Government Operations Committee on May 3rd, 2021

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

We have already started working on agile procurement, and we are in the process of finishing the training sessions on the topic. I would tend to say that agile procurement applies primarily to the IT area, where we are looking for solutions to problems or opportunities.

So the training is being completed to help increase the knowledge of procurement officers in the area of agile procurement.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Who is going to deliver this training at the end of the day?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

The training is delivered by PSPC experts with knowledge and experience in agile procurement in the federal government. We are the department with the most experience in this area.

These experts hone their knowledge and skills with information they receive from third parties in the IT field.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That's interesting, because my office had just asked the library for information on purchases and sales, so the procurement process. We were the first to ask for that information. It's interesting to know that you have experts in-house.

In the report, the committee recommended adopting the principles inherent in agile, results-oriented procurement methods, including multidisciplinary procurement project teams for bidding that promote iterative feedback processes.

Have these teams been established?

How are the outcomes attributable to the application of these principles evaluated?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

This is a bit difficult to answer. I apologize in advance, because there are several things to consider.

In response to the first question, teams are set up based on specific procurement projects, which help find the resources needed to increase the likelihood of successful procurement approaches.

As far as the approaches go, we have used them in a half-dozen cases. In these cases, the agile process is intended to work very closely with the customer or the department that we are buying the goods or service for. In our case, it's usually IT services.

Essentially, it's to give us the opportunity to deal with multiple vendors that produce prototypes. We then try out the prototypes to determine which ones might work for us. Then we choose the approaches we might use to move forward. The vendors involved in the process are aware, from the beginning, of the approaches that will be used.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Ms. Vignola.

We'll now go to Mr. Green for six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I've certainly enjoyed listening to the interventions. I also really appreciate this committee's allowing us to dig into this issue. As many of you know, this is a topic of keen interest, finding the outcomes for equity policies that are in put in place.

I'm going to take my time to explain, to my understanding, the federal contractors program. Then I'm going to invite a witness response on where that program is and how it might be coming along in terms of outcomes. We heard today in opening statements that a lot has happened since the 2018 reports, so I'm keenly interested.

For the purpose of this meeting, the federal contractors program, which is a program for employment equity, was established in 1986 and is administered by ESDC. It's stated that it requires suppliers with 100 employees or more that have federal contracts worth $1 million or more to take steps to hire from employment equity groups. This is a beautiful stated outcome that they're looking for. These groups include women, members of visible minorities, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities. It also states that a supplier must set related goals and monitor the progress towards them.

The contractor policy also specifies that once a supplier is awarded a contract of $1 million or more, it is then required to honour its agreement to implement employment equity as an ongoing obligation and not simply during the life of the contract. This is an important clause: Non-compliance with or withdrawal from the program may result in the termination of the contract and result in the supplier's placement on the federal contractors program limited eligibility to bid list. This list makes the supplier ineligible to do business with the federal government until it has been found to be in compliance.

On the surface, it sounds like a policy and a program that has real teeth, that states what it wants as an objective, that clearly delineates and defines the ways in which this program should be audited. However, to date, nobody has been found to be out of compliance, and there are no suppliers on the limited eligibility to bid list.

My question, through you, Mr. Chair, given the fanciful way in which this federal contractors program is being promoted and talked about as outcomes-based procurement, is this: Would the ADM care to comment on how it can have a program of this size and scope and yet have absolutely nobody currently named on the limited eligibility to bid list? Is it so good that every company over 100 people with $1 million contracts is adhering to this?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

I appreciate the context and the information that was provided. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how great the response is going to be. The monitoring of the compliance is undertaken by Employment and Social Development Canada. If ESDC were to flag to us that there was a concern with a company that was not adhering to its requirements, we would use the provisions or clauses that were mentioned during the question in order to be able to rectify the situation.

In terms of whether this is a sign that the program is working as intended or not, I don't know that I can necessarily speak to that. That question may be better answered by colleagues over at Employment and Social Development Canada.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, would the witness not agree that, on the face value of it, if there are departmental plans to be had and when we're looking at the size and scope of some of these businesses, not one—I had to actually do a motion at this committee to get the disaggregated data—is on the limited eligibility to bid list? I raise this with you, because a note is that the Pay Equity Act under the federal government would also require the Minister of Labour to administer a federal contractors program for pay equity, which is expected to extend pay equity requirements to federal contractors in a manner similar to the FCP. If we already know this to be.... I'm going to call it a failure, quite frankly. It sounds great on paper, but it's all process and no outcomes.

What do you recommend that we put in place to ensure that the stated policies that our government currently has, which would be in your purview in terms of the procurements programs you've outlined here today...? How do we make sure that we actually get to outcomes and don't just bandy about the language of equity without actually having a commitment to it?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To respond to the question directly, I think it may be beneficial for the committee, as part of its study, to request Employment and Social Development Canada to explain their approach in terms of how they undertake monitoring and compliance of this particular program.

As I indicated, they may be in a better position to talk about how they go about doing the monitoring and compliance aspect.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

For my last question—

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I guess I'll get you in the next round. Thank you.

I appreciate the candour of the witness, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

We'll now go to our second round, and Mr. McCauley for five minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses, thanks very much.

Mr. Ieraci, this committee, in 2018, tabled a rather extensive study on procurement, including for women and indigenous. There were 14 specific recommendations in that study, and you mentioned that measures are being taken.

Of those 14 specific ones regarding women and indigenous, how many were actually completed, not worked on or looked at, but completed?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

If the chair will permit, I will have to come back with a written response on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Sure, that's fine.

You talked about consulting on simplifying the bid process. Who are you consulting with?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

Mr. Chair, there are a couple of different groups and organizations. We are able to consult with a number of national organizations through a supplier advisory committee. We can provide you with a list, in terms of—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Would you provide the list? Are we including indigenous and under-represented groups?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

Yes.

This committee is not necessarily representative of every organization. There is Cando, which I will come back to in a second in terms of what that acronym stands for. It's the economic development officers organization of Canada, an indigenous group.

We have the Black Canadian Chamber of Commerce. We have Women Business Enterprises Canada Council, or WBE Canada, and a number of other organizations where we consult—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Maybe you could provide us with the list.

I'm a bit at odds on why, three years later, this committee has to bring this study back to the table. Was three years not enough to enact the recommendations brought forward by the committee in 2018?

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

Mr. Chair, there has been progress made, but I think that some of the outcomes we're trying to achieve are fairly significant outcomes, in terms of increasing the participation of under-represented groups.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm going to ask a further question on that.

We've heard often today that we want to get to the goal of 5%. It was mentioned in Indigenous Services' departmental plan—creating a new target of at least 5%. Has that target not been the target for many years now, the 5%, or is this a brand new target? I seem to recall that this was a target earlier.

[Lorenzo Ieraci]

Mr. Chair, I can't speak to whether there was a target earlier. The first time I became aware of 5% as a target was in the mandate letter that was provided to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement in December 2019.