X hits on this document





40 / 49

  • 


to protect institutions from fraud, and i think bringing these to the attention of government, of any institution, is incredibly valuable. Your report was very interesting to read.

i just wanted to ask a couple of questions aside from whether or not there was an intention of combining some of these groups so that you did have a one-stop shop sort of approach to it. But if that's not something that management thinks is the way to go, ne.

however, you did mention that you were looking at more detailed training, perhaps, within the min- istries. But i thought that within the report itself that was identied as perhaps one of the problems, where the individual ministries were actually looking into and investigating some of these activities and were in fact creating more problems than good for the actual inves- tigators themselves.

could you comment on that?

S. Newton: Yes, certainly. e more detailed train- ing would be in relation to what you should be doing if you know that there is an issue or you suspect an issue, which would then involve…. do you want to dig a lit- tle bit further? Because you may have a responsibility. You've got an initial responsibility to understand what the issue is.

from there, you also have a responsibility to in- form senior people within your organization so that they're aware. and if it involves your supervisor, there are ways to work around that or tell somebody else. But you also then have to know when you're over your head, and the training needs to be able to describe that.

on the one hand, the detailed training is how to deal with that. e high-level awareness is what the indicators are. So if people are aware of the indicators and they're aware of the rules and responsibilities and policy and they've got a little bit more training, at least in some of the central nance and admin shops, around how they want to deal with this when it comes in, then they know who the appropriate people are to start handing oto or entering into discussions with.

  • at would be the Public Service agency in relation

to employee issues, police, the auditor general's oce, my oce. So that's where that more detail would come in. i certainly would not want people going out and in- vestigating these, because it does create more problems.

V. Huntington: ank you very much for that clarication.

  • e other concern i had was perhaps with the reac-

tion to the proposed hotline or the consideration that whistle-blower protection is in place and how much fur- ther we should be looking at it.

Whistle-blower protection is not protecting many of the whistle-blowers in the system, and i think it does


W, n , 

need serious consideration from perhaps your oce, if that's the appropriate one, or from the legislature, in an- other venue.

  • e hotline, to me, is absolutely critical for people

to feel that they can comment anonymously if they have to. at is a part of whistle-blowing, and it pro- vides that protection. it does, as you say, enable the public to bring things to your attention without feeling that the conicts they have with ministry contacts are jeopardized.

one other thing. each of the monitoring and com- pliance oces that you commented on is for public non-compliance — you're going aer the public on - nancial matters, which is good — but a lot of this report also dealt with the concept and the probabilities of in- ternal fraud, which is what is not being examined as thoroughly and in such an organized fashion, i would suggest.

i hope that we do manage to x that part of it, that the risks, the principles, are taken into consideration and that you do manage to develop a good program for in- ternal monitoring.

Just to the deputy and the chair, yesterday i men- tioned that i thought it would be interesting to consider whether this committee should be receiving the reports, in camera if necessary, from the internal audit and ad- visory services.

[1355] i've had the opportunity to review a report that was available only through freedom of information. e issues are of importance and would be of signicant in- terest to this committee.

i'm saying this because in the report, on page 57: "in B.c. the only government body providing fraud inves- tigation work on a cross-government basis" — other than the various groups that the comptroller general has mentioned — "is the internal audit and advisory ser- vices." it may be the only way this committee can get a grasp on the 70 allegations that are indicated in the last three years.

What is the level out there that this advisory commit- tee knows about and how much? and is there a systemic problem? is there an area that needs to be reviewed more specically, and how are things being tracked for their systemic nature?

i just was hoping that you and the deputy chair do review that issue.

b. Ralston (Chair): ank you for that suggestion. Just othe cu, i think we'd have to be assured that it was within the jurisdiction of this committee and our terms of reference. i think that's something that we can review. i'm not sure oand whether we would have the jurisdiction to review reports that are gener- ated somewhere else that aren't presented in a certain way.

Document info
Document views1148
Page views1207
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 06:23:16 UTC 2017