Government Operations Committee on Feb. 15th, 2007

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I would like to remind you that the document I sent you did contain the date on which the leases expire. I will send along another to assist you and to ensure that these 7,000 jobs can finally be located on the Outaouais side of the river. That is one of the aspects I wanted to raise.

I would like to raise another matter today. I wanted to give you a copy of a letter, but a printer problem prevented me from doing so. It will be coming, however.

As regards pay, some of my constituents work as public servants or government employees in areas where there is still a three-month delay before they get their first paycheque or a one-year delay before they are paid for some of their overtime.

I will provide the letter in due course. However, since we are dealing with the issue at the moment, I would like to know what is going on in this regard. It is really quite disturbing to see that people have to wait so long to be compensated.

[Michael Fortier]

If I may, I will ask Mr. Marshall to reply to that question.

[David Marshall]

Madam Chair, I really regret this situation. We do have a very large backlog as a result of administrative processes that we have to follow. We are tackling it very vigorously. We've brought the backlog down very considerably, and we are continuing to do that. We hope we will be in the clear very shortly, but if you have a specific case, I'll be glad to look into it for you.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I'm thinking of three specific cases, Mr. Marshall. These people do not want their names revealed, that the matter be made public. They are frightened. They are wondering why they have not received their pay, and they are afraid that their name might appear in the newspapers. They wonder what the department would do if that were to happen.

It would be a good idea to have a meeting with Mr. Fortier. People simply do not understand this type of situation. I assume that the reaction of the minister, a member of Parliament or a senator who did not get paid for three months would be just as vigorous. But perhaps they would be less frightened. In any case, there are issues involving job security, employability, and so on. The situation is very serious. It goes straight to the fibre of Canadian society. Citizens are affected directly. You have heard my message; I will now move on to another point.

With respect to temporary services, I have not read the three reports, but I have read the Conference Board report about temporary services that was released on September 19, 2006. We discussed the situation on November 9, 2006. One of the questions I asked at that time was about mergers, or, if you prefer, the joint venture system suggested to small- and medium-sized companies. The objective of this system was to adopt an approach in keeping with the one used by Public Works. You told me that that was not your idea at all—and here I'm referring rather to the department's idea—but when I reread the conclusions, I see that this was something the government would like to use to reduce the number of small companies.

I'm just raising one aspect of the issue, because of the five-minute time limit. The fear remains. Can you confirm certain things to reassure us, or are you actually preparing to eliminate some companies or to force some mergers? Not all mergers happen automatically.

[Michael Fortier]

I will repeat what I told you last time: there's absolutely no intention of forcing companies to merge or of there being joint ventures in order to get contracts. I made that commitment.

This is simply an option. As far as we are concerned, we see this as an advantage. It is an additional choice that is available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Minister, Mr. Marshall, and Ms. Kenny.

I'm going to slip onto a little hobby horse of mine, and that's accrual accounting. I don't think there's a drier subject that any parliamentary committee could have to endure, yet it's probably one that has just such a significant impact on budgetary purposes, appropriations, etc.

This committee heard just a ton of testimony, including testimony from your own department, advising us of how helpful and how cost-effective accrual accounting could be in your asset management. What I would like to know is how you have moved on this.

I recognize that instructions have not come from committee and have not been passed in the House, but your departments are well aware that this has been well received at the public accounts committee, as well as at government ops. As such, have you had any conversations with Treasury Board? Has there been any open communication suggesting that you are favourably inclined to at least send them the message that you would be predisposed to enact ASAP a form of accrual accounting in your asset management?

[Michael Fortier]

I am aware you had that discussion with Minister Toews when he appeared before you, I believe it was last week. He is leading the charge for government on this issue, and I would rather let him come back and present the government's position when he is ready. I'd rather leave it at that. I think he's really the lead on this issue for us.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I can appreciate that, but all I can do is recommend the concurrence of this committee to your department, that all asset management could definitely benefit. This testimony came from members of your committee. We would encourage you to take that message to Treasury Board to be an effective lobby for your own department, because you do have the full support of the committees that have brought forward this measure.

I might just change topic here a little bit. I'm really encouraged, and I think our committee and all Parliament is quite thankful, that you have adopted the greening government, both in your management as well as your acquisitions, but I'd like to know a little bit more. I'm not totally familiar with some information, the LEED program and other initiatives like that. Could you illustrate to this committee a few of the initiatives that I or we might not be familiar with that you've undertaken in this short process?

[Michael Fortier]

I'd be happy to, and perhaps we'll ask Margaret to complement my answers.

Let's start with LEED. We talked about buildings earlier. Any new significant real estate investments we're going to make on buildings we own, as we did in Montreal in the Bel-Air building, are going to be made to meet the LEED standards. We're going to be very cognizant of the environment, saving energy, making sure the improvements and the repairs are done in harmony with the environment. Bel-Air is a good example, and 401 Burrard in Mr. Moore's backyard is another great example. If you're in Vancouver, you should visit the building. It's quite extraordinary.

When replacing cars in the government's fleet of cars, we've focused on buying hybrid cars, no more eight cylinders. We're very cognizant of the fact that we're buying cars that will consume less gas and be friendlier to the environment.

We're also focused on buying assets such as computers that save energy. So once they're not in use, they automatically go off. Initiatives such as this have been implemented throughout the department.

We understand that with a purchasing power such as ours, if we're smart at it, we have the ability to dictate the supply chain we're going to deal with. If we send out a strong message that we're only going to deal with people who are eco-friendly and environmentally friendly, I think we can make a difference.

I don't know if Margaret wants to add to this.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

So leading by example, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Maybe next time around.

Monsieur Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I may, I would like to come back to the issue of ITAR once again. Clearly, this is a serious matter that touches on freedom and fundamental rights. We spoke a bit about Bill C-17, but if I understood correctly, you intend to negotiate procurement contracts for helicopters and aircraft. Is that correct?

[Michael Fortier]

Yes.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

We're talking about the Chinooks and the Hercules?

[Michael Fortier]

We are talking about tactical aircraft and about the CH-47s.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Where are these aircraft built?

[Michael Fortier]

We are getting into the negotiation phase. The tactical aircraft and the helicopters are manufactured in the United States.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

They are not manufactured in Canada?

[Michael Fortier]

No.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

In that case, will the maintenance be done in Canada?

[Michael Fortier]

Our objective is that 100% of the maintenance be done in Canada.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

In that case, would the ITAR apply, in your opinion?

[Michael Fortier]

The answer is no, with respect to the purchase of assets and maintenance, given that the latter would be done in Canada.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Is that something you are discussing at the moment in the negotiations, to ensure that this would not apply at any time in the case of either of these transactions?