I'm here with Meredith Egan because I've been a director of our association for 20 years. I've dealt with the federal government for a similar amount of time. I've been on the national government relations committee for our association since I was first appointed to the board of directors with a special responsibility for dealing with the federal government. So I have a particular insight into how the federal government works and how the industry has developed the current system over the years.
We're more than prepared to sit down with officials and determine what can be done to make the best process for the taxpayer, and we've done that for many years. We do want to know what PWGSC finds wrong with what is in place. But more than that, the experiences of the last several months have left us asking the following questions.
Why were the services of a large consulting firm and outside contractors deemed necessary to improve a process that was working well? Although admittedly it had some flaws, just as any system is bound to have flaws--no system is perfect--this system, which was developed between the experienced public servants and industry representatives, was cost-effective and efficient year over year. Why was Public Works and Government Services not checking the data with industry, particularly after we advised officials of serious fundamental data inaccuracies in the department's assessment of the sector and its involvement with the Government of Canada?
Why did departmental officials feel compelled to advance changes without consultation and in an atmosphere of deliberate secrecy after decades of open, transparent engagement? Why was there so suddenly a rush to amend a process that has a regular schedule for amendment, and the next amendment is due in early 2007?
Why did departmental officials feel compelled to create a limited competitive pool of suppliers, undermining competition in the free market in the whole process and thereby undermining the quality of work for managers across government?
Why did departmental officials not see the contradiction between their statements about working with small to medium-sized business and their conduct that was anti-small-business in their proposed purchasing reforms?
Our desire is to continue to supply competitively priced, superior quality staffing solutions to the managers across the Government of Canada and thereby to the taxpayers of this country. We want to work with PWGSC on this, and hope we can restore what used to be an excellent working relationship.
We hope the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates will look into this matter further. Our industry would be able to put forth witnesses within each stakeholder community, including suppliers, buyers, and temporary workers.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.