Evidence of meeting #84 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Fellow, Centre for Security, Intelligence and Defence Studies, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, As an Individual
And it's probably American.
But that's at the very extreme end of classified stuff. That is really high stuff, and it would be extremely hard to have a discussion on that in any way.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
The problem there is this balance between what is a key piece of security equipment—with cost, of course, and that's where the competitive aspect comes in. We see in our briefing notes that a couple of the other countries have a debrief after a contract has been awarded. Is this something, Mr. McLeod, that industry would be interested in, or is it just placating people who haven't won the contract?
10:05 a.m.
Head, Commercial Litigation, Mann Lawyers LLP, As an Individual
There is an ability to debrief after a competitive process typically, but whether that's placating or whether that's providing actual information is something to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Certainly if you're looking at value, absolutely. A competitive process is going to provide typically a better value to the government, to the taxpayers. At the same time there are legitimate national security interests that might come into play.
Just stepping back from this a little bit, if you're saying that a supercomputer for weather forecasting and other uses invokes national security interests, I can see how that might be. If you're talking about office paper and paper clips, I struggle to see that. Perhaps there's a reason but I would suggest there likely isn't.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Thanks very much. It's been very informative and I appreciate your input. I just want to get back to what I was chatting earlier about. How do we set up processes to stop government, whether it's this government, the next government or the government after that, from using NSE as a blanket excuse just to do what they want and just call it NSE. And it's bigger than just the photocopied paper that CSIS is doing it on; there's military procurement, the sole sourcing of the Super Hornet is a controversial issue. How do we get systems set up so there's NSE and we're shut down from oversight on spending, procurement and other issues?
10:05 a.m.
Fellow, Centre for Security, Intelligence and Defence Studies, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, As an Individual
Could I speak to that?
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I'm sorry, I understand what you're saying about giving powers more to the CITT, but I'm thinking, again, of setting up processes in advance so that it's not used and then we wait a year or two, or months etc., to get in front of CITT, but so that we stop it as a matter of policy. Again, I'm talking about governments down the road as well.
10:05 a.m.
Head, Commercial Litigation, Mann Lawyers LLP, As an Individual
Obviously it's within your ability to create an internal oversight process whether that's by committee or by some other method.
10:05 a.m.
Head, Commercial Litigation, Mann Lawyers LLP, As an Individual
My suggestion is not to do it unless you can ensure that it's done officially because if it becomes another layer of process that is going to further restrict the government's ability to purchase goods in a timely fashion and bidders' ability to sell their goods to the government in a timely fashion, then I think it would be problematic in itself.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Maybe I'm a bit of an optimist or pragmatist, but I would think that would be a simple sign-off, no photocopy papers, not an NSE. We could clear these things off, but how do we set processes—
10:05 a.m.
Head, Commercial Litigation, Mann Lawyers LLP, As an Individual
If you're asking for suggestions for internal checks and balances, that's not my area of expertise.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
Professor, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Perhaps I could say again—
10:05 a.m.
Professor, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I could say that there could be audits of the invocation of national security exceptions. I don't know to whom this mandate could be given, perhaps the Auditor General, and that would not delay the process for the award of contracts, so it would come after the fact. It would be an internal process within government and it would not be the courts, but then the Auditor General, for example, or some sort of committee....
10:10 a.m.
Fellow, Centre for Security, Intelligence and Defence Studies, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, As an Individual
I have the general opinion that in government there are enough processes and—
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
10:10 a.m.
Fellow, Centre for Security, Intelligence and Defence Studies, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, As an Individual
—I've always held the view that there's a lot of capability in the committees of Parliament. I would say any of the committees has the power to call the minister and ask him the question, have him explain himself.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Perhaps this would be a good forum seeing as that we are...procurements under this—
10:10 a.m.
Fellow, Centre for Security, Intelligence and Defence Studies, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, As an Individual
Absolutely.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Very good.
Mr. McLeod, just quickly, I have a question on the CITT. You've mentioned that there's Charlton and there was a second one that came up recently.
10:10 a.m.
Head, Commercial Litigation, Mann Lawyers LLP, As an Individual
Hewlett-Packard.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
