Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Alexander Jeglic]

I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You'll get another turn.

Ms. Gazan, you have the floor again for two and a half minutes, please.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I know I asked how much we would have saved if this had been done properly. Could I ask the Auditor General's office to provide the committee with that information?

Moving on to my next question, the OAG commented previously that PSPC co-signed task authorizations by the CBSA, which increased time and resource commitments without adding new tasks or deliverables. Costs and time commitments increased, but the net benefit remained nil.

So many concerns are being brought up about costs and expenses that should have never happened. In fact, in the report, you noted, “In 76% of the applicable contracts, some or all of the resources proposed by the successful supplier did not perform any work on the contract.” Internal resources and limited outsourcing would fix this issue. Do you agree with this? If so, could you please elaborate?

[Alexander Jeglic]

If you're suggesting that there would be no need to outsource any work, then the bait and switch issue would go away in the sense that you're not doing any procurement. However, in terms of additional internal resourcing addressing the notion of resources being put forward by suppliers, I'm not sure that I see the correlation between the two.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We see a pattern in procurement, certainly with this government and the former Conservative government, of hiring outside consultants to do work they're not doing, rather than building the internal capacity and supporting folks who are working in the system with HR practices and hiring. Would you agree that if we stopped as much outsourcing as we currently do and instead invested in building a robust public service, we would be saving money?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Unfortunately I can't comment on monetary savings, but the premise that if you had more internal resources you would be less reliant on external consultants is a fair assumption.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay.

Can I pass—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That is your time.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm sorry. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You will have another turn or two.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Jeglic, would you expect ministers to be briefed on large procurement items like this? Is that part of the best practice? Is it plausible that this process could have unfolded with no ministers knowing anything? Did you find evidence about the inclusion of ministers or their staff in these conversations?

[Alexander Jeglic]

The involvement of political actors in the procurement process is problematic. There should be no involvement from political actors.

Once a procurement process is set in motion, it's very important to follow the rules set out. If an evaluation process is ultimately designed to determine who the successful supplier is, there should be no involvement from political actors.

In terms of external briefings, I would hope those briefings happen in such a way that there is no direct involvement of any politician in an active procurement process.

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

That's the best practice you described of what should happen. In this case, the absence of records makes it hard to know what did happen. Do you have insight on whether best practice was followed here?

[Alexander Jeglic]

You're correct that there's documentation missing, but we saw no evidence of any political actors interfering in any of the procurements, based on the documentation we were able to see.

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

Okay, so it's based on what you're able to see, but the absence of documentation makes it uncertain.

[Alexander Jeglic]

Right. Going—

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

Is that correct?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I was going to say yes, absolutely.

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

Okay.

As we go through this process, we are finding out more, based on your report, about what happened, when it happened and where. There remains a gap as to why. Why were documents either not created or destroyed? Why were processes rigged? Why was there such a desire within government to fit the square peg of GC Strategies into this round hole for an IT project that they had no expertise on? Do you have any reflections, based on the work you did, about why the government proceeded in this fashion?

I'd be curious to hear from both Mr. Jeglic and the Auditor General's office.

[Alexander Jeglic]

Again, that's the troubling component, as you cannot come to a conclusion as to why certain things were done.

I'm sure I share the frustration of the Auditor General's perspective, in that the findings are difficult to make when you don't have sufficient information to make a finding. The observations we made and the recommendations associated with those observations and findings were based on the documentation that was available.

Certainly we do spend time trying to identify what possible issues could have arisen. Even specific to the $25.2-million contract that was awarded to GC Strategies, I think there were some abnormalities that still warrant further discussion.

What was disclosed in the Auditor General's report was something we weren't aware of—that the supplier was involved in developing these restrictive criteria. At the same time, we also noted that 40 participants were eligible and 10 identified an interest in participating in the process. It's a bit unclear why none of those 10 parties participated in the process, even though they identified having an interest in participating. Again, there's a question there in our minds that remains unanswered.

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

I'll just jump in.

Somebody did something here that was totally wrong. They must have had a reason, but we don't why.

I'm going to give the tail end of my time to Mrs. Block, who had a follow-up question.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 40 seconds.

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

It probably segues quite well with what my colleague was just asking.

I just want to make sure, Mr. Jeglic, that I understood your response to my question regarding the correspondence I sent to your office, and even your answer just now. Are you confirming that the AG's report and the findings regarding GC Strategies mean that this remains an open file for further discussion or investigation with your office?

[Alexander Jeglic]

A report is considered final; however, there are ongoing discussions within the office on components of the report that we're still looking into.

Your letter did prompt further discussions as to additional facts that we were made aware of after the finalization of the report. Whether that generates a whole secondary review I can't comment on yet because we've not done the analysis. However, I will say, as I answered before, there is the secondary issue of the bait and switch review that we're also actively contemplating—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. I appreciate it. We're over the time. I know you said that previously, so I am going to rope that off there.

We're turning now to Mrs. Shanahan.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.