:
I call this meeting to order.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Welcome to meeting number 110 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[English]
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members are attending in person in the room and possibly remotely by using the Zoom application.
This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), the committee is resuming consideration of report 1 of the 2024 reports of the Auditor General of Canada, entitled “Report 1: ArriveCAN”, referred to the committee on Monday, February 12, 2024.
[English]
I'd like to welcome our witnesses.
From the Department of National Defence, we have Bill Matthews, deputy minister; Troy Crosby, assistant deputy minister, materiel group; and Isabelle Desmartis, assistant deputy minister, human resources—civilian.
Mr. Matthews, thank you for coming in today on short notice. You'll be given a maximum of five minutes for your remarks. It's approximately five minutes. If you're wrapping up, I won't cut you off. We'll then proceed to a round of questions.
There are votes expected, I think, at 5:45, so we'll see how the bells work, although I expect we will be able to get through most of this meeting. We might end a little prematurely, unless there is unanimous agreement to continue to the bottom of the hour at 5:30, but we'll take that up when that comes up in case votes are delayed.
Mr. Matthews, you have the floor for about five minutes.
Good afternoon, committee members, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today as part of your study on ArriveCAN and to assist you in getting more clarity on the actions of Mr. David Yeo, now a former employee of the Department of National Defence.
In advance of today's session, the committee was provided with several documents that outline details and background on Mr. Yeo's employment with National Defence, which I hope you will find helpful in terms of establishing a common fact set as you proceed to study this matter.
It is important to note that persons hired to and within National Defence are expected to follow key policies, including the code of values and ethics and the Treasury Board directive on conflict of interest. Any employee who owns non-exempt assets and liabilities or is involved in any outside activities that might give rise to a real, potential or perceived conflict of interest in respect to their official duties must submit a confidential conflict of interest report within 60 days of signing their letter of offer. These expectations are laid out in every employee's letter of offer.
I would like to offer a short chronology of Mr. Yeo's time as an employee of National Defence.
Prior to his employment with the Department of National Defence, Mr. Yeo was a contractor with Dalian Enterprises and had been awarded several contracts by National Defence and other departments on behalf of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.
On September 19, 2023, Mr. Yeo was hired as an indeterminate public service employee at National Defence as an IT-03. In his signed letter of offer, of which this committee has a copy, Mr. Yeo accepted the position with National Defence and all terms and conditions of employment, including the need to declare any conflict of interest within 60 days.
National Defence received Mr. Yeo's confidential conflict of interest report only on March 3, after information related to his business activities had come to the attention of the department. To be clear, this report was received after he had been suspended from his position with the department and 165 days after he began working as an indeterminate employee of National Defence.
While Mr. Yeo shared with this committee that he had taken steps to isolate himself from Dalian, even if this were true, this would not remove the requirement to disclose his business activities to his employer. Whether his failure to report his other activities to his employer was due to his poor understanding of the rules, poor judgment or poor ethics, we have evidence that Mr. Yeo carried on in his role with Dalian after joining the public service.
On February 28, when we learned of Mr. Yeo's involvement with Dalian and that he was also a member of our defence team, we immediately launched an internal investigation into the hiring process and placed him on suspension with pay that same day.
At that time, Mr. Yeo's probationary period was still in effect, and as part of our assessment on whether to terminate his employment, we had arranged to interview Mr. Yeo on March 6, 2024. Rather than proceed with that interview, Mr. Yeo elected to submit his unconditional resignation on March 5.
My priority is to ensure that investigations on several fronts continue to be thorough and are completed in a timely manner. This work includes an examination of the staffing process to hire Mr. Yeo and his activities as a contractor while working as an employee.
We have learned that Mr. Yeo continued with his role while an employee of the Department of National Defence and that through Dalian he had established other schemes with other companies. We are continuing our work to ensure that we have line of sight on any other companies with whom Mr. Yeo or Dalian is affiliated. As this work continues, we will continue to collaborate with other government departments to address issues surrounding contracting integrity in the public service.
We have also taken immediate action to address this issue. On March 14, the chief of the defence staff and I notified all internal leadership that PSPC had suspended the security clearances of certain companies, including Dalian, issued a stop work order for all related contracts and asked each internal organization to review any contracts they may have with those listed companies.
On March 15, I sent a letter to the Canadian Forces provost marshal to inform him of the current events related to Mr. Yeo and Dalian, and I will continue to keep him apprised of our work.
Last, we are implementing a new two-step process to ensure that conflicts of interest are identified both prior to hiring and upon issuance of an offer of employment.
I will conclude by thanking the members of this committee for their work on this issue, and I look forward to answering your questions.
:
Mr. Chair, there's a lot in that question.
I'll start by saying that public servants at National Defence comply with the same rules that all other public servants do. The same rules apply. We are unique at National Defence in that we have military members.
I want to remind the committee about reservists. We actually expect reservists to have other employment. We love reservists. We need reservists. That's a good thing. The key is to make sure their interests are declared.
I don't have an issue with public servants doing other work on the weekends or in the evening, on their own time, if it's properly declared and assessed by an independent person, and if we all agree there is no conflict. I have an issue when the conflict is not declared.
:
Certainly. I will not comment on his military service, but I will comment on his transition from contractor into employee.
He was a full-time contractor with National Defence for an extended period of time. The team he worked for—quite wisely, I will say—recognized that this was a skill set we needed going forward and that it would be more economical to turn him into an employee rather than pay the higher rate for a contractor.
Obviously, they didn't know that he would turn out to have conflict of interest issues, but he was doing basically the same job as an employee that he was as a contractor. This was putting in place automated and secure systems to allow unclassified information to be shared with a more secure network—classified secret or above—in an automated fashion without compromising the security of the higher network.
He was quite a technical expert and the role was the same as contractor and as civilian. It was thought at the time that it was an economically wise decision to turn him into an employee. Obviously, they did not know about his other businesses and that he had failed to disclose those.
:
In certain circumstances, yes, I do. Consultants have a great value to add if we need them for surge capacity or if we need them for a technical expertise that we don't have and we're looking to acquire.
In this case, because of the projects he was on, the major and the colonel who were above him realized they needed this skill set for a project on a long-term, enduring basis. It is a very good thought to try to turn that type of resource into an employee, if the person is willing.
As we know, in this case it did not work out, but I actually applaud the instinct.
:
Mr. Chair, body shops exist with private sector clients as well, but they are certainly widely used in the public service. I would offer up—and this is opinion—probably three reasons.
Number one is that getting government contracts is not easy. It is a complex set of rules. Requirements are often long. It takes time because of the evaluation to ensure a fair procurement. There are some contractors who, frankly, just don't want to go through that process. They would rather pay a firm to do it on their behalf, knowing that—in Dalian's or GC Strategies' case—the firm is taking a cut off the top. There's value there for IT contractors who don't want to go through that bureaucracy.
The second piece is that hiring in the public service is so time-consuming. It takes time to run a competition, and finding employees who meet the technical requirements and are willing to become employees takes time as well. Body shops have, in effect, become the “easy” button when there's a short-term need for a skill set. It is very convenient. It is fast.
I think if you look back to our HR processes as well as our procurement processes, you'll see that how intensive and long they can be has created the widespread use of these IT body shops.
The final point I will say on this is that because the IT world is changing rather rapidly, the skill sets of IT consultants often do not exist in the public sector, so it is a very valuable way to bring in a resource that we don't have.
I welcome the witnesses.
My first question will be very short and very direct.
Mr. Matthews, yesterday or the day before, you sent us six additional contracts, apparently found by someone at the Department of National Defence after a manual search and the tabling of a motion.
First of all, these contracts cannot be found on the Open Government website. So, that's the first thing I think is unfortunate.
Second, when we look more closely, we see that these contracts are heavily redacted. When I say “heavily”, it's because in the section where one is supposed to see the name of the resource who did the work, the time they spent on it and at what rate, we only see the final amount.
How is it that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts cannot have access to the identity of people delivering a service with taxpayers' money?
:
I thank the member for the question, Mr. Chair.
First of all, the Department of National Defence has a database in which it keeps all information on contracts. However, given that it engages in secret activities, some sectors of the department do not use that database.
We therefore found the other contracts through a manual search because they were not in that database.
[English]
It is for reasons of security that we don't put all of the contracts in that database. There are certain groups that do work that we can't disclose publicly because of a security risk. That's the reason we found those after the fact, and I apologize for not finding them earlier.
:
Very well. Let's move on to the next question.
You stated that, since 2012, you granted 86 contracts to businesses studied as part of the ArriveCAN case. These contracts were awarded to businesses that provided no services, because they are only contracting officers. Two people who deliver no services received $88 million worth of taxpayer money.
How do you explain that, within the framework of your procurement activities, you were not a bit more lucid in terms of finding real resources that could provide actual services, instead of going through an agency or business, whatever you want to call it, which, in the end, retained a commission and delivered no services?
:
That's a good question.
As for the services for which money was paid, they were intended to provide human resources.
The fact is that is that there are people who don't want to sign their own contract with the government. They'd rather use a service like GC Strategies or Coradix. I find the situation a bit frustrating.
[English]
The markup that gets charged on the subcontractors is significant, and I think there is something to be said around getting more transparency around that markup.
[Translation]
I would like to raise another point.
[English]
I think that in these arrangements that companies have with each other whereby they subcontract each other—Dalian to Coradix to GC Strategies, and vice versa—I expect we're paying markup on markup. That does not sit right with me, and I think there is some work to be done there.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for being present on this very serious matter related to the vulnerabilities of our public service.
It's a vulnerability that largely has been exploited by private contractors. Mr. Yeo is one of those private contractors who, as discovered by the Auditor General, has been part of a network of contractors and subcontractors that has operated in Canada for some time now. The Auditor General herself had a very difficult time to find the appropriate documents, the appropriate invoices and the appropriate task authorizations. This is something that I think demonstrates a very clear risk to Canada, and a very clear security risk as well, something that's very similar to what my colleague mentioned.
The Auditor General made it clear that the CBSA, for example, the Canada Border Services Agency, did not have the appropriate checks and balances, including security checks, when developing this app. It brings into question how our ministry of defence and the people who work on defence, both on military bases and outside them, are also perhaps engaged in this kind of network of contracting and subcontracting. The worst risk of all in this, of course, is that Canadians are vulnerable to what could be information breaches, which could be data breaches and which, even worse, could be information breaches that could harm our national security.
It's a tremendously serious issue that Canadians are seized with, and it's one that I believe your ministry should provide clarity on in terms of its own actions and its own relationship with how contracting and subcontracting are conducted in this country.
Throughout the report of the Auditor General, which I believe you've read, I hope, Mr. Matthews.... Is that correct?
We're here talking about double-dipping and the fact that Mr. Yeo was simultaneously employed as a public servant while also in charge of a company and on the board of directors of that company, by his own testimony, which was doing contracts with not only the Government of Canada but with the same department that he was a part of.
I want to highlight that this committee has passed a common-sense Conservative motion calling for all double-dipping to be banned. The laughing Liberals actually voted against that motion, so unfortunately, we don't have agreement even around this table that this practice of scandalous double-dipping should end. However, the opposition was certainly united in taking that position. I hope the Liberals will reconsider and reform their approach to this—
:
There are a couple of points here, Mr. Chair.
PSPC has made us aware that of the contract-related fraud they're looking into, about $400,000 of it relates to activity at National Defence. We don't yet have details on what that is and who the vendors are, but that information will be coming shortly.
I would also stress that this is what they know right now and that there is the possibility they will find more. This is work that PSPC started a few years back as more and more contractual information was digitized into databases. Now they're basically using data analytics to highlight potential fraud. I applaud that work and I'm grateful that they have let us know.
Independent of that, we have concerns about a few contracts we are aware of, and for those we are dealing with the provost marshal. That's all I can say about them at this stage.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Matthews, for being here with your team, because of course, as egregious as the testimony of Mr. Yeo was on Tuesday to this committee, it's not normally the purview of this committee, as I'm sure you're well aware, to be hearing testimony from individual contractors to the federal government, but the situation is such that we are here.
What is more concerning to this committee, I think, is the structure and processes in place that would identify a Mr. Yeo much earlier in the game, because they will always exist, right? He's not the first and he's not the last, as we clearly know.
My first question is this: Did he seek the job at National Defence, or was the offer made to him? You said something about converting him.
:
Isabelle, I may refer to you on this one for the staffing process.
There was an external competition staffing process launched, which means that it's open to individuals outside the public service. That was a generic competition that was launched. He applied and was added to a pool of IT professionals that one could then draw from. I don't know for certain, but I expect that he was encouraged to apply by the people he was working with on contract, because there would have been value to turning him into an employee, if possible. He was successful in that process. He was added to the pool and then he was picked by the hiring manager and offered a job, which he then accepted.
The reason it's important for me to stress that this was an external pool is that it means that the Public Service Commission will be looking into any sort of investigation in terms of whether it was appropriately used. I imagine that they will be looking at things such as the reference checks and whether they were appropriately done. He did not declare any conflicts at that stage, but we will look into that process with the help of the Public Service Commission.
[Translation]
Do you want to add something, Ms. Desmartis?
:
We're looking into the staffing process, as we mentioned, through the Public Service Commission. For the contracts that were through Dalian, we also want to make sure that we received the services that were contracted for, and to date the answer is yes, we did receive those services.
We will also look at hiring practices within that broader unit to make sure that there is nothing untoward there.
I will say that I spoke to the major and the colonel whom Mr. Yeo worked for. They knew he was a contractor and they were absolutely unaware of his broader business dealings. I asked them if it ever came up, even once he started work, through conversations about what he had done on the weekend or if it ever came up that he ran a consulting company. It never came up, and they were in frequent contact with him.
These sorts of things were never flagged for the manager, because if they had been flagged, the expectation would be that the manager would look into whether a conflict of interest was declared. I spoke to them, and they said that it never came up at all that he had these other activities.
There's a very real contradiction in what you just said, Mr. Matthews. If the team Mr. Yeo worked with, his supervisor and the people who hired him, had done a simple basic check on Google, they would have seen that Dalian is a big company, that Mr. Yeo was billing fraudulently and that he had contracts with many other companies.
How can it be that the Department of National Defence in a G7 country does not do basic security checks on the staff it hires?
:
Fine, but I would like you to answer my question more specifically. If you are extrapolating, you are not answering.
Since I did not get an answer to my first question, I will move on to the next.
How is it that an employee at the Department of National Defence can testify before Parliament while they are officially a full-time employee, without their supervisor, their team, or anyone else noticing that they are testifying on behalf of a company that is not the Department of National Defence?
Mr. Yeo appeared on October 31, 2023. He had been an official employee at the Department of National Defence for over a month. However, he never mentioned this to the department. No one in the entire department realized that one of their employees was testifying before the Standing Committee for Government Operations and Estimates.
What can you tell us on this matter?
:
Just on that, let's speak about the supplementary health care contracts.
I'm sorry. Let me just back up a bit. The business of Calian, apparently, according to their website, is as a business solutions consulting firm often contracted to work by Defence Construction Canada and the Department of National Defence, which is compensating contracted health care workers at market rates along with additional overhead charges.
You spoke about how expensive these things are and how inefficiencies are building when this is happening in your ministry today. Contractors with Calian received higher pay, received bonuses during the pandemic, and were rewarded for working holidays. We know that the Canadian Armed Forces health care workers have highlighted that internal public service employees are leaving the Canadian Armed Forces, only to return to the same job, at the same base, under Calian, for better wages.
Are you aware of this happening in your ministry?
:
You'll provide it. That's great.
I have one minute.
As I said, Mr. Matthews, the appearance of a conflict of interest is the situation we find ourselves in. This is why the committee voted to ban double-dipping. It creates this situation in this case of an individual with offshore bank accounts, making millions of dollars in a way that I think, quite frankly, the general public finds objectionable—taking 25% or 30% on commissions, particular indigenous set-asides where the work is not being done by indigenous subcontractors, by the admission of Mr. Yeo, and then taking this job and working inside the very organization that he's trying to win business from.
With that in mind, do you still maintain that you think it is appropriate for members of your department to also be contractors for your department?
:
That's an excellent question, Mr. Chair, and I think it's something that the employer will have to think about in terms of how we move forward on this. I wouldn't want to speculate on what the right approach is.
I do want to stress that I don't believe that this is as widespread as Mr. Yeo does. I believe that we are dealing with a small percentage of public servants, and I don't want to paint them all with the same brush.
I am concerned about those who have activities and who have not disclosed them. With regard to the ones who have properly disclosed and have received permission to carry on, that's great.
We might disagree on whether that's appropriate or not. I am more preoccupied with ensuring that all employees who have other activities properly disclose them and have them validated by an independent person in terms of conflict of interest.
:
I think it depends on the nature of the work. Let's just use a simple example outside of DND first, and then we'll come to a DND example.
If you had someone who was employed as a full-time translator for the Government of Canada and on the weekends they wanted to take on contract work as a translator for other departments, that is allowable as long as it's disclosed.
If we turn to National Defence, we have employees who have highly sought-after skill sets in the world of IT and security. They may have opportunities to offer that expertise to other departments or maybe to a contractor who is dealing with another department. If they want to do that on the weekend, that's fine.
However, it gets a little more complicated when the contract work is with National Defence. If it has nothing to do with their day job, if they're doing it after hours and if they disclose it, that is allowable under the current rules.
In terms of no conflicts, we are not at all clear on what statement Mr. Yeo is referring to. There was no such statement.
On the process involving Mr. Yeo's employment, he started in September 2023. That's important, because he was still on probation when we found out, a few weeks back, that he had other business activities. As soon as we became aware of those, we suspended him with pay that same day and started work to look into the circumstances around his hiring and whether there was any undisclosed conflict of interest.
In all likelihood, we were moving to terminate his employment while he was under probation. To do that properly, you have to interview the employee and hear their side of the story, which I think is good due process. That interview was set up for a Wednesday. Mr. Yeo submitted his resignation the night before and declined to come to that interview.
I expect we would have proceeded to termination. He resigned before that happened.
:
There are a few pieces to this one.
Number one, there is an investigation through the Public Service Commission on the staffing itself, with a look at some other HR files in order to see whether there are systemic issues. We're also confirming whether, on any of the contracted work to Dalian, the goods and services were indeed received. So far, the answer is yes, they were.
We also want to make sure we properly understand any business relationships between Dalian and other companies. Because we've ceased to do business with Dalian and some of the other affiliated companies, we want to make sure we properly understand that we have a complete list. That work is ongoing as well.
There are a couple of points here, Mr. Chair.
One, let's differentiate between reference checks and security checks. We are looking into whether the reference check was properly done. Maybe it should have revealed some of his business activities. That work is ongoing through the Public Service Commission.
The security check may very well have been aware of Mr. Yeo's other business activities. However, they're not looking for conflict of interest when they're doing security checks; they are looking for security risks. He was asked during this meeting whether the two should be cross-referenced or if they are cross-referenced. They are not.
The other piece, I would say, Mr. Chair, is that National Defence is a massive organization. Even within our contracting group and our HR group, there are project teams that deal with files that don't touch each other. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Dalian was getting contracts through National Defence that his day-to-day co-workers would not see. The fact that they wouldn't see this work makes sense.
In fact, you rely explicitly and exclusively on the word of the person being hired. The Department of National Defence, despite the sensitive nature of the files it manages, does not do any research on potential conflicts of interest.
It would seem that Mr. David Yeo has a brother who also works at the Department of National Defence, Mr. Christopher Yeo. On his LinkedIn page, he wrote that he's an assistant safety manager, or investigator, or officer; in short, some title like that.
Don’t you think that there is a potential conflict of interest, knowing that this person, Mr. Christopher Yeo, had a position at the Department of National Defence, while his brother was getting a lot of contracts from that same department?
At least, don't you think that there is the perception of a conflict of interest?
:
I have made the provost marshal, our military police link, aware of the file. There is no such investigation yet, but I have committed to keeping the provost marshal informed of our work. If it gets to the point that he feels an investigation is warranted, he will let me know.
On the broader ArriveCAN files, I know that Public Services and Procurement Canada has been in touch with the RCMP. The RCMP has not yet contacted National Defence as part of any of that work, but obviously we will be supportive and we will co-operate should they do that.
The work that we are doing is more around looking at the staffing process through the Public Service Commission and looking at whether we did indeed get the services we contracted for through Dalian. The answer to date is yes.
The final piece is to make sure we understand properly any other businesses that Mr. Yeo is linked to so that we can take appropriate action.
:
We've talked a lot today, Mr. Chair, about the obligations of the employee in terms of informing the employer of a conflict. There is also an obligation on contractors to inform the contracting authority about conflict of interest.
In the case of Dalian, Mr. Yeo did neither. There was enough, in our minds, to have concern about his actions and activities.
As well, over at PSPC, they were looking at some of the interactions around the ArriveCAN file and the various joint ventures between Dalian, Coradix and other companies and they decided to suspend security clearances. We followed suit.
I think we've heard enough that concerned us that the action was justified.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Again I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today so that we can have a better understanding of how to prevent this kind of fraud, for lack of a better word.
I know there are investigations going on into unethical activity, and I appreciate, Mr. Matthews, your emphasizing that the thing that was really egregious—even if there was no other wrongdoing—was the fact that Mr. Yeo took it upon himself to decide that he didn't have a conflict of interest, so he was not going to declare it. He made that very clear to us in his testimony on Tuesday.
The fact of the matter is that the prevalence of contractors also working for the public service or vice versa.... You mentioned the difficulties in the recruitment of the expertise that we need. As people move to retire, you can see a situation in which someone would continue working part time and also become a contractor. Certainly, both the employer and the employee would benefit from that arrangement.
How can we prevent this kind of egregious, unethical activity from happening, with the employer not having a full line of sight on the activities of the person in question?
:
Chair, I'll mention a couple of things.
One is that yes, it's clear in the letter of offer that conflicts should be disclosed, and you have 60 days to do so. I think there are various times—once a year—when employees are reminded of their obligations and asked to redisclose.
I think one of the things that could or should happen is being more aggressive in reminding employees of their obligations. We talked earlier today about possibly helping employees with their thought process in identifying potential conflicts. There are some questions they should consider when assessing their own conflicts.
I would rather be in a place where employees disclose anything that might be an issue and give an independent person a chance to decide whether it's a conflict or not. Obviously, managers should be reminded that if they learn anything about their employees while they're managing them on a day-to-day basis, they should ask them if they've disclosed it. When they have not, I would expect the manager to initiate a discussion around disclosure.
It's raising awareness of employees and reminding managers that if they become aware of the business activities of their employees, they should be proactively asking if they have disclosed them, and maybe flagging the annual requirements through performance assessments and performance agreements. Make it shine in flashing lights a bit more to remind employees of their obligations. All of that would be helpful.
:
Sure. It is led by PSPC. That data analytics piece is critical. They've been at it for four years or so. As procurement documents become digitized and submitted online as opposed to on paper, PSPC is maintaining a database through which you can do some analytics and look for cross-matches of subcontractors to see if they're in multiple contracts.
One of the things I think we will have to consider at National Defence, because we issue contracts ourselves, is how we share our data with PSPC to make sure that they also have access to our data so that they can look for those possible conflicts. Shared Services Canada is in the same boat.
If a contractor joins the Department of National Defence and needs access to our network—their own email address, etc.—one of the other things we're talking about doing is looking for duplicate names across the system. Individuals may be showing up on multiple departments' emails. It may be a case of a very common name and two different people, but as those types of analytics become more accessible, we'll have more information in our databases and in our systems.
These are early days, but we will work to make sure that we collaborate with PSPC and Shared Services Canada so that we're sharing the same information set.
:
I agree with what you said, but that does not line up with what we heard over the last few weeks, or what we also see in the Auditor General's report. In fact, companies were forced to accept GC Strategies' subcontracts without their consent. That was the case for Botler AI, and the Department of National Defence is not at issue here.
It's difficult to imagine that all of the GC Strategies or Dalian subcontractors who worked for the Department of National Defence absolutely wanted a share of the market awarded through an intermediary like GC Strategies or Dalian. Their market share is what disappears when they are subcontractors.
If the Department of National Defence knows that there are subcontractors, and that the subcontractors are ready to do the work, there should be a way to deal directly with them. The goal is to save and to give taxpayers more for their money. We know that many of these people would have preferred to deal directly with the government.
How is it that the government cannot deal directly with these individuals and, above all, make sure that these contracts represent good value for money?
:
I agree with the fact that there is better value when we do not use subcontractors.
[English]
At the end of the day, when you look at who has the contracts and the contractual arrangements, they are companies like Dalian, Coradix, GC Strategies and others. If individuals have not applied to be part of that contracting process, it's very difficult for us to put in place a contract.
Equally, again, if we can turn them into employees, it's even better, if it works. Again, I do applaud the attempt to turn Mr. Yeo into an employee. It's a better deal for the taxpayer, but the broader model of firms that have been on contracts are body shops, and they make their money by marketing other resources. If individuals, subcontractors, have not applied to get contracts as part of that process, it's very hard for us to go around that and issue them contracts.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to conclude on your last comment on how encouraged you are that Mr. Yeo was able to apply to the ministry, and how that is a good use of taxpayer dollars.
I actually agree with you here, Mr. Matthews, and it's actually evidenced in paragraph 1.30, page 8, of the Auditor General's report, as follows:
We performed an analysis to identify potential cost savings if the agency had reduced its reliance on external resources over time. We estimated that the average per diem cost for the ArriveCAN external resources was $1,090, whereas the average daily cost for equivalent IT positions in the Government of Canada was $675.
That includes Dalian, which was contracted to the Department of National Defence for some time.
How you're actually going to create an environment for workers to want to apply to your ministry is my question. If your intent is to reduce the vulnerability of the Department of National Defence in relation to malicious actors like Dalian, and if it's your proposal to use employment within the public service as a tool to reduce not only inefficiencies but also to reduce costs, I applaud that too, Mr. Matthews. What I don't applaud is the fact that it's not happening in your ministry.
Right now Non-Public Funds workers are on strike. They've been on strike for two months. Are you aware of this?