Government Operations Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Suppliers will predominantly come to you and say, “Hey, look, there is a belief that there were unfair practices.” You would then look at the trend over the last five years and say, “Let's look at these top 10 procurement practice reviews. Let's do those, and then the recommendation.” I have it.

Over the last five years, how many complaints have you had from other consulting firms that have come to you, specifically as it relates to McKinsey? I think you brought two of them up.

In general, how many cases have you had, and how many were focused on McKinsey?

[Alexander Jeglic]

In terms of overall intake numbers, we've only had one in addition to the two I just raised. That one was very recent. It was in February of this year. It was as a result of information in the media that the minister had tasked my office to look at McKinsey. It wasn't really a complaint, but rather a question about the process.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

There were two in general within the last five years. Great.

You also talked about the planned methodology. I want to go back to this. It looks like the methodology that your department is developing soon differs fundamentally from the methodology that you so eloquently and clearly stated.

Can you share some ideas around how you're going to develop that methodology? You clearly stated that you don't have the methodology and you're not comfortable on the timeline yet, and you're not even sure about the scope.

With 20 seconds to go, can you share with me how you're going to develop that methodology?

[Alexander Jeglic]

There are additional components that we'd like to look at in the McKinsey review. They involve the procurement planning phase and contract amendments. Those were two issues that didn't make their way into the top 10 that we think would be highly relevant in the McKinsey review.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

I apologize for trying to skip over you, Mr. Jowhari. I think I've heard enough of you in committee over the years, so I apologize.

Mr. Garon, you have two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our public service is competent; it is able to do all of the work that the government is charged with. However, thanks to public servants who have come forward, we have learned that some work has been outsourced to firms such as McKinsey, even though staff was available to do the work.

When your office reviews the procurement process, will it look at the fact that work that could have been done in‑house by public servants was outsourced, or will you only look at the process that led to this situation, which meant that Canadians paid twice for the same work? Will you only be checking that the rules were followed?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I'm not sure if the translation was accurate for the question, only because you asked, “Was it done in accordance with the rules?” Is that the last...?

No. I didn't think that was what you asked me.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want you to know that I am losing time because of the interpretation.

If the government were to outsource work that public servants can do, is it incumbent upon your office to look into this, or does your work solely consist of checking that the process was followed correctly?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Exactly.

We don't have the mandate to look at the policy behind decisions on whether in fact to proceed with outsourcing or not.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I am almost out of time.

This means that a minister or a department, having all the necessary staff but not wishing to use it, can take Canadians' money and pay twice for the same work. Then your office will check if Canadians have paid twice according to the rules.

Have I understood correctly?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Ultimately, I have to deliver my services in accordance with the legislation and regulations that govern my activity, and they are clear in terms of the scope of what I can and can't look at.

To answer your question directly, I will be limited in scope in terms of following the regulations and the statute.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Would another commissioner or watchdog within the federal government be able to reassure us, as elected officials, as well as our citizens, that taxpayers' money is not being spent to outsource work that public servants are already capable of doing?

This is a slap in the face to taxpayers and our highly skilled public service.

Is someone monitoring this, or can the government do as it pleases?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Again, I don't want to overstep my bounds, but I think the Office of the Auditor General has a broader mandate, obviously, and could look at issues that are beyond the mandate of our office.

We do have a positive working relationship with the Office of the Auditor General and do collaborate very positively, so rest assured that if that's an aspect of what they choose to look at, we will look at comparing scopes to ensure that we're not providing redundancy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Johns, you have two and a half minutes.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We know that government outsourcing really should be the last call, not the first call, in terms of delivering services. We keep hearing that temporary expertise through outsourcing is needed to deal with surge capacity. However, those things are always happening, so if we never build capacity to solve them in-house, I'm worried that 10 years from now we're going to keep going down this trend.

Right now, it seems like we're always in surge. The outsourcing just to the big six doubled between 2011 and 2015; it's gone up fourfold since 2015. It's gone up tenfold overall just for these six companies.

Is there any end in sight, from what you see?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I can only speak in relation to our office. Obviously, we invest heavily in training our staff, so we don't outsource services to contractors. I can't really speak to the thrust of your question beyond what we do within our office.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

We know that in 2015 the Liberals made a promise to cut back on outsourcing. The Prime Minister pledged to free up $3 billion through a spending review that he cited would reduce the use of external consultants.

When you're evaluating the outsourced contracts and making your recommendations, are you at all guided by this campaign promise or consider it?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Not at all. It's actually very important to my neutrality and independence that I don't consider those external factors.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

Does your office have any capacity to ensure that there's fairness in terms of how government procurement contracts are awarded against the ability of unionized public servants who also do that work?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Again, that's more wading into the policy realm, so I would suggest that perhaps—again, not to overstep my bounds—this issue might be something you would want to raise with the Office of the Auditor General.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Do you have any recommendations to reduce the government's reliance on outsourcing and to build in-house capacity?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Unfortunately, again, that's outside of my mandate.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Do you consider the current rate and continued increase of outsourcing to be a widespread contracting issue? If so, are you concerned with the concentration of contracts with a handful of companies like McKinsey and Deloitte?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I'm sorry to sound repetitive, but again, it's outside of my mandate.