Government Operations Committee on May 28th, 2009

[François Guimont]

The answer to that question has three parts. The first part has to do with the work of the Auditor General and that of the committee. There is what is called the volume of activity within National Defence, the RCMP and the rest of the public service, which is very little. It was very hard for us to correctly and precisely define what are personnel movements. We worked very hard on that. It may seem easy to predict and to correctly establish the movements of personnel within the Department of National Defence, the RCMP and the rest of the public service, but, in fact, it was an awful lot of work.

Further, last year, we put in a request through MERX. I don't remember exactly how many proposals we received, but we did get a significant number, and also a lot of questions. This in turn led us to redo a significant part of the work. My colleague, Ms. saint pierre, can give you the date. We put out a request for proposals through MERX to see who would be interested in submitting a bid. This provided us with information, and lots of it. So what you have noted, I am also noting, and all this is fairly new.

For now, we are working closely with the industry. We are working in an appropriate and transparent manner. All questions are put through MERX. We are answering all questions in a transparent way so that people can see what questions their potential competitors are asking, as well as the answers they are receiving. At first glance, it may look like a relatively straightforward contract. After all, people are simply moving from one place to another. But we learned a lot from what the Auditor General said. We want to make sure that the competition is conducted appropriately, honestly, and in a transparent manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Mr. Proulx, you have five minutes.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Guimont. I would simply like to clarify something. We are talking about the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises. I dealt with some of your employees several weeks ago, or perhaps it was several months ago. I was told that, since 2007, the office had given courses in Ottawa, and that it tried to give courses to company owners on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region, but that for some reason it did not really work out. The office was approached seven times, but only three replies were forthcoming.

Last April, following a report by Radio-Canada concerning the fact that very few contracts had been given on the Quebec side, I again contacted the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, which you work for. On April 7, I even met with the office's employees. I was accompanied by the President of Développement économique – CLD Gatineau, Mr. Michel Plouffe, and we met with two of your employees. I don't have their names, but you probably know who I am referring to. There was the national supervisor and another person who said she was a regional supervisor, and I had no reason not to believe her. Their offices were located at Place du Portage, and everything went well. They led us to believe that there would be contact with the Gatineau Chamber of Commerce, with the Association de la construction du Québec-Région de l'Outaouais, with the Association des professionnels, industriels et commerçants du secteur Aylmer, and others.

We announced this to the committee of the whole of the City of Gatineau. Everybody was happy. Several weeks later, the minister publicly announced the creation of an office to help small- and medium-sized businesses.

Tell me. Am I missing something? Did the minister know that such an office existed already, Mr. Guimont?

[François Guimont]

Your question is very clear. The minister knew that the office already existed, but it was located on a top floor. The new office employs people from headquarters. We have about 29 employees. Now, instead of subjecting people who come from far away to security measures, which may be intimidating even though they are necessary, all they have to do is head to the office on the ground floor. They can walk right in, and they are met by the people they came to see.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Unless I'm mistaken—and I appreciate your answer—these new offices house an organization which already existed, and it's just easier now for someone to get through the door.

[François Guimont]

Some of the employees who were working out of the 13^th and 14^th floors are now on the ground floor, thus closer to their clients, of course.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, I appreciate that.

In the two minutes I have remaining, I would like you to address an issue on which I hold a certain position, and which is well-known to your colleagues. It concerns the way federal jobs are divided between the Ontario and the Quebec sides of the river in the National Capital Region.

In the 1970s—and during the 1980s, which was confirmed yet again—Liberal governments said that it was important for federal jobs to be located on both sides of the river: 75% on the Ontario side and 25% on the Quebec side. The policy applied to jobs and employees of the federal public services.

Since then, there have been changes at the administrative level. In fact, not every job, department or agency is accountable to Treasury Board as an employer. Indeed, there are different ways of conducting administration. For instance, organizations which are not accountable to Treasury Board include museums, the Société Radio-Canada, the RCMP, the Department of National Defence, and others. So if you take all federal jobs into account, you realize that we are very far from the ratio of 25% to 75%.

We did some research and tabled a written question in the House of Commons. The government gave us a response. By comparing the numbers, we realized that 81.04% of jobs are on the Ontario side, whereas 18.96% of jobs are on the Quebec side.

Mr. Guimont, would you object to the 75:25 ratio as applied to all of the public service?

I know that not all public sector jobs are with the departments, agencies or corporations which are accountable to you and fall within your mandate. Museums for instance do not fall under your mandate. You also do not have an agreement with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Nevertheless, would you object to 25% of all public sector jobs being located on the Quebec side of the greater National Capital Region?

[François Guimont]

Mr. Chair, as it stands, our ratio is 77:23. I am not questioning how we arrived at this ratio, at that level of coverage. This is due to a government decision which goes back to 1980.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm sorry, but the percentages you are referring to represent the distribution of employees who work for Treasury Board. They are in a different situation from other employees. You are referring to the main body of government.

However, if you consider the separate agencies, such as members of the Canadian Forces, members of the RCMP, non-commercial organizations, and other federal public organizations, the current breakdown is 81.04% to 18.96%, Mr. Guimont.

[François Guimont]

Mr. Chairman, the ratio of 77:23 is specific in terms of the policy; that's my first point.

As for the second point, we have a strategy—

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

What policy, Mr. Guimont?

[François Guimont]

I will let Mr. McGrath tell you how the policy came about and what it covers in a couple of moments.

Here is my second point. We want to see the ratio of 77:23 change to 75:25. That is the policy, absolutely, and we have a plan. Between now and 2012-2013, in light of the fact that two new buildings are to be built in the Outaouais, we should be able to reach the 75:25 ratio. If I recall correctly, we are at about 24%.

I will now let Mr. McGrath explain the policy underlying the 75:25 ratio. It is not a policy which Public Works and Government Services Canada can vary; I have to carry out the policy.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm aware of that. I simply asked you whether you would eventually agree with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Is Mr. McGrath going to add something here?

[Tim McGrath]

Yes, I will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Good. That will wrap up the round.

Go ahead, Mr. McGrath.

[Tim McGrath]

The 75-25 certainly did start as an employment target, but over the years, because of the creation of crown corporations and more people leaving the employ of Treasury Board, as Mr. Proulx had pointed out, the proxy became the measurement of office space and the number of people employed by Treasury Board directly. As a result, they're using Public Works as a proxy measure for the amount Treasury Board is able to control. As a result, the 75-25 is based on the allocation of office space.

Right now it's 77-23. There is a two-percentage-point move. The two buildings that we have and that will be coming out under requests for proposals will add another 80,000 square metres to the Quebec side, and they will house approximately 4,000 public servants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you very much, Mr. McGrath.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Proulx?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I did not get an answer. My question was whether they would object. They are giving me numbers. They're giving me the new policy by the Conservative government that relates to square metres, and square metres don't create jobs. We are talking of jobs. My question was, would they object?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

It's probably not a point of order either.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Oh, I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The subject matter is of interest to all members. If there is a one- or two-word answer, yes or no, to the question, it can be given; otherwise, we'll end the round here.

[François Guimont]

I don't have anything to add, Mr. Chairman.

The only point I would make is, out of completeness, regarding Madame Bourgeois's question earlier. I think it's important that it be on the record. I made references to the relocation package—I called it that—to be posted on MERX. It was done on September 22, 2008. I just wanted that to be on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay.

Thank you, colleagues, and thank you to the witnesses.

I'm going to suggest that the witnesses remain. The first reason is that I want to comment on that relocation contract.

I haven't asked any questions today, as chair, but it struck me that this is a very large contract. In my mind, I had the image of a subway train in Toronto packed with people, so many people on it that when it pulled into the station nobody could get off and nobody could get on. This huge relocation contract that exists is so massive—I understand that there are some 20,000 files in progress—that offloading it to a new manager would, in my view, take a whole lot of time. It is so big and so massive that there is almost no ability to change horses, to change drivers, to change subway trains. I think there is some sense that it is problematic for the department.

Now, I don't expect you to answer me, really, with any degree of particularity. We're on the public record, and any miscues by Public Works in any of this can easily give rise to a lawsuit. I just wanted to make the point that this particular contract and the sequencing involved in it may come up as an issue among members.

I'll leave that with you. I'm not going to ask any hard questions here now, but I wanted to signal my interest in this.

I've asked you to stay. We're going to deal with a couple of subject matters. One is the adoption of the estimates. One of the envelopes is Public Works, which is yours. I thought you might like to watch members deal with that motion, which involves $1 billion or $2 billion.

I am going to thank you for the testimony today and for answering questions, and now I'm going to go to the adoption of the main estimates.

The first vote I'm going to ask members to take is that for Public Works and Government Services. This is for votes 1 and 5.

PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Department Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$1,947,477,000 Vote 5—Capital expenditures..................$349,070,000

(Votes 1 and 5, less the amounts voted in interim supply, agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, colleagues.

Witnesses, you have just gotten another couple of billion dollars in the pipeline. Thank you for attending today.

We'll proceed with our other motions today.