Government Operations Committee on Nov. 27th, 2018

[Sarah Petrevan]

It depends. Some of the set-asides in the U.S. departments aren't voluntary. There is a government commitment for a 20% set-aside. I can't remember which piece of United States legislation it's in, but I could look it up for you.

A lot of the culture around the set-aside market in the U.S. is just that this is generally a good thing to do. If I had to pick a favourite government department to look at, I would encourage you to look at the rapid adoption of clean energy technology undertaken by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Mind you, they're doing it for reasons other than just a desire for environmental performance. It has to do with energy sovereignty. Still, they have one of the largest research budgets in the world.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'll ask a question of Mr. Leclerc, Mr. Béland, but it is also for you.

If we're looking at what the U.S. is doing, we see that the U.S. Department of Defense is doing very well. Where do you see the low-hanging fruit in Canadian governmental departments that we could focus on? Like in Pareto's law of averages, we're going to 80% from the 20%. Where should we focus?

Gentlemen, I'll go to you first, then Ms. Petrevan.

[Jean-François Béland]

The easiest thing could be on the test bed in smaller departments. It's easier to move Fisheries—though it's also a big department—than to move DND, for example.

There's more innovative culture there. That's the type of place where we could have lower-hanging fruit, no doubt.

As she said, the procurement process is extremely complex and very tough to change. We're trying to repaint the walls, but we have to rebuild the house.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Yes, and you need the permits to rebuild the house and you can't get them until you repaint the walls. I know how procurement works.

Mr. Leclerc.

[Denis Leclerc]

I agree with Jean-François. The idea is to not always think big, but think smart.

Where will the best place be? The culture is important—the culture of a ministry or crown corporation. There are so many places where we, as a society, can help those innovations to grow, be adopted, be exported, to create jobs here and improve the quality of our own environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

I think we'll go to our last and final intervention, for five minutes. That will be Monsieur Drouin.

After that, colleagues, I believe we will be in a position to adjourn the meeting. We have votes in about 20 minutes. I'd like to make sure everyone can get back there on time during rush hour.

Monsieur Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Leclerc, I'll start with you. Are you familiar with the build in Canada innovation program?

[Denis Leclerc]

Yes. It's a very good step.

The build in Canada innovation program is designed to help entrepreneurs make their first sale. I already see a difficulty there. If the entrepreneurs have already made their first sale to their neighbour, they would then be ineligible. I'm joking a bit, but the program does impose some restrictions in this area.

When we talk about “demonstrating,” we aren't automatically referring to “purchasing.” As Ms. Petrevan said, in procurement, there are ways to not only acquire an innovation, but also to demonstrate it. I commend the build in Canada innovation program for making improvements and creating new opportunities. I know of entrepreneurs who went through the whole process and whose technology was used at Parks Canada, in Banff. It wasn't close to their home, but they had a great opportunity to demonstrate their technology. It was their first sale.

Now, we'll need to see what happens next. People shouldn't be excluded from the program simply because they have already made a sale. That said, I believe that the senior officials in charge of the program are willing to improve it. I know that they have many good ideas.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Ms. Petrevan, it's nice to see you again. I haven't seen you in eight years.

When we talk about greening procurement, one of the complaints that small businesses will make is about how to put that policy in place without thickening the RFP process.

I'm wondering if, through your work, you've looked at other jurisdictions where they've done this in a fashion that simplified the procurement process for small businesses and at the same time achieved their goal, which is to green the procurement objectives.

[Sarah Petrevan]

It's wonderful to see you. I can't believe it's been this long.

The short answer is yes. There's a couple of different ways you can do it.

Number one, you apportion out a procurement. Rather than giving a giant list of the criteria you have to meet for a $100-million contract, you would say that maybe 10% of this contract you hope will go toward SMEs. That's one way of doing it.

Another way you can do it—and even jurisdictions like India have done this—is to create templates for simplified tenders. Because they're only competing for a smaller portion of the tender, it's much easier for them to complete and fill out.

There are also other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, and even the United States, that have dedicated offices to help small businesses work through procurement processes.

I would say those three things—apportioning out your procurement, streamlined tender application forms and having a dedicated office—generally are international best practice. Even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, recommends that is how they do it. That is pretty much how every jurisdiction that does SME procurement makes it work.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Great. Thank you.

I think I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

To all of our witnesses, thank you so much for appearing with us today, some in person and some by video conference.

I would suggest this. It appeared that many of you had additional information, but due to time constraints that we always have for the committee, you probably had little opportunity to expand upon some of your thoughts. I would encourage all of you, should you have additional information that you think would be of benefit to our committee as we continue with our study, to please provide additional information to our clerk, who will then be able to make sure we incorporate that into our final report.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to be with us.

Colleagues, we are adjourned.