This interview is part of our series on Canada’s infrastructure moment and its impact on the geospatial/geomatics sector.

With Canada committing 1.5% of GDP towards critical infrastructure and civil preparedness, the question now is: can our procurement systems keep pace?

This investment moment goes beyond construction and code. It will be about how the public sector engages its suppliers, and whether the next wave of innovation will be built by Canadians. For small and medium-sized firms, the stakes are especially high.

GoGeomatics is speaking with leaders across Canada’s infrastructure, digital, and geospatial communities to understand what’s working—and what’s broken—in public procurement.

In this second interview of the series, we hear from Terry Aucoin, President of ONPAR Solutions and a longtime government advisor and procurement strategist. With decades of experience designing programs and advising departments across Canada, Terry reflects on the cultural and structural shifts needed to unlock public value — and make procurement work for both governments and vendors.

This feels like a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Do you believe our current procurement systems are ready for that scale and urgency?

This is a historic time. But to seize it, our procurement systems, and the people operating them must evolve rapidly. For the first time in a long while, we’re seeing a meaningful, non-symbolic push in that direction. Still, the legacy governance culture has become overly focused on control, compliance, and short-sighted service deliverables and products. It’s time for a LEAN mindset shift. One that empowers Deputy Ministers and ADMs to prioritize flow, value, and citizen outcomes, rather than just inputs and risk avoidance.

We know it’s possible. We’ve seen examples where agile procurement delivers results. But a culture of committee-led decision-making and perpetual change management has made already complex mandates harder to deliver for public service leaders. Procurement must become simpler, clearer, and more outcome-oriented, or we risk attracting mainly suppliers who are skilled at “gaming the system” not those committed to solving priority problems.

Recent reforms, especially the shift to value-based procurement are a step in the right direction. But the urgency of this moment calls for much more.

From your experience, do the current procurement practices help or hinder Canadian tech companies in participating meaningfully in these infrastructure projects?

I’d say it’s a mixed bag. There’s growing recognition of the need for Canadian-led innovation in infrastructure. Particularly in areas like data security, open-source intelligence, and cyber-physical security integration. However, many procurement practices still rely on outdated ranking criteria and lowest-cost models. The two primary gatekeeping functions for public service [HR and Procurement] are too often staffed by junior or less experienced personnel. While these individuals gain valuable experience, the only path for career growth typically involves moving into supervisory or administrative roles that are further removed from the actual work of engaging with suppliers and hiring talent. As a result, institutional knowledge and decision-making expertise are often lost where they’re needed most: vetting and enabling suppliers at the point of entry. We need savvy buyers that help public service leaders get the right modern solutions from companies that care about results along with the overall betterment of the Canadian business ecosystem.

The System is Pushing Away the Right Industry Partners.

Too often, we’re losing out on values-driven Canadian firms. Organizations that bring integrity, accountability, and genuine pride in service. Instead, the system rewards prior experience, even when that experience has repeatedly failed to deliver. Meanwhile, companies ready to roll up their sleeves, meet deadlines, and offer practical, no-nonsense advice are pushed aside.

The current procurement system discourages companies who deliver the most value and would stand to care the most as Canadian owned and operated business. More time should be focused on defining the right problems to solve. Instead, we see more effort spent on nit picky proposal compliance criteria excluding companies who would deliver. In my experience, the best suppliers don’t have the best proposal/resume writers “If I had an hour to solve a problem I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions” – Albert Einstein

We need less emphasis on lengthy compliance-based proposals and resumes, and more focus on trying out suppliers on small engagements. Applying due diligence during the project, rewarding success with renewed contracts and moving on to other suppliers when its not working at earlier stages.

People and industry perform to what they are measured on. Right now, procurement is not measuring real value or what’s best for Canadian interest. It’s measuring perceived experience that often fails to deliver. Through process for the sake of process that is managed by empowered procurement and HR personnel who are new in roles with no stake in the result. Lacking strategic foresight and accountability of impact of these projects.

This must change.

With over 40 million Canadians and an abundance of homegrown talent, we’re more than capable of building better. We must pivot and improve procurement flow and knowledge retention for national level capacity building.

There’s a growing view that Canadian-developed technologies are often overlooked in favour of foreign providers — even when local solutions meet or exceed the requirements. Have you experienced or witnessed this dynamic? What’s driving it?

Yes, and it’s frustrating. Canadian firms are building world-class capabilities in cyber, GIS, AI, and secure infrastructure. Yet procurement continues to favour large multinationals offering templated solutions. Why? Brand familiarity, perceived risk, and outdated evaluation criteria. Ironically, these same firms often subcontract the real work back to smaller Canadian companies. Canadian firms that are more responsive, accountable, and invested in delivering outcomes.

At OnPar, we’ve seen how rigid frameworks and risk-averse contracting can delay urgent national security projects. We’ve earned our place by being agile, transparent, and mission-driven, but it shouldn’t be so difficult just to get in the door. The system still rewards the illusion of safety over proven homegrown capability.

Canada pours billions into global giants that deliver slide decks and frameworks, but rarely lasting value. That’s no longer acceptable. Tools like SBIPS—which allow vendors to define and deliver full solutions—are structured to benefit firms with $10M+ in revenue, leaving most Canadian innovators locked out. These tools must be simplified and made accessible to high-performing smaller firms.

Consider this: Canada has 1.3 million businesses, but only about 4,000 generate more than $10 million annually, and at least 30% of those have foreign ownership. We’re excluding the vast majority of Canadian companies from building the future of public service delivery.

What’s needed now is proactive change – greater trust in Canadian expertise, streamlined procurement, and a shift toward smaller, impact-driven projects that reward outcomes over optics. We need to measure what matters.

What’s at stake if this pattern continues — for Canadian companies, but also for long-term national capacity?

If this pattern continues, we risk hollowing out our national capacity to respond to emerging threats, build resilient systems, and retain Canadian intellectual property. This isn’t just about business—it’s about sovereignty. We can’t afford to remain passive consumers of foreign solutions when world-class innovators are building right here at home. Procurement is one of the most powerful tools we have to shape the future. It’s time we start using it more strategically.

Do you think the procurement culture in Canada is too risk-averse? How has that shaped the innovation landscape here?

Yes, and understandably so. Public servants are often caught between the need to innovate and the fear of audit or failure. But in a fast-evolving landscape, whether it’s cyber threats, digital infrastructure, or defence – inaction is a greater risk. We need a cultural shift that defines risk not just as “doing something new,” but also “failing to adapt.” That starts with policy directive mandates that are tied to funding at the Deputy Minister and ADM level.

We see too much ”guidance policy” which has no consequences for public service and industry leaders. Vague success criteria where not learning from mistakes or adapting is rewarded. This requires authentic leadership, courage and trusted partners.

If public service leaders do not care and aren’t accountable, industry will follow suit.

Getting things done in government requires trust in competent public service leadership. Not just alignment with political imperatives. In my opinion, the pendulum has swung heavily toward top-down control and performative compliance. If left unbalanced, it will erode both public trust and operational capability.

Restoring the balance required to shape a better Canadian landscape for innovation starts with evidence-based departmental stewardship by Deputy Ministers. Supported by mandatory tenure and true accountability to their organizations – not political leadership. Empowering their teams as long-term institutional stewards enables continuity, informed delivery, and better alignment of emerging innovation priorities.

Departments must advise ministers – not the reverse. Reorienting the Management Accountability Framework and performance tools toward long-term capability development, rather than short-term political alignment, will better position departments to operationalise innovative solutions more efficiently.

What would a more innovation-friendly procurement system look like in practice?

The answer isn’t scaling up. It’s scaling smart.

An innovation-friendly procurement apparatus can involve enabling many small, fast-moving Canadian companies to deliver “proof through delivery” instead of forcing them into rigid, one-size-fits-all procurement models.

That means running many small, agile, high-impact projects in parallel without red tape. A system built to learn quickly and reinvest aggressively in teams that deliver intentful outcomes. We see this approach working in other places around the world [Agile Framework, Scrum, DARPA, Finland’s “Experimentation Culture” in Policy, Y Combinator ect…]

It would mean embracing homegrown pilot projects, rewarding measurable outcomes over perfect process, and valuing agility alongside compliance. From a supplier’s perspective, we’d love to see faster feedback loops, and clearer pathways for scaling successful projects into broader adoption. A phased contract approach that rewards getting technology actively into operations and working before celebrating success.

Procurement reform must also be practical.

The time for intellectual posturing and political gatekeeping is over. If we’re serious about leading, delivering, and staying relevant, we need to rethink how we measure value in procurement.

Instead of rewarding résumé-heavy proposals, let’s anchor RFPs in what really matters:

• Many small low overhead projects with defined outcomes
• Clear, measurable requirements tied to real-operational impact
• Simple, focused requirement submissions through online forms
• Meaningful Canadian and community involvement – not to tick a box
• Mandatory interviews with the actual people providing the service or product
• Empowerment for those who pay for, manage, and are accountable for the work, not gatekeepers and politicos with agenda
• Procurement client criteria driven by the responsible team, not checklists from those with no stake in the results or understanding of the requirements and strategic value
• A proven commitment to ownership and accountability from the providers and project authorities. Accountability on both sides will remove a lot of waste and enable better industry and government partnerships

Do current procurement systems provide a clear path for pilot projects or early-stage validation of Canadian tech?

In most cases, no. Pilots often get caught in the same machinery as multi-year contracts, with the same burden of proof. That discourages risk-taking. However, we are starting to see some pockets of experimentation—through challenge-based procurement. At OnPar, we’ve had success proposing outcome-based pilots to demonstrate value before scaling. But it requires mutual trust and a champion inside government.

What changes would make it easier for promising technologies to be tested and scaled through public projects?

A few things:

1. Simplified contracting vehicles for pilots,
2. Reserved budgets for testing Canadian innovation, and
3. Better integration between innovation agencies and procurement units.

Also, embedding performance review mechanisms, like quality Value For Money (VFM) assessments, can help bridge the gap between pilots and enterprise-scale projects.

Nation-building today isn’t just about concrete — it’s also about data, software, modeling, GNSS, and integration. Are procurement frameworks reflecting that shift?

Not fast enough. Infrastructure or our infostructure today lives at the intersection of physical and digital, yet procurement often treats them as separate silos. For example, you can’t secure a smart city project with analog-era risk assessments. At OnPar, we’re actively working with departments to integrate cyber-physical security planning into infrastructure projects from the start. But we need frameworks that formally recognize digital dependencies as part of the core infrastructure package.

Are you seeing requirements for open standards, digital delivery, or Canadian content embedded in infrastructure RFPs and contracts? Should we?

We’re starting to see it, particularly in high-sensitivity environments. But the application is uneven. Open standards and Canadian content requirements should be the norm, not the exception. If we’re serious about resilience and interoperability, we have to make those elements standard criteria—not afterthoughts.

Do you see fragmentation across federal, provincial, and municipal procurement as a barrier to participation?

For SMEs or specialized consultancies like OnPar, navigating the patchwork of procurement rules across jurisdictions can be daunting. Even within the federal family, there are different practices between departments. This inconsistency creates unnecessary friction.

A coherent national procurement strategy, particularly one that embraces modular, interoperable, and outcomes-focused models, would allow Canadian innovators to participate more broadly, without reinventing the wheel each time. It would also help surface and scale best practices.

How do we build procurement policies that support long-term digital and industrial resilience — not just short-term contract delivery?

We start by aligning procurement outcomes with public purpose: resilience, sovereignty, innovation, and security. Remove bottle necks like ADM sign-off approval. The ADM above level should be focused on the strategic outcomes like system flow, overall program value, and strategy. Leveraging leading key performance indicators and relevant briefings to steer policy and planning. Project approvals should be assigned to the individuals wholly responsible for success of the project and not multiple people in my opinion. Prioritize Canadian value-add criteria with the long-term vision of nation building in mind.

Incentivize collaboration over fragmentation and require simple but tangible impact metrics—like threat reduction, audit-readiness, or digital maturity gains. Procurement should reward partnerships that build Canadian capacity while delivering results today.

Do you feel that public-sector procurement teams have the technical and digital literacy needed to fairly assess innovative Canadian solutions?

There’s amazing talent in government, but many buyers are asked to evaluate complex solutions without adequate support or training. It’s not a lack of intelligence—it’s a lack of tools and bandwidth. We’ve often had to educate procurement teams on what’s possible in modern cyber-physical integration, which speaks to the gap. Again, less time for developing criteria for the solution and more on properly articulating the problem that needs to be solved. Allow suppliers to directly educate while holding them to account with simple due diligence to deter “smoke and mirrors “salesmanship.

What would help build greater capacity, agility, and accountability inside government buying teams?

Three things:
1. Better tenure in roles with upskilling through targeted training in emerging technologies;

2. Simple online form-based submissions with room for creativity, and
3. Automated feedback mechanisms so suppliers and buyers can learn from each other.

Embracing agile procurement principles, organisations can better navigate the dynamic landscape created by Moore’s Law and ensure they are acquiring the most innovative and cost-effective solutions.

If you had a chance to advise the federal government on procurement reform, what’s one priority you’d recommend?

Focus on building “strategic procurement” muscles. Not just compliant ones. That means investing in the capability to assess long-term value, security implications, and national capacity, not just cost and schedule. In security consulting, we’ve seen how short-term thinking can create long-term exposure. Procurement should be a tool for nation-building, not just project delivery.