Government Operations Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2017

[Pat Breton]

At times, it can be limited to certain suppliers, but that's from a security standpoint as opposed to a technology standpoint.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

In your world, there are many hundreds of suppliers. It's ubiquitous, and all countries have it, so I wonder why you're sole-sourcing the contracts or you're limiting the number of bidders that can bid on these contracts. Could you describe that?

[Pat Breton]

Yes. In most cases, we wouldn't be limiting the bidders, but we'd be evaluating the technology that the bidders are proposing for a security profile.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Okay. That makes a lot more sense.

Mr. Watters, from the police services perspective, every country, every province, and some municipalities have police services. What is so special about the RCMP that they would need to sole-source procurement or use a national security exemption to protect their members through limiting the disclosure of their operational specs? In terms of operational specs, all around the world, any criminal organization that wants to access them would have access. It wouldn't be difficult. You can't hide what gun or walkie-talkie a police services member is using. Someone just has to look at the service member to know what that is.

Why exactly did you go this route, and why not an open security network?

[Dennis Watters]

It's very rare that the RCMP does invoke the NSE. I was mentioning the amount of procurement we've done. Through our system I tried to get the numbers for what we spent on NSE the last fiscal year, for example, but my system didn't track by NSE. It was a manual effort, so I don't want anybody to rely totally on this number, but in 2015 it was about $1.8 million and I think in 2016 it was $3 million. It was quite low relative to all our procurement.

I can honestly say that it's really the exception. Before an NSE gets requested, the deputy commissioner, for example, in charge of the IT sector or the federal policing that oversees organized crime and national security must provide a business case, a rationale, a justification, as to why in that case it is needed. For example, for the North American leaders' summit, there were some issues about buying some fences.

This is about making sure our vulnerabilities are not disclosed, are not out there, so that other people, citizens as well as our officers, remain well protected. With body armour, for example, sometimes we don't want everybody to know what it's made out of, what the components are, in order to not give the other people an advantage.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Watters, is it really—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Whalen, you're down to about five seconds.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Okay.

Maybe you could respond with some information just to justify the fact that this information is actually secret after you make your procurement and that this is a true justification. It would seem to me that the type of equipment police officers use would be immediately known as soon as the police officers have the material, so I don't see how that would be a justification in your particular instance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You may want to respond in writing, Mr. Watters, if you care to give a little more elaboration on that.

We'll go now to a five-minute round, starting with Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thank you.

I have two quick questions for you, Ms. Campbell, on the NDA, which you referred to, and the special security accountability form. This was what was signed for the 145 people regarding the Super Hornet.

Do you know if we have made information available to those people who have signed the special security accountability form? Have we made it very clear to them that they are covered by the whistle-blower act, and that, yes, they've signed this form, but they are still protected and can still come forward?

[Lisa Campbell]

There are a number of acts and regulations that apply to us as public servants—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I know. I'm asking about whether we have made any special.... Have we gone out of our way to make these public servants aware that they are still protected? Yes or no.

[Lisa Campbell]

I'm not aware of any special effort.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Perfect.

Just very quickly, you mentioned that there was legal action in regard to one of the contracts involved in a procurement made under the NSE—

[Lisa Campbell]

That would be fixed-wing search and rescue.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Yes. Is that a common thing or a one-off, or is it a sore loser using the NSE as an excuse to sue us?

[Lisa Campbell]

That's an excellent question—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm sorry, I'm taking up Mr. Gourde's time, so please be brief.

[Lisa Campbell]

Of the total procurements that we do, we get legal challenges in about 1% of cases.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

So it's very rare.

[Lisa Campbell]

Some of those go to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which was set up with regard to our trade agreements. It has a limited jurisdiction, however. When NSEs are invoked, companies still have recourse, but it's to the Federal Courts. In this instance, with fixed-wing search and rescue, it's to the Federal Courts. I won't comment on what they're seeking, given that it's before the courts—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

But it's rare, though, right?

[Lisa Campbell]

It is, if you look at the total volume.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's all I wanted to know. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Campbell, could the national security exception cover up financial abuses?