Government Operations Committee on Sept. 19th, 2024

[Annie Boudreau]

Good question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I apologize. We need a really quick answer.

[Annie Boudreau]

The reports are public, so all Canadians and the entire public service can read them. This encourages engagement and discussion. Anyone, at any level, can make positive recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Mr. Bachrach, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really think one of the most damning findings in the Auditor General's report is that officials throughout government departments who are in charge of procurement did not understand the procurement rules. It's just mind-blowing that this is one of the key deficiencies that led to such a scathing report from the Auditor General.

Is this the best-kept secret—that there are these complex rules that nobody understands, so nobody documents anything? Was this known to PSPC prior to the internal probe, the Auditor General's probe and the ombudsman's probe?

[Dominic Laporte]

I have to say that when I started doing procurement it was pretty straightforward. We had three trade agreements that did apply. It was relatively simple: lowest bidder. This is what people would usually do.

Now, there's much more complexity that has been added over time. We can think about unjust consideration. We can think about small and medium-sized businesses. Procurement has changed. We have a lot of rules and we need to catch up, and I think that was one of the significant things on which we're taking action.

Last week, we had 600 procurement officers taking training on record-keeping, and we're also going to be having more training happening in the fall to make sure that competition is the norm and that the use of non-competitive tools is truly restricted.

I see a willingness from our staff to look at this old practice that was put in place and to make sure that corrective measures are being taken.

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

It feels like a bit of an “emperor has no clothes” situation: All these people in all these departments don't understand the rules, yet no one wants to say anything because they might appear like they're not good at their jobs. How can that be allowed to be the culture until there's this massive government-wide investigation of procurement that finds all of these systemic problems?

Your departments have internal audit processes. Ms. Ostridge said that lack of documentation is actually a common audit finding. One of the reasons for a lack of documentation is “I didn't know I was supposed to document anything” or “I don't actually know the rules around documentation.”

How did this not percolate from the ground up to someone who's accountable and says, “Guess what. We have a major procurement problem. Nobody understands these rules and someone's going to find out eventually that we're not wearing any clothes.” Did that not happen?

[Dominic Laporte]

We're fixing that. We did create a new role of chief, contract quality assurance, but I'll let my colleague from TBS jump in, if I may.

[Emilio Franco]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll have just a brief response, Mr. Franco.

[Emilio Franco]

In our review of McKinsey contracts, we did find that there was an opportunity to strengthen managers' understanding of the procurement process. Since then, we've done a number of measures like the manager's guide, like the mandatory procedures, but I'd also like to highlight that we're doing learning events with managers. Just yesterday, we had an event with the Canada School, titled “Procuring with Integrity”. That was attended by over a thousand managers across government.

We are taking measures to reinforce managers' responsibilities and to help them understand how to make sure they're doing a good job.

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

I've no doubt that a lot is happening all of a sudden because there are these scathing reports. The question was, why didn't this happen much sooner?

I rest my case. Thank you Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Bachrach.

That was a very valid question and point. Thanks.

Next is Mr. Genuis, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

In my previous round, I spoke about the McKinsey model and how that's continuing today with carbon tax Carney, where there are inappropriate relationships between government and big business. We saw that with Dominic Barton having a foot in both worlds, to the advantage of McKinsey. Now we see a similar phenomenon with carbon tax Carney.

I want to make one additional comment on that, which is that, in these cases, of course, we're not talking about just local or national elites, but about people who are global elites. They don't just have relationships with big government and big business here in Canada. They're also working with and engaging with governments around the world that have particular interests that may conflict with our own.

I've asked this question before, and various officials at various departments have confirmed that, in the case of McKinsey, there was no effort to access a client list, which would shed light on other clients and other governments around the world that McKinsey may be working for, where their work for those countries conflicts with the national interests of Canada and analysts may well be learning various things through their work with the Government of Canada that inform their work for these other powers.

I think it's important to underline that this problem of elite-facilitated, inappropriate, close relationships between big government and big business isn't just a national problem. It is a global problem, where global elites are in these webs of conflicts of interest that undermine the pursuit of the national common good here in Canada.

Mr. Chair, having said that, I'd like to move now that the committee resume its consideration of the motion by Mrs. Kusie that was adjourned at our last meeting. I think we need to complete this work and now is the time to do that. I'll move that motion, which I believe is dilatory.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis. It's dilatory, so we have to vote on it.

Mr. Clerk, go ahead and call the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are resuming debate.

I'll read off where we left it:

Given the environment department has failed its audit of the administration of grants and contributions for poor oversight of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on green subsidies and the “potential legal and reputational damage this represents”, the committee dedicate at least three meetings to the grants and contributions process and call on relevant witnesses to appear, as decided by the committee.

That is the amended motion where we sit right now. I think there have been some discussions about perhaps further amendments to clean it up and to make it more palatable to everyone.

Mrs. Vignola, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There was some discussion about the wording of the amendment in order to reach a consensus and avoid dragging things out.

Here is the proposed amendment:

Given the environment department has failed its Audit of the Administration of Grants and Contributions on green subsidies and the “potential legal and reputational damage this represents”, that the committee dedicate at least three meetings to the grant and contributions process and call on the relevant witnesses, as determined by the committee, to appear.

Some words were removed to come up with this wording for the motion. I just wanted to reach a consensus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Let me suspend for a few seconds. I just have to have a quick discussion. Hold on for a few seconds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are back.

Witnesses, thank you very much. We are going to dismiss you, but before you go, while the sides work things out, I have a few questions, if you don't mind, which you can take away and get back to us on.

I think you will recall, if I heard properly, that we got rid of the benchmarking, so my questions are these: Is it still being done separately? How much did we spend in the last two years on such work with McKinsey and Deloitte and others, especially McKinsey?

Again, we heard so much that they were sole source because of their benchmarking expertise. If we got rid of it, why did we even need it in the first place? I would like to get feedback. Who decided to say “no more” to the benchmarking? If you could get back to us again within our usual 21 days, now we will dismiss you.

[Dominic Laporte]

We'll do that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you again for appearing with us. We appreciate all your responses.

Now we'll start a speaking list on the amendment by Mrs. Vignola.

Go ahead, please, Mrs. Vignola.

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

Quickly, Mr. Chair, I'll turn to you and the clerk. As I recall, during our discussions on Monday, we agreed to hold between four and six meetings.

The version that I received this morning showed that we had come up with “at least three meetings”. However, as I recall, we had set a range of four to six meetings. My proposed amendment may have been based on an error in the wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think it was at three for this specific one, but we'll double-check the blues.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think it might.... I'm not sure if you're mixing it up with another motion we were discussing.