Government Operations Committee on Feb. 1st, 2021

[Ian Bron]

The answer, of course, is yes. You'll end up paying more. A lack of transparency allows mistakes or misconduct to slip through. The best way is to have upfront transparency so that the problems can be spotted early. When that fails, you have to fall back on whistle-blowers. Whistle-blowers are a kind of tripwire to pick up wrongdoing. They're supposed to work when other systems fail.

As to how the costs would add up, if you have conspiracy between contractors, for example, that might not be as easy to spot if you don't have appropriate transparency and you don't have somebody looking back at the records.

I think, though, that Mr. Cutler might be a better person to answer the contracting question.

[Allan Cutler]

I agree totally that mistakes will happen, and big contracts with higher prices are negotiated when you're in a rush. We all know that. However, with regard to mistakes as to what you're buying and who you're buying it from, there's no way of knowing what's happening except in an audit, years later. Think about two or three years from now. Information as to what went wrong will probably be known, but the people who have already received all the benefits from it have disappeared.

It is not that hard to have checks and balances, but it's systemic systems that have been put into place to protect people from learning the truth early.

[Sean Holman]

I couldn't agree more. This is transparency about good government decision-making. If there is more transparency, if government is aware that it is being watched and if government is aware that people are paying attention, then chances are its decisions will be better. That's really what we're talking about here.

We're talking about democracy, but we're also talking about good government.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Holman, I have some questions for you.

On June 9, 2020, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement noted in her opening remarks that, as a result of competition and the current market instability, some information about our procurement could compromise federal government orders and Canada's negotiating position.

You spoke about the system of silence. Is the system of private or secret decision-making meant to ensure better service to the public?

Is its goal instead to preserve any potential sensitivities with regard to international partners?

Does it exist to open certain political doors?

[Sean Holman]

Oftentimes it's to protect secrecy.

As a small historical footnote, when we were talking about making government records available after 30 years, in the post-war period there was discussion in cabinet about this. One principal reason they didn't make it 25 years was that men in public office could still be in public office after 25 years. There was a desire not to embarrass those individuals.

We're really talking about embarrassment here more than anything else. We're not talking about good government. We're not talking about democracy. We're talking about, in a lot of cases, simply the desire to protect public officials from embarrassment.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

You have one minute left.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bron, in the past, I've heard people say that we should be careful about whistle-blowing and that whistle-blowing could be a way for a person to get back at an employer or a high-ranking officer.

In your opinion, is this type of whistle-blowing common?

Should the likelihood of this happening hold back the government from improving its system and legislation?

[Ian Bron]

It doesn't happen very often. It's very rare. It's a straw man that's often erected to argue against whistle-blowing.

If you look at the B.C. Health firings that occurred back in 2012, that showed what happens when you don't have an effective system in place. You have a kangaroo court and people being dragged over the coals—all for nothing.

An effective whistle-blowing system ensures that doesn't happen. If there is a malicious complaint or if somebody is just simply wrong, the system allows for an investigation to identify the problem and the inquiry is shut down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Bron. I appreciate it.

Maybe you heard my alarm go off there to signal the time. That is not someone's phone; it's my clock going off.

We'll now go to Mr. Green for six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have to say that I'm remiss that the recommendations in the first go-around in OGGO weren't adopted. I can only imagine what kind of waste and incidents of possible collusion or corruption could have been avoided if we had systems and principles in place coming into COVID.

I want the opportunity to draw out the recommendations that have been put forward in the white paper. I want to compare and contrast your definition of “open by default” and the government's definition of “open by default”, which it so proudly places in all the mandate letters.

Perhaps, Mr. Holman, you would like to start off with that question.

[Sean Holman]

“Open by default” is a great slogan, isn't it? The fact of the matter is that “open by default” has often translated into “open except for any material that falls within certain exemptions and exclusions”. As you know, the exemptions and exclusions in the Access to Information Act are quite large. They have been large and they have been a problem ever since the Access to Information Act became law. A reporter commented immediately after that law was passed that the loopholes were so big you could fly the Goodyear Blimp between them.

We need to establish a law that requires the proactive disclosure of certain broad categories of public record. Enough with giving government an opportunity to exclude certain things. It's proven that it can't be trusted with that. We need a law that actually forces disclosure and forces proactive disclosure of broad categories of information.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

As a former city councillor, I can share with you that this would be one of the things I would try to root out in procurement. We had a heck of a time doing it, particularly as it related to lobbying. I looked at it as a continuum. The contracts are often down the line of the initial engagement, on a continuum.

I believe it was Mr. Bron who talked about upfront transparency and the idea that some of what we learn about in Canada actually comes from American disclosures. You referenced export records. I'm wondering if anybody would like to speak specifically about the extent to which American lobbying records have far outpaced Canada's. I reference some of the issues around SNC-Lavalin and military contracts, things that Canadian lobbyists had to disclose in the States, but our systems seem to completely miss.

[Sean Holman]

I can speak to that.

You're absolutely right. The funny thing is that we got an Access to Information Act in the early 1980s because there was a recognition that in the United States more information was being made available, information that Canadians didn't have. In fact, one of the big moments was the realization that Canadians could get access to information about meat inspection reports at their own meat inspection plants in the United States, but couldn't get access to those same records in Canada.

We need to revisit the amount of comparative information between ourselves and the United States, because it will expose just how secretive our governments in this country are, regardless of their political stripe.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would tend to agree. There's a certain smugness that we like to have in looking down our noses at America. I think a bit of fauxgressivism happens there in how we're treating this information. When you look at the contracts, for instance—you wouldn't probably have known this, but this was a question that I brought up repeatedly to the minister responsible for procurement, asking them to post the contracts—it is my understanding that it only benefits the seller and not the buyer to have secrecy in these disclosures. Again, we heard from Mr. Cutler the idea of options versus actuals on the vaccines.

Could Mr. Cutler speak a little about the importance of having an open government approach to the actual contracts and ways that it might be able to help us come to a better process? This isn't about vilifying government. This is about having good processes in place that shine the light in dark corners and make sure that government is actually doing what it says it's doing.

Mr. Cutler, could you talk about the importance of seeing the devil in the details of our contract?

[Allan Cutler]

Sean mentioned the whole concept of openness by default. I would tend to state that the government, for many years, has been openness by exception, not by default. My premise would be that from a user's viewpoint, a public viewpoint, openness by exception...you can only close it down occasionally.

By the way, what I was talking about is a normal process that is already there. I'm not talking about something new. I want a copy of a contract. I make an access request. I get a copy of the contract. I have seen the contract for Phoenix, for example. It has been given to me by media, which was given it. The only things that were missing were certain redacted portions, but it was enough to tell me a lot of the problems.

Every contract put out under the COVID situation could be published. We then would know who it was, how much money we're spending in total—we don't need the individual figures for a firm, but how much in total—and the details of the contract. All that information is already what is normally given.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'd love to see those numbers on Deloitte myself.

I know I'm running out of time.

[Allan Cutler]

I'm not asking for anything new.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Cutler and Mr. Green.

We'll now go to our second round. We'll start with five minutes for Mr. Paul-Hus.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Your presentations are very informative.

We've been talking about contracts for the past while. I have a list here from a Government of Canada site. It's in “Table 3: N95 respirators.” Currently, only two companies out of 23 are named. The others are simply referred to as Company A, B, C, D, and so on. The contracts are worth $91 million, $35 million, $69 million and $158 million.

Do you think that it's normal that we don't at least have the names of the companies?

We're told that the issue concerns confidentiality in negotiations. I understand that. However, wouldn't it be normal to have the names of the companies?

I want to hear your thoughts on this, Mr. Cutler.

[Allan Cutler]

I would tell you, yes, it should be a normal thing. Given the urgency, it's totally understandable that the government made decisions as to whom they were going to give it to. There should have been a process to vet them quickly. My understanding is that some of them may not have been in the business at all, but I don't know the details so I'm not going to get into....

As I said, criticism in hindsight is good, but knowing the details and knowing the firms should be standard practice. What you want should just be there.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

That's what I think.

In your experience, does the fact that we don't know the names of the companies open the door to collusion? Can there be collusion among different companies? Since we don't have access to them, we don't have the opportunity to form an opinion on the matter.

[Allan Cutler]

Yes, there can be bid rigging. You can't know if you don't know who's bidding. Believe me, the media love to investigate these things. There can be bid rigging, and you can pay more than you should. It's not hard to police.

By the way, it's not always recognized, but the government has the power to impose contracts under exceptional circumstances, and also to make certain that all prices are audited so it doesn't have to be gouged. Again, though, I don't know what was in the contract or how the contract was written.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I now have some questions for you, Mr. Holman.

Last week, we learned that the CanSinoBio contract, the contract awarded by the Government of Canada for vaccine development, had ended. In June, the National Research Council of Canada told a House of Commons committee that the agreement was in place. In July, the Government of Canada said that there was still an agreement in place. In August, we were told that there was no longer an agreement. We're now learning that the Chinese ended the agreement in May.

Do you think that it's normal for the Government of Canada to hide this information?

[Sean Holman]

I think it's normal, but it shouldn't be happening. The pandemic is exacerbating and illuminating all the existing problems that we see in the transparency system in this country, whether it's whistle-blowing or whether it's treatment of information. We should have a right to that information. We should be able to know.

That's why, again, it's necessary to have a law that forces proactive disclosure of large categories of records, including the kinds of records you're referencing, because then we would know for sure.