Debates of June 4th, 2002

Supply

[The Chairman]

I will let the minister answer but Canada Lands does not fall under the purview of his responsibilities.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chairman, I do not have responsibility for the Canada Lands Corporation. It is my understanding that the responsibility would fall to the crown corporation that is in the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether in the last 24 hours there has been some rearrangement in that regard because of the Deputy Prime Minister's new responsibilities. That question would properly be referred to the Prime Minister. However Canada Lands is not within my portfolio.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, it certainly seemed to be within the purview of his predecessor.

With respect to Groupaction, there is evidence that the second contract for over half a million dollars was awarded verbally. There were no written criteria for why the program was needed, how applicants were to be chosen, et cetera. Civil servants do not operate this way unless they are covered by their political masters.

None of these things will be investigated by the RCMP or the auditor general because they fall within the administrative review the minister is doing. If the finger is pointed at someone other than civil servants in the Groupaction fiasco, say, the current Ambassador to Denmark, will the minister do the honourable thing and recall the ambassador to Canada to answer the questions?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chairman, it is not within my jurisdiction to recall ambassadors. However in relation to the Groupaction matter the set of files was referred to the RCMP by the auditor general. The auditor general was invited to make her inquiry in the first place by my predecessor who is now the government House leader.

It was my predecessor who initiated the process. The process led to an inquiry by the auditor general. The auditor general made the reference to the RCMP. The RCMP has confirmed publicly that it is pursuing an investigation. The RCMP has said in the media that it will pursue the investigation wherever it leads.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, let me quote from the estimates of Public Works and Government Services Canada, page 54, Financial Table 3: Details on Transfer Payments by Business Line under Grants, Grant to Parc Downsview Park, forecast spending is $2.8 million and planned spending in 2002-03 is $3.17 million. Why is the minister avoiding questions on this issue when his department is funding Downsview Park?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chairman, I am advised by my officials that the Department of Public Works and Government Services is the mechanical device by which this transfer of funding takes place. The policy responsibility rests with the minister responsible for the crown corporation and that is not the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, do you care to give us a ruling since we are talking about the estimates of public works? It is in the estimates of public works. We are talking to the minister of public works and he is saying that he is passing the buck.

Mr. Chairman, could you give us a ruling as to whether he should answer the question?

[The Chairman]

I do not believe the Chair will make a procedural ruling where one is not required. Either the minister is responsible for the matter raised or he is not. Only he can reply. I think the premise of all our work in the House is the integrity of each and every individual member.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that I do not have policy responsibility for this matter. That rests with another minister.

However, in the spirit of being forthcoming with the hon. gentleman, if there are serious questions that he wishes to raise with that other minister I will certainly undertake to make sure that this matter is drawn to that other minister's attention so that he can reply to the questions that the member for St. Albert might wish to raise.

However, as I am not the minister responsible, and as much as I might want to reply, I simply cannot reply to a question that is outside my jurisdiction.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to be a farce that we are talking about the numbers in the estimates of the Department of Public Works and Government Services and the minister refuses to reply because it is not his responsibility, it is someone else's responsibility. How are the members of the House supposed to be able to question the people who are involved if the responsibility is passed around to some other minister just to get this minister off the hook? We cannot have that.

I would hope that when the minister comes back the next time, having had more experience in his department, if he sticks around for a year or more, that he will answer these questions because they show up in his statement and in his estimates. This is what this debate is all about.

I guess we cannot proceed any more so I will change the subject to ACAN. An ACAN is what the government sometimes calls a competitive bid. ACAN, in my opinion, is not a competitive bid process because it is merely a posting of a non-competitive bid award on the website saying that the government will give the contract to this contractor unless somebody disagrees and files a complaint. That is not a competitive bid process.

When I talked to the minister's predecessor, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, he said that he would look into the matter. I am asking this minister to recognize that filing a complaint is not a competitive bid process. Could we have some assurance that if ACAN is to be truly a competitive bid process he will make it so?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chairman, ACAN is obviously a process by which a bid or a potential contract award can be publicized before it is finalized to determine whether or not there are any objections.

I asked for the statistics on this matter because I too was curious about it. I found out that of the 3,311 ACANs published in the year 2001, objections were raised in about 10% of the cases. That would be 323 cases. Of those cases that were objected to, the objections to 245 cases were found to be justified and the process went to tender. I think those statistics tend to verify that the process is working. In the vast majority of cases there are no objections but in cases where objections are raised they are in fact treated seriously.

If the hon. gentleman has some specific suggestions on how a properly functioning ACAN system can in fact be improved in the interests of competitiveness, I would very much like to hear what those suggestions are and I will treat them seriously.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, we do not have the time to discuss my concerns and proposals regarding ACANs. The one little point I have on ACANs is that when there is a complaint or a grievance filed it goes back to the person who originally decided that it was uncompetitive bid but we will fix that later.

Because we have heard so much about these verbal contracts and commitments, could we have the minister's assurance that he has issued a directive that it will never be tolerated again by any civil servant that verbal commitments on behalf of the Government of Canada will be allowed?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that sort of message is already very clear. Quite frankly, I will make some inquiries to see if it needs to be clarified further.

The situations that were described by the internal audit people in my own department as well as by the auditor general were unacceptable. Those practices need to be improved in a major way.

Between the year 2000 and now those improvements were and have been made in a very progressive way. However it is very clear to me that when we are dealing with public money and the taxpayers' trust there needs to be transparency, accountability, value for the money expended and proper filing and bookkeeping to make sure the paper trail is evident.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the new minister on his portfolio and on the outstanding job that he is doing in it.

I am very fortunate to have in my constituency the superannuation directorate of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. This directorate of the minister's department manages the pension plan and pays pension benefits to almost a quarter of a million retired public servants and their survivors.

The superannuation directorate, as one can imagine in a small community in Atlantic Canada with 410 employees, is a major source of economic prosperity for that community. I had a chance to visit this directorate of the department on two occasions. The directorate has a new director general. She is an outstanding public servant and a very dynamic new director. The employees are very pleased with her energy, dedication and desire to motivate them to continue to do the excellent work they have done.

This directorate of the Department of Public Works and Government Services serves as an excellent example of a decentralization policy of a previous Liberal government. I can tell everyone that Atlantic Canada communities like Shediac, where this unit is located, have benefited enormously from the presence of these public service jobs.

I said I had the opportunity to visit that unit of the department on two occasions and the second time it was with the minister's predecessor.

Two months ago the former minister came with me to Shediac. We met all the employees and I must say that their enthusiasm resulting from the presence of the minister in their community did a lot of good.

I hope I will have the opportunity to invite the new minister to visit this unit at the appropriate time.

The minister's predecessor had indicated to me that the department was looking at a modernization initiative for the superannuation directorate. When we visited the unit and spoke to many of the employees we were struck by the need to upgrade and improve many of the information systems and some of the technology that these dedicated public servants were using to serve their clients so well.

The objective of the Department of Public Works and Government Services and the superannuation division, our directorate in Shediac, would be greatly improved if the government proceeded with this modernization study to see how, for example, new technology, new information systems and perhaps, in some cases, additions to the current building and infrastructure that exists in Shediac might better serve the clients of this directorate.

I am wondering if the minister might be able to inform us on his department's plans for the superannuation directorate. I had a discussion with his predecessor about some of the concerns that employees would have. For example, the word out-sourcing for public servants in a community like Shediac, New Brunswick, obviously leads to some concern about their jobs either being downsized or eliminated. There is also a real concern that in some cases some functions are being pulled back to Ottawa, repatriated back to headquarters, and the important work done by these dedicated public servants in Shediac, New Brunswick would somehow be diminished.

I would be interested to know if the minister could update us and reassure the employees who work in Shediac and who contribute enormously to their communities that the work they do is valued by the government, as I know it is, and that they can continue to provide the excellent service they do to the many clients they serve.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Chairman, I can fully understand and appreciate the sentiment that has been expressed by the hon. member with respect to his province of New Brunswick and his part of New Brunswick, specifically the community of Shediac. There would be many parts of my own province of Saskatchewan where the same line of reasoning and the same feeling and sentiment would apply.

The Speech from the Throne that opened this session of parliament talked about such exciting concepts as innovation for the future and so forth. One recurring theme through that throne speech was the theme of inclusion, inclusion of all Canadians in every region, every province and every community where they feel fully plugged in to their country and that we function together as a cohesive national whole. That is a principle which is extremely important to the government.

I am very sympathetic to the line of reasoning that the hon. gentleman applies with respect to a significant Government of Canada operation in a community like Shediac. The superannuation directorate located in that community employs approximately 410 people. They pay over 220,000 annuities to retired public servants and/or their survivors across Canada.

At the present time my department is actively looking at several ways of modernizing its various pension systems and modernizing the way we do business with respect to pensions. As we go about that modernization study, we will want to be inclusive with respect to the employees at Shediac.

I want to say clearly that we have no plans with respect to privatization or closure of that facility. Obviously with modernization will come some degree of change. I fully intend that to be change that is characterized by opportunity for things to improve and to be dealt with properly in terms of future additional technology, learning opportunities, employment and so forth.

Shediac is very much a part of our plans. I for one will be working very closely with the hon. member to make sure the issue is dealt with properly and fairly. If that was an invitation to visit Shediac in the next little while, let me say that I accept.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great opportunity to ask the minister a question.

The issue of advance contract awards has been already mentioned here tonight. There is a great ongoing debate with the auditor general and various departments of government, not the least of which is treasury board, to deal with the whole issue of whether these contracts are awarded on a competitive basis or not. The auditor general is of the opinion that they are not competitive.

As I understand the whole concept of advance contract awards, essentially it is a process that allows the government to continue working efficiently. Every time a contract comes up, it is very difficult for the government to simply open it up for tender because of the time constraints involved in switching suppliers and so forth. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I do not know, governments are very large. They need to secure their channels of procurement in such a way that there is not a significant disruption of services to the general public.

In my riding General Motors has a great influence. While the plant is not in my riding, a lot of the workers are in my riding. General Motors more or less has a very similar system in the sense that it cannot afford to shut down the production of manufacturing cars to have a competitive open bidding system every time a contract comes up for bumpers.

What advance contract awards do, as I understand it, is they provide an opportunity for competition because they are posted. Posting allows anybody who is interested to, as the minister mentioned, challenge, but I am told that we are not supposed to use the word challenge any more. We are supposed to use a different kind of word. The concept was that anybody could provide a similar service given their capabilities. What we ask the supplier to do is give us a list of their capabilities of fulfilling the contract. It is clear the government cannot run the risk of offering contracts to those who have no real way of fulfilling them. It essentially allows other competitors to come forward.

There is a 15 day window. Maybe the minister could elaborate on that. As I understand it the 15 day window is actually considered to be long in the business community. Clearly where contracts are signed over the Internet in a matter of hours today, 15 days is considered a significantly long period. As I understand it, a lot of the thought process behind why it is 15 days is to allow small and medium size businesses that may not have the same reaction time as some of the larger suppliers in the country to be part of the process.

It is clear that the whole concept of ACANs is to provide a competitive process. I also understand that they are in compliance with our NAFTA obligations and they are also in compliance with WTO obligations.

For this reason the big difference of opinion between the Government of Canada and its auditor general is that the auditor general does not figure that is a competitive process. I think any reasonable person looking at that will see that it allows for competition. It allows people to challenge these contracts. The minister just mentioned the number of people who have successfully challenged ACANs, so there is a process.

I understand that 83% of all transactions over $25,000, and this is a very important number for people to grasp, are competitively bid in this country by a method of open bidding, tendering or using ACANs. That is a fairly significant open bidding process where people have the opportunity and well they should. I have been approached by representatives of small and medium size businesses in my riding. They say that just because they live far away from Ottawa does not mean they should not be able to compete in the process.

These contracts are posted over the Internet. This allows the smallest contractor to submit a bid. I know some small and medium size businesses in my riding that have successfully bid on these small contracts. The whole idea of using the Internet and electronic commerce is to allow more people to participate in the bidding process.

What is the minister's opinion regarding the policy guidelines that have been put in place to do with ACANs? Does he feel that those policies are being carried out within the Department of Public Works and Government Services? Their importance to us as a government is to ensure that the people of Canada see that the process is a fair, open and competitive one. What are the minister's views on the use of ACANs?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Chairman, by way of background perhaps I could offer a bit more explanation.

In November 1999 the auditor general tabled a report on the use of advance contract award notices, otherwise known as ACANs. The more significant observations made by the auditor general included the following: that there was in her view no independent review of challenges to ACANs; there was a lack of justification for posting of ACANs; there was a lack of information contained in ACANs; and ACANs were often not posted for the required 15 days. Those were the observations back in November 1999.

The auditor general's report was the subject of a series of meetings by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The committee reported similar observations and criticisms about the ACAN system as those referred to by the auditor general. It made a couple of recommendations that in fact went beyond the observations of the auditor general.

In any event, following the tabling of the auditor general's report back in November 1999, an interdepartmental working group chaired by the Treasury Board Secretariat and of course involving my department was formed to address the various issues the auditor general had raised about ACANs.

As a result of that process, guidelines were prepared. They were subsequently published in November 2000. This information has been broadly circulated throughout the government to all procurement officers, noting the key points and the way in which this policy is evolving and changing over time.

We are obviously anxious to ensure that ACANs are fair and reasonable, that they are handled properly within the system, that they enhance a competitive system. I think the statistics bear that out.

As I mentioned earlier, the statistics we have for 2001 would indicate that there were in that year 3,311 ACANs issued. About 10% of them were challenged, that is 323. So the vast majority were not challenged, even though the opportunity to challenge was there. Of those that were challenged, 76 were found to be cases where the challenge was valid and in 76% of those cases they proceeded to a formal tendering process.

As the hon. member mentioned in his question, the ACAN system provides the opportunity for competition. In the statistics I have cited that opportunity seems to be a legitimate one.

I would point out that there is now a minimum requirement of a posting of 15 calendar days so that everyone has a full and fair opportunity to know that the notice is out there and has the ability to respond within that time frame.

I would also point out, contrary to some assertions that were made earlier tonight, we have put measures in place to provide an independent review of the statements of capabilities that come in to make sure it is not the same person sitting as judge and jury on the appeal, that there is in fact due process and fairness. Sometimes it will be totally different officials from the first officials that looked at the case. Sometimes it will be independent third party fairness advisors from outside the government.

We understand the concerns that were expressed by the auditor general. We are trying very hard to make sure that the ACAN system is not a way to circumvent competition, but a means to complement competition and make sure that the system is transparent and fair.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Chairman, the minister has had the opportunity to express himself on a lot of different topics today. If I look at the list of the advertising sponsorships the government foots the bill for, I see in the year 1997-98, just choosing at random, the item radio spots. I will explain to the minister what a radio spot announcement is.

You are driving along and you hear a message aimed at people who like to fish. “If you are going fishing, when you pick up a worm to thread on your hook, start at the tail end, it's easier that way. The Government of Canada wishes you good fishing”.

Or another, from December 28. “Hare hunters, be sure you know the difference between a hare and a partridge, because the partridge season ends December 31. Happy hunting from the Government of Canada”.

Or, “We wish you a good festival, good strawberry picking, a good bike trip” and so on. We have $1.36 million worth of this for 1997-98.

If the government wanted to gain some good publicity, I would not object. I would not criticize it. Maybe it could put its little Canada flag on every little milk container it handed out to hungry school kids in the morning. There are 1.5 million poor people in Canada. Does the minister not think it would be more worthwhile to use the money for this than to say “Be sure you put your worm on from the right end”.

Here is a real opportunity, choices that are really up to the minister. I would like him to start by answering this question.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member about this type of advertising is a valid point. I am advised that steps were taken some months ago to stop these types of radio spots because they simply did not fit within the proper definition of a sponsorship initiative.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Furthermore, Madam Chairman, the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac addressed decentralization, and I agree with him. Sponsorships were really concentrated.

The justice minister told the House earlier this week that ministers should play a more active role and get involved in the selection of government contractors.

Another member thinks that calls for tenders are cumbersome, that they tie up the system, that they are a real bother and totally ineffective. I would just like to point out to him that democracy comes at a high cost. Ignoring democratic principles does save us much money. You can ask every dictator on this planet. They do not bother with such things. But where there is no democracy, people are facing other problems.

Does the minister agree with the remarks of the justice minister, whose chief of staff, incidentally, is a former vice-president of Groupe Everest? If the minister realizes that this is a network, and that the immigration minister spent several nights at the condo of the president of Groupe Everest over a period of a month and a half—I understand that the Prime Minister is still working on clarifying the eight points to be announced soon—should the minister not feel bound by the choices made by other ministers?

When the justice minister wants to launch a $500,000 advertising campaign, should the need for such advertising not be demonstrated to him? What purpose will it serve? Is it really required? After all, he is the Minister of Public Works and Government Services; it is not the other way around.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Chairman, one thing that I have been struck by in the eight or nine days that I have been reviewing the files in this portfolio is the strong interest that many members of parliament take in this program. They are members of differing political parties, provinces and communities from right across the country.

Members of parliament making their views known, particularly about the projects they support, is an extremely valuable thing. That is an issue I will be looking at in terms of the future administration of the program. Is there a vehicle by which members of parliament can indicate to me the types of projects that have that kind of community merit that would justify sponsorship by the Government of Canada?

In terms of the contracting process I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that 92% of the contracts managed by this department were awarded on the basis of competitive tenders. There were only 8% that were managed in a different way and needed to meet the requirements with respect to sole sourcing.

Competition is the foundation of our contracting process and if I can find ways to enhance the competitive process to make it more open, competitive, transparent and therefore, as the bottom line, more fair and probably less costly to the Government of Canada, I will be interested in pursuing those various techniques.

As I said earlier, sponsorship performs a valuable service. Sponsorships are provided by the private sector, municipal and provincial governments, and by the federal government. They support good and worthy activities across the country. The issue is not the principle or the validity of the concept, nor is it the merit of the local community based projects. The issue is the delivery mechanism and I am committed to finding the most cost effective, open, transparent, accountable and value for money effort to deliver on these sponsorships in the way that Canadians would expect.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Chairman, I have here, in the list of sponsorships approved by the federal government, a series of quite astounding details.

I would like the minister to explain how this meets the expectations of citizens.

Here is what we find: Canadian Football League, $95,000; Montreal Expos, $1,223,000; the Montreal Expos caravan, $54,000; the soccer club l'Impact, $300,000; the NHL All-Star Game, $80,000—and hockey players are not what you would call disadvantaged people; the Senators, season 1997-98, $355,000.

I could go on up to a total of $20 million invested in professional hockey teams or basketball and baseball teams. In Canada, over a period of four to five years, professional sports teams received $20 million from the government.

What do we say to taxpayers who ask us questions about the usefulness of giving sponsorships to professional sports teams?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Chairman, there are various purposes that are served by a sponsorship initiative. One purpose is to support the event or activity to which the sponsorship is committed. Another purpose is to promote and explain the programs and services of the Government of Canada across Canada. Exposure at major national sporting events or cultural events can be a good way to communicate with a large number of people in a concentrated area.

There are a variety of purposes to be served here. I do not think there is one single purpose or one single formula that would suit the sponsorship initiative in all cases. There has to be a little flexibility. As we identify the problem areas and move forward in a way that is constructive for the future, I would look forward to having the advice of members of parliament, in terms of the kind of activities or the magnitude of activities that would be appropriate in terms of future terms and conditions.

I take it the hon. member is suggesting that there is more merit in a sponsorship program focusing on smaller, more community oriented activities than larger and more commercial types of activities. That is a representation that I am happy to take into account. It perhaps goes to the credibility of the program and I would want the program to be credible.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Chairman, what bothers me is that it is my impression that the government is trying to slip this through the back door, since it could not get it through the front door.

I remind the House that when the Deputy Prime Minister floated the balloon of helping professional sports teams, there was an outcry from Canadians that led the government to back down within 24 to 48 hours and say “no, we will not support hockey clubs”, which was the case at hand at the time.

If we look at the numbers here, we see that the Ottawa Senators, the Montreal Canadiens, the Montreal Expos, every year, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000, $800,000 and $900,000 was paid and each time, fees of 12% were paid to communications agencies. All this adds up to $20 million. The numbers show that the government did what it said it would not do: support professional sports clubs.

I see that the minster understood my point and the question proves this. However I think that people have been fooled, when we see that the government did what it said it would not do, particularly when the Deputy Prime Minister said no way. In the end, they flipped on the matter.

How does the government explain that today the figures contain $20 million for professional sports clubs?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Chairman, I will take the hon. member's point as a representation. If I am correct, he is saying clearly that in his view sponsorship funding could better be directed toward other types of sporting, cultural or community activities rather than professional sporting events. I would be interested in hearing the views of other members of parliament on that same point.

For this year, and the years that have gone by, that type of activity did fit within the program criteria. For next year, and subsequent years, we have the opportunity to reshape things somewhat differently. I would be interested to hear whether members of parliament and others think that program criteria should be changed in such a way as to make the type of activity that he has referred to specifically to be outside the criteria of the program.

I would again make the point that I have made a couple of times earlier this evening. In the specific examples that are being used here they are, in every single case, in the period of time that predated the year 2000. We are talking about that period in which difficulties did occur prior to the year 2000. Since the internal audit in 2000 and subsequent corrective actions we have taken steps to substantially improve the administration of the program.