Government Operations Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[Michael Mills]

One part I would add is that at a functional level, they built applications, but they also made adjustments to existing systems within CBSA so that the application would integrate with their own main systems and allow them to aggregate data. Part of what they were also doing was looking at how they work with and support public health data and other sources of data, and bringing those together.

It's a range of IT investments that they made to enable that app.

[Arianne Reza]

I would just add that one of the key things.... We talk about roles and responsibilities, which I see are of strong interest. Something that we're taking on board as we look at what's coming out of findings from this report, this committee, the AG report and the OPO report, which will look at procurement practices, is understanding contracting versus client responsibilities. We have responsibilities for the contracting authority. They have responsibilities for the technical direction, the decisions and signing off that what they asked for was delivered.

It's been very difficult from an accountability perspective to say who in CBSA...because CBSA brought us a requirement, signed off on it and attested to it, and that is the level that we normally work at. I think that is something that bears discussion.

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

There's been a lot of discussion about GC Strategies.

During the time it was dealing with Botler, GC Strategies did not have a contract with the Government of Canada. That was with a separate contractor. Is that correct?

[Arianne Reza]

Yes. I believe that was with Dalian and Coradix.

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

The RCMP—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mr. Sousa. That is our time.

We'll go to Madame Vignola for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mills, when you were here on November 9, you made the following statement regarding the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses:

What is important to understand is that under the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses, 33% of contracted or subcontracted resources must be indigenous, not for a particular task authorization but for the overall value of the contract. Therefore, indigenous businesses can subcontract with non‑indigenous businesses.

This isn't an issue. However, from what I remember, in the strategy it was 5%. Can you explain the 33% figure? I'm not trying to needle you. I just want to understand.

[Michael Mills]

Thanks for the question, Mr. Chair.

For the 5% target of the government, we take, by value, the total value of contracts and subcontracts that are awarded to companies listed on the indigenous business directory. The indigenous business directory is run by Indigenous Services Canada, and in order to be qualified for that, they have to be 51% owned by an indigenous entity. They also need to do 33% of the work and the contracts through those entities.

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

Thank you. It's already much clearer than what I read in the record.

I'll go back to my little big questions from earlier. I'm looking at the Treasury Board Secretariat's expenditures. We must vote on these expenditures as well. Funding is earmarked for compensation programs. I understand that this concerns negotiations. An amount of $5,506,322 is earmarked for a Phoenix‑related settlement. That doesn't seem like much to me.

What exactly is this funding? What type of settlement is this? Given the number of employees swindled by Phoenix, it can't be a settlement with the employees. An amount of $5 million doesn't seem like much to me. I'm referring to page 2‑144 of the supplementary estimates (B) for 2023‑24.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Again, I'm afraid we're out of time.

You're going to have to respond to that in writing, please.

Mr. Johns, go ahead for two and a half minutes, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

As you know, New Democrats are happy to see the government finally introduce new anti-scab legislation, which is legislation we fought really hard for. We will keep fighting for it to pass so that workers would have far more power once companies can't replace them with scabs.

This new legislation would significantly increase the responsibility of employment and social development's regulatory board. The Canada Industrial Relations Board would need to make a determination on every strike. The board is already overburdened, so I would expect this massive new workload to come with new resources, but the opposite seems to be the case. The government wants to reduce ESDC's funding $3 million. It's critical that the public service gets the funding it needs when new programs like this are introduced.

Can you confirm that the board will get the funding it needs to meet these new responsibilities and that it won't be affected by the cuts?

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chair, but I think that is best addressed to ESDC officials.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

In 2018, the UN special rapporteur on poverty and human rights discussed privatization as a cause of poverty while it still costs governments more. Do you believe that government is aware of global research on privatization and that it has made efforts to incorporate those findings into the decisions through your departments and your lens of PSPC when it comes to outsourcing?

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you very much.

I can't answer that question, but I can tell you that when we look at outsourcing, we are really drilling down. Mr. Chair, this is worthy of a discussion in the sense that at PSPC, we're accountable for $2.2 billion that the government spends on professional services.

When you actually look across what that spend is, it's on Parliament, on decontaminating federal mines and on doing an engineering assessment of the Alaska highway. For most of the professional services the government undertakes, including shipbuilding and nurses in the north, I think there's perhaps a missed opportunity for what is in that category.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I have a quick question for you directly, Ms. Reza.

In response the question I asked earlier about outsourcing, you told me that you're checking the CVs. How can your government check the CVs to ensure that they haven't been forged or modified when the only ones with access to the copies for the contractors were provided to PSPC?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's your time, Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Maybe you can provide a really quick answer. Can you provide an answer in about 15 seconds, or do you want to get back to us in writing?

[Catherine Poulin]

I want to thank the member for his question, Mr. Chair.

We check this information with the departments that have active contracts with one of the three companies.

We specifically asked the departments to get in touch with these three companies to confirm that the CVs aren't overstated and that they obtained consent to proceed. Once the departments have received the information, we ask them to confirm some of the information on these CVs. The information is in the hands of the departments that have active contracts. These departments will get in touch with the three companies in question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We're down to our final two interventions, and we are almost out of time, so we're going to go to two three-minute rounds.

Mr. Genuis, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Reza, I'll pick up where we left off, if that's okay.

I was asking you about the role your department played in signing off on the contract for ArriveCAN for GC Strategies. Looking back on it, is this one where you say, “Nah, we could have done better achieving value for money,” or do you look back and say, “Everything was fine”?

[Arianne Reza]

Thank you very much for the question.

What is interesting is that the actual documentation and justification are extremely robust. Would we have done anything differently, given the information we had at the time? They were pre-qualified vendors. The rates that were used were competitive. They were in good standing. There was the limitation of liability insurance. There were the errors and omissions. There's nothing that would have changed.

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

So—

[Arianne Reza]

The security requirements were in place.

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

You're kind of answering a question that I didn't ask, but the way you're approaching that is interesting. You're saying essentially that the process worked, but from my perspective and I think from the perspective of the taxpayers, the outcome was terrible.

If the process unfolded the way it was supposed to, and the outcome was terrible from the perspective, I think, of most people, including most members of this committee, does that suggest that there's a problem with the process?

I guess that's a policy question more than a public service question, but do you want to weigh in on that?