Government Operations Committee on June 3rd, 2024

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

Thank you, but, for the moment, I have to move on to my next question.

We've seen that major renovation work is currently under way at Place du Portage in Gatineau's Hull sector. Work on one of the buildings seems to be almost complete. At least they've installed some windows.

Please reassure me that they aren't just switching out windows. They are beautiful new windows, but what other changes do these renovations involve? How long will it take to complete the project and how much will it cost?

[Arianne Reza]

To begin—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I apologize for interrupting. You only have about 10 seconds left. Perhaps that's something you could provide in writing to us, because it would seem to be a rather large answer.

[Arianne Reza]

There were a lot of construction problems at that location, but we're also doing interior work.

The reason for the work now under way is to ensure that the exterior of the buildings is up to standard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Bachrach, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Four and a half or so years ago, one of the first meetings I had with then transport minister Marc Garneau was about a federal property on Haida Gwaii, the Sandspit Inn, which is owned by Transport Canada. The community has been trying to get it back into community hands. It was once operated by the community as a hotel. When the lease wasn't renewed.... That process has been ongoing for over four years.

Talking about this desire to reduce the footprint of public sector buildings by 50%, it looks very different in rural communities. A four-and-a-half-year process, which still hasn't been completed, to divest the government of this property that could be used for the benefit of the community seems like a long time. I hear all sorts of stories about studies being done that seem to take forever. There is lots of poking and prodding going on.

With this new mandate to create housing, to use federal properties and to meet community goals, what is being done to accelerate those processes? They seem to go at a snail's pace.

[Arianne Reza]

I'm so glad that you mentioned the Sandspit Inn. I wrote “Sandspit” in my notes. I was looking at it earlier, but I had not put “Inn”. Now I have that context.

I think there are two things to be aware of.

Traditionally, it has taken us approximately nine years, as the Government of Canada, to dispose of a property. It has to be circulated, and people have to put up their hands for an expression of interest.

In the new model, what we're going to try to do is avoid the disposal process and actually look at using surplus lands to build affordable housing and have a housing program around that.

I took careful note in earlier testimony around expression of interest. That is something we're working on every day. What does initial expression of interest look like so the community can get to us and we can get to the community and build those criteria? We're not going to get everything. We're going to try to get as much as possible so we can hear what is helpful to the community.

Going back to the location of this property in question, having an inventory.... There is a federal land registry that's maintained by TBS. We have actually mapped out that whole federal inventory to be able to make sure Transport Canada is coming to us saying, “We want to dispose of this property and we want to engage the community. How can you, PSPC, help us accelerate that and remove the dwell time?"

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

Can you go to them? Are you going to wait for them to come to you? I guess we're four and a half years in. You say that it used to take nine years. I'm just wondering how it can be accelerated, given that it's a legacy...it's in process. Can PSPC intervene and say, “Hey, you're working on this, so let's work together to get this done in the next six months so the community—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid that's past our time, but it's another one to get back to us on in writing, and I'm glad you've been writing notes about the Sandspit Inn.

Mr. Genuis, please, for five.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I too want to share my congratulations for the new president of Mexico. I'm sure the Prime Minister of Canada looks forward to showing off his socks at the next three amigos summit.

I want to ask about companies operating on the GC Strategies model. We've talked a lot about ArriveCAN specifically, but we have also been able to identify that there seem to be many companies operating on essentially the same model, that is, very small companies of one, two or three individuals operating out of a residential address. Their business is getting government contracts. That's it. That's what they do. They get government contracts and subcontract.

Is it the view of the Government of Canada that we should not be contracting to companies that are using the GC Strategies model and that instead we should be going more directly to the companies who do the actual work? Or are you comfortable with this model continuing to be a big part of government procurement?

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you very much for the question. I think it's fair to say that it's been consistently asked of me for several appearances.

This IT staff augmentation.... It doesn't have to be IT, but the staff augmentation model is used by every country, jurisdictions in Canada and the private sector. It's a well-known model.

In terms of the efficiency it provides to the Government of Canada, going directly to consultants may not be the most efficient way. That being said, I think the member actually asked me this question several months ago, and I did start to look at whether or not we would have the capacity and what capacity we would need if we wanted to go right to individual suppliers.

Staff augmentation is a legitimate type of business that we do and we haven't to date looked at the size, understanding that is one of the key elements you bring—the small SMEs. We haven't used that as a rate limiting factor for computing.

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

Yes. Thank you.

Can I just ask, though, why is this staff augmentation or GC Strategies model necessary? It would seem to me that it shouldn't be that difficult to have a detailed database or inventory in government about the specific skills that exist out there. It seems that this model is actually used to get around a perceived excessive complexity of procurement, that this model is used because somebody has an existing standing offer or an existing relationship with government. It's actually a vehicle for getting around red tape and not a necessary part of the system.

Why couldn't the government have—internally—the people who have an expertise in finding the appropriate outside consultants maintain a detailed database of that information? Why would that not be possible?

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you very much for the question.

I think there are three key points here, one of which is government HR staffing: making sure that we have the right skill sets to do what you propose. Two is the actual procurement: What is it that we're trying to bring in? It's what services we're trying to bring in. The third is that project management piece.

When I listen to the member, I think a lot about project management. We're trying to deliver a service to Canadians. We're going to need to bring in some temporary staff augmentation, be it IT, be it project management, be it pay and, traditionally, staff augmentation firms have been the most efficient way to bring all of that together.

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

Okay. I've asked this question a few times because I'm still perplexed in general by the government's approach to this. It would seem that project management capacity in particular is something that there should be a significant amount of skill for within the government.

I do want to try to get one or another couple of questions in, though. It seems that when I look at the documents we received on indigenous procurement, there are a couple of companies that are getting an enormous amount of the contracts: Ottawa-based and, in some cases, very small firms.

How much do you think is too much? If 5% of the set-aside is for indigenous companies and we're finding that a very small number of companies are getting a lot of those deals—3%, 5% or 7% of all of the contracts—would that suggest there's a problem? What percentage do you think would be too much of that overall share?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Give a short answer, please.

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you very much.

Again, I heard the question asked and started to think about it. We don't offer a cap on any company that competes for government business. There is no similar approach in non-indigenous firms, so I don't understand why it would be there for indigenous firms. There are 50,000 indigenous firms in Canada. Whether or not they're registered on the indigenous procurement business list is for them to decide. We try to encourage them in order to get that number up so we have more of a competitive pool.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sousa.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Deputy Minister and team, for being here today.

There's a lot of discussion around this table about procurement and fraud, detection of fraud and safeguarding our position to ensure that we take the proper measures going forward. Certainly, in the 2024-25 departmental plan, a lot of concern was noted by the department. This has been initiated by the department. Of course, there is a lot of discussion among independent officers of the Crown, be it the ombudsman or the Auditor General.

I have a couple of questions in regard to this.

I guess what I'm trying to get down to is engagement by the committee versus internal investigations that are ongoing. Do the targets of your investigations always know they're being investigated?

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you very much for the question. I'm going to start, and then turn to Catherine.

I understand this is an area of interest for this and other committees. We traditionally have a very aggressive stance towards fraud. Whether it's within our own workforce or among suppliers, we have a lot of fraud detection and deterrence in place. We talk about it a lot at PSPC, because we are the department responsible for procurement and the best disinfectant is sunlight. We really spend a lot of time.

In terms of individual investigations, I think the answer is that it depends.

Catherine.

[Catherine Poulin]

Thank you very much for the question.

When an internal investigation is started, at some point in time, the individual under investigation will be notified that they are under investigation because, in those internal processes, we are trying to build due process and fairness for those people. They have the right to know what evidence is held against them and to reply to the allegations against them.

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

When the RCMP gets involved, what is their caution to you? What is it that concerns the investigator during an investigation?

[Catherine Poulin]

Thank you very much for the question.

Once we turn the investigation over to the RCMP, our work is basically done. It will be for the RCMP to decide what they are going to do with our referral. They do not necessarily inform us if and when they will take action on our cases.

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

Are there risks to the investigation when elected officials start to investigate the investigator or oversee the investigation when there is a proper due process in place?

[Catherine Poulin]

Thank you so much for the question.

I would say that yes, there are big risks when this comes into the public domain, because those people have the right to a fair and natural sense of justice. The RCMP or any other law enforcement agency will want to use some investigative techniques and approaches. To protect the integrity of those investigations, it's very important that those elements are kept private in order to allow them to do their job and decide, if an element of criminality is found, to lay charges against the people who may have defrauded the Government of Canada.

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

PSPC has obviously been engaged in a number of investigations of late. Do you co-operate with the Auditor General? Do you co-operate with the ombudsman? Do you co-operate with the Ethics Commissioner? Are you engaged in these discussions to some extent?