Public Accounts Committee on March 30th, 2010

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Okay, but, usually, it should be clearer.

[Sheila Fraser]

It is important to understand that this situation was quite unusual. Perhaps it is more normal these days, but it was an emergency purchase. The procurement occurred within a very short period of time. In the report, we note that the documentation was not always put together perfectly, which is, in our opinion, understandable given those particular circumstances because, with regard to these purchases, we are talking about a question of months rather than years.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

It is one thing to have the paper documentation and another thing to have the cooperation and answers to questions. Are you satisfied with the answers that you obtained to make up for the lack of information?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes. There was wonderful collaboration by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works and Government Services. The only issue is that, sometimes, not all the specific dates in an audit are noted. It wasn't considered to be essential, in this case.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

So, now you are ready for the next mandates in this area?

[Sheila Fraser]

We are always ready to fulfil our mandates.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you.

With regard to the issue of emergency, earlier we identified the need to have a new mechanism, a new way of procuring military equipment. I would like a representative of National Defence or PWGSC or even someone from Treasury Board Secretariat to tell us what proportion of procurement contracts so-called emergency projects represent.

You have proposed an action plan to us. Could you confirm to us that so called emergency purchases will be processed using the new process that you have put in place? Has the Auditor General observed your new process in order to verify whether it properly responds to the needs she identified earlier?

[François Guimont]

I have a few comments. Everyone is looking at each other so I will speak.

First, Mr. Chair, I do not know the number of purchases considered to be urgent. I will verify, but we do not have a category allowing us to identify the proportion. Now, we can put this together if you wish.

What we were asked for and what we have done is based on the “lessons learned” approach. In other words, we have tried to understand and document the best practices based on what we have learned as a result of those two purchases, specifically the emergency procurement, so as to guide us in some of our other purchases.

This affects four areas. First, there are the authorities: then, there is the approach with regard to instruments, also known as the tool kit; then there is the integrated team; this is another chapter that we looked at with regard to best practices; and finally, there is the use of technology. We identified the best practices in those four areas in order to put this in place for other purchases. This refers not only to emergency procurement, but also major purchases in areas other than military procurement, but also including military procurement.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Are you telling us that a new process will be followed? Projects that are now identified as being urgent will now follow the new process that you have put in place?

[François Guimont]

Mr. Chair, it is not necessarily exactly the same process. The process may vary. I am repeating myself to some extent, but we have the tool kit approach. For example, in English, we talk about a letter of interest, SOIQ, statement of interest and qualifications...

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

If I look on your Web site today, will I find an explanation for the process involving a project that has been identified as urgent?

[François Guimont]

To my knowledge, this is not on our Web site. These are internal mechanisms. The lessons learned approach was shared by major project procurement officers. We also have made various changes to our procurement manual that provides guidelines on the process to follow for acquisitions.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I understand that procurement process, I have worked on it a number of times. How do you define an emergency project? How do you determine whether a project is an emergency? What are the criteria? If this is set out in a document, could you provide it to us?

[François Guimont]

I will make a brief comment on this and then look to my colleague at National Defence. When we talk about the work done by the Office of the Auditor General, the key element with regard to emergency was time. So, normally, this kind of acquisition would take between 12 and 19 months, or more or less a year or a year and a half. With regard to the RG-31, it was done within a month and a half. We did it in eight months for the heavy support vehicles. So time was of the essence.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

In fact, I want to know whether you have a document defining emergency projects. On what criteria do you base your decision? Do you have a document you could provide to the committee that would explain to us what an urgent project is?

[François Guimont]

I do not know whether there is such a document within the department. This is an observation made by the Auditor General with regard to Treasury Board, in other words, whether within its policies, there is a measure setting out when we can request an exemption for emergency projects. Within the department, we have not defined this in detail.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

In the plan of action that you provided to us, you do not set out a mechanism by which you can decide whether a project is urgent, and justify that emergency.

[François Guimont]

We focused our efforts on making those purchases and providing the equipment on an emergency basis, and adopting best practices, which has been successful.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Do you have it, yes or no?

[François Guimont]

I do not have a specific policy with regard to emergency purchases by the department.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Madame Faille.

Mr. Christopherson, you have seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you all for attending today.

I'd like to open with a personal comment. It's my understanding—I overheard a conversation, forgive me for eavesdropping—that this may be Hugh McRoberts' last attendance before this committee.

I'm sure we'll all take a moment, but we know the kind of credibility the Auditor General has in the name of Sheila Fraser, but she'd be the first one to say that so much of that credit goes to her staff and her team.

Hugh, it's very difficult to follow in the shoes of Sheila Fraser, but every time you have been here you've reached that stature and hit that standard. We are a better country and a better democracy because of your commitment to public service. So thank you, sir, for your years of service to Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

With regard to the audit, I try to speak my mind at these meetings. When things annoy me I say so, and when I get really angry I let it go. At the risk of future audits proving this to be untrue, this is the second go-around. We've only had two that I can recall directly where we've taken a look at auditing inside the Department of Defence during a war. Given the experience we've had with the fog of war, what that means, and everything entailed in that, I have to tell you that overall I've been impressed.

There are mistakes here, and we're going to get into that and do everything we can to eliminate them. I don't like to give certain folks certain credits, but I have to tell you that where it's due I have been very impressed.

Madam Fraser, you mentioned that you went there and talked to the soldiers. One of the things that struck my mind when I was reading this--in our culture we relate so much to the movies of the day and our contemporary culture--was Catch-22, as far as that disconnect between what's happening on the ground and what's happening in a big ivory tower, meaning all of us. The worst example is Apocalypse Now, where it has just gone completely crazy. Yet I read in your remarks that when you were there on the ground your sense from the soldiers was that this was working for them too.

If we can make it work at this level of detail, analyzing, with the benefit of hindsight being 20/20, every decision, word, comma, and number put on a piece of paper and all that entails here at this end of things, and then all the way to Afghanistan, to have the soldiers on the ground say, “Yes, this is working for us”, I'm sure it's not perfect, but to hear that means a lot. As a Canadian and a parliamentarian not of the governing party, I'm very proud of the job I've seen, the work that's being done, and how well you've been able to, for the most part, in the midst of a long war, maintain the integrity of the procedures and steps, and all that paperwork that sometimes tends to get in the way.

That's kind of a long-winded comment. As much as I'll get into the details and there'll be a little criticism, I am very impressed. I want to say to all those involved here today, I think you're doing a hell of a job in some very difficult times. I hope this holds as we continue to audit in the years going forward, because you've earned it, you deserve it, and you're doing a really good job.

I have a couple of questions. I'm curious why after being at war for so long we still don't have an urgent operational requirement, a URO. I would think that Defence anyway, let alone in a time of war, would have had this come up so often it would be one of the most frequently used forums and procedures in your whole procurement process.

Enlighten me as to what I'm not seeing.