Government Operations Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fortier, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Bennett, good day.

Today’s meeting is about a specific point: the Department of Public Works and Government Services’ new procurement strategy. There are people in the room whose livelihoods are at stake. I would like to debate this question and make sure we can continue in this vein.

Mr. Fortier, last summer, people who work for businesses that provide services to the government—I am thinking, in particular, about temporary personnel services—had a shock when they learned in June that there would possibly be changes in the way that businesses deal with the government. It was such a shock that they told us that they felt the government was treating them like adversaries. This is obvious upon reading the minutes of the October 19 meeting. The relationship of trust was disrupted.

My intention, and that of the industry, is to find solutions with the government, so that everything is done properly. We have seen your objectives, and they are very laudable. There were references to reducing the time spent on procurement processing by up to 50%, reducing the in-house costs of procurement by 10%, etc. However, when the industry asked for details—and I’m thinking here of A.T. Kearney—, it was told that there was a report and it could not be made public for certain reasons.

If I understood you correctly, you said there was no report. The fact remains that people—responsible people—made an access to information request. It would have been helpful to tell them what was what at that point.

I want to know why your department did not approach the industry directly. End-of-August deadlines were announced in June, which is very difficult, especially in summer. That’s a deadline that even the government considers too short.

I’d like you to explain to us how you tried to find alleged solutions that involved losing jobs. It was calculated that about 5,000 people were involved. Was your goal really to reduce the number of temporary help agencies from 144 to 7? That’s catastrophic. How did you come to put forward and put into practice this type of thinking?

[Michael Fortier]

If you will allow me to make the following suggestion. We can spend time—and I would be pleased to do so—talking about the situation that prevailed before we began the consultations through the Conference Board. Is that the period you are referring to? I think that since we asked the Conference Board—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You mean since early October?

[Michael Fortier]

In fact, we had announced them before that, but the consultations began at that point. I am prepared to go back into the past, it doesn’t bother me, but I would respectfully submit that it is more important to look at the results we will get rather than the disasters that could have happened. You mention them, but they were never on my drawing board.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You understand, Mr. Minister, that I didn’t invent what I’m talking about. The industry reported this, as you can see in the documents submitted—

[Michael Fortier]

These people also said they were pleased with the consultations, that they felt an openness and that they were being better listened to. I have that in the notes before me.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Are you telling me that temporary help agencies don’t have to worry about the survival of their industry under the process you are setting up?

[Michael Fortier]

I am saying that before any decisions are taken that will impact this sector, and not just this sector—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I am thinking of this sector.

[Michael Fortier]

It applies to everyone. If you want to target that sector because there are people here who represent that sector, we will, of course, take their lobbying into account before finalizing the call for bids. Mr. Nadeau, it’s not a question of not taking them into account, but neither is it a question of not applying the new rules to this sector. These people will benefit from the advantages of this major reform, and the parameters that will be involved will apply to them like everyone else.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Very well. Let us go on. Is it true that your department, or people from your department, intended to tell people that if they didn’t fit into the new ways of doing things, they should just merge or work with other businesses for bids, despite all the problems involved in such operations?

[Michael Fortier]

Thousands of employees from my department deal with hundreds of suppliers every day. If one employee suggested, in writing, orally, or by other means that a supplier to merge with another firm, as you propose—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I am not proposing anything. This was suggested to industry representatives. It was presented to them as a way of dealing with their problems.

[Michael Fortier]

The suggestion did not come from me.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Nadeau, your time is up.

Mr. Albrecht, it's your turn.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Just so we don't run out of time on this question that was raised by one of my colleagues, Minister Fortier, could you just answer the question about why you decided to cancel the reverse option process? I was given to understand by Mr. Marshall that possibly this is a normal industry practice, and I'd be interested to hear your response on that.

[Michael Fortier]

Whether it's a normal practice or not, I'll let others judge. I think if you have as your only objective to take the last penny off the table, with absolutely no care, no compassion, and no consideration for the quality of the product, where the people are based, whether it's green or not green, then that's what you're going to do, and that's not the way I believe we should be running this. I think counting our nickels is not a bad idea, but I think we need to be smart in the way we do it.

So when I was told that the department...and I'm not knocking the department. I think Mr. Marshall and his people presented a menu, and this menu was discussed with suppliers. I think this indicates that there was a level of discussion and some dialogue taking place. But once it was discussed with me, I didn't see the need, in the context of this transformation, to keep reverse options. We can accomplish our objectives of saving money for taxpayers whilst not using reverse options.

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

Thank you.

I had a number of questions regarding the regional offices, in terms of where they're located. Those have been addressed.

Have you been able to track any changes at this point, in terms of the number of SMEs that are currently accessing the procurement stream? Is there an increase, or is it too early in the process?

[Michael Fortier]

It's too early. It would be anecdotal. I could tell you that we're noticing that there are more folks in this particular space who we've never seen before, but to take credit because two months or three months ago we put somebody in Edmonton...I could take credit for it, but I'd rather be respectful of you and your colleagues and say I think it's too early to say.

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

Thank you.

One other item you mentioned was that you've reduced the paperwork load, in terms of the process of being involved in trying to make it less burdensome for SMEs. I'm just wondering, you said you've reduced it from 380 to roughly 50 to 75 pages. How does that compare with other large corporations that do procurement? Are we still heavier? Are we about equal? Are we smaller?

[Michael Fortier]

Just to be specific about what I said earlier, that was with respect to the RFP we put out this summer seeking assistance on our real estate portfolio. I was very concerned, given how my predecessor basically couldn't even get anybody to qualify. I do not suggest you should do this, but I actually read the thing that went out in the summer of 2005, and, frankly, I don't know who could have qualified. It was just basically a half-baked RFP. It was just a bad document.

We're not there to not get people to respond to our RFPs. Actually, if we put stuff out there, it's because we want people to actually help us and supply services. For that particular one we managed to cut the paper supply quite significantly. The folks who bid for this, my understanding is, when they were speaking with the department, actually commented on this, and said, my gosh, it was really a pleasure to be able to read fewer pages. But the problem is not yet tackled to a degree where I'm happy.

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

So there's still work going on in other areas as well?

[Michael Fortier]

Yes. In terms of expectations, it's a mix of legal.... Perhaps some clauses in there stem from the fact that there have been judgments and what have you, but there are also some clauses in there that we could do without. It's a question of getting our legal team in Justice happy with the type and form of contract.

As somebody said earlier, and I totally agree--I can't remember which side of the table it was--larger companies have the luxury of having people who spend 100% of their time figuring out how to do business with us. They have whole departments. Many of them are here in Ottawa. These are not just lobbyists. These are expert lawyers, expert people in the trade, and they know every single clause, every single contract; they know exactly what to do, which website to go to. The smaller guys don't. So we need to provide a shortcut to the smaller guys, and that shortcut is to collapse the size of our contracts.

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

Thank you.