I think that's a question that we asked ourselves through many procurement audits that we've done over the last couple of years: What is driving the behaviour that we are seeing in the public service?
I think I would point to two things. What is it about the procurement process in the federal government so that a staffing company is the mechanism that is typically used for IT services? Is it because the procurement process is complex or that those delivering those services don't want to wade through all of that and are happy to just go through a staffing company? I do think that that's something that the government needs to figure out.
There might be certain services for which staffing companies make sense and other services for which they don't. The rest, I think, then rests with the public service. Why aren't the rules known, and why aren't they being applied?
That is why I didn't see the necessity to issue new recommendations. I think it's essential to go back to the basics and understand the rules, but I also think that the government needs to figure out if there are too many rules and start taking off doubled-up rules or rules that aren't adding any value so that this can be a faster process in the future.