Government Operations Committee on April 16th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's our time. Could you answer briefly?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I can't say yes or no—okay, it's yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Maybe you can provide some examples or a more extensive response in writing.

We'll go to Madam Gaudreau, please.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I think that the message is quite clear. Mr. Jeglic, thank you again for your specific recommendations. I understand that we need to simplify and clarify things, take action and, of course, remain accountable.

Personally, I still have hope. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. However, I think that we've waited long enough. If we want to show progress in the whole truth and reconciliation process, we need to resolve this. I don't understand why it hasn't been done yet. I'm quite hopeful.

All this must be done in the interests of fairness and justice. I'm convinced that we have everything required to implement mechanisms to ensure that no abuse is taking place. We currently work in silos, we lose our way and we always blame someone else. So what do we do? We make ourselves feel better.

Please know that we hear your message. We read your report. The message must come through, and we expect to see concrete action.

I'll give you a few seconds to wrap up.

[Alexander Jeglic]

Thank you.

Since you're giving me time, I want to say something really important. If people aren't accountable, it creates big gaps in the process. I know that we have hopeful officers who wholeheartedly believe that adjusting this process will make a huge difference to indigenous suppliers. So it's their responsibility.

When you see a gap, if you care about this, fundamentally, you don't walk away from the gap. You step into the gap, provide a solution and deal with the consequence. You do not step away from the gap and pretend it's not your responsibility.

We saw that in this report. When you see identifiable gaps, the right answer is not to point the finger and say, “I am not responsible.” The right answer is, “I take accountability and responsibility”, and you fill that gap.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll go to Mrs. Jansen, and then we'll finish with Mr. Gasparro.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I want to take this one step further, because we saw a version of this same issue play out on a national level in the case of Liberal MP Randy Boissonnault. He publicly spoke about indigenous heritage over a period of time, and that identity became part of his public profile. It carried influence. It shaped how he was perceived in discussions about representation and inclusion. When questions later arose about how that identity had been acquired, there was no solid evidence of anything. Again, it became a matter of he-said-she-said, and no one was held accountable.

That brings me to your report. Your findings show that, in federal procurement, we've built a system that seems to rely on self-identification but doesn't verify it. In many of the files you reviewed, there was no evidence that officials confirmed whether a business was even listed on the indigenous business directory before awarding a contract. Mandatory audits were skipped. Requirements that exist on paper were not enforced in practice.

When I put these two things together—the real-world consequences of unverified identity claims and a procurement system that, by your own findings, often doesn't verify eligibility before awarding contracts—they raise a very serious concern. If we're not doing those basic checks, then we're not just leaving a gap in the system; we're creating a system where corruption is embedded. We are creating a situation where it becomes possible for people to access opportunities that were not intended for them. In so doing, we're not only risking misuse of taxpayer dollars, but also totally undermining the credibility of a program that was meant to support indigenous businesses. We are cheating those who are participating honestly.

Your report found that not a single contract enforced the 33% indigenous content rule, and once the work started, no one checked who was doing it. I've seen first-hand how quickly things fall apart when identity is simply claimed and not verified, whether it's in my local by-election or in national controversies, such as that of Mr. Boissonnault.

Are the real problems that the government doesn't take verification seriously and that it prefers the optics of reconciliation over making sure it's honest and above board? When should you come back to update us on your report?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Mr. Chair, I'll answer the last question first. An obvious time would be after the six-month report is made public. Then I think it would be fair for me to come back and give you the transparency and accountability that I've been advocating for. That will give an update on how the recommendations have been implemented or if they have not.

In terms of the integrity of the process, I fundamentally agree that it's incumbent on all of us to deliver a process that has integrity for indigenous suppliers. There are, again, checks and balances that are possible but weren't leveraged. The question, then, is this: Why are known levers not leveraged over such a sustained period?

That's the beauty of bringing this to light. With people being made aware of this, the likelihood that this continues is greatly diminished. I'm not overstating the significance of our office or this committee, but I'm telling you that it's now on peoples' radars again in a different manner. In a strange way, accountability is being created today.

Continue asking those questions, demanding accountability and making sure that the difficult questions are asked. Again, I was willing to accept explanations for everything we found in the report. We were hoping for it, because you never want a system that lacks integrity. When we didn't see that, we became really concerned.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

After all the announcements and all the promises, did this government build a system that talks about reconciliation but doesn't even do the basic checks to protect it?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I don't think it's fair to pin it on a singular government, because that makes it political, and this isn't. We're talking about 30 years, and that's where fundamentally, I think, that frustration is broader than a singular government.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Did this government not bring in your office to make changes?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Absolutely, I would agree that my office is provided with an oversight function over the federal procurement function.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Right, and still we've not been able to make any headway.

I appreciate all you're doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Ms. Khalid is next.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be really brief. I don't have a lot more questions for you. I think you've been very clear in your advocacy today and your position, and I really appreciate all the work that you have done.

As the member opposite was just talking about with respect to different levels of government having a totality of responsibility to make sure that we, as Canadians, are functioning effectively and making sure that all communities, including the indigenous community, are well supported, is there anything you would like to say to the federal government with respect to the work that you are doing and how we can help move that along a bit further?

[Alexander Jeglic]

That's a very generous offer.

Again, I think it's bringing accountability to the responses to the recommendations and ensuring that those deliverables are met in a timely fashion. Again, if we pay attention to something else and only revisit this in two years and come to learn that the progress that was anticipated wasn't made, then we're also part of that failure, right?

That's how I see our role as an office: making sure that there is accountability. Again, I'm happy to bring that accountability forward to this committee to ensure an enhanced visibility on what's happening. I think that certainly will help to promote the transparency component, and that transparency breeds additional trust. If these changes are being made in consultation with indigenous communities, then the trust is being built through the process. Again, I am hopeful too.

To echo those words, I am hopeful too that there are solutions that are very possible. Again, it's just that we need to emphasize action, because talking about what we're going to do is kind of hollow at this point.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much for being here today.

Those are all my questions, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

Thank you very much for being with us today. It's wonderful to have you here, as always, clear and...I tried to say concise, but no. It was fantastic and very refreshing.

I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

You talked about the difficulty for a complaint process, because they're suspended between your office and CITT. Would that require a legislative change or a regulatory change to have them be able to pursue complaints?

[Alexander Jeglic]

It's a good question. That's the dialogue we're currently having, because we're trying to do it in the least time-consuming manner.

We're hoping that it can be done by way of tasking from the minister, to be honest. We're developing that guidance and we are sharing our views as to how quickly that could happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I don't find anything that looks like it would require a legislative change, so it looks like it would be easiest, as you stated, through the minister's office.

[Alexander Jeglic]

There are components around machinery of government as well when you're offering additional services in an area that currently isn't captured by dispute resolution mechanisms, but I would say that at the outset of the PSIB, it was anticipated to have a dispute resolution mechanism, and one was never created. This is, again, a 30-year gap.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You've expressed some optimism and the need for action. Mrs. Block brought up this fact and I was on the committee that wrote the 2018 report. I remember it well. Over half of your recommendations were part of that report eight years ago, and nothing has been done.

Do you get a sense that things have changed? Do you have any sense of optimism? Is it going to require more nagging from this committee? What do you think it's going to take to get them to actually act on this?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I'm glad you brought light to this committee's report in 2018, because I do cite it to demonstrate the length of time that we've been dealing with the same issues. That's really the basis on which I've announced those five foundational changes that are necessary, because if we again continually go down the same path with no change, then we're burdened with the same system that we've created ourselves. We have to have that consensus that the existing procurement system within Canada is not delivering the results as it should.

If you accept that, then you accept that foundational changes are necessary, and I think we've truly laid forward a path under which, if implemented, they start to address some of these foundational changes. Why I see optimism is that I see there being dialogue around each one of these five foundational changes. Again, dialogue, I understand, breeds potential inaction, but it has to start with dialogue, right? If I don't express optimism, then I'm undercutting myself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's great. Thanks.

I have just one last question. I've mentally put you down and am booking you for six months from now.

Which department, would you say, has to be accountable and responsible? Is it ISC? That's always the biggest problem we have here at public accounts. It's always multidepartmental, and they're always happy to point fingers at each other. To whom should we say that they were tasked with this, that this is their issue?