Public Accounts committee  To take you back to what I responded, albeit very briefly, in terms of who bears responsibility for ensuring that this is in fact happening, I would note there is a self-certification process involved for indigenous suppliers. They have to retain information that would support se

Public Accounts committee  Indigenous Services Canada has an exclusive mandate in this area. Regardless of which department or agency the indigenous supplier is contracted under, these certifications can be audited by the same department, so there is continuity. I think it's a question of how frequently th

Public Accounts committee  We didn't do a value for money analysis, but we did have a section of our report that spoke to “best value” specific to procurement. We made recommendations specifically as to how they could remedy that, and this goes back to one of the answers I provided, which starts with the s

Public Accounts committee  The answer lies in the audits performed by ISC. These are self-certifications made by the suppliers. Indigenous Services Canada can audit the certification processes. I would encourage it to do so. It's also something we're looking at in our long-term review plan.

Public Accounts committee  I don't want to deflect the question, but that was, ultimately, a finding that came from the OAG's report. That wasn't something we saw directly. I'd certainly be prepared to offer my views, but I'd prefer that the starting point be the Office of the Auditor General, if that's ok

Public Accounts committee  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 h

Public Accounts committee  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 pl

Public Accounts committee  It's a good question. If PSPC is the contracting authority in both instances, then they would likely have that information.

Public Accounts committee  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 a

Public Accounts committee  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 resou

Public Accounts committee  Is there a constraint about employing two people at the same time? I'm not sure I fully appreciate.... Could you repeat the question?

Public Accounts committee  There is no rule preventing that from happening.

Public Accounts committee  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 a

Public Accounts committee  The way we ensure compliance is by conducting follow-up reviews. We allow for the elapsing of two years. We find that to be a sufficient amount of time to allow departments and agencies to react to the recommendations being made, and then we do a secondary review. The nature of

Public Accounts committee  I talk about baseline data, and this is one area where we have baseline data. We've done over 17 reviews of departments and agencies, the highest value and volume departments and agencies. I would say the number one issue—if not 1(a), maybe 1(b)—is documentation. This is not uniq