Troubles for the DND watchdog
Canada’s auditor general took aim at National Defence and the department’s former watchdog in a blistering report Tuesday, saying neither had an adequate handle on how expenses were handled, consultants’ contracts managed or staff treated.
Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s study concluded the office of the Canadian Forces ombudsman sometimes broke government rules on travel and hospitality spending and the awarding of contracts. It also said National Defence did not watch the office closely enough.
Two ombudsmen served in the February 2009 to August 2014 period studied by the auditors. The first was Pierre Daigle, and most findings appeared to refer to events under his tenure. Gary Walbourne replaced him in March 2014, coinciding with the tail end of the audit period.
But while auditors deemed some of Daigle’s actions “inappropriate,” specifically with regard to managing office resources, the audit report stressed that “we found no evidence that the previous Ombudsman personally profited from any of these transactions. The previous Ombudsman told us that his priority was always the Office’s constituents.”
Daigle declined an interview, but said in a statement that he stood by his financial and contracting decisions and rejected the auditor general report’s “characterization of my management style.
“I brought a different approach to the office, which was focused on results,” he said. “This undoubtedly ruffled some feathers at the time. However, we worked through that period of change together and produced solid results for the men and women of the Canadian Forces.”
Responding to opposition questions in the House of Commons, Defence Minister Jason Kenney said the government is “getting to the bottom of this completely unacceptable abuse of both public servants and tax dollars, and we accept all of his (Ferguson’s) recommendations without reservation.”
Many of the problems identified by Ferguson’s study related to travel and hospitality transactions. Daigle was found to have approved some of his own expenses or had subordinates do it for him, for example, which was against Treasury Board rules.
This continued even after Defence Department officials wrote on four separate occasions to warn Daigle against the practice, including one letter from National Defence deputy minister Robert Fonberg.
Ferguson said there appeared to be confusion and disagreement within both the ombudsman’s office and National Defence over how much oversight Defence officials actually had over administrative details inside the ombudsman’s office, such as staffing and finances.
“National Defence didn’t want to impede the independence of the ombudsman’s office in conducting their inquiries about complaints,” he said. “But in doing so, they didn’t provide enough monitoring to make sure the ombudsman’s office was following all the administrative practices that they should have been following.”
Auditors also found the ombudsman’s office didn’t follow Treasury Board rules when it hired a private contractor for $89,000, then increased the same contract to $370,000. Once that contract expired, the consultant was hired as a part-time employee for eight weeks and paid $14,000.
“In our view, not only were contracting rules disregarded, the subsequent hiring of the individual as a casual employee was also inappropriate,” Ferguson’s report reads.
The auditors also found that some senior managers showed “a lack of respect” in the ombudsman’s office while Daigle was in charge, “which resulted in grievances, complaints and high levels of sick leave and turnover.” Of 30 employees interviewed, the auditors said, “17 told us of situations in which they or others had been bullied or belittled.”
While Daigle told the auditors the complaints came from a small number of disgruntled employees, and departing staff were using up their remaining sick leave, “in our opinion, his behaviours and approach to implementing organizational changes did not respect the Values and Ethics Code and had a negative impact on the office.”
Complicating matters was the fact Daigle was ultimately responsible for ruling on grievances brought against him by office employees. The auditors said after one such instance, a group of employees took their case to the Federal Court before an out-of-court settlement was reached. Ferguson said some of the complaints were brought to National Defence’s attention, but “the department did not fully address employee complaints about workplace issues between 2009 and 2013.”