Public Accounts Committee on March 5th, 2024

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

How many of those officers are able to prepare a budget?

[Dany Richard]

The vast majority are.

I don't know them all personally, but if one of my financial officers was not able to prepare a budget, I would be very disappointed and I would have a discussion with them.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Okay.

I don't know if you heard the previous testimony. We learned from the Auditor General's report that the Public Health Agency, which was supposed to manage the design and rollout of ArriveCAN, didn't even prepare a budget or follow up.

I take it that the officers you represent were not necessarily included, whereas normally, when an organization has a project and prepares budgets and a follow-up, it is supposed to include officers who are able to prepare those budgets.

[Dany Richard]

That's correct.

It's not even a matter of accounting. My 16-year-old nephew is asking me how this can happen when he himself knows that there must be a documented record and internal controls.

I can assure you that, if any of our members had been consulted on this, we could have done some basic things. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. Internal controls have been in place for decades. We don't need to discover them, we just need to implement them.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

If the Public Health Agency has 50 or so officers and they are all able to prepare budgets, why do you think they were not asked to manage the applications?

Is it a process related only to the ArriveCAN application? Is this application the tip of the iceberg or is it an isolated case?

[Dany Richard]

I don't know the details, but based on my experience in a number of departments, in general, internal controls work. When they are set aside, the door is opened to malicious actors who can divert funds so that they end up in the wrong places.

There are two reasons why there is a tendency not to consult our members. First, instead of seeing financial officers as an added value at the beginning of the process, people see them as difficult individuals who always put obstacles in their way, when that is not the case. We're just trying to make sure, when we're asked for so many thousands of dollars, that it makes sense.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

What about the second one, very quickly?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I was asking you if this was just the tip of the iceberg or if it was an isolated case.

[Dany Richard]

Second, we need to be involved in all stages of the process: the beginning, the middle and the end.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

You have the floor for five minutes, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Richard, thank you very much for your testimony and for all the work your members do every day to ensure that taxpayers get their money's worth. That is an extremely important task.

My first question is about something you raised in your opening remarks—the fact that the public service is increasingly contracting out. In what way does that make the work of your members more difficult when it comes to providing financial advice and guidance on government programs, when a lot of the contracts are carried out outside the public service?

[Dany Richard]

When they don't have access to the tools, the authority, the documents and the information they need, it makes their job more difficult.

When you go to the doctor, for example, they have to perform a health check to find out what your situation is. If you hide information from the doctor, their diagnosis may not be the best. It won't be adequate. The same is true for our members. They are financial professionals. Most of them are accountants who have done audit work. They know how to do it and they have the required tools, but if they are not given the necessary information and are set aside, they cannot do their job. Why use an outside firm to figure out how to prepare a budget and a carry out a financial analysis when we already have that expertise within the public service?

Our members often tell me about cases where a consultant has been hired to carry out a project, but they are the ones who have to write the report. The consultant does everything, and then they go to the financial officer to ask if it's okay, and the financial officer corrects their work. Ultimately, it's as if the final report had been prepared by the financial officer, since all the changes they recommended were made to the report.

It is insulting to our members to hear that there is a lack of knowledge within the public service, given that external consultants who are hired need to work with them to prepare their report.

Our members must be trusted and given a chance to show their expertise. I'm not saying that consultants should never be used. When there is a lack of knowledge within an organization, it absolutely has to be done, but too often consultants are used automatically.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you for your response.

I've been in Parliament for a long time and have seen numerous scandals with contracting out. On ArriveCAN, we're looking at $60 million. The Phoenix system that started under the Harper government is now at $2.5 billion and counting. The ETS scandal under the Harper government was $400 million. I could go on and on with the Harper government and the current government and numerous scandals.

At any point, have you seen governments, namely the former Conservative government, consulting with the expertise in your union, the financial accountants who understand the best way to go forward? Were you ever consulted—I mean your members—on Phoenix or ever consulted on ETS? You've mentioned that they were not really consulted on ArriveCAN.

[Dany Richard]

That's a very broad question.

Generally speaking, if we are consulted, which is not often, it's as an afterthought. It's not at the beginning of the process to ensure we're getting things right: Are we putting in place proper due diligence, proper accountability?

We're trying to bring our members front and centre to ensure that we can avoid blunders like Phoenix by costing them out and asking, “Does this make sense?” We recently had the public service health care plan. How much is that going to cost?

We have financial professionals in-house who can help cost these things out, budget and forecast. This is what we do professionally, but we need the tools, the authority and the data to do our job.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

You mentioned whistle-blowers and the important role they play. I remember vividly the case of Sylvie Therrien, who was a whistle-blower under the Harper government. She talked about the misuse of EI funds, and the Harper government just canned her. They basically summarily fired her. There are many other examples of whistle-blowers under the Conservatives and under the current government who were either intimidated or fired.

What are the protections we need to see so that we have a culture where whistle-blowers can come forward with this information and not be raising concerns of dismissal or being summarily fired, as we see in so many cases?

[Dany Richard]

OGGO issued a report in 2017 on what needs to happen to improve whistle-blower protections, particularly in the public service. There's a long list of recommendations, but the number one recommendation is to ensure that when a whistle-blower speaks up, they are protected.

I'll give an example.

If I work for any department—it doesn't matter which one it is—and I feel uncomfortable because I feel I was sexually harassed, I will be protected as the victim. They will remove me from the workplace to ensure that I am protected at all costs.

If you blow the whistle and you stay with the same team, we put the burden of proof on you. People you have accused will try to cover it up. With the amount of stress these people get put through because they're simply not protected, we need to ensure that whistle-blowers are protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now start our second round.

Mr. Brock, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Richard, your evidence so far, in the half an hour we've listened to you, in my view, is a serious indictment against the Justin Trudeau government. The concerns regarding the culture of fear are extremely disturbing for professional public servants. That has expanded under Justin Trudeau by 40%.

In 2015, he promised to cut back on external consultants, yet for the last fiscal year, Ottawa spent $15.7 billion on external consultants, totally bypassing the professional public service. It was an 88% increase. I want to raise that as a concern.

Sir, based on your years of experience of financial matters, accounts from your members, the RCMP commissioner testifying they are investigating ArriveCAN, the AG's report, PSPC officials claiming they are sufficiently suspicious of criminal activity surrounding the ArriveCAN procurement process, documented evidence of forgery and potential fraud, and the mountain of media reporting, do you believe, in light of everything I have presented to you, which I'm sure you have been listening to and reading on your own, that there is a strong element of criminal wrongdoing with ArriveCAN?

[Dany Richard]

Unfortunately, I can't comment on that. It's not my area of expertise. I can tell you, based on the findings of the Auditor General, there was a clear lack of respect of the financial framework that's in place.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Have you had any particular direct communication with the ministers responsible for the membership you represent?

[Dany Richard]

No.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Okay.

You've also read in the newspaper about Mr. Yeo, one of the principals of Dalian, who was gainfully employed not only as a member of the Department of National Defence, but also as a subcontractor. In this particular case, Mr. Yeo and the other company he's affiliated with, Coradix, are responsible for receiving upwards of $40 million to $50 million in taxpayer funds. It's another two-person company, much like GC Strategies.

Do you believe the ability to moonlight as a member of the public service while being accused of fleecing taxpayers at the same time is an isolated incident in the public service?

[Dany Richard]

I believe so, yes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

You've not heard of any other accounts of this happening.

[Dany Richard]

No, not to my knowledge. Now, that's not to say it doesn't exist.

Basic due diligence could easily pick this up. As a public servant, you have a code of conduct. There are certain things you're not supposed to do. We have rules and controls in place to prevent this from happening.