Debates of April 15th, 2013

Public Works and Government Services

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last December I and my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, put a number of questions to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Those questions had to do with the need for a more transparent and more accountable regime for government procurement. Both my colleague and I have been receiving successive calls from business sectors across this country about the way procurement is now being governed by the current government.

By way of example, last December we had raised the matter of the contract with SNC-Lavalin to manage 323 federal buildings for almost half a billion dollars a year. The contract allowed for significant subcontracting, and that appears to be the case on most occasions in contracting with this federal government. Increasingly, there are centralized one-person-only or one-corporation contracts and considerable subcontracting. That raises a lot of issues, which I will go into.

It had been revealed that a number of the subcontractors under the SNC-Lavalin contract had billed the government for outrageously overpriced costs, yet even though this is public money, we are advised that the subcontracts are considered private. This policy opens the door to potential abuse, as was discovered when the government finally contracted an audit: it found this abuse.

We called on the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to conduct an audit to ensure that taxpayers are getting their money's worth in terms of both building management and the awarding of subcontracts.

The minister's response was that contractual obligations were limited to the general contractor. She also limited her duty, apparently, to ensuring the lowest bid from the general contractor, but there was no obligation to ensure the same to be the case with the subcontractors, the presumption being that ensured savings would flow to the taxpayer if they simply took the lowest bid as the primary factor in issuing contracts.

There was no mention of any need to ensure lowest bid for the many subcontractors, yet an audit contracted by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services in 2011 reported numerous absurdly overpriced billings, including $1,000 to install a doorbell and $2,000 for two plants. The minister advised that all the recommendations by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the audit company, have been implemented, including increased oversight and monitoring of this contract, and ordered in late 2010 a reprocurement of the contract. Of note, the contract was again issued to SNC-Lavalin.

Parties seeking subcontracts under the SNC-Lavalin half-billion-dollar per year federal building contract have continued to raise concerns. They relate to fairness, transparency and efficacy in the bidding process. The minister provided reassurances that the integrity of this contract is governed by a new integrity framework. She offered a briefing to me on the new, improved system. I am looking forward to finally receiving this briefing at the end of May.

In the interim, I have unfortunately continued to receive pleas from numerous Canadian business sectors, ranging from companies providing and servicing shredders to the government to companies relocating RCMP, military and federal workers. All of these companies have complained about the new one-size-fits-all contracting process. All have raised concerns about the centralization of contracts and reduced opportunities for local suppliers. All complain of the lack of transparency. All are concerned that there is no longer genuine consultation, and they are concerned about the RFPs.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona. I am delighted that she asked to have an adjournment debate on this topic.

As part of enhancing the integrity of the real property and procurement process, Public Works and Government Services Canada is constantly reviewing and strengthening its measures to improve integrity.

In 2007, as part of the Federal Accountability Act and the federal accountability action plan, Public Works and Government Services Canada added a code of conduct for procurement to its RFP documents as well as measures to render suppliers ineligible to bid on procurement contracts if they have been convicted of fraud or if they have paid a contingency fee to a person to whom the Lobbying Act applies.

In 2010, Public Works and Government Services Canada added an offence to its list of measures regarding integrity, thereby rendering suppliers ineligible to bid on procurement contracts if they have been convicted of corruption, collusion, bid-rigging or any other anti-competitive activity.

In July 2012, Public Works and Government Services Canada implemented additional measures to strengthen the integrity of its real property and procurement operations. As a result of these measures, the department is strengthening due diligence, reducing the risk of fraud and improving its ability to manage risk.

Allow me to summarize. We have already put in place provisions allowing us to render ineligible bidders found guilty of one of the following offences: fraud against the government under the Criminal Code of Canada; fraud under the Financial Administration Act; corruption, collusion, bid-rigging or any other anti-competitive activity under the Competition Act; and the payment of contingency fees to a person to whom the Lobbying Act applies.

On July 11, 2012, Public Works and Government Services Canada extended the application of integrity provisions to its real property transactions, such as leasing contracts, and added six additional offences that would render suppliers ineligible to do business with departments: money laundering, participation in the activities of criminal organizations, income and excise tax evasion, bribing a foreign public official and drug trafficking.

These measures went into effect when announced and apply to all future PWGSC solicitations and real property transactions, which include leasing agreements, letting of space and acquisition and disposal of Crown-owned assets.

These measures will also allow the department to terminate contracts and leases with companies or individuals that are convicted before the end of their contract or lease.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his response. Regrettably, I have not had any response to these issues that Canadian businesses are raising with me. For example, I am told that the government is moving toward a one-size-fits-all for all contracting processes and limiting the opportunity for local businesses to be engaged in the supply of business and services to the Government of Canada.

For example, in the case of the relocation contract, it used to be the case where major contractors sat down with Public Works and Government Services, talked about what the needs were and then would go off and prepare their bids. Now it is divide and conquer. One comes in at a time and there is no genuine consultation. There is deep concern that the subcontractors who relocate people from small communities are going to miss out because of the way they are moving in the bidding.

I am wondering if the member could advise what new measures are in place to watchdog the subcontractors also, because that appears to have been the major problem determined by the auditors.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has brought in accountability measures to ensure the appropriate use of taxpayers' dollars. Those measures are designed to ensure that we do not deal with fraudulent businesses.

PWGSC can refuse bids from suppliers found guilty of the following offences: fraud against the government under the Criminal Code of Canada, fraud under the Financial Administration Act, corruption, collusion, bid rigging, any other anti-competitive activity under the Competition Act and the payment of contingency fees to individuals covered by the Lobbying Act.

In addition, PWGSC added the following to the list of offences that prevent businesses and individuals found guilty of those offences from bidding on contracts. The added offences are money laundering, involvement in organized crime, tax evasion and non-payment of excise taxes, bribery of foreign public officials and, lastly, drug trafficking.

We are very proud of the efforts made by our department to ensure accountability and integrity in the way we do business.

International Cooperation

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

In December of last year I asked the Minister of International Cooperation why the government had cut funding to the Centre for Excellence in Corporate Social Responsibility, one of the pillars of the government’s Corporate Social Responsibility strategy launched in 2009.

The response from the minister at the time was that Canadians can be proud of the results that their tax dollars are achieving abroad. What is funny is that the minister made no reference to the Centre for Excellence in his response. The term “corporate social responsibility” seems to have been banished from the Conservatives' vocabulary.

Since I asked this question, we have learned that five civil society organizations—Amnesty International, KAIROS, Mennonite Central Committee Canada, MiningWatch and the United Steelworkers—have left the centre’s executive committee due to the government’s refusal to fund the centre.

The Centre for Excellence in Corporate Social Responsibility brought together mining companies, Canadian civil society groups and government representatives from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency. Frankly, it was the only working element of Canada's CSR policy.

The government has given no explanation for ending its support of the centre.

A multi-stakeholder approach is essential for dealing with the challenges inherent in developing a CSR policy. We need constructive engagement. We must encourage civil society to sit down with government and mining companies to develop a better policy based on international standards of transparency and accountability. We need all the actors at the table to advocate for responsible management of natural resources that would enable countries to derive and sustain social and economic benefits from their natural resources.

Just after announcing the end of funding for the centre, the government announced new funding to the tune of $25 million dollars over five years for the creation of a Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development. The money is clearly there. It is just that this government does not seem to want constructive engagement and a multi-stakeholder approach.

The fact is, this situation is a travesty. The Canadian brand is suffering abroad. Canadian companies are facing lawsuits and challenges in the area of human rights and environmental impacts. A transparent process that stakeholders and the public find to be credible would help improve Canada's image and would also help businesses that comply with the strictest standards.

Canadians want our companies to be successful and responsible representatives of Canada, and Canadian companies want clear and consistent standards for international business. We should facilitate this through a stronger CSR strategy, not by cutting one of the only good tools we have.

With this in mind, I ask the government why it has turned away from any semblance of a commitment to a strong CSR strategy. Will it reverse its decision to cut funding to the Centre for Excellence in Corporate Social Responsibility and admit that it was a very bad decision?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to take a look at the Equator Principles, which are international standards that Canada signed onto when those Equator Principles were constructed. We have a counsellor and we are working very well within that framework.

I also would like to say that I did not see her at the PDAC convention in March, in Toronto, where every country in the world was there, asking for Canadian expertise. Every country in Africa had a kiosk at that convention because they are looking to Canadian expertise in our extractive industries to come and bring that expertise into their country to help them develop their resources.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the good work that our extractive industries are doing globally and what part they can play in international development. We want to help bring millions of people out of poverty by achieving sustainable economic growth. We want to see families, communities and, ultimately, developing countries, sustain economies and set out on a plan of prosperity.

We are doing exactly that in ways that promote the best of Canadian values. It is our duty to explore all partnerships and all innovative ideas to meet this critical objective. Our government is proud to partner with organizations that share our commitment to responsible resource development. Development that respects those resources beneath the earth of a given country should benefit the people who live above the earth of that country, especially those most in need.

Canada has an expertise in natural resources and we are pleased to share our knowledge with developing countries that are asking us to do just that.

Amadou Koné, the ambassador of Burkina Faso, said, “Burkina Faso needs help training workers and building human resources; Canadian companies can assist with that.”

The Peruvian ambassador, José Antonio Bellina, advocates for a win-win situation through private sector partnerships for development.

Canada's resource sector leads the world in responsible mining practices. The reality is that oil, gas, and mining are increasingly important sources of economic growth, revenue, and employment in the developing world.

In 2011, exports of oil and minerals from Africa, Asia, and Central and South America were more than 10 times the value of international development assistance provided to developing countries in the same year. Trends show that this will only increase.

Canadians know that a responsibly managed extractive sector can be a force for positive change. This translates into jobs, social services, and improved livelihoods so people can lift themselves out of poverty.

Our government has achieved results in the area of private sector partnerships. Thanks to a partnership with World University Service of Canada and Rio Tinto, residents in Ghana will have better educational services, better water and sanitation. And thanks to a partnership between Plan Canada and IAMGOLD, 10,000 youth in Burkina Faso will be trained with real job skills.

Our government's work will be further bolstered by the new Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development which will harness Canadian and international expertise and best practices to provide developing countries with additional resource governance support.

Development is not about dependency. It is about helping those in need to get a leg-up so they can prosper.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I like to hear my hon. colleague talk about the importance of working with all of the partners. That is precisely one of this government's main problems.

It wants to work with the extractive industry but does not seem to do much with other private companies. It seems to focus exclusively on that sector.

Furthermore, there is no call for proposals for partnerships with Canadians. The government seems to be less inclined to work with civil society organizations. The list could be very long.

When I hear that all partnerships are important, I feel a bit in doubt that this is the policy followed by the government. As for the counsellor for CSR, unfortunately, the counsellor does not have the tools that person needs. Therefore, I think it is a very weak answer on the part of the government.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, our government is committed to poverty alleviation and achieving results for those most in need. That is why we created the Canadian International Institute for Extractive Industries and Development. It will help developing countries manage and govern their natural resources responsibly and ensure that the benefits are maximized for the people and for long-term development.

Finally, if the hon. member does not agree with partnering with the private sector, I ask her to refer to the comments of her colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta, who said when she was a member of the foreign affairs committee:

It really shows how much of a difference we can make when we work together. Symbiosis occurs when you can get partnerships established.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative cuts to the interim federal health program have left vulnerable newcomers in a very precarious and difficult position in Canada. The interim federal health program provided crucial temporary health benefits to refugees and asylum seekers until they became eligible for provincial health coverage.

The Conservative cuts deny access to health care for large numbers of refugees and claimants, threatening the health of refugees, many of whom face health concerns due to the fact that they have left everything they own to flee from situations of persecution, violence and torture in their home countries. These punitive and mean-spirited Conservative cuts categorize refugees into different groups, each of which receive different health care coverage. Refugees from so-called safe countries, a list that is created at the discretion of the minister, are cut off from even basic medical coverage, completely turning a blind eye to the refugees' individual experience and need for medical care.

Along with the New Democratic Party, medical experts, front-line health care workers and refugee support workers across the country have condemned these cuts, stating that they are unfair, unethical and inhumane.

Not only have the changes hurt some of the most vulnerable, but costs are being downloaded to the provinces and communities across the country. I raised this issue the previous time because these short-sighted cuts were actually impacting a volunteer-run clinic in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge River. The volunteer clinics, offered by the Muslim Welfare Centre, provide services to all in the community. They are feeling significantly overwhelmed because of the changes to the interim federal health program and because of these cuts. It does not make sense to me that the government believes that volunteer-run community clinics should pay for this misguided decision.

Experts also state that these cuts will only end up costing Canadians more, as untreated conditions will lead to more expensive hospital care further down the road. Since these cuts have been implemented, we have all heard horrible stories of refugees denied proper health care, cancer patients whose treatments have been cut off, children with asthma unable to receive their medication and forced to wait until their next attack and be hospitalized. Refugees who are experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder have had their medications cut off, and what about the stories that have not been made public yet?

Since the Conservative cuts to the interim federal health program, refugees are suffering and the health of those seeking refuge in Canada has been jeopardized. Given that these Conservative cuts are demonstrably impacting refugees with legitimate health concerns, including vulnerable groups like children, pregnant women, cancer patients and the elderly, will the government reverse these mean-spirited cuts?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River is quite aware of the interim federal health fund. If not, I am happy to speak to the changes made by a prior government, the reasons those changes were made and the purpose of the interim federal health plan that still exists for those who come to this country seeking asylum.

The interim health fund actually began in 1957 to prepare those coming to this country, from an immigration perspective, to ensure that there was some form of health care for them as they transitioned and began their lives here in Canada. In the early seventies, the program was expanded when we began to take on our responsibility as a country for those in this world who were seeking asylum. They were fleeing their countries of origin because they may have been facing persecution or at the very least were in danger and were looking for an alternative place to call home. Canada was one of those countries that stepped up to the plate.

To this day, Canada resettles one in every 10 refugees in this world. When we think about that in terms of our size, in terms of the advancement we have made to assist these individuals and families who come to our country truly seeking refuge and who deserve to be designated refugees, we are more than doing our part.

Our doors have always been open. They continue to be open to immigrants and to genuine refugees, but Canadians have no tolerance for those who abuse the system and our generosity. The member lumps all those together in this file as if they are one group of individuals or families. That is simple not the case. We need to distinguish between refugees, asylum claimants and failed asylum claimants.

We have a system in which true refugees still receive interim federal health. They still receive assistance. It is on par with that of Canadians who do not have any type of additional assistance for health care, such as, for example, my mother, who is in her early seventies. She does not receive extended benefits. She does not have an extended pension. All those who fall under this category as refugees are at the very least able to receive the same services my mother enjoys. I do not know that all Canadians would actually see that as wrong. I think they would see that as fair. I certainly see that as fair.

When we look at those who have taken advantage of this system, those bogus asylum seekers who came to this country for no reason other than to take advantage of our social services and health care, they chose to go back to their countries of origin the day before they had the opportunity to stand in front of the Immigration and Refugee Board. They took somewhere up to a thousand days, in some cases.

We think Canada is a place for those who seek refuge and deserve it. They will receive interim federal health. I think my colleague understands that those individuals who are not truly refugees should not be taking advantage of the system.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these types of responses from the parliamentary secretary truly demonstrate why it is that the NDP stands alongside refugees and the newcomer community in this country. We listen to experts and those with first-hand experience when it comes to these issues. These cuts are unjust. They create a two-tiered health care system among refugee claimants.

The parliamentary secretary reminded us that Canada resettles one in 10 refugees in the world. Now we are creating a two-tiered health care system among them. Once again, those who seek asylum in Canada are not bogus queue-jumpers, as we heard, once again, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and many members opposite. They are actually people who are seeking protection. Refugees are not coming to Canada to abuse our system. They are fleeing for their lives. This is why we have a refugee determination system in place. We need to ensure that it has the resources to make sound and timely decisions. In the meantime, refugee claimants and refugees may require temporary help. It is not fair for the government to say that all refugee claimants or asylum seekers are bogus claimants.

My question, once again, is whether the government will listen to health care professionals, physicians and everyone involved and restore the temporary health benefits for refugees and asylum seekers.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have listened. We listened to Canadians and those across the country who know this system extremely well, Canadians who have heard what the arguments are on both sides of the table.

The member should listen to people in the country and in her constituency who do not think those who take advantage of our system deserve additional health care, not only the fact that they do not deserve it in the first place because they are not true refugees but who receive it over and above, including eyeglasses, dental and prescription drugs. That is an unfair system.

Canadians told this government it was an unfair system. They asked us to change the system. We did. We set in place a program. I am not sure why the member is referring to queue jumpers, which has little or nothing to do with this subject.

The fact is we have a system in place that is fair to those who deserve it and those who take advantage of it are no longer able to.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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 6:49 p.m.)