Government Operations Committee on Nov. 26th, 2024

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

No. It's fine, Chair

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We'll go to Mrs. Block and then we'll finish with Mr. Bains.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague, Ms. Kusie.

Thank you as well to the witnesses for joining us. You are a fairly new office, given your creation in May of this year. I simply would note that it was in fact the deputy minister for PSPC, Arianne Reza, who stated on June 3 that the creation of OSIC would help the department “respond more effectively to cases of supplier misconduct and unethical behaviour”.

I'm guess what I'm hearing today is that the work you will be doing is very reliant on whether departments refer these cases to your office. Is that correct?

[Catherine Poulin]

Thank you so much.

It's important to mention that we can do two things.

We can self-assess some cases based on other sources of information. It's what we did in the case of GHI, because it came through means other than an authority within a department.

Also, for internal misconduct within the government or within the operation of a department, we of course will rely on their knowledge of their program to refute a case, but this doesn't preclude us from self-assessing based on other sources of information.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Okay. Thank you for that.

Mr. Mills, in your opening statement, you stated that because PSPC gives out such “large contracts”, the department can really only look to get indigenous businesses involved as subcontractors.

However, we have learned over the last couple of years, as we've been studying everything that's been going on in procurement, that departments don't track subcontractors. How is it that you can say that PSPC is focused on getting indigenous businesses involved as subcontractors when you aren't even tracking subcontractors?

[Michael Mills]

What I can say is that for those very large transactions, many of those will require Treasury Board authorities, and I will see that Treasury Board submissions or the procurement results will sometimes require deputy minister approval. I will see that the contracts that are being awarded do have indigenous participation plans and they have target levels, so I know that the activities are being identified at those contracts.

We haven't been systematically capturing that value. That's what we're focused on as a department this year: to make sure that we're systematically capturing where we have those indigenous participation plans or what the level of involvement is. I do agree that it has been a big gap up until now, but I have seen these contracts going through.

I just want to clarify that there are some cases where indigenous companies are the prime. I know that in the Arctic warning system there is actually an Inuit company that is the prime. It's just generally that in most cases in our large projects like the Centre Block rehabilitation, there's no construction company in the indigenous space that can carry that out.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, as I'm sure you're well aware, there are many issues that Canadians are seized with at this time: obviously, there's the privilege motion in the House of Commons, where the government is refusing to hand over the documents regarding the green slush fund.

As a result of the good work of this committee, we saw a resolution of the case with the minister of employment, where he finally recognized what he was doing was wrong. Because his Prime Minister would not take responsibility for removing him, he finally resigned. I really believe that a lot of that has to do with the good work of this committee.

The other issue, Mr. Chair, that this committee and Canadians are seized with is the $9-million residence in New York. We have had Mr. Clark here twice now to testify. We have found that he has not been truthful with this committee.

Comments that he has referred to as comments “in passing” definitely appear to be more than that. We have had colleagues on this committee say that comments in passing include things like “the weather today is gloomy”, or “we are getting close to the holidays”, but the comments Mr. Clark made are significantly more in depth and show much more of his involvement in choosing this $9-million residence. I believe there is a yearning from both Canadians and this committee to know more from those who were there, Mr. Chair.

With that, I'm moving the following motion:

That the committee call Mario Bot, the Director of Management at the Consulate General of Canada in New York, as well as the three other individuals in the room when Mr. Clark made “comments in passing” about the residence as he stated in testimony November 21, and that one additional meeting be held on this study to accommodate these witnesses.

Again, Mr. Chair, he says they are comments in passing. It is evident that we need more information—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interrupt you for two seconds.

It went out a few days ago, but the clerk is sending it out again.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much.

It's evident that we need to get to the bottom of these “comments in passing”. Were they very simple comments in passing, such as, once again, “We will soon be in the month of December”, or was there something more significant indicating—as we suspected, or as we determined—that Mr. Clark had a more significant role in convincing his good friend the Prime Minister to purchase him this $9-million residence?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I'll start with Mr. Sousa.

Before you continue, I'm starting a speaking list. Remember, I will announce the current speaker and whoever else is next on the list, so pay attention.

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There have been a number of meetings. I think we've had over seven meetings already on this issue. You're making reference to an individual who is now retired and a private citizen. Also, you're making reference to individuals who are mid- to low-level and have no decision-making issues here.

Tom Clark appeared before us. He wrote a letter. He was under oath. He stated his position very clearly. In the end, what we found and noticed is that decisions were made through a very extensive process. The comments that may have been made were certainly not relevant to the decision, because those comments were similar to those made by previous Conservative individuals who had a mission in that very same city.

I think this is a moot point. I wouldn't proceed further, given we have such important business to attend to that is more relevant, as we go forward. I get how this is being used as a film studio for media clips by the member opposite. However, we have some important business, Mr. Chair, and I think we should turn this down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Is there no one else?

Are we ready to go to a vote?

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

We'll go to Mr. Bains for five minutes.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the departmental officials for joining us today.

Madame Poulin, you mentioned new authorities—something that has changed from previous governments. I want to clarify whether it is because of this.

Have more investigative powers, in some manner, led to more findings of misconduct? You talked about authorities. Can you talk about findings? Do you have more resources or tools to find these things out?

[Catherine Poulin]

Thank you for the question.

I will divide the answer into the authorities and the resources we get.

In terms of authorities, provisional suspension like the one we just did is certainly an authority we are welcoming. It is very useful to mitigate the risk, and it is more aligned with the timing of the action. As I mentioned before, we had to wait for criminal charges or convictions. Our reaction time was too long for that. This is something we appreciate.

Of course, with the launch of the Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance, resources were given to us. We received around $6 million to hire more people. This is divided into multiple teams. We have more investigators and more people within the determination teams. We created a little team for restitution.

Yes, we have seen an increase in our response to wrongdoing, and in our ability to recover funds from some of that wrongdoing.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

That's resulting in more transparency, essentially.

[Catherine Poulin]

Yes.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

On October 17, we had PSPC officials appear as witnesses. We talked about that essential and distinct role that ISC plays in the indigenous procurement.

I wanted to reconfirm some aspects of that testimony.

It is Indigenous Services Canada's responsibility to develop the definitions for indigenous business and rules for the IBD and PSIB.

Is that correct?

[Catherine Poulin]

This is my understanding.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Okay. Fraud prevention in regard to the indigenous business directory and procurement strategy for indigenous business is the responsibility of the ISC. Is that also correct?

[Catherine Poulin]

That's also correct.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

In November 2024, the Minister of Indigenous Services told the committee that the Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance can consider any instances of perceived fraud and misconduct related to procurement strategy for indigenous business.

How is it possible for OSIC to consider any instances of fraud if ISC is responsible for establishing the rules and definitions, and performing compliance audits?

[Catherine Poulin]

Thank you for the question.

It's important to distinguish the lead department authority—in that case ISC—that is responsible for determining which suppliers belong to the IBD or whether a business has made a false claim of indigeneity. They know their business, they know their criteria and they can come to such a conclusion.

Once they have reached that conclusion, it's true that they can refer those cases to us and we will assess their finding to see if we can have a broader response to that type of misconduct by maybe contemplating suspension or debarment of such a supplier.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

That broader ability is an added verification, an added measure or added layer to the work that's being done.

[Catherine Poulin]

Exactly.