Evidence of meeting #155 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was businesses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
It just seems to me, though, that maybe you should offer a contract to some of the folks at The Globe and Mail, because they are turning up all kinds of information about abuses in this program. Global News and others have exposed critical information about abuses of this program.
The government can't identify a single instance of indigenous identity fraud, it seems, yet media and indigenous leaders are bringing all of these cases forward. I just don't understand where the disconnect is.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
There is one area that is very technical. To my understanding, for some of the businesses that Global News, the First Nations University of Canada and others have identified as not having indigeneity, their respective businesses are part of an indigenous organization that may not be recognized by those bodies, but it is recognized by the Government of Canada.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
You have an instance where you have communities that are not considered indigenous communities by mainstream indigenous organizations, but they are by the Government of Canada. That's another issue.
How do you explain the fact that there isn't a single case? Is the government listening to what indigenous leaders are saying?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Again, Indigenous Services Canada is doing verifications, and perhaps the explanation is that the veracity of this misrepresentation isn't there.
Conservative
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you so much for your testimony here today.
We've heard from indigenous witnesses representing organizations and businesses across Canada how important the PSIB, the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses, is and you highlighted that fact.
The Government of Canada enters into 400,000 contracts, purchases or transactions worth $37 billion, and 5% of that, set aside for indigenous businesses, could make and is making a huge difference for indigenous communities and businesses across Canada, but our conversation is about strengthening this program, and it's about strengthening the integrity regime as well.
The previous Harper government's integrity framework had significant weaknesses. I'd like you to speak about the fact that under the old Harper integrity framework, a company like GHI would still be allowed to operate. There wouldn't be any avenues to ban or suspend their contracts with the federal government.
Can you speak about the weaknesses of the old Harper integrity framework and talk about the improvements that have been introduced by this new Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance? What are the differences?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Departmental Oversight Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thank you so much for the question. I will start and will turn to David for him to explain.
As I mentioned previously, I think the main improvement we have seen with the launch of the Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance is to have moved from a system that was only oriented to criminal charges and conviction to a system that is much broader in the way it considers ethics and business and that offers very much more triggers for us to act.
David Naus Director General, Departmental Oversight Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Building on Catherine's initial response, we have built on the initial regime based upon our departmental experience to date. Some of it has been adding additional triggers, adding new offences. Previously, it was largely based on economic offences or or anti-competitive behaviour. We've expanded that scope to include some other Criminal Code offences, to work that aspect into it and to broaden the net that's being cast with regard to suppliers.
We also are looking at further flexibility with regard to those suppliers that raise our attention. If they are debarred by another jurisdiction, we would like to have a conversation with that supplier regarding the misconduct that triggered the debarment elsewhere. If you have a civil judgment against you with regard to an offence that would be similar to one of our listed offences in Canada, that is also a triggering event.
In addition, we've also expanded the scope of what we classify as “business ethics”. We're including consideration of offences tied to human trafficking or forced labour, environmental violations, the labour code and things of that nature, just to become a little bit more of that corporate social responsibility aspect behind the government's approach to the permanent suspension.
In addition, we're also looking at integrating greater flexibility with regard to how we respond to misconduct. We have the flexibility to cast a broader net, but we also have additional flexibility on how best to respond in a manner that is more commensurate with the risk that supplier poses to the procurement system. Previously, it was a 10-year debarment. That was it as a reaction. This now is a little bit more: We can get up to 10 years, but it's much more of a consideration of the criteria and factors associated with the specific circumstances of that supplier.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Are there any incidences you can point to that led you to make the conclusion that, ah, we need to change the integrity regime, the framework, and we need to augment it with these new sets of rules and triggers? Are there incidences that you can point to?
Director General, Departmental Oversight Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
There are a number of instances particularly that jump to mind with regard to one aspect of it: provincial equivalence. Under the previous regime, we did not look at provincial equivalence to one of our listed offences. There are tax offences at the federal level as well as the provincial level. If someone ran afoul of a provincial tax authority and received a conviction, that wasn't recognized under the previous integrity regime. It is now, under the changes we've just adopted.
Liberal
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to follow up on what was said earlier.
Let's say that, after the contract is signed, the indigenous business realizes that the non-indigenous business is relegating it to the side. Does the indigenous business have the ability to sound the alarm and report the situation while the contract is being carried out? Perhaps the non-indigenous business is not adhering to the terms of the contract and the indigenous business is actually being used as a front. That is unacceptable.
Can the indigenous business alert you so that you can promptly investigate?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Departmental Oversight Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thank you for your question.
While the contract is being carried out, a contracting authority and a technical authority supervise the service being delivered or the product being made.
The first consideration would certainly be to report the situation to the client that hired the business under the contract.
The second consideration would be to contact Indigenous Services Canada to clarify the measures related to a joint venture business and find out what can be done.
If someone knows or suspects that something criminal is going on, they can certainly report that information to the RCMP.
The last point I wanted to raise is that we work very closely with the competition bureau and the RCMP. We set up a hotline for reporting fraud. Anyone in the supply chain who is experiencing a problem or believes they have a problem related to a contract or a supplier can call the hotline with their concerns. They can remain anonymous if they wish.
We look at those reports on a weekly basis. Sometimes, when combined with other information, they give us a clearer picture of what's going on.
Conservative
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Chair.
There's a question I would like a little bit of clarity on. I understand that there haven't been any charges—that you're aware of—of businesses using a false identity to get contracts and to get resources for that. That is concerning to me.
It also sounds to me like the only pathway forward is simply to remove a business from the list. I would hope that there would be a higher level of accountability. Just removing a business from the list is a very passive action. It doesn't really address the fact there has been an element of fraud and that people are claiming indigenous identity when the community does not see that as belonging to them.
Are there any actions beyond simply removing the business from the list? Are there any discussions about looking at that and making sure there's a level of accountability that is higher?
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Again, as I stated in my opening remarks, we're really concerned about protecting the integrity of the procurement system. If a business is being removed because they were misrepresenting themselves, we would like that to come to our attention.
I'll turn to Catherine, who can talk about some of the tools she may have if there's a case of misrepresentation.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Departmental Oversight Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Thank you so much.
What I can offer to complement the answer is that, again—as I mentioned it previously—the authorities that we got are very recent. It's not intuitive for people to think of us, because our past authorities were based on criminal charges and convictions. We are super pleased about those new authorities. We are implementing them. I have reached out to all our counterparts within the federal government to explain those new authorities and what role we can play in deterring such behaviour.
As the deputy mentioned, if the reason to remove somebody from the list is linked to fraudulent behaviour, we can play a role, and we are ready to play that role. However, we are counting on the lead operational agency or authority in that domain to refer the case to us in order for us to assess if it meets the criteria under the ineligibility and suspension policy and maybe action a broader response to those types of conduct, if I can say that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That is your time, unless you have a very quick question and they can get back to us in writing.