Debates of Feb. 23rd, 2004

Criminal Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 18, the recorded division on Motion No. 2 is deferred until Tuesday, February 24, at the end of government orders.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion No. 3 agreed to)

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you seek it, you would find agreement to see the clock at 6:30 in order that the late show might begin.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, on February 9, I rose in the House to ask the following question:

As the NDP predicted, the Liberal government wants to go ahead with its privatization plans. The Prime Minister's right hand man is quoted in today's National Post as saying that he wants to see government operations privatized.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the government is prepared to abdicate its role in favour of the private sector and the banks, as the parliamentary secretary has said?

The answer I got from the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for this question.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to say the government has no plans to privatize services. We are exploring a wide range of options. We have met with the unions. We have said that we will be including them in the process. We are going to look at every means possible to modernize the delivery of public services.

I want to come back however to what was said in the newspaper.

It was in the National Post of February 9, 2004. The member for Scarborough East said, and I quote:

This is the buzz item, the big ticket. This is the way government is going to be done.

The member for Scarborough East, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, said that on the issue and then continued by saying:

The whole system needs to be brought into the 21st century. If we were in private business we'd be out of business.

The article continued:

The leaders of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and the federal NDP have served notice they will fight privatization, but [the member for Scarborough East] said he anticipated that. “They're locked in the Marxist-Leninist dialogue of the 1960s and '70s and I feel sorry for them”, said [the member for Scarborough East].

Let me continue with the article:

Nycole Turmel, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said her union has studied previous attempts by Ottawa at P3s, such as with the Defence Department's supply chain, and found costs actually increased.

“If [the member for Scarborough East] has a mandate to look at the privatization of the infrastructure and leading to privatization or letting the administration go with the structure, then it really proves our concerns. This is the first person who is openly saying it,” she said.

As members heard today, we again raised a question about this in the House of Commons. We raised a question about privatization of hospitals. Canadians across the country are worried.

Canadians fear the hidden agenda of the government concerning privatization. From the way the hon. member for Scarborough East and parliamentary secretary expressed himself candidly in the paper, it is clear he is accusing the unions and the NDP of being stuck in the sixties and seventies. It was easy to see where he was headed.

This question was valid on February 9, 2004. It is important that we know the government's plans. On the one hand, it is saying that it does not want to privatize, but, on the other hand, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is saying just the opposite. That is why I want to ask the question once more tonight. Canadians should know where they stand.

Does the present Liberal government intend to privatize public services? Or will it work hand in hand with the public service without trying to privatize call centres, for example, as rumours have it?

There is a great deal of doubt. I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary give us the federal government's vision, and tell us whether it intends to privatize public services. Some vague answer is not good enough. Is it yes or no?

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. I come from a rural area as he does and share some of his concerns on this issue. I will reiterate the answer that the minister gave in the House to the question. He said:

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to say the government has no plans to privatize services.

Governments in Canada and around the world have longstanding experience in working collaboratively with the private sector to deliver important services. In fact, in this country, dating back to the 1840s, pre-Confederation Canada partnered with the private sector to build railroads and, some would argue, build a country.

More recently, the Government of Canada has used public private partnerships, or P3s as they have come to be known, to address water and infrastructure needs on first nations reserves, to develop air force flying and combat support training, and to build the Canadian embassy in Berlin.

These partnerships fulfill national objectives when the private sector shares responsibilities, costs, risks and benefits with the government. However, we in government are still accountable for managing the contract for best results.

Public private partnerships are just one option for delivering public services. Government takes a case-by-case approach to determine which way is most appropriate to meet the needs of Canadians. Our approach is purposefully moderate and incremental, and based on sound reasoning and due diligence.

Public private partnerships work to the mutual advantage of the partners by satisfying public needs, by increasing the capacity of government to deliver programs and services, and by generating employment and economic development opportunities. P3s work best when they are based on mutual trust, reciprocal benefits and enforceable consequences.

The government does not take a final decision on any specific cases without prior consultation with employees and their unions.

Recent transition decisions by the Prime Minister have raised the profile of P3 as an important procurement option. For example, the newly created expenditure review committee assesses all program spending proposals against the criteria that include partnership, value for money, and efficiency. This makes P3s one of the options under consideration.

The position of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, with special emphasis on public private partnerships, is a newly created position to champion P3 opportunities where they make sense.

Canada's use of P3s is primarily among sub-national governments, where it is being considered for many sectors, from municipal recreation centres to hospital buildings. Five provinces have officially embraced P3 as a procurement alternative. The other provinces, the territories, and several municipalities, are poised to adopt the method.

Most P3 experience has been gained through infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, airports, water, power, et cetera. Several Canadian firms have successfully used the experience to win P3 project contracts overseas. Good examples of that would be the Cross Israel highway, and the Santiago and Budapest airports.

By contrast to a rich P3 experience, the Government of Canada has not done a fully-fledged privatization since 1996, when the Canada Communications Group was sold. Some construe shared governance corporations, like NavCan, as divestitures. However, these are examples of creating non-profit organizations with minority federal representation on the board to serve public interests more effectively.

Meanwhile, many departments and agencies continue to explore and promote P3s through their programs and initiatives. Our partners' time, expertise and funding add value to the quality of life we enjoy in this country.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about P3s and the experiences we had. I do not know if it was a P3 in New Brunswick when the highway between Moncton and Saint John, and Moncton and Fredericton, was built and it cost over $650 million. The government had to pay for it because the people did not agree to it. Would that be a type of P3? I do not know if it is a type of P3 when we look at defence facilities in Labrador. The cost actually increased.

When we look at the responsibility of the government, is the government just giving up its responsibility and saying that it will give it to the private sector, or to its friends? As we know, so many friends got money from the Liberal government in the last couple of years. Is that what the government is saying? Is it saying that it has to find another way to give money or contracts to its friends instead of looking at its programs and its public services that need to be managed in a correct manner?

I do not think that is the answer. Canadians do not believe that is the answer. I totally disagree with the privatization of our public services in this country.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, I did preface my comments by saying that I too share the concern.

If we were to look at what is happening in terms of not only the technology that is out there to assist governments in what they do, but also the regulatory frameworks that are necessary to manage in a global economy, as a government, we would be selling Canadians short if we took the position that we have the in-house capacity to do absolutely everything ourselves.

I share the concern. The government has undertaken and will continue to undertake decentralization of services. In the case of my hon. colleague's region and mine, it puts good paying skilled jobs in rural areas. I too will fight erosion of transfer to the public sector if I do not think it is appropriate.

At the end of the day, we must take a look through realistic lenses at approaches that maximize the benefits of these potential partnerships.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Hinton)]

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 5:55 p.m.)