Government Operations Committee on April 15th, 2008

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I only want to say that we will definitely support this motion. Last May we did have a briefing by the procurement officials, and I think it's important that we follow up. In fact, it was our intention at that point to go into more detail on some of the different departments and other issues, but there were other things that have taken our time. So I think it's important that we go back and revisit that in more depth.

The other thing that has happened since last May is that we have a number of new members on the committee, so I think it's important that we continue this.

I think the overview is important first, but then I think we also need to delve deeply into the role of the minister, the mandate, and activities of the office of small and medium enterprises and also green procurement. These are issues we've talked about many times but have never really delved into in any depth.

There are other departments as well that I think would benefit from our studying them relative to procurement--Treasury Board Secretariat, Industry Canada, DFAIT, and others. I think if our researcher were to give us some advice as to which ones would be the most beneficial to study, that would be good.

I also propose that we hear from those entities that provide oversight with respect to procurement--so the Auditor General, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, and the procurement ombudsman.

Again, I want to reiterate that it's important that we don't do this in a piecemeal fashion, that we look at it in a holistic manner, a more structured approach to the topic. Therefore, I want to concur with the idea that has been floated already that it's very important that the steering committee meet the very first Monday or Tuesday we are back so we can establish an agenda and a potential list of witnesses and do some good planning on this before we jump into it and head off in all directions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm supportive of this motion as well.

Madam Chair, during the steering committee, I wonder if you would be.... I'm thinking of the discussion we just had with Ms. Stensholt. I don't want to come to specifics, because we aren't in camera at this point, but I think that some of the discussion we had between her, yourself, and myself.... I wonder if we can incorporate some of that kind of backroom information that some of the civil servants have with regard to how we might be able to streamline this process. That may mean in camera meetings, because of course there are solicitor-client issues--maybe not even solicitor-client, but simply competitive issues. But let's think about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I think that might be very beneficial, to find out some of the areas, some loopholes that are there that we might be able to address. I think that's very important, and I thank you for bringing that up.

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have two quick points.

I'm not on the committee, so these are simply recommendations for the steering committee. I think the motion sort of speaks to this, but one is to make sure that someone asks about the procedures that are in place to help businesses in smaller areas. I`m thinking of splitting of larger contracts, etc., to help businesses in rural areas.

The second point refers to the fact that the federal government has an aboriginal program to help access of aboriginal businesses to federal government procurement. If we could have someone from that program come to explain how that works, I think it would be useful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I'm certainly interested in looking at this issue. Since our whole committee is in some ways about procurement, I don't want us to try to take on everything in terms of this study, because this is sort of overall what we look at. So I would certainly be interested in some suggestions before we sit down, if Mr. Albrecht has a sense....

What we've been generally doing at committees here is suggesting two meetings, three meetings, or four meetings. Clearly, if we're bringing all these new players to the table, three meetings will certainly not be enough.

I would feel more comfortable if we had a general sense. I don't want us to go off studying every single department here. I think it would be a bit of a wild goose chase. There were certain issues raised about procurement and transparency, which is why we were interested in the ombudsman. The TPG case certainly raised a number of questions, and I was certainly not satisfied with any of the answers I heard. I think these are really pertinent questions.

The issue of the submarine contract was a very clear-cut one. Give us some clear guidelines so that we can come back and say this is how the process is done, and it's done in a fair and open manner.

There are certainly a few contested issues that I think we need to examine in order to apply a bit of a reality check or a counter-check against what we're going to hear from the bureaucrats. Then, at the end of that, we'll probably have a much clearer sense. So I'm supporting it, but I'd like to have a sense of exactly how far we're going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We'd have to look at the overall procurement: how it works, what are the rules for larger contracts, and when does Treasury Board get in? We should start with that kind of an overview, because there are different levels of procurement. For major purchases, there's one way of dealing with it if there are large amounts of money over long periods of time, and then you have all the different levels. There may be some rules that can be changed or made better, but the rules are basically there.

You have to remember, some of this is extremely large. There aren't a lot of people who can bid on some of these things. So it is a difficult topic, but I think it's one that we should take on, much like we've done with other studies. Do a good study so that we can come up with some recommendations that make a difference.

Sometimes people feel that it's quite boring, but if you take some of the studies we've done, such as the accrual accounting.... Most people—you weren't here when we did it—thought that was the biggest yawn there was, but extremely important in the long term. Hopefully this won't be as bureaucratic.

At any rate, I think we should do this. We should get together and come up with an overall plan. We'll ask our researchers to sit down with me and with us, and also, please make sure you think of people you'd like to bring before the committee.

On Thursday we have a meeting, and we might, if we have time, have a short meeting to discuss this again. But maybe we're not giving our researcher enough time.

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

I don't know where I am on the list, but I'd like to speak again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madame Bourgeois is on, and then Mr. Albrecht, Mr. Holland, and Mr. Angus.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I am glad that the motion was put forward and that the party in power has agreed to have us undertake, and I quote, “a study of the federal government's procurement process”. I think it will be very interesting.

I would like to be sure that we will not be spending just three sittings on this. The motion reads “at least three sittings”, but if we need five, six or even ten sittings, we can take all the time we need.

Personally, I would like the committee to study National Defence's procurement processes, because Public Works and Government Services is the department that studies and sets out plans and specifications for equipment, and so on. Of course, several witnesses will tell us about National Defence's procurement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

That would be very interesting.

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to comment on the point that Charlie made, that he doesn't want it to go on forever. As far as I see this as it relates to Canadian taxpayers, this is the kind of thing we should be spending a lot more time on. I think we're often being penny wise and pound foolish here, by trailing off on all these little rabbit trails, when this is the kind of material.... We had this on May 17; we had a briefing. I think we gave them maybe an hour; 30 minutes I think is my memory of what that time was, an overview.

But following that meeting, the department officials sent us this paper with all the numbers of different agencies: foreign affairs, international trade, foreign direct investment, Export Development Canada. It goes on and on, with a number of different departments that we have never even looked at.

So I think it's important that we have a timeline, and if after the steering committee meets it says we need six meetings, we have six meetings. But to get to the root of this, I think it's important we give it the diligence it deserves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Holland, then Mr. Angus.

[An hon. member]

Let's call the question.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Really briefly, the only thing I was going to say was that perhaps we could just suggest there be a date and that we ask members of committee to provide in advance the list of witnesses they want to have. I think it's not going to be a very productive meeting if we just show up and lay down our lists of witnesses, and then people are going to say they need time to think about this and talk about it.

I think we should have, at least a day or two in advance, the lists submitted of witnesses that people are suggesting.

Denied the pleasure of Mr. Kramp's vote on my motion, I look forward to his comments when he comes back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Well, I suggest I would not want to do it this Thursday. I think we're trying to get a sense of where we're at. I would certainly agree if we perhaps had a special Monday meeting with the steering committee. I would prefer that we have a sense of the names before we come in, so we don't all suddenly sit down, see the names for the first time, and then spend two hours bickering.

I think we might be able to do this over the week break, if we could start to put the names together, find the time in advance that we could look at them, and then we could perhaps just engage in a discussion, so when we actually get to our steering committee meeting, we will....

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I would also like to suggest that we give our research people time to put together a plan. There's a week's break. Then they can come up with a plan at that point. If there is a series of names, we might be able to look at it together.

Whether we have a full meeting or just a steering committee meeting depends on what's there and what we have scheduled. Sometimes it's just as well to have a meeting of the whole committee to decide some of these things.

It's an important issue. If we can, if our researcher is ready, we'll plan a steering committee on the Monday we return. Otherwise, we'll do it sometime following that. He's working on our report on the pay and benefits.

I want to call the vote on this motion, which I think is a great motion, by the way, and then I want to talk to you about a few little things.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Carried unanimously. Thank you. I think that's terrific.

Now, before you all rush out, here are two things. This afternoon we are going to receive a copy of our report on the pay and benefits issue, with the changes identified, with the names of the people who suggested the changes. So I would ask that you look at that so that when we come back on Thursday we will have one witness for the first hour, and then we can go to that report.

If there are any major changes, please notify the clerk so that we can actually pass a motion, pass this report, have it printed during the week's break, so we can then deposit it when we come back.

There is another thing I'm going to circulate. I'm going to circulate two documents. I had a meeting with some people, this week actually, from pay and benefits. They brought along two pay and benefits clerks from CSIS. The CSIS clerks advised me—and I thought it was kind of funny, because the meeting was in camera, but they obviously must have heard we had discussed them—that their job really was less complicated in many ways than the jobs of others, because they only had one collective agreement and only 200 unionized personnel. I just wanted you to know that.

The other paper I'm circulating is about what different places are paying. I just think it's important for you to have that before we pass the report, hopefully on Thursday.

Thank you very much.

I'll adjourn the meeting at this time.