Evidence of meeting #21 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was procurement.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lisa Campbell  Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services
Jeffery Hutchinson  Deputy Commissioner, Strategy and Shipbuilding, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Rear-Admiral  Retired) Patrick Finn (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Colleagues, I'll call the meeting to order just a few moments ahead of time. As I normally do, I will need a few moments at the end of the meeting for committee business, so I'll probably be adjourning the interventions with our witnesses about 15 minutes early.

I also see we have a new member joining us today at the committee. Mr. Lefebvre, welcome to the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is meeting number 21 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Today we have with us some officials from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, from the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Lady and gentlemen, welcome.

Am I correct in understanding that all of you have a brief opening statement, or are there no opening statements from any of you?

3:25 p.m.

Lisa Campbell Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

I have opening remarks, Mr. Chair.

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Are you the only one, Madam Campbell?

3:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Madam Campbell, welcome to our committee.

You can start at any time, and then I will go into the normal seven-minute round for questions.

3:25 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Lisa Campbell

Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and committee members. My name is Lisa Campbell. I am the assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada.

I am accompanied by Patrick Finn, assistant deputy minister, materiel, from the Department of National Defence; and by Jeffery Hutchinson, deputy commissioner, strategy and shipbuilding, from the Canadian Coast Guard.

Governments around the world expend significant resources on goods and services to meet the needs of their citizens, and the Government of Canada is no exception. Federal procurement spending contributes close to 1% of Canadian GDP annually. Over the past decade, the federal government has issued more than 460,000 contracts, on average, per year, worth more than $18 billion annually. The spending is used to acquire a vast array of goods and services, ranging from vaccines, nuclear facilities and bridges, to military equipment such as ships, tanks, and aircraft.

At Public Services and Procurement Canada, we ensure that federal procurement is fair, open and transparent, and that it provides best value to Canadians.

In total, all levels of government in Canada spend about $100 billion a year on the purchase of goods and services. The federal government accounts for just under 20% of this amount—about $18 billion—as I said earlier. Half is spent on defence and marine procurement, and the other half goes towards the wide range of acquisitions needed to run a country, such as bringing in new Canadians through the Syrian refugee relief effort.

PSPC's acquisition program focuses on high-value, complex procurements that require the skills of our specialized workforce.

Canadian federal procurement is based on core principles of fairness and transparency. Our laws, regulations, and international trade agreements generally require that government purchases be put to the open market for public bids. Competition promotes innovation and best value.

There are some exceptions to this provided for in the government contracting regulations, such as when only one supplier exists or there is a robust justification to source a single supplier. This may occur mostly in the defence context, where interoperability with allies and national security are factors at play.

Like other governments around the world, the federal government also aims to achieve a variety of socio-economic objectives through procurement, leveraging the public spend for the industrial benefit of Canada. Canada has, for some time, leveraged defence procurements for industrial benefit, and recent changes have brought both broader application and more rigour to that work.

A core element of the industrial and technological benefits approach is a rated and weighted value proposition. As part of the overarching goal of getting the right equipment and services for the Canadian Armed Forces, this is a powerful lever for the government because it requires bidders to compete on the basis of meaningful economic benefits to Canada associated with each bid. It is a weighted and rated assessment, so bidders who provide quality value propositions will stand out.

We know as well that sustained spending over time not only strengthens the industrial base, but it also supports research and development, as well as innovation and export capacity. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED, recently published the list of industrial offset obligations. Since 1986, companies promised to deliver $37.7 billion, and $24 billion of those obligations have been fulfilled, with the rest under way. Current industrial benefit obligations stand at about $30 billion, of which $16 billion have been completed, and $9 billion are under way, with $5 billion to be determined.

What we're seeing through all of this is that when we apply this lens to major procurements, with sound knowledge of our industrial base and do it in a targeted way, it helps us tailor procurement strategies to maximize the federal spend while achieving best value for Canada.

These efforts work in concert with other mechanisms to strengthen the Canadian industrial base, including providing access to global markets through trade agreements, and efforts by Global Affairs Canada and other federal departments to promote Canadian companies and skills abroad.

For example, Canada's infrastructure projects are covered by trade agreements. Therefore, government cannot specify a requirement for Canadian steel. However, our trade agreements greatly expand the global marketplace for Canadian goods and services, including Canadian steel.

The importance of the work we do has been underscored by the recent renaming of our department, along with the mandate for our minister and Minister Brison to modernize procurement policies and practices so that they are simpler and less administratively burdensome, and to deploy modern comptrollership and include practices that support economic policy goals. We welcome this new emphasis because it aligns with our own business imperatives. Changes are already under way, in collaboration with other government departments and central agencies, to modernize our procurement practices and processes. We're reviewing our contracts to make them simpler and shorter, as well as reviewing standard contract terms to ensure that they incentivize the business behaviour we want to see. Ultimately, we're working to make it easier for government departments to buy, and for suppliers to sell to us. We're also actively engaging industry, and we conduct industry engagement as part of all major procurements. We have industry advisory groups for both the defence and the non-military sectors.

In fact, we're at an important point in our modernization efforts: we're about to buy an electronic procurement system that's going to help us streamline procurement processes and allow us to capture real-time data about the federal spend. This data will in turn allow the government to make informed policy decisions, allocate resources, and set strategic goals. This change is going to be critical to our organization as we're currently, to be frank, working with outdated systems that create significant gaps in our ability to perform our function in an effective and efficient manner.

As part of our modernization, we are also reviewing our contracting practices. This initiative is focused on enhancing the Government of Canada's relationship with its suppliers and, therefore, aims to increase the ease of doing business with the federal government. This review will simplify, streamline and standardize procurement processes, and that is a key consideration for successfully adopting an e-business environment.

In addition, in response to concerns that Canada's pricing framework is dated and contributing to a rise in costs of defence programs, we engaged a third-party expert to review PSPC's cost audit and profit policy, as well as our methodology for determining contract pricing, particularly in the sole source context where competitive drivers aren't present to drive down prices.

The third-party report made several recommendations, including a call for substantive updates to the Government of Canada's practices, and a comprehensive action plan is underway. Third-party reviews are part of our ongoing efforts to improve the way we do business. We also conduct audits to confirm whether our procurement approaches maximize value for Canadian taxpayers' money and optimize performance.

We're also applying modern contract approaches, such as the two-step bid evaluation process that allows correction of minor omissions or errors after an initial review of bids. This more flexible approach maximizes competition and innovation as evidenced by a recent defence procurement. Initially, only one bid was found compliant. After the second step, however, five bidders were found to be compliant, and the winning bid was selected on the basis of best overall value, considering price, technical merit, and socio-economic benefits. This two-step evaluation not only led to greater competition, but it also sped the process up by several weeks. I wish some of those stories would make the news.

Another key element pertaining specifically to defence procurement is the sustainment initiative, a joint project with the Department of National Defence along with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. I was pleased to participate with Mr. Finn in the official launch of this initiative yesterday, after a number of years of effort by our respective departments in its development. It's a new model of contracting for in-service support and maintenance of military fleets and equipment, which focuses on collaboration, international best practices, and strong business cases, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.

Four principles are going to guide us: performance, value for money, flexibility, and economic benefits. Beginning in October 2016, these principles are going to become a mandatory element for all decision-making for sustainment solutions valued at more than $20 million. We have pilot projects ongoing right now in land, sea, and air, and we anticipate that this will improve defence equipment readiness by leveraging the combined capabilities of government and industry.

Unlike the regular goods and services we procure, defence equipment is rarely standard. Even equipment described as off-the-shelf may need to be customized to meet the military's needs. Armoured and other non-armoured military vehicles, for instance, carry sophisticated equipment and must be able to withstand weather conditions and circumstances that are unlike those encountered in the civilian world.

Here in Canada, particularly in the defence sector, we have seen how sustained funding and support for innovation can be transformative for Canadian companies. With government contracts, the companies are able to contribute to Canada's safety and security, develop skilled workforces, seek export markets and participate in the global supply chain. They can also reap benefits from their investment in research and development.

One of the key priorities identified in Minister Foote's mandate letter was the national shipbuilding strategy. As part of this commitment, on May 26, Minister Foote released a status report on the NSS, which we've tabled today for your reference. The report provides an update on the state of the strategy as a whole, the projects and the economic benefits, from the signing of the umbrella agreements with the shipyards in 2012 to December 2015. The minister has indicated her commitment to report regularly on the NSS. In the fall she will table an annual report in Parliament, which will be followed by quarterly reports.

Much has been written on the strategy, so we welcome the opportunity to be here today to discuss our accomplishments and our challenges.

In the last three years, our shipyards, Irving and Seaspan, have essentially demolished and rebuilt their yards, at no cost to the Government of Canada. This modernization effort has cost the shipyards over $500 million. The transformation is impressive, and we are currently building vessels on both coasts.

Esteemed members of the committee, if you would like to visit the shipyards, our offices could organize a tour.

Thank you for your time and, again, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.

My colleagues and I would be happy to take your questions.

Thank you.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you, Madam Campbell.

For the benefit of our witnesses and our colleagues around the table, even though these proceedings are not televised, they are being recorded. CTV is recording video of the proceedings and Radio Canada is recording audio.

Mr. Ayoub, you may take seven minutes, please.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for joining us today. These are extremely interesting topics. I also want to thank you for tabling a report recently.

I did some reading to prepare for your appearance before the committee. I spent a lot more time on shipbuilding and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

I would like to know what challenges you have been facing over the past few years, following the plan established in 2010 to regularize the demand related to the constructions of those vessels. There have been some difficulties according to the reports. Canada is lacking the resources and expertise needed to meet the demand for specialized vessels. Could you tell me more about that?

It's good that a plan was launched in 2010, but if financial and technical means are lacking and the training of human resources is inadequate, it may definitely take more time. We are now in 2016. Our government has been in power for a few months, and we are already seeing rapid advances in the application of principles to meet the demand.

What's your point of view on that? What are the strike plans—no pun intended—of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

3:40 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Lisa Campbell

Go ahead, Mr. Hutchinson.

3:40 p.m.

Jeffery Hutchinson Deputy Commissioner, Strategy and Shipbuilding, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Thank you very much for those questions.

There's no question that we have faced some challenges, from a Coast Guard perspective, in implementing the shipbuilding strategy. If we go back, I think it's important to note, as you have referenced, that starting in 2010 the national shipbuilding strategy was launched because there was recognition that Canada didn't have the strategic shipbuilding capacity that we want as a nation, particularly when we have two large government fleets that have to be supported, particularly when we note that Canada has the longest coast line in the world, particularly when we note that Canada is responsible for three ocean domains.

It's of unquestionable importance to the government and of particular importance to the Coast Guard. We went into shipbuilding recognizing very much that the shipbuilding industry needed to make a commitment. The yards were selected through the NSS, and as Lisa referenced earlier, they've made large investments out of their own coffers to build the infrastructure that they need.

Perhaps we on the government side—and I think it's particularly true for us on the Coast Guard side—didn't recognize how much our own capacity and experience had dissipated over time. We have certainly faced a challenge internally in rebuilding our own capacity in shipbuilding. We have developed a team of engineers who are now...you made the play on words about the plan of attack, so I'll call them a fit fighting unit of engineers who do really exemplary work, there's no question about that, and we're building our cost capacity on the government side and our leadership capacity.

At the same time, concerning the Vancouver shipyard, I think everyone involved suffered from what our external expert calls a conspiracy of optimism. Everyone thought it would move faster than it did, including the yard. They have taken a very measured approach, in my view. They have quite a mature approach to taking lessons from the rebuilding, the implementation of their shipbuilding capacity, and learning from these and improving as they go.

We have seen their capacity, since the first cutting of steel on the offshore fishery science vessel last June, really develop, grow, and mature. They've brought in world-class equipment. They have continued to develop their management team, and most important, they've continued to develop the processes in the yard that will lead to stable, predictable, and high-quality shipbuilding.

We have faced challenges; there's no question about that. Both the Coast Guard and the shipyard have taken steps to address them, and I think we feel the progress that is every day now being made on the shipbuilding.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Thank you for the answer.

It is still pretty surprising to see that a plan developed in 2010 is still not receiving—now in 2016—the support needed to meet the objectives, according to what I have read. There is now talk of 2030. The oversight measures were perhaps not tight enough to make follow-up possible and to achieve those objectives.

Are you currently taking the necessary steps to support the plan and provide information to Canadians transparently? That was perhaps also missing.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Hutchinson or Ms. Campbell, I hate to ask you, but because of the time constraints we have, could you keep your comments, hopefully, to about a minute.

3:45 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Lisa Campbell

Thank you very much for the question.

As our minister recently mentioned at the CANSEC conference, we use five elements to strengthen our capacities and address the challenges. It's true that we have not built any vessels in Canada in 30 years, while we were investing in our staff. We have tripled the number of employees in charge of procurement. We provide a great deal of training; we are greatly improving our governance; and we are using third parties to determine whether the shipyards have achieved the necessary industrial capacity to start building.

As I mentioned in my remarks, shipyards have made investments themselves to be able to start construction. The building program has also been implemented to give them an opportunity to get used to things, to train, to develop processes and, after that learning, to develop efficiencies.

Mr. Finn, do you have anything to add?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

I think I'm going to have to stop you there. Hopefully, if you have more to add, you can do it in the next round of interventions.

Mr. Blaney, you have seven minutes, please.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome the witnesses.

Ms. Campbell, I would like to thank you for your invitation. My colleague the deputy critic for procurement and I have already visited the three Canadian yards—Irving, Seaspan and Davie. In all the cases, we were impressed by the infrastructure.

I am wondering about something.

When the contracts were awarded in 2011, it was very clear that taxpayers' money should not be used.

With the committee's permission, I would like to submit two documents, in both official languages: the press release Ms. Campbell referred to, and an excerpt from the webpage that stipulates the five criteria of the naval strategy.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Colleagues, does Mr. Blaney have unanimous consent to distribute these documents?

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

We will do that, Mr. Blaney, and you can continue with your question while we distribute the documents.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

Okay.

One of the documents is Minister Judy Foote's press release. In it, Minister Bains reminds that the vessels will be built here, in Canada, and that the selected yards have modernized their respective facilities at no cost to Canada. I want to stress the idea that it is at no cost to Canada.

I am wondering about something. You are experts on naval strategy. Can you confirm that no taxpayer money has been used to modernize the capacity of the two shipyards that received contracts?

3:45 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Lisa Campbell

Thank you very much. I can answer that question.

That's exactly right. The Government of Canada has not invested any money into modernizing the infrastructure.

I believe that you are referring to a contract called the horizontal engineering program plan.

The construction program in the west focuses on several types of vessels, built in small numbers, intended for two different institutions, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Navy. Owing to this, the government deemed it appropriate, in 2014, to ask the shipyards to do some preparatory work in terms of engineering and the processes. That work will then be repeated for each construction. Because the work program is varied, efficiencies are created from the outset. For the first time, instead of proceeding on a project-by-project basis, Canada is looking at the construction as a program.

Mr. Hutchinson, do you have anything to add?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

You are basically saying that we are paying for engineering services. How can we ensure that Canadian taxpayers won't be paying twice? How to ensure that they are not paying for upstream engineering services? Are those services included in the cost of construction? Which vessels are we talking about here?

3:45 p.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Acquisitions Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services

Lisa Campbell

We're talking about the work program in Vancouver. It covers a number of ships intended for the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard.

Mr. Finn, would you like to say anything?

June 9th, 2016 / 3:45 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Retired) Patrick Finn (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence

Thank you for the question.

I would add that this applies to all vessels—to every project. It's different from contracts awarded on a project-by-project basis, which don't allow us to be proactive in terms of design.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC

I will soon yield the floor to Mr. McCauley, but I would first like to share one of my observations.

We are in 2016. A lot of money has been invested. We already have a lot of public servants, and new ones are being hired. But where are the vessels?

I was listening to you talk about the conspiracy of optimism. I just had a quick look at your report, and I must say that it seems totally unrealistic to me. You are talking about an icebreaker that will be delivered in 2021, while there are joint support ships to deliver. Is the conspiracy of optimism ongoing?

At some point, you will have to stop hiring public servants and build and deliver vessels instead. Currently, vessels are rusting faster than they are being replaced.

I will let Mr. McCauley continue.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Thank you.

We discussed the HEPP issue at the Standing Committee of Fisheries and Oceans. You may have been there. Marty Muldoon confirmed the existence of HEPP, the horizontal engineering program plan. During his testimony he stated that the goal of the plan was to invest in the shipyard's capability to get it up to capacity and start churning out vessels.

Our understanding is that it's a shared initiative between Fisheries and Oceans and DND.

Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would like to distribute some documents.