Government Operations Committee on Feb. 26th, 2009

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Another question I have is about one of the issues we talked about in our last meeting, the mobility within the public service. And one of the issues that seemed to come forward was the building of silos between departments. I know that my colleague talked about this.

I worry sometimes that when we unbundle contracts, when we move away from an organized procurement process in government, it makes it more difficult. One of the issues that was raised was that when somebody moves from one part of the government to another part, there is a completely different system there. They have to learn everything over again, and it's really causing havoc with productivity. So I wonder if you could talk about that.

I know I don't have much time left, and I'm sorry for going quickly.

When larger companies get contracts.... From my own experience in setting up a constituency office, the contract that the House of Commons sent me was from Bell Canada, but the guy who actually did the work was a constituent of mine from about two kilometres away from my office. Unfortunately, he wasn't a supporter of mine; he supported the previous candidate.

But do your members not have the ability to subcontract, or are there no subcontracts when larger contracts are brought out by Public Works, or whoever, in government? Are you saying that your members never have the opportunity to work within a contract as subcontractors?

[Jeff Lynt]

No, absolutely not. I think that's in our business. I subcontract with what we call “co-opetitors” all the time—with small and large companies.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

So when a contract is brought forward by any government department, the members that you represent may still get the opportunity to work within a contract, even if it's with Bell, Allstream, or whoever. Some of your members would still have the opportunity within the larger framework to actually do work on a contract.

[Jeff Lynt]

Yes, but I just don't know what would be in it for a large company to subcontract with us, when they can just go and hire the people directly.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

But have your members had the opportunity to work within contracts that have already been issued?

[Jeff Lynt]

Absolutely. There is no doubt that we provide resources to all companies, big and small. There is no doubt about that. Absolutely, that does exist.

I'll say that it's much more difficult to supply the larger companies. They have a couple of things, such as they need to have 20% markup in order to make their money, so that cuts out the—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I guess from government's point of view, which is how I look at it—and this goes back to my previous thoughts on insurance, because that's my background—it would strike me to be a lot easier to rely on a larger company in some instances to do something, but it might be better for us to ensure that in the larger bundling, there is an opportunity for small and medium enterprises to work through the larger companies to actually get things accomplished. It still protects the government and allows your companies to be part of a contract.

[Jeff Lynt]

The fact is, today we are competing on all contracts and winning 70% of them, based on providing good solutions at competitive prices. We believe that we provide solutions as good, if not better than, the large company. And we think there are opportunities for procurement reform; we just don't think it should be packaged as part of the shared service bundles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

At this point we're going to close the questioning.

You look broken-hearted, Madame Bourgeois. You obviously have one more question you'd like to put. Do you have one more question?

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

I have one big question and some sub-questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Unfortunately, Madame Bourgeois, we are now up against the closing minutes in the meeting and the room is not available after one o'clock. If you had a question you could put in 30 seconds, I'd be happy to let you do it.

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

I would, very humbly, like to point something out to you, Mr. Chairman.

We have here recommendations from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' report of February 2008. In it, we ask that PWGSC submit a detailed plan before implementing their IT service. Last June, the members of this committee voted 11 to zero, therefore unanimously, for this. I am emotional, but I just want to tell you that we are discussing a significant problem here. There are thousands of jobs, thousands of small businesses that are going to be put into the grinder. I think we need to take more time to study this problem.

I would ask you, please, to give us a little more time, perhaps another hour or two to study this problem. This situation concerns thousands of families, people who will lose their jobs and who will have to provide cheap labour for the benefit of big businesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Madame Bourgeois.

I know you're aware that our first meeting next week is on the same issue, so we will have another two fulsome hours, and we have the rest of the parliamentary session to make progress on this. There have been a number of issues raised today that we can do some more work on usefully.

Yes, the next meeting will be on this.

With a view to that, because we didn't talk too much about the stimulus package today, I want to flag three questions. I don't want answers; I just want the witnesses from Public Works to know that the chair, at least, has an interest in these.

The first one is: is the push to bundle and consolidate procurement creating an environment in which there's a greater propensity of bidders to collude? Are we pushing bidders and small suppliers into the collusion envelope defined by the Competition Act?

I ask that question because, if it's the case, we wouldn't want it to happen, I don't think.

The second is with respect to the stimulus package. In view of the fact that the auto sector stimulus package has asked organized labour to cap or roll back some of the compensation or benefits, has there been any thought given to asking organized labour in the construction field to cap or freeze their wages for the length of the federal contract or the infrastructure contract? I'm asking the question whether this issue has been addressed. The answer is either short or long, but the question will come up next week.

The third thing is that when government moves out large truckloads of money for legitimate expenditure, sometimes bad guys get into the lineup. So I'm asking whether, when Public Works or Treasury Board or whoever goes to manage this huge, multi-billion-dollar spending envelope, there will be any screening done for organized crime, or that type of screening, as these contracts are entered into.

I'm going to ask those questions next week. I'll stop there.

If members are content, we'll allow the witnesses to withdraw. Thank you very much for coming today, both of you.

Now we'll try to do some business. The first thing is to confirm for Madame Bourgeois that we have set aside our next meeting to continue with the procurement issue with reference to SMEs, and with some reference to IT and some reference to the stimulus package. This seems to be how this issue has evolved. That will be on Tuesday.

Now, I want to alert members that, as you're probably aware, the main estimates were tabled in the House this morning. Among those estimates, it appears that the first part of the stimulus package, $3 billion, was included in the estimates for Treasury Board. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is a departure from previous estimates procedures. It more clearly places the infrastructure spending, or at least part of it, in the direct mandate of this committee. So I'm suggesting that as a committee we may have to develop a procedure to do our parliamentary job in relation to Treasury Board management of that infrastructure spending.

Having said that, we have set aside Thursday, March 5 as a stimulus package inquiry day. That is a week from today. I will also select the next business day, which is March 10, for a continuation of it, possibly with an introduction of the main estimates, for which we may need to have a minister.

At this point we have not scheduled a minister. I think we had this discussion in the last meeting, but given that the main estimates have been tabled, it is pretty customary for a minister to lead on the main estimates. It is not essential, but that's the custom.

We will shift over by one meeting our review of the corporate assets, the disposal of assets review, which I think Mr. Martin wanted to do. So it's still on the agenda, but moved over.

Just to recap, our next meeting will continue with the procurement issue. You can check with the clerk for the witnesses. We have a fairly decent lineup.

Then the next two meetings will be on the stimulus package.

Now I'll recognize members who may want to make comments on that. Keep in mind that we have only about five minutes to do this. Your remarks have to be kept to 30 seconds. I'll be quiet and listen.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Chair, I think the estimates take precedence over everything. The amount that is required in the traditional three-twelfths has now been augmented to eleven-twelfths. I understand the procurement issue is important, but I would humbly submit that we have a serious time constraint on the estimates and that we should be dealing with those first and foremost.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The next meeting is already planned. We can cancel the meeting, but it would be really difficult to get a new agenda put in place for the next meeting--

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Chair, if I could ask.... This is extraordinary. More importantly, can the clerk or the researcher confirm the time constraint? We may not have much flexibility here.

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

For the main estimates, the deadline by which we should report to the House is May--

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

No. Mr. McTeague is asking if we could get our next Tuesday meeting into the estimates, the stimulus package estimates. That's what he's asking.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I think the clerk had it right. What is the deadline?

[The Clerk]

The deadline is May 31.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

But May 31 was not your problem, Mr. McTeague. Were you not asking if we could change the next meeting to an estimates meeting?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Given the nature of this, I would suggest that we want to change the tone, because it's not just the estimates themselves; it's everything that's contained within them. The meeting that we had last evening has a timeline of March 26.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Is that what you want?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Chair, I'm simply asking if there is a constraint that the clerk or you are aware of that would force this committee to deal with this immediately on Tuesday as opposed to procurement on Tuesday.