Evidence of meeting #103 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contracts.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
My colleague Derek Mersereau is probably best positioned to explain exactly how we collaborated with the Auditor General's office on our review.
Maybe I'll turn it over to Derek.
5:20 p.m.
Derek Mersereau
Sure.
Just briefly, our review was independent from the Auditor General's review, but early in the process.... Alex mentioned that we launched it in January 2023, and we had a preliminary discussion around the same time. They had just announced that they were going to be conducting their audit, so we had a preliminary meeting.
Then there were, I believe, three meetings throughout the year where we just had touchpoints with the two teams. Toward the end, we did share a copy of our report with the Auditor General, but we completed independent projects.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you for that.
I imagine the expertise is irreplaceable, even though I understand that the ombud's office is more lightly staffed than the Auditor General's office.
I would like to clarify one thing before I turn to the deputy auditor general. It's about the 76% of contractors who some say didn't do any work. We're hearing in the House that it sounds like they were paid and didn't do any work.
I know you've done so several times already, but for the record, is it an incorrect statement by the leader of the official opposition that 76% of contractors who worked on ArriveCAN didn't do any work? This is a serious situation and not speaking honestly about it shows, I'm sorry to say, how little the official opposition cares about this issue.
5:25 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
I just want to clarify.
I believe the quote you provided said “worked on”. I think the issue is that 76% of people got paid and had not done any work. That's the thing we did not say in our report. The bait and switch issue is that 76% of the time, some or all of the named resources were switched out and did not deliver any services. However, there were replacement resources provided that did the work and were paid for the work.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you very much for making that clear. Indeed, it's more important for us to understand what this bait and switch is all about, because this is how the gaming of the bidding system happened, which is a very worrisome thing to learn about. Certainly, the incorrect statements made about your report do not do anything to help us improve things going forward.
I'd now like to turn again to the deputy auditor general about PSPC and its role.
Apparently, they did ask the CBSA to run a competitive process and were ignored. Is this normal? Is this something that happens routinely?
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General
I don't think I can comment on how routinely it happens. It is concerning that officials from PSPC proposed some options to create competition, but it wasn't received that way from the CBSA's perspective. I believe there has been a request for information on that—the documents from PSPC—and I think the committee will be interested in seeing that.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Very good.
Just to repeat the question I asked earlier about the suspension of the task authorizations that PSPC put forward, is this something the Auditor General's office sees as a welcome development?
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General
What we see as really important in that initiative is that there's a focus on trying to get better specificity and detail in the task authorizations. We support that.
I would just reiterate that while there are controls, processes, laws and policies, it is problematic to layer on too many processes and controls. It can grind things to a halt. The business of government still needs to be able to move.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much. I'm afraid that is time.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I have a question that should be easy for you to answer, Mr. Jeglic. In terms of procurement, are there any constraints when it comes to employing the same two people for multiple contracts simultaneously within different departments? Is there a rule against this type of procedure?
5:25 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
Is there a constraint about employing two people at the same time? I'm not sure I fully appreciate....
Could you repeat the question?
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I'll start again.
Is there a rule against entering into a contract at the Department of Agriculture and Agri‑Food, for example, with two people who also secure a Treasury Board contract at the same time, and both contracts are paid at per diem rates?
5:25 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
There is no rule preventing that from happening.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Shouldn't there be a rule to ensure that the right people are doing the right jobs for the government?
5:25 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
I think the question is associated with the integrity of the suppliers. They make attestations. They have to provide a certain documentation. If the concern is that they're doing work simultaneously with two departments and are billing twice for the same work, they have to make attestations in regard—
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I'm not necessarily talking about doing the same job, but simply billing twice for the same day's work.
5:30 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
Right, and that's what I'm saying. In the time sheets they provide, they would have to indicate the time spent on a specific contract. If they were not disclosing accurate time sheets, that would be a breach of their contractual obligations. There are rules preventing that from happening, absolutely.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Okay. So there are rules.
Who is, or should be, doing the necessary audits?
5:30 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
That's a difficult question in the sense that there is no level of coordination between departments for them to ultimately know if a supplier is working simultaneously among multiple departments. I would suggest that is in fact happening.
Perhaps, if you'll allow, I'll give a plug for a global vendor performance management framework across the federal government so that information is shared about the performance of suppliers across the entirety of the federal government. It's something I've actively been pushing for.
I know that Public Services and Procurement has been implementing a vendor performance management framework within the department, and it is looking to pilot more ambitious pilots in the future. I think that will allow for information to be shared with other departments and agencies with respect to one supplier that acts with one department and perhaps behaves well or poorly. That would address the concern you've raised.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I don't even know what to say. It's so obvious that this type of thing should have been implemented a long time ago.
Isn't Public Services and Procurement Canada responsible for carrying out these types of audits? If Public Services and Procurement Canada works with two client departments and contracts with the same two‑person company, how come no one in the department realizes that the government is paying twice for people who, ultimately, won't even do the work?
Why aren't these types of audits being done already?
5:30 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
It's a good question. If PSPC is the contracting authority in both instances, then they would likely have that information.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
That was a good answer. I'm going to stop you right there. I pledged not to drive this much past our two hours.
Of course, if any member wants to pick up on that, they're welcome to.
Ms. Gazan, you have the floor for two and a half minutes, please.
5:30 p.m.
NDP
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I just want to touch on the federal contracting program for indigenous businesses.
One of the contractors on behalf of the CBSA—Dalian—was procured and hired non-indigenous suppliers to do the work despite the contract being issued under the TBIPS supply agreement and being open to qualified indigenous suppliers under the procurement strategy for indigenous business. I find it very disturbing that the CEO of Dalian noted in another committee meeting that they did not need to hire indigenous suppliers and that the rules were very bendable in this case, which is concerning. Is this supporting equity or not? Are indigenous people being used to get contracts? This to me seems very unethical, as a personal aside.
I know from your report that six bids were received from qualified indigenous suppliers. Five of them were highly qualified and received maximum points on the technical component. What were your key findings in this area? I want you to explain why indigenous businesses and contractors were ignored despite being compliant. What do you think can be done to fix this issue? Programs are put in place for a reason. Clearly people are finding loopholes. Could you respond to those three questions?
5:30 p.m.
Procurement Ombudsman, Office of the Procurement Ombudsman
Specifically with regard to the citation and the report, the issue you've identified is an issue of transparency. That specific solicitation said up to two contracts would be awarded, but it was quite clear in the communications between the departments that the intention was to award only one. We added that additional observation because the incentive was to encourage participation by indigenous businesses. They received high participation from indigenous businesses based on the prospect of awarding two contracts, but ultimately only one was awarded.
We put that in there specifically for transparency purposes. It's very important to be clear with suppliers what the true intentions of the contract are. If departments knew only one was going to be awarded, they rightly should have indicated so.
In terms of your reference to the procurement strategy for indigenous business, I just want to read you the requirement associated with joint ventures. It states that 51% of the ownership and control of the joint venture must belong to an indigenous business, and at least 33% of the total value of the work must be performed by an indigenous business contractor or by a combination of that contractor and other indigenous—