Fair decision-making for fair outcomes: A review of the whistleblowing process for DND employees - Report

There are complaint mechanisms within the Federal Public Service that allow public servants to draw attention to matters of concern so that they can be addressed internally. The DND’s disclosure of wrongdoing process (whistleblowing) is meant to allow employees to flag internal cases of potential wrongdoing so the Department can address them. 

Legal and policy framework

In this section, we examine the legal and policy basis that gives decision-makers the authority to act and outlines how the process must be directed.

In past process reviews conducted by the Ombudsman’s office, serious issues were identified with respect to the DND’s whistleblowing process. Gaps in the existing policy structure had allowed for frequent procedural defects and breaches of procedural fairness, resulting in numerous complaints, internal challenges, Ombudsman process reviews, a Public Sector Integrity Commissioner investigation, and at least one highly critical decision by the Federal Court. Recommendations were made by this office for the DND to review its internal procedures and build-in the necessary safeguards for procedural fairness in its processes.

We recognize that the Assistant Deputy Minister, Review Services [ADM(RS)] has recently reworked many aspects of this process. ADM(RS) provided us with the most recent iterations of applicable policy documents and internal procedures. The Ombudsman is pleased to see that this office’s past recommendation for the DND to review its internal procedures and build-in procedural fairness safeguards appears to have been implemented.

Legal authority

Legal authority is the lawful basis for a decision-maker’s authority to act and usually outlines the decision-making process. This authority is generally set out in Acts of Parliament and Regulations. In some cases, it exists in instruments under the Royal Prerogative.^{Footnote 1}

Whistleblowing requirements for the public service are set out in the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.^{Footnote 2}  This legislation is meant to provide employees with a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoing and contains provisions to protect federal whistleblowers from reprisal.

The PSDPA provides whistleblowers with two distinct channels for making disclosures of wrongdoing (whistle-blowing complaints). The first channel is to a manager or designated senior officer internal to the whistleblower’s department or agency. The second channel is to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (the Commissioner), an independent federal entity reporting to Parliament. As the resolution process administered by the Commissioner is external to the DND, it does not fall within the scope of this review.

Under the PSDPA, “wrongdoing” comprises:

• the contravention of any Act of Parliament or of a provincial legislature, or of any regulations made under any such Act
• the misuse of public funds or public assets
• gross mismanagement in the public sector
• acts or omissions creating a substantial and specific danger to the life, health, or safety of persons or the environment
• serious breaches of a code of conduct
• knowingly directing or counselling a person to commit any of the above

The Treasury Board’s Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector elaborates the requirements for the internal administration of whistleblowing processes within federal departments and agencies.^{Footnote 3}

Policy framework

Subject to applicable legislation and Treasury Board policy, each department is responsible for establishing its own internal policy and procedures for whistleblowing that is tailored to its organizational needs.

Process

In keeping with statutory requirements and Treasury Board policy, the Deputy Minister for the DND must designate a senior officer responsible for establishing internal procedures to manage disclosures of wrongdoing within the Department.^{Footnote 4}

The principal avenue for addressing serious wrongdoing is the Department’s internal whistleblowing process. This process is initiated when an employee (discloser) submits a whistleblowing complaint (“disclosure of wrongdoing”) to either their manager or the designated senior officer for the Department. In either case, the disclosure is transferred to a dedicated team within the senior officer’s organization for an initial screening.

If the discloser provides sufficient information and it is determined that the complaint, if true, would constitute wrongdoing under the PSDPA, a formal investigation may be launched. At the investigation’s conclusion, a report is provided to the senior officer containing findings and recommendations.

Should the investigation find that wrongdoing has occurred, the senior officer will advise the appropriate officials within the Department and ensure that necessary follow-up actions are taken, including disciplinary action where warranted. An anonymized description of the wrongdoing and any actions taken in response must then made available to the public.

Policy documents

The central policy framework for addressing internal^{Footnote 5}  whistleblowing complaints within the Department currently consists of two DAODs, a guidelines document, and internal standard operating procedures. The contents of each document are as follows:

• DAOD 7024-0, Disclosure of Wrongdoings in the Workplace^{Footnote 6} : sets out the Department’s general whistleblowing obligations and identifies the ADM(RS) as the Department’s designated senior officer under the PSDPA.^{Footnote 7}

• DAOD 7024-1, Internal Procedures for Disclosure by DND Employees of Wrongdoings in the Workplace^{Footnote 8} : sets out the internal process for submitting whistleblowing complaints^{Footnote 9}  and identifies the Internal Disclosure Office (IDO) as the office within ADM(RS) responsible for receiving complaints.^{Footnote 10}

• Disclosure of Wrongdoing Guidelines^{Footnote 11}  (Disclosure Guidelines): provides an overview of the requirements set out in the PSDPA,^{Footnote 12}  fleshes out the whistleblowing complaint and investigation process,^{Footnote 13}  and provides a step-by-step guide for submitting complaints to the IDO.^{Footnote 14}

• Procedures Manual for the Conduct of DSEI Investigations^{Footnote 15}  (Investigation Procedures Manual): sets out the standard procedures for whistleblowing investigations, as well as other administrative investigations falling within ADM(RS)’s mandate.

• Internal Disclosure Processes for the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence - Procedures Manual (Internal Disclosure Procedures Manual)^{Footnote 16} : elaborates ADM(RS)’s legislative obligations and sets out revised procedures for the intake, screening, and investigation of disclosures of wrongdoing.

At the time of writing, updates are being made to DAODs 7024-0 and 7024-1. Officials within ADM(RS) are also aiming to revise and improve the Disclosure Guidelines by the end of the 2023-2024 fiscal year.^{Footnote 17}

Compliance

In all cases, the policy framework must be consistent with the enabling legal authority. Inconsistencies with the legal requirements could result in successful challenges to the decision-maker’s decision.

The Department’s revised whistleblowing policy framework is consistent with applicable legislation, regulation, and Treasury Board policy. (Finding 1)

Procedural fairness

Procedural fairness for government decision-making exists in common law regardless of whether legislation explicitly identifies it. It is critical that departmental policy documents identify baseline principles of procedural fairness, especially where applicable legislation or regulation is silent or lacks sufficient detail. Clarity contributes to the consistent administration of the decision-making process and to fair outcomes for parties.

Recent updates to the DND’s whistleblowing policy framework have brought a high degree of clarity to the procedural fairness protections afforded to parties. The most recent iteration of the Internal Disclosure Procedures Manual bolsters this through the addition of new, more robust, protections. The extent of these protections and any existing gaps are identified in the sections below.

Given that the whistleblowing process can result in corrective action up to and including termination, the Courts have found that the process requires procedural fairness at the higher end of the scale.^{Footnote 18}

Consequently, parties are owed a high level of procedural fairness protections during the decision-making process.

Disclosure of wrongdoing (whistleblowing)
Instrument	Unbiased decision-maker	Notice	Right to be heard	Timeliness	Reasons
Legislation	Silent	Silent	Silent	Partial	Partial
Regulation	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
TBS policy	Silent	Silent	Silent	Silent	Silent
Departmental policy	Partial	Substantial	Substantial	Partial	Substantial

 

Unbiased decision-maker

Decisions must be based on a fair and unbiased assessment of the facts and evidence before the decision-maker. When a decision-maker is perceived to be influenced by personal interests, relationships, or inappropriate external considerations, a reasonable apprehension of bias may exist, delegitimizing the decision and opening it to challenge.

ADM(RS)’s internal Investigation Procedures Manual explicitly notes the importance of unbiased investigations and lists potential factors that could impact real or perceived bias.^{Footnote 19}  The Investigation Procedures Manual encourages investigators who believe that they may be in a potential conflict of interest or reasonable apprehension of bias situation to flag their concerns to their section head so that a more appropriate investigator can be assigned.^{Footnote 20}

While there is a requirement in the Code of Values and Ethics for DND employees to report conflicts of interest, this may not always be practicable in the context of a confidential whistleblowing process. In addition, no equivalent requirement exists in the Code for reporting potential instances of bias.

The Department’s policy framework and internal procedures do not presently identify an explicit avenue for parties or witnesses to flag concerns of conflict or bias in the context of a whistleblowing complaint. It is also unclear how disclosures are processed if they are made within the organization of the ultimate decision-maker, the ADM(RS). (Finding 2 )

Officials within ADM(RS) have indicated that they are currently engaged in consultations to determine what options are available to address this issue.

Notice

Sufficient notice at the outset of a process leading to a decision, including the substance of what is being decided, is essential to ensuring that parties can prepare and bring forward relevant evidence. Without sufficient notice, decision-makers may not receive or be aware of relevant information, resulting in unfair outcomes.

ADM(RS)’s Internal Disclosure Procedures Manual explicitly requires that the responding party receive a formal notification letter informing them that they are subject to an investigation. This letter must include a summary of the allegations against the respondent and must be sent prior to any communication between officials within ADM(RS) and potential witnesses. In addition, the notification letter invites respondents to communicate directly with the investigator if they have any questions about the process.^{Footnote 21}

This recent addition to ADM(RS)’s SOPs provides a high degree of procedural fairness to the parties and clarifies an issue that had been left unaddressed in previous iterations of the Department’s policy.

Right to be heard

Parties to a decision-making process must be able to make a fulsome response to any allegations or information that may serve as the basis for a decision. If they are unable to do so, the decision-maker may not receive or be aware of relevant information, resulting in unfair outcomes.

In contrast with previous internal procedures, ADM(RS)’s new Internal Disclosure Procedures Manual provides robust protections that effectively balance the parties’ right to be heard with the confidentiality requirements set out in the PSDPA.

Under the new procedures, investigators must provide a copy of the preliminary investigation report to the respondent before it is finalized. The respondent then has 21 calendar days to review the report and provide a written response.^{Footnote 22}

Once the investigator has received a full answer to the allegations and evidence, every point made by the respondent is analyzed in detail. Following this analysis, the investigators must determine whether the evidence or conclusions contained in the preliminary investigation should be amended. If a new witness is identified during this analysis, any new evidence provided by that witness must be shared with the respondent for additional comments.^{Footnote 23}

This procedure provides the respondent with a full opportunity to respond to all allegations, evidence, and information that will serve as the basis of the decision-maker’s decision. It is a strong procedural fairness protection for the parties.

Timeliness

The longer an administrative process is delayed, the higher the likelihood that relevant witnesses or evidence will become unavailable to the decision-maker. Memories can gradually fade and pertinent information may be moved or misplaced over time. The timely administration of a process reduces these risks.

Timeliness is of particular concern in the whistleblowing process as witnesses and respondents who retire from or leave the public service fall outside the jurisdiction of the PSDPA.^{Footnote 24}  Once these participants leave, the potentially relevant information that they could have provided to the decision-maker is effectively lost.

This issue is compounded by the complete absence of timelines in either the PSDPA or applicable Treasury Board policy.

The Department’s policy framework echoes the PSDPA’s broad requirement for an “expeditious” investigation process,^{Footnote 25}  but does not identify any measures to address lengthy or untimely delays. (Finding 3)

The officials within ADM(RS) who are responsible for screening and investigating whistleblowing complaints are currently identifying and incorporating new service standards and best practices with the goal of establishing shorter timelines.^{Footnote 26}

ADM(RS)’s new Internal Disclosure Procedures Manual prescribes a 90-day timeframe for screening complaints^{Footnote 27}  and indicates that formal investigations should be completed within 12 months.^{Footnote 28}

Reasons

The parties to a process must understand the basis upon which the decision-maker’s decisions are made. The reasons provided for a decision must be sufficiently clear, precise, and understandable for the parties to be able to adequately challenge it if needed.

In the event of a founded occurrence of wrongdoing, the PSDPA requires that the Department provide public access to an anonymized description of the wrongdoing and any actions taken in response.^{Footnote 29}  Although this general information is made public, there is no requirement in either the PSDPA or Treasury Board policy for the DND to provide public reasons for its findings.

The DND’s policy framework addresses a gap in the PSDPA by requiring that the parties be directly informed of any findings of wrongdoing.^{Footnote 30}  The most recent version of the DND’s policy framework for whistleblowing now requires that respondents receive both the final investigation report and decision letter at the conclusion of the investigation. These documents contain a full explanation that addresses any comments or evidence provided by the respondent^{Footnote 31}

Other expectations / commitments

The DND’s policy framework allows witnesses to request accompaniment during investigations. Requests for accompaniment are assessed on a case-by-case basis and are not guaranteed. The individual accompanying the witness is not permitted to respond to any questions or provide comments. The framework does not address potential accompaniment for parties.^{Footnote 32}

Witnesses are informed of their right to be accompanied once engaged in the process and are provided with clear information regarding the support person’s role.

Return to the table of contents

---

Organizational structure

Even where the legal authority and the policy frameworks are fully aligned and incorporate principles of procedural fairness, the decision-maker needs to be supported by an organizational structure that includes the delegation of appropriate authorities, robust quality controls, relevant training, and sufficient resourcing.

Governance

The governance, or process design, of any administrative complaint mechanism must consider the needs of the organization, including its culture, its size, the anticipated use of its process, and like considerations. The decision-makers, in addition to being adequately trained, must be individuals who, have the appropriate level of authority within the organizational structure.

ADM(RS) is the designated senior officer with the final authority and responsibility for handling whistleblowing complaints submitted internally within the Department.

Reporting to the ADM(RS) is the Director General (DG) Corporate Integrity. The DG Corporate Integrity’s mandate includes fraud risk management program, administrative investigations, conflicts of interest, and whistleblowing, as well as providing support to boards of inquiry and summary investigations. 

In May of 2023, the DG Corporate Integrity’s Ethics and Investigations’ organization was subject to a design review conducted by the Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Civilian [ADM(HR-Civ)]. The purpose of the review was to align the organization’s structure with the DG’s current mandate, ensure that roles and responsibilities are appropriately reflected, and create efficiencies between business lines.^{Footnote 33}  The review concluded in August 2023, with a new structure implemented in 2024.

Reporting to the DG Corporate Integrity is the Director of Investigations and Internal Disclosures (DIID). The DIID is responsible for overseeing the Department’s internal whistleblowing complaints process and for investigating whistleblowing complaints.

Reporting to the DIID is the Internal Disclosure Office (IDO). The IDO is responsible for receiving, assessing, and screening disclosures of wrongdoing. Complaints screened by the IDO may be recommended for investigation.

The IDO had previously been extracted to ensure more senior level engagement in the screening process, but was reintegrated into the DIID’s organization following the organizational review.^{Footnote 34}

Quality control

A properly functioning administrative process must incorporate quality-control measures to ensure consistent and fair decision-making. These measures are even more important where processes are de-centralized and where decision-making authority is widely delegated. Further, controls themselves need to be bolstered by a constant evaluation of how the process is functioning and where it might need to be adjusted.

The DG Corporate Integrity’s organization is responsible for tracking information relating to the Department’s whistleblowing complaints process. The DG’s case management system, known as MAIVIS, is used to collect, store, manage and interpret data related to whistleblowing complaints. Each case file in MAIVIS is linked to an accompanying file in the federal government’s standardized electronic document and records management system, GCdocs.^{Footnote 35}

MAIVIS is also used to manage data relating to processes administered by other parts of the ADM(RS)’s organization, including general administrative investigations and conflict of interest reviews. This information, along with information relating to whistleblowing complaints, is siloed and only accessible to the relevant teams for each process. 

Each year, ADM(RS) prepares an annual report to the Treasury Board Secretariat that provides the following information:

• the number of general inquiries received relating to the PSDPA
• the number of whistleblowing complaints received
• how many complaints related to each form of wrongdoing under the PSDPA
• the number of complaints involving other departments or agencies
• the number of complaints carried over from previous years
• the number of complaints that were acted upon
• the number of complaints that were not acted upon
• the reasons for which any complaints were not acted upon
• the number of complaints that will be carried over into the next year
• the number of investigations commenced
• the number of working days to complete each investigation
• If delays occurred, their duration and the reasons behind them
• the number of complaints resulting in a finding of wrongdoing
• the number of complaints leading to corrective measures
• whether systemic issues were identified and addressed
• how many days elapsed between a finding of wrongdoing and the date the finding was made public
• an explanation if more than sixty days elapsed before the finding was made public
• any changes to how whistleblowing complaints are handled within the DND

In addition to the information collected for reporting purposes, staff within the DG Corporate Integrity’s organization use MAIVIS to record the following information for individual complaint files:

• the file number
• the identity of the discloser (of alleged wrongdoing)
• the subjects of the disclosure (individuals alleged to have committed wrongdoing)
• any witnesses
• allegations
• whether the disclosure is admissible
• the tasking order
• the investigator(s) assigned to file
• the investigation plan
• case approvals
• associated file documents
• notes
• the outcome of the process
• case closure information
• the action history for the file
• references
• general information

Moving forward, DND officials have indicated that they also intend to track the implementation of recommendations and corrective action more closely in cases of founded wrongdoing.

When interviewed, DND officials indicated that they are not currently using MAIVIS to its full potential. (Finding 4) Prior to 2022, MAIVIS was only used sporadically and not all information was entered into the system. This has resulted in substantial missing or incorrect data, compromising the accuracy of internal reporting.^{Footnote 36}

Efforts are currently underway to manually clean existing files and to identify better ways of entering, organizing, and displaying data. This includes the development of standardize templates and naming conventions for documents in GCdocs.

DND officials have also flagged that the current iteration of MAIVIS, which is built on the Microsoft Dynamics platform, is coming to the end of its useful lifespan and will no longer receive technical support from Microsoft. The DND is currently exploring the possibility of migrating the system to a newer version of Microsoft Dynamics or another platform.

Aside from case-management practices, we note that the DG Corporate Integrity’s organization does not currently have the necessary dedicated resources for quality control or file review. The current internal practice is for investigators to review other investigators’ files upon request before they are passed up their reporting chain for additional review and approval. (See Finding 4)

Return to the table of contents

---

Operational reality / implementation

The reality of designing and implementing a complaints process necessarily involves more than a pretty process chart and the right organizational resourcing. Once the responsible official determines that the step-by-step process is compliant with the enabling lawful authority and policy, there are a myriad of other tools and best practices that should be established. 

Communication

Adequately communicating information is key to the parties’ meaningful engagement in the process. Even an unfavourable decision has a better chance of being accepted if the parties understand the process, they have the opportunity to be heard, and the eventual decision is clearly explained. Effective communication of the process itself, including its purpose, the basis for decisions, and the procedural protections afforded to parties is critical.

ADM(RS) primarily communicates information about the whistleblowing complaint process through the organization's public-facing internet page and its departmental intranet page on the Defence Wide Area Network (DWAN or the Defence Network).

While the DG Corporate Integrity’s primary focus in recent months has been on internal structural reconfiguration, the organization’s outside-facing website has also received a partial overhaul.

As part of this overhaul, ADM(RS) has recognized that not all departmental employees have consistent access to the department’s intranet. Some employees work in positions that do not make frequent use of computers, while others work in remote parts of the country where access to the Defence Network is inconsistent. Accordingly, the DG Corporate Integrity has aimed to make the same information available on both its intranet and public-facing sites.

Information concerning the DND’s whistleblowing process is easy to locate on both ADM(RS)’ intranet and public-facing webpages. Users can quickly access information about the process by clicking on one of five clearly visible links on the landing page. From here, they are provided with a succinct description of the process’ purpose, factors to consider before filing a complaint, a list of other mechanisms that may be more suitable, information on how to file a complaint, and a description of what to expect after the complaint has been filed. All of this information is presented with a clear distinction between DND and CAF whistleblowing processes and is supported by visual aids. Relevant contact information is easy to find, both for filing complaints and seeking additional guidance. (Finding 5)

In addition to providing information online, the DG Ethics and Investigations also provides periodic updates and interviews to the Maple Leaf, an online source of information and DND-CAF related stories for members of the Defence Community.^{Footnote 37}  The goal of this engagement is to increase awareness of the whistleblowing process.

The DG Corporate Integrity also coordinates with other organizations within the Department to ensure that issues that might constitute wrongdoing under the PSDPA are directed to the right place. Within ADM(RS), this includes providing briefings and quarterly presentations to the Department’s internal ethics division.

Effective administration

In large government organizations, internal administrators may be faced with a regular and ongoing influx of complaint files. The ability of administrators to efficiently screen complaints, administer processes, and provide timely resolution is crucial to ensuring that workplace issues do not compound and that the integrity of the public service is preserved.

From the 2012-2013 fiscal year to present, the DG Corporate Integrity’s organization has received approximately 138 inquiries related to the PSDPA and 180 formal whistleblowing complaints. Of these, approximately 74 complaints proceeded to a formal investigation.^{Footnote 38}

Based on the data provided for review, the length of a whistleblowing investigation ranges from around 73 to 466 days, with an average completion time of approximately 286 days.

While the Department’s current policy framework reflects the PSDPA’s broad requirement for an “expeditious” investigation process, it does not provide timeframes or any measures to address lengthy or untimely delays (See Finding 3). According to ADM(RS)’ annual reports to Treasury Board, the primary reasons behind delays in investigations were:

• waiting for responses from complainants and witnesses
• obtaining information from subject matter experts
• the complexity of individual cases
• temporary pauses to await the conclusion of other recourse mechanisms
• personnel shortfalls for screening complaints

In 2023, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner published a report for its investigation into several whistleblowing complaints it received regarding the administration of whistleblowing complaints within the DND. The Commissioner found that the ADM(RS) had not been meeting its statutory requirements to publish founded cases of wrongdoing online and to inform parties of the outcome of its investigations.^{Footnote 39}  In one case, 43 months had elapsed between the conclusion of an investigation and the publication of the findings.^{Footnote 40}  The cause of these delays were found to be the result of a breakdown in the management of whistleblowing complaints, along with a lack of internal accountability and responsibility.^{Footnote 41} 

As of the time of writing, the DIID is in the process of identifying and incorporating new service standards and best practices with the goal of establishing shorter timelines.^{Footnote 42}  Some improvements have already taken effect. Notably, since the 2022-2023 fiscal year, the average time for screening whistleblower complaints has improved, generally surpassing the IDO’s 90-day service standard by over 15 days.^{Footnote 43} 

In addition to issues pertaining to timelines, administrators involved in the whistleblowing process must also occasionally contend with frivolous or vexatious complaints. Under the PSDPA, organizations have the right to refuse to deal with a disclosure if the matter could be better addressed under another mechanism, is not sufficiently important, or if the disclosure was not made in good faith.^{Footnote 44}  This is made clear to potential disclosers in the text of the formal whistleblowing complaint form.^{Footnote 45} 

If an administrator identifies a complaint as frivolous or vexatious, no investigation will proceed. This decision is documented on the associated working file along with a written rationale for the determination.^{Footnote 46}  It is currently unclear from existing policy documentation and internal procedure how this determination is typically made.

Even when complaints are made in good faith, administrators and investigators within ADM(RS) often face disruptions resulting from unreasonable complainant conduct. In some cases, complainants may refuse to accept findings or decisions, leading to lengthy and unproductive interactions. In others, complainants may overwhelm investigators’ offices with unnecessary phone calls, e-mails, and printed materials, resulting in significant administrative burden.^{Footnote 47} 

In all instances of difficult complainant behaviour, the InvestigationProcedures Manual emphasizes the responsibility of investigators and administrators to remain calm, show respect, demonstrate impartiality, and act professionally.^{Footnote 48} 

Use of contractors

The federal government frequently uses the services of external contractors for short-term projects or where specific expertise is required. Where the services of contractors are engaged, it is crucial that they be provided with clear instructions, emphasizing adherence to procedure and procedural fairness. Quality control measures should be in place to ensure that requirements are met and that processes are carried out consistently. In all cases, the decision-maker has ultimate accountability.

As of present, ADM(RS) does not have externally contracted resources dedicated to the delivery of the internal disclosure process. However, resources can be contracted on an as needed basis.^{Footnote 49} 

Under normal circumstances, whistleblowing investigations are conducted by trained investigators within the DIID. Nonetheless, the DIID may engage external contractors in the following situations:

• internal investigators are unavailable due to an unusually high workload, absences, or other exceptional circumstances
• the nature of the complaint necessitates a gender-balanced investigation team and internal resources are not available
• the investigation relates to a complaint involving the Ombudsman’s office^{Footnote 50} 

The DG Corporate Integrity indicated that information relating to the use of contractors has not been effectively tracked in the past. Due to a seven-year internal retention period for certain financial records and possibly poor record keeping, the earliest information available relating to external contractors was for an investigation commenced on 30 October 2017.

Since that time, ADM(RS) has used external contractors for eight investigations costing between $4,800 and $55,324.80. Based on the information provided, ADM(RS) has spent approximately $267,317.40 on external contractors since 2017, with the average cost per investigation being around $26,731.74.

When an external investigator is contracted, a senior investigator from within the DIID is assigned to act as a liaison to ensure compliance with the PSDPA and departmental policy. The DIID recognizes that not all investigators possess a high degree of familiarity with the process and endeavour to fill any gaps in knowledge through frequent communication, guidance, and monitoring.

Use of multiple mechanisms

Parties are often uncertain what the appropriate mechanism is to address their concerns. Where possible, decision-makers and administrators should ensure that parties address their concerns through the correct or appropriate channel.

In accordance with the PSDPA, the ADM(RS) can refuse to deal with a whistleblowing complaint or commence a formal investigation if the subject-matter of the complaint has already been adequately dealt with or could be more adequately dealt with through another mechanism.^{Footnote 51} 

For this reason, ADM(RS)’s complaint form asks complainants to indicate whether they have taken any other steps or engaged other mechanisms to address the issue in question. This includes whether the complainant has engaged:

• management
• the Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management
• alternate dispute resolution (ADR)
• the harassment complaint process
• the Police / MP / CFNIS
• the Ombudsman
• Labour Relations
• their Union
• the Human Rights complaint process^{Footnote 52} 

The form then asks that the complainant provide additional details, including a description of the outcome for any mechanism engaged, the timeline of events, and a point of contact if applicable.^{Footnote 53} 

Once the IDO receives the complaint, they will screen it and determine if another mechanism would be more appropriate to deal with the issues raised. If so, the complainant is advised directly to communicate with that other mechanism.^{Footnote 54} 

The possibility of addressing complaints through more appropriate mechanisms is also communicated to potential parties on the DG Corporate Integrity’s intranet and public-facing webpages. While descriptions are not provided for the potential available processes, hyperlinks are included allowing users to access more information for each.

Return to the table of contents

---

Findings and recommendations

Finding 1

The DND’s policy framework for whistleblowing is compliant with applicable legislation, regulation, and Treasury Board policy.

Finding 2

The DND’s policy framework for whistleblowing does not presently identify an alternate decision-maker in the event that a complaint is filed within the ADM(RS)’ reporting chain, creating a potential risk for breaches of procedural fairness.

Recommendation: The DND review its policy framework for whistleblowing to identify an alternate decision-maker in the event that a complaint is filed within the ADM(RS)’s reporting chain.

Finding 3

The DND’s policy framework for whistleblowing does not identify measures or mitigating strategies to address lengthy or untimely delays in the administration of the process.

Recommendation: The DND review its policy framework for whistleblowing to clearly identify measures or mitigating strategies to address lengthy or untimely delays in the administration of the process.

Finding 4

The DND’s internal case-management and quality assurance practices for whistleblowing have been ineffective, resulting in inconsistent and inaccurate data entry. This has compromised internal reporting and has necessitated a manual cleanup of files.

Recommendation: The DND continue the manual cleanup of its files and review its case management procedures and practices for whistleblowing to ensure logical and consistent data collection and capture. As part of this review, we recommend that the DND identify dedicated resources for quality assurance and the maintenance of case-management tools.

Finding 5

The DND’s intranet and public-facing webpages for its whistleblowing process are easy to locate, clearly laid out, easily navigable, and provide DND employees with necessary information and resources.