Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the concerns that all of us share in terms of trying to foster solutions, improvements and value for money in the work that's being done through procurement throughout the system.
Notwithstanding some members' childish name-calling of the activities involved, it's important that we take the proper steps to ensure corrections are taken. We've noted that there have been shortcomings in the system. It's been noted by the ombudsman and by the Auditor General on previous occasions, and recommendations have been made and adopted. We continue to move forward to find and foster those improvements.
The value-for-money audit is something that's concerning all of us. Certainly, the Auditor General explained that it wasn't just that she wasn't able to say that there was no value for money, but she wasn't able to assess the value for money. That's concerning, right? I mean, the idea is to ensure that there's a focus on the needs when we look for the procurement, that we have an understanding of the expected deliverables and then that the provided outcomes exist, so that ultimately there is an intent of proper achievements with respect to those contracts and that procurement to assess the value for money. The Auditor General noted that in her comments. Some of the operations and contracts that have been fulfilled and some of them that are still ongoing have had a need, and there are issues as to why we require those partnerships.
Now, some around the table have also suggested that for the civil service maybe they should be hired as opposed to being contracted. In other words, hire more individuals into the system and increase our bureaucracy to do some of this work, but the Auditor General, in her comments, also noted that this wasn't feasible either. She made it very clear that there was no interference, elected officials' engagement or previous activities as had happened in the previous government. They haven't been reflected here, and that is important, because the rigour of the system must be maintained.
She also referenced that there was nothing unique in regard to McKinsey per se, because the situation had been addressed already. There were a number of concurrent engagements that were being reviewed, and I do like her recommendation for a standardized conflict of interest disclosure that would be broadly adopted across all departments to provide some uniformity in that regard, but there was no coordinated effort. There are reputable companies that have been involved in procuring contracts to the Government of Canada, as in this recent government, in the government of today, as well as in the past. McKinsey has been used by other levels of government throughout Canada and throughout the world.
The purpose here, then, is to ensure that proper procedures have taken place. I think that's what the Auditor General is recommending. The politicization of the situation is I think part of the motivation here and doing more YouTubes and so forth on the part of the opposition. They'll stream some of these activities as outcomes of today, but what we need to make sure of is that we provide greater integrity in the system and provide greater transparency in the system for the benefit of Canadians, not for trying to promote some partisanship or using cute phrases and so forth.
These are real issues, Mr. Chair. These are real issues that matter to Canadians and matter to the members of this committee and we want to make certain that we look at them in a holistic manner. We have reviewed.... The very individuals being asked to come before this committee have already appeared on many occasions. We've already been discussing the process of procurement. We've already adopted some of the measures that the ombudsman and others have suggested we take.
We have already made clear—and by those who are reviewing and investigating—that there's been no interference. There has been no criminality. There has been no persuasion of elected officials or ministers or otherwise, but there has been a shortage of skill sets. There has been a shortage of required training to do some of the work, and that is what has been reported.
The size and scope of some of the activities are also of concern, right? We have a lot of contracts. Well beyond what McKinsey has been reviewed for, we have many others. Those initiatives and those monitoring systems must be applied throughout the system. That's what I believe is more concerning to all of us: that those proper procedures do take place. We are trying to be proactive. I mean, we've been proactive by requesting some of the reviews and investigations.
For those who have fallen short we've made corrective measures and some have had disciplinary measures. In this case with McKinsey, that wasn't evident to the Auditor General.
I believe it's important for us to move forward on those recommendations, to move forward on the issues that require us to operate the system better, but to go backwards and then determine some of the engagements and trying to hold people to account, they should always be held to account. Every minister is held to account. It's their role in regard to government operations.
Some ministers of the past in previous governments may not have been doing an effective job, but we need to ensure that we will always continue to do so and learn from the previous mistakes of the governments. However, we will take the steps necessary and I think we've identified those steps.
I'm now looking forward to moving in a positive manner to ensure that we have the proper skill sets, to ensure that we have the proper procedures in place, to ensure that we monitor them effectively, and to ensure that we have positive outcomes so that we can then properly assess that value for money.
Clearly, the Auditor General said there may have been, we just couldn't properly assess it. That, I think, is what's at the crux of the matter, to ensure that we do.
I'll pass it on at this point, Mr. Chair.