Transcript
Transcript: Procuring with Integrity: The Essentials for Public Servants
[00:00:00 The CSPS logo appears onscreen.]
[00:00:06 The screen fades to Emilio Franco.]
Emilio Franco (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Good afternoon and welcome to this session, entitled, "Procuring with Integrity: The Essentials for Public Servants." Thank you for joining us.
Hello, and welcome to this session entitled "Integrity in Public Service Procurement: Essential Elements." Thank you for joining us.
My name is Emilio Franco. I'll be your moderator today.
I want to acknowledge I am on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation; I recognize that we all work in different locations, and therefore you work on a different traditional Indigenous territory. I encourage you to take a moment to think about this.
Before welcoming our panelists, I would like to share a few administrative details with you to facilitate your experience throughout this session. We remind you that we have a simultaneous interpretation service for this discussion. You can also access real-time translation services for communications on the webcasting platform. You can refer to the reminder email sent by the school to access these features. Today we will be answering questions and interacting through the webcast interface, using the chat feature. To ask a question, go to (inaudible) of the screen and click on the chat bubble icon. Please feel free to use the language of your choice to engage and ask us your questions. During today's roundtable, we'll answer all of your questions about professional services procurement, and we'll update you on the work that's underway to improve oversight of (inaudible) management, as well as the ethics and integrity of procurement processes.
[00:02:05 Levent Ozmutlu, David Naus, Mary Anne Stevens, and Sheila Bonn appear in separate video chat panels.]
I'm excited to welcome our panelists today, and to have an opportunity to engage with the community for discussion around how we consider the principles of values and ethics in our day-to-day procurement work, and apply the policies and guidelines to ensure the fairness, transparency, openness and integrity of the procurement processes are protected. Allow me to introduce our panelists. Today we have Levent Ozmutlu, the Director General for the Strategic Policy Sector at Public Services and Procurement Canada. Also for Public Services and Procurement Canada, we have David Naus, the Director General for the Integrity and Forensic Accounting Services. Joining me from Treasury Board is Mary Anne Stevens, a Senior Director, People and Culture from the Office of the Chief Human Resource Officer. And joining us from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is Sheila Bonn, the Regional Fleet Manager.
Before we start with the panel, I'd like to share a bit about how our public service values for respect, democracy, respect for democracy, respect for people, integrity, stewardship and excellence form the core of our procurement decisions. Procurement is an activity vulnerable to ethical challenges. There are financial interests at stake, rushes to deliver, and close interactions between the public service and the private sectors, that all pose risks to integrity, whether questions of value for money, conflicts of interest, or outright unethical behaviour. This can represent a threat to service delivery to Canadians, and hinder public trust in government and its institutions. As public servants, we are entrusted to use and care for public resources responsibly, and we're expected to conserve that public confidence. Maintaining this trust is fundamental and important to how you manage procurements and the decisions that you make, whether you're embarking on a contract, managing an existing one, or engaging with suppliers. We must never forget we are spending public funds, which means that we have to meet the public expectations in the decisions we make, in exercising good sense and in how we act, by upholding the highest ethical standards of honesty, decency and impartiality. And our actions relate to procurement are always expected to be fair, open and transparent, meaning say what you're going to do, say it openly, and then do what you said, and of course, do so in a manner that your parents or guardian would be proud, please.
We must never forget that we are spending public funds, which means that we must meet public expectations in the decisions we make by exercising common sense, and maintain the manner in which we act, while respecting the highest ethical standards of honesty, decency and impartiality. This includes ensuring that those involved in procurement do not have any personal, financial or professional conflicts of interest that could unduly influence their decisions, or their actions, resulting in (inaudible) advantages for a compressed integrity (sic). Additionally, on the other side of every procurement process is a supplier. And while we expect them to conduct these activities legally and ethically, we also have a responsibility to protect public spending from unethical business practices and to report potential wrongdoing. Ultimately, our actions as public servants must withstand public scrutiny, uphold trust in government, and demonstrate responsible stewardship of public funds. That being said, let's take some time today to talk about real-world challenges and scenarios, and existing best practices that we can use to help us overcome them. We have experts with us today, so let's take a deep dive into this topic.
So the first question is for Levent. Can you talk a little bit about the framework for procurement, what are some of the guiding principles that a manager needs to know to ensure that they are behaving with integrity in the procurement process.
Levent Ozmutlu (Public Services and Procurement Canada): Thanks Emilio, for the intro and for the question. The procurement framework that has developed over the years is based on the fundamental principles of openness, fairness and transparency. When purchasing goods or services for client departments, Public Services and Procurement Canada strives to ensure that the goods or services purchased meet the client's operational needs, ensure value for money and comply with all legal requirements that govern the procurement of goods and services for the Government of Canada. All procurement processes must enable the achievement of this guiding principle. Transparency provides the public, including suppliers, with adequate information throughout the public procurement cycle to support the review of procurement activities.
Through proactive disclosure and publication on Buy Canada of information on the solicitation and award of contracts, we ensure transparency in decisions made in the procurement process. Fairness is about treating all suppliers, current and potential, fairly. It involves ensuring that procurement decisions are made without bias, follow the process and criteria set out in the contractual documents, are based on relevant information and are justified by clear and relevant reasons. Competitive procurement processes are one of the measures taken to comply with the principles of fairness, as they ensure that bidders are on an equal footing, and bid on the same terms and conditions. Openness is the act of offering all potential suppliers the opportunity to bid on public contracts. A competitive procurement process provides a reasonable and representative number of suppliers with the opportunity to submit bids under the same conditions. The award of non-competitive contracts must be limited to exceptional and justifiable circumstances.
For managers, these principles require that a balance be achieved for each procurement we work on with the client to find a solution to their needs that optimizes the use of their resources, and meets their operational needs. An important component of fairness, from a manager's perspective, is remaining open to customer needs and communicating the requirements of various policies, trade agreements, laws and regulations regarding procurement well. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Levent, for sharing us a bit about the framework in which Procurement operates and then starting to set the tone. I'll turn now to Mary Anne. So, there's a lot of potential risks for ethical challenges in a procurement process. Can you talk about what are some of those? How can a procurement challenge our values and ethics?
Mary Anne Stevens (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you, Emilio. I would say there is a long list of challenges in regard to values and ethics that we can encounter in procurement work. It's a shopping list, you might say.
These challenges can run from criminal activity, such as fraud, or attempts at bribery, or breaches of international law, such as human trafficking, a lack of fairness or favouritism, conflicts of interest which could exist prior to initiating the procurement process or could arise at any point during the contracting process, values conflicts, such as long-term sustainability versus short term cost effectiveness, the risk of political influence, or one that was certainly felt at the onset of the pandemic, a risk that urgency overrides is other principles and sound judgment.
As public servants, we have a personal and professional responsibility to uphold the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector. As you have already been told, the five values of the code are respect for democracy, respect for people, stewardship, excellence and integrity, and each of these values relates to procurement. Don't worry, I won't try to list all the ways all the values relate to procurement. I think a lot of it is obvious. The value of respect for democracy means that as public servants we serve the public interest, so the question of who is operating in the best interests of Canadians must always be an important part of our decision-making. Excellence means striving to make better decisions and continually improve.
The value of stewardship was included in 2012 because of a growing awareness of environmental considerations and impacts. It requires not only the effective and efficient use of public money, property and resources, obviously a key factor in procurement, but also the consideration of the present and long-term effects of actions on people and on the environment. By the way, stewardship also applies to our information management, as the information we create and manage during the procurement process is a government resource and a historical record for those who follow us. Integrity means being fair to everyone involved in the process, and has already been mentioned, being transparent to the public. It also means obeying the laws of Canada and the provinces, as well as Treasury Board policies, and behaving in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny. As public servants, it's a high standard that we've accepted to live by.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Mary Anne. And I think I really appreciate that reflection on how all these values implicate the procurement, and I'll underline particularly, we've seen the importance of documentation to support the decisions that we've made be something that comes forward, but at the end of day, making sure that all those decisions that we're taking really do stand public scrutiny. I think that's, I always follow the test of what would my mother and father say? And I've got two young kids and I also want to make sure my decisions hold them proud as well, and I think that's always a good moral guidance in addition to the values and ethics code.
David, so while most of the suppliers we do business with are good ethical companies, suppliers do not always act with integrity. What are some types of screening in federal government contracts that we should watch for, and what should employees do if they notice it, and what should employees do if they notice something suspicious?
David Naus (Public Services and Procurement Canada): Thanks for the question, Emilio, it's a topic that is very important to me.
It's important to recognize, before getting into it a little bit more in depth, is that some degree of fraudulent activity is an unfortunate reality of any organization, and the federal government is no different in this area. Based on our experience working in this area for the last decade, it tells us that there's prevalent schemes in federal contracting that can lead to a variety of fraudulent behaviour, including but definitely not limited to fraudulent billing, where suppliers may falsely bill multiple departments and agencies by claiming to have worked the same hours, but on different contracts. We've seen a number of those cases, most recently. Similarly for conflicts of interest where individuals may be using privileged information to obtain an advantageous position within a procurement process. And also with bid rigging, where suppliers are collaborating or conspiring to manipulate the bidding process to the advantage of one supplier over another, and or multiple organizations together. As you would expect, the federal government has a comprehensive arrays of measures and controls in place to prevent, detect and respond to fraud. You'll see this, this is a common theme in a lot of what we talk about within PSPC, is those three core pillars. Prevent, measures that are put in place in order to ensure that this type of activity doesn't occur. That being said, no system is perfect, so we do need to have those other two pillars that look at having a system in place to detect misconduct or potential misconduct, as well as having the measures and controls in place in order to respond to this type of behaviour.
It's also important to note that those involved in these schemes often take steps to avoid detection, and therefore, the signs of this type of misconduct can be very subtle as well as very difficult to detect. That's why some of the most effective means for detecting fraud is through reports of suspicious activity. And we've been working very diligently over the last number of years to establish a variety of mechanisms to make it easier for employees to report fraud, or wrongdoing or something that just doesn't feel right with them. One of these mechanisms, and I'm sure everyone has seen multiple awareness campaigns associated with it, is for employees to inform their immediate supervisor of any concerns that they may have within a procurement process that's underway, and or to make a disclosure within your respective organizations. That being said, we also understand that this may not be the easiest thing for individuals to put their hand up and to come forward. As such, we've also been looking, putting in place additional mechanisms. One of the core ones that we've put in place in partnership with our colleagues at the RCMP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as our colleagues at the Competition Bureau, is the federal contracting fraud tip line, which encourages anyone that notices suspicious activity within federal contracting to report it through this mechanism. The tip line is a partnership that we've established with those other organizations to receive allegations related to potential wrongdoing under federal procurement. It can be anonymous if the individual prefers to approach it in that manner, but it's not necessary. It's important to note, and this is kind of a, like a campaign slogan that I would want to leave with folks as well, is that it's important to remember if something doesn't look right, report it. I'm almost looking to have a tattoo on one of my arms to sort of get that point across. It's essential, associated with, particularly with the community of which we're engaging with today.
So, in addition to the work on increasing access to reporting mechanisms, PSPC has also been looking to strengthen our approaches on the detection side, particularly looking at data analytics. We've been using data analytics to identify irregularities or anomalies within certain data sets which may indicate fraudulent activity. And so, what we've been doing is we've been going through large datasets to glean that information, to look for outliers or anything that doesn't seem to fit within the norm. We take that information and we dive into it a little bit more closely to see if there is any basis of which to pursue further investigatory or review mechanisms at our disposal. One area that I would like to leave with folks as well is that if your organizations have findings of wrongdoing by a supplier or significant adverse information that may signal misconduct, we encourage you to raise it with your senior management. This has been an enormous source of information for PSPC and the group that I work for, enable to better detect suppliers that we may no longer be looking to do business with as we go forward. PSPC has been working diligently in this area, we've built a great collaboration with a number of our federal partners in a number of areas, and we look to further work in this area in the future going forward. But again, if something doesn't look right, report it. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thank you, David. I will stress the importance of reporting cheating in contracts. So there is the anti-fraud line which is very important, to report it again. If you see something that doesn't seem right, report it, it's very important.
Really important that we flag those things because I think we have a broader view of making sure not wanting to do business with these types of companies. And so, the tools that are available for us to stop doing business or to start, or to ban companies from doing future contracts with government, rest with David's team. And if they're not aware of certain things happening, they can take those measures to protect the rest of government. So, I do want to underline the importance of flagging potential concerns through both your management chain, but also through that fraud, or that cheating and anti-fraud hotline. So, thank you very much for David for managing that service and highlighting it today. Levent, so lots of stuff in Procurement, lots of steps, lots of considerations that have to be taken when people are planning for Procurement. What are some things that PSPC does to help ingrain integrity of procurement, the protection of the integrity of procurement process, directly into that process?
Levent Ozmutlu: Thanks, Emilio, for the question. And you're right. I mean, there's a lot going on, and this is a subject that I think we could spend a lot of time discussing. But maybe I'll just kind of talk at a bit of a high level. As a common service provider, Public Services and Procurement Canada is accountable for the integrity of the procurement process, obviously for the procurements that it carries out on behalf of its clients. So, while it is imperative to meet the operational requirements of business owners and clients, contracting authorities are still required to provide a robust challenge function at all stages of the procurement process to maintain fairness, openness and transparency, and I think that will be a theme that we're going to hear throughout the session today, as well as to ensure the sound management of public funds. So, when we talk about the challenge function, it also serves to strengthen client service by ensuring, among other things, that requirements are clearly defined, that the most appropriate procurement strategy is being used, the goods and services will be acquired in a fair, open and transparent manner.
And the procurement process satisfies all requirements, for example, legal requirements, regulations, trade agreements, policies, directives and so on, and that it's consistent with the Government of Canada's socioeconomic and environmental objectives, where those things are also applicable. A good example of the challenge function is the Procurement Review Committee that we have set up at PSPC recently, and this committee looks at all procurements above a certain value, including those that are above the contracting limits for PSPC, to ensure that appropriate procurement strategies are used, and that procurements contribute to the realization of socioeconomic objectives, and that the appropriate mitigation strategies are put into place for any identified risk. So, while that's a formal type of committee, I would say many of the same principles could be applied even for procurements that are at a much lower level, where procurement officers can have those discussions with their managers and their clients to ensure that we're appropriately documenting the file.
So, that brings me to, I guess, the subject of documentation, and that's another critical element of the decision-making process where we have to document everything. The resulting procurement file is the official record and audit trail that supports the application of procurement policies, procedures and best practices. And documenting the procurement is not only about compliance, but also about accountability and transparency serving as the foundation for the integrity of the decision-making process. We're constantly improving the way we protect the integrity of the procurement process, as my colleague David Naus, he spoke to that in a bit more detail. So, that's another tool that we have that we can rely on. And also, to ensure that there's no conflict of interest at play when awarding contracts. We're working on incorporating a requirement in all our processes to collect the signed conflict of interest declaration from all public servants that participate in the evaluation of bids, as part of a PSPC-led solicitation process. So, that's a bit of an overview and I'm sure we'll get into a bit more as the event progresses. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thank you, Levent. Next question, I'll pass to Mary Anne. So, procurement tends to be an area where risks of conflict of interest can arise Any time you have financial interests, conflict of interest can clearly follow. And so, do you have any advice for managers on how to identify and avoid conflicts of interest, particularly in the procurement process? And maybe talk through some examples of conflict of interest that could arise during a procurement and what steps people should be doing to protect against that?
Mary Anne Stevens: Thanks again, Emilio. To begin with, what is a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is a situation in which the independence, objectivity or impartiality of a public official may be called into question. A manager should look at situations from the perspective of an outsider or an objective person, asking how would that person see the situation, what would that situation look like to them?
This is sometimes referred to as The Globe & Mail test. It's not a question of… it's not a matter of questioning a person's integrity. Anyone can find themselves in a conflict of interest through no fault of their own. I think that's a very important point to make, that finding yourself in a conflict of interest does not mean that you have done anything wrong. The question is what you do next. A conflict of interest risk assessment is based on the circumstances of each specific case, and for us as public servants, an apparent conflict of interest can be as serious as a real conflict of interest. This is also a distinction that's not always understood. The individual involved may know for certain that they remain completely objective in their decision-making, but if it looks like something untoward occurred from the perspective of people looking on from the outside, then the public trust in that process may be broken. As to what you can do, of course, I suggest that managers become familiar with the Values and Ethics Code and with the Directive on Conflict of Interest. And there's training available both from the Canada School or from your own values and ethics offices, who can make the link to your business lines.
As part of the Clerk's recent initiative on values and ethics, all departments were asked to have conversations about values and ethics, and to consider scenarios where ethical dilemmas might arise. There are several scenarios around procurement that can be used to raise awareness and encourage conversations. The most important thing is to keep the discussion going, make sure your employees can come to you as soon as they discover something wrong. That way you can help them get things back on track instead of trying to explain why you weren't aware of the situation to a parliamentary committee, perhaps.
I'll list just a few examples of a conflict of interest that could arise during a procurement process, and I'm sure we could all think of many more. You're in the middle of a bid evaluation when you discover that two of your neighbours work for different companies that have submitted bids, and maybe at the next neighbourhood barbecue, they both seem to be acting friendlier than usual. You're asked to run a procurement process for some very specialized heavy machinery, you know that your father has significant investments in a company that is likely to bid on the contract.
A contractor invites you to his office to discuss the terms of the contract. Then, after an hour or so, he suggests that he would like to take you to a favourite restaurant nearby for a meal.
And we all know the ones about the hockey tickets or paid conferences. So, what are the steps to take to protect the integrity of the process? And forgive me, there is some overlap here. Clarity. Make sure everyone understands the rules, and that breaking or even bending the rules is not acceptable. Awareness. That can be training. Making sure that people consider situations from other perspectives. Knowing you didn't do anything wrong doesn't always mean enough. When someone reports a concern, and it can just be, "I'm not sure. Something seems not quite right," look into it. Do not brush it off. You've heard already about disclosure, transparency. From a human resources perspective, be sure that you create an environment where staff are comfortable raising issues and seeking advice. It doesn't mean necessarily that there's anything wrong, it's just that they're uncomfortable about something.
On the other hand, if there is something seriously wrong, ensure that staff know how to report wrongdoing if they see it. If and when a situation arises, document to show the steps that you took to resolve the situation as soon as was identified. And Mitigation. If someone reports a potential conflict of interest and you look into it, if there could be a conflict of interest, consider whether the file should be transferred or whether other people working in the area should be informed of the situation. Telling the other people working on the file that your brother-in-law works for a different part of the company that could get the contracts, means that they can help you watch for bias or even the appearance of bias. And share stories. Talk about the situations you've been in and how you resolved them, your personal lessons, what you have learned in all areas of values and ethics. Stories are very powerful, and certainly, in procurement, you're talking the right language to the right people. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Mary Anne. I think a wonderful reflection. And I think at the end of day, it's if you have any inkling that a relationship you have, a personal holding you have, or, whether it's family, friends or so on, just report it. Speak to… mention it to the procurement officer, mention it, file the appropriate disclosure if needed, but just share so that people can, you shouldn't be making that judgment yourself. They should make that judgment and manage the file accordingly. And they'll give you the right instructions on how to proceed, which, as you say, could include excusing yourself from the process or just having information managed in a particular way. But really important that you just put it out there so that it can be managed for you, and follow the direction provided at that point.
So, thank you for that, Mary Anne. Next question for David. So PSPC established the new Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance earlier this year, if you can explain what its role is?
David Naus: Thank you, Emilio. As mentioned, in May of this year, my department launched the Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance to replace the Integrity Regime.
So, the Office of Supplier Integrity and Compliance, in English, or as we like to call it in the office, OSIC for short, builds on our experience with the former integrity regime, and the debarment and suspension program that was associated with the regime itself. It also reflects our experience in addressing supplier misconduct in a more comprehensive and coordinated manner, which has been lacking under the previous approach. OSIC replaces, as I mentioned, the integrity regime, which, as this audience undoubtedly knows, is the former debarment and suspension framework that enabled us to exclude suppliers who had been engaged in certain types of misconduct from being awarded federal contracts. The previous regime was primarily based on criminal charges or convictions. Excuse me, sorry. So, the purpose of the new approach is to mitigate the risk to the Government of Canada from entering into contracts with suppliers that have been involved in what was, we classify as unethical business conduct. When we talk about unethical business conduct, we're generally referring to what we typically see as economic or anti-competitive behaviour, things like breaches of the Competition Act, so bid rigging, collusion, as well as bribery, corruption and fraud. Just a start, and there's others associated with it as well. Under our new approach with OSIC, we've expanded on that view, and I'll come back to that in a second.
So, with OSIC, it's really an evolution based on the previous integrity regime, and the Ineligibility and Suspension Policy. It recognizes that there was a lack of flexibility to take action on our part where there was no formal criminal charge or conviction, but also that the previous policy did not provide the department the authorities, or the ability, to impose mitigating measures that were commensurate with the specific circumstances associated with the supplier that we were dealing with. The new program, which is OSIC, which sort of has been informed or based on these experiences over the last eight, nine years, shifts us to a more agile approach that allows us to respond to a wider set of circumstances. So, it's no longer simply based upon a criminal conviction or charge, but it allows the department to look into a wider array of misconduct that presents, and this is the key component to it, that presents a risk to the integrity of the procurement system or to the Government of Canada. So, similarly to the previous integrity regime, the primary tool under OSIC is still the Ineligibility and Suspension Policy – so, Ineligibility and Suspension Policy – which is incorporated by reference into all federal contracts and real property agreements with a value over $10,000. The new policy builds upon the previous policy, and it's integrated additional offenses and circumstances that would trigger a suspension or a debarment decision, including an expanded view of what we would classify as business ethics and corporate social responsibilities as grounds for actions.
So, for example, we've included offenses or misconduct related to forced labour, human trafficking, labour rights, as well as environmental protections, which have been added as triggers that would call into question the integrity or the business honesty of a supplier to the Government of Canada. With this expanded list of misconduct, it enables us to take action against suppliers in a wider array of circumstances. Specifically, one of the core ones has been when a supplier has been debarred by another jurisdiction, for example, the Province of Quebec, which also has a debarment system, or a close trading partner such as the United States or the UK, we're able to have a conversation with that supplier, and that is a triggering event under the new policy, which allows us to undertake a review to determine whether we would continue to do business with the supplier going forward. Moreover, the policy also includes new discretionary triggers which allow us to take action in the absence of charges and convictions, for concerns stemming from the findings of investigations. So, a founded internal investigation within an organization, as well as poor vendor performance or founded breaches of the Code of Conduct for Procurement.
Finally, as I alluded to earlier, the new policy gives PSPC new authorities to determine debarment periods. So, for those of us that have been around for quite some time, the previous integrity regime, it was a mandatory ten-year debarment period, and we could reduce it down to five, subject to an administrative agreement. Under the new OSIC approach to debarment, it allows us to look at the circumstances associated with the specific situation, still allows the department or the registrar to make a determination that a debarment warrants ten years in those severe or egregious misconduct. But it also allows up to that maximum. So, we've set a maximum for it. We have not set a minimum. So, we allowed us to get to that ultimate stage of a ten-year. But it's based upon an assessment of the mitigating and aggravating factors associated with the specific misconduct that led to the debarment or the suspension itself. This allows the registrar to put in place a risk mitigation measure that is much more commensurate with the risk posed by the supplier. Previously, it was a uniform response to all misconduct and all triggers under it.
This allows us to have that ability to make our response much more commensurate, much more precise to the actual circumstances associated with the misconduct itself. In addition, the new changes to the program provides us with greater flexibility to use what we call administrative agreements in lieu of a debarment or a suspension, which, as you would expect, is a key component of where we want. The administrative agreements allow the government to work with a supplier to ensure that their corporate compliance framework is much more in line with what we would expect to see from a supplier to the Government of Canada. So, beyond administering the new Ineligibility and Suspension Policy itself, OSIC has also been expanded beyond simply a debarment and suspension program. It's also responsible for developing and deploying additional data analytics capacity to detect and respond to fraud, fraudulent billing and other types of wrongdoing. So, it sort of fits within that framework that I had mentioned earlier about the prevent, detect and respond. The data analytics component is very much within that world of greater detection capabilities, but it also fits in nicely with OSIC as part of the response itself. So, taken together, the OSIC activities will ultimately reduce the risk to the Government of Canada of entering into contracts with unethical suppliers, while helping to ensure due process, fostering ethical business practices within the marketplace, and ultimately helping to uphold public trust in federal procurement and the real property systems themselves. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thank you, David. I just want to emphasize the importance of this program, to really promote the implementation of ethical business practices. So we want to make sure that our procurement system really encourages suppliers to be good suppliers, suppliers who are (sic) behaving appropriately. And then these programs, I think, help us to really encourage good practices, but also have a tool to remove a supplier from having the possibility of having contracts with us if they don't meet our expectations. This is very important. And I just want to emphasize again that it's important as soon as your group receives advice and guidance, if there are practices that provide a framework and the managers for Public Services, if they see something that you need to know because you need this information to apply the new processes and the rules (inaudible). So, thanks for that.
Sheila, I want to turn to you now. Would love to hear, you're joining us as a member of the managers community, and would love to hear about your experience as a people manager who does, who procures to support your function. And have you ever worked through a situation with yourself, or one of your team, or your client, or a conflict of interest, or a dilemma around procurement arose, and what was that experience, and what was, is there anything that you maybe wish that you knew earlier in your career that you'd share with listeners?
Sheila Bonn (Royal Canadian Mounted Police): Thank you, Emilio. My example is a demonstration of the importance of understanding the contract and process and knowing your role in that process. So, I came across a client, well, I'll explain. A client had a requirement for the supply and install of marine navigational equipment on several marine vessels. Initially, a service contract was signed with the vendor, and this vendor was well known to the client and was frequented by our department. So, while the scope of the work initially was clear, it was for the installation on each vessel, it required differing modifications depending on the vessel itself. So, considerable hours of research and development had to go into the contract for the development and adjusting the differences of the vessels. This wasn't entirely accounted for in the contract. So, in the approximate 18 to 24 months of the contract, it was determined that not all of the work could be completed and the contract was amended to remove the work that wasn't going to be completed. However, the vendor continues to work on navigational equipment on one of the vessels and now there is no current contract since we're past its end date. I raised a concern when I saw the vendors invoicing and realized that the client was continuing to authorize work beyond the contract's parameters. So, the dilemma was I was noticing the vendor submitting invoices for approximately $9,900 repeatedly, sometimes on the same day and for the same vessel. When I inquired with the client, I was told they had received bad advice, stating that this was a way to have the invoice approved raising red flags. So, now we're working on getting a vendor paid for work without a contract, without a quote, and without competition. So, it's an example of contract splitting, but also authorizing work over the delegated authority of the client due to their relationship between themselves and that vendor. The familiarity is kind of sliding into a grey area for them.
So, what did I learn over this and what would I advise others? First of all, as a manager of a contract, you need to know your delegated authority. Your department will likely tell you, but it's probably under 10,000 for a service contract. So, don't agree or start shopping around for work to be done that's over what you're authorized to do. Also, from the start, develop the need and the requirement. What has to be done? Can more than one company do this work? When do you need it completed by? Also, develop your tools and work with your procurement and contracting people early so you get an appropriate contract in place. And as easy as it sounds, stay in your lane. As the client, you'll develop the statement of work, you'll look at your budget and see if you have the funds to complete the work, but don't authorize that work directly to the vendor. I'd also add, start early. Too often, managers and clients don't reach out to the contracting department early in the process and it takes a long time. They aren't necessarily prepared for the waiting game and the fact they have to get in a queue to get their contract completed. Know who to contact and start supplying them information early. Good stewardship is going (inaudible) getting the best value. So, the tendering process allows for a competitive price. While you know there's one firm that can likely do the job, there might be others, so don't be afraid of some good competition. One last thing is that contracts can often span over fiscal years. So, if you're handling the project or the requirement, ensure that if a new project manager takes over, it might be that you've moved on and you've done something else, make sure that all the necessary information, including any concerns with funding, fiscal years, approaching a deadline of contract, are shared with the new manager. It can avoid a lot of issues later. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Sheila. And you kind of touched on something as well that I often would remark on in my time as a procurement officer, which was, at the end of day, once a contract is awarded, often the client goes and then manages the relationship with the vendor, and they're not always circling back to their procurement team. And so, the vendor is going to have their view on advice to the manager that's managing the file in terms of how things can be done, but obviously will have a bias towards how things can be done in a manner that supports what they're trying to do, which is deliver on the contract, yes, but they're trying to make a profit. And if they're not being the most ethical, they're sometimes trying to circumvent certain rules or certain processes. So, vendors will often have a significant insight into how government procurement operates and how processes are supposed to be done. That's helpful. But checking with the procurement or your finance team to make sure that that advice is correct, and accurate and appropriate is always an important thing to do. As well as, a flag that always exists in any process, and particularly in procurement, is that as soon as someone's trying to do something that seems like it's circumventing a particular dollar threshold or a process, so if the threshold is 10,000 and you're seeing a lot of stuff under, that's typically a sign that the behaviour may not be appropriate. And that's something that you want to watch out for. You want to engage with your procurement team, and if someone, if you're seeing someone doing that regularly, that's a flag to raise for sure. So, thank you for sharing that, Sheila. It's another question for all the panelists.
So we know that values and strong ethics are essential to preserving a system of ethics and integrity within the public service.
And so, my question to all of you, and I'll go around maybe starting with, say, Levent, Mary Anne, David and then Sheila, what aspects of values and ethics do you see as most central to the integrity of the procurement process?
Levent Ozmutlu: Thank you, Emilio. This is a pretty important question. I believe that all aspects of the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector are important, and there is no point in mentioning just one. However, since we are primarily talking about procurement, and as someone who has spent my career in this field, I would like to think that stewardship is an important value that should guide the actions of purchasing agents.
As you know, procurement officials are purchasing goods and services with public money, and I think that's a very important element to keep in mind in the conduct of our responsibilities. So, we need to ensure that Canadians obtain the best value possible for each procurement and that the money they spend will ultimately benefit taxpayers. This, of course, means ensuring that procurements are conducted in an open, fair and transparent manner, as we've previously said, to ensure that opportunities are accessible to all. And it means, as you know, that we should keep an eye on safeguarding public funds, that the greatest amount of benefits should be delivered at the lowest cost. But this goes beyond just the matter of money. It also means that procurements can be used and should be used, when possible, to realize other objectives, whether they be socioeconomic or whatever our elected officials are effectively looking us to implement around the country, and to make our environment, for example, make our environment cleaner, and all the while offering services to Canadians. So, in this way, Canadians get the most out of every dollar they spend on what we procure. And just that notion of stewardship, again, when we talk about integrity, is if we keep the taxpayer and Canadians top of mind, I think that will guide us to make the right decisions in most cases. And if we're not sure, then obviously we have that obligation to do a little bit more digging and start consulting with other people. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thank you. Over to Mary Anne.
Mary Anne Stevens: I have to start by saying that Levent stole my answer, but I would very much support that it's the special role of public servants in serving the people of Canada, and the importance of maintaining public trust in the government and in the public service. It's a slippery slope to the front page of The Globe & Mail, and that isn't good for anyone, and I firmly believe, of course, that the Values and Ethics Code can give us an ethical decision-making framework that can help us maintain that trust and also so that we can sleep at night.
Emilio Franco: Thank you. David?
David Naus: In my opinion, this would be linked to the value of integrity, which would be the most central in our work.
And that's not simply because integrity is in that name of the organization that I represent. It's, I find, and you'll see there'll be a lot of crossover between Levent and Mary Anne, and I'm just assuming Sheila will kind of be in the same ballpark as well, but like the concept of integrity is the cornerstone of the public service playing a crucial role in maintaining the trust and ensuring effective governance. Again, very much representing Mary Anne and Levent's perspective with regards to the use of public resources, but in addition to that, I also see that there's some key values in ethics that are kind of central to that idea of integrity of federal procurement, including the concepts of transparency. So, clear communication about processes and decisions, accountability, holding parties accountable for their actions, not simply for those that break the law or do other types of misconduct, but also for those that are strong performers. The idea of fairness, treating all suppliers and contractors equally. Honesty, being truthful in all of our dealings. The idea of compliance, adhering to laws, regulations and policies that govern the procurement processes of which we are all involved in. So, for me, it is that that concept of integrity, but also because the tentacles associated with integrity are across and throughout that procurement process. I think we're all kind of in that same type of ballpark. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: And Sheila?
Sheila Bonn: I would say, for me, it's respecting the process. The Treasury Board contracting process is established to be fair and to be competitive. So, if something that's coming to your mind, it feels wrong, don't. The thought that you can do something now and ask for forgiveness later, that has no place in working with government, with public funds. So, follow the process and you'll get the best outcome.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Sheila. And so, now we'll turn it to the questions that we have from our audience. And a reminder for, to ask questions, there is a chat feature where you can put in your questions. And I think, Levent, I'll start with you, and maybe Mary Anne, you may want to join in on this one. I think this is at the heart of where maybe a lot of people might be scared about this particular thing, which is, am I allowed to talk to a supplier? And if yes, how do I do it appropriately?
Levent Ozmutlu: Sure. Thanks, Emilio. And I think that's a great question. I think it's a very fundamental one. And I would start off by saying, the answer to the question is yes, of course, and we're going to elaborate on it. And I would even go so far as saying, as the procurements that you're involved in become more complex, and there are more stakes or there's more at stake, In fact, I would say you have an obligation, quite frankly, to communicate with suppliers. When we say talk, that sounds informal. So, the way we make it an acceptable practice is to put some formality around it in order to ensure that we're doing it in a fair, open and transparent manner. And I can give you a few examples. For example, in the pre-solicitation phase, early engagement with industry could take many forms, such as issuing letters of interest or requests for information, which may then lead to one-on-one consultations with suppliers and holding industry days. Client departments are invited to engage with contracting officers, in our case, of course, with PSPC, but it may be their own, if needed, early in the in the process to set up the appropriate mechanisms to facilitate this.
During the solicitation period and evaluation process, to ensure the integrity of the competitive solicitation process, inquiries and other communications regarding solicitation must be directed to the contracting officer that is identified in the solicitation, not to the client department or any other kind of government official who are not part of that formal process. All communications with suppliers and bidders, including questions and answers about the solicitation or requesting clarification from bidders, should be done in writing to the extent possible. Again, this is a best practice so that we have that audit trail. And finally, the contracting officer must ensure that these processes do not give any bidder an advantage over the others. And I think if we keep that in mind, again, it will guide us in the right direction. So, what that specifically means is that all information is divulged equally to bidders, and at the same time in a documented process whenever possible, and that we always remember that the perception of the situation should be considered and may be as important, if not more important, as the reality of the situation. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Levent.Mary Anne, do you have anything to add?
Mary Anne Stevens: Perhaps coming at it from a slightly different perspective, I would say, I sure hope you talk to the supplier (laughs). There should be good professional communication, but you don't bring them home for Sunday dinner. So, it's understanding sort of where that boundary is, and both sides need that boundary and benefit from having that boundary in place. So, it's just with open communication, it can also be you spend a lot of time with someone, you start to feel that they're your friend. They're not your friend, they're your supplier (laughs). It's just to maintain that distinction.
Emilio Franco: And if they are your friend, you should have disclosed that as a potential conflict of interest, right?
Mary Anne Stevens: Yes.
Emilio Franco: So, now thanks for that both. And I think it's important to recognize that there's a spectrum of when people may be asked to talk to a supplier, right? If you don't have any intention of procuring people across government are regularly getting emails from vendors wanting to talk about the latest product that they have, right? And so, it's not necessarily a wrong thing to listen and to get a sense of what exists in the marketplace, but as soon as you, and managing that in a professional, and unbiased and un-preferential way, as Levent mentioned, like not sharing any information that's not already public, not providing any insight into your internal business dealings or your plans, but the minute you start to decide I'm going to procure, that's when I think the procurement process really kind of locks things down and gets into the stuff that you talked about, Levent, which is there's a formal process, documented, structured, where it's transparently managed with all suppliers. And then one that once that contract is awarded, then as Mary Anne, you mentioned, like you're starting to get into a regular relationship with your vendor. If you've hired a consultant, they might be sitting right next to you, or if you're just working on a, in a joint partnership to deliver on something, you're maybe having regular phone calls with your vendor. That's going to be a normal process. But as you say, they are not your friend, they are your supplier and they are your vendor. And so, managing that in a professional, unbiased and ethical way, really important.
So, thanks for that. I'm going to go back to another question that we received in the chat, it's a question perhaps again for you, Levent, and also perhaps Sheila, if you want to chime in. But this is the question of competitive versus non-competitive processes. So, sole source versus competitive. And then, are non-competitive processes… like, are they inevitably unethical? So, is a competitive process always an ethical process, and can sole source processes still be ethically done?
Levent Ozmutlu: OK, thanks for the question, Emilio. I would say that in general, we want the procurement process to be done competitively. But still, there are occasions when it is necessary to use non-competitive processes.
So, I think we look at noncompetitive procurement and sometimes jump to the conclusion that because something is noncompetitive de facto there is a problem. And I think this goes back to the conversation that we've been having all along in terms of being able to document our decisions and making the appropriate justification. The Government Contract Regulations provide for sole source in certain circumstances. So, if we look at those, do we say, for example, that it's a low dollar value procurement, which would allow for a sole source procurement to take place? Is the procurement perhaps in relation to intellectual property or there is only one source of supply for one reason or another? So, have we actually gone through the due diligence to ensure that there is a legitimate justifiable sole source? And if there is, and we've documented that, and we've sought approval from the appropriate approval authority, then I think it is something that's okay and there's nothing wrong with it. But again, the opening position should always be to look to increasing the level of competition to the extent possible. And I'll also conclude by saying even though a procurement may be noncompetitive today, we should also be looking at the future to say, "Okay, five years later, after this contract expires, what could we do perhaps along the way to ensure that next time around we'll have more competition that's available in the marketplace?" Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thank you, Levent. Just want to see if anyone else wants to add to that? Great answer, Levent.
So, soon I will turn to David. So, there are several questions, I don't know with the magic of "post-editing," if we can put the links on the screen afterwards? But several questions about how to get information about the mentioned processes, especially the "anti-fraud" hotline, anti-fraud. So can you take a minute and tell people where they can go and find these links and this information?
David Naus: That's a great question, Emilio. Thank you. So, there is the tip line. The tip line itself is available. I believe it's on one of our partner's websites (laughs). If you just type into Google, "Federal contracting fraud tip line," it will provide an access point there. It can be done completely online to get the information. It is, the infrastructure associated with the tip line itself, resides within the Competition Bureau, and then the information is dealt with through that and it is disseminated out to the respective organizations for processing and treatment associated with it. There is a fair bit of, so back in March, we did a campaign about fraud awareness as part of the Fraud Awareness Month, so, if there is anything with, again, in Google, I believe Treasury Board has information as well as within PSPC with regards to fraud awareness and training associated with it, but also to the mechanisms, the existing mechanisms, so those that exist under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. So, that as well is addition to the tip line itself. And all those links and mechanisms are, can be found quite easily through that mechanisms.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, David. Next question. Maybe I'll turn to Mary Anne first, then Levent, you may want to jump in a little bit, which is around the balance between the role of ministers in procurement and potential concerns about political interference, versus the responsibility and the ethical value of respect for democracy. And so, there are times where that may feel in question, so just if you have any thoughts on, for the audience, on that?
Mary Anne Stevens: Well, okay, that's not the easiest to address. What I would say about respect for democracy, it is that we provide our best advice and loyally implement. So, sometimes it's hard to accept when you're an expert in an area that you are not the decision maker, and you are not always privy to all of the information or all of the considerations around decisions that are being made. We don't sit in Cabinet, so we don't know what kind of discussion goes into the decisions that are being made there. Yeah, all I'm left with is you provide your best advice. Frankly, I've described it as if our minister's office says we want to push the car off the cliff, I would provide my best advice as to why that's a bad idea, I would explain the height of the cliff, I would explain what's at the bottom of the cliff, I would explain what the car can withstand in terms of impact, what the likely damage is, what the likely after effects are. And then, if the decision is still to push the car off the cliff, I make sure that we get to the bottom of the cliff as soon as we can and start building a big trampoline, or airbag or something like that, and participate in the implementation of that decision to the best of my ability. I know, a ridiculous thing, but it explains you give your best advice and then you loyally implement whatever decision is made.
Emilio Franco: Thank you, Mary Anne (laughs). Interesting example. Levent, do you have anything to add to that? Maybe where ministers have a legitimate role and in defining the outcomes of your policy outcomes that then have to be implemented through procurement?
Levent Ozmutlu: That was a good answer from Mary Anne.
I'll add maybe, because like the question seems to be going towards, what is an appropriate level of direction or involvement by political officials versus going into a lane of political interference? And I would say, first and foremost, I think the vast majority of the people that are watching the session, I don't think will ever hopefully find themselves in that situation where they're questioning whether there is a political interference. And I would kind of distinguish it as follows, I think. Is the direction that's been provided as a part of the lawful execution of the responsibilities, of whoever it is, and this doesn't have to be political interference, they could be at any level, versus an attempt to circumvent or to subvert the official, let's say, procurement process?
So, what I mean by that is, and I think Mary Anne gave a good example with the car and whether someone has the lawful decision-making authority to do that, so you could get a decision that you may not necessarily agree with, but it's a lawful decision and that's fine, and we'll loyalty implement after we've given advice on it, versus a situation where someone has tried to influence, let's say, the outcome of a process, to say, "Well, I understand that here's what's happening in the evaluation process, and I really think that this other bidder should win," or something along those lines, where you just know that that sort of involvement is inappropriate and problematic, and it's those types of circumstances that I think we need to be really vigilant about and ensure that we can escalate if we ever come across those. And hopefully, like I said, the vast majority of us will never have to deal with that scenario.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Levent, and I would agree. Moving to maybe a more likely scenario, or a scenario that people can run into, which is that either they're a procurement officer, they're getting something their client, or they're a manager in government that's trying to do a procurement, and someone's trying to make the request come in in a certain way, such that it seems like would favour a particular supplier. And so, you can see that coming from a client to the procurement team, or even internally, your boss's boss says, "I went to a conference and I heard this great capability. We need to make sure that we buy that." What are some things that managers or even procurement officers can do to identify where a spec may be wired? Because it's not always evident. People aren't always the technical experts. They don't necessarily know what's going to be geared to one supplier or another. Thoughts either from Levet, and maybe Sheila, you kind of talked about your clients kind of coming to you with potentially preferred suppliers, and thoughts on how you manage that?
Levent Ozmutlu: I don't mind. I can start off. Maybe I'll take this as maybe a bit more general in terms of feeling pressure or being pressured by clients, perhaps, because I think this pressure could come in many different ways.
So I would say it's important to make sure that all parties understand all the factors at play. Indeed, a simple detail can make all the difference in a situation that seems problematic, but is in fact a reflection of Canada's legal obligations, its commitment to fairness, openness and transparency in its procurement activities. Someone who remains under pressure from customers, or management, should not hesitate to ask questions in order to better understand the underlying objectives, and to propose other acceptable options to achieve those objectives. They should also communicate legal requirements as well as those arising from policies and regulations, and ensure that customers or management understand that they could be held liable if there were to be any breaches. Finally, they should not hesitate to use diplomacy to escalate the issue to their superiors.
So, being the contracting authority, like at PSPC, we're responsible, right, overall, for again, the procurement process, and at the client department as well, the procurement officers are responsible for this. So, we do need to again ensure that we're providing proper advice, we're not bowing down to, I would say, undue pressure, and ensuring that the people who you may be engaging with understand the constraints. And I find that, often, there's a, perhaps a miscommunication or a misunderstanding in terms of the roles and responsibilities. So, something that you may feel is pressure may not necessarily be intended on the part of the client. And I think through those open channels of communication, we could resolve many of those issues. And furthermore, if they do persist, then again, there's always an avenue to escalate them and to have further discussions on it. Thanks.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Levent. Sheila?
Sheila Bonn: I agree with Levent's comment there, and just the one keyword he used that I thought of was communication, and communicating with that client on all aspects of what they're asking for. For us, and for me, sole source requests are very frequent. A client might say, well, they're the only one in Canada, they're the only supplier of this item. I try to educate them and advise that it's more beneficial for me to know the need of the item rather than who can fill it. So, if we need a product, and if they have already done their research and felt that they have found the ultimate product, it's better to know, well, what do you need it to do? How fast does it have to go? How big of a motor does it has to have? Rather than just it is this one item and that's how it's going to end up. I'll also respond to them, leaning back on PSPC and saying, "We know this is going to come back. If we put it in as the sole source and it isn't truly only one supplier can fulfill, then it's going to come back to us. We're going to delay the process by making that suggestion. So, why don't we dial it back to that statement of work of what do you really need, what is the requirement? And then we can put it out into the request or proposal, or for the bidders to come to us with what that product is going to be."
Emilio Franco: Thank, Sheila. And then I would add, at the end of the day, when it goes to competition, typically that's also a space where, now if there's a bit of a wired spec or if it seems tailored vendors are typically quick to point it out. They know what their competitors can do, they know that they can, they can't, and they'll say, "Hey, requirement 37. I know that one's written for so and so." And so, that also (inaudible), and it's the value of a competitive process, is that it allows you to test your requirement and ensure that you know you're being as fair and open as possible. And as Levet mentioned earlier, running those early engagement, requests for information and so on, is also a good tool to make sure that the requirement that you've drafted is actually able to be provided. And I'll touch on the last thing you mentioned, which is an important policy piece, which is making sure that you're being as outcome focused as possible in your requirement.
And so, what are you trying to achieve? Not who are you trying to, who do you want to achieve it, but what are you actually trying to achieve? And in a really great case, is really, even not writing technical spec, but just saying, "Listen, what are you trying to do? And let's focus on articulating that and bringing that to market, because then you can see all sorts of different potential solutions that people may not have been thinking about." Brings better value, but also, we do have to appreciate that people will come to something, obviously, with what they know, and what they know may be a particular product or something that they are familiar with based on their past experience. And so, working with people to help unpack that, and then bring something forward that allows for a full and open competition is an important role of the procurement team. And to the extent that managers across government are also able to think that ahead of time, helps things smooth over, for sure.
David, there are a lot of questions about, again, your process for removing bad suppliers from processes. So, can you explain a little more how a supplier makes themselves ineligible to receive contracts? You talked about the program, things like that, but in practice, how does it work? Thank you.
David Naus: Thank you. So, there's a number of different pieces associated with it. I'll try to keep it simple and short because I'm cognizant of the time. For those of us that have been around for a little bit of time, we, I think most people understand and know the process associated with submitting integrity verifications prior to contract award. That process, by and large, has remained the same. So, we do require additional information to be provided as part of the verification request, but that process itself, so the procurement officer would submit the required data elements for the integrity verification process. That is run against a database of, which is held here within PSPC, our integrity database, which holds adverse information with regards to a wide array of suppliers that the Government of Canada does business with. It also includes information on suppliers that have been determined to be suspended or ineligible pursuant to the policy that is in effect at the time of the request. That list of ineligible suppliers, ineligible and as well as suspended suppliers, is publicly available. It's on our website. Unfortunately, it does not list individuals. So, if there are verifications associated with individuals, you can't check it against the list, the list is due to privacy considerations. But by and large, this system continues. It's an online system. You submit it through the portal, you'll get a verification back within, our service standards are within 4 hours, and I'm happy to report that we meet that service standard a little more than 99% of the time. So, kudos to PSPC. Thank you.
Emilio Franco: Thank you, David. There was another question for Levent, and Sheila, if you want to add a little bit too. We make approximately 400,000 procurement contracts each year. And most of them are well managed, without problems, but often it's the high-risk, high-cost contracts where it seems like there are issues going on.
And so, I just wanted to see if you have a reflection on, there's people in the chat saying, "Listen, I do lots of small contracts. I feel like I do it ethically. The problems in the news are the big files. Am I clear? Am I okay? Or do I really need to be focusing on this?" So, Levent, I'll get your thoughts, and maybe Sheila.
Levent Ozmutlu: The things that make the newspaper tend to obviously be the larger ones, but there's also been examples of small things that have hit the press. So, I wouldn't assume just because something is maybe a lower dollar value, may not get as much attention and stuff like that. And beyond that, I would say we do have an obligation as public servants to ensure that we are operating in an environment of integrity and that we respect those processes. So, to maintain the, I would say, the confidence in the procurement process, everyone has to be above board and we all to ensure that we're acting with the highest degree of integrity. Because if you find issues with small procurements that maybe are not otherwise I the public spotlight, those types of concerns will invariably percolate into other areas. So, it's a responsibility and just because you're handling something maybe smaller right now doesn't mean that that's the type of work that you'll be doing in the future. So, again, if we could all get into the habit of just ensuring that we're following those steps appropriately, documenting our files, following best practices, I think it will show that we are professionals in the procurement domain and it will help to increase the confidence in the procurement regime.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Levent. Sheila?
Sheila Bonn: Sorry, try to like, getting unmuted. I was just going to reiterate how Levent put it. That's the thing with values and ethics. If it's in place with the small things, it's likely to be well founded for the larger things. As we change positions in our career, as we're given more responsibilities, the way we do business is going to shine through. It may very well be that our contracting, our needs, are going to stay on the smaller side. They're never going to hit the news, but we'll be able to sleep at night. Like Emilio started out by saying, what would my mom and dad think of this? Everybody likes to remind a public servant that they pay our wages and that we are spending their money. So, that really is the truth. And we want to do it with a, with that integrity always there right from the start. So, it's just we sleep better at night knowing we've done it right, whether it's small or big.
Emilio Franco: Thanks, Sheila. And maybe I'll ask, Mary Anne, if you want to add a little bit more? Because we talk about the newspaper test, but that's not really the guiding principle of our moral compass, right? And so, maybe talk about how, and we'll be coming to conclusion after this is, is all this starts from a good, strong moral base as a public servant that guides the decisions that you make throughout your career. And maybe you can touch on that a little bit from your side, and then I'll move to concluding remarks and close out the meeting.
Mary Anne Stevens: So, we're going to end on the big philosophical question, is that it? I mean, I would like to think that we're all familiar with that feeling in the pit of your stomach when you know just something isn't right. And it's a feeling that nobody likes, at least I hope nobody likes, and it's you know it when you feel it. So, the purpose of the values and ethics, or one of the purposes of the Values and Ethics Code is to help you in those situations when you can't necessarily specify exactly what it is that's going wrong, but you have that feeling that I'm not sure about what's going on here. And it's to have the conversation with somebody who may have additional information you weren't aware of, and what's going on is perfectly fine and you can be reassured and relax, and your stomach is fine again, and you go on with what you were doing. Or there is something not quite right, and there are mechanisms for dealing with that. So yeah, it's the big, I am the optimist, the glass is half full. I think, given most circumstances, people are good and prefer to be good. And why would you join the public service if that's not the way, you don't want to serve the public or that's not the direction you want to take? So thanks for that big question at the end there, Emilio.
Emilio Franco: Thank you, Mary Anne. And I really believe that civil servants (inaudible) every day. They want to do a good job, they want to work in an ethical manner, and that's what they do, in the end, like. And for me, the proof is that we do, as I said, 400,000 transactions each year, and most of them are done cleanly, they are done ethically, there are no problems, they have... we know that we only receive a small number of complaints each year at CITT. Also, the Procurement Ombudsman receives around 100 investigations each year, so when he sees the number of the procurements that we make each year, the small number of problems or issues that are raised. I have confidence in our procurement system and that our civil servants are doing a good job.
So, I want to re-emphasize that we have an excellent public service that I think by and large is doing things with ethic, ethically, and performing the procurements well. We do have situations where we fell short, as the Clerk has highlighted in his report, and it's important that we use events like today to reflect on those potential challenges and issues, to understand what our paths are, to raise those through the appropriate channels, either through our management or to the tip line that David has highlighted, and that we continue to inform ourselves on what is an appropriate way of managing, because not everyone does procurement every day, some of you may do it very infrequently, and you're not expected to know all the different processes and roles and so on. But that's where procurement officers are there to help you, to support you and to guide you through that process.
So, a big thank you to all the panelists and participants for joining us for the discussion today. We hope that this dialogue has been useful for those who have listened to it, and that it has allowed them to hear different points of view.
And I think it's important that we all continue to think and talk about our values and ethics as part of the broader conversation that we are having across the public service, and how this may come into play in the work that you do, and to ask those questions if you're unsure of something, or of the right way to transpire. And, as Mary Anne said, if there's something in your gut that's not feeling right, ask the question, reach out to, again, your manager, your colleagues, your procurement professional, to bounce that off and make sure that you're heading in the right direction. Big thank you to everyone today, and we wish you a wonderful day.
So, a big thank you to everyone. Thank you and have a nice day.
[01:30:14 The CSPS logo appears onscreen.]
[01:30:20 The Government of Canada logo appears onscreen.]
