Government Operations Committee on Sept. 29th, 2011

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

[Frank Brunetta]

If I might add, that's a practice within the office. When we collect the data coming in from callers, from supplier complaints, we track to see if there's a trend. If there is a trend, as you say, that provides us with the grounds to launch a practice review, which is a more comprehensive review of the issue. There have been a couple of cases where that's happened.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you.

Alexandre, for five minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Brunetta, I would like to ask you a question, but first I'd like to quote part of your report:

Lastly, while the Treasury Board declared the use of standing offers and supply arrangements mandatory in 2005 for 10 commodity groups of commonly purchased goods and services, the study found that in 2008 more than 200,000 out of approximately 370,000 contracts (including amendments) under $25,000 were awarded through contractual means other than a standing offer or supply arrangement.

In other words, two thirds of contracts do not meet the requirements set out by the Treasury Board. Is that correct? Do you find that normal?

[Frank Brunetta]

Thank you.

Let me explain. As I mentioned earlier in response to a question on what has changed since the 1990s, a few years ago standing offers and supply arrangements for certain commodities became mandatory. That made things more efficient for departments. Rather than doing contracts on their own for these common goods and services, it made sense to bundle them and have them done together. It's the critical mass theory, where it's cheaper to have them done as a package.

What we're discussing in the report is that while the policy says it's mandatory, some departments are not following that policy; they're still going off on their own. We believe that if the government is going to generate the efficiencies it anticipated with these standing offers and other types of vehicles, that mandatory clause should be enforced.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Actually, otherwise it's a requirement that remains a little theoretical.

On page 17 of your report, you talk about a complaint involving the awarding of a service contract. It involves a conflict of interest. It reads here:

The Office's investigation did not provide evidence to substantiate the allegations. However, the Office concluded that the situation raised the "perception" of conflict of interest or the possibility of unfair advantage. And at the bottom of the page, it reads:

The Office's recommendations resulted in the Department's decision to terminate its arrangement with the bidder and to take corrective action to improve its procurement practices.

What measures did you take to avoid situations where there was the appearance of conflict of interest?

[Frank Brunetta]

I'm trying to understand what case you're referring to. It's on page 17?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Yes, but it's on page 17 of the French version.

[Frank Brunetta]

Yes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It's the first point in a section entitled "Investigations".

[Frank Brunetta]

In cases such as the one cited on page 17, our role under investigations is to reveal the facts. We use a recognized methodology to perform the investigation. We reveal and present the facts. Where we see that corrective action is required, we make recommendations. So the role of the office in this case was to make recommendations to correct the issue we had uncovered.

[Janet Labelle]

To give a little bit of background on this investigation, it involved an agency that was part of a larger department. The award of the contract in question was to a not-for-profit organization. The complainant felt that it was not fair. He also felt that the agency was involved in the creation of the organization, was sitting on its board of directors, and had shared space. So there was a lot of information that we had to work with.

When we contacted the department--which we do on every investigation by legislation, and also with the written permission of the complainant--the agency immediately undertook an internal review. As we moved forward on the investigation, they recognized that there was certainly the potential for an appearance of a conflict of interest. They immediately undertook internal changes to the structure, and they actually stopped their relationship with the organization completely.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That concludes your time, Alexandre.

Kelly Block for the Conservatives is next.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I join my colleagues in welcoming you here today and thanking you for being here. I really appreciated learning about your office and your explanation of your role and mandate, especially in filling that gap for the small to medium-sized businesses.

You suggested, Mr. Brunetta, that it's fairly early days for you in your position to provide any kind of an assessment on what's working or what kinds of improvements may need to be made within your office. But in your opening comments you made reference to your office's recently completed strategic plan that will be guided by three strategic drivers. You also referenced this in your annual report, where you called them three pillars. I'm wondering if you would be willing to expand on those three pillars and how they will assist you in delivering your mandate.

[Frank Brunetta]

Certainly, and thank you for the question.

Let me begin by saying that I believe a large part of my responsibility and the office's responsibility is to educate. That's the first component of the pillars. As I've mentioned this afternoon, I believe that with respect to whether we can help prevent procurement concerns from escalating, through early intervention or providing relevant information, our office is key in helping educate both stakeholders and the procurement community. I believe that disseminating best practices and information that is being provided to us from suppliers within government or explaining the procurement system to suppliers is a key role that this office has to play.

As I mentioned to you, many of the calls we're getting are related to this pillar. People, especially new entrants to government business, are not sure how to do things, and I believe our role is either to provide whatever information we can or to direct them in the right direction.

The second pillar is the facilitation pillar. I find this to be a particularly important one, in that in the case of many of the calls we're receiving from suppliers, they are at the point of being completely frustrated with government. They have reached the end of their rope and they want something done. In these cases, I see the office's role as putting that person in contact with the right individual. I'm sure we've all experienced cases in which we're trying to get hold of some office in government and we get the proverbial runaround. In the case of my office, I don't want that to happen. We'll make the calls; we'll put the person in contact with whoever he or she needs to be in contact with to do business with government.

The other side of that equation is that when things have escalated—the supplier has dealt with a government department trying to resolve an issue and has gotten to the point at which the only recourse is legal—we want to be involved to facilitate some dialogue, either through a facilitation process or through our ADR business line.

Finally, I believe we have a very important role in investigating. Many of the issues that come to us are very fixable through facilitation, but it's inevitable that occasionally there are issues that need to be investigated. In that case, whether it's through a practice review, a study, or a formal investigation, I believe my role is to go into the issue, the file, or the organization, uncover the facts, and present them as I see them so that there's transparency around what has occurred.

The strategic plan we've developed is around those three pillars.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

Could you tell me how many staff are employed in your office?

[Frank Brunetta]

We have a budget of 25 FTEs, in government lingo, but the actual number of people in the office fluctuates between 18 and 22. We have, like any other organization, departures and promotions.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ms. Block. That concludes your time.

That also concludes the second round of questioning, Mr. Brunetta, so we're all finished with you as a witness. We thank you and your staff for coming and presenting your report and answering questions from the committee. We hope you become a regular visitor to this committee as you submit annual reports, or in between reports as we may deem it necessary to give you a call.

Thank you for your time.

[Frank Brunetta]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the committee. I hope the presentation and the answers were informative, and I welcome the opportunity to come again.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I think we all agree it was very helpful.

Thank you.

[Frank Brunetta]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

If we could ask committee members to stick around for five minutes, we're going to bang the gavel and go in camera and approve our annual budget, if that's agreeable.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm willing to move this budget. Do we have to go in camera for that?