Government Operations Committee on March 18th, 2024

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes.

This is something that obviously I have been saying for quite a long time. It is that we need to balance the fact that we want to get information in our hands with the production of papers to make sure that we are not putting undue stress on the officials and the staff who are working to bring these documents forward, but I fully agree with the contracts being included. I support this motion.

I think generating all correspondence dating back to 2010 may actually slow down this process. I will support it because I like the focus on the contracts. I think that is information that is pertinent and I think it is information that can actually be generated quite quickly.

Just for the purposes of being more surgical in what we request and being more balanced, I will support the amendment that was brought forward by my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Genuis is next.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to observe that we're seeing the breathtaking hypocrisy of Liberal members here. On the one hand, they're saying, “Let's go on a fishing expedition and ask for documents in one part of this motion, going all the way back to 2010, when the project didn't even exist.” At the same time, they're saying, “Let's remove from the motion more contemporary requests for documents because, well, it's just too many documents and it takes too much time to get them.”

How absurd is it that Liberal members want to add document requests that go far back into history and at the same time want to remove document requests on contemporary events because they say, “Well, it's just too many documents to request”? What a hypocritical farce.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll go to Mrs. Vignola and then Mr. Sousa.

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

I'll quickly respond. Far be it from me to use those same adjectives. Rather, I'm going to explain why I want points b and c.

Point b asks for “all CBSA communications relating to the 2018 Deloitte technical specifications”. We're asking for the technical specifications because they will tell us how the application was designed, as well as what the objectives were. We've seen recently, in the Auditor General's report, that sometimes, requests are vague and the results are just as vague. The technical specifications will tell us whether that's the case here.

If that is the case, point c follows. It asks for “all CBSA communications relating to CARM Release 2 testing since October 2023”. We're talking about an application that will be used to control trade and collect taxes at the Canadian border, to the tune of billions of dollars. There's no room for error, as was the case with Phoenix. That can't happen. The technical specifications will tell us what testing was undertaken, and those results will help us to ensure that there won't be any problems.

Before the application is fully deployed, this is an opportunity to ensure that no mistakes were made and to make corrections before problems occur if there were mistakes or flaws or if the results were not as conclusive as we would hope.

That, too, is our role. We need to plan, to see the bumps on the road ahead and remove them, in order to properly manage all duties and taxes under our purview in the short, intermediate and long term. That's why points b and c are important and why I can't accept my esteemed colleague's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you for your point of view. I appreciate what you're getting at. We do want to make it relevant in terms of the review.

To the point made by my other colleague across the way, if he doesn't believe anything existed prior to 2018, I'm not sure why he's getting so upset. The fact is that this did come to be around 2010, and since then, we have an opportunity now to review it in its entirety, even the testing.

With respect to the ramifications of items A.b. and A.c., incorporated within item A, that is what we're dealing with. I appreciate the sensitivity of ensuring that the program works and initiates what it's intended to do. That's why we feel that, under item A, it's appropriate.

I know my colleague wants to interject even further.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Jowhari, please go ahead.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've talked about two things. One was dating back to 2010. It is important for us to go that far back, because that defines the genesis of the project. What was the requirement? What drove it? What has changed since then?

My understanding is that this thing dates back to 2007, when strategies were being developed, so it is important for us to go that far back, not because we are trying to cause more work but for understanding what drove things and what has changed since then. That's number one.

Number two is the extent that A.b. and A.c. are going to in providing all the task documents and all of those things. As someone who has done a lot of business transformations in technology and has seen product development and product life cycles, I don't think many of us are qualified to look at test data or test results, because then you have to qualify an understanding of where the test results are coming from, who developed the test cases, whether unit testing has been done and where this data is coming from. Who's doing the scenario?

However, if we limit it to looking at the genesis, at what was driving it and looking into the journey, if it highlights the fact that we need to be able to look at that test data, I would suggest, rather than going to that level of detail, that we look at the summary. I'm sure that there has been reporting for the first cycle of testing and the second cycle of testing as part of the project and part of the documents that have been developed. That is normal for these types of developments. The summary is always made available.

Getting access to those, I think, is a wise choice, but if we're going to the level that we get test documents and we look at test data and we analyze, we have to be in a position to be able to evaluate those. I'm not sure how many of us as MPs have been involved in developing this. You seem to be consulting everyone on everything nowadays, so you are a consultant.

To what extent are we able to spend the time to be able to assess those test cases and the test data and the results of those tests? It's questionable; however, I think it would be a wise choice to look at those documents, because I'm sure that at the higher levels, the results of the test data and the results of the testing cycle will be highlighted.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We will call the vote on the amendment as put forth by Mr. Sousa?

It's yeas 5 and nays 5, so we're back to the original amended motion, which has us with 2010 in paragraph A.a.

Can we proceed with a vote?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Thank you very much.

We are now at Mr. Bachrach. If you want to go ahead for your two and a half minutes, we'll try....

Mr. Giroux, if you're fine, you could stick around for about another 10 minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

It looks like we're going to be right up against the bell, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best to hit it right on the nose here.

There's been some discussion at this committee about carbon pricing. I know this is a matter that's of interest to Canadians right now. I was sitting at the environment committee when ECCC was there. They reported to the committee that they estimate that the carbon price is responsible for about 30% of the emission reductions in the current federal emissions reduction plan, which I found fairly surprising. The committee has asked for their analysis so that they can better understand how they came up with that number.

It does seem that in a lot of this discussion, we're talking about comparing the option of carbon pricing to the option of doing nothing. I don't think that's an option that very many Canadians will accept. I do think that most Canadians want Canada to act on climate change to reduce domestic emissions, and to do it as inexpensively as possible.

The question for you, Mr. Giroux, is whether in your opinion there is a less expensive way to achieve the domestic emissions reductions outlined in the emissions reduction plan and in accordance with the national targets. Is there a less expensive way to do that than through the current pricing approach?

[Yves Giroux]

It's generally accepted that a carbon tax is an efficient way of letting players in the economy determine the best way for them individually—as individuals or corporations—to reduce their emissions.

However, we estimated a couple of years ago that as a country, if we were to rely solely on a carbon tax to reduce our emissions to meet the Paris targets, or even exceed them, the carbon tax would need to be increased significantly and get close to $300 per tonne, as opposed to the maximum of $170 per tonne that it's scheduled to reach in 2030.

There would be quite a bit of further increases necessary to reach our targets as a country. While the literature suggests that a carbon tax is very efficient, I don't think it would be acceptable for many Canadians to have that high of a level of carbon tax to reach our emissions target. That's why I think other measures in combination with the carbon tax are probably necessary.

I'm not surprised to hear that ECCC officials indicated that 30% of the emissions reductions are due to the carbon tax.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Giroux, you testified earlier that over $20 billion is being spent by this government on contracting out. Of that, your estimate was that about 10%, over $2 billion, is being spent on management consulting, and you're not able to identify, based on the available figures, how much is being spent on middlemen.

We've tried to dig into this in other places and in other committees. We've been able to identify that there are 635 staff augmentation firms. They are companies that don't actually perform IT work; they're IT staff augmentation firms. They receive contracts and subcontract.

The government was not able to provide information about the numbers of employees at those companies, and in how many cases they were like GC Strategies and were simply companies with two people or less.

Do you have any work going on or any ability to identify across 600 companies how much money we're talking about? This is just for paying middlemen for IT work. There are likely many other cases in which we're paying middlemen. Do you have any work going on or any ability to see how much money the government is spending on this multi-layered process of contracting to a contractor for contracting?

[Yves Giroux]

No, it's not something that we are currently looking at. I think it would be more within the bailiwick of the Auditor General.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I think there is a need to understand these numbers. We have asked the Auditor General to look, for instance, at specific companies already.

I think the budgeting piece here is important to get to a sense of the costs that are being spent on that. Chair, with that in mind, and since it's all the rage today, I'm going to move a motion:

According to committee testimony, the Government of Canada uses 635 staff augmentation companies or IT companies the do not perform any actual IT work themselves, and the Government does not even know how many of these companies have two employees or less, like ArriveCan contractors GC Strategies, the committee report to the House its request to the Parliamentary Budget Officer to complete a full report on the increased costs taxpayers pay due to the government using 635 staff augmentation companies and that this report is completed by June 1 2024.

I know we're close to time, so hopefully we can pass this motion quickly, Chair. I know it has now been distributed to all members in both official languages.

I will just say that this is one part of the picture, but it's not the whole picture. We see today that the government is trying to create the narrative that any reductions in spending would be devastating to Canadians who rely on government services, but that's clearly not the case, based on how much this government is spending on contracting. There are 635 companies that are IT middlemen alone for the federal government. Enormous amounts of money are being spent on contracting out and contracting to subcontract, so we would like to invite the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer on this issue.

I hope this motion will have the support of my colleagues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask my colleague for clarification on the part stating that “the committee report to the House its request to the Parliamentary Budget Officer”. Since when do we report to the House our requests to the Parliamentary Budget Officer? I think this is a first. Typically, we make a request, we wait for the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report and, then, we invite him to come give us details on his report. I don't think that we've ever reported such requests to the House.

If anything needs to be changed, that's it, because I don't see the point of doing that. Perhaps there is a point, so I'm asking my colleague to tell me why we should report to the House a request to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We don't require that to ask for a report to be done. Are you putting forward an amendment to the motion—

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

I would—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

—or are you asking Mr. Genuis to chime in on it?

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

Perhaps there's a reason for it. If so, I'd like to know what it is. Otherwise, I'm simply going to ask that it be struck.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll leave it for now, and then you can put forward an amendment if necessary.

I see Mr. Genuis—perhaps he'll address that— and then I have Mrs. Atwin.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola, for the question.

To clarify, in the past when this committee has made requests or other committees have made requests, the reason to refer it to the House is that it provides an opportunity for the House to pronounce on the matter, which adds weight to it. This is what we've seen, for instance, in the case of Auditor General reports.

It's functionally the committee reporting to the House, and the House can pronounce on the matter, which allows the recommendation to carry that extra weight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll go to Mrs. Atwin and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.