Ralph Goodale

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, by way of background perhaps I could offer a bit more explanation.

In November 1999 the auditor general tabled a report on the use of advance contract award notices, otherwise known as ACANs. The more significant observations made by the auditor general included the following: that there was in her view no independent review of challenges to ACANs; there was a lack of justification for posting of ACANs; there was a lack of information contained in ACANs; and ACANs were often not posted for the required 15 days. Those were the observations back in November 1999.

The auditor general's report was the subject of a series of meetings by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The committee reported similar observations and criticisms about the ACAN system as those referred to by the auditor general. It made a couple of recommendations that in fact went beyond the observations of the auditor general.

In any event, following the tabling of the auditor general's report back in November 1999, an interdepartmental working group chaired by the Treasury Board Secretariat and of course involving my department was formed to address the various issues the auditor general had raised about ACANs.

As a result of that process, guidelines were prepared. They were subsequently published in November 2000. This information has been broadly circulated throughout the government to all procurement officers, noting the key points and the way in which this policy is evolving and changing over time.

We are obviously anxious to ensure that ACANs are fair and reasonable, that they are handled properly within the system, that they enhance a competitive system. I think the statistics bear that out.

As I mentioned earlier, the statistics we have for 2001 would indicate that there were in that year 3,311 ACANs issued. About 10% of them were challenged, that is 323. So the vast majority were not challenged, even though the opportunity to challenge was there. Of those that were challenged, 76 were found to be cases where the challenge was valid and in 76% of those cases they proceeded to a formal tendering process.

As the hon. member mentioned in his question, the ACAN system provides the opportunity for competition. In the statistics I have cited that opportunity seems to be a legitimate one.

I would point out that there is now a minimum requirement of a posting of 15 calendar days so that everyone has a full and fair opportunity to know that the notice is out there and has the ability to respond within that time frame.

I would also point out, contrary to some assertions that were made earlier tonight, we have put measures in place to provide an independent review of the statements of capabilities that come in to make sure it is not the same person sitting as judge and jury on the appeal, that there is in fact due process and fairness. Sometimes it will be totally different officials from the first officials that looked at the case. Sometimes it will be independent third party fairness advisors from outside the government.

We understand the concerns that were expressed by the auditor general. We are trying very hard to make sure that the ACAN system is not a way to circumvent competition, but a means to complement competition and make sure that the system is transparent and fair.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I can fully understand and appreciate the sentiment that has been expressed by the hon. member with respect to his province of New Brunswick and his part of New Brunswick, specifically the community of Shediac. There would be many parts of my own province of Saskatchewan where the same line of reasoning and the same feeling and sentiment would apply.

The Speech from the Throne that opened this session of parliament talked about such exciting concepts as innovation for the future and so forth. One recurring theme through that throne speech was the theme of inclusion, inclusion of all Canadians in every region, every province and every community where they feel fully plugged in to their country and that we function together as a cohesive national whole. That is a principle which is extremely important to the government.

I am very sympathetic to the line of reasoning that the hon. gentleman applies with respect to a significant Government of Canada operation in a community like Shediac. The superannuation directorate located in that community employs approximately 410 people. They pay over 220,000 annuities to retired public servants and/or their survivors across Canada.

At the present time my department is actively looking at several ways of modernizing its various pension systems and modernizing the way we do business with respect to pensions. As we go about that modernization study, we will want to be inclusive with respect to the employees at Shediac.

I want to say clearly that we have no plans with respect to privatization or closure of that facility. Obviously with modernization will come some degree of change. I fully intend that to be change that is characterized by opportunity for things to improve and to be dealt with properly in terms of future additional technology, learning opportunities, employment and so forth.

Shediac is very much a part of our plans. I for one will be working very closely with the hon. member to make sure the issue is dealt with properly and fairly. If that was an invitation to visit Shediac in the next little while, let me say that I accept.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that sort of message is already very clear. Quite frankly, I will make some inquiries to see if it needs to be clarified further.

The situations that were described by the internal audit people in my own department as well as by the auditor general were unacceptable. Those practices need to be improved in a major way.

Between the year 2000 and now those improvements were and have been made in a very progressive way. However it is very clear to me that when we are dealing with public money and the taxpayers' trust there needs to be transparency, accountability, value for the money expended and proper filing and bookkeeping to make sure the paper trail is evident.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, ACAN is obviously a process by which a bid or a potential contract award can be publicized before it is finalized to determine whether or not there are any objections.

I asked for the statistics on this matter because I too was curious about it. I found out that of the 3,311 ACANs published in the year 2001, objections were raised in about 10% of the cases. That would be 323 cases. Of those cases that were objected to, the objections to 245 cases were found to be justified and the process went to tender. I think those statistics tend to verify that the process is working. In the vast majority of cases there are no objections but in cases where objections are raised they are in fact treated seriously.

If the hon. gentleman has some specific suggestions on how a properly functioning ACAN system can in fact be improved in the interests of competitiveness, I would very much like to hear what those suggestions are and I will treat them seriously.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that I do not have policy responsibility for this matter. That rests with another minister.

However, in the spirit of being forthcoming with the hon. gentleman, if there are serious questions that he wishes to raise with that other minister I will certainly undertake to make sure that this matter is drawn to that other minister's attention so that he can reply to the questions that the member for St. Albert might wish to raise.

However, as I am not the minister responsible, and as much as I might want to reply, I simply cannot reply to a question that is outside my jurisdiction.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I am advised by my officials that the Department of Public Works and Government Services is the mechanical device by which this transfer of funding takes place. The policy responsibility rests with the minister responsible for the crown corporation and that is not the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, it is not within my jurisdiction to recall ambassadors. However in relation to the Groupaction matter the set of files was referred to the RCMP by the auditor general. The auditor general was invited to make her inquiry in the first place by my predecessor who is now the government House leader.

It was my predecessor who initiated the process. The process led to an inquiry by the auditor general. The auditor general made the reference to the RCMP. The RCMP has confirmed publicly that it is pursuing an investigation. The RCMP has said in the media that it will pursue the investigation wherever it leads.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I do not have responsibility for the Canada Lands Corporation. It is my understanding that the responsibility would fall to the crown corporation that is in the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether in the last 24 hours there has been some rearrangement in that regard because of the Deputy Prime Minister's new responsibilities. That question would properly be referred to the Prime Minister. However Canada Lands is not within my portfolio.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, as much as I would dearly love to be able to respond to the hon. gentleman's question I must point out that I am not the minister responsible for the Canada Lands Corporation. That is within another minister's portfolio. I would certainly wish the other minister the joy of a committee of the whole proceeding so that he might answer the question, but it is not within my portfolio of responsibilities.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, I do not believe we have the provincial breakdown available tonight. We are checking to see if it is accessible this evening. If it is, fine, we will provide it. If not, I will provide the best breakdown I can as soon as possible.

As to the earlier point about being forthcoming with information, making references to the police where appropriate, fully providing information to the auditor general and so forth, I made that commitment last Monday, less than 24 hours after coming into office.