John Harvard

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from my colleague.

We are talking about a lot of money when we talk about savings. After this bill reaches its ultimate effectiveness, savings will be in the neighbourhood of $180 million by fiscal year 1997-98. To all taxpayers in the country that means a lot of savings.

I will give a micro example of that. I spoke about the direct deposit system. By directly depositing cheques the government save money on postage, bank fees and paper. Already about 40 per cent of government employees are enrolled in direct depositing. We would like to have that up to about 60 per cent in two or three years. Just that one initiative alone saves about $20 million. Twenty million dollars here and another million dollars there and it all adds up. In total it adds up to about $180 million.

Businesses know that the government is a big business. The government is involved in a lot of procurement. A lot of contracts have to be made out or extended. It works out to about 1,000 contracts a day, big and small. It is incredible. Businesses people want a system that is open, fair, transparent and above board. Through this open bidding system that is what they get.

Business people want information. They will make the judgments. To make the judgments they have to have information. All federal contracts are available on OBS. A number of provincial governments are tied into the system. It is all there: the price of contracts, the intentions of contracts to be let and so on. It is an enormous repository of information for business people.

In my humble opinion businesses are very happy with the kind of information that is made available to them. From time to time there may be difficulties. When dealing with a department that is as large as this and with a market that is worth billions and billions of dollars, it is hard to be perfect. There are going to be times when there are differences of opinion. In the main, Canadian businesses are very happy and very supportive of the open bidding service. I am glad that it is in place.

The minister wants the system to work even better. Nothing on the face of the earth cannot be improved. If it is made by human beings there will always be imperfections because we are imperfect, so we are looking for ways of improving the system. If there is a way to do it, if there is a way to save money, that is our objective, that is our target and that is exactly what we will do.

I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-7 I cannot help but note that this very straightforward piece of legislation has been under consideration by the House of Commons for a very long time. Members of Parliament have had the opportunity to examine the bill very closely and they have made a number of suggestions to improve the bill. That was very much welcomed by the government.

Key amendments have been put in place to satisfy the legitimate concerns that have been brought forward through the process. I hope that now, with a sense of goodwill on all sides, we can move forward to pass this legislation which has, at its very heart, the basic goals of providing Canadians with savings, efficiency and improvement in services.

Passage of this legislation will enshrine in law the merging of a variety of related government operations into one department. The Department of Public Works and Government Services delivers virtually all common services to government departments and agencies.

In essence, the bill creates a more streamlined, efficient, effective and responsive department. The department saves money for Canadian taxpayers through the reduction of office space and administration, and the elimination of overlap and duplication.

The federal government is by far the largest purchaser of goods and services in the country. Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for the orderly processing of about 65 per cent of federal procurement. Clearly the move toward a more consolidated approach to government purchasing is of benefit to all concerned.

It provides a single window access for suppliers and contractors to the government. It rationalizes government operations to provide specialized expertise and one stop service for client departments. It modernizes services to reflect the information age in which we live. It simplifies and strengthens the administration of federal programs and services.

As a government we have made a firm commitment to all Canadians that we will provide them with an administration that is efficient, innovative, co-operative and fair. Canadians are rightly concerned about the cost of government at all levels.

They are aware that overlap, duplication and poor co-ordination with other levels of government have contributed to the tax burden that they must bear. They expect, and they demand, that we take every measure possible to streamline government operations, reduce administration costs, cut out red tape and improve service delivery of government programs.

Bill C-7 responds directly to these challenges. The bill modernizes government services so that the federal government can concentrate on doing what it does best and most cost effectively and leave the rest for those who can do better. The department has had to rationalize all of its operations to achieve these savings, efficiencies and improved services.

For the department this has meant taking advantage of new technology. For example, thanks to more powerful computers, laser printers and developing technologies the number of cheque production centres in the country has been reduced from 11 to 4. This means annual savings of $4.8 million after implementation.

Efficiency means cutting costs but it also means whenever possible improving services. That is why the department has moved to make direct deposit the standard method of payment. This means annual savings of $20 million to Canadian taxpayers and at the same time increased security, privacy and convenience for recipients of payments. Efficiency means providing equal access to all suppliers to government.

Through the electronic open bidding service we are enabling Canadians from every part of the country to bid on government contracts and to know what contracts have been given to whom and for how much. The open bidding service is a nationally accessible service which 25 other departments and crown corporations as well as the provincial governments of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have chosen to use to advertise their procurement needs as well. It is sort of a one stop centre. This is a good example of co-operation between various levels of government in an effort to reduce overlap and duplication.

Through the open bidding service, the Department of Public Works and Government Services has long sought to provide a single window for suppliers on the estimated $57 billion Canadian public sector market from all levels of government. We are very optimistic that this can be achieved through this process.

Throughout the examination of Bill C-7, considerable attention has also been directed toward the availability of procurement information and the integrity of the system. Members and the public in general want to easily and effectively monitor government spending and ensure that contracts for goods and services are entered into in a fair and reasonable manner.

The Liberal government agrees that the procurement processes must be, and be seen to be honest, open and fair. If government is to play a positive role in society, honesty and integrity in political institutions is a definite requirement.

To this end, we promised to restore the public's confidence when we said in the red book: "Open government will be the watchword for the Liberal program". Since being elected 28 months ago, ministers have insisted on the highest standards of integrity and honesty in fulfilling their mandate. On that, members can refer to the speech from the throne on February 27, 1996. The government has taken many concrete steps to make openness and integrity a prime focus within the procurement process.

As already mentioned, the government has stressed the importance of the open bidding system. Not only is this system efficient, not only does it reduce the paper burden and lower the cost to the taxpayers, it also ensures that everyone with an interest has access to the government's contracting requirements.

This service is available not only to companies that do business or would like to do business with the government, but also to members of Parliament, provincial governments, the media or any Canadian citizen that wishes to track the course of government purchasing. What could be more open, fair and transparent than that?

In May 1994, a couple of years ago, guidelines were issued to regulate for the first time a fair and open regime for the purchase of advertising and public opinion research. Regulations were also brought in to curb the power of lobby groups to influence decisions regarding government purchasing.

One of the amendments that has been incorporated in the bill requests the minister to investigate and develop services for increasing efficiency and economy and "for enhancing integrity and efficiency in the contracting process".

Dealing fairly and honestly with the thousands of Canadian individuals and companies that do business with the government is a matter of very high priority. The public sector, at all levels of government, is under intense public scrutiny today. Canadians demand that governments not only control their expenditures but that they operate openly so that the public may judge the effectiveness of their operations.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services is meeting this challenge by providing equal access to the federal market by showing fairness in awarding contracts and by ensuring that contracting information is available and acceptable, whether accessible to all Canadians in the most efficient and cost effective way.

The government has taken these positive measures by operating the Department of Public Works and Government Services under order in council. The passage of this legislation will give parliamentary approval to that government decision.

The government wants to move forward in rationalizing its services. It wants to provide better service to Canadians, better access to those services, more efficiency from those services and new savings from those services.

Bill C-7, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services is a good bill made better by the suggestions of members of this House. I ask for support to give it speedy passage.

[Financial Administration Act, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Albert for his motion to introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act, an act that will require all departments and agencies to table in the House their responses to the auditor general's reports on their activities.

I am pleased because there is no question that accountability is very important. It is so important that the Government of Canada has been working hard to make the public service more open, more responsive and more accountable.

The member will know that the Liberal red book committed the government to measure program results over time and to measure how well a government delivers its programs and services to

Canadians. As a result, accountability is now one of the cornerstones of a government-wide review process.

Before I explain how accountability to Canadian taxpayers fits into this review process, let me first give some historical background. I would like to take this opportunity to reacquaint my colleagues with all the hard work that has been done in the pursuit of accountability. Sometimes we forget to mention our achievements. They get lost in the blizzard of issues and papers we must deal with every day.

In 1993 the auditor general referred to program evaluation as "an essential part of government". He called for government wide evaluations to be strengthened. As a taxpayer myself, I fully support the auditor general in his push for increased performance and accountability information. I recognize the need for sensible and good control frameworks in federal departments and agencies. That is what makes for good government, one that is responsive to taxpayers, that does not tolerate waste and mismanagement, a government that is affordable.

In response to the auditor general's call for more reporting information, the public accounts committee called many witnesses to its hearings. We should commend the committee in its work. It did a thorough investigation and its report was unequivocal. It demanded more performance information. It supported the auditor general in recommending that departments and agencies step up their evaluation efforts. In essence, it called for greater accountability.

In the meantime, also in response to the 1993 auditor general's call for strengthening government review, the treasury board secretariat released its review policy. In this policy, the secretariat asked that all federal departments and agencies conduct reviews. It asked that they use performance information in their business planning processes and that they make this performance information accessible to the public. In short, the treasury board secretariat was calling for greater accountability.

In 1995 treasury board issued a revised expenditure management system. This revised policy required departments to articulate goals, targets and measures in key expenditure areas. It also asked each department to identify the reviews it would carry out over the coming year.

Beginning this year, 1996, this expenditure management system asks that departmental performance reports tie into the annual business plan process.

Put simply, departments and agencies must show Parliament and all Canadians whether the goals set in their business plans have been met and if not, why not. That, if I am not mistaken, is called accountability. All this is in response to the 1993 report of the auditor general.

It is clear to me that Parliament and the public service are very respectful of the auditor general's recommendations, that they have responded to his call for more reporting information in very concrete ways.

However, the push to make our public service more efficient, more responsive and more affordable did not stop there. Last year my colleagues on both sides of the House will recall the document Strengthening Government Review. It was tabled here last November by the treasury board president. The president's 1995 report of review lays out the government's commitment to accountability very clearly. It provides readers with a snapshot of all the different review tools being used in government departments and agencies. It looks at accomplishments made over the previous two years and it provides a guide on how reporting procedures can be further strengthened. This report calls for the integration of a review into the management cycle of government. It wants the review to permeate every level of government from frontline managers right to the top, to deputy ministers. This will result in even better reporting.

The goal is to make these reports, evaluations, reviews and internal audits available to the general public in a format that we can all understand. The goal is accountability. Let me take a moment to read what the then President of the Treasury Board told the House last November. He said: "The government is accountable to the citizens of this country. Performance information should be available to Parliament, departmental managers and central agencies. Our government is committed to delivering programs that work for the Canadian taxpayer".

As a result of these initiatives, accountability is now entrenched in the public service culture. It is now an integral part of the way we do business in Ottawa. The public accounts committee will keep a vigilant eye on this commitment, we can be sure of that. The auditor general will follow up on his 1993 recommendations and we can be sure of that as well. It is very clear that we have good reporting and accountability structures in place.

It is worth spending a few minutes to examine how accountability has become a cornerstone of the federal government's review agenda. We all know that program and service evaluations have played an important role in program review. They are essential components of the Getting the Government Right initiative the President of Treasury Board spoke of in the House just a couple of weeks ago.

Evaluations, internal audits and other review management tools will help to clarify federal roles and responsibilities. They will help to ensure that resources are devoted to the highest priorities. They will respond to public demand for better and more accessible

government and these review tools will help to deliver a public service Canadians can afford. This is accountability.

These review management tools, evaluations and internal audits do not just look at what is working and what is not. Done properly, they also recommend a course of action for correcting problems or missteps. Review is a continuous learning exercise. Government is always measuring what it does. It is always looking for new, more appropriate methods of delivering programs and services. It is looking for progress, not perfection.

Let me give an example to which members can relate. The estimates tabled with the recent budget are undergoing radical change. In response to calls from parliamentarians for documents that provide information in a user friendly format, a pilot project was launched. I was personally involved in that.

Two weeks ago we received six of what are called part IIIs from this pilot. Six departments agreed to change the way they have traditionally reported their activities. I urge everyone in the House to look at the part IIIs from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture Canada, Revenue Canada and Transport Canada. They will see that although these part IIIs were produced under tight deadlines each of these departments have made an honest effort to make them more readable and more user friendly.

In the drive to provide legislators with useful information and to become even more accountable to the Canadian public, more pilots are planned. We seek feedback on these projects. We will learn from those remarks. We are committed to providing information that is meaningful, easy to follow and that supports the government's agenda of openness and accountability.

As I have said, the government recognizes the need to get information into the hands of legislators and the public. It listens to recommendations made by the auditor general, the public accounts committee and members of the House. Recommendations are acted on, changes are made. Taxpayers of Canada expect no less.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the public accounts committee. As our hon. friend can attest, it maintains a busy schedule. I think this committee issued 15 reports in 1995 and its work did not stop there. Each summer the committee asks for an activity update from all those departments and agencies which have not appeared as witnesses. It has, as it should, maintained a watchful eye. I expect it to continue this good work, to live up to the responsibility Canadians have vested in it.

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to put these facts on the record.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Chair, the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound was complaining about what he thought was an absence of reference to jobs in the finance minister's budget.

I submit it is because the hon. member's mind is in the past. In the old days when government was different people would look for large, so-called mega projects. Usually job numbers were attached to mega projects: 500 jobs, 1,000 jobs and so on.

What the member for Capilano-Howe Sound does not understand is that the economy has changed and the budgets have changed. The approach is much more sophisticated. For example, when we hear the finance minister talking about a reduction of 3 percentage points in interest rates, that means a lot of jobs. When the finance minister refers to more than a 20 per cent jump in trade, that means jobs. Every $1 billion in trade means 11,000 jobs.

To gain a fundamental understanding of the budget, one has to understand modern economics, the modern economy and modern government. I do not think the hon. member understands that. Perhaps he should go back to Yale and get a refresher course.

I ask the hon. secretary of state whether there is this new manifestation of jobs in the budget where something like a 3 percentage point drop in interest rates really does mean jobs.

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member opposite might say, there is no conspiracy against landlords on the Quebec side of the river. This lease in question for Revenue Canada's information technology branch is being tendered in a completely open and fair manner and according to normal procedures.

The member said in his remarks that he wanted a guarantee of openness and transparency. He has it.

What the hon. member must understand is that each requirement for space is considered by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on a case by case basis. The department then proceeds in the most appropriate manner based on the needs and constraints of the client department involved.

Decisions about obtaining office space are based on an number of factors. These include the length of the lease required, the cost of moving the client department, how much investment has been made in the location, government downsizing, security requirements, accessibility to the public, to name a few.

The bottom line in all cases is finding the best possible solution at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer in an open, fair and transparent manner.

Let us briefly examine the facts of this instance. The lease for the Fontaine building expires November 30, 1996 with no option for renewal while Revenue Canada will have an ongoing five-year requirement for about 1,200 square meters of office space.

We are proceeding with an invited tender based on a recent market survey. This is one of the normal processes by which we acquire leased space. In the case of the requirement in question there is no reason not to proceed in this fashion. The preferred approach is always the competitive route.

Let me make it clear that the owner of the Fontaine building has been invited to participate and will have an equal chance. If the Fontaine building's offer represents the best value for the crown and the taxpayer, Revenue Canada operations will stay where they are.

Contrary to what the member from Chicoutimi has stated, our purpose in doing this tender call is not to relocate public service employees currently in Quebec to Ontario. Our purpose with this tender call is to ensure that all the property owners in the national capital area who can meet this space requirement have a chance to submit an offer. This is an open and fair process to ensure that we get the best value for the government and for the taxpayers.

Furthermore, the number of employees affected, 750 in this branch of Revenue Canada, represents less than 1 per cent of the total federal public services employment level in the national capital area.

What we are talking about is a process that is fair and open to scrutiny resulting in the best deal for the government and the best deal for the taxpayer. That is the way it should be and that is the way it will be.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

What is enough?

[Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-315 was first debated in the House in the month of October I must say I was impressed with the information the hon. member brought to us in support of the proposed bill. I understand the original complaint brought to the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin was from an individual who found himself on the mailing list for pornographic materials and was unable to stop the material from arriving. While this may not be the most damaging type of abuse of personal information, many Canadians would agree it is one of the most annoying and can leave people feeling helpless and frustrated.

The bill the hon. member has put forward, however, would do nothing to stop this kind of privacy invasion. While I share the concerns expressed by the Reform Party about this kind of abuse, if Parliament is to intervene with new legislation, we had better be sure we are doing something which actually fixes the problem.

Here are some of the flaws in Bill C-315. First, it would apply only to corporations. Many operators who do this kind of thing are individuals or small partnerships and would not be covered by the legislation.

Second, it applies only to the narrow range of corporations engaging in a federally regulated activity. This would include those in the banking, telecommunications and broadcast industries but not small entrepreneurs.

Third, it does nothing to solve the problem of operators setting up outside our jurisdiction, such as across the U.S. border.

Fourth, it addresses only the issue of people's names appearing on lists or nominative lists, as the practice is referred to in the Quebec privacy legislation that covers the private sector.

Technologies are changing and developing quickly these days. Information is being collected and messaged in new and different ways. It may soon be out of date to talk about lists because information travels easily and is gathered automatically. It is no longer necessary to hand someone a computer tape to trade information.

In addressing the protection of personal privacy we ought to talk about the use of personal information in the broadest possible ways. The rules we come up with should address every sector of the economy, not only the direct marketing industry.

Instead of working on the bill we should support the work that has been ongoing for several years at the Canadian Standards Association, the CSA. The consensus committee passed a model privacy code in September of this year, the result of three years of work in a committee with representation of industry, consumers and federal and provincial governments.

This code of fair information practices is soon to be published as a national standard for Canada. This initiative has the support of a broad range of private sector organizations including the Canadian Direct Marketing Association.

In fact, on October 3 of this year the president of the Canadian Direct Marketing Association called on the Minister of Industry to introduce legislation in the House that would use the CSA standard as the basis for legislation federally and to encourage the provinces of Canada to do the same in their jurisdictions.

I understand that the issue is being studied by the departments of industry and justice with a view to developing solutions that will work for the protection of personal information in all sectors of the economy and across the country. This is a huge and complex issue because the increasing availability and use of personal information and consumer profiles to target service delivery affects virtually every sector of the economy in some way or the other.

The protection of personal privacy was identified as a key priority early in 1994 when my colleague, the Minister of Industry, established the Information Highway Advisory Council to advise him how to make the most of the new possibilities brought to us by the communication networks. The council studied the issue,

consulted experts and produced a number of recommendations on privacy.

I will read them now. First, the federal government should act to ensure privacy protection on the information highway. This protection shall embody all principles of fair information practices contained in the Canadian Standards Association draft model code for the protection of personal information. To this end, the federal government should continue to participate in the development and implementation of effective national voluntary standards based on this model code.

Second, the federal government must take leadership in the implementation of these principles through the following actions: in co-operation with other levels of government that share responsibility for various sectors of activity on the information highway, it should establish a federal-provincial-territorial working group to implement the privacy principles in all jurisdictions.

It should create a level playing field for the protection of personal information on the information highway by developing and implementing a flexible legislative framework for both public and private sectors. Legislation would require sectors or organizations to meet the standard of the CSA model code, while allowing the flexibility to determine how they will refine their own codes.

In co-operation with the CSA working group on privacy, and other interested parties, it should study the development of effective oversight and enforcement mechanisms; establish a working group to co-ordinate the development, demonstration and application of privacy enhancing technologies for the provision of government services and information; update and harmonize appropriate privacy protection policies, legislation and guidelines applicable to its own operations and to the delivery of government services and information.

Third, Industry Canada should establish a working group that includes representation from the private, provincial and federal governments and consumer organizations for the purpose of increasing public awareness and understanding about privacy issues and personal privacy rights through the preparation and dissemination of educational materials and encourage the CSA to advance its privacy standard in international standards fora.

There are several other recommendations on encryption, educational and health records but I will not take up more time to read them. As members can plainly see, this is already a tall order that the advisory council for the information highway has presented to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Industry. I know the Department of Industry is engaged in discussions with other departments involved in the privacy issue, notably the Department of Justice.

This is a complex issue. Serious work has already been undertaken by the government to address the problem. I believe we should wait until the Minister of Industry has studied the recommendations and can report to us on progress.

Finally, we need more protection for personal information than is offered by Bill C-315. I say we should get on with the work and not take a detour down this path.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I shed a tear for truth. From time to time in this chamber truth comes under great strain and I think this is one of those times.

Earlier in his speech the hon. member for Verchères described himself and other separatists in the province of Quebec as victims. They live in the country called Canada, one of the greatest countries in the world and he has the gall to say he is a victim. We have one of the greatest charters of rights and freedoms in the world and he says he is a victim. He stands in the highest court in

the land he spouts his separatism and his separatist complaints and he describes himself as a victim. Give me a break.

The member says that the ball is now in our court. Exactly and what is the Prime Minister doing? He made two specific promises in the referendum and he is acting on those promises right now.

The member says that Bill C-110 is a watered down approach. What was Meech Lake? Was it watered down? Was it acceptable to the separatists? No. What about Charlottetown? Was it watered down? Was it acceptable to the separatists in Quebec? I do not think so. Is there anything on the face of the earth that would be acceptable to the separatists in Quebec short of giving them a new country? The answer is no. He can answer the question, yes or no. If he wants to be honest he will say no.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have to rise again because I cannot believe what I am hearing from the other side of the House.

Bill C-110 has to do with lending the federal veto; it has nothing to do with enabling a constitutional initiative. This has nothing to do with a province wanting to change the Constitution. This is simply a matter of a veto, providing it through federal legislation, offering it to the four regions of the country.

I do not think a service is provided to the Canadian people when this kind of disinformation is disseminated across the country by the Reform Party.

Let us get this straight: this piece of legislation does not change the Constitution one iota. This is a narrow initiative having to do with the veto, having to do with offering the federal veto to the four regions. It is as simple as that. It is unjust, it is wrong, and it certainly is spreading disinformation to speak otherwise.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Respect the rules.