Madam Speaker, on May 4 the hon. member for Laurentides proposed:
That the government should systematically table, every month, all contracts awarded by departments and by the agencies that report to them, with any related information, in order to (a) keep the taxpayer appropriately informed, (b) stimulate competitiveness, and (c) ensure that government decisions are open and transparent.
As the member for Dauphin-Swan River I want to assure the hon. member that from the very outset of its mandate this government has been committed to fairness and openness in government contracting. This government has stressed the need for maximum use of competition by departments and agencies when contracting for the goods and services it requires from the private sector to fulfil its various programs.
I believe there is a compelling need especially these days for strict fiscal restraint to ensure that each dollar spent by the government is a necessary expense and that it represents the best value that can be achieved in the use of that scarce resource. At the same time I agree that all government contracting must be undertaken in a manner that keeps the taxpayer informed, stimulates competitiveness, and ensures that government decisions are open and transparent. Treasury Board already has in place contracting policies that address these specific goals.
I should like to point out the magnitude of the government's contracting activities. The Government of Canada is the country's largest user of private sector supplies. There are over 200,000 transactions each year ranging from small purchases such as items of stationery to major procurements such as military equipment.
By relying on the program experts of departments, only a very small percentage of government contracts often associated with large and risky initiatives require the collective review of ministers. All contracts however are subject to the requirements of the Treasury Board contracting policy whose principles and procedures I again emphasize ensure an open, transparent and competitive contracting process.
While the Department of Public Works and Government Services undertakes many contracts on behalf of other departments, close to half of all contracts are awarded under the authority of individual departments.
In these circumstances I cannot agree that the government should impose the suggested detailed monthly consolidation of all this contracting information. The cost of preparing such a list and the time spent preparing it would far exceed any benefit. Information on the magnitude of government contracting already exists.
This government is making improvements to ensure even greater transparency. Each year the public accounts include substantial information on contract expenditures. This is listed by individual department. It is then further broken down by individual contractor for all contracts which exceed $100,000.
For professional and special service contracts, an area which has grown over the past decade, I refer the hon. member to the convenient summary in the public accounts. It groups contracts for each department under the most common types of services the government acquires, such as accounting services, engineering and architectural services, information services, legal services, training and educational services, and the like.
In addition, there is Canada's international trade commitments which require specific detailed reporting on contracts awarded. For example the comprehensive reports required under the North American Free Trade Agreement are currently being implemented.
In this regard I would like to inform the hon. member that under the terms of this agreement the government is committed to the use of open and competitive contracting for all the procurements in excess of the NAFTA thresholds. This means ensuring that American and Mexican as well as Canadian companies are aware of the government's needs and have an opportunity to bid to provide them.
Even as we are adjusting to the international aspects of this new operating environment, we must also make preparations to provide the other parties with the annual report which I previously mentioned. This will prove that we are fulfilling the terms and the spirit of the agreement. I know that achieving trilateral agreement on the nature and precise detail of what is to be recorded has not been easy.
Furthermore, at least in Canada's case, there is a related ongoing period of difficult adjustment. As departments develop and begin to put in place systems to collect the required information, I can assure the hon. member that the end result of this long and arduous process will be a publicly available document which will more than meet any need for statistical information on government contracts.
As well, because this report will be public, departments will doubtlessly consider this to be a further incentive to use the competitive contracting process.
As the member for Dauphin-Swan River I agree that interested suppliers need to know what acquisitions the government plans to make. This is the key to a truly competitive process.
Treasury Board policy encourages the use of open bidding service for advertising upcoming purchases of goods and services. The open bidding method uses both electronic information technology and the print medium to advertise bids. It is compulsory for advertising all procurements subject to NAFTA.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services uses this means for communicating with industry for all procurements over $25,000.
When the government knows that it must acquire a good or service it uses the open bidding service and the government
business opportunities publication to inform suppliers of a proposed purchase and thereby to solicit proposals from them.
The related notice of proposed procurement is carried by these media for either 40 days if it is subject to the NAFTA or 30 days if it is not covered under the NAFTA. The notice identifies what is needed, how much of it, any related technical specifications, the supply timeframe, and any other relevant information which pertains to this proposed acquisition.
As well it lists the criteria which will be used to evaluate whether the supplier is qualified to provide the good or service and the second set of criteria which state what will be used to evaluate the proposals of the qualified suppliers.
By providing all this detail up front business is assured sufficient time to decide whether it could supply the item, whether it wants to supply it, to seek any further clarifications which it may wish and then to develop and submit its proposal.
There are of course other situations where the government anticipates that it will need a good or a service in the next little while but it does not need it immediately. Again, the open bidding service and the government business opportunities can be used to identify a list of possible suppliers which can be turned to when the item is actually needed.
In this case the government places a notice of planned procurement on them for either 30 or 40 days depending on whether or not the item is covered under NAFTA. This particular notice will in a comparable manner to the notice of proposed procurements state what is wanted, the quantity thereof, and the like.
In this case though it will only identify the financial, commercial and technical aspects which will serve as the criteria to be used to evaluate whether a supplier is qualified to be included on the suppliers' list.
Again by using the open bidding service and government business opportunities to create this list companies are placed in a position of having ample information and time to determine whether they are interested in pursuing this possible business opportunity.
In view of all the preceding, I cannot agree that the imposition of more detailed and expensive reporting requirements on departments and agencies would serve the best purposes of either the House or the taxpayers of Canada.
This government strives to have the most effective public service in the world. The motion proposed by the hon. member would require a transfer of human and technological resources from areas where they could better serve Canadians and redirect them to meet the proposed monthly contracting reports. This simply cannot be justified as a cost effective use of these limited resources. In this context, I would suggest that the hon. member especially think about the many small departments and agencies which do not have the resources to assume an overhead burden like the one which has been proposed.
If this suggestion were to be adopted these organizations would end up redirecting their resources with the possible result and that thereby could be diverted from meeting their primary mission to Canadians.