Debates of Dec. 13th, 1994

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the member for Elk Island. He has learned very quickly. He is ahead of me. I do not mind telling the member that yes there has been an amendment and he can speak again.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some statements which are relevant to the amendment. I do not know if you noticed, but I think I was very close to being on topic speaking about the four points of my amendment one by one. I was very careful to do that.

I would like to say a few things partially in rebuttal to the hon. member from the Liberal Party who just spoke. He indicated how patient he has been. I suppose if we were to blow up our chests a little those of us on the other side would say that we too have tried to exercise patience in trying to work together and I shall continue to do that. It is not my objective here to merely fight for the sake of fighting. I want to do what is right and what is best for the Canadian people.

The member said that there was a time to a stop in these discussions. I think the record ought to show that we probably discussed Bill C-52 in committee for 10 hours maximum. That is my estimate. We heard one witness. That is my recollection of it. I stand to be corrected if that is wrong.

Second, the member made some statement about backroom deals. I did not accuse anybody about backroom deals. I said the perception out there among the people is that governments engage in backroom deals. Because the Liberal government has said it wants more openness and honesty and integrity, and Reformers are also saying this, surely we can agree that we will

do away with any reality of that which may have occurred in the past. Let me be really charitable in the spirit of Christmas and say it happened before the Liberals were elected, some of them, at least to the government side.

We need to do away with not only the reality of it but the perception of it. The only way to guarantee that the perception is removed is by actually putting into legislation that there is this openness.

With respect to the amendment to my motion that says "where possible", I do not know how to say this in such a way that it does not come out wrong. I am going to try very hard to do that. The only reason that we inserted these two words in sections (a) and (b) was the government side. Observing the way discussions went in our committee and recognizing that if we were to come with an amendment which would be very hard and which would say the minister must engage or make sure, refrain from engaging in activities and so on, we were quite certain that the Liberal side would have just said nix to it. We softened it deliberately for them, to give them an opportunity to vote for this so that the minister has greater flexibility. That is why the words are there, to say "where possible".

I know the hon. member from the Bloc is most sincere and actually made an amendment to my motion to remove those words which would have been my first choice. I know they do not have a chance of getting it passed. Instead of not going anywhere, I would like to at least move the government a little in the right direction, and that is why we said "where possible'. That is my comment with respect to the amendment that has been made.

In the spirit of Christmas, if I may quote the hon. member for St. Boniface, in the spirit of gentleness let us get together on this and let us vote in favour of the motion but let us leave those words in so that the Liberals can feel comfortable voting for it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Resuming debate on the amendment to Motion No. 1.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment to the amendment to Motion No. 1 moved by the hon. member for Québec-Est, to delete the words "where possible" and here is why.

First, Bill C-52 provides the government with the opportunity to amalgamate Public Works Canada, Supply and Services Canada and the Translation Service. It appears to us that, in the context of a bill, "where possible" is little more than idle talk, as the hon. member for Québec-Est indicated. Such words also leave room for interpretation and favouritism.

At the same time, we could expect -I hope it will not be the case under this government as it was under the previous one- that this will encourage the granting of contracts to friends of the regime and leave the door wide open for lobbyists. It is only natural for lobbyists who attend luncheons at $1,000 a plate organized by the federal government to be tempted to come and knock on the doors of Liberal members to get contracts. It has been done before the Liberals came to power and I would hope that, in a spirit of openness and transparency, the member will not object to seeing things change.

Quoting the red book, the Liberal government talked about transparency during the campaign. There have been several books and papers since, of course. We have gone from red book to green paper, from green to purple, from purple to orange, from orange to grey and we certainly hope that all these will not result in a black paper.

So, in a spirit of transparency and goodwill in administering public assets, you, the Liberal government, hold a majority of seats. If ridicule kills, that is why the Conservative government no longer exists. And if you continue to be wasteful with respect to contracting-out and privatization, your days are numbered, gentlemen.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order! As I said a moment ago, you are encouraged not to address one another directly across the floor, but rather through the Chair. It may be more useful someday.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you scared me. I was sure you were about to say that one day I, the member for Charlevoix, might occupy the Speaker's chair.

In close co-operation, the member for Québec-Est, the member for Laurentides, when she was parliamentary critic for public works and governmental affairs, and myself have shown that the Bloc Quebecois was very serious when we were hearing testimony. We took the time to listen to the witnesses and asked appropriate questions.

In closing, I hope to be able to speak, if time permits, on clause 16 of this bill, which allows the government to compete with private engineering firms.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Québec-Est. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76, a recorded division on the amendment stands deferred.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: an affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 3. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 3.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-52, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 39 to 45, on page 5, and line 1, on page 6, with the following:

"16. The Minister may do any thing for or on behalf of a ) any department, board or agency of the Government of Canada or Crown corporation, or b ) with the approval of the Governor in Council, any government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere that requests the Minister to do that thing, where the Minister is authorized to do that thing under this''.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-52 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to put forward an amendment to clause 16. With this amendment, the requirement for governor in council approval under clause 16(b) is being proposed. This will allay some of the concerns that the members in our particular task group on government operations had. I hope they are going to support this amendment.

Concerns have been expressed by some members of the private sector also. For example, the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada, which represents 14 per cent of the consulting engineering community, has expressed reservations about 16(b) opening the door for public works and government services to compete with the private sector.

I want to be very clear on this point. The bill does not permit the department to compete with the private sector. It cannot even respond to requests for proposals. That is very clear in this.

The authorities contained in clause 16 are not new. They are contained in section 13 of the current Department of Supply and Services Act. This section enables the department to; first, work with the other levels of government to reduce overlap and duplication; second, to partner with the private sector when requested. The introduction of a requirement for an order in council, as I propose, guarantees a higher level of authority and accountability. It will ensure that the department only partners or engages in reduction of duplication with provinces with the direction from the cabinet. We cannot get a greater safeguard than that. This is pure accountability.

Currently PWGSC has over 120 active bilateral initiatives for areas of discussion with provinces and territories in services ranging from translation, bulk purchasing and co-operative procurement practices, real property management and shared accommodation. These are aimed at reducing overlap and duplication. Hence, savings for taxpayers. This is something that we promised to do. It is something we all promised to do. Every single party in the Chamber promised savings for taxpayers.

If other levels of government approach PWGSC with a view to co-operating in the provision of cost-effective services related to any of its 21 service lines, the department should be and must be in a position to consider such requests in the interest of the taxpayer. This is consistent with the government's election commitment to work closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and improve service delivery in all areas where governments are involved.

Mr. Speaker, if you think you have heard that quote before, well you have. You will find it in the red book at page 23. We cannot forget that there is only one taxpayer in Canada. We have a responsibility to work co-operatively to ensure the most efficient and cost effective delivery of services possible for Canadian tax dollars.

This is what clause 16 guarantees to all of us as Canadian taxpayers. Clause 16 of Bill C-52 assists in fostering the spirit of co-operation and partnership between the government and the private sector. This is especially important for the small and medium sized businesses that are currently requesting partnerships with the government.

As we stated in the red book, the crucial role of the government is to work with the private sector to identify strategic opportunities for the future and then to redirect its existing

resources toward the fulfilment of these opportunities; again, a quote from the red book, page 44.

We are moving on our campaign goals and our promises. The government is committed to working with the private sector to identify strategic opportunities and to redirect our existing resources toward the fulfilment of all these opportunities when requested.

The opportunities clause 16 offers for partnerships with the PWGSC, businesses, particularly small and medium sized businesses, can lever the federal government, use its experience and expertise to create and expand new markets, particularly foreign markets and to create jobs. Private sector jobs, is this not what we are all about? Is this not why we are here today?

This Liberal government recognizes that when Canadian businesses prosper abroad Canadians prosper at home. The government has heard the concerns of the private sector, including the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada. It rightly feels that it should not have to compete with government. At the same time it supports public-private partnership as long as it is industry led.

I quote the association's president who appeared before us in committee. He said he is "not against private-public partnerships where the private sector is in the lead role and not the other way around".

PWGSC has received many letters indicating support for industry led government partnership initiatives including letters from members of the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada. I have many quotes from letters that we have received in support of Bill C-52.

The government recognizes that no legitimate purpose would be served by allowing the department to compete with the private sector. I would not support that. In fact, when there has been actual or perceived competition with the private sector, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has moved swiftly to rectify the situation.

For example, he took action to address the concerns of the printing industry with the Canada Communication Group. With clause 16, Bill C-52 moves the government down a path of reducing the tax burden for Canadians while assisting business in partnership, on request. The proposed amendment put forward ensures greater accountability in this process. For these reasons I encourage all members of the House to support this amendment.

To do less is not doing what our taxpayers want us to do. They want us to reduce duplication. They want us to see where we can help firms in public practices when requested. When we can with tax dollars help them, they want us to do that. To do any less is irresponsible. I call on all members to support this amendment.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, government members confuse and mislead the public with their arguments that do not hold water. For instance, they say that the president of the association of consulting engineers of Canada agrees with this motion. I can tell you that I was on the phone with him this morning, as I have been repeatedly these past few weeks, and he keeps telling me that he is against this motion and this clause in Bill C-52.

I want to tell the government that the association has demonstrated its opposition by issuing countless press releases stating that the government is not listening, that "The government is not listening, it is encroaching on our markets". The association, which is concentrated in Quebec, represents 800 consulting engineering firms whose 35,000 members question this bill.

The government member would have us believe that the government is creating jobs. This is pure nonsense. What this clause does is threaten high-quality jobs that have evolved over several years, perhaps mostly in Quebec, jobs that are not created overnight. What is at stake here is top expertise that our consulting engineering firms have demonstrated around the world. It is mainly this sector which is being targeted.

The government cannot mislead the population by saying, as my colleague did earlier, that it does not intend to compete with the private sector.

The minister himself said in a letter that "in response to your question, the primary purpose of Bill C-52 is"-imagine that-"to authorize Public Works and Government Services Canada to provide common services to the departments, boards and agencies of the Canadian government". Clause 16 increases this power by allowing the minister to provide common services, similar to those offered by federal Crown corporations, to other governments and to the private sector in Canada and abroad.

A few paragraphs further, the minister goes on to say: "Clause 16 is not intended to make the Department of Public Works and Government Services into a fierce competitor of the private sector". Certainly not a fierce competitor, but a competitor nonetheless under the monstrous guise of trying to compete and reduce this government's deficit through economies of scale.

Let me give you an example. What is proposed is that the government would provide all the supplies, as well as all other goods and services, not only to itself but maybe also to the provinces, the territories and the municipalities across the country. This is a concentration of purchases. If we had a warped mind like some government members, we might think that there are economies of scale or savings to be made. But we know very well that this is not the case. This would only create a monster like the former U.S.S.R. That country enjoyed a government

monopoly and had economies of scale in every sector. But look at what happened to the U.S.S.R.: it no longer exists.

The basic problem is that the government does not understand that the public and private sectors each have a specific role to play. When you mix the two together, particularly if the federal government starts to compete with the private sector, the whole system becomes skewed, because the federal government can hide all sorts of costs. It can change numbers to make it look as though a particular item or service costs less or money is saved here or there. In this way, the government can compete with certain companies and put them out of business, while favouring friends of the party. This is wonderful-

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

This is what you call progressive federalism.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Precisely. In Quebec, we want to avoid this at all costs, because clause 16 shows a blatant lack of understanding on the part of this government. It seems that the government does not even understand the strongest tendencies in the economy and in modern politics. The government should not go for concentration and centralization. Centralizing all federal, provincial, municipal and other purchases and sales in the country will not result in savings.

Such a move goes against the most elementary and basic rules of economy. This government proposes a bill, clause 16 in particular, which goes against basic economic rules. This is why the government and the people of Quebec are anxious to leave a regime which is headed the wrong way, as confirmed unequivocally by clause 16.

Despite all the representations made by the private sector and all the issues raised with members and the Minister of Public Works, there seems to have been no realization that perhaps this clause should have been deleted or even the previous legislation reinstated.

The consulting engineering sector suggested it preferred the previous act, because Bill C-52 which we are considering today gives the minister additional powers, powers that did not exist before. It is the only really new element in this bill. The rest is not new, just a bunch of provisions that have been revamped. However, this new element is almost an insult to the intelligence of people who understand the workings of our economy. It is a threat to an industrial sector that is thriving and highly specialized, and it opens the door to unfair competition and, once again, to even more patronage.

Clause 16 certainly does not encourage people who are the slightest bit familiar with the operation of the Department of Public Works to support this provision. In fact, Mr. Speaker, suggestions by the government that perhaps these overtures to the private sector should be made in consultation with the business community would actually make no difference at all.

This clause gives the government complete latitude to operate on the turf of the private sector, where it has no business to be, because, I repeat, this opens the door to patronage and is a threat to industries that, over the years, have developed an expertise that is appreciated and an expertise they want to maintain. The government has no business in this sector. And that is why we in the Bloc are opposed to this clause and to the government's amendment.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little frustrated in getting up here. This amendment comes from the Liberal side. I know the way things work around here with the majority over there and the less than majority over here that it will pass and what we say probably will not.

I will not miss this opportunity to go on record as powerfully and as strongly as I can to say that this is not the answer to the problems we have in this country, specifically on this one issue.

When I first saw this amendment I thought of a television show I watched for about 10 minutes one day. This lady was put into a box; the box was closed; the magician sawed her right in half. It was incredible. Her body was cut in two. Then he opened the box and she was fine again, there was no severance. That is what this particular amendment does. It gives the illusion of accomplishing something but really nothing is accomplished at all.

It is important for us in considering what we are talking about to really know what this motion says. Originally it said the minister may do anything for or on behalf of any department, board, or agency of the Government of Canada or a crown corporation or any government body or person in Canada or elsewhere.

It was mentioned earlier here that this was already in the previous act, the one this bill replaces. Not quite right. The two words "or elsewhere" were added. In other words the ability of the government to perform these functions now goes even outside of our country according to what it first proposed.

We now have this amendment. It still has exactly the same words except the one little word "a" has been taken out. Other than that the words are all there. The only difference is that for the minister to do anything for or on behalf of any government body or person in Canada or elsewhere, he or she must now obtain the approval of cabinet. In other words there is no restriction at all on whether or not government can still do anything for anybody.

The other day I was giving a little speech to a few people. I said the rough paraphrase of clause 16 of Bill C-52 was simply that the minister may do anything for anyone and the taxpayers pick up the bill. It was then said to me that that was not quite fair and that I was overstating it. Yet, it is very difficult to read anything else into this when it says that the minister may do anything for or on behalf of, and then everything listed includes anybody because finally it gets down to that every entity is

either a government, a government agency, a body, or a person. There is no exclusion.

I would also like to make reference to a quotation. It is from a letter written by no other than the minister himself. These are his words: "I have already decided that Public Works and Government Services Canada will not be competing with the private sector by offering services outside the federal government". That quotation is from a letter signed by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

I am at a loss to understand if that is his intention why he would hesitate for a second to state that in the legislation. The legislation says one thing and the minister says exactly the opposite. He is trying to assure us and the critics of this bill that we ought not to worry because it is not his intention to do this. Yet the bill clearly says that the government may do it. I do not see where the logic lies there; it misses me completely and I think it would miss anybody who stopped to think about it.

We have had a number of very strong presentations on the intrusion of government into private enterprise. I have a whole stack of them here. I know I cannot refer to them so I will not, Mr. Speaker, but they are here. Most of them are from small business firms and notably among them are consulting engineers. I will not quote it but I remember one of them said that this legislation cuts right to the very core of small engineering firms whose lifeblood is bidding on and providing services for provinces and municipalities.

This legislation now says that the taxpayer is going to be subsidizing the competition because government agencies are also going to be bidding. That introduces such a large unfairness into the free enterprise process.

I would also like to read a statement from a very well-known organization which does things along the lines of analysing our economic problems and difficulties and solutions to those problems. This is that organization's assessment of this bill, not mine: "It is clear that if the implication of the bill is that the federal government intends in any way to engage in the undertaking of work for private purposes in competition with contractors in the private sector, this would be entirely wrong and the bill ought to specifically preclude the federal government from doing this".

There are other references. As I said I have many of them here from individuals, groups and businesses. They all give the message that the government should not be in the business of competing with private enterprise, period. Why it is in this legislation at all is a total mystery to me.

Now there is an amendment that clause 16 ought to be amended by dividing the two parts. One part says to let the minister go ahead, but in the other part he has to get a nod from the other cabinet ministers, behind closed doors, no openness, no accountability and no restriction on what he can do for anyone anywhere on planet earth.

I object. On behalf of all of those people who wrote to me and my colleagues, I object. I object on behalf of all of those small businesses, those engineering firms, the printers, the small newspapers who wrote. They said they do not like having government taxation subsidy driving them out of business. For all of them I say as strongly as I can, please, members of this House, reconsider this. Do not pass this legislation and then regret it later because I know you will.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is one minute, if the parliamentary secretary wishes, or I could see the clock as 5.30 p.m.