind. The structure and questions of the 2024 survey were purposefully designed to be comparable to the 2022 survey. This allows the Office to track progress over time. The 2022 survey report is available on the Office website.
Use of new survey tool in 2024
In 2022, the survey was developed, tested, and deployed on the NOVI survey platform. However, a new custom survey tool was used for the 2024 survey, called the “House of Commons Survey Tool." This altered the overall look and feel of the 2024 survey and required some adjustments due to the differences in layout and reporting capabilities. In certain cases, the format of specific questions and wording had to be adjusted to fit the new survey tool. These variances should be kept in mind when comparing results between the two surveys.
Respondent breakdown
Time as public office holders
Slightly more than half of survey respondents (57%) indicated that they have been in their roles for less than five years.
Time as a public office holder
Less than 1 year: 11%1 to 5 years: 46%6 to 10 years: 30%11 to 15 years: 5%Over 15 years: 8%
Role as public office holders
The largest proportion of respondents (30%) were part-time tribunal/board/commission members. Approximately 13% of respondents did not place themselves in the role they belong to or did not feel they belong to any of the provided roles.
Role as a public office holder
Embassy / consulate staff: 3%Ministerial staff: 13%Other: 13%Head of a department, agency, Crown corporation or another federal organization: 15%Full-time tribunal/board/ commission member: 26%Part-time tribunal/board / commission member: 30%
Familiarity with obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act
Most respondents (97%) were either somewhat familiar or very familiar with their obligations. Less than 1% stated that they were not at all familiar with their obligations.
General findings
Perceptions of the Office
General opinion of the Office
Respondents were asked whether they agree with the statement: “My general opinion of the Office is positive." According to the results, 77% of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with this statement and 13% of respondents did not agree or disagreed. The remaining 8 % somewhat or strongly disagreed.
General opinion of the Office ("is positive")
Strongly disagree: 3%Somewhat disagree: 5%Neither agree / disagree: 13%Somewhat agree: 26%Strongly agree: 51%Not answered: 2%
Perception differences (by role)
In the table below, results have been reflected by role to better illustrate how it might affect their perception of the Office. For example, part-time members do not have reporting obligations and therefore do not interact as frequently with the Office, which may affect how they perceive it.
In this question, respondents were presented with several statements about the Office and asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed. The percentages in the table below represent those who answered “strongly agree" or “somewhat agree."[ii]
The Office is credible
The Office is trustworthy
The Office proactively reaches out
The Office is impartial
The Office is helpful
All respondents
79%
81%
74%
77%
70%
Ministerial staff
79%
81%
74%
88%
70%
Heads of departments
90%
90%
83%
91%
91%
Full-time members
79%
79%
71%
73%
70%
Part-time members
81%
87%
75%
77%
66%
Embassy/consulate staff
70%
62%
84%
62%
62%
Other
69%
73%
66%
69%
58%
Table 1 - Perceptions of the Office based on respondents' profiles
The overall respondent agreement level with the Office being a helpful organization came in at 70%. This was the lowest score out of the provided attributes.
Satisfaction with one-on-one service
Respondents were also asked to think back on their most recent one-on-one interaction with an employee of the Office and indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the provided statements.
The sentiment was quite positive, with those that agree with each statement seldom falling under 85%. Positive responses were weaker among the “Other" group.
The employee was courteous and helpful
The employee provided me with accurate information
The employee provided me with a timely response
The employee gave me the information that I needed
Overall, I was satisfied with my experience
All respondents
94%
91%
91%
87%
88%
Ministerial staff
87%
91%
96%
96%
93%
Heads of departments
96%
93%
96%
95%
95%
Full-time members
84%
92%
88%
92%
84%
Part-time members
94%
100%
94%
94%
93%
Embassy/consulate staff
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Other
80%
80%
86%
100%
73%
Table 2 - Perception of most recent one-on-one interaction based on respondents' profiles
Out of the 7% of people that stated they were dissatisfied with their experience, the top complaint was with the service quality, such as insufficient or inconsistent advice. Others, still, had complaints about the rules the Office enforces.
Greatest value-add
Respondents were asked to answer an open-ended question as follows: “Which service or program offered by the Office has the greatest added value in terms of supporting you in meeting your compliance requirements?"
Upon categorizing the 247 responses received, “personal interaction with an advisor" came out as the greatest value-add of the Office. Respondents appreciated the quick and clear advice they received that related specifically to their situations. The second most cited value-add was “the general communications that the Office provides" followed by “the Office's annual update notices."
Training
Educational session attendance
Nearly a quarter of respondents (24 %) indicated that they attended a training provided by the Office in the last two years.
Training impressions
Respondents were asked to think back about their training experience and indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the provided statements. According to the results, 83 % expressed satisfaction with their experience. The majority of respondents indicated that the sessions were clear (83%), helpful (79%), and that they were given the information needed (74%). Only 23% of respondents agreed with the statement that the sessions were too long.
Training topics
The training topics of greatest interest are as follows (in order):
Initial compliance processMaterial change (assets, activities, etc.)Recusals (private interests)Penalties and investigationsGifts rules and reportingPost-employment rules
Respondents were also given an opportunity to state other training topics they would like to see that were not listed in the survey question. After categorizing these open-ended responses, it was determined that most of the specific topics mentioned could effectively be placed into one of the existing categories. A few requested specific training related to assets, property ownership, and financial reporting.
Training methods
Most respondents (61%) prefer to receive conflict-of-interest-related information proactively rather than searching for it on their own (19 %).
The preferred methods of training were stated to be as follows (in order):[iv]
Scheduled online educational session on a specific topic with live presentersSelf-paced online training moduleOne-on-one personalized trainingCustomized educational group session for organizationOnline questions and answers session
All respondents ranked “scheduled online educational session" as their preferred training method. “Self-paced online module" was ranked second by all. Embassy and ministerial staff ranked “one-on-one personalized training" highly.
Training frequency
Respondents were almost equally divided between preferring to receive training annually (32%), when topical (30%) and quarterly (29%). Very few said monthly (3%) or never (3%).
Communications
Perceived tone of the Office's communication methods
When asked about the tone of the Office's communications, 85% of respondents agreed that the tone was clear, 90% agreed that it was professional and 89% agreed that it was respectful.
Preferred method of communication from the Office
Respondents were asked to rate the existing methods of the Office's communications based on their helpfulness. The percentage in the table below reflects the number of respondents who stated the method in question was either somewhat or extremely helpful.
Preferred communication methods (ranked by % who agree they are helpful)
Emails from the Commissioner: 85%Generic emails from the Office (not specifically from the Commissioner): 79%Information notices (often in PDF or HTML format): 65%The website (ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca): 58%The Office's X (Twitter) pages @EthicsCanada | @EthiqueCanada: 11%The Office's LinkedIn Page: 11%
As can be seen, emails from the Commissioner came out on top (85%), followed closely by generic emails from the Office and information notices. Social media (LinkedIn and X/Twitter) was only helpful to about 11% of respondents. The majority of respondents (over 65%) indicated that they do not recall coming across the Office's social media platforms.
Preferred private (one-on-one) communications methods
Respondents were asked how helpful they found the Office's one-on-one methods of communications. Currently, the Office interacts with public office holders via email or by phone. In-person meetings are infrequent, even during pre-pandemic times. Emails, phone calls, and video conferences are the preferred methods of communication. Over 74% of respondents ranked in-person meetings as not applicable.
Preferred private communication methods (ranked by % who agree they are helpful)
Email: 84%Phone: 49%Video conference (e.g., MS Teams): 32%In-person meeting: 20%
Additional suggested communications methods
Respondents were also asked to comment on other forms of public and private communication that they would like to see adopted. Only about 8% responded (n=38). The suggested additional methods included text messaging, Instagram, and newsletters.
Definitions
Initial compliance process – All reporting public office holders must complete an initial compliance process. This means they have to give the Office certain information. When they disclose their information, advisors can help them arrange their affairs to avoid conflicts of interest. Initial compliance is completed within 120 days after a reporting public office holder's appointment, or after their reappointment if there is a gap since their last term of office. Once they complete the process, it is easier for public office holders to comply with the Act going forward.
Material change – This is a change to any matter that reporting public officer holders are required to include in their Confidential Report and that could affect their obligations under the Act and make it necessary to modify their compliance arrangements. Examples of material changes are acquiring assets valued at $10,000 or more, becoming a trustee or a beneficiary of a trust, or opening any type of investment account.
Recusals – The Act requires public office holders to recuse themselves from any discussion, decision, debate or vote on any matter in respect of which they would be in a conflict of interest. Respondents might want to know how to determine if a matter presents a conflict of interest, how to properly document recusals, and how to calculate the scope of discussions from which they must recuse themselves.
Penalties and investigations – Penalties are the punishments that public office holders might receive for violating certain requirements set out in the Act. These penalties can go up to $500 and are published in the public registry.
Investigations under the Act are called “examinations." The Commissioner can launch an examination of a possible contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act at the request of a Senator or a Member of the House of Commons who provides reasonable grounds to believe the Act has been contravened.
Gifts rules and reporting – Public office holders must disclose any gifts or other advantages from any one source, other than relatives and friends, that exceed $200 in value in a 12-month period, within 30 days after acceptance or of the day on which their total value exceeds $200. Gifts can take many forms: meals, tickets to events, reduced rate or free membership to clubs or organizations, money, among other things.
Post-employment rules – The Act has several provisions relating to post-employment, some limited and some unlimited. For instance, depending on public office holders' former positions, they must wait one or two years before working with a party with which they had “direct and significant dealings" during their time in office. This is commonly known as the “cooling-off" period and is a limited provision. However, there are also the following three rules, which apply for life to all former public office holders. They cannot:
take improper advantage of their previous public office;switch sides, meaning act for or on behalf of any person or organization in relation to a specific proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case in which they previously acted for or provided advice to the government;provide advice to a client, business associate or employer using information they obtained while in office that is not available to the public.
Footnotes
i - The previous Survey of Public Office Holders took place in 2022.
ii - Between 4% and 16% of the respondents answered “Neither agree nor disagree."
iii - Survey respondents were given six options of topics about which they might receive training. They were asked to rank these topics from 1 to 6, 1 being the topic most interesting to them, and 6 being the least.
iv - Survey respondents were given five options of topics about which they might receive training. They were asked to rank these methods from 1 to 5, 1 being the method most preferred, and 5 being the least.
Appendix A – Survey results
Impressions of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
1. How familiar are you with your obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act?
Question type: Multiple choiceNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Answer
Number of responses
Percentage
Very familiar
256
56.4%
Somewhat familiar
186
41.0%
Not very familiar
8
1.8%
Not at all familiar
1
0.2%
Skipped question or chose not to answer
30.6%
2. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Office:
Question type: Matrix & MultimatrixNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Not applicable
I am well aware of Office's mandate
13 (2.9%)
18 (4.0%)
4 (0.9%)
173 (38.1%)
226 (49.8%)
4 (0.9%)
My general opinion of the Office is positive
15 (3.3%)
21 (4.6%)
60 (13.2%)
120 (26.4%)
230 (50.7%)
8 (1.8%)
The Office is credible
13 (2.9%)
12 (2.6%)
54 (11.9%)
91 (20.0%)
270 (59.5%)
14 (3.1%)
The Office is trustworthy
10 (2.2%)
10 (2.2%)
48 (10.6%)
80 (17.6%)
291 (64.1%)
15 (3.3%)
The Office proactively reaches out to me
11 (2.4%)
24 (5.3%)
68 (15.0%)
143 (31.5%)
193 (42.5%)
15 (3.3%)
The Office is impartial
13 (2.9%)
12 (2.6%)
60 (13.2%)
85 (18.7%)
266 (58.6%)
18 (4.0%)
The Office is helpful
12 (2.6%)
18 (4.9%)
73 (16.1%)
115 (25.3%)
203 (44.7%)
33 (7.3%)
I feel comfortable approaching the Office if I need to
14 (3.1%)
17 (3.7%)33 (7.3%)85 (18.7%)284 (62.6%)21 (4.6%)
Impressions of private interactions
3. Thinking of the past 12 months, did you privately interact (one-on-one) with someone from the Office?
Question type: Multiple choiceNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Number of responses
Percentage
No
252
55.5%
Yes
201
44.5%
Skipped question or chose not to answer
1
0.2%
IF YES:
a) Thinking of the past 12 months, approximately how many times did you privately interact (one-on-one) with someone from the Office?
Question type: Numerical, Range 1-50, dependent on Question 1 in section 2.Number of “not applicable": 252Number of respondents: 201
(Range 1-50)
Number of responses
Percentage
1
53
26.4%
2
60
29.9%
3
26
12.9%
4
14
7.0%
5
21
10.4%
6
10
5.0%
8
3
1.5%
10
8
4.0%
11
1
0.5%
15
1
0.5%
18
1
0.5%
20
1
0.5%
36
1
0.5%
50
1
0.5%
b) Thinking of your most recent private interaction (one-on-one) with the OCIEC, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
Question type: Matrix & MultimatrixNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
strongly disagree
somewhat disagree
neither agree nor disagree
somewhat agree
strongly agree
not applicable
The employee was courteous and helpful
5 (2.5%)
0 (0.0%)
5 (2.5%)
25 (12.4%)
164 (81.6%)
2 (1.0%)
The employee gave me accurate information
4 (2.0%)
5 (2.5%)
3 (1.5%)
27 (13.4%)
157 (78.1%)
5 (2.5%)
The employee gave me a timely response
3 (1.5%)
5 (2.5%)
3 (1.5%)
32 (15.9%)
153 (76.1%)
5 (2.5%)
I was given the information I needed
3 (1.5%)
5 (2.5%)
9 (4.5%)
28 (13.9%)
148 (73.6%)
8 (4.0%)
Overall, I was satisfied with my experience
8 (4.0%)
6 (3.0%)
7 (3.5%)
32 (15.9%)
146 (72.6%)
2 (1.0%)
c) Do you have any other comments about your most recent private interaction (one-on-one) with the Office?
Question type: Open-endedNumber of responses: 201Number of respondents: 53Not answered: 148
Impression of the Office's communication methods
4. How helpful or unhelpful do you find the following communication methods?
Question type: Matrix & MultimatrixNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Not at all helpful
Somewhat helpful
Extremely helpful
I do not recall coming across this content
N/A
Website (ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca)
17 (3.7%)
186 (41.0%)
77 (17.0%)
169 (37.2%)
5 (1.1%)
Emails from the Commissioner
9 (2.0%)
219 (48.2%)
169 (37.2%)
52 (11.5%)
5 (1.1%)
Generic emails from the Office (not specifically from the Commissioner)
26 (5.7%)
260 (57.3%)
98 (21.6%)
63 (13.9%)
7 (1.5%)
Information notices (often in PDF or HTML format)
28 (6.2%)
194 (42.7%)
100 (22.0%)
126 (27.8%)
6 (1.3%)
The Office's X (Twitter) pages @EthicsCanada | @EthiqueCanada
98 (21.6%)
13 (2.9%)
13 (2.9%)
296 (65.2%)
11 (2.4%)
The Office's LinkedIn page
84 (18.5%)
41 (9.0%)
8 (1.8%)
310 (68.3%)
11 (2.4%)
5. Are there any methods for communicating with you that you would like the Office to adopt going forward? (Other social media platforms, text messages, instant messengers, etc.)
Question type: Multiple choiceNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Number of responses
Percentage
Yes
38
8.4%
No
408
89.9%
Skipped question or chose not to answer
8
1.8%
IF YES:
What method(s) do you prefer?
Question type: Open-endedNumber of responses: 38Number of respondents: 38
a) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the overall tone of group emails sent by the Office:
Question type: Matrix and multimatrixNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
N/A
The overall tone is clear
5 (1.1%)
9 (2.0%)
40 (8.8%)
136 (30.0%)
250 (55.1%)
14 (3.1%)
The overall tone is professional
4 (0.9%)
3 (0.7%)
25 (5.5%)
78 (17.2%)
330 (72.7%)
14 (3.1%)
The overall tone is respectful
4 (0.9%)
6 (1.3%)
21 (4.6%)
84 (18.5%)
323 (71.1%)
16 (3.5%)
b) How helpful or unhelpful do you find the following official private (one-on-one) communication methods?
Question type: Matrix and multimatrixNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Not at all helpful
Somewhat helpful
Extremely helpful
I don't recall coming across this content
N/A
Emails
4 (0.9%)
114 (25.2%)
270 (50.5%)
62 (13.7%)
4 (0.9%)
Phone calls
13 (2.9%)
58 (12.8%)
163 (35.9%)
214 (47.1%)
6 (1.3%)
Videoconferences
14 (3.1%)
64 (14.1%)
83 (18.3%)
290 (63.9%)
3 (0.7%)
In-person meetings
15 (3.3%)
36 (7.9%)
55 (12.2%)
339 (74.7%)
9 (2.0%)
c) Do you have any other comments about these private (one-on-one) communication methods?
Question type: Open-endedNumber of respondents: 454Number of responses: 39Number of “not answered": 415
Training and education
6. Thinking of the past two years, did you attend an educational session organized by the Office?
Question type: Multiple choiceNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Number of responses
Percentage
Yes
109
24.0%
No
339
74.7%
Skipped question or chose not to answer
6
1.3%
IF YES:
a) Thinking of the past two years, approximately how many times did you attend an educational session organized by the Office?
Question type: Numerical, Range 1-20, dependent on Question 1 in Section 4.Number of “not applicable": 345Number of respondents: 109
Range (1-20)
Number of responses
Percentage
1
86
78.9%
2
16
14.7%
3
4
3.7%
4
3
2.8%
b) Thinking of your most recent educational session, indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
Question type: Matrix and multimatrix, dependent on Question 1 in Section 4.Number of responses: 109Number of respondents: 109
Options
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
N/A
This session was helpful
2 (1.8%)
11 (10.1%)
10 (9.2%)
60 (55.0%)
26 (23.9%)
0 (0.0%)
The session was clear
1 (0.9%)
9 (8.3%)
9 (8.3%)
48 (44.0%)
42 (38.5%)
0 (0.0%)
The session was to long
13 (11.9%)
22 (20.3%)
49 (45.0%)
20 (18.3%)
5 (4.6%)
0 (0.0%)
I was given the information needed
1 (0.9%)
13 (11.9%)
15 (13.8%)
53 (48.6%)
27 (24.8%)
0 (0.0%)
Overall, I was satisfied with my experience
2 (1.8%)
9 (8.3%)
14 (12.8%)
57 (52.3%)
26 (23.9%)
1 (0.9%)
c) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
Question type: Matrix and multimatrixNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
N/A
I prefer to find conflict-of-interest-related information on my own, when I need it, rather than having it sent to me proactively
95 (20.9%)
176 (38.8%)
91 (20.0%)
75 (16.5%)
11 (2.4%)
6 (1.3%)
I am interested in educational opportunities offered by the Office
21 (4.6%)
40 (8.8%)
102 (22.5%)
186 (41.0%)
94 (20.7%)
11 (2.4%)
d) Please rank the following Office related topics in order of importance - 1 being the most important to you and 6 being the least important.
Question type: Rating and rankingNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454Scale: 1-6
Answer
1
2
3
4
5
6
N/A
Gift rules and reporting
64 (14.4%)
72 (16.6%)
88 (20.4%)
79 (18.7%)
74 (17.8%)
48 (11.4%)
30 (10.2%)
Material Changes and ongoing reporting
100 (22.9%)
112 (25.9%)
84 (19.4%)
59 (14.0%)
43 (10.4%)
31 (7.4%)
25 (15.2%)
Recusals and disclosures
76 (17.4%)
98 (22.6%)
93 (21.5%)
75 (17.8%)
58 (14.0%)
27 (6.4%)
27 (16.4%)
Penalties and investigations
14 (3.2%)
31 (7.2%)
35 (8.1%)
82 (19.4%)
104 (25.1%)
158 (37.5%)
30 (18.2%)
Post-employment rules and obligations
47 (10.8%)
67 (15.5%)
82 (19.0%)
80 (19.0%)
91 (21.9%)
61 (14.5%)
26 (15.8%)
Initial compliance process
136 (16.4%)
53 (12.2%)
50 (11.6%)
47 (11.1%)
45 (10.8%)
96 (22.8%)
27 (22.8%)
e) Are there any other topics that you would like the Office to provide more information and/or training on?
Question type: Multiple choiceNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Number of responses
Percentage
Yes
30
6.6%
No
409
90.1%
Skipped question or chose not to answer
15
3.3%
IF YES:
What are the topics?Question type: Open-endedNumber of respondents: 454Number of responses: 30Number of “not answered": 424
f) Please rank the following training delivery formats in order of preference - 1 being the most preferred and 5 being the least preferred
Question type: Rating and rankingNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 455Scale: 1-5
Answer
1
2
3
4
5
N/A
Scheduled online educational session on a specific topic with live presenters
154 (36.8%)
116 (28.2%)
76 (18.5%)
43 (10.6%)
23 (5.7%)
42 (19.4%)
Self-paced online training module
123 (29.4%)
103 (25.2%)
67 (16.3%)
68 (16.6%)
53 (13.2%)
40 (18.5%)
One-on-one personalized training
47 (11.2%)
38 (9.2%)
71 (17.3%)
96 (23.4%)
157 (39.0%)
45 (20.8%)
Customized educational group session for your organization
71 (16.9%)
86 (20.9%)
96 (23.4%)
97 (23.7%)
58 (14.4%)
46 (21.3%)
Online question and answers session
24 (5.7%)
68 (16.5%)
101 (24.6%)
106 (25.9%)
112 (27.8%)
43 (29.9%)
g) How often should the Office be offering live educational opportunities?
Question type: Multiple choiceNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Number of responses
Percentage
Never
12
2.6%
Annually
143
31.5%
Quarterly
131
28.9%
Monthly
14
3.1%
When topical
138
30.4%
Other
9
2.0%
Final thoughts
7. Which service or program offered by the Office has the greatest added value in terms of supporting you in meeting your compliance requirements?
Question type: Open-endedNumber of responses: 247Number of respondents: 454Not answered: 207
8. Which role best describes you as a public office holder?
Question type: Multiple choiceNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Number of responses
Percentage
Head of Department, Agency, Crown Corporation or another federal organization
69
15.2%
Ministerial Staff
58
12.8%
Full-time Tribunal/Board/Commissions Member
118
26.0%
Part-time Tribunal/Board/Commissions Member
135
29.7%
Embassy/Consulate Staff
13
2.9%
Other
59
13.0%
Skipped question or chose not to answer
2
0.4%
9. About how long have you been a public office holder?
Question type: Multiple choiceNumber of responses: 454Number of respondents: 454
Options
Number of responses
Percentage
Less than 1 year
48
10.6%
1 to 5 years
210
46.3%
6 to 10 years
134
29.5%
11 to 15 years
22
4.8%
Over 15 years
35
1.1%
Skipped question or chose not to answer
5
1.1%
10. Do you have any additional suggestions or comments for the Office that could help us better serve you?
Question type: Open-endedNumber of responses: 106Number of respondents: 454Not answered: 348
Appendix B – Survey questions
Link to survey questions
Impressions of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
1. How familiar are you with your obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act?
Very familiarSomewhat familiarNot very familiarNot at all familiar
2. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Office:
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Not applicable
I am well aware of Office's mandate
My general opinion of the Office is positive
The Office is credible
The Office is trustworthy
The Office proactively reaches out to me
The Office is impartial
The Office is helpful
I feel comfortable approaching the Office if I need to
Impressions of private interactions
3. Thinking of the past 12 months, did you privately interact (one-on-one) with someone from the Office?
YesNo
IF YES:
a) Thinking of the past 12 months, approximately how many times did you privately interact (one-on-one) with someone from the Office?
Range: 1 - 50
b) Thinking of your most recent private interaction (one-on-one) with the OCIEC, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Not applicable
The employee was courteous and helpful
The employee gave me accurate information
The employee gave me a timely response
I was given the information I needed
Overall, I was satisfied with my experience
c) Do you have any other comments about your most recent private interaction (one-on-one) with the Office?
Impression of the Office's communication methods
4. How helpful or unhelpful do you find the following communication methods?
Not at all helpful
Somewhat helpful
Extremely helpful
I do not recall coming across this content
Website (ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca)
Emails from the Commissioner
Generic emails from the Office (not specifically from the Commissioner)
Information notices (often in PDF or HTML format)
The Office's X (Twitter) pages @EthicsCanada | @EthiqueCanada
The Office's LinkedIn page
5. Are there any methods for communicating with you that you would like the Office to adopt going forward?
(Other social media platforms, text messages, instant messengers, etc.)
YesNo
IF YES:
What method(s) do you prefer?
a) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the overall tone of group emails sent by the Office:
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Not applicable
The overall tone is clear
The overall tone is professional
The overall tone is respectful
b) How helpful or unhelpful do you find the following official private (one-on-one) communication methods?
Not at all helpful
Somewhat helpful
Extremely helpful
I do not recall coming across this content
Emails
Phone calls
Videoconference (e.g., MS Teams)
In-person meeting
c) Do you have any other comments about these private (one-on-one) communication methods?
Training and education
6. Thinking of the past two years, did you attend an educational session organized by the Office?
YesNo
IF YES:
a) Thinking of the past two years, approximately how many times did you attend an educational session organized by the Office?
Range: 1 - 20
b) Thinking of your most recent educational session, indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
The session was helpful
The session was clear
The session was too long
I was given the information I needed
Overall I was satisfied with my experience
c) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
I prefer to find conflict-of-interest related information on my own, when I need it, rather than having it sent to me proactively
I am interested in educational opportunities offered by the Office
d) Please rank the following Office related topics in order of importance - 1 being the most important to you and 6 being the least important.
Gift rules and reportingMaterial changes (assets, activities, etc.) and ongoing reportingRecusals (private interests) and disclosuresPenalties and investigationsPost-employment rules and obligationsInitial compliance process
e) Are there any other topics that you would like the Office to provide more information and/or training on?
YesNo
IF YES:
What are the topics?
f) Please rank the following training delivery formats in order of preference - 1 being the most preferred and 5 being the least preferred
Scheduled online educational session on a specific topic with live presentersSelf-paced online training moduleOne-on-one personalized trainingCustomized educational group session for your organizationOnline questions and answers session
g) How often should the Office be offering live educational opportunities?
NeverAnnuallyQuarterlyMonthlyWhen topicalOther
Final thoughts
7. Which service or program offered by the Office has the greatest added value in terms of supporting you in meeting your compliance requirements?
Please only state the top item that comes to mind:8. Which role best describes you as a public office holder?
Head of a department, agency, Crown corporation or another federal organizationMinisterial staffFull-time tribunal/board/commission memberPart-time tribunal/board/commission memberEmbassy/consulate staffOther
9. About how long have you been a public office holder?
Less than 1 year1 to 5 years6 to 10 years11 to 15 yearsOver 15 years
10. Do you have any additional suggestions or comments for the Office that could help us better serve you?
Overview
Background and purpose
The purpose of the 2022 Survey of Public Office Holders was to gather baseline metrics and general insights into how the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (OCIEC) can improve how it communicates and engages with public office holders subject to the Conflict of Interest Act.
Research objectives
To obtain baseline measures of:
Knowledge of the OCIEC's mandate/purposeInteraction frequency with the OCIECPerceived value of the OCIECPerceived level of the OCIEC's trustworthinessPerceived level of the OCIEC's credibilityPerceived level of the OCIEC's timeliness/proactivitySatisfaction with most recent OCIEC interaction
To obtain feedback regarding:
Preferred OCIEC communication vehicles/channelsGeneral interest in receiving information from the OCIECPreferred frequency of OCIEC communicationInterest in OCIEC training opportunities Preferred OCIEC training formatPreferred OCIEC training frequencyWays in which the OCIEC can improve to better serve its stakeholders
This survey research was designed to align with the OCIEC's 2021-2024 Strategic Plan, specifically, Key Focus Area #1, Stakeholder Communications & Engagement. The goal for this focus area is to “increase trust in, and credibility of the OCIEC with key stakeholders so that they become stronger allies in the delivery of the mandate of the OCIEC and can effectively manage conflict of interest issues."
Methodology
The survey was developed, tested, and deployed on the NOVI survey platform.A total of 1,500 public office holders subject to the Act were invited to take the survey via an email sent directly to them from the Communications, Outreach and Planning division.[1]A follow-up reminder email was sent out a few days before the survey was closed.The survey was officially open for 11 days, from January 17 to January 28, 2022.There were 455 survey respondents resulting in a 30% response rate.The average survey completion time was 14 minutes.Respondents were able to complete the survey in the official language of their choice (82% opted for English and 18% for French).
Statistical significance
For questions where everyone responded (n=455) it can be stated that the survey responses represent the views of all public office holders subject to the Act within ±3.8 percentage points 9.5 times out of 10.Only a small fraction of respondents skipped entire questions, usually under 10% (less than 45 respondents). In such cases, the survey responses represent the views of all public office holders subject to the Act within ±4.1 percentage points 9.5 times out of 10. The above does not apply to qualitative open-ended responses, follow-up questions to a specific sub-group, and any sections of this report that summarize findings based on a sub-group (e.g., by role). In such cases the sample size (n) and/or a revised margin of error has been provided for reference.
Note to readers
Key findings are presented in the sections that follow. An exact copy of the survey questions and survey instrument used has been provided in Appendix B.
Key overall takeaways
Positive overall impression of the OCIEC: Most respondents believe that the OCIEC is a credible (80%), impartial (76%), helpful (73%), and trustworthy (81%) organization.
High familiarity with obligations under the Act: The overwhelming majority of respondents (97%) stated they are familiar with their obligations under the Act.
High satisfaction with one-on-one service delivery: Most respondents (84%) that have recently interacted with an OCIEC employee (one-on-one) were satisfied with their experience and thought that the employee was courteous and helpful (91%), provided a timely and accurate response (89%), and provided them with the information they needed (86%).
Strong appreciation of personalized service: Most respondents stated that personal interactions are the top value-add of the OCIEC.
Preference for online training: When asked about preferred training methods, most respondents stated they prefer online training with a live presenter.
The top 3 preferred training topics are (in order):
Material changes (assets, activities, etc.)Recusals (private interests)Post-employment
Respondent breakdown
Respondents were asked to indicate attributes about their roles for the OCIEC to better understand and analyze the data.
Time as public office holders
The majority of survey respondents (74%) indicated that they have been in their roles for less than five years.
TIME AS PUBLIC OFFICE HOLDER
Less than 1 year
13%
1 to 5 years
61%
6 to 10 years
16%
11 to 15 years
4%
Over 15 years
6%
Table 1 - Time as public office holder
Role as public office holders
The largest proportion of respondents (35%) were full-time tribunal/board/commission members. Approximately 6% of respondents did not place themselves in the role they belong to or did not feel they belong to any of the roles that were provided. Upon review of the comments, the OCIEC was able to categorize the “other" responses into their designated category and reflect them in the analysis.
Role as Public Office Holder
Embassy / Consulate staff
3%
Other
6%
Part-time tribunal / board / commissions member
14%
Ministerial staff
20%
Head of department, agency, crown corporation or another federal organization
22%
Full-time tribunal / board / commissions member
35%
Table 2 - Role as public office holder
Familiarity with obligations under the Act
Most respondents (97%) were either somewhat familiar or very familiar with their obligations. Less than 1% stated that they were not at all familiar with their obligations.
General findings
Training
Training topics
Most respondents (60%) indicated they are interested in training opportunities from the OCIEC. The training topics of greatest interest are as follows (in order)[2]:
Material change (assets, activities, etc.)Recusals (private interests)Post-employmentGiftsPenaltiesAnnual reportsInvestigation reportsQuarterly reports
Respondents were also given an opportunity to state other training topics they would like to see that were not listed in the survey question. After categorizing these open-ended responses, it was determined that most of the specific topics mentioned could effectively be placed into one of the existing top three categories. The only new topics mentioned included cryptocurrency and advice for governor-in-council appointees (only a handful of individuals).
Additional Context
Material Change – The OCIEC website defines material change as “a change to any matter that you were required to include in your Confidential Report and that could affect your obligations under the Act and make it necessary to modify your compliance arrangements." Examples of material change are acquiring assets valued at $10,000 or more, becoming a trustee or a beneficiary of a trust, or opening any type of investment account, among others.
Recusals – The Conflict of Interest Act requires public office holders to recuse themselves from any discussion, decision, debate or vote on any matter in respect of which they would be in a conflict of interest. Respondents might want to know how to determine if a matter presents a conflict of interest, how to properly document recusals, and how to calculate the scope of discussions from which they must recuse themselves.
Post-employment – The Conflict of Interest Act has several provisions relating to post-employment, some limited and some unlimited. For instance, depending on public office holders' former positions, they must wait one or two years before working with a party with which they had “direct and significant dealings" during their time in office. This is commonly known as the “cooling-off" period. This would be a limited provision. However, there are also the following three rules, which apply for life to all former public office holders. They cannot:
take improper advantage of their previous public office;switch sides, meaning act for or on behalf of any person or organization in relation to a specific proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case in which they previously acted for or provided advice to the government;provide advice to a client, business associate or employer using information they obtained while in office that is not available to the public.
Gifts – Relates to the following provision in the Conflict of Interest Act: “[Public office holders] must also disclose any gifts or other advantages from any one source, other than relatives and friends, that exceed $200 in value in a 12-month period, within 30 days after acceptance or of the day on which their total value exceeds $200." Gifts can take many forms, for instance meals, tickets to events, reduced rate or free membership to clubs or organizations, and money, among other things.
Penalties – Refers to the punishments that public office holders might receive for violating the rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act. These penalties can go up to $500 and are published both in the public registry on the OCIEC website and subsequently on Twitter.
Annual reports, investigation reports, and quarterly reports – All of these topics relate to the OCIEC's main communications products. Annual and quarterly reports are published periodically to update the public on the OCIEC's activities. Investigation reports are published after an investigation is completed.
Training methods
Most respondents (61%) prefer to receive conflict-of-interest-related information proactively rather than searching for it on their own.
The preferred methods of training were stated to be as follows (in order)[3]:
Online educational sessions on a specific topic with live presentersCustomized educational group sessions for their organizationOne-on-one personalized trainingSelf-study with OCIEC-provided materialsOnline Q&A
Training frequency
Respondents were almost equally divided between preferring to receive training quarterly (31%), annually (32%), or when topical (32%). Very few said monthly (3%) or never (2%).
Communications
Perceived tone of OCIEC mass communication methods
When asked about the tone of OCIEC mass communications, 82% of respondents agreed that the tone was clear, 89% agreed that it was professional and 88% agreed that it was respectful.
Preferred method of OCIEC mass communication
Respondents were asked to rate the existing methods of OCIEC mass communications based on their helpfulness. The percentage in the table below reflects the number of respondents who stated the method in question was either somewhat, very, or extremely helpful.
Preferred mass communication methods (ranked by % who agree they are helpful)
Generic emails from the commissioner
76%
Generic emails from the OCIEC
69%
Website
62%
Information notices
46%
Twitter (@EthicsCanada | @EthiqueCanada)
8%
Table 3 - Most helpful methods of mass communications
As can be seen, generic emails from the Commissioner came out on top (76%), whereas using Twitter as a method of OCIEC mass communications was only helpful to about 8% of respondents (21% stated it was not helpful). It should be noted that 71% stated it does not apply to them as they do not use Twitter.[4]
Preferred method of OCIEC private (one-on-one communications methods)
Respondents were asked how helpful they found the OCIEC's one-on-one methods of communications. Currently, the OCIEC interacts with public office holders via email or by phone. In-person meetings are infrequent, even during pre-pandemic times. Emails and phone calls are the preferred methods of communications. Over 80% of respondents ranked video conferences and in-person meetings as not applicable.
Preferred private communication methods (ranked by % who agree they are helpful)
Email
83%
Phone
63%
Video conference (e.g. MS Teams)
19%
In-person meeting
9%
Table 4 - Preferred private (one-on-one) communications methods
Additional suggested communications methods
Respondents were also asked to comment on other forms of mass and private communication that they would like to see adopted. Only about 5% responded (n=22). The suggested additional methods included text messaging (for its speed and brevity) and LinkedIn.
Perceptions of the OCIEC
General opinion of the OCIEC
Respondents were asked whether they agree with the statement: “My general opinion of OCIEC is positive." 77% of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed and 13% of respondents did not agree or disagree with that statement. The remaining 10% somewhat or strongly disagreed.
General opinion of the OCIEC
Strongly disagree
4%
Somewhat disagree
6%
Neither agree / disagree
13%
Somewhat agree
36%
Strongly agree
41%
Not answered
6%
Table 5 - General opinion of the OCIEC
Perception differences (by role)
In the table below, results have been reflected by role to better illustrate how the respondent's role might affect their perception of the OCIEC. For example, part-time members do not have reporting obligations and therefore do not interact as frequently with the OCIEC, which may affect how they perceive it.
In this question, respondents were presented with several statements about the OCIEC and asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed. The percentages in the table below represent those who answered “strongly agree" or “somewhat agree."[5]
OCIEC is credible
OCIEC is trustworthy
OCIEC is proactive
OCIEC is impartial
OCIEC IS HELPFUL
All respondents
80%
71%
67%
76%
73%
Ministerial staff
76%
78%
68%
71%
74%
Heads of departments
85%
5%
0%
82%
72%
Full-time members
79%
80%
66%
75%
72%
Part-time members
84%
84%
68%
81%
76%
Embassy / Consulate staff
55%
64%
36%
50%
55%
Table 6 - Perceptions of the OCIEC based on respondents’ profiles
While the overall perception of the OCIEC is high, the heads of departments as well as part-time members had the highest agreement level with most attributes, specifically, credibility, trustworthiness, and impartiality. The lowest scores came from embassy/consulate staff; however, the sample size from this group was extremely small.
The overall agreement level with the OCIEC being a proactive organization came in at 67%. This was the lowest score out of the provided attributes.
Satisfaction with one-on-one service
Respondents were also asked to think back on their most recent one-on-one interaction with an employee of the OCIEC and indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the provided statements.
Once again, the sentiment tended to be quite positive, with those that agree with each statement seldom falling under 85%. Positive responses tended to once again be weaker among embassy/consulate staff, very likely due to their relative underrepresentation in the survey. Only 3% of respondents were embassy/consulate staff (n=11).
OCIEC employee was courteous and helpful
OCIEC employee provided me with accurate information
OCIEC employee provided me with a timely response
OCIEC employee gave me the information that I needed
Overall, I was satisfied with my experience
All respondents
91%
89%
89%
86%
84%
Ministerial staff
90%
88%
85%
83%
81%
Heads of departments
91%
92%
90%
90%
86%
Full-time members
92%
87%
91%
88%
86%
Part-time members
85%
85%
92%
77%
85%
Embassy / Consulate staff
80%
80%
80%
60%
60%
Table 7 - Perception of most recent one-on-one interaction based on respondents’ profiles
Out of the 10% of people that stated they were dissatisfied with their experience, the top complaint was with the service quality, with some respondents saying that emails or phone calls had gone unanswered and others mentioning insufficient or inconsistent advice. Others, still, had complaints about the rules the OCIEC enforces. As one commenter said: “I was satisfied in that the employee answered my question and was obviously doing her job. I wasn't satisfied with what the law apparently required her to tell me… to complete a 19-page form and provide information that I just confirmed three months ago, because of inflexibility in the legislation."
The OCIEC is looking into the concerns these comments reveal to try and address them as best we can.
Greatest value-add
Respondents were asked to answer an open-ended question as follows: “Which service or program offered by the OCIEC has the greatest value-add in terms of supporting you in meeting your compliance requirements?"
Upon categorizing the 173 responses received, personal interaction with an advisor came out as the greatest value-add of the OCIEC. Respondents appreciated the quick and clear advice they received that related specifically to their situations. The second most cited value-add was the training the OCIEC provides followed by the OCIEC's annual update notices.
The results of this question allow us to understand what we are doing right and gives us ideas for how to adjust our strategy in areas with lower rates of satisfaction.
Footnotes
1 - Public office holders who are Members of the House of Commons and also subject to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons were not included in the survey.
2 - Survey respondents were given eight options of topics about which they might receive training. They were asked to rank these topics from 1 to 8, 1 being the topic most interesting to them, and 8 being the least. To make sense of these results, we gathered up all the responses and then generated averages for each item. Consistent with the ranking system, the averages closest to 1 were considered the most interesting topics to respondents, and the closest to 8 were the least interesting.
3 - Survey respondents were given five options of topics about which they might receive training. They were asked to rank these methods from 1 to 5, 1 being the method most preferred, and 5 being the least. To make sense of these results, we gathered up all the responses and then generated averages for each item. Consistent with the ranking system, the averages closest to 1 were considered the most interesting topics to respondents, and the closest to 5 were the least interesting.
4 - Roughly 30% of the respondents indicated that they rely on Twitter as a source of information about the conflict-of-interest regimes administered by the OCIEC. This is in line with statistics on Canadians' reliance on Twitter as a news source.
5 - Between 5% and 25% of the respondents answered “Neither agree nor disagree."
Appendix A – Survey results
1. How familiar are you with your obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act?
Question type: Multiple choice
Number of responses: 429
Number of respondents: 455
Answer
Count
Percent answer
Very familiar
214
47.0%
Somewhat familiar
202
44.4%
Not very familiar
11
2.4%
Not at all familiar
2
0.4%
The Conflict of Interest Act does not apply to me
0
0%
Not answered
26
5.7%
2. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (OCIEC):
Question type: Matrix & Multimatrix
Number of responses: 450
Number of respondents: 455
Matrix row
Not answered
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
I am well aware of OCIEC's mandate
7 (1.5%)
13 (2.9%)
15 (3.3%)
23 (5.1%)
217 (47.7%)
180 (39.6%)
My general opinion of OCIEC is positive
6 (1.3%)
19 (4.2%)
25 (5.5%)
60 (13.2%)
163 (35.8%)
182 (40.0%)
The OCIEC is a credible organization
9 (2.0%)
15 (3.3%)
15 (3.3%)
61 (13.4%)
133 (29.2%)
222 (48.8%)
The OCIEC is a trustworthy organization
6 (1.3%)
16 (3.5%)
11 (2.4%)
59 (13.0%)
139 (30.5%)
224 (49.2%)
The OCIEC is a proactive organization
5 (1.1%)
14 (3.1%)
23 (5.1%)
112 (24.6%)
168 (36.9%)
133 (29.2%)
The OCIEC is an impartial organization
7 (1.5%)
16 (3.5%)
19 (4.2%)
71 (15.6%)
119 (26.2%)
223 (49.0%)
The OCIEC is a helpful organization
7 (1.5%)
22 (4.8%)
22 (4.8%)
78 (17.1%)
153 (33.6%)
173 (38.0%)
I feel comfortable approaching the OCIEC should the need arise
10 (2.2%)
17 (3.7%)
15 (3.3%)
47 (10.3%)
121 (26.6%)
245 (53.8%)
3. Thinking of the past 12 months, approximately how many times did you privately interact (one-on-one) with someone from the OCIEC?
Question type: Open-ended
Number of responses: 446
Number of respondents: 455
Answer
Not answered
Answered
Mean
Std dev
25% quartile
Median
75% quartile
9 (2.0%)
446.0
2.5
3.4
0.0
2.0
3.0
4. Thinking of your most recent private interaction (one-on-one) with the OCIEC, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
Question type: Matrix & Multimatrix
Number of responses: 448
Number of “not applicable": 114
Number of respondents: 455
Matrix row
Not answered
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
The OCIEC employee I interacted with was courteous and helpful
8 (2.3%)
13 (3.8%)
8 (2.3%)
9 (2.6%)
48 (14.1%)
255 (74.8%)
The OCIEC employee I interacted with provided me with accurate information
8 (2.3%)
13 (3.8%)
6 (1.8%)
19 (5.6%)
53 (15.5%)
242 (71.0%)
The OCIEC employee I interacted with provided me with a timely response
9 (2.6%)
14 (4.1%)
12 (3.5%)
12 (3.5%)
66 (19.4%)
228 (66.9%)
I was given the information I needed
9 (2.6%)
11 (3.2%)
17 (5.0%)
18 (5.3%)
49 (14.4%)
237 (69.5%)
Overall, I was satisfied with my experience
13 (3.8%)
18 (5.3%)
15 (4.4%)
19 (5.6%)
54 (15.8%)
222 (65.1%)
5. How helpful or unhelpful do you find the following OCIEC mass communication methods?
Question type: Matrix & Multimatrix
Number of responses: 435
Number of respondents: 455
Scale: 1 (Not at all helpful) – 5 (Extremely helpful); 0: NA
Matrix row
Not answered
Mean
Std dev
Count and % rating 1
Count and % rating 2
Count and % rating 3
Count and % rating 4
Count and % rating 5
NA option
Website (ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca)
158 (34.7%)
3.6
0.9
11 (2.5%)
20 (4.6%)
94 (21.8%)
128 (29.6%)
44 (10.2%)
135 (31.3%)
Generic emails from Commissioner Dion
83 (18.2%)
3.6
1.0
10 (2.3%)
32 (7.4%)
122 (28.2%)
143 (33.1%)
65 (15.0%)
60 (13.9%)
Generic emails from OCIEC (not specifically from the Commissioner)
108 (23.7%)
3.5
1.0
11 (2.5%)
37 (8.6%)
118 (27.3%)
128 (29.6%)
53 (12.3%)
85 (19.7%)
Twitter (@EthicsCanada | @EthiqueCanada)
332 (73.0%)
1.9
1.2
63 (14.8%)
26 (6.1%)
18 (4.2%)
10 (2.3%)
6 (1.4%)
304 (71.2%)
Information notices (often in PDF or HTML format)
217 (47.7%)
3.4
1.1
15 (3.5%)
24 (5.5%)
76 (17.6%)
89 (20.6%)
34 (7.9%)
195 (45.0%)
6. Are there any mass communication methods currently not being used that you would like OCIEC to adopt going forward?
Question type: Multiple choice
Number of responses: 441
Number of respondents: 455
Answer
Count
Percentage of answer
Yes
24
5.3%
No
416
91.4%
Not answered
15
3.3%
7. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the overall tone of OCIEC mass communication:
Question type: Matrix & Multimatrix
Number of responses: 450
Number of “not applicable": 45
Number of respondents: 455
Matrix row
Not answered
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
The overall tone used in OCIEC mass communication is clear
5 (1.2%)
4 (1.0%)
15 (3.7%)
55 (13.4%)
172 (42.0%)
159 (38.8%)
The overall tone used in OCIEC mass communication is professional
8 (2.0%)
6 (1.5%)
3 (0.7%)
36 (8.8%)
124 (30.2%)
233 (56.8%)
The overall tone used in OCIEC mass communication is respectful
15 (3.7%)
6 (1.5%)
9 (2.2%)
32 (7.8%)
123 (30.0%)
225 (54.9%)
8. How helpful or unhelpful do you find the following official OCIEC private (one-on-one) communication methods?
Question type: Matrix & Multimatrix
Number of responses: 445
Number of respondents: 455
Scale: 1 (Not at all helpful) – 5 (Extremely helpful); 0: NA
Matrix row
Not answered
Mean
Std dev
Count and % rating 1
Count and % rating 2
Count and % rating 3
Count and % rating 4
Count and % rating 5
NA option
Email
74 (16.3%)
4.4
0.8
3 (0.7%)
8 (1.8%)
31 (7.0%)
117 (26.4%)
222 (50.0%)
63 (14.2%)
Phone
167 (36.7%)
4.4
0.8
4 (0.9%)
4 (0.9%)
25 (5.7%)
81 (18.4%)
174 (39.5%)
153 (34.7%)
Videoconference (e.g. MS Teams)
366 (80.4%)
4.0
1.0
3 (0.7%)
3 (0.7%)
20 (4.5%)
30 (6.8%)
33 (7.5%)
351 (79.8%)
In-person meeting
401 (88.1%)
3.5
1.3
3 (0.7%)
11 (2.5%)
11 (2.5%)
13 (3.0%)
16 (3.7%)
384 (87.7%)
9. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
Question type: Matrix & Multimatrix
Number of responses: 448
Number of respondents: 455
Matrix row
Not answered
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
I prefer to find conflict of interest-related information on my own, when I need it, rather than having it sent to me proactively
8 (1.8%)
118 (25.9%)
153 (33.6%)
103 (22.6%)
55 (12.1%)
18 (4.0%)
I am interested in educational opportunities offered by the OCIEC
13 (2.9%)
16 (3.5%)
35 (7.7%)
126 (27.7%)
163 (35.8%)
102 (22.4%)
10. Please rank the following OCIEC-related topics in order of importance - 1 being the most important to you and 8 being the least important.
Question type: Rating & Ranking
Number of responses: 455
Number of “not applicable": 44
Number of respondents: 455
Scale: 1 – 8; 0: NA
Answer
Mean
Std dev
Count and % rating 0
Count and % rating 1
Count and % rating 2
Count and % rating 3
Count and % rating 4
Count and % rating 5
Count and % rating 6
Count and % rating 7
Count and % rating 8
Gifts
4.0
2.4
26 (6.3%)
35 (8.5%)
59 (14.4%)
70 (17.0%)
59 (14.4%)
52 (12.7%)
28 (6.8%)
20 (4.9%)
62 (15.1%)
Material change (assets, activities, ...)
2.4
1.8
18 (4.4%)
147 (35.8%)
99 (24.1%)
53 (12.9%)
38 (9.2%)
20 (4.9%)
19 (4.6%)
14 (3.4%)
3 (0.7%)
Recusals (private interests)
2.8
1.8
25 (6.1%)
77 (18.7%)
105 (25.5%)
72 (17.5%)
60 (14.6%)
31 (7.5%)
21 (5.1%)
15 (3.6%)
5 (1.2%)
Penalties
4.6
2.3
36 (8.8%)
9 (2.2%)
28 (6.8%)
36 (8.8%)
62 (15.1%)
96 (23.4%)
52 (12.7%)
44 (10.7%)
48 (11.7%)
Post-employment
3.3
2.0
18 (4.4%)
71 (17.3%)
59 (14.4%)
89 (21.7%)
73 (17.8%)
45 (10.9%)
22 (5.4%)
12 (2.9%)
22 (5.4%)
Investigation reports
4.8
2.2
35 (8.5%)
11 (2.7%)
14 (3.4%)
34 (8.3%)
47 (11.4%)
57 (13.9%)
138 (33.6%)
49 (11.9%)
26 (6.3%)
Annual reports
4.9
2.5
32 (7.8%)
43 (10.5%)
17 (4.1%)
28 (6.8%)
25 (6.1%)
48 (11.7%)
46 (11.2%)
145 (35.3%)
27 (6.6%)
Quarterly reports
6.1
2.5
37 (9.0%)
5 (1.2%)
13 (3.2%)
8 (1.9%)
19 (4.6%)
26 (6.3%)
48 (11.7%)
75 (18.2%)
180 (43.8%)
11. Are there any other topics that you would like the OCIEC to provide more information and/or training on?
Question type: Multiple choice
Number of responses: 441
Number of respondents: 455
Answer
Count
Percentage of answers
Yes
52
11.4%
No
387
85.1%
Not answered
16
3.5%
12. Please rank the following OCIEC training delivery formats in order of preference - 1 being the most preferred and 5 being the least preferred
Question type: Rating & Ranking
Number of responses: 455
Number of “not applicable": 62
Number of respondents: 455
Scale: 1 – 5; 0: NA
Answer
Mean
Std dev
Count and % rating 0
Count and % rating 1
Count and % rating 2
Count and % rating 3
Count and % rating 4
Count and % rating 5
Online educational session on a specific topic with live presenters
2.0
1.4
30 (7.6%)
147 (37.4%)
86 (21.9%)
64 (16.3%)
40 (10.2%)
26 (6.6%)
Self-study with OCIEC-provided materials
2.9
1.6
29 (7.4%)
68 (17.3%)
71 (18.1%)
54 (13.7%)
82 (20.9%)
89 (22.6%)
One-on-one personalized training
3.2
1.7
33 (8.4%)
56 (14.2%)
44 (11.2%)
55 (14.0%)
83 (21.1%)
122 (31.0%)
Customized educational group session for your organization
2.6
1.5
32 (8.1%)
72 (18.3%)
92 (23.4%)
82 (20.9%)
57 (14.5%)
58 (14.8%)
Questions and answers online session
3.0
1.4
34 (8.7%)
29 (7.4%)
70 (17.8%)
106 (27.0%)
95 (24.2%)
59 (15.0%)
13. How often should the OCIEC be offering live educational opportunities?
Question type: Multiple choice
Number of responses: 440
Number of respondents: 455
Answer
Count
Percentage of answers
Never
7
1.5%
Annually
138
30.3%
Quarterly
135
29.7%
Monthly
14
3.1%
When topical
140
30.8%
Other
6
1.3%
Not answered
15
3.3%
14. Which service or program offered by the OCIEC has the greatest added value in terms of supporting you in meeting your compliance requirements?
Question type: Open-ended
Number of responses: 242
Number of respondents: 455
Not answered: 213
15. Which role best describes you as a public office holder?
Question type: Multiple choice
Number of responses: 447
Number of respondents: 455
Answer
Count
Percentage of answers
Head of Department, Agency, Crown Corporation or another federal organization
99
21.8%
Ministerial Staff
91
20.0%
Full-time Tribunal/Board/Commissions Member
156
34.3%
Part-time Tribunal/Board/Commissions Member
62
13.6%
Embassy/Consulate Staff
11
2.4%
Other
28
6.2%
Not answered
8
1.8%
16. Approximately how long have you been a public office holder?
Question type: Multiple choice
Number of responses: 446
Number of “not applicable": 2
Number of respondents: 455
Answer
Count
Percentage of answers
Less than 1 year
56
12.4%
1 to 5 years
269
59.4%
6 to 10 years
71
15.7%
11 to 15 years
20
4.4%
Over 15 years
28
6.2%
Not answered
9
2.0%
17. Do you have any additional suggestions or comments for the OCIEC that could help us better serve you?
Question type: Open-ended
Number of responses: 124
Number of respondents: 455
Not answered: 331
Appendix B – Survey questions
OCIEC Stakeholder Survey 2022
1. How familiar are you with your obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act?
Very familiarSomewhat familiarNot very familiarNot at all familiarThe Conflict of Interest Act does not apply to me
2. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner (OCIEC):
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
I am well aware of OCIEC's mandate
My general opinion of the OCIEC is positive
The OCIEC is a credible organization
The OCIEC is a trustworthy organization
The OCIEC is a proactive organization
The OCIEC is an impartial organization
The OCIEC is a helpful organization
I feel comfortable approaching the OCIEC should the need arise
3. Thinking of the past 12 months, approximately how many times did you privately interact (one-on-one) with someone from the OCIEC?
(Responses must be between 0 and 100, inclusive)
4. Thinking of your most recent private interaction (one-on-one) with the OCIEC, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Not applicable
The OCIEC employee I interacted with was courteous and helpful
The OCIEC employee I interacted with provided me with accurate information
The OCIEC employee I interacted with provided me with a timely response
I was given the information I needed
Overall, I was satisfied with my experience
Do you have any other comments about your most recent private interaction (one-on-one) with the OCIEC?
5. How helpful or unhelpful do you find the following OCIEC mass communication methods?
Not at all helpful
Somewhat helpful
Extremely helpful
12345I do not recall coming across this content
Website (ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca)
Generic emails from Commissioner Dion
Generic emails from OCIEC (not specifically from the Commissioner)
Twitter (@EthicsCanada | @EthiqueCanada)
Information notices (often in PDF or HTML format)
6. Are there any mass communication methods currently not being used that you would like OCIEC to adopt going forward?
E.g. Other social media platforms, text messages, instant messengers, etc.
YesNo
If you replied "yes", please specify your preferred method(s)
7. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the overall tone of OCIEC mass communication:
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
Not applicable
The overall tone used in OCIEC mass communication is clear
The overall tone used in OCIEC mass communication is professional
The overall tone used in OCIEC mass communication is respectful
8. How helpful or unhelpful do you find the following official OCIEC private (one-on-one) communication methods?
Not at all helpful
Somewhat helpful
Extremely helpful
12345
I have not yet interacted privately (one-on-one) with the OCIEC using this method
Email
Phone
Videoconference (e.g. MS Teams)
In-person meeting
Do you have any other comments about these private (one-on-one) communication methods that you would like to share?
9. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
Strongly disagree
Somewhat disagree
Neither agree / disagree
Somewhat agree
Strongly agree
I prefer to find conflict of interest related information on my own, when I need it, rather than having it sent to me proactively
I am interested in educational opportunities offered by the OCIEC
10. Please rank the following OCIEC related topics in order of importance -- 1 being the most important to you and 8 being the least important.
Not applicable
Responses must be between 1 and 8, inclusive
GiftsMaterial change (assets, activities, ...)Recusals (private interests)PenaltiesPost-employmentInvestigation reportsAnnual reportsQuarterly reports
11. Are there any other topics that you would like the OCIEC to provide more information and/or training on?
YesNo
If you replied "yes," please specify the topic(s).
12. Please rank the following OCIEC training delivery formats in order of preference - 1 being the most preferred and 5 being the least preferred.
Not applicable
Responses must be between 1 and 5, inclusive
Online educational session on a specific topic with live presentersSelf-study with OCIEC-provided materialsOne-on-one personalized trainingCustomized educational group session for your organizationQuestions and answers online session
Are there other training delivery formats that you would like us to use?
13. How often should the OCIEC be offering live educational opportunities?
NeverAnnuallyQuarterlyMonthlyWhen topicalOther
14. Which service or program offered by the OCIEC has the greatest added value in terms of supporting you in meeting your compliance requirements?
Please only state the top item that comes to mind
15. Which role best describes you as a public office holder?
Head of Department, Agency, Crown Corporation or another federal organizationMinisterial StaffFull-time Tribunal/Board/Commissions MemberPart-time Tribunal/Board/Commissions MemberEmbassy/Consulate StaffOther
16. Approximately how long have you been a public office holder?
Not applicableLess than 1 year1 to 5 years6 to 10 years11 to 15 yearsOver 15 years
17. Do you have any additional suggestions or comments for the OCIEC that could help us better serve you?