Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 12th, 2024

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

Do you think that people working from home or working remotely had an impact on poor record-keeping, or do you think this is just an oversight on the part of the public service?

[Karen Hogan]

I believe that the public service was trying to act quickly in an emergency. I will tell you that, while they were given flexibility from the Treasury Board Secretariat to reduce some of the normal processes and red tape, it also came with a reminder that exercising due diligence and demonstrating prudent use of public funds should be done. I think that, here, an emergency was not an excuse to throw out the window the basic rules that the public service normally follows. I would expect better from the public service, and I have seen the public service do better.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

The next speaker is Ms. Vignola.

The floor is yours for two and a half minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Hogan, point 1.67 of your report says that times sheets were submitted, authorized and signed and there were no details on the work performed.

Did those time sheets all come from the same company, or was this a generalized problem? As well, was it always authorized by the same person or persons?

[Karen Hogan]

No, it did not always come from the same company, and it was not always the same individuals who approved the time sheets.

Sometimes, it was very well done. On the other hand, we found that there was sometimes information missing that would have been essential. It is really not a good practice to approve incomplete time sheets that are then provided as supporting evidence for invoices.

It is really the contractor who should have approved the time sheets, not an employee of the public service.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In some task authorizations, the deliverables are not clearly defined. We really do not know what is wanted, ultimately. There are no details regarding the tasks to be performed. Nonetheless, the contracts were awarded to GC Strategies and KPMG, among others.

Is this a sign of flexibility or is it simply a great big door, open to loopholes and abuses?

[Karen Hogan]

In my opinion, it is not a sign of flexibility. Flexibility might be eliminating a few steps, but not removing information that is essential for managing a contract or a project or for demonstrating proper accountability.

In this case, it really was a failure to abide by the essential elements that should be have been seen in contracting and project management.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The Canada Border Services Agency and Public Services and Procurement Canada signed contracts for which no amendments were made regarding tasks.

However, there were amendments regarding deadlines and costs.

Do you often see this in doing your audits?

[Karen Hogan]

This is another of our findings that supports our conclusion that the government could have got more for its money.

It is reasonable for extensions to happen, but ordinarily, that should not be used to change deadlines or increase the price of contracts. When the price increases, it is ordinarily because a deliverable has been added.

In the case that concerns us, we found that the extensions were not connected with new tasks and instead pushed the deadlines back, which increased the price of the contracts.

That is why we concluded that the government could have got more for its money.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for two and a half minutes, and I owe you a few seconds. Just so you know, it's not a lot more, but I will be mindful to give you the time you are owed.

Thank you.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Wonderful. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I now want to turn to paragraph 1.56, in which you reported that you “found that GC Strategies was involved in the development of the requirements that the Canada Border Services Agency ultimately included in the request for proposal.” That is a deeply troubling fact, and I think Canadians need to reflect on how private actors are able to directly influence the competitive aspect of a bid they are participating in.

That should have been a massive red flag, from my perspective, because not only was it an abuse of the rules and regulations that exist for competitive bids, but it also masked the true intent of the public service in some ways, which just prior to May 2022 had three non-competitive contracts with GC Strategies. Is that correct?

[Karen Hogan]

That's correct.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Following on that, we then witnessed CBSA undergo a competitive process to replace those three non-competitive contracts by selecting the very same contractor that was the recipient of the contracts in the non-competitive process. Is that true?

[Karen Hogan]

Yes. I think in this case, the contractor was involved in setting some of the requirements, and that should not happen. That really does limit competition. We found that the requirements that were used were so restrictive that the only vendor that responded to the request for proposals was GC Strategies. The Canada Border Services Agency gave them an advantage that other bidders just did not have.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

What evidence and information did you find in your review of this work that demonstrated that connection and the influences that GC Strategies would have had on CBSA? Was it emails? Was it text messages? Was it documents? Was it letters in which you found evidence to suggest there was a direct influence there?

[Karen Hogan]

In this case, it was correspondence, emails, between the vendor and the individuals who were setting out the request for proposals. The exact word-for-word requirements were then used in the process. I would also point you to the report of the procurement ombud, who outlined many other requirements. We just gave you a sample of some, but those were all very restrictive and likely limited competition. In the end, the only vendor who responded was GC Strategies.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Do you have a brief question, Mr. Desjarlais? It will need to be brief.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Sure. In terms of those documents, would it be possible for some of that correspondence related to the example you outlined to be shared with this committee in advance of our further studies?

[Karen Hogan]

We can go back through. I think it might already have been shared with other parliamentary committees. We can go back through our file and see if we can locate that. We will be here tomorrow, but I'm not sure we'll be able to get it to you in advance. We'll do our best.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We will turn now to Mrs. Block.

You have the floor for five minutes. I understand you will be sharing your time as well. I will turn the floor over to you.

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

Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much.

Ms. Hogan, thank you to you and to those joining you for being here today.

From the beginning of the government operations and estimates committee study into ArriveCAN, we have been told by Liberal members across the table that there is nothing to see here. In fact, you could probably look at past committee meetings to see that is exactly what they said when we wanted to undertake this study. Little did they know, I guess, that you would find—and you have mentioned several times—that there was an alarming lack of documentation throughout the procurement process for this app. I think that's in keeping with what the procurement ombudsman stated in his report.

Time and time again we have heard that we should cut the public servants some slack because it was during the pandemic. We even heard it today in regard to public servants working from home.

Do you believe the glaring disregard for basic mismanagement and contracting practices, as well as the lack of documentation, can be sufficiently excused by the fact that it was during a pandemic?

[Karen Hogan]

No. I said it in my opening remarks. I do not believe that an emergency is an excuse for throwing the rules out of the window. These are some really basic elements that I would have expected to see, such as documenting a decision on who is being selected and why, and why they have the skills to carry out the work that you need done. There are basic bookkeeping factors that I would expect to see, such as invoices being well supported and making it clear what work should be charged to what project that's ongoing. My advice to public servants would be to document as you go.

We saw in other contracts throughout the pandemic that, while they had opportunities for improvement, they were not as glaring as the lack of documentation that we saw here.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I think that's your signal, Mr. Brock. You have the floor for about two minutes and 40 seconds, sir.