Government Operations Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[Alain Fredette]

The people in the best position to answer you are the government employees themselves; they'll answer you. They definitely won't do it before a committee like this one, but most of them who are studying all this information often find that there's too much of it.

Mr. Nadeau referred to a voluminous document a little earlier; that's often the case. I'm not saying it's not necessary that documents be thick, but, in some cases, we sometimes get the feeling that parts of them serve no purpose. It's just that. So I believe that the public service people would really be in a better position to tell you what they don't need, because I imagine documents have been added over the years.

[Bernard Courtois]

Perhaps I may say on that one that the objective to cut the cost of procurement by 10% and the cycle time of procurement by 50% are the good kinds of objectives to have. We have small members who have practically given up on trying to sell services to the government because it's too complex.

The one thing I would say that is key to all of this is that to the extent that the government can behave like a normal commercial buyer, it should do so. We know there are things that are special for the government, but that should be a limited amount. Trying to deal with government-specific clauses, government-specific approaches, and government-specific ways of doing business makes things much more burdensome than they need to be.

The American government, for example, is a very large buyer. In our industry, they've decided to accept standard commercial clauses to do business. That simplifies things enormously. We should be headed in that direction.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

If I might add, it would be my hope that your group is bringing that message loud and clear to the department officials you're discussing your concerns with, as well.

[Bernard Courtois]

Oh yes, the channels of communication are there, and we are looking forward to getting the results.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We'll go to Monsieur Proulx.

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

Mr. Comtois, you made one point that struck me. You said a little earlier that, if the changes had been made or had been made in the way the department wanted to make them, there would probably have been only two Canadian manufacturers who could have supplied the necessary furniture to the Government of Canada.

Am I to understand that, if there are only two suppliers, that means there's a big chance there would be suppliers from outside the country, that is from the United States or Asia? Can you enlighten me on that subject, please?

[Michel Comtois]

Yes. Traditionally, the government does most of its procurement during a period of roughly three months every year. That's well known in the industry,

the crazy month of March.

That requires large production capacity on the industry's part, in very short timeframes. So if an SME got a very big contract for the government as a whole, it would have to produce four times as much over three months, then subsequently dismiss everyone, then do the same thing the following year.

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

So it's highly likely that the purchases would be made outside the country.

[Michel Comtois]

There would nevertheless have been two Canadian companies.

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

There would have been two companies, but circumstances would have dictated that the rest would have come from outside the country.

[Michel Comtois]

Yes, that could have been a possibility.

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

Mr. Egan, you talked to us about the access to information request that your association made to Public Works in regard to their plans. Can you tell us when that request was made? I understood from you that the department had requested an additional delay, from the 30 days to the 120 days, or 150 days.

It's probably because their photocopier was down, or something. Now that they know that Mr. Fredette can help them, it will come, I'm sure.

Can you tell me when it was requested?

[Meredith Egan]

I don't have an exact date. I can certainly get it for you, but I don't have it with me today.

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

Would you please let us know through the committee when that request was made?

[Meredith Egan]

Yes, I will.

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

Mr. Ingle, I understand that you started very young in the business, and that's why you have so many years of experience. Have you ever lived through anything similar to this—anything in the sense that we hear most of you saying that in the past there was excellent cooperation with the department and now all of a sudden things have broken down? Have you ever lived such frustration in your many years of experience?

[Jeremy Ingle]

First of all, sir, I now realize why you're a politician.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jeremy Ingle]

To be honest, I've never known anything quite on this magnitude. There was one instance many years ago, when Public Works and Government Services did sort of sideswipe us a bit. It was absolutely minor compared to this. This has been a major change, and personally I am absolutely horrified at what's been going on.

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

Mr. Ingle, a little while ago you touched on the possibility, or I should say the fact, that you would be forced to have coalitions of your members of small companies. Am I right in comprehending that most of your member companies are small or medium-sized enterprises that have been built over the years by individuals—whether it was by you or Madame Cloutier?

These are businesses that were started from just about zero and built over a period of five, ten, fifteen, twenty, and thirty years, with impeccable service to the Government of Canada. Then suddenly we end up in a situation where you might have to forgo all of that building through all those years to form a coalition. Am I right in understanding that, sir?

[Jeremy Ingle]

I think that's a very good summation of the situation. Certainly a very large number of companies under what was proposed—what concerns us is that this RFSO is still on the table, and the government is still insisting on talking about this, as opposed to saying okay, let's really get back to basics and talk about what should be done—would have to go out of business.

They have been built up over a number of years. I got into this business 21 years ago with my wife, and we built this business from nothing. Although government is only part of our business, it's an important part. It's not the whole part, but it's a very important sector, because we supply all sorts of services within the staffing service sector.

And yes, what they were proposing would have put all these small businesses completely out of business, because the government is such an important customer here.

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

Thank you.

May I suggest, Madam Chair, that any of the witnesses who might have a résumé to table could also do so through the clerk of the committee, along with other copies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

It's Madame Thibault's turn now; she's been waiting a long time.

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

They might have good reasons why a trip to London would have been good.