Financial Audit Fynes Public Interest Hearing and Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada File MPCC‑2011‑046
Presented by: Samson & Associates
Presented to: Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada
January 31, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- ABOUT THE REVIEW
- 2.1 Objective and Scope
- 2.2 Team
- 2.3 Methodology and Criteria
- AUDIT CONCLUSION
In 1997, the Minister of National Defence introduced legislation in the House of Commons that contained comprehensive amendments to modernize the National Defence Act. The need to clearly separate, on an institutional basis, the system's investigative, prosecutorial, defence and judicial functions were recognized. There was also a requirement to clarify roles and responsibilities of the principal actors in the military justice system and strengthen oversight and review military justice and in particular, the policing duties and functions of military police. These factors led to the establishment of the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada under the amendment to the Act.
The Commission, which came into force and commenced operations on December 1, 1999, became the first civilian oversight authority which is external, autonomous and independent of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces and whose mandate is to examine complaints arising from either the conduct of military police members in the exercise of their policing duties or functions or from interference in or obstruction of their police investigations. To carry out this mandate, the Chairperson has the power to investigate, to cause the Commission to conduct an investigation, convene public hearings, and report its findings and make recommendations based on those findings.
Fynes Public Interest Hearing (MPCC‑2011‑004)
On April 29, 2011, the MPCC announced the launching of a public interest investigation (PII) pursuant to section 250.38 of the NDA into a complaint regarding the conduct of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (NIS) in their interactions with the complainants and three investigations conducted by the NIS.
On September 6, 2011, the Chairperson of the MPCC decided to launch a public interest hearing (PIH) due to the seriousness of the allegations in the complaint based on the results of an interview with the complainants and a review of documentation during the public interest investigation.
On October 20, 2011, someone (confidential) filed a complaint to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal who conducted the investigation in the first instance. On November 10, 2011, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal issued the final disposition of the investigation into the complaint. On December 8, 2011, the complainant replied to the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal raising his concerns regarding the complaint. On December 15, 2011, the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal provided a response. On December 20, 2011, the complainant submitted a "Request for Review" to the Chairperson of the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada.
On January 5, 2012, the Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada acknowledged receipt of the complainant request and began a review of the documentation and a Phase I Investigation to determine the extent of the Phase II Investigation consisting of interviewing witnesses and subjects located across Canada and possibly abroad.
In 2012‑2013, the MPCC received $4.7M in special purpose funding and $1.3M in r years for the investigation of file MPCC‑2011‑046.
Over the five years of the Fynes PIH, approximately $3.5M (of the $4.7M) was expended. The review of file MPCC‑2011‑046 was also conducted over a five-year period which concluded in September 2016. Over that period, approximately $1.3M (of the $1.7M) was expended. It is important to note that MPCC incurred some expenses related to these two files that exceeded the Treasury Board special funding received. These expenses are not part of this audit and were paid for with the operating funds of the MPCC.
The transactional expenditures (approximately 600 accounts payables transactions) including legal and investigative service contracts, travel and the expenditures to host and conduct the actual hearing and produce various documents including the Interim and Final Reports containing findings and recommendations.
2. ABOUT THE REVIEW
2.1 Objective and Scope
Samson & Associates was mandated to conduct a financial audit of the funding received from Treasury Board for the Fynes Public Interest Hearing (PIH) (Special purpose allotment entitled “Public Interest Hearing”) and related to a multi-jurisdictional investigation file MPCC‑2011‑046 (Special purpose allotment). The audit covered project expenses incurred from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2017.
The financial compliance audit was conducted in accordance with International Internal Auditing Standards. Its purpose was to assess the MPCC’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the TB Decisions (#836294 and #836657) as well as the existence, accuracy and relevance of expenditures.
Samson & Associates Team:
Mathieu Farley, CPA, CA, CIA, CISA
Victor Mbarushimana, CPA, CA
2.3 Methodology and Criteria
The engagement methodology phases detailed below are categorized into three sections:
- Preliminary Review and Planning;
- On-site Work; and
- Analysis, Debriefing and Reporting.
During the initial phase of the engagement, the consultants reviewed relevant documentation to obtain an adequate understanding of the financial expenditures. A meeting was held with The Military Police Complaints Commission of Canada’s representatives.
During the second phase of the engagement, the consultants performed the on-site fieldwork at the offices of the MPCC. The principal activities included interviews with staff, review and assessment of the expenditures and finance files and conducted detailed procedures on a sample of expenditure files.
Once the fieldwork was completed, we conducted the final phase of the engagement, which included an analysis of the findings, the completion of the working paper file and the preparation of a report. In addition, the consultants debriefed the MPCC’s representatives on the results of the engagement.
|Expenditures FY 2011/12-2015/16
|Total # of transactions||Audited amount
|# of transaction audited||% amount audited|
|04-PROFESSIONAL SPECIAL SERVICES||3,015,091||266||1,335,762||42||44%|
|07-UTILITIES, MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES||14,114||28||-||-||0%|
|09-CONSTRUCT OR ACQUISITION MACHINERY||1,256||8||-||-||0%|
|12-ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES||6,211||19||2,148||3||35%|
|FY 2012/13- 2016/17||Number of transactions||Audited amount||# of transaction audited||% amount audited|
|04-PROFESSIONAL SPECIAL SERVICES||1,251,754||87||394,481||16||32%|
|07-UTILITIES MATERIALS SUPPLIES||343||5||-||-||0%|
|09-CONSTRUCT OR ACQUISITION MACHINERY||484||2||-||-||0%|
|12-ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES||542||5||-||-||0%|
We performed a review of a statistical sample of transactions (106) selected judgmentally. In our review we looked for evidence of management oversight of spending and of financial authorities.
In particular, we ensured
- Appropriate control of the commitments (FAA section 32).
- Appropriate procurement controls have been adhered to ensure the goods and services obtained represent the best value for Canada.
- Appropriate control over the payments of invoices (FAA section 33).
Our review of the 106 transactions indicated that the financial controls in place to oversee the expenditures were appropriate.
3. AUDIT CONCLUSION
Samson conducted a compliance audit for the expenditures incurred with respect to the funding received from Treasury Board for the Fynes Public Interest Hearing (PIH) and file MPCC‑2011‑046. The audit results are presented in Appendix A.
No errors have been found as part of the audit. Furthermore, we noted that the MPCC has a control framework in place to ensure compliance with purchasing requirements and financial approvals (section 32 and section 34 of the FAA).
In our professional opinion, sufficient and appropriate audit procedures have been implemented and evidence has been gathered to support the accuracy of the opinion contained in this report. This opinion is based on a comparison of the conditions as they were at that time with the predetermined verification criteria agreed with management. It focuses only on the processes reviewed. The audit evidence was obtained in accordance with the internal auditing standards of the Institute of Internal Auditors. These elements are sufficient to provide senior management with the rationale for the audit opinion.
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF AMOUNTS REPORTED AND AUDITED
(April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2016)
|Total Reported Amount
|Amount Supported by the Audit
|04-PROFESSIONAL SPECIAL SERVICES||706,319||1,060,575||828,253||394,566||25,377||3,015,090||-||3,015,090|
|07-UTILITIES MATERIALS SUPPLIES||8,879||5,235||-||-||-||14,114||-||14,114|
|09-CONSTRUCT OR ACQUISITION MACHINERY||-||1,256||-||-||-||1,256||-||1,256|
|12-ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES||1,278||4,934||-||-||-||6,212||-||6,212|
|Total Reported Amount
|Amount Supported by the Audit
|04-PROFESSIONAL SPECIAL SERVICES||319,104||463,990||390,810||77,850||465||1,252,219||-||1,252,219|
|07-UTILITIES MATERIALS SUPPLIES||189||153||-||-||-||342||-||342|
|09-CONSTRUCT OR ACQUISITION MACHINERY||334||151||-||-||-||485||-||485|
|12-ALL OTHER EXPENDITURES||97||445||-||-||-||542||-||542|
- Date modified: