Government Operations Committee on Feb. 12th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I call the meeting to order.

Colleagues, we'll be looking at future business. We're in a public meeting now, so unless there's a motion to put us in camera, we'll be dealing with future business in public, on transcript. I prefer not to do this, but there are some members who like to do this in public.

Is there a motion? There is not. Okay, so let's proceed.

We'll look for an economy of words. I'm ready to recognize anyone who wishes to discuss future business.

Before doing that, I'll ask the clerk to outline the one, two, or three packages of work that I think we've already identified. We haven't given them time slots yet, but if he would identify them, that would at least get us started.

Can you do that, Mr. Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michel Marcotte]

Thank you.

First and foremost, there's a novelty. Since 10:02 this morning, supplementary estimates (C) were tabled in the House. They were still not available before this meeting, but eventually we'll have to study them. We have to report by March 23, unless this changes.

You have also received a few documents by e-mail. There's a list of orders of reference, along with copies of the documents.

There is also a draft blank calendar so that we can lay out the committee’s work schedule until June.

You also received a separate e-mail, a note prepared by the analyst, stating the topics.

There's the federal procurement process. We already have two motions on this, the second one being more precise in the scope of the study. It might be interesting to know what kind of timeframe you're looking for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Members will have this very good list in front of them. I suggested that we bundle the procurement issue into a couple of meetings, but we all accept that there may be more than two meetings involved. Can we ask the clerk to schedule two meetings on that?

If we go ahead, do we have a focus on who we would want to invite as witnesses? This is on procurement, focused primarily on small and medium-sized enterprises.

Can we ask the researcher?

[Lydia Scratch, Committee Researcher]

If we have two meetings on the small and medium enterprises and federal procurement study, the committee could hear on the first day from the office of small and medium enterprises at PWGSC. It's an office that focuses on reducing barriers and simplifying requirements for the small and medium enterprises that want to do business with the Government of Canada. There's also the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is a lobby organization for small and medium organizations. They have been around for 35 years, and they lobby for small and medium businesses at the federal, provincial, and local levels of government.

So maybe the first day we could just focus on the small and medium enterprises, and then on the second day we could have the acquisitions branch of Public Works come in to talk more about the procurement processes and whether there are any things they can do to favour small and medium enterprises.

It might also be good to hear from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade about our trade obligations and how that can limit or constrain procurement with small and medium enterprises.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay, that's a good list. That involves four hours of committee time, which is a lot for four witnesses. I suppose if you asked each of these organizations to synthesize their issues to the smallest usable bullet of information, they could probably do it in five or ten minutes. The rest of the committee time would then be back-and-forth questioning and answering, which has its value.

But my sense is that we could get a bit more meat into these two meetings. I'm happy to go ahead with that, but with just four witnesses it might be a little light in cost-benefit.

Does anyone else have a suggestion for witnesses at those two meetings?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Just to add to the mix, we've been lobbied quite heavily lately by a group of small IT contractors who feel they've been squeezed out of the process quite a bit, by about $2 billion worth of activity lately, and they don't feel they're getting their fair share. So after we have the general picture perhaps from the groups that the researcher recommends, I think we could have a tangible example, a case study of this one sector that feels disadvantaged by the process and unable to elbow their way into some of the work that's being meted out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Would you pass on a reference for that group to our researcher?

Madame Bourgeois.

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

Mr. Chair, speaking in a similar vein, I must say that I totally agree with my NDP colleague. A number of business representatives met with the committee last June, but we did not finish studying their concerns. Is that not correct, Mr. Clerk? These witnesses were not just IT contractors, but representatives of businesses in general. Do you think that we could possibly extend an invitation to them? My assistant could supply you with the names of a few businesses, that is companies that have contracts with the government valued at $10 or $15 million, companies that are currently encountering problems with the International Trade Tribunal.

Pat Martin mentioned IT suppliers, but there are also other businesses to consider, specifically those that we began looking into last June. My question is for the clerk. Can I put my question through the clerk, or do I need to go through the Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I was just checking with the researcher. The committee did have evidence from IT suppliers in the last Parliament, and some did appear as witnesses, so could I ask members to go back and look at that evidence that has already been placed? We are in a position to bring that evidence forward into this study. I'm generally not in favour of giving witnesses a second kick at the cat. There wouldn't appear to be a need, but could I ask members to go back and look at that evidence that was received in the last Parliament? There is no need to have the evidence come back in again, in my view.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's important, if we're going to allow companies to come forward with grievances or concerns—and I think it's important that we do that—that we also give an opportunity for the department they are working with to have a transaction.

What we found in the last Parliament was that our chair at the time, who had been a minister previously, identified a situation in which, while she was the minister, an IT company was outraged because of their inability to get a contract with the federal government, and because of legal constraints she was not able to respond to it. In fact, the reality was that the IT company had never been able to demonstrate that the product they were trying to sell the government actually worked. So for months upon months, she was crucified by this company in the media, but because of legal obligations she was unable to respond.

So if we're going to give, in this case, a platform for somebody to bring a grievance, I think we have to think about legal considerations and we also should think about the response, if there is a way to give a response. I think what we all want to see is that medium and small businesses have full and unlimited access to contracts within the federal government, but we don't want to just be a platform for grievances, and sometimes unfounded grievances, to be aired.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

To the extent that there are small and medium-sized companies that feel they've found a problem, couldn't we have them and Public Works at the same meeting? The difference of views would become apparent very quickly at that meeting. It may require future meetings to get a resolution from our point of view, but that might be a simple solution.

We have possibly one group identified here by Mr. Martin. I think we'll try to bring them at the same time as Public Works is here.

Are there any other witnesses on this? We're still at two days. Can we start with that?

[An hon. member]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Did you want to say something, Ms. Hall Findlay? On this issue, did you want to speak?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Actually, I want to support the effort to bring in witnesses--

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Oh, good.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

--but since what Mr. Warkentin said is now on the record, I want it to be on the record as well that an awful lot of other people have raised this concern. The suggestion was that it's one particular case, and I just want it on the record that it's not. There are a lot of different cases, and a lot of people are involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Yes, we accept that it's a generic issue. We have identified an apparent group of people who can speak to it as witnesses, so we'll have them come.

Have we covered that? Okay.

Let's go ahead. We have two meetings. If members have suggestions, we might have room for maybe one more witness on one of the two days. We might or we might not, but feel free to suggest it to the research staff and to the chair.

Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Mr. Chair, we were discussing IT contractors. We will examine the topics suggested by our researcher. That’s fine. I would like us to invite officials from certain departments so that they can explain to us how they work. What interests me in particular is the veto right enjoyed by Public Works that allows it to pass over certain business and favour others. Maybe that is the problem that has led us to this point.

I would also like to give some representatives of companies that have had their contracts cancelled by Public Works the opportunity to come before the committee and discuss their situation. I hope, Mr. Chair, that in your infinite wisdom, you will agree to allow these representatives to speak to the committee and tell their story, so that we can get a clear idea of how Public Works Canada conducts business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

As to first part of your submission, I think we have covered that off adequately with the witnesses proposed so far.

The second part of your submission suggests that there are parties whose contracts for supply of IT services were terminated or interrupted in some way. That pertains to contract administration. It may or may not be relevant to what we're doing here.

If there is a particular generic situation that you're familiar with and you want the committee to be aware of, and you have a witness who can speak generically or at least inform us of those types of problems, then this party could be added as a witness. But I'd ask you to source that, and the availability, and then contact our researcher or clerk. It would be a good idea to canvass the issue with the researcher first and then, depending on the outcome of that conversation, let the clerk contact the witness if the witness is to be invited.

Is that fair? Okay.

Mr. Anders.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

If we have ideas on this, is there an e-mail address we should send it to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

If there is a suggestion for a witness, discuss it with the researcher. I want the witnesses' evidence to fit within what we're doing. Then at some point the clerk will speak to me, and then we'll invite witnesses as appropriate.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

We'll get that e-mail address.

[Lydia Scratch]

It's [email protected].

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Mr. Martin, on another subject or the same one?