Public Accounts Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

It was Catherine Luelo.

Who was in the position before him?

[Dominic Rochon]

I don't know the answer to that question.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Was it Paul Girard? No?

[Karen Cahill]

No.

If I may, Mr. Chair, Mr. Girard was reporting directly to me, and Mr. Girard was the CIO for the Treasury Board Secretariat as a department.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Who was in the role before Minh Doan was hired?

[Dominic Rochon]

Would you like to take that question, Sam? Do you know?

[Samantha Tattersall, Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

It was Marc Brouillard.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

It was Marc Brouillard.

It's interesting that we have successive chief information officers who favoured GC Strategies: one who provides testimonials for the website and one who was willing to lie before committee to hide his favouritism for GC Strategies. The question is, who else at the Treasury Board Secretariat—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

—are GC Strategies fanboys?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

We're turning now to Mr. Chen.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing here, and thank you as well to the panel of witnesses.

ArriveCAN has been a focus of this committee and many investigations. We've heard reference to an RCMP investigation, and departments are investigating the ethics and conduct of their employees. I recall sitting here and hearing from the Auditor General and feeling shock and disbelief in the findings of her report.

What has your reaction been, Minister, to the Auditor General's report and the many reports and inquiries that have come out of this matter?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

The details that have come to light in recent months, including the details in numerous reports, as well as the one that I am holding here from the Auditor General, are extremely concerning. They include evidence of a high markup of fees, contracting irregularities and a lack of adherence to procurement rules. I find it extremely disconcerting that there are public servants who are not following the rules that are established by the Treasury Board.

Federal organizations have to have controls in place for procurement management, and the Treasury Board Secretariat has recently taken additional steps to provide departments and agencies with guidance to adopt practices consistent with our policies, but there is work to do, and I encourage all deputy heads of agencies and departments to follow the rules of this government to ensure that their employees are complying with the rules. That is the way that we can protect integrity in contracting.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

There have been many accusations around the conflict of interest arising from public servants having jobs outside of government. We've heard one witness at this committee testify that this is commonplace and occurs quite regularly. It was again another shocking revelation as I sat here and listened to that witness.

Could you please let this committee know if this practice is allowed? If it is, what constraints are there around it?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Let me specify that the directive on conflict of interest states that public service employees should refrain from having private interests and engaging in outside employment that may impair their ability to be objective and to be impartial. Employees are under an explicit obligation to advise their deputy head of outside employment and activities that “might give rise to a real, apparent or potential conflict of interest”. Anyone in the public service who is not compliant with the requirements in the directive may be subject to disciplinary measures, up to and including termination of employment.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you.

Earlier, in your opening statement, you talked about the additional oversight that is being put in place. You mentioned revisiting the government portal to make it clearer, more accurate and more user-friendly.

How do you hope this will make a positive difference in enabling, more broadly, the many different businesses across the country to engage in work with the government so that there are fewer instances of potential conflict when it comes to government employees securing government contracts?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

As minister, I wanted to make sure that we provided more transparency and more clarity relating to government contracts for individuals inside and outside government. That is why I sought to ensure to have this portal revised; it's so that there is greater information.

Some of the improvements that have been made are entries that now show a contract and its amendments as a single total value when data permits. This clarified instances in which published information created confusion about the number of contracts and the total contract value. We will be making continued improvements to the portal, including new dashboards, and we will provide visuals to simplify key data points.

The comptroller general, who is sitting here beside me, is also undertaking a horizontal audit and a review of the proactive publication of contract data for completeness and accuracy. This will be done by June 7 of this year.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

It's now Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné's turn for two and a half minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

At a time when we're seeing how extremely important audits are to ensuring sound fiscal management, the Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation has had its funding slashed this month. On December 14, 2023, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts passed a motion in support of the foundation's funding, and the Treasury Board was asked several times for updates on the matter.

How is it that no funds should be available to the foundation at such a crucial time, when we're persisting in giving hundreds of millions of dollars to companies that provide no services?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

First, I'd like to congratulate the foundation on its work and its educational activities. This is a very important organization, which my team has met.

I'd like to turn to Ms. Boudreau, who will be able to give you an explanation.

[Annie Boudreau, Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you very much.

Indeed, there have been discussions between that organization and my predecessor, the previous comptroller general. I've only held the position since Monday.

I'm committed to having discussions with the foundation in the coming weeks in order to better understand their contribution and answer the committee's question.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I think that would be a good thing, because they've been waiting a long time for funding and for an answer.

The committee has also been expecting an answer since the motion passed unanimously four months ago. We officially support this organization and its funding. Former auditor general Sheila Fraser was of the same mind. In fact, many auditors general published a letter in The Hill Times on that subject. Everyone's wondering where the foundation's funding has gone.

I would very much appreciate it if you could move this file along quickly and ideally start funding this important foundation again.

Thank you.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you once again for the question.

I'd like to reiterate that my team has already met with representatives from the foundation and that this is indeed an important question. As my colleague stated, she will be giving the committee more information as well as an answer to your question.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. We'll be expecting it.

Let's move on to Mr. Desjarlais.

You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to echo my support for my Bloc colleague's request with regard to institutions that would support this work, because it's critical. It's been decades. We've had procurement issues since 2006, so it's particularly important.

I don't want to waste all my time on that, however. I want to turn our attention to page 13 of the report and finding 1.51, which reads:

We found that Public Services and Procurement Canada, as the government’s central purchasing and contracting authority, challenged the Canada Border Services Agency for proposing and using non-competitive processes for ArriveCAN and recommended various alternatives.

My goodness. What a great thing to have done, but the problem is that the checks and balances didn't work. Unfortunately, the Auditor General's finding after that is:

Despite alternative options proposed by Public Services and Procurement Canada, and statements from Canada Border Services Agency officials that other vendors were capable of doing the work, the agency continued to use a non-competitive approach.

It's disappointing. I don't even know what I can say, Minister, to try to highlight how disappointing it is to know that we had an opportunity. You were the minister. Your officials reached out and said, “Hey, there's a red flag. This is a problem. You can't be using non-competitive approaches like this, non-competitive contracts. Why are you giving your buddies access when you shouldn't be?” However, the CBSA continued business as usual.

What do you have to say to Canadians who had faith in Public Services and Procurement Canada, but lost that faith in its ability to keep contractors and proposers of contracts accountable when non-competitive approaches are used?