Ralph Goodale

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the hon. gentleman is obviously ignoring the facts.

The Groupaction files were discovered by my predecessor. He called in the auditor general to examine those files. The auditor general did her work. She reported those files to the RCMP. The RCMP has confirmed that it is conducting an investigation.

Those are exactly the steps that should have been taken. They were taken promptly by the government and the matter is now being dealt with properly by the police.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, there is no question, given the size of the Government of Canada and the property management responsibilities of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, that we have a profound impact upon the quality of life in a great many urban areas across the country.

The recent work done by the Prime Minister's task force on urban issues, of which my hon. colleague is a member, will make a contribution to improving government policy in respect of urban communities with some constructive advice about how the government, including the department of public works, can better conduct itself in relation to urban communities and municipalities.

Tonight I am pleased to inform the House that we are working on a new explicit policy for my department that we will probably call our good neighbour policy. It is being finalized right now. It is intended to be an explicit statement of how this department will interact with local communities and municipal authorities in making the property management decisions that we need to make for the future proper administration of the Government of Canada. Obviously we need to meet the requirements of federal departments and must do so by being consistent with all Government of Canada policies and in a manner that is the most cost-effective.

However, in doing that we will take into account the needs and the requirements of local communities. The Government of Canada does not want to be an unwelcome intruder in an urban community. It wants to be a good and welcome neighbour.

The hon. member has referred to a number of circumstances in and around Halifax and Dartmouth where the Government of Canada already has a big impact. With the application of the good neighbour policy that impact will be increasingly positive.

I will give the member another example in practical terms of what this new policy could mean in relation to my own community in Regina. Some months ago the Government of Canada, through the Department of Public Works and Government Services, announced that it would be proceeding with the purchase of a downtown office tower and ultimately over time converting that office tower for Government of Canada purposes.

This announcement was well received broadly in Regina. The mayor, city council and local regional economic development authorities spoke positively about it. However, the economic development authority and the city council said there were other urban development objectives that they wished to achieve in downtown Regina. If the Government of Canada wanted to go about the development of this major property in the centre of the city in a certain way, then it had to contribute more broadly to the municipality's objectives.

All it calls for is dialogue, understanding, flexibility and a willingness to get along and trying to achieve everyone's mutual objectives in the best interests not only of the Government of Canada but of the local community.

I hope that within the next number of weeks, perhaps even faster than that, I might be in a position to formerly announce the good neighbour policy of the Department of Public Works and Government Services to ensure that we are not only meeting federal objectives but that we are also making a material, positive contribution to the local objectives as well.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the publication in question is called “Services for You”. It was a national guide to the services available to Canadians from the Government of Canada. It was mailed last November to 11.7 million households in the country. The guide cost $4 million in total to print and distribute. That works out to 32¢ per copy to better inform Canadians of the many services that the Government of Canada offers them.

At about two-thirds of the cost of a first class stamp this initiative did provide us with good value for money. It provided useful information about tax reductions and benefits; retirement planning; health care; environmental protection; security, particularly in the wake of the events of September 11; Internet resources; and a variety of other activities.

One thing that was especially important about this particular distribution was that it was broken down on a regional basis. Part of the information provided was relative and timely with respect to all Canadians in all parts of the country and part of the information was directly aimed at subject matters that would be of particular interest to people in a particular region.

For example, in the Ontario edition there was information about cleaning up the Great Lakes and internship programs in northern Ontario. In British Columbia there was information about the Gulf Islands ecosystems and about certain local initiatives dealing with homelessness. In Quebec there were issues related to the environment, youth, the RCMP's drug awareness services and so forth. I could go through 11 different versions of the guide that tailored information to what Canadians in different parts of the country would be particularly interested in.

One thing that was important was that in every case the information included access to Government of Canada information and services, the 1-800 O-Canada line and the Government of Canada website. For anybody who is listening at this hour of night it is www.canada.gc.ca. One can get virtually every bit of information that one might want to have about the Government of Canada.

I note that in the market research we did with respect to programs of this kind we found a full 42% of Canadians saying they did not have enough information about government services that were available to them and were making requests for more information of that kind.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, ethical behaviour is a topic that should be treated seriously and it is important to every member of the House. It certainly is to me. I am very pleased that my department has very recently been recognized by the Conference Board of Canada as a leading edge organization for its explicit ethics program. In my early briefings by departmental officials last week that was one of the programs that was drawn to my attention. I am very glad that the department does have that very explicit program.

As the question was being asked, someone called out from somewhere in the House and said that that may be what the conference board thought but what did the auditor general think. The auditor general has described the ethics program of Public Works and Government Services Canada as very sophisticated.

The ethics program is intended to provide a framework to guide and improve the ethical conduct of employees by promoting awareness, leadership, decision making and action in the field of investigation. It is important to concede where there are areas of difficulty and to pursue the solutions to those difficulties aggressively.

As I said earlier this evening, my department in a typical year does something in the order of $4 billion of business on behalf of Canadians. The complaints that have been raised over the last number of weeks and months have related to one particular program that involves a budget of about $40 million. That is $40 million on an expenditure base of $4 billion. That is 1% and I think it is important to keep things in proportion.

Having said that, let me make it clear that whether the issue is big dollars or small dollars, every penny counts and it is very important for high ethical standards to apply whether it is a big contract or a little contract, a big issue or a little issue. We must all bear in mind the ethical principles that should guide us.

I am very pleased that my department has a formal policy with respect to this matter and that it has been recognized both internally and externally for the efforts that it is making. I certainly intend to advance that cause within my department and to build upon the ethics foundation that is there.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I believe that the particular case the hon. gentleman raised in his question, having to do with the advertising in Almanach du peuple, will in fact be one of the areas in which the auditor general will be inquiring as she does her government wide review with respect to advertising and sponsorship issues.

However I would point out that my predecessor took the decision to terminate that advertising because in his view, I think correctly, he felt that it did not fall within the proper definition of sponsorship. The promoters behind that idea were referred to other types of government programs for which they may qualify. They made some inquiries and found out that they were not eligible there either so that initiative no longer exists.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I indicated earlier that the type of advertising the hon. gentleman has referred to is now explicitly excluded from the criteria of the program. The complaint that he has expressed is one that the government identified earlier, and we have taken corrective action.

In terms of specific projects that receive sponsorships, the hon. gentleman has indicated his objection to some types of projects. I would be interested in his views on a couple of other projects, like the projects known as Rimouski en blues and Tour de l'Île d'Orléans à la nage. I have letters of representation from members of parliament in the Bloc Quebecois supporting these projects and I wonder if he would support them as well.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I will take the hon. member's point as a representation. If I am correct, he is saying clearly that in his view sponsorship funding could better be directed toward other types of sporting, cultural or community activities rather than professional sporting events. I would be interested in hearing the views of other members of parliament on that same point.

For this year, and the years that have gone by, that type of activity did fit within the program criteria. For next year, and subsequent years, we have the opportunity to reshape things somewhat differently. I would be interested to hear whether members of parliament and others think that program criteria should be changed in such a way as to make the type of activity that he has referred to specifically to be outside the criteria of the program.

I would again make the point that I have made a couple of times earlier this evening. In the specific examples that are being used here they are, in every single case, in the period of time that predated the year 2000. We are talking about that period in which difficulties did occur prior to the year 2000. Since the internal audit in 2000 and subsequent corrective actions we have taken steps to substantially improve the administration of the program.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, there are various purposes that are served by a sponsorship initiative. One purpose is to support the event or activity to which the sponsorship is committed. Another purpose is to promote and explain the programs and services of the Government of Canada across Canada. Exposure at major national sporting events or cultural events can be a good way to communicate with a large number of people in a concentrated area.

There are a variety of purposes to be served here. I do not think there is one single purpose or one single formula that would suit the sponsorship initiative in all cases. There has to be a little flexibility. As we identify the problem areas and move forward in a way that is constructive for the future, I would look forward to having the advice of members of parliament, in terms of the kind of activities or the magnitude of activities that would be appropriate in terms of future terms and conditions.

I take it the hon. member is suggesting that there is more merit in a sponsorship program focusing on smaller, more community oriented activities than larger and more commercial types of activities. That is a representation that I am happy to take into account. It perhaps goes to the credibility of the program and I would want the program to be credible.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, one thing that I have been struck by in the eight or nine days that I have been reviewing the files in this portfolio is the strong interest that many members of parliament take in this program. They are members of differing political parties, provinces and communities from right across the country.

Members of parliament making their views known, particularly about the projects they support, is an extremely valuable thing. That is an issue I will be looking at in terms of the future administration of the program. Is there a vehicle by which members of parliament can indicate to me the types of projects that have that kind of community merit that would justify sponsorship by the Government of Canada?

In terms of the contracting process I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that 92% of the contracts managed by this department were awarded on the basis of competitive tenders. There were only 8% that were managed in a different way and needed to meet the requirements with respect to sole sourcing.

Competition is the foundation of our contracting process and if I can find ways to enhance the competitive process to make it more open, competitive, transparent and therefore, as the bottom line, more fair and probably less costly to the Government of Canada, I will be interested in pursuing those various techniques.

As I said earlier, sponsorship performs a valuable service. Sponsorships are provided by the private sector, municipal and provincial governments, and by the federal government. They support good and worthy activities across the country. The issue is not the principle or the validity of the concept, nor is it the merit of the local community based projects. The issue is the delivery mechanism and I am committed to finding the most cost effective, open, transparent, accountable and value for money effort to deliver on these sponsorships in the way that Canadians would expect.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member about this type of advertising is a valid point. I am advised that steps were taken some months ago to stop these types of radio spots because they simply did not fit within the proper definition of a sponsorship initiative.