Government Operations Committee on Feb. 16th, 2017

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay.

Mr. Manchanda, we've got only one minute. Walk us very briefly through how it works with the military. There was a report recently on, I think, there being $70 million worth of thefts from inventory within the military last year. Say someone knew about it. What would be the process? I ask because I read somewhere that keep it almost within their own department and, unfortunately, if you're like my associate here, Mr. Clarke, who served, you know very well that if you're a sergeant reporting within your department, there's not a lot of protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Please give a short answer.

[Amipal Manchanda]

Very quickly, the internal disclosure regime that has been developed for the Canadian Armed Forces is very, very similar. Every step is to look at the key tenets. Every single part that's covered off on the civilian side of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, all those tenets form part of the Canadian Forces' disclosure protection act process. The only thing I would say is that the Canadian Forces' protection process came in effect a little bit later because it was initially excluded, but we are getting disclosures of wrongdoing. They are coming in to the Canadian Armed Forces, so it's a question of continuing awareness and ensuring they know that there is an independent channel. As I mentioned in my opening comments, the chief of the defence staff appointed me as the senior officer, and I'm completely outside the chain of command.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Weir, you have seven minutes, please.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you.

We have a panel of very senior officials from three different departments.

I want to thank you for taking the time to appear before our committee. My sense is that whistle-blower protection would comprise a relatively small fraction of everything that you manage in your jobs. I'm curious to know if there are people in your departments who are specialists or experts on the whistle-blower protection act.

[Amipal Manchanda]

Perhaps I can start.

As I said, we have a dedicated individual who is responsible for the intake process. That person knows the act very well. In fact, as per the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, in our case, under the Canadian Armed Forces' regime, we had to develop a parallel process, one that was very similar. We had no choice but to gain a very good understanding about individuals within our organization who worked with our legal counsel and Treasury Board officials to ensure that we understood all elements of that act, and that we put in place a regime to afford members of the Canadian Armed Forces and civilians the ability to come forward in a confidential manner and report a wrongdoing.

[Barbara Glover]

I'll turn to Biagio.

[Biagio Carrese, Director, Special Investigations Directorate, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Within PSPC we have a dedicated team of 10 investigators with varying backgrounds, from criminal investigations to corruption and high-level fraud, and procurement experts. We have access to forensic accountants. We have, at any time, six people dedicated to working on internal disclosures. We have a manager who does a four-stage quality assurance process within the life cycle of an investigation.

[Line Lamothe]

I will ask Mr. Tremble to answer.

[John Tremble, Director, Centre for Integrity, Values and Conflict Resolution, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Within Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, at our centre for integrity, values and conflict resolution, I am supported by three staff who assist me in receiving complaints.

When my staff believe there is something that could meet the definition of a wrongdoing under the legislation, it's brought to my attention. Then we go through a very rigorous analysis to determine whether or not the allegation being brought forward would meet the definition under the act.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

That prompts me to follow up on Mr. McCauley's question about the number of cases dealt with at INAC. It sounds like you may have more staff processing the complaints than actual complaints. I wonder if there's some problem that's preventing people from blowing the whistle and coming forward.

[John Tremble]

I would say that about 10% to 15% of our time involves dealing with possible wrongdoing. We do an awful lot of training and promotion. We engage staff across the country on our processes. We talk about wrongdoing. We encourage people to come forward and raise issues with us.

People often come to us and raise concerns about a possible conflict of interest. There may be matters that come up that are of a human resources nature, and those issues are dealt with through the appropriate venue. We don't automatically move right into the PSDPA, unless the allegation or the concern being raised would meet the definition of a wrongdoing, in which case we go through a very rigorous due diligence process.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Is it your sense that the definition of wrongdoing in the act may be too narrow?

[John Tremble]

We apply the act as it's written. When we receive allegations, we evaluate the allegations based on the definitions in the law.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I have a similar kind of question for Public Services and Procurement.

Our committee has certainly been studying the Phoenix payroll system and Shared Services. We've heard some very strong testimony that many people knew about the problems with Phoenix and that the boondoggle could have been avoided if they had felt comfortable coming forward.

Mr. McCauley asked about this, and it seemed that your response, Ms. Glover, was to say that while there were a lot of problems with Phoenix, there wasn't wrongdoing according to the act.

That may be true, but it seems to me that ultimately we want to foster a culture where people feel comfortable coming forward and calling attention to those kinds of problems, before they go off the rails in the way that Phoenix and Shared Services have. I just want to give you another chance to address this.

[Barbara Glover]

Let's see if I can say something with a different tack. Maybe I'm only going to say the same thing. I apologize for that.

Some did not want to go forward with Phoenix. That's fair. We're hearing that now. I heard it more afterward than before. After it was implemented and after there were implementation problems, I have heard and read, as you all have, that people wish they could have gone back in time. I didn't say there was no wrongdoing; I say that I don't know and have seen no evidence of it. No one has come to us with evidence of wrongdoing.

But I also said there was an OAG review under way and that there would be recommendations coming out of it. Really, the act and internal investigations are not a place that people come forward under and say, “I wish something was done differently” or “I believe strongly something”—

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I'm not talking about the kind of retrospective argument. What I'm suggesting is that Phoenix and Shared Services were both huge projects that hundreds or maybe thousands of people were involved in. There were clearly big problems with them. It stands to reason that some of those people probably knew about the problems sooner than when they became public, and it certainly would have been a good thing had there been some sort of willingness or process where people could have come forward and raised those concerns sooner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

It's a salient point, Mr. Weir, but unfortunately we're completely out of time.

You may want to consider responding to Mr. Weir's question in a written form.

Witnesses, at the conclusion of your testimony, if there's other information that you feel you would like to share with the committee, please forward it to us.

Our final intervention will come from Madam Ratansi. You have seven minutes, please.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you all for being here. I'll ask a quick question, because seven minutes goes very fast.

As you know, we've had whistle-blowers come before us. We've had the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner before us. Trust in a public service is very important, and you talked about various tools, the whistle-blower act being one them, to ensure the integrity of the system.

But you also mentioned that when a reprisal occurs, you do not tolerate it. We have heard from people who feel that when they blow the whistle and there is reprisal, maybe senior management is eliminated, but then they're ostracized or fired or moved.

In your investigations, have you come across those instances?

[Barbara Glover]

No.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Okay. Fair enough.

Have there been any instances where you felt uncomfortable in your investigation because it probably dealt with the top senior management?

[Barbara Glover]

No.

I can assure you that I have a basis for answering that question in that way.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Perfect. Okay.

I need to go to Mr. Manchanda.

In the Department of National Defence, there exist two systems, one for the Canadian Armed Forces and one for National Defence. I guess there is a difference between the two systems because of security purposes.

You're an accountant and an auditor. Am I right?

[Amipal Manchanda]

Yes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

For the benefit of our committee, could you tell us, number one, why does it come under internal audit?