The Buy Canadian Policy: Implementation Considerations and Guidance (FON1-V60)

Transcript: The Buy Canadian Policy: Implementation Considerations and Guidance

[00:00:01 Text appears on screen: « Welcome. Bienvenue. »]

[00:00:08 Joel Heise appears on the screen.]

Joel Heise (Senior Director, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat):

Hello, everyone. My name is Joel Heise, and I am Senior Director, Procurement and Materiel Management, in the Investment Management Sector of the Office of the Comptroller General at the TBS. Today I will be acting as moderator for this round table discussion on the “Buy Canadian” policy.

Before we begin, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm joining you from the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I'd encourage you to take a moment to reflect on the traditional territory upon which we are working today. I want to start by sharing an idea. Every contract we award is a choice. In the federal government, procurement is often framed as an administrative function, a series of compliance exercises and transactions, but that perspective underestimates the extraordinary responsibility we hold. Public procurement, which represents over $40 billion in annual spending at the federal level, is one of the most strategic economic levers in the country. And every time we use it consciously, we have the opportunity to strengthen the foundation upon which Canada stands.

We are meeting at a crucial moment. For decades, the global business environment was predictable, and our strategies followed suit, focusing on the lowest price and the fastest delivery.

But the world has changed. And today, we face a landscape that is increasingly divided and more volatile. And last September, the Prime Minister sent a very clear message to Canadians and to public servants. Canada will no longer be a bystander to these global shifts.

With the launch of the Buy Canadian procurement policy framework, we have moved from a best-efforts approach to an obligatory mandate. It is not a question of isolation. It is a question of sovereignty. It is a matter of ensuring that when Canada buys and builds, it does so with an absolute priority given to Canadian interests.

To the procurement practitioners in this room, I want to be very clear about your role. In this new era, you're not just administrators of contracts. You're in a very real sense, promoters of Canada's economic resilience and defenders of our sovereignty.

Every decision you make in developing a procurement strategy is an opportunity to strengthen our industries and ensure that our fellow Canadians can count on their jobs. Be confident and proud to know that your expertise is a key element driving this transition.

We know the road ahead isn't without its challenges. The policy requirements represent a massive shift in the way that we work. It requires new skills, new methodologies, and a new way of thinking about best value.

That's exactly why we're here today. We're not here to simply read the text word for word. We're here to discuss how to empower our local innovators to be more competitive on the global stage. How can we navigate these complexities without sacrificing efficiency? And how can we ensure that the public investments we manage make Canada stronger today and in the future?

I'm honoured to be joined by a panel of leaders who are navigating these exact questions. They're here to share with you their experiences to date, to offer you their lessons learned that can help in your application of the policy. So, the first half of our session will be a panel discussion, and the second half will be an opportunity for you to ask our panelists questions.

And with that, I'd like to get started. So, I will ask the panelists to first take a few minutes to introduce themselves and their roles. Ron, can I start with you, please?

[00:04:49 Ron Cormier appears in a separate video chat panel.]

Ron Cormier (Director General, Public Services and Procurement Canada): Sure. Thanks, Joel. So, good afternoon, everybody. My name is Ron Cormier. I work at Public Services and Procurement Canada. In my role at PSPC, I'm a director general and I oversee procurement of IMIT, research and development and professional services contracting on behalf of departments across government as a common service provider. And I'm looking forward to today's discussions. Thanks.

Joel Heise: Thank you, Ron. Barb, over to you.

[00:05:15 Barbara Gibbon appears in a separate video chat panel.]

Barbara Gibbon (Director General, Science and Economic Development Canada): Hi, everyone. My name is Barbara Gibbon. I'm the director general for Innovative Solutions Canada at Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Innovative Solutions Canada is essentially a buy Canadian program. It's a government-wide innovation program that connects federal departments to Canadian companies to help support the development, testing and procurement of Canadian-made technologies. We run the program to help both departments get access to Canadian technologies that they might not be aware of otherwise, but also to accelerate the adoption and increase domestic procurement opportunities and strengthen Canada's industrial and technological base.

Joel Heise: Thanks, Barb. Pat, over to you.

[00:06:04 Patrick Comtois appears in a separate video chat panel.]

Patrick Comtois (Director General, Shared Services Canada): Yes, thank you Joel. Hello. Hello, good afternoon, everyone. I am Patrick Comtois, Director General for Enterprise Information Technology Procurement, Shared Services Canada. First, it gives me great pleasure to participate with my colleagues in a discussion on a very important topic to support Canada's economic development.

And maybe, just quickly, for those of you that may be a little bit less familiar with Shared Services Canada, at a very high level, where we're responsible to deliver the information technology services for the Government of Canada. Think about things you use on a daily basis, like microcomputer and things like hosting services such as data centre or cloud services, networking solution, telecommunication like satellite and things that support employees productivity directly like the 365 suite as an example. So, like PSPC, we are a common service provider, but we're focused on the delivery of IT services, including the procurement to enable the delivery of these services.

So, my focus today will be more on the impact of the new Buy Canadian policy than on the acquisition of information technology services. Once again, very happy to be here, and I am really looking forward to getting into these discussions.

Joel Heise: Thank you, Pat. And finally, Scott, over to you, sir.

[00:07:43 Scott Levac appears in a separate video chat panel.]

Scott Levac (Director, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Yeah. Hi, I'm Scott Levac, the director of Technology Strategies within the Office of the Chief Information Officer at Treasury Board Secretariat. We're primarily a policy shop. I think the main reason that I'm included in this panel is I was part of a team that published a paper on the topic of digital sovereignty a few months ago, and we see a certain amount of overlap between this topic around Buy Canada, but also digital sovereignty. So, I think that's my main purpose here is to talk a little bit about how we view digital sovereignty in the context of this new policy.

[00:08:24 Joel Heise, Ron Cormier, Barbara Gibbon, Pat Comtois and Scott Levac appear in video chat panels]

Joel Heise: Perfect. Thank you, Scott. And with that, we'll start our panel discussion. So, we've organized the discussion today into rough themes. We'll start with theme one, setting the foundation. So, this is about trying to clarify what the policy is for those of you who might not have a strong appreciation of it. Ron, I'm going to start with a question for you, if you don't mind. To kick us off, can you give us a high-level overview of Buy Canadian objectives, what this new framework covers and how the policies are applied? And as a corollary, when do the policies not apply?

Ron Cormier: Great. Yeah. Thanks for the question, Joel. So, I think you provided some excellent context in the intro remarks. I won't dwell on it a whole lot other than to say federal spending on goods, services and construction at this point is averaging a little over $50 billion a year. And Canada, as a country, has become highly reliant on exports. It's a disproportionate reliance compared to the import market that we effectively have as our trading position up to this point. It's particularly vulnerable as a result. So, in response to the changing global landscape and we're all quite familiar with it. Back in September, the PM announced that Buy Canadian policy. It's part of a suite of comprehensive measures to protect, build and transform Canadian strategic industries.

So, we look at objectives at a high level, fundamentally the suite of policies is designed to strengthen Canada's economic resilience and leverage federal procurement to support domestic industry and workers. The policy approach isn't one policy. It's really made up of three principal policies. There's the event that are currently available, I should say. So, there's the policy on prioritizing Canadian materials, which at a high level is about requiring the use of Canadian-produced steel, aluminum and wood in certain defence and construction projects.

Another policy is the policy on prioritizing Canadian suppliers and Canadian content. That's designed to favour Canadian businesses and incentivize the use of Canadian content in the delivery of goods and services. And then, there's the policy on reciprocal procurement, which is limiting participation from countries that don't offer similar access to their markets that Canada offers to its market. There's also a fourth policy that's in the works and it would be a little premature to talk in great detail about it today. But it's a policy on small business procurement that we anticipate to come out a little later in 2026. So, in terms of specifics, the suite of policies largely prioritizes Canadian suppliers and content in strategic procurements. So, you might say, well, what is a strategic procurement in this case?

Well, right now, that means a procurement over $25 million. But beginning in June, I think the date is June 15th. That $25 million figure will drop to $5 million. It's the threshold for the application of the policies and related measures. And it relates specifically to strategic commodities that are listed in the policy suite. I'll list those very quickly. There's defence and security, information and communication technology, infrastructure, construction and transportation, health and pharmaceuticals and consumer and industrial goods and materials. And it also impacts any of the professional services that are directly supporting those specific strategic commodity areas. So, departments and agencies are going to be strongly encouraged to apply these requirements to excluded procurements wherever feasible as well, even below applicable thresholds to support domestic industry. It also formalizes the prioritization of Canadian suppliers and content through point-rated criteria or price-based mechanisms in the evaluation process. I'll talk a little bit more about that later. There's a mandatory use of Canadian-produced materials, steel and aluminum in large construction and defence projects. With supplier certification and record keeping obligations that come along with that, and eligibility rules limiting participation to Canadian suppliers or trading partners in accordance with the reciprocal procurement policy. So, there's some exclusions in this space. There's always an exclusion and in this case, procurements that support sensitive operations, so think things like the high security establishments in Canada, supporting missions abroad and agreements that are entered into with other government entities like foreign military sales or deliverables that will be delivered solely outside of Canada. These are areas that are automatically excluded from the policy, and I think that makes sense. There's an exception process as well. It's case by case. And the policy suite makes it clear that this is only to be accessed when it's very strictly necessary. The exception reasons would be a best value, and that would be where the application of the policy would result in a cost increase greater than 25% above market rate. When the procurement isn't in the public interest, where the application of the policy would be inconsistent with that interest, where there's no capacity or availability. So, where the good isn't produced in Canada, it's not available in sufficient or reasonable quantities, the service isn't offered by Canadian companies. That sort of thing. Where it might produce an undue delay. So, where the application of the policy measures that result in delays that are critical specifically for defence or national security priorities, or where something is commercial off the shelf or military off the shelf commodity buying. It should be noted that any exception if the buyers that are out there on the phone are listening to this, if you want to pursue one, they have to be approved at the minister level, at the department or agency that's undertaking the procurement from a requirements perspective, as well as the responsible minister at a common service provider department, if there is one. So, typically that would be the minister of PSPC and Shared Services Canada. So, maybe, I'll leave it there.

Joel Heise: Thanks, Ron. That was a great summary and I think worth stressing that last point about the approval level for exceptions. That is a good indicator of just how important the policy is at the federal level, like ministerial exception. The ministerial approval of exceptions is clearly designed to ensure that we're giving a lot of second thought to whether exceptions are required before elevating to that level. The next question goes to Pat.

People are probably wondering what we mean by Canadian suppliers, what definition we give that. And how this definition applies in the IT procurement sector.

Patrick Comtois: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Joel. Excellent question. It is fundamental to have a bit of an understanding of the definition in the policy to be able to apply it to the definition of suppliers. Perhaps I will give you the formal definition that is found in the policy. Then, I'm going to give you some examples and, after that, I'll bring this back to the field of information technology. You'll probably be able to make the connection with the amenities or sector you work in. So, the policy—Ron mentioned that there was a framework that defined certain policies.

The policy that defines a Canadian supplier is the policy on prioritizing Canadian suppliers and Canadian content in procurement. There are four main elements, I would say, that define the policy. First, it must be a supplier or company that has a place of business in Canada that is clearly identified by a name, that is accessible during normal business hours, and where that supplier conducts its activities on a permanent basis. It must also be a supplier that is registered for tax purposes. A supplier who pays their taxes in Canada, who maintains their operations in Canada and who employs staff here in the country, in Canada. And another important element, it is a supplier who doesn't plan to subcontract work stipulated in the contract to non-Canadian suppliers in a manner that results in minimal value-added activities being performed within Canada.

So, what this basically means is that it would be a supplier that is not just a front but that actually conducts its activities in Canada and employs people here locally. One last point, perhaps, before considering examples. The policy also tells us that in order to assess whether a supplier is Canadian, the contracting authority may consider the nature of the industry and the sector, and then the geographical location of the supplier.

So, this is going to be an important nuance that we will have to assess through the different acquisition processes, how we apply this in the policy. As you can see, the definition does not establish a Canadian supplier as a supplier that is necessarily of purely Canadian ownership or that is under the control of a purely Canadian entity, what we would call here a maple syrup company, if I may.

So, for example, being a subsidiary of a foreign company that is well established in Canada is an important element for us in information technology because we have a lot of gaps. We work extensively with foreign subsidiaries currently established in Canada to address our information technology needs. For example, in network cloud computing in the different areas I mentioned in my presentation. Then, often, these foreign subsidiaries will bring added value. Investments are being made in Canada. So, the policy was not intended to eliminate or necessarily disadvantage this type of company, but rather to give them incentives to come and bring even more value to Canada. Perhaps, to illustrate the definition concretely, I'll provide four different types of suppliers with whom we have done business in the field of information technology.

I spoke about foreign companies that have a Canadian subsidiary. There are also some in information technology. We do business with certain foreign companies and foreign suppliers who have no presence in Canada. That's a reality. There are certain abilities that we don't have. We're still going do business with those companies. So, they would be disadvantaged by our policy. That would not be defined as a Canadian company. So, we motivate them to come and make investments in Canada and bring value. The second type of company is the one I mentioned, a foreign company with a Canadian subsidiary that creates jobs, that creates value. We want to encourage these companies to come and do more here. And that's what the policy will allow us to do.

The third type of company with whom we do business, this is what we would call resellers or integrators, who are under Canadian control, who are Canadian-owned, and who often work with suppliers from foreign companies. Some of them bring a lot of added value. So, they will do, for example, training, installation in Canada, and configuration of different types.

Then there are others who are just resellers. So, what we want to do—the policy can serve to add value to these suppliers, these integrators. Then the last type of vendor with whom we do business in information technology is Canadian companies that are under Canadian control, that are Canadian owned, and that have local capacity. We have excellent companies in Canada that design and manufacture servers, for example. We don't have many. This is also the case in the cloud computing field. So, what we want to do in support of the policy is give incentives, to stimulate the development of these companies to do more for us, and possibly to export to create even more value.

How we implement the policy will be key to enabling these four different types of contractors and suppliers to increase their ability to help us create value and jobs in Canada. I hope this helped. And again, you should be able to make a connection between the type of company you work with in the technology field, and your different areas of operation. I will leave it at that, Joel.

Joel Heise: Thank you, Pat. We appreciate you clarifying the definition. Clearly, it is not always easy to identify a Canadian supplier. OK. Next question. Scott, what is digital sovereignty and how does the definition of a Canadian supplier support this concept?

Scott Levac: Thank you for the question. To begin with, I think it's important to point out that there are several definitions of digital sovereignty. We can see that suppliers or businesses have their own definitions. Often, they use a definition that promotes their own products. In the media, we see other definitions and, even around the world, different governments have their own definitions. So that's why we created our own definition for digital sovereignty. You can find it in our paper, which is published online, but I think the most important thing is the objectives we have set for digital sovereignty. The first is data protection.

This is important and it already exists, but I think it is perhaps a little more important in the case of digital sovereignty. The second is to maintain the supply of goods and services. We do not want an interruption of these goods and services. It is important for us to ensure the supply of all these technologies. And lastly, perhaps the most important objective for this discussion, is to have economic benefits for Canada.

It is clear that the government is spending a lot of money on technology, and we want these expenses to come back as economic benefits for Canada. So, to answer your question, I find that the definition of Canadian supplier aligns well with the third objective, which was to have economic benefits for Canada.

As has already been said, it requires suppliers to have a presence in Canada, to have a workforce in Canada, to make investments in Canada. So, they support this objective really well. At the same time, this definition is not about ownership or it is a means of staffing. And I think that's quite important too because we want access to the global technology market. Many technologies come from around the world. So it's important that we maintain access to this market, and it also creates investment in Canada. In conclusion, I find that the definition of a Canadian supplier is well aligned with our third goal for sovereignty, which is economic benefits for Canada.

Joel Heise: Thank you, Scott. I have questions and I imagine our participants will have some too. So, we'll get to those when we get to the second part of our panel discussion. That was theme 1. We're going to move now quickly to theme 2 which is about operationalizing the policy. So, more of the implementation aspects or considerations. Ron, I'm going to start with you again, if that's all right. Evaluation is where the rubber hits the road when it comes to implementation of policies within of this policy, within the procurement realm. What does Canadian content entail when a bid is being scored? And for non-specialist procurement officers who might be listening in, how do they distinguish between a middleman vendor and a true Canadian value-added bid?

Ron Cormier: Thanks, Joel, for the question. I think it merits a little bit of attention. So, on the first part of what the Canadian content entails. So, Canadian content in the sense of the policy refers to tangible, measurable domestic economic value that's embedded in a supplier's bid, and it goes well beyond the supplier's mailing address. So, for goods, bids earn points when they're manufactured or processed in Canada, not simply resold by a Canadian distributor. And for services, Canadian content includes the proportion of labour overhead and services that are performed in Canada.

That includes things like any research and development that's done in Canada by people living in Canada, and an engineering support or development that goes into a product design, customization, the creation of new intellectual property or integration work that occurs within Canada. So, the way this is going to be checked, these attestation forms will have to be completed by an offer, in this case a bidder that is bidding on a particular piece of work as part of the submission process. The bid submission process, I should say. One is to confirm eligibility as a Canadian supplier, which is one aspect of how Canadian suppliers can be advantaged in the revised bid evaluation process, and another is to confirm the total Canadian content or value added. So, essentially, when you're looking at bid evaluations, both of those things can apply to the same procurement. So, your eligibility as a Canadian supplier can be valued at up to 10%, then you meet the definition of Canadian vendor as Pat went through a little earlier. And the content, the percentage of Canadian content that is added to that bid can be up to another 25% of the bid evaluation in total. So, in essence, there's a couple of different methodologies that can be chosen for how you evaluate Canadian content.

And it's either a percentage of the total score in a bid evaluation that's used to determine the best value for money solution. Or it can be instead of percentage of the financial portion of that bid evaluation. And there's some nuance to that that procurement officers will work through as they kind of sink their teeth into applying this policy in practice. Then, you asked about middleman, and I think that's a good question. So, how do we define or identify or distinguish who's a middleman and contrast that with a real Canadian value-added bid. So, in this context, a middleman would be suppliers that would be known for things like importing goods that are already fully manufactured abroad, and then, they're only reselling them from a Canadian address.

There's really no Canadian participation other than the retail front, where there is minimal or no Canadian labour integration, customization or aftersales support being provided in Canada by people that reside in Canada. Offers no Canadian research and development, no local production, no intellectual property being developed in Canada. These are all attributes, it might point you to a supplier being a middleman and act as branch plant operations of foreign firms without meaningful domestic value creation.

The contrast that we talk about with genuine Canadian value-added bids would showcase. They'd be things like the goods being manufactured, assembled or significantly processed in Canada. Canadian-based integration, engineering, software development, technical services, even maybe the Help desk. Meaningful Canadian labour contributing to production or delivery of the good or service, Canadian-owned intellectual property, research and development, innovation work and that sort of thing being included in the offer.

So, effectively, the process runs on a trust but verify approach, I would say. So, a lot of this is going to be done with supplier certifications, but there's going to be a mechanism and buyers will be encouraged to periodically check those certifications. So, if there's enough of a check in the balance in the system, the consequence, of course, of not a meeting of being the loss of work and other kind of underperformance measures.

But it's very much a landscape where a contracting authority can ask companies for evidence of any of the stuff. If it's not clear in the bids, it is incumbent upon those suppliers to maintain those records and provide them on demand. And I think, if you look at the list and you look at how the bids are presented, there is a fairly clear contrast between what's a middleman and somebody that is actually a true value-added Canadian supplier. So, maybe, I'll leave it there for the next question.

Joel Heise: Thanks, Ron. That's great. So, becoming clear to me, clear and clear to me as folks speak. For procurement officers, there is a lot of subjectivity in approaching how we classify potential suppliers. So, certainly, a lot of work that folks have to do to get themselves up to speed there and be able to execute their roles in this new context. Ron, given your role in PSPC and procurement branch and the fact that most procurements right now that are going to really be impacted by Buy Canadian policy are going to be procurements that are let through PSPC. I'm going to pick on you with a couple of follow-up questions first, before we move on to other folks. So, firstly…

At this point, what are departments and agencies supposed to do in the context of managing their own procurement processes and collaborating with common service providers?

Ron Cormier: Yes, thank you for the question, Joel. Departments and agencies are encouraged to apply the policy requirements to their purchases, even if the value is below the financial threshold, to stimulate Canadian industry. Departments can obtain policy interpretation advice from the Buy Canadian policy team at PSPC as needed.

And for purchases under the authority of common service providers, departments are expected to communicate with SSC and PSPC from the outset. As the purchasing organization, you will need to consider buying Canadian, and this includes, for example, verifying whether Canadian businesses, including small- and medium-sized enterprises, innovators, and Indigenous businesses, have capabilities they can contribute or whether there are security or supply chain reasons that justify procurement from Canada. They can collaborate with the contracting authority to devise the purchase of materials, expand access for Canadian suppliers, for example, starting oversized contracts, while avoiding continuing or circumventing rules or splitting markets. They should engage the industry from the outset, through requests for information, from industries for example, and communicate clearly with the industry.

They should also develop the assessment method to prioritize Canadian content, in collaboration with the contracting authority. In your statement of work and evaluation plan, if you recognize legitimate Canadian benefits, e.g., performance in cold climate, availability of materials manufactured in Canada, work done in Canada, etc. And, once the policy has been implemented to manage the contract to monitor results, such as the employment of Canadians, subcontracting, materials and innovation, ensuring that the contract requirements for Canadian content are met. Yes, probably. I'll leave it at that for now, Joel.

Joel Heise: Okay, thank you. Okay, since this is a second follow-up question for you. What can business owners and contracting authorities expect under these new policies?

Ron Cormier: Good question. Business owners play a vital role, ensuring that procurement is conducted with integrity, transparency and accountability. They are responsible for delivering clear results and meeting the needs of end users, and for collaborating early and often with the contracting authority. Therefore, throughout the planning, request for submission, evaluation and management of contracts, in order to protect public funds.

So, business owners need to plan early and clearly define procurement objectives, desired outcomes, and how the contract will achieve these. Procurement must also be aligned with government priorities, such as Buy Canadian, and support key socio-economic objectives, for example, accessibility and the environment, Indigenous participation, broader economic interests, and business as a whole.

So, business owners must consider opportunities to support Canadian purchases when planning their purchase and document their decisions. Before launching the invitation to tender, they should work with the contracting authority to analyze the market, estimate costs, develop a statement of work and assessment criteria that are clear. Business owners are responsible for assessing submissions fairly and transparently based on established criteria.

And once the contract is awarded, rigorous contract management is essential. Business owners are responsible for verifying deliverables, tracking costs, quickly resolving contractor performance issues, and documenting lessons learned. They should also monitor that the work is carried out in accordance with Canadian content requirements.

However, the contracting authority has the power to acquire or enter into contracts on behalf of the Government of Canada. This could involve procurement specialists within your organization around the government, or PSPC for higher-value purchases that exceed the authority delegated to government departments. With respect to the Canadian procurement policy, the contracting authority is responsible for determining whether a Canadian procurement policy applies; for example, directing industry mobilization activities, developing the request for proposals including terms and conditions, administering the request for submission process, answering industry questions on the application of the policy and possibly obtaining clarifications regarding Canadian procurement attestations provided by bidders, ensuring that the contract to be awarded includes the appropriate terms including those relating to Canadian content, requesting documentation on the origin of materials and resources in the case of Canadian content attestations from the contractor and also managing compliance issues if they are going to apply. Then, I think that's, for the most part, the difference between the two. So, back to you, Joel.

Joel Heise: Thank you, Ron. And, as the owner of the Directive on the Management of Procurement, we at OCG you would like to thank you for helping make that distinction clear. This is a good opportunity for me to- I apologize because I cannot see the chat that's associated with the- that is going to the participants here. But we do have a number of links that we will drop into the chat. And I will point to one of those, there's a contracting policy notice 25 pardon me, 2025-7, which will be linked in there. And you'll see in that contracting policy, notice that we highlight the changes that have made to our directive to reflect the respective roles of business owners and contracting authorities when it's right in the context of the Buy Canadian policy. So, thank you, Ron.

Next question, Pat, I'm going to pose this one to you, sir. While important to support Canadian economic interests, adding Buy Canadian attestations and scoring weights may add a layer of complexity to procurements. Do you foresee this impacting procurement timelines, particularly for critical IT infrastructure? And if so, how might that be mitigated- pardon me- managed to mitigate potential delays?

Patrick Comtois: Yeah. Thanks Joel. Not at all. I don't foresee any issues, obviously. I'm joking. I think Ron and I was listening to Ron in the last few questions and how smooth it was in explaining the policy and make it feel very, very smooth, very clear. And it's really well documented. That said, I think it's important. Well, be honest with ourselves and recognize that that implementing new policy always has some impact on complexity and timelines. And I'd suggest maybe three elements that we probably want to want to focus on in terms of learning and how we'll deal with that timeline effect.

The first part is probably for all of us, the procurement community, the business owner community is everything around the basic learning. And again, back to how Ron explained this, Joel, you mentioned you're going to put some links. Everybody has access to the policy, so there's going to be a learning curve initially for us to get up to speed on this and be able to use to apply it as it is described including and that part of this will be training colleagues from PSPC implementing different types of tools, templates, clauses, the elements to the evaluation process, the verification of supplier compliance and other related informal enablers from the policy. So, there's going to be a learning curve there for sure which could have some impact on timelines.

The second piece is also IT related with the learning, but it's then how we apply the policy based on our respective sector and domain and learn to use some of the flexibility to our advantage to achieve the objective of the policy, which is to bring more value and increase the value that's brought to the economy, increase the supplier ecosystem within each of our domains to ensure that we get, at the end of the day, the right goods and services, the good quality at a good price, but ensure again we achieve the socioeconomic benefits that we're looking for, I should say the economic benefit. So, learning to use the policy basically along the way.

And the third element that's really going to be important to consider is our vendor community, our supplier community. We should expect many questions and even challenges from the vendor community for the acquisition subject to the policy application. We should anticipate needing more engagement sessions with the vendor, more discussion with the suppliers. We should also ensure, especially initially as we learn, bringing our legal adviser and being more diligent on how we apply it, we need to recognize the supplier community will also need to learn how to work with this policy. And we should expect that not everybody or every supplier will have the same level of comfort and will have the same level of enthusiasm. We've already had engagement with a number of vendors and many of them are very, very pleased with the policy. Others not necessarily as much, and lack of understanding. And as we implement and we learn lessons, we will learn, but also industry will learn to work with this.

So, all of this to say these elements will follow their course, will get better and faster with time and get experience at using and having a pattern of how we apply the policy. Now, the question, Joel, you asked also, how will this impact timelines for delivery of goods and services for critical infrastructure. There's probably a timeline concerns if we don't, if we're not proactive and don't do anything. So, planning is going to be critical. So, to my colleagues online on the business owner community, we will have to ensure that discussions on new procurement and discussion on renewal happen earlier and we have sustained engagement on these. On the IT side at Shared Services Canada, we've already started to work on diversifying. So, being proactive while we have ongoing contracts to support critical infrastructure, to also work on parallel path and diversification, that's going to be important.

I think Ron talked about the exception process at the start. It's certainly a consideration to ensure that we maintain our critical infrastructure healthy. But it's not something that we should abuse, and there's a level of complexity with the exception process and for the right reason. So, again, planning and engagement is going to be key.

So, in a nutshell, will there be a timeline impact? Yes, and more initially. But can we work through this to ensure critical services and goods are not impacted? Absolutely. And it'll be a collaboration effort. So, I'll stop here, Joel, on that question.

Joel Heise: Excellent. Thank you, Pat. I'd be interested in hearing potentially when we get to the Q&A period, more about what you're hearing from suppliers. It would be interesting insight for sure. Barb, last question of this theme to you. How does the Canadian supplier definition align with the existing criteria for Innovative Solutions Canada? And you talked a little bit off the top about what your program was, but if you want to dive into to a further explanation, happy to hear it here.

Barbara Gibbon: Yeah, for sure, thanks. So, I mean, as I noted off the top, Innovative Solutions Canada is a Canadian, Buy Canadian program, right? Like it is an innovation program and it looks to help support Canadian companies. And in fact, some of what Pat was just talking about, about trying to ensure that we have Canadian suppliers available is exactly what Innovative Solutions Canada was created to do. Right? We have the ability to work with Canadian companies and support them, primarily SMEs, along their innovation journey from research and development through to testing prototypes and then to commercializing their innovative solutions. We support the Buy Canadian objectives by working to increase the availability and maturity of Canadian developed solutions so that they can considered in future procurement processes.

And, you know, that fits really well with the conversation that we're just having here right now. Since the program launched in 2017. Just to give you a little bit of background, we work with both grants and contracts to support development and testing we've done over 1,400 projects with Canadian companies through the program, valued at over $825 million, and these have supported strategic areas like defence and dual-use, quantum, AI and digitalization.

We're also uniquely positioned to support departments in implementing the Buy Canadian policy because we do have this ability to do calls for solutions to help develop the Canadian ecosystem so that where we think we may have a gap in what Canadian companies can address, we can work through Innovative Solutions Canada to help Canadian companies build that capacity over the coming years.

For several years now, the program has consisted in identifying Canadian businesses, which gives us practical experience in defining and recognizing Canadian suppliers.

Under our current intake framework just building off of that the areas that the patent run I've talked about, our program and the way that we have looked at Canadian companies really does align fairly strongly with the new definitions of both Canadian suppliers and then also Canadian content that are being put forward.

So, we are definitely looking for that part of our application process to continue and we'll continue to refine and review to ensure alignment as we go forward. We look at both their status as a Canadian offeror, the use of Canadian content, which is really important in innovation, particularly if companies are working with other products and bringing them along in an ecosystem.

We've seen onshoring of manufacturing here into Canada as a result of the program where a company wanted to work with another company's technology and to meet the program's Canadian content requirements, that content had to shift to manufacturing in Canada, for example. And we look at, you know, the usual areas of Canadian ownership and presence in Canada. So, I think overall we feel that, you know, we've got a lot of experience in working in the areas that this this policy will be focusing on and we'll continue to work with our colleagues as all of this moves forward.

Joel Heise: Thanks Barb. That's it for our second theme we'll move to the third. Before we do, I'll just provide a quick reminder to participants in the top right part of your screen. You'll see a bubble. You can use that icon to submit questions to the moderator for the Q&A session. That's to follow the panel discussion. So, if you haven't already been doing that and you have questions that you're starting to accumulate, please do feel free to add them and we'll try to get as many as we can in the second hour of our discussion.

On to theme three. So, strategic integration, innovation, sovereignty and SMEs. So, continuing on some of the themes that we've already discussed a little bit, but we're going to do a little bit of a deeper dive. Scott, I'm going to pose the first question to you, sir. OCIO recently published a White Paper on digital sovereignty, which you had mentioned earlier. How do these procurement policies support the goal of owning the tools and rules? Specifically, does the new definition of Canadian supplier help Canada maintain autonomy over its data and infrastructure? So that's, data sovereignty has been an issue for quite some time, but we're kind of getting a new angle on it here with Buy Canada. Over to you.

Scott Levac: Yeah, thanks for the question. I think you know maybe to build a bit on my previous answer, you know, when we looked at again, digital sovereignty, we established three outcomes; protection of data, maintaining supply to those goods and services and the economic benefits that Canada gets. And so, I think, again, you know that the definition of Canadian key supplier does a great job for that third goal of economic benefits. I think though for the first one around protection of data and the second one around maintaining supply, we have to look at other mechanisms. And those mechanisms exist today. We just may not have used them, you know, for these specific types of threats. So, maybe I'll just back up a bit and, you know, remind everyone when we deliver a service or a program in the Government of Canada, it typically has a large digital component to it. It's very unusual that we deliver something today that doesn't have technology behind it. And we've become very dependent on technology to get the efficiencies around delivery. Canadians expect that, they want a digital experience. But that technology requires a global supply chain. You know, if I were to pop open a server, or any other piece of equipment, you would see parts from all over the world that are in there to get to that. Right?

And so, I think the main threat that we worry about when we talk about digital sovereignty is that supply chain being used against us as leverage, that somehow it gets misused and we become a victim of that supply chain. So, the threats that we look at, again, going back to the protection of data, we have mechanisms today, so we talked about the role, the business owner part. What they do is they categorize the data that's being looked at, they apply the appropriate security controls. What's important in that is the risk mitigations are proportional to the risks, and I'll come back to that. For the maintenance of supply, we use business continuity planning today, right?

We worry about interruption. And typically, we've always thought about interruption being a tornado, an earthquake. But now we also have to think about the interruption of supply. So, we have a business continuity methodology. We can assess the risks around it and apply appropriate mitigations. The reason I talk about proportionality in there is because we have to be careful that we don't try to over mitigate the risks in where we introduce new risks. And what I mean by that is often to get increased sovereignty mitigations, we have to give up something else. Either we're shrinking the size of market that's available or, we're introducing new costs. And so, the mitigations, you know, going back to the protection of data, that could be things like encryption, encryption, that's solely under our control, that could be mechanisms like confidential computing, in the terms of, you know, the business continuity we may choose to stockpile goods so that we have a strategic reserve. We may want to diversify our suppliers. So, diversification, of course, is important. And in case of services, you know, we're quite sensitive to a lot of online services. We've moved to as a service model in IT, so cloud computing has become quite big. And so, we have concerns there around interruption as well.

And so that might mean in some cases we may reduce commercial entities' role in delivering those services. And for an example, we do that today in our secret fabric, in our secret network, right? The government that- those services are under the control of the Government of Canada. Yes, we use maybe foreign supply servers and software, but the operations are under our control. Right? But that has trade offs to it. If you are a user of the secret network, you realize that you get a very different user experience than the one that you have on your day-to-day usage. Right? It looks like a 20-year-old technology experience. It moves at a different pace. It has lower functionality. So, again, the Canadian supplier helps us from an economic point of view. For those two other objectives, we have to turn to security assessments and we have to turn to business continuity planning and we have to make sure the mitigations that we apply are proportional to the risk, because mitigations have trade-offs. Often, we can't get it all. There are no zero-risk scenarios. So, it's important for business owners to trade off those mitigations and risks.

Joel Heise: Thanks Scott. Super interesting. I have more questions, but I'll move to Barb for now. Barb, last question of this theme goes to you.

Can you provide an overview of the Innovative Solutions Canada program and the reasons why it is considered a key driver of the policy implementation? How can departments leverage this to achieve their own objectives in the policy framework?

Barbara Gibbon: Thank you, Joel. As I said, the Innovative Solutions Canada program aims to help departments adopt Canadian solutions more quickly and increase procurement opportunities for Canadian industry. We are also strengthening Canada's technology sectors and the country's economic resilience. The program connects departments with innovations designed in Canada, which puts us in a unique position to support departments in implementing the Buy Canadian policy.

And in the second part of your question, you asked about how departments can leverage the program. So, there's a few ways we can do this. To start with, and maybe the most straightforward is that Innovative Solutions Canada has a strong and growing pipeline of qualified Canadian technologies that are available for testing now and also with technologies available for commercial procurement.

We have over 60 commercially ready innovations that are uniquely Canadian, that are available for procurement and adoption under our pathway to commercialization. These include quantum technologies, AI technologies. We have an AI driven platform that helps inspect federal assets. We have data analytics platforms, speech translation tools and portable intelligence systems, among many other technologies. We also work with departments. So, as I noted earlier, if you're if you have an area where you know, you'll need that technology and you're looking for a Canadian solution, we can work with you to develop a solution-based call to go out to Canadian companies to support the development and then prototype testing of these technologies so we can work with you to address your needs.

We can provide through our team and in collaboration with our partners over at the PSPC and Ron's team. We can provide assistance through the program and how to leverage it to meet your mandate needs and as I noted, we can connect you to innovations that are already in our roster that have been tested and that are available for additional tests if you're looking for a Canadian solution. So, there's a number of ways you can reach out to us and we'll be happy to follow up and see what we can do.

Joel Heise: Thanks very much, Barb. Folks, I'm going to move quickly to the fourth thing. Cognizant of time here. I want to leave some time for questions. So, just a note to our panelists to try and keep the remaining responses brief so that we can move to. Q&As. Ron, I'm going to pose the first question to you and theme is about risk results and sort of the more, the larger global context. We've seen amendments recently to the CITT procurement inquiry regulations. What are these and how do these support the Buy Canadian objectives?

Ron Cormier: Yeah, so thanks for that, Joel. I think the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for those that maybe don't know the CITT, they are a body that forms part of Canada's, I'll say recourse mechanism landscape against the obligations that Canada has to its trade partners in the international order when it comes to entering into bilateral and mutually binding trade agreements with various countries around the world.

CITT, in effect, is a body where suppliers can go and can allege that there's been an unfair trade practice that has disadvantaged them in a procurement, in many cases. The CITT body, if they should decide to hear a complaint, because they don't necessarily hear every complaint that they receive, there's a process where both Canada and that supplier make representations to that body. It's quasi judicial in nature and the results of that that look at a particular complaint and the adjudication of it are binding on the Government of Canada. So, in that sense, it's very judicial like it is a venue that most procurement officers and contracting authorities around government pay close attention to because it's the avenue of first recourse if we do something that suppliers feel is unfair and it can absolutely have repercussions on procurement services that we deliver to our clients in making sure that we can give them a contract that'll withstand that scrutiny. When it comes to the CITT, basically it is governed by a series of regulations and they are the CITT procurement inquiry regulations, as you mentioned, and they were recently changed, I think in November was the time frame. So, those changes, although the policy suite to run Buy Canadian was released after those changes, the I'll say the consideration or contemplation of the changes the CITT regulations foresaw the Buy Canadian policy, they were part of that modernization package that went into the regulatory changes. And because of that the government thought to include in the new CITT regulations to include a blanket exception for the Buy Canadian policy.

So, in other words, if a supplier were to make a complaint based around the application of, or invocation of the Buy Canadian policy, CITT is not a body that can hear the complaint on that basis. You know, suppliers can make a complaint to the CITT about any number of issues on a on a procurement where the Buy Canadian policy applies, but not specifically on the application of the policy itself or that that procurement falls under the policy.

So, what that would mean is, for example, they would not hear a complaint, they would not agree to hear a complaint or accept that as a recourse avenue for measures that restrict participation to Canadian suppliers or that favour Canadian suppliers. They wouldn't be able to complain that the requirements that supplied goods or services must be Canadian or that they favour Canadian goods to services.

They can't hear a complaint on the basis that requirements favour the use of Canadian materials or Canadian subcontractors. They will not hear complaints that bids must provide benefit for Canada or contain a minimum Canadian value added, or favour bids based on these factors, and they can't hear a complaint based on restrictions that limit participation to small businesses. They also can't challenge definitions. So, the definitions in the policy suite for Canadian supplier, Canadian good, Canadian material, subcontractor, benefit the Canadian, Canadian value added, and so on. These are not reviewable by the CITT because of the regulatory changes. So, it prevents, in effect, suppliers from using the complaint process to attack Canadian preference rules and ensures that procurement officers can apply the policy without the risk of CITT reversing that decision or reversing an aspect of the procurement that has to do with the calling up of that specific policy.

It's important to note, though, it doesn't exempt the procurement from CITT oversight. So, on aspects of that procurement that are challengeable, that don't necessarily relate to the Buy Canadian policy might relate to something else like the basis of selection or, you know, how a bid evaluation was conducted or something of that nature. They can still be brought to the CITT. It's just specifically taking off the table that the nature and basis of that complaint would be that the Canadian, Buy Canadian policy in all its kind of subcomponents were created and applied to that procurement.

Joel Heise: Thank you Ron. Barb, last question of this theme to you, how will we know if the policy is working? What specific metrics are being tracked?

Barbara Gibbon: I mean, I think for this one, I'll take a little bit of a step backwards. You know, clearly across all the Buy Canadian works, the key metric will be whether Canadian companies, including SMEs, are getting contracts with the government. I think, though, this is about more than that. Right? Like, you know, putting on my ISED hat where we're doing this because we want to support the Canadian ecosystem, we want Canadian companies to be growing and scaling and we know that one of the key levers to help Canadian companies grow is to give them access to federal government contracts.

So, you know, maybe if I look at it in terms of how our program reviews, when we are working with Canadian companies, we look, for example, at whether they are getting follow-on contract. We look at whether they are commercializing their products because we do work in the R&D space, whether it's creating Canadian IP, and we look at whether they're growing their markets, whether they're creating jobs, whether they are generating additional revenue, and then also fundamentally whether they're able to expand into export markets.

So, I think kind of this suite of, you know, how we've traditionally looked at innovation programing will be kind of the bigger and underlying factors of success beyond, you know, the initial measures of, are we getting contracts into these Canadian companies? But definitely that just measuring the contracts will be a really important step to be monitoring and to look whether we are seeing success in the Buy Canadian policy overall.

And then, you know, from a departmental perspective, it'll be whether as Canadian public servants, we're able to meet our needs by accessing Canadian suppliers and whether we're able to deliver our mandates using homegrown technologies.

Joel Heise: Thanks, Barb. With that, I'm going to pose one final question. The same question to each panelist, and then we'll move to the Q&A portion of the event. So, we'll maybe follow the same order that we did to introduce ourselves. Ron, I believe we started with you. So, the question is, given this has been a lot of information to digest, what is one key takeaway you want the audience to remember from this session with respect to implementation of the Buy Canadian policy, from your perspectives?

Ron Cormier: Yeah, thanks, Joel. I appreciate the opportunity to go first. So, I think if I was to highlight anything, I would say that the key to successful Buy Canadian implementation is going to be early planning and close collaboration between your business owners and your contracting authorities, and that's a partnership that's going to be so key in making this a successful endeavour. It can't be added on later by one party or the other as an afterthought. It has to be built into the strategy from the start and early choices around things like requirements, industry engagement, evaluation, design, these are going to determine whether Canadian suppliers can meaningfully participate. If you plan early, the policy, I get that it's a hill to climb to adopt new things and navigate that change management. But if you plan for it early, it becomes more natural and a lot less difficult, if all the stakeholders, kind of share the same vision and are working on it from the onset. So, maybe I would- I'll pass to my colleagues now, since you allowed me to pick a low hanging fruit.

Joel Heise: Thank you. It's good. Good message. Just a good takeaway, Barb, to you.

Barbara Gibbon: I mean, I think building off of what Ron said I think, you know, as you're doing your planning, one area I would encourage people to keep in mind is you know, check in with Innovative Solutions Canada. We might even have a Canadian technology, a Canadian company you know already tested that you can, you know, leverage the program and move with, you know, sometimes fairly quickly as well if we already have it in our in our lists. So just, you know, happy to engage and looking forward to seeing if we can help some of the departments as they navigate this.

Joel Heise: That's a great point, Barb. Thank you. Pat, to you.

Patrick Comtois: Yes, I will add a little to what my colleagues have said. Then, Joel, I'm going to ask you a question. I may have three, but I'm going to be as quick as possible. The first point, much like Ron mentioned, is the commitment not only between business owners or contracting authorities, but also between colleagues; we will have to learn from this collectively. So, the collaboration that will take place is important for the implementation of this policy. One point Barb mentioned in another question, data collection, gathering information to see if the policy is achieving its objectives, is going to be really important to inform the evolution of the policy. If adjustments are needed in the future, I think we need to put in place this mechanism of collecting data, lessons learned, and ensuring that we achieve the objectives. Then, I would say, the third super important point, which would be more related to the mission or vision of the policy. We talked a little earlier about complexity, perhaps about impacts over time. So, then it's easy to see the challenges associated with the policy. I think I'm inviting everyone to look at the policy from a different angle, and then to see the positive side. The policy for Canada, putting this in place, is something we probably should have done in the first place. This is positive for the economy, for the community, and for Canadians. So, if we focus on this vision, it will be easier for everyone to put this together. Thank you, Joel.

Joel Heise: Excellent, thank you. Scott, last word to you.

Scott Levac: Just one thing. Okay, so I guess I'm speaking to the business owners out there, those who are setting the requirement for their procurement. And maybe a bit of a word of caution. Digital sovereignty is discussed a lot right now, and we see a lot of suppliers in the market who are promoting their sovereign capabilities. And I think it's created kind of a confusion out there as to how best mitigate sovereignty threats. I'd say, you know, question that marketing. Be skeptical. No disrespect to our suppliers. Fall back on our risk assessment frameworks that we have today for security, for business continuity planning, and make sure that you're doing that in a very rational way and you're mitigating the risks in a way that are proportional. Yeah, your mitigations are proportional to the risks, right? Remember each requirement that you state has a cost, it has a repercussion in terms of potentially reducing market availability, reducing the feature set that you get. So, that balance is important and rest on those risk assessment and risk mitigation frameworks that we have.

Joel Heise: Thank you. It makes me think back to my opening remarks about our procurement folks being defenders of our sovereignty. And I do think that is true to a large extent. And you made the point a little bit there, Scott. That concludes panel discussion component of our session here, folks. I'm going to move now to the Q&A session. Ron, Pat, I'm going to pose the first question to you as representatives of our common service providers. So, feel free to decide how you want to respond or in what order.

Will the policy lead to an increased price for the government? How does it contribute to the concept of resource optimization, which does not always necessarily correspond to the lowest price?

Ron Cormier: Perhaps I can start, Pat, if you don't mind not too much.

Patrick Comtois: Yes, go ahead Ron. Absolutely.

Ron Cormier: In my opinion, it is anticipated that the implementation of the policy may in some cases lead to an increase in prices. This risk, in my opinion, is inherent in the inclusion of socio-economic criteria in general, perhaps environmental criteria or other related matters in procurement processes. So, the concept of best value, value I meant, applies in this case here. So, this requires that the supply achieves an optimal balance between costs and results, including socio-economic impacts. An exemption or exception of the policy may be requested, if it is available or if it is expected that costs will increase by more than 25%, or if no Canadian capacity exists. This makes it possible to avoid excessive price increases. But anyway, I know it should be exceptional. So, the government considered that yes, it will probably cost a little bit more. Then, it had to be considered at the political level before the policy was released. So, to mention the concept of best value applies in this case. So, I didn't start with other factors or points of view to add, but maybe I'll leave that to you.

Patrick Comtois: Okay. Thank you, Ron. I think you have touched on the main points. Perhaps I would add, as you say, the government planned for this when they put the policy in place, and then with the change we've recently experienced due to the geopolitical environment, we've seen many Canadians who have chosen to pay a little more to encourage the Canadian economy, whether at the grocery store or elsewhere. Then, it's a bit... it's not different in that respect. The idea is to support our economy, which will have long-term benefits. So, the concept of value, of best value, as Ron explained, is important. I would say perhaps the only other point to try to mitigate as much as possible this risk of having higher costs is to ensure as best we can that we maintain a competitive environment. And that is why these discussions between the technical authorities, if I may, and the contractual authorities happen early. Something to analyze is, can we break down or separate the needs into several parts? The more you group needs together, the more you limit the competitive environment. I'm not saying that we can do this in every case, but it's the kind of analysis we want to do to ensure that we maintain a competitive environment in applying the policy. Then, lastly, perhaps, I'll return to my point regarding data collection. Barb mentioned it. It's going to be really important to make sure that we collect this data so that we can, in a year, for example, assess whether we're going to pay more, what the added value was, and so on. I will leave it at that.

Joel Heise: Thank you. Very interesting thank you very much. I'm going to move quickly so we can get as many questions in as possible. Scott, this one is for you TBS' November White Paper defined digital sovereignty as the ability of the federal government to exercise autonomy over its digital infrastructure, data and intellectual property. Can TB, Treasury Board, address the link between sovereignty and data/IP?

Scott Levac: Yeah, I think so. So, I think, you know, we've seen this trend for a while, but it's really heightened in the era of AI where data is being used to build products and those products are sold and there's obviously revenue there and economic growth and so, we see a lot of people, they go into social media, they click on their favourites, they look at an advertisement, they connect with friends. All of that feeds an algorithm. That algorithm is used for advertising, that creates revenue and there's huge companies that that profit from that, right? Obviously, we can't stop people, in terms of Canadians, in terms of their choices around social media. But we do commit our data to systems and those systems are quite often operated by a commercial supplier and increasingly so. So, the protection of that data and making sure that that data is under our control and under our rules is critical. We don't want to make sure they're not either inadvertently or specifically reusing our behaviours, our data to create new products and profit off that products. We want to be able to choose some of that, right? So, it kind of unites the two objectives between confidentiality of data and economic benefits. We see that data and our human usage is being used to create large enterprises and profits, and we want to make sure those benefits are able to stay in Canada to a degree. So, that's really the link that we were trying to achieve around, you know, data and intellectual property.

Joel Heise: Thanks, Scott. Next question is for you, Pat. And it has, I think, a bit of a tie in here. Before I ask, I'll just say, folks, feel free to ask questions in the official language of your choice we'll respond in either. Pat, is the federal working to move away from American technology companies such as Microsoft, as France has recently done, for sovereignty reasons?

Patrick Comtois: Excellent question. Thanks for whoever asked the question. So, I will, I guess I'll go back to I mentioned before. There is already work ongoing, I was talking about this in the context of planning. There's a lot of work on going at Shared Services Canada in collaboration with our colleagues from Treasury Board Secretariat, OCIO, and other key stakeholders within the Government of Canada to diversify. So, there's a recognition within the government at the political level as well that we are too dependent in some cases in foreign vendors. And that's one of the reasons why this this policy was put in place. None of this, however, will happen overnight. I think the reference here is Microsoft. The suit, that Microsoft is providing right now actually provide a significant number of tools that are integrated. We're supporting somewhere between 500,000 and 600,000 users across the Government of Canada. It's a significant undertaking to move away from something like this. All that to say, though, there is work ongoing to look at these and Microsoft is one case, but there are a number of other ones. I was referring just in the previous question about something like breaking down the requirement. If we have a suite that currently supports 30, 40, 50 different types of tools, of capabilities, how can we look at ways to break this down into smaller capabilities and then look also at the impact of doing this on price, on usability, on function, on security? Scott's probably watching me and making sure I don't forget security in that answer. So, those are important things. I would add one more element and maybe one example of what we have been doing on the cloud front. So, on the cloud front, we are today, mostly working and I'd say today would even say today we've already started to diversify on cloud. I used to be very focused and dependent on large U.S. hyperscalers with one cloud vehicles. Well, we're now putting in place a cloud procurement ecosystem where we're looking at segregating the functions to allow exactly this and support Canadian vendors and small and medium Canadian vendors to enter the cloud market and allow them to evolve and develop. We've kicked off a sovereign cloud procurement process that's ongoing, which is focused exactly on Canadian vendors. We have a private cloud initiative as well. So, all that to say the answer is yes, but these things won't happen overnight. It's going to take time.

Joel Heise: Merci Pat. Ron, next question to you. Given the exclusions like sensitive operations are determined by the client department based on their specific requirements, how should the contracting authority effectively apply its challenge function in this context?

Ron Cormier: Yeah, thanks, Joel. I think that's an important one to talk about. So, this is something that contracting authorities struggle with, not just about this, but about a variety of things when it comes to procurement. We have business owners or some people, you know, refer to their partners as technical authorities around government, depending on where you sit and the nomenclature you're using. And their measure of success is program delivery and speed to getting to that program delivery and contracting authorities work on a daily basis with that community to try and achieve best value, including that through that lens of things like socioeconomic principles and contracts and weigh that off against delivery. So, that part of it is really not new and they encounter this on a regular basis. I would say that there's a few considerations to think about when this comes up. So, one of them and pragmatically, it should not make a difference in theory, but pragmatically it does. Where is the contracting authority? So, in many cases, the procurement officer that's serving a given client may not actually be the contracting authority that might be at Shared Services Canada or PSPC, and that can give a degree of separation and allow for a conversation of a different nature with the business owner about what the constraints might be in terms of the flexibility that they might have. But in the cases where the contracting authority and the business owner are in the same organization and working towards the same objectives and goals. I guess the guideposts I'd give are I mean, the policy is really designed that individual departments are going to apply it within the framework of governance, within their departments if they're operating within their own authorities. But you need to recognize that there's a lot of scrutiny that's being put on the Buy Canadian objectives, the very publicly announced intentions of the government. And you need to have it front of mind that that scrutiny isn't just from your internal audit team at your department. It's not just from PSPC or Shared Services Canada looking at the policy as, a common service provider and kind of a third-party organization. A lot of the scrutiny is going to come from other suppliers and members of the public. So, when these things get put in place, whether they're intentionally public or not on the proactive disclosure sites, other suppliers in that industry, word gets around. They will know if you're not applying the policy on something where there's a Canadian supplier that could do it and they will let you know and they'll let your deputy know and they'll let your minister know. We're seeing that already in ongoing procurements where Canadian suppliers are very vocally and actively reaching out and trying to press for access to the types of procurements that fall under this policy. And the very last thing you want as a sensitive requirement, as an example, being on the front page of the Globe and Mail because another company has complained in a public venue or to have to go up and brief your minister on why you're not executing the will of Cabinet. So, if you have to make an exception because of something around the sensitive operations nature or any of the other possible exceptions that are out there to the policy, I would really recommend that those decisions be taken at an appropriately senior level within the department, so that if that of scrutiny lands, there's been a careful consideration of the policy and that those decisions have been made at an appropriately accountable level. And when I say appropriately accountable level, I would say executive, not below that, because that's the kind of scrutiny that's going to come forward. If you do something that the public or the industry feels is kind of out of step with the expectations of the government.

Joel Heise: Thank you. Thank you, Ron. And I think just to build off of that, I think a shameless plug for our directive like I think some of the things that you outlined, Ron, are good examples of why it's so important to ensure that, and this is always the case, but it's magnified with Buy Canadian. But we need to be documenting the procurement decisions that we make as we work through a file and this was certainly part of it. Barb, I'm going to turn to you for the next question. For Canadian suppliers who do not have the capacity or who have not developed the technical innovations to meet our needs, will new government funds and programs be available to help them develop their capacities?

Barbara Gibbon: Yeah, I mean, it's a great question. I think that is part of exactly why Innovative Solutions Canada exists. You know, as I talked about we are able to support the developments and then the testing of the prototypes. The program, just to maybe give a little more context in it, we use both grants and contracts. So, depending on kind of the ultimate outcome of the investment, we have a fairly flexible ways that we can support Canadian companies. And of course, we're not alone in the innovation suite of programing. There's the whole range programs that do exist to support development of Canadian innovations, whether that's, programs by the NRC, the global innovation clusters. We have the Strategic Response Fund. So, there's a whole suite of innovation and business support programing that that can be leveraged where appropriate to help advance these goals. And I think, you know, it will really just depend on, you know, working to identify what those needs are. For example, just within ISC we do have the ability to issue either grants or contracts to support both the concept development and then the further development up to a prototype stage of a new technology. If a department identifies that they need it and the program was identified in the last budget for a little bit of additional funding. So, we can use, we work basically through a combination of either our own funding within the program or through departments bringing funding to leverage to be able to do the work. So, there are some funds available. But you know, obviously that will need some planning and advanced work as well.

Joel Heise: Super. Thank you, Barb. Pat, next question to you. In French. Regarding the acquisition of IT infrastructure, given that the SSC negotiates the contract in the name of the GC, will the SSC ensure that the supplier carries out substantial value-added activities in Canada? Will this requirement be included in the SSC contracts?

Patrick Comtois: Yes, thank you for the question. That's a difficult question. It's not an easy question to answer and I might start by saying I don't remember if Ron mentioned it, but the policy mainly applies to competitive contracts. So, there was a logic behind that, I would say, because normally, when we go with contracts that are not competitive, it is because there is a certain justification. There are fewer options, I would say. So, all this to say, the answer has two parts. In non-competitive contracts, and we do this regularly, even in business contracts, we maximize the possibility of including needs to add socio-economic value. So, we will have discussions with the vendors who have negotiated about the capacity to support Indigenous vendors and communities. More and more, we are having discussions with vendors about sustainable, and therefore environmentally friendly, solutions. Solutions that are accessible by default, for example. Furthermore, addressing socio-economic needs will continue to be an important element in our negotiations. The extent to which we are able to force solutions during negotiations where we use technology, from Canadian vendors, these are things that will become a big challenge for us. Then definitely, it's going to become a priority. I would tell you… and obviously, when we negotiate these things, it is in the contract and we make sure that it is implemented. I would also mention the other element in relation to that question. The vendors with whom we have sole source business contracts understand very clearly the situation we are in, especially in terms of digital sovereignty. And we see a lot of sellers increasingly developing corporate strategies, entering into partnerships with Canadian companies because they want to be competitive, to position themselves to offer Canada sovereign solutions, solutions where they bring added value to our economy. So, there is a bit, indirectly through the policy, we are providing these vendors with incentives to already position themselves. Secondly, I also spoke about diversification. So, we are increasingly trying to move away from sole source contracts and position ourselves to be able to compete. Then of course, when we are competing, the needs are obviously included in the contract. And I believe that Ron mentioned this, there is a need for contracting authorities during the contract to ensure that we work with our clients so that the vendor delivers according to the needs, and according to what the vendor has committed to deliver for economic needs as well as other needs. So, yes, it will be included in the contract in that situation. I'll stop here, Joel; I hope that answers your question.

Joel Heise: Thank you, Pat. Ron, over to you. Are there any recourse mechanisms for suppliers who do not comply with the policy or who provide false attestations regarding Canadian goods or services?

Ron Cormier: Yes, thank you for the question, Joel. Then, I would say that yes, there are recourse mechanisms that can be used, but I would like to step back a little, and then talk a little about the design of the contracts that we're going to release. So, it is worth it that, depending on the experiences we'll have in the coming months, there will be different tactics that will be tried, and then lessons that will be learned through roles in the contracts in real life. From the outset, when drafting contracts, it's where we can consider financial consequences, for example, if there are problems with the application of the policy. Then also, I would say that if we see that it is going to happen in a contract, yes, there are false attestations or even if the supplier tries to deliver the amount of Canadian content that was in the contract, and then cannot do so, the first step is probably to have a dialogue with our suppliers to find out why they cannot deliver. Are there any remedies, or other changes to the contract that can be considered to increase the level of Canadian content that may be deliverable under the contract content that is generally more deliverable? But otherwise, there are other options we can look at. For example, the most we could do would be to terminate the contract. So, it's always an option if the content of a contract is not delivered; we can terminate it for cause. And in that case, the supplier performance management policy will apply. Then, there are consequences that are quite harsh in this case. This could, for example, limit the number of contracts that this supplier will be able to have with the government in the future. Also, I would say that if we have questions about this, because it is new, I probably already mentioned this, perhaps in the dialogue at the beginning of the meeting. But if there are any questions about that, the PSPC's Buy Canadian policy team is also available to provide advice and also to work with the contracting authorities and the rest of the clients we have around the government to navigate whether it will happen. It is not necessarily the case that we will terminate the contracts. There are other measures that may perhaps be considered on a case-by-case basis. Yes, if you have any questions, feel free to contact the policy team, and they can help you. If you are not also a contracting authority, contact your contracting authority as soon as you know that yes, there is a problem with the supplier and the delivery, then they can work with you to ensure that it is resolved or perhaps, if it is worth it, can be considered terminated, for example.

Joel Heise: Thank you. Thanks Ron, good answer.

Barb to you next. How can we ensure that we are investing in domestic innovation that hold the greatest value to Canada while avoiding reinventing the wheel by investing in areas we're already too far behind in? I think, some subjectivity there with respect to what holds the greatest value to Canada. But over to you.

Barbara Gibbon: Yeah. Thanks for the question. I mean, I think if I had the complete and you know perfect answer to that, that would be amazing, right? Like this is the million dollar question. I think though, you know, if we look at it in the context of I Canadian, part of what we're trying to do is make sure that we're supporting the development of companies in areas that the federal government wants to buy and, you know, maybe other levels of government as well. So, I think that, you know, that we can work and make really good investments to support a strong ecosystem. And those companies, if we want to buy, often other organizations want to buy, often other governments want to buy. So, there's you know, there are real opportunities for growth and for building domestic industries here, in a way that that we can leverage. And, you know, sometimes if we try to get it perfect, that that can prevent us from doing things that are really good. So, I think we've got lots of opportunities here. But, you know, we also do have the ability to support, you know, some real cutting-edge innovations, Innovative Solutions Canada, among some of the other innovation programs. You know, we're making real strides in, you know, developing a strong quantum industry in Canada and indeed one that the world is looking at. You know, we're world leaders in many areas. And one of the things that we need to do is be looking at, you know, buying from our own companies that we can support them and help them grow.

Joel Heise: Thank you. Barb. Scott, next question to you. Now, this is a data sovereignty question. The U.S. government can potentially access data stored by cloud service providers that are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, even if the data is stored in Canada. I don't remember the name of this act, but I'm sure that you know it, Scott. This undermines Canada's control over its data. How does the Buy Canadian policy address this risk?

Scott Levac: Yeah. So, this is going to be a bit of a long answer because I want to walk through a bit of the chain of thought around it. And so, the first thing I want to say is by the way, Canada can do the same thing and so can Germany and so can France. It may surprise a lot of people, but almost every country has laws that apply extraterritorial, and that's because crimes are extraterritorial and in this digital world, law enforcement need tools that allows them to investigate crimes, and a lot of those crimes now cross borders and are performed digitally. So, courts and laws have now been adapted to apply extraterritorially. So, I think that's important. I know we pick on the U.S. a lot and the Cloud Act. And like what the Cloud Act basically does is clarify that, hey, US law enforcement can apply the subpoena powers and warrant powers extraterritorially. We can do the same in Canada. It's in the CSIS Act. There's also a Brecknell Decision that it says we recognize virtual presence in Canada. So, if you do business over the Internet, you fall under Canadian law. Okay. So, I think it's important to level the playing field. So, when it comes to this question, I'm going to break it up into two parts jurisdiction and enforceability. So, how does a company fall under the laws of another country? And the answer is almost always yes. Despite the corporate structure of that company, the ownership of that company, where it's located. And that's because courts don't use a decision tree to determine jurisdiction. Often, if, for example, I'm a criminal, I'm in Germany, I use a cloud service that's in Germany, but I commit a crime in Canada. Canadian law enforcement will use laws to come after me the best they can to investigate that crime. Okay, so law, commercial entities do fall under an overlap of jurisdictions. So, the next thing you have to look at is enforceability. What is the ability for a foreign government to enforce their law on an entity? And so, what I think you look at there is some countries, because of their massive power and their financial control, can insert, a lot of penalties on a commercial company, even if they're not physically located there. Right? So, if you look at a company, it means they could lose suppliers, they could lose customers, they could lose the ability to transact financially. Right? We are a very global world. So, sanctions can be applied if a commercial entity decides to disobey or not comply with the law in another country, they will be sanctioned, they'll be fined. And so, they would suffer the consequences. So, when it comes to a determining foreign immunity, I think I see a lot of people say like how Canadian a company is. It's probably the wrong question because the definition like, I'm differentiating Canadian supplier from Canadian company here is how are we defining a Canadian company. A Canadian company can also be a US company, it can be an EU company, right? Like they're not mutually, like citizenship it's not one or the other. You can whole many different ones. So, what really want to ask your supplier is when push comes to shove, are you going to comply with Canadian law or foreign law? And what they're going to do is basically look at the question of how much will it cost me to disobey the laws in one country versus another. And when it comes again to countries that have lot of control over the supply chain and financial systems, they can assert a lot of penalties on a company. So, now it comes to how do you protect against that? Encryption. Encryption that's under our control is one way of doing it. But recognize then you lose the ability for, that company to process that data, which may be an advantage to us. For example, when we use M365, we turn on translation. Microsoft's doing the processing. If we encrypt all that you lose translation. So, there's trade offs there. The next thing is you may want to say we don't want a model where we have a commercial entity involved in the service delivery. And again, I talked about the top-secret network. The operation of that environment is in control of the Government of Canada. We don't use a commercial supplier, unlike in cases of public cloud. So, the controls that we put in place for those things could have consequences in terms of augmented cost, in lower business value, security controls, etc.. So, this again gets back to proportionality. So, what's the likelihood that a US law enforcement is going to be able to get into a US court and say we think the Government of Canada is committing a crime under US law and therefore we have the ability to get the court to approve a warrant to access data. The likelihood of that scenario is probably very, very small. So, how much time do you want to spend and how much effort do you want to spend and how much are you willing to give up for today for the unlikelihood of that scenario of tomorrow? I think that's where people need come back and look at proportionality over those things. So, I think maybe a very long answer around it. It's a complex topic. I could spend an entire panel just talking about topic alone. It comes up all the time. But there's my short answer and hopefully it, kind of wove through the thread there of thinking.

Joel Heise: Thank you, Scott. Yeah, definitely lots of connections to make. And I go back to something that you said earlier because I think for a lot of folks like the issue of data sovereignty, we don't see the direct link. But to the point that you made earlier, it's very rare in today's world to have a program or a project that doesn't require an IT component to stand up and run. So, the IT considerations in procurement are often front and centre. I'm cognizant of time here folks, we have 6 minutes remaining. I want to give people a chance to have a health break before a potential 3 PM meeting. So, we are going to wrap here. Ron, I'm going to go to you for one last very quick question. Just with respect to potential guidance that we might be seeing, will there be more guidelines, samples, templates for practical application of Buy Canadian policy that we might see from PSPC in the future?

Ron Cormier: Yeah. Thanks, Joel. And I think that's a good one to finish with. So, short answer is that the Buy Canadian policy is very new. When it first came out and we caught wind that it was coming out in the operational parts of procurement at PSPC, we understood that it was going to have to apply to procurements that were in flight. So, because of that, I had a variety of teams in my organization. I think the same is probably true of Pat's organization, Shared Services Canada, and the other operational procurement parts of PSPC that we've been in many ways trying to craft appropriate terms and conditions and evaluation criteria to take into account the new policy for those in-flight procurements. And as that's happening, we're learning lessons along the way and trying to share those amongst our teams. I realize that that isn't particularly helpful to somebody that's sitting in a non-PSPC or Shared Services Canada Department wondering how they're going to go about this. So, what I would say is, as we've come up with these different techniques and tools, we're doing our best to feed those back to the Policy Centre at PSPC and as well the people that that work in something called the Contract Modernization Initiative. So, many of the folks that are on this call might be familiar with CMI. It's an effort to standardize things like terms and conditions of contracts and it's been rolling out progressively to departments across government to help them standardize and streamline the construction of contracts. So, as we end up with examples that are specific to commodities and proven to work in spaces like, let's say IT or infrastructure and so on, those CMI clauses are going to be updated centrally by PSPC and rolled out to the departments that are part of that initiative. So, they'll benefit from that. And when it comes to evaluation criteria, we're feeding examples to the Policy Centre as well so that they can give those out in terms of advice. So, what I would suggest is for the next little while, if people are making best to apply this and being innovative, I think there's appetite for that to happen and to continue to happen. It's probably the best way to kind of make a difference in the immediate term. But as we have better examples and as you have successes, I would encourage people to share those with colleagues and also share them back with the Buy Canadian policy team at PSPC, because the more we can get examples of what's working effectively in a given commodity space, the more we can make that available through the procurement community, be it CAB or through the senior designated official net, so that those are distributed throughout government and people are able to not have to reinvent the wheel each time. I would say there is a lot of room to innovate and create in this space because of how new the policy is and how few procurements have actually gone through fully applying it at this point. But as that normalizes, I think it's incumbent on all of us to kind of share those good examples so that, you know, we can all learn from one another and apply it the most effective way possible as quickly as possible.

Joel Heise: Thank you, Ron. And just before I let you all go, in the chat, you will have seen a link provided to the Canadian Institute for Procurement and Material Management National Workshop in June 2026. There were a lot of questions that came in during the session here today that we did not get to. A lot of them of a more technical nature. Understandable why. I'm going to just note the program for the Simple National Workshop is not posted yet, but there will be a PSPC led presentation panel discussion at that workshop that is much more focused on sort of the technical aspects of implementation of the policy. So, watch for that. Encourage you to register and come and listen to that as well. So, I will close on that first, or lastly, sorry, a big thank you to our panelists and to all of those of you who registered for this session and listened in. There were, I think, just over 2,600 folks registered. I'm not sure how many showed up to view, but obviously a significant amount of interest in this. So, thank you to you all for making this a success. Take care.

[01:57:13 The CSPS logo appears on screen.]

[01:57:18 The Government of Canada logo appears on screen.]