Public Accounts Committee on March 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have a minute and a half.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

My question is for Public Works. Did you conduct that kind of cost-benefit study? Did you decide to issue a request for proposals?

[François Guimont]

I'm going to start with the last question, Mr. Chairman.

The decision hasn't been made. The study you're referring to is underway. I'm talking about a study to determine whether a consolidation of our networks would make sense in economic, technical and other terms. The parameters you've stated are those we are studying.

Mr. Chairman, we've conducted a number of consultations with the industry, which have not necessarily been completed. They were in January, February and last December, if I remember correctly.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Can you forward the videocassettes of those meetings and the transcripts of the presentations that were made to committee members?

[François Guimont]

I don't believe there were any videocassettes, but if we have any minutes, I'll be pleased to forward them to you.

Mr. Chairman, a commitment was made to the committee on

main estimates that we would be giving the committee, because they've been looking at this question.

They looked into this matter and decided that we would give them the business case. The business case, which I expect to receive shortly, must be made public and forwarded to the committee. We will be pleased to forward it to you as well, if you wish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before we go to Mr. Christopherson, I want to formalize the undertaking. Would two weeks be sufficient time to provide the information to the committee?

[François Guimont]

If you are in agreement, I will undertake to check when the actual business case will be ready. It will go through the proper quality assurance control, which I'm sure you will understand. Then we can make it available to both committees quite simply, as it was a commitment we made to the other committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You can nevertheless provide us with the results of the consultations and make public the videocassettes of the February 11 meeting, in particular.

[François Guimont]

If any public documents are available, Mr. Chairman, we will forward them to you. If that's the case, I will do it as soon as possible, after they're translated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Will two weeks be sufficient?

[François Guimont]

That should be feasible, in English and in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you all for being here today.

I found this report left me not being my usual self—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and I want all my Conservative colleagues to do up their seat belts because, you know, man bites dog.

It's a great report, I have to tell you, on balance. I'm not 100% sure why we made it a priority to bring it in, but here you are. When I get reports of findings of 95% and 96% acceptance and no real systemic problems elsewhere, I think this is a good report. The system works. So I want to congratulate the deputy on a good report. There are a few problems and we'll get into that as we go along, and we'll have a broader discussion--and I want to join in that broader discussion--about where we're going with IT. Again, on balance, it's a good report.

I must say, Deputy, I was very pleased with the action plan. My sense was that you took this very seriously and sat down and scoured it, nailed everything down to make sure someone was responsible, that there was feedback. You've given us hard deadlines. I haven't heard anything in your language or your opening comment that suggests anything other than your acceptance of some of the criticism that's there, and you accepted the findings. Now, I grant you, it's easier to do when it's a good report, but that does not take away one bit from the reaction that I have to your activities on this and the work of the Auditor General. Canadians should feel good that not everything is a mess. Even the Tories can't screw everything up.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to move on, though, to this broader discussion.

I haven't heard the term used yet, and I'm not up on this yet, so my first question is very much a shotgun approach, trying to get some understanding. The term “body shops” has been used. First of all, could somebody talk about that term and exactly what that means, and what does it pertain to? Maybe the Auditor General could help there.

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Chair.

Essentially the term “body shop” is used for agencies that place people into positions or on contracts, and their sole function is to do that. It's not, for example, like an IT firm that will do contracting and consulting and they have built up an expertise to be able to do that consulting. These are people who will take in contracts, and they can place everything from a clerk to an IT specialist. The organization itself doesn't possess any particular expertise except to be able to place people.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You said they built up expertise, and of course one of the concerns I've heard is that by building up that expertise, it's very difficult for smaller consultancies or new consultancies; and as people are losing their jobs in traditional places, they're trying to find new jobs. How much of a problem is it for every Canadian who would be qualified to do this to have an honest chance at bidding and succeeding? Or do these body shops build up such expertise at getting contracts that, really, if you're not one of their flock, you're just not going to get in?

[Sheila Fraser]

I don't know, quite honestly, Chair, if I can actually answer that. I think we saw that there was a fair and competitive process when there were requests for services. So if people are following the request for service proposals that are out there, they should be able to contract, and that's why it's important to make sure that those specifications and all the rest of it are actually done independently, objectively.

The deputy may want to add something to that.

[François Guimont]

I think Madam Fraser gave a very accurate description of what a body shop is. In my simplest term, I would say that very often the people who are part of those companies would rather be working at something specific, so that's what they're very keen on. To be part of a consortium that allows them to work where the company essentially gets the contract, it's almost like expertise. They're very good at getting the contract, bidding, and they deploy the right skills. The people part of the company wants to work, as opposed to dealing with bids, so it's a good symbiotic relationship that, if done correctly, gives the right outcome.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you for that.

Perhaps by virtue of the media being here or this being an open meeting, if anyone feels they're not able to play anymore because it's just lined up for these expert body shops, maybe we'll hear back from them to see if there's a problem in that regard.

Also, Auditor General, you mentioned that departments could—and I wrote the words down—find themselves with an “undue reliance” on the contractors, but I didn't hear any real discussion about how you avoid that. What are the issues you use to determine whether or not...? And—I guess to the deputy—do you find yourself ever reaching in and hiring these people full-time because you find there is such an ongoing need, and they really do have you behind the eight ball, so it's in the best interest of government to hire these folks?

Some thoughts, please.

[Sheila Fraser]

I would start by saying it is important for the department to assess the nature of the contracts, how long people have been there, and whether they possess a certain expertise that no one else has. The department needs to assess if they have knowledge, for example, of a system that nobody else has and then work with that person to try to bring that knowledge in-house so that you have a bit of a safeguard. The example is always this: what happens if that person gets hit by a bus? It comes back to analyzing the risks around that and then trying to mitigate those risks to the extent that you can perhaps bring them in-house.

With most of these people, if they are contracting, it's because they want to be contractors. So it's trying to analyze it--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We've heard the opposite from the deputy, of course, who said that most people who are on contract would like to get inside if they could.