Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16th, 2017

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Colleagues, I think we'll get going. Even though it's a minute or two prior to the scheduled start time, we have a very busy agenda today and I'd like to make sure we maximize all of our allotted time.

Before I introduce our witnesses and have them give their opening statements, I have a couple of housekeeping notes.

Because we have several presenters today and at least two one-hour panels, there will only be time for one complete seven-minute round of questions with each panel, so be prepared for that. The second panel might even be a bit more truncated than that, because I'd like to get 15 minutes at the end of today's meeting to talk about future business and some future witnesses. We have to make a few decisions on that.

We have two options. We can keep the testimony and the questioning short, or we can extend the sitting time of this committee by about 10 or 15 minutes. We'll play that by ear.

With that brief introduction, I want to welcome all of our guests. This is the 71st meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We're dealing with our study of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, also know as the whistle-blower act.

Without further ado, from the Department of National Defence, Mr. Manchanda, you have an opening statement. The floors is yours, sir.

If you could keep your comments, witnesses, to certainly no more than 10 minutes, and less if possible, that would be very much appreciated.

Please, sir, go ahead.

[Amipal Manchanda, Assistant Deputy Minister, Review Services, Department of National Defence]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, and members of Parliament, thank you very much for the invitation this morning.

It is my distinct pleasure to address you today on the subject of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act in the context of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

I am the designated senior officer within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces for receiving and dealing with disclosures of wrongdoing.

Before I speak about the act and provide my organization's perspective, I would like to briefly address my responsibilities inside the organization.

First, in my role as assistant deputy minister, review services, I am responsible for providing the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff with assurance services regarding the adequacy of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces' internal controls; governance and accountability processes; risk management practices, compliance with government legislation, regulations and policies; as well as program effectiveness. It is important to note that my role is independent and I report directly to the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff.

My responsibilities are carried out through the delivery of professional internal audit and evaluation programs, the conduct of special examinations and inquiries, including those related to internal disclosures, and prevention and awareness activities, as well as management of the Defence Ethics Program. My office is also the formal departmental point of contact with the Office of the Auditor General.

I maintain unfettered access to any and all information within the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, and in line with my independence function I do not manage any operational program area directly.

Canadians have an absolute right to expect all public servants and members of the Canadian Armed Forces to behave ethically and in accordance with their legal obligations. To encourage and support these values, we are committed to fostering an environment in which all employees may honestly and openly raise ethical and legal concerns without fear or threat of reprisal, consistent with the act.

As members of this committee know, the goal of the legislation is to encourage employees in the federal public sector to come forward, if they have reason to believe that serious wrongdoing has taken place. It provides clear guidance to public servants on several options for addressing and reporting wrongdoing.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act prohibits taking reprisal against a public servant who has made a protected disclosure in good faith or who has co-operated in an investigation. It also provides a fair and objective process to respect those accused of wrongdoing.

We have implemented the Canadian Forces disclosure process, which provides for the disclosure of wrongdoing by a Canadian Armed Forces member, in order to comply with section 52 of the act, which requires the Canadian Armed Forces to establish procedures for the disclosure of wrongdoing, including the protection of persons who disclose wrongdoing, deemed comparable by the Treasury Board to those established under the Act.

The Canadian Armed Forces internal disclosure regime is built on the same tenets as the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and includes the following.

There is a definition of what constitutes wrongdoing. There is a process for disclosure of wrongdoing with established procedures. There is the designation of a senior officer, which is my role. The committee will note, as I mentioned earlier, that I do not form part of the Canadian Armed Forces' chain of command. There is a prohibition against reprisal for any Canadian Armed Forces member making a disclosure of wrongdoing. It is important to know that any allegation of reprisal under the Canadian Armed Forces regime is investigated directly by me. Finally, there are confidentiality and annual reporting requirements.

In the belief that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces will benefit from a common ethical foundation that respects the unique mandate of each, the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff have established a joint Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Code of Values and Ethics.

It is important to highlight, Mr. Chair, that the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act assigns a departmental responsibility for implementing the provisions of the act to the chief executive.

Within the Department of National Defence, the chief executive is the deputy minister, who is responsible to designate a senior officer—me—to direct the development and implementation of internal procedures for the receipt and investigation of wrongdoing and to ensure that the obligations under the Act are fulfilled.

Under the Canadian Armed Forces disclosure process, the chief of the defence staff has designated me as the proper authority for purposes of the Queen's regulations and orders.

In these dual roles, I direct the development and implementation of internal procedures for the disclosure of wrongdoing, ensure that the obligations under the act and the Canadian Armed Forces disclosure process are fulfilled, ensure that corrected measures are taken when wrongdoing is found as a result of a disclosure, and oversee on behalf of the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff the preparation of the annual report required by the office of the chief human resources officer of Treasury Board.

This brings me to the question of awareness. One may have the best legal and ethical framework in the world, but if few people are aware of its existence, it is all beside the point. Mindful of this, we have taken great care to promote our Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Code of Values and Ethics and its relationship with our internal disclosure program in particular.

The Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces Code of Values and Ethics represents an important element of the Defence ethics program, which will allow us to proactively shape, promote, and develop an ethical culture that reflects and supports public sector and Canadian Armed Forces values and ethics. Leadership and management at all levels are expected to visibly promote and support the values and ethics of this code.

Our training and awareness activities include an internal disclosure website that provides guidance on how to submit a disclosure as well as relevant contact information to assist those who may have additional questions regarding wrongdoing reprisals.

We have also posted online disclosure of wrongdoing guidelines for our DND employees and Canadian Armed Forces members. We have integrated an internal disclosure curriculum into other training for employees and members; for example, on-boarding for new employees, defence ethics training, and also prevention workshops at bases and wings.

I am pleased to say that we have dedicated resources to our internal disclosure process, befitting a large and complex organization. These include a full-time dedicated internal disclosure office and investigation section responsible for investigating all manner of alleged wrongdoing in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.

The team responsible for conducting these investigations includes former RCMP and military police officers along with a team of forensic examiners who are specialists in the area of finance and accounting.

In developing and refining our program, we continue to work within the larger government setting through our participation in the interdepartmental working group on internal disclosure. In addition, we provide guidance to and share best practices with other government departments on a regular basis.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that our goal is to ensure that every employee and member of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces has the opportunity to report wrongdoing wherever they believe it exists. An internal disclosure program that is well understood and trusted will form the basis for improvements and priorities as we continue to mature our program at the Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces.

In turn, this will ensure that the Canadian public remains confident in the DND Canadian Armed Forces process as the department exercises its roles and responsibilities.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, sir, and thank you for the economy of your words.

Next up we have Madam Glover.

You have 10 minutes or less, please, ma'am.

[Barbara Glover, Assistant Deputy Minister, Departmental Oversight Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome the opportunity to present and discuss with the committee the measures that Public Services and Procurement Canada has put in place to uphold the public's trust in our operations. Accompanying me is Biagio Carrese, director of special investigations.

PSPC plays a key role in the operations of the federal government as its treasurer, accountant, central purchasing agent, linguistic authority, and real property manager. I could talk about all the things the department does, but I'll just skip that part of the presentation.

The department has been working diligently over time to protect and safeguard the use and expenditure of public funds, to ensure strong stewardship and transparency, and to uphold the public confidence in relation to its contracts and real property agreements.

To prevent and respond to potential wrongdoing, PSPC has a strong framework in place. We have embedded measures into everything we do, from our corporate culture, which is at the very core of our approach, to our management practices, systems, and processes involving daily operations. It starts with the tone from the top and includes values and ethics, our code of conduct, training, investigations, etc. This includes ensuring that departmental values are reflected in the orientation for new employees and on-boarding newly appointed executives. PSPC also reduces the opportunities for fraudulent business activities through security screening of contractors and an integrity regime for Government of Canada contracts. There is also a procurement code of conduct that applies to contractors as well as employees.

The department seeks to ensure that its employees act in the public's best interest at all times and ensure transparent, accountable, and responsible management; that its employees act in compliance with the letter and spirit of all applicable laws; that its employees prevent, avoid, and report situations that could give the appearance of a conflict of interest or result in a potential or actual conflict of interest; and that its employees disclose potential wrongdoing.

As the department's senior officer under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, I am very proud of our internal disclosure program. We have carried out extensive outreach to ensure that employees know their obligation of coming forward with potential wrongdoing. This responsibility has been embedded in our code of conduct. We have explained the protections offered under the PSDPA as well as the methods we employ internally to protect the discloser's identity as well as that of the alleged wrongdoer.

I believe that our number of disclosures over the years indicates that our employees do come forward with allegations and have confidence that we look into each one and do not tolerate reprisals against disclosers. When allegations are founded, disciplinary and corrective measures are taken. When systemic issues arise, recommendations are made to address process and procedure deficiencies.

Investigations under the PSDPA are but one mechanism to identify and address wrongdoing. Other mechanisms include internal investigations; routine audits undertaken by our human resources, acquisitions, and finance branches; and complaints that come in related to procurement, including proactive ones where the department feels there is a high risk.

Our investigative team also conducts investigations related to system vulnerabilities that may lead to privacy breaches and/or fraud. These are all rigorously investigated by a dedicated, multidisciplinary team of investigators. The team receives an average of 100 complaints per year, of which about a third are under the PSDPA.

I'll close by saying that PSPC is committed to the efficiency of its internal disclosure program, as this program is a critical component of ensuring confidence in the overall management of our organization.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much, Madam Glover. I thank you for your brevity.

Our final presenter, representing the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will be Madame Lamothe.

Go ahead, please.

[Line Lamothe, Acting Director General, Human Resources and Workplace Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting us. This gives me an opportunity to speak to you about the enforcement of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act within the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.

My name is Line Lamothe and I am the acting director general of the Human Resources and Workplace Services Branch. I am accompanied this morning by Mr. John Tremble, INAC's senior officer for disclosure and director of the Centre for Integrity, Values and Conflict Resolution.

INAC supports indigenous people—first nations, Inuit, Métis—and northerners in their effort to improve social well-being and economic prosperity; to develop healthier, more sustainable communities; and to participate fully in Canada's political, social, and economic development to the benefit of all Canadians.

INAC has just over 5,000 employees, and 60% are based in the national capital region and 40% are based in 10 regions across Canada.

The goal of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is to encourage employees in the federal public sector to come forward if they have a reason to believe that serious wrongdoing is taking place or has taken place. The act protects public servants against reprisal and provides a fair and objective process for those accused of wrongdoing.

Employees can make a disclosure to either their supervisor, the INAC-designated senior officer, or directly to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, an independent agent of Parliament. Pursuant to subsection 10(2) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, INAC's deputy minister has designated the director of the centre for integrity, value, and conflict resolution, Mr. John Tremble, as the senior officer responsible for receiving and dealing with disclosure of wrongdoing made by INAC employees. The director is supported by three staff in managing the internal disclosure process.

In accordance with subsection 10(1) of the act, INAC created standard operating procedures for the implementation of the act. The procedures are available to all INAC employees on the departmental Internet site—and I believe you have a copy of them—along with links to various resources from the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner on making a protected disclosure and on the protection afforded to the discloser.

The standard operating procedures provide that the senior officer, with the assistance of the centre, will provide confidential and neutral advice and guidance to public servants considering making a disclosure. The procedures also provide that supervisors who receive a disclosure of wrongdoing are required to promptly transfer it to the senior officer and advise the employee-discloser of this transfer.

When a public servant contacts the centre, the senior officer, with the assistance of the centre, performs initial screening and preliminary analysis of the information received and determines whether it meets the threshold for a disclosure. The public servant is then informed of the disclosure process, including the protections afforded by the act.

Depending on the nature of the allegation, the senior officer may engage a subject matter expert to review the allegation and gather additional information. For example, if an allegation deals with contracting, the senior officer would work with contracting experts to determine whether the allegations could meet the legislated definition of wrongdoing.

If the senior officer believes there are sufficient grounds to launch an investigation, he will inform the deputy minister of the disclosure, the preliminary analysis, and seek approval to initiate an investigation of the matter described in the disclosure. An independent investigator will then be engaged and mandated to conduct an investigation in accordance with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The investigation will be conducted as informally and expeditiously as possible.

Once an investigation is completed, the senior officer will review the results of the investigation, provide the findings, and make recommendations to their deputy minister. When contacted by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, INAC co-operates by providing information to assist PSIC in evaluating the disclosure they received. INAC provides PSIC with information to assist them in determining whether to launch an investigation. PSIC may also request information to assist them in conducting an investigation.

As part of its ongoing awareness and training, the internal disclosure process is discussed during mandatory values and ethics training that is delivered to INAC staff across the country.

Over the past three years, 73 sessions were delivered to some 1,200 employees, almost a quarter of all departmental staff.

Since the inception of the act, INAC has received on average three disclosures per year.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Madame Lamothe.

Thank you all for co-operating with our very tight time schedule. We will have one full seven-minute round of questions. We'll start with the government side.

Mr. Whalen, you have seven minutes, please.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming today to help us with our study on the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

To start off, Mr. Manchanda, we've had sort of a routine set of questions during the meetings to date that focused on fighter jet procurement. Just to find out whether or not any of them are relevant, I have two simple questions.

The first is, have there been any allegations of wrongdoing in your department related to fighter jet procurement?

[Amipal Manchanda]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I'm not aware of any allegations that have come forward.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

We've heard about a very strict non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, that apply to employees in National Defence, probably for good reason. Is it your understanding that, notwithstanding these non-disclosure agreements, it would still be open to employees affected by them to approach the Integrity Commissioner or to come to you with allegations of wrongdoing, notwithstanding the fact that they would probably have to disclose things covered by the NDA?

[Amipal Manchanda]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

I am aware that the committee has discussed the subject at previous meetings. The agreements that have been signed highlight the obligations of public sector servants and Canadian Armed Forces members to safeguard Government of Canada information—no more, no less. As far as the provisions of the act are concerned and a person coming forward with the protected disclosure, nothing would prevent any individual from coming forward and making a disclosure of wrongdoing.

Does that answer your question?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, it does. Thank you very much.

Now I'd like to move to a general question.

This concerns all of the persons who deal with this activity at the department.

My question is addressed to Ms. Lamothe and Ms. Glover, as well as to Mr. Manchanda.

Do you find that you have an inherent conflict of interest in having to report to your department head rather than to the Integrity Commissioner in the case of allegations of wrongdoing in your departments?

This act occupies itself with serious wrongdoing. It raises the very question, if allegations of wrongdoing are brought to you, and they're serious, why would you go to your department head with those? Wouldn't it simply necessitate going to another independent body with those allegations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Whalen, do you want to select one of the—

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Ms. Glover, please.

[Barbara Glover]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman.

I'll try a short answer.

Every deputy minister is responsible for operations in their department. If there is something going wrong, they're responsible for looking into it, whether under the act we're talking about or through internal investigations.

The way it works in my department, and probably others, is that I finish my report, and it's either founded or unfounded. If it's founded, it moves through a disciplinary process that can lead and, frankly has led, to termination. It's not obvious to me that there's a problem with that. It seems to me that it's working in my department.

I'll let the others speak to theirs.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Manchanda.

[Amipal Manchanda]

The act requires the chief executive to put in place a regime that will allow—

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Sorry, Mr. Manchanda. I understand that the act requires it. I'm asking you whether or not you feel there's an inherent conflict of interest required by the act, because you're asking the CEO of a department to investigate wrongdoing in which they may be complicit rather than going straight to the Integrity Commissioner.

[Amipal Manchanda]

There are a couple of elements in there in which independence is assured. One of the things I mentioned in my opening remarks is that I'm not involved in any operational activity within the organization. So the deputy minister and the chief of the defence staff have intentionally ensured that the individual who carries out these investigations is in no way attached to any part of the operations or any elements of wrongdoing that may occur within those operations, and then they provided me with an access directly to them to disclose that wrongdoing.

You're correct that it's not arm's length in terms of being completely independent and outside the organization, as the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is. But I think in an organization where the deputy minister has been tasked under the Financial Administration Act for ensuring that a proper set of internal controls is in place and is functioning regularly, it makes sense to have that regime and to give the deputy head that responsibility to identify it and then deal with the corrective action.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madame Lamothe.

[Line Lamothe]

Yes, the deputy minister is accountable for the operation of the department, and it's the personnel within the department who will take action. I don't see that there would be a conflict of interest.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I would disagree. If somebody is in the position where they may be complicit or may have authorized activities that led to wrongdoing, then there's an inherent conflict. But I understand there's a larger integrity framework.

Ms. Glover, this disclosure act is only one of a number ways in which government tries to ensure the integrity of its operations. Can you describe other specific activities that help ensure the integrity of the operations of government, and how this piece fits into the overall framework?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You have one minute.

[Barbara Glover]

I can talk really quickly, Mr. Chair.

I said in my opening remarks that just on the investigative side, we at PSPC, specifically Biagio, get procurement complaints from the old Public Works. That's not going to surprise you. We get them from all kinds of places, including outside. However they come into the department or to whomever, 100% are reviewed. Sometimes they're in envelopes.

We look at administrative investigations when something is going wrong—if money is missing, for example—and finally, of course, the investigations under this act. But as I said, it starts with having a strong culture, and we aim to have a strong culture of values and ethics and strong training around that and expectations at every level—senior management, staff, new employees—and we work with the unions in that regard.

You can imagine, I think, that in the biggest procurement and real property department, we work on the framework for how we do it all the time as a management team and, frankly, as a department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Mr. McCauley, you have seven minutes.