Debates of Oct. 17th, 1994

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

"It will not be long", says the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I congratulate him for being so eloquent, as he usually is, and also for being so perceptive.

My colleagues from the Liberal Party do not see the use of setting up a patronage system as demanded today by the Bloc Quebecois. No, Madam Speaker. We, Liberal Party members, do not agree at all with that suggestion.

I was just referring to politicians who have switched parties and I see that the member for Richelieu just came into this House. I am convinced that he is interested in this issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member for Richelieu, on a point of order.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, my grandfather used to say that only fools do not change opinion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, but this is not a point of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, it all depends on how foolish the original idea is.

So, these are the proposals made by Bloc Quebecois members today. They are saying that we should not go ahead with Bill C-52.

The Liberal Party dealt with this issue in a document called the red book-and members opposite must surely have heard about it-and I would like to quote excerpts from the part of that document on how to put an end to waste.

Billions of dollars are spent indiscriminately on useless programs. It is time the government spent public money as carefully as Canadians do with their own money. A Liberal government will review government spending and cancel the extravagant helicopter contract approved by Kim Campbell. The document then lists the rest of the useless expenditures.

Those are the priorities established by our party during the election campaign, and we remain committed to fulfilling our election promises. We still intend to serve Canadians well.

Finally, I want to refer to a document on ethics and morals in the public sector, which was released by the Liberal Party when we formed the opposition and when I was the critic on government administration. Recommendation No. 4 in this document states that the Liberal Party wants to merge the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of Public Works into a single department, the Department of Government Services.

There you are, Madam Speaker. In 1992, we consulted Canadians and defined our program. In 1993, we presented that program to Canadians in the red book. And in 1994, we are fulfilling our commitments. That is the difference between the Liberals and the members opposite. We have said the same thing before, during and after the election campaign, and we will continue to provide a good government to Canadians, in spite of the efforts of some members opposite.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member's appointment has made him any smarter. His speeches have not changed.

In fact, I did not move this amendment, I merely seconded it, because you will recall, if the hon. member would read the text of the motion, that the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Québec-Est, Jean-Paul Marchand, and seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix.

The bill amalgamates the departments of Public Works, Supply and Services, Procurement and Communications and Translation. We wanted the government to use this bill to provide some transparency in government procedures. People often say it is time the government stopped wasting money.

If we consider contracting out alone, between 1984-85 and 1992-93 there was a 56 per cent increase in this area at Public Works. There was an increase of 114.2 per cent in National Defence. There was an increase of 207 per cent at Health and Welfare. There was an increase of 247 per cent at Supply and Services. There was an increase of 628 per cent at Customs and Excise.

Although the Auditor General does a very good job, in his report he said he had been unable to assess whether the government had received its money's worth for the amounts spent on contracting out. How many people in the Public Service have been put on the shelf, while the government decides to have their work done on contract? What we want is a monitoring committee, consisting of public servants, elected representatives and people working for the Auditor General.

It also says in our amendment that members from each riding should be consulted, and I would like to explain that this was put in because of a statement by a Liberal member on the committee, who I think deserves all the credit. He said that he read a public notice in his riding that the government was preparing to make some changes in the post office there. He saved the government a million dollars. We moved the amendment simply in the interests of transparency.

My question is directed to the Chief Whip. Does he agree that the government should include elements in its bills that would reflect great transparency?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I thought the hon. member was making a speech, because he had been going on for quite a while. The hon. member wants to know whether we favour more openness. I am sorely tempted to answer with the following question: How could the creation of a structure

which could increase patronage be an instrument of greater openness?

The member opposite totally missed the boat regarding this bill. We have the tools to ensure transparency. The member said that it takes a committee to go along with the Auditor General. We already have one, it is called the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Once the Auditor General's report is tabled in the House, it is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts without even a motion from this House.

Under the present Standing Orders, it is automatic. All government contracts the Auditor General wants to comment on are included in his report if he believes that it is in the interest of this House; consequently, they are automatically referred to this parliamentary committee. Therefore, once again, the member's arguments are flawed. Yes, we need greater transparency, more accountability, and yes, all parliamentarians agree that we need to cut costs. This bill is going to accomplish all that and we already have all the other necessary structures.

[English]

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on second reading of Bill C-52, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.

I have listened to the debate on this bill with great interest and have noticed once again how the members of the opposite side will stretch logic to the breaking point in order to turn discussion to their pet subjects.

I have also noticed that no argument, no matter how sound, will steer them away from these pet subjects with the result that we who support the passage of Bill C-50 must repeat dozens of variations on the same factual themes. They are indeed factual themes which no amount of political rhetoric can dismiss.

Bill C-52 is a clear instance of sound legislation to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of government. It eliminates overlap and duplication. It provides for consolidation and coherence in government purchasing and contracting. It generates vast savings and taxpayers' dollars thus contributing to deficit reduction and helping restore public faith in government.

It eliminates antiquated, redundant legislation and regulation, bringing administrative practices into the electronic age. It permits single window access to information for clients, suppliers and taxpayers. Despite the declarations of members of the opposite side, there has been a great deal of talk about transparency.

Despite that fact, it has been clear from the outset that this government is committed to fairness and openness in government contracting. This government is determined to ensure that all contracting is undertaken in a manner that keeps the Canadian taxpayers informed, stimulates competitiveness and ensures that the process is open and fair.

Treasury Board promulgates policies that are aimed specifically at these objectives. It clearly bears repeating that the information on the magnitude of the government contracting already exists and this government is making improvements to ensure even greater openness.

In the meantime, the government encourages all suppliers and all members of Parliament to use the open bidding service that advertises upcoming opportunities to supply goods and services.

With this system, information on current as well as past purchases is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to anyone and everyone who is interested. Suppliers no longer need to be included on a government source list. They no longer have to await an invitation to bid. They can review available opportunities in their product or service areas and order the required bid documents for those that they are interested in. Documents are forwarded immediately by fax, mail or courier.

At the same time as we take measures to ensure open access to contracting information, every practical means must be brought to bear to reduce expenditures and ensure maximum value for each dollar spent. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged the magnitude of the task of government purchasing. The federal government is Canada's largest user of private sector suppliers with more than 200,000 transactions per year. It buys everything from stationery to military equipment.

Members should bear in mind that by relying on program experts in the various departments the number of contracts that require the review of ministers is very small, consisting of large, risky or sensitive purchases. It is the task of Public Works and Government Services Canada to make many of these purchases on behalf of other departments. Nonetheless, close to half of all the contracts are awarded under the authority of individual departments.

Yet despite this diversity of sources and despite the massive information already or shortly to be in the public domain, members opposite insist that the government should compile and publish separate detailed information. The additional cost of gathering and publishing such information would be a glaring extravagance that flies in the face of fiscal restraint.

One hon. member has said that if research is necessary to compile the information, and I quote directly: "Goodness, gracious, hire some researchers to do the job". Another member has argued that since the cost would be such a small percentage of the total cost of government purchasing, it is reallynegligible.

Is that responsible opposition and criticism? I do not think so. Is that legitimate concern for sound administration of public funds? Or is it perhaps the very kind of thinking, the very lack of respect for taxpayers' money that got us into our deficit difficulties in the first place?

A good example of an inaccurate picture is the case of Saint John Shipbuilding and the patrol frigate program. A listing of contracts by constituency would show that contract in a New Brunswick riding but no less than $1.2 billion of the work will actually go to Quebec suppliers.

An excellent example of misleading information is the case of the petroleum companies which bill all their government sales through their Ottawa offices. It represents hundreds of millions of dollars of business per year, none of which is supplied by Ottawa.

In the end the government has to serve its clients and the public purse in the most effective and least expensive manner. Members on both sides of the House quite rightly insist that wherever feasible contracts should be competitive and should go to the lowest quality bidder.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the deputy government whip to defer the division until a later time. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders and following the other deferred votes, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Does the House agree to proceed with adjournment proceedings?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have asked a question of the Minister of Transport, in fact the entire side, a number of times. I have asked the minister, I have asked the parliamentary secretary, I have even asked the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. My question has been regarding the Pearson airport contract. If they think this is a bad deal we wanted to know what they thought was a good deal.

In spite of asking all these different people, I have never received an answer. What I want to do for a moment is take a look at what is good and what is bad about this deal; first what is good, from my perspective, of course.

It would have involved $740 million of private enterprise money going into the rebuilding of terminals 1 and 2 without any cost to the taxpayer. It would have created world class terminals at competitive and comparable rents for airlines. It would have had blended use of terminal 3 during the construction period, minimizing public disruption. There would have been a tremendous advantage to Air Canada and perhaps even Canadian Airlines.

It would have created a new world class air terminal and would have provided enhanced economic and tourism benefits for central Canada without cost to the air industry in other parts of the country or the Canadian taxpayer.

Then there is the matter of jobs, jobs, jobs-the Liberal Party election cry. The Pearson development contract would have created 14,000 person years of construction employment and another 1,200 permanent new jobs in the new facilities.

What is bad about this contract? According to the Liberals, this contract had no cancellation clause. What is interesting is that there was no cancellation clause for Terminal 3, for Vista

cargo terminals or for the Vancouver local airport authority. They claimed that it had limited bidding. The reality is that hundreds of contracts or requests for proposals were printed, dozens were picked up, and the fact that only a few were qualified to bid on it can hardly be deemed the responsibility or problem of the Pearson consortium.

They claimed that the rate of return on investment was too high; the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce did not think so. It was one of the original investors but they dropped out because the rate of return dropped to less than 14 per cent, which they thought was too low for the degree of risk involved.

They complained that the contract was signed during the election campaign. Most legal opinions agree that the actual binding date of the deal was August of 1993, before the election was called.

A very selective censored review of terminals 1 and 2 provided to Robert Nixon by the associate deputy minister and classified as secret, indicates the following: rate of return too high? The Pearson Development Corporation return on investment was endorsed as reasonable by both the Department of Finance and a government hired independent consultant. They claimed the crown was not getting a good return but the reality is this report said the crown's rate of return was considerably better than a crown construction option.

I have to provide at this provide an apology because in my letter to the minister which I sent a week ago I claimed that his action was unprecedented. In actual fact, the War Measures Act in 1942 which saw the Japanese stripped of all their property, legislated payment and denied the right of appeal, sounds rather familiar.

They claim that $445 million is the compensation sought. Court documents show no amount has been claimed, only the right to an arbitration tribunal.

So far this is all my side. Is there a Liberal side? We do not know. We keep asking the question and they keep refusing to answer it. The question is, and I will ask it again for the fourth time, if this is a bad deal, what is a good deal, what are your alternatives?

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that is the question we are supposed to be debating tonight. I will try in my short two minutes to respond to the member's addendum to his question.

First, the Liberal government's position is pretty clear. We cancelled the deal. Canadians obviously thought we made the right decision because they elected us in majority numbers; in fact 98 out of 99 Ontario seats, for the member's recollection.

The current Prime Minister had given ample notice during the election that he wanted to review the deal to see where the public interest was. Once we were elected we put the public interest first and that was to cancel the deal as we had promised to do before the election. There is no question where the Liberal government stands. We think the deal was a bad deal for Canadians. We cancelled the deal.

I find it incredible that the Reform Party is actually supporting the deal. The member knows because he is the transport critic that the standing committee held hearings on Bill C-22 and brought forth witnesses to discuss the pros and cons of the bill and the deal.

It is unquestionable that the highest court in the land, Parliament, which is to determine public interest, has determined this was a bad deal. Courts may decide on the value of a contract cancelled or not; but the highest court in the land, Parliament of which the Reform Party speaks so highly each and every day, has the right to determine pubic interest.

We are not standing still. We are moving through our national airports policy to make sure that Pearson is the flagship of our Canadian Airport Authority. The municipalities have named their representatives. The minister has announced the completion of the north-south runway to be used for safety reasons in inclement weather, not on a daily basis. We have been waiting for the appointments of the other members of the CAA so we can get on with building Pearson, spending the $740 million, creating jobs and making sure that Pearson remains the world class facility it was supposed to be.

We are committed not to waiting until 1998 as the member suggested in his original question but to getting on with building Pearson in the public interest as a non-profit organization called the Canadian Airport Authority. We would welcome the Reform Party's support of Bill C-22 and not it being allies with Conservative senators, which is also incredible.

We hope to get on with building Pearson and have the support of the Reform Party in that regard.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.47 p.m.)