Government Operations Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Mr. Gasparro is next.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you.

Can you remind us about the differences between Procurement Assistance Canada and your office?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Absolutely.

I can speak very positively about Procurement Assistance Canada, because this organization has a mandate to help Canadian suppliers ultimately be successful in winning government contracts. They provide training to suppliers, including things like one-on-one coaching, interpretation, and assistance doing preliminary and basic research on how to identify opportunities, using the systems that exist within the federal government. They also do a lot of outreach. You'll see them at venues where small and medium-sized businesses are participating in conferences or trade shows, talking about the benefits of becoming a federal supplier. Part of their raison d'être is to expand the federal supply chain.

Our mandate is to resolve issues. We equally feel it's our responsibility to help grow the federal supply chain. You'll see in our work that we have many times worked in tandem with Procurement Assistance Canada, because as they're encouraging those suppliers, we want those same suppliers to be aware of what has tripped others up in being successful. They should be aware of those issues. That's what we do in that top 10 list. Typically, in presentations I give, that's a slide I can easily spend an hour on, breaking down what prevents suppliers from being successful in federal procurement opportunities. Also, when we're not present, Procurement Assistance Canada helps demystify what is or is not a real issue.

In my response to Madame Gaudreau, I provided a response about simplification. I think that has to be the guiding light as we migrate into a new world of procurement. If we don't make processes easier to understand for all suppliers.... Overlaying additional policy is not the sole answer; it has to be done in tandem with simplification.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

As a former banker, I hear synergy. Does it make sense to have two offices doing similar work? Is there a way that you can work more closely together or merge?

It's not that I'm trying to put you out of a job, just to be clear. I'm just....

[Alexander Jeglic]

I would suggest, perhaps, that I didn't draw enough of a distinction, because our office also has to act with independence from the department, as a by-product of who we are and what we do. We also receive complaints from suppliers. We do ADR, where we offer mediation services, and then we do these systemic reviews. It would not be appropriate for an entity to both encourage participation for suppliers and then review complaints lodged by those suppliers about the practices of government departments.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Great. Thank you.

Moving on to something else, what lessons can the Government of Canada learn from other jurisdictions when it comes to vendor performance management systems, etc.?

[Alexander Jeglic]

Vendor performance management is in the top three things I'm passionate about. There are a number of jurisdictions, both domestic, within Canada, and international, that we can look to. Within Canada, you need look only as far as the City of Ottawa to see a successful vendor performance management framework.

You also have a pretty robust vendor performance management framework within Infrastructure Ontario, a provincial entity that has a long-standing record of involvement in large-scale infrastructure projects and dealing with complex issues in vendor performance, including joint ventures and consortia, where it's not just the individual score of a singular entity but multiple entities working in tandem. The importance of this, which I'm sure you understand, is having the ability to prevent poor performers—those who have historically performed poorly in federal contracts—and having that be a negative repercussion to their being successful in winning future federal contracts. Equally, create incentivization for good performance and ensure that good performance also has positive implications on the likelihood of being a successful supplier in a subsequent process.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

We have Ms. Gaudreau, please.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Your mandate is to find solutions. Earlier, I wanted to check something.

You've had concrete proposals for a 180-degree turn for four years. Before I express my frustration, I would like to know one thing: Over the past seven years, how many recommendations have been heard and implemented?

This is your work.

[Alexander Jeglic]

I need to give you a clear answer, because I don't think I properly answered your last question. I thought it was about the gap between the amount of the budget we're given and the funding we've requested over the past four years.

We only made the fundamental recommendations this year. That makes a big difference.

The most important question is this: How many recommendations made by our office were not followed by the departments?

That's why we include report cards in our annual report. Most of our recommendations have been followed. However, not all of them were. For example, a department's response is to implement only half of a recommendation. We're not satisfied with that kind of response, and we'll note that in our annual report through the report cards.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chair, the only thing I want to say is this. How can they do exceptional work without the necessary financial resources, when the recommendations implemented have a direct impact on accountability and transparency?

I'm thinking of our taxpayers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Madam.

Next, we have Ms. Jansen and then Ms. Rochefort.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I understood you to say that under this new approach to procurement, more of the responsibility is going to shift to the supplier. They'll be expected to be more creative in delivering the work, rather than the department itself clearly outlining what the job requires.

Canadians have seen what happens when government contractors get a bit too creative. We get ballooning costs, missed deadlines and nobody taking responsibility when the project fails.

If departments stop setting clear expectations and start leaving it up to suppliers to figure out, how do we avoid turning this into a dog's breakfast where no one is accountable, taxpayers are going to pay more, and Canadians are left wondering who is actually running the show?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I think that a solutions-based environment won't allow the cost escalation, because, at the end of the day, the contract would have its associated value. It's a question of whether the solution was a complete solution to the problem that was identified.

In a task-based environment, it's much more important for the department to be able to identify how all of these tasks would align to create an ultimate solution to whatever issue it is they are trying to resolve as a result of these tasks. An individual with this specific skill set is being hired or brought on to resolve or address, probably, a known problem.

The creativity component kind of speaks to allowing the supplier to take advantage of their knowledge, rather the department being prescriptive in saying, “Do it this way.” Perhaps that methodology is dated, is no longer relevant and is not how it's best done by industry, so industry is able to bring those best practices.

That being said, I'm not trying to suggest that I see the solutions-based environment as an oasis either. To answer your question, I think active contract management is what's so important. That's why, in my opening remarks, I highlighted one of the reports we're hoping to launch in the near term, which is looking directly at contract administration practices. With the emphasis on economic efficiency, we believe that there are economic inefficiencies in contract administration, and we believe that a fulsome review in this area is absolutely necessary.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

You also mentioned that you used the term “bait and switch” on purpose. It's my understanding that it is to finally get the attention of the departments. That's kind of telling. After seven years of warning about these problems, it's reached a boiling point, yet instead of fixing what's broken, we're seeing workarounds like this new procurement system. Those workarounds are going to make it worse.

Let me ask you plainly: After everything your office has uncovered, will Canadians finally see real, positive change to a system that's been failing them for years, or are we just dressing up the same old problem with new language while trust keeps slipping away?

[Alexander Jeglic]

I think this goes back into my opening statement around the foundational changes necessary. Certainly, the recommendations we made within this singular report are to address the previous practice of bait and switch and also to make sure we're keeping tabs on the unintended consequences in the environment as we move forward.

More broadly speaking, when you mentioned those seven years of frustration, that lies with what we see across all issues in federal procurement. That's why last year our annual report was entitled “Time for Action”. We also perceive ourselves to be part of the solution. That's why we brought to the table the foundational changes that we believe are necessary.

I wrote to all parliamentarians, provided them a copy of our foundational changes document and requested a meeting to discuss the importance of these foundational changes. The next step is that we're actually going to have what we call a solutions forum. We're going to have other jurisdictions that have successfully implemented these styles of foundational changes within their system lead us through what that implementation looked like, what positive benefits they had and what negative outcomes they saw. Our hope is to bring forward federal actors as part of these solutions forums, so they're able to glean what other jurisdictions have already experienced. I will say plainly that the federal procurement system is in many senses not a leader in the procurement realm. We can look at other jurisdictions that are doing things better within Canada and learn from them. There's a multitude of reasons for that.

Where there is someone leading in something like VPM.... We are currently piloting a VPM process within PSPC. I know the department has leaned heavily on other jurisdictions to see how they have done things. I think that needs broader exposure. Other parts of the government also need to understand what the true benefits are in a government-wide vendor performance management framework.

I would suggest it's not to say we have all the answers, but walking the walk in these five foundational changes, I think, is key. As I said, we are seeing optimism in certain areas. In vendor performance management, we're seeing positive steps being made in the one set of procurement rules at the highest level, whether it be by statute or regulation. We notice that in the red tape reduction put forward by the Treasury Board, they themselves highlighted that they are looking at this.

Again, looking at this doesn't mean making a change. That's where accountability is so important. Places like this committee are where accountability can be brought to these ideas. I bring forward the solutions and hope to walk forward towards implementation. I also hope this committee helps in the accountability aspects of these foundational changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Ms. Rochefort, go ahead please.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you. That was very informative as well.

I just want to come back on one point that has left me uncomfortable. That's when you were suggesting that PSPC wanted to have a segment of the report pulled out. I don't read it that way in your report at all. It doesn't come across in that manner. I was glad that you pointed out that the best practice in audit is to go back to the participants and ask for their feedback. Obviously, that's what you did. I found that excellent. I read it with great interest.

It said:

PSPC does not support including these paragraphs in the report to be released as the assertions made in paragraph 95 to paragraph 110 are not supported by data and information contained in the documents reviewed by your office. Consequently, PSPC is of the view that these paragraphs are speculative and out of the review’s scope.

I think that's a normal comment or feedback in an audit process. I went to look and I thought, “Okay, they are making that comment.” I went back to your report to try to find the evidence in support of why you felt that it was important. Basically, the only evidence I found was on page 27, where it said SMEs “have expressed concern”. To my thinking, that was anecdotal. I didn't feel that was factual. I thought the point of view of PSPC was actually very reasonable and very well thought-out.

As I expressed to you, this is of interest to me, and I look forward to the spring, when PSPC is coming forward with a program. That's not in any way to diminish the interest in having small and medium-sized businesses be able to access federal procurement. I just felt that it was in support of what PSPC said—their comment, basically, that there was not evidence in the report to include it.

I have a final comment.

An unintended consequence of having it there, for me personally, if we're using the same terminology as in your report, is that when I read it, it felt like the law of diminishing returns. I felt your report was strong. It's like when you have one cup of coffee in the morning, it's great, but when you have four or five, like I have had, you become jittery, and it's not so good. I felt that the additional information pertaining to SMEs was anecdotal in nature, and I felt it just diminished the quality of the report.

That would be my point of view. I wanted to firmly indicate that I supported that position based on everything that I read.

Thank you again for your good work. That's what I wanted to say as well.

[Alexander Jeglic]

There is a section of the report that includes an RFI response provided by small and medium-sized business expressing concerns.

What I've alluded to a number of times in this committee is that other small and medium-sized suppliers have expressed that same concern to us. They didn't express that concern on the understanding that it would make its way into a report. Therefore, it would have been inappropriate for us to bring that information forward in that way, because that's not how we obtained the information. It substantiated a concern that was highlighted, though.

It wasn't truly anecdotal evidence that we were porting into the report; it was true evidence that we did have. We just didn't feel that it was appropriate, because of the methodology by which it was received, to include it in the report, because that's not why or how it was presented to us.

I want to reaffirm that what we wanted to do was bring accountability and transparency to this issue, so we absolutely could have followed the view of PSPC and removed this issue from the report, but then we wouldn't be having these conversations. That's why I think there is absolute value in having it there.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

There was no pressure to remove anything from any report here. This was a normal process. You received and welcomed the comment, in a certain sense, as part of the process.

[Alexander Jeglic]

Absolutely. We almost encourage active discussion on the report. We think that's what brings it value. If it's just accepted without specific consideration, that's not as telling to me that it's been understood and followed than if there is specific debate, because that means they're acutely paying attention to every section. That, to me, is important.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I'm sure you would be disappointed if you heard, coming out of this committee, that you were asked to officially take out a section of a report. Is it correct that it would not be a fair reflection of your statement?

[Alexander Jeglic]

That's right. I would say that what was done was in the context of the procurement ombudsman regulations. There is a required opportunity for the department to offer their views on the recommendations and their reasons for them.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.