Government Operations Committee on Nov. 30th, 2023

[Stephen Burt]

The digital transformation of government is taking place in multiple places. We have business delivery modernization out of ESDC. We have major digital modernization coming out of Immigration.

We do maintain oversight of major projects under the TBS's OCIO portfolio to make sure they are on track and continue to deliver the performance we want them to. I'm not sure, to be honest, what the specific additional adjustment would be in terms of oversight.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay, thank you.

There was also, unfortunately, a systemic issue with a lack of reporting on information technology systems throughout Canada's government departments.

In your opinion, how is the next chief information officer meant to do their job? What would you suggest is required for the next chief information officer to do their job effectively when they're not provided with good, centralized information on the security, effectiveness and financial impacts on the modernization of IT systems? What do you think is needed for them to succeed?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are at our five-minute mark, so you'll have to get back to us in writing on that.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Powlowski, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm a little confused about a couple of the numbers sent to us by the Library of Parliament, in terms of expenditures. At one point it says, “The Treasury Board approved an allocation of up to $190,000,000 to the Department of National Defence to make contributions to eligible organizations for the purpose of purchasing and donating lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine.” At another point, it talks about requesting $500 million.

Is that $500 million not yet approved? When are we expecting to get that approved? Am I right? Are there two amounts—$190 million spent and $500 million being requested?

[Annie Boudreau]

Thank you for your question.

I will start with the $190 million.

Allocations from Treasury Board vote 5 are used to supplement other appropriations or grant authorities to address what we call urgent, unforeseen and unavoidable cash requirements of organizations. The $190 million reflected the best estimate of DND's potential cash requirements in advance of receiving additional supply through supplementary estimates (B). The amount is based on a cash flow analysis prepared by DND and reviewed by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Using money from vote 5 is normal practice. Allocations from Treasury Board vote 5 are repaid by departments when they receive additional supply.

In this case, the Department of National Defence is seeking $500 million through supplementary estimates (B), but it only required up to $190 million through vote 5 in advance of additional supply from supplementary estimates (B). Any allocations from Treasury Board vote 5 will be repaid when supplementary estimates (B) receive royal assent.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

That means they are requesting $310 million in addition to that $190 million. Okay.

When will approval be given for that? Is it yet to be determined? Who makes that decision? Is it the minister who makes the decision?

[Annie Boudreau]

It is in the supplementary estimates (B) you have in front of you. When they are approved by the House and the Senate and receive royal assent, the money will be given to the department.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Okay. That's great.

It says that the $190 million approved for “donating lethal and non-lethal aid” is for the Department of National Defence. Non-lethal aid includes any kind of aid that doesn't kill anybody, which could presumably include non-military stuff. However, I assume that whole amount is for military assistance. Am I right?

[Annie Boudreau]

I will need to follow up on this. I don't have the answer, but we'll come back to you in writing.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Okay.

You said that money comes from vote 5. Is that what you call it? Does this mean it's not coming out of either the defence budget or the development budget?

[Annie Boudreau]

Vote 5 is for emergencies. That means the department doesn't have the cash at hand in order to pay for it. Once they receive supply—after it receives royal assent—they will have money. It's like a line of credit. We're giving them money and, once the supply has been approved and gets royal assent, that money will be repaid to Treasury Board vote 5. You will see an increase.

Treasury Board vote 5 is $750 million. It has been the same amount for the last 20 years or so.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Okay.

Now, will the additional $500 million, which will partly go to pay back this money, otherwise go to defence or international development, or is that totally separate money?

[Annie Boudreau]

It's totally separate money.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Okay.

Now, I don't know if you can answer this—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. That is our time, sir.

We're going to go to Mr. Brock for five minutes, and then finish with Mr. Sousa for five minutes. Then we have to get to voting on the supplementaries.

Mr. Brock, go ahead.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions, folks, can be answered by anybody, no one in particular. I had to rush my questions with the minister, unfortunately—I only had two minutes to do that—so I am going to slow down just a little bit.

The Prime Minister is on record—after it was revealed publicly that the ArriveCAN app, in total, cost close to $54 million, notwithstanding his previous announcements that it was half the cost—saying that the contracting patterns relating to ArriveCAN warrant a policy review. He said, “Obviously, this is a practice that seems highly illogical and inefficient”.

My questions are in relation to GC Strategies. Everyone here, I'm sure, is familiar with GC Strategies. The news regarding GC Strategies literally comes out every week. The president of GC Strategies attended at committee on a couple of occasions and freely admitted to criminality in terms of deliberately altering, without permission and consent and not once but up to six times, data on the résumés of the two individuals who operate Botler and submitting that to the government just so that they would be approved for funding. That attracts criminal law consideration. That attracts fraud. That attracts forgery. The people from Botler alleged a number of other criminal acts that they could be involved in.

As a result of that, some 10 months after the complaint was submitted to the president of the CBSA—I believe her name is Ms. O'Gorman—she ultimately suspended all contractual work, not only with GC Strategies but also with the other two partners, Dalian and Coradix. Then the committee found out that, notwithstanding that suspension, GC Strategies is still eligible to bid on government contracts.

Obviously, there has to be some general policy that the Government of Canada adheres to—or that, at least, the Treasury Board adheres to—that flags certain companies that are bidding on contracts, companies that are under criminal investigation by a police agency. Is there not something that is flagged so that this entity is no longer eligible until such time as the investigation is complete?

[Samantha Tattersall]

What you're getting at is this: What's the compliance structure in the Government of Canada?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Yes.

[Samantha Tattersall]

That falls within the purview of PSPC.

The reason the CBSA could suspend work with those two companies is that it actually used part of its contract. It's just a general contract provision for it to suspend for 180 days. Then I understand that PSPC.... I believe they were here on Tuesday and they talked about the fact that they've now gone out to all the chief security officers across government to redo all of the security checks and have those departments look at their active contracts. It is under the integrity regime, which has an eligibility and suspension policy by which you can do something government-wide.

Because the companies are under investigation by the RCMP right now, that doesn't trigger that suspension under the—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Okay. I get that. I was anticipating that.

[Samantha Tattersall]

Yes.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

My previous career was in criminal justice as a Crown attorney. I know there is presumption of innocence, and this company has that, but this is more outside of the realm of presumption of innocence. We have direct evidence from the principal, Mr. Firth, admitting to criminality.

Your department is all about accountability and ethics. With that direct evidence from Mr. Firth, doesn't that rise to a level where, out of an abundance of caution to protect taxpayer funds, this entity should be suspended, pending the completion of the investigation? I think that taxpayers would expect that at a basic level. Do you not agree?

[Samantha Tattersall]

I have been watching all the testimony at this committee. Because those allegations are with the RCMP for review and it's still under investigation, we have to wait until that investigation is done. I know—