Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Alexander Jeglic]

We didn't do a value for money analysis, but we did have a section of our report that spoke to “best value” specific to procurement. We made recommendations specifically as to how they could remedy that, and this goes back to one of the answers I provided, which starts with the selection methodology of seventy-thirty: 70% technical, 30% price. Obviously, increasing the price component would be a starting point.

There was also the discussion around the “median bands” and the need to make sure that the lower threshold is expanded, and only in exceptional circumstances where it's justifiable and you can explain why you would want to limit it further. That's another recommendation we made that I think would enhance best value.

Also, on the replacement of specific individuals, I'll go back to the concept that you should at least achieve the quality of service you pay for. The 76% ties directly into that concept, so diminishing the number of resources that are replaced would also speak to best value.

In terms of following up on our recommendations, I do see there being improvements associated with best value in procurement.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

I know that our member from the NDP wasn't able to get all of her answers to the questions she had asked, so you can take some time to address some of the challenges she had outlined as well. I did like her questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Gazan, one of your colleagues on the Liberal bench is offering you two minutes.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I heard. That's great.

I asked about indigenous procurement. There seems to be an issue of accountability around indigenous procurement. There's a whole issue of accountability in procurement, like knowing the amount spent that could have been saved internally.

Going back to the hiring of indigenous folks, how can that be mitigated so that programs designed for equity actually go to the people they're supposed to go to, who in this case are indigenous people?

[Alexander Jeglic]

To take you back to what I responded, albeit very briefly, in terms of who bears responsibility for ensuring that this is in fact happening, I would note there is a self-certification process involved for indigenous suppliers. They have to retain information that would support self-certification, but it's Indigenous Services Canada that has the right to audit the statements being certified by indigenous businesses to ensure that it is in fact indigenous businesses benefiting as intended under the procurement strategy for indigenous business.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It seems to me that a lot of levels of bureaucracy are interfering with ensuring accountability in these programs, particularly because we're talking about hiring in one ministry and having to be overseen in another ministry. It seems like an impossible bureaucracy for maintaining accountability.

[Alexander Jeglic]

Indigenous Services Canada has an exclusive mandate in this area. Regardless of which department or agency the indigenous supplier is contracted under, these certifications can be audited by the same department, so there is continuity. I think it's a question of how frequently these audits are performed. That's something, perhaps, that could be asked of the Department of Indigenous Services.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That concerns me because we're dealing with accountability and transparency issues in one area, and it seems like we also have accountability and transparency issues in other areas.

I'll go back to a former question I asked, and I'll ask it of the Auditor General.

The Auditor General indicated that it's impossible to determine the total cost for ArriveCAN. Do you agree that wouldn't have happened had there been more regulatory mechanisms in place? I ask that because I find it disturbing that it's impossible to determine the total cost.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Hayes, you have the last word on this. I turn it over to you.

[Andrew Hayes]

I think the best way to explain this is to use the words the Auditor General herself used: There was a “glaring disregard” for basic financial management practices.

When public funds are being spent, there should be clear and concise records showing exactly what those public funds are being used for and who approves them. It should be easy to follow the dollar all the way through the financial system and out to the contractors, and that wasn't done in this case. Quite frankly, what should happen is the record-keeping practices should be greatly improved at the CBSA in order to address the glaring weaknesses we found.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I want to thank our witnesses for coming in today. We appreciate it. I know we were here a little longer than expected because of the votes, so we thank you for your patience.

Without further ado, I adjourn the meeting. I'll see you all here Thursday.