Chris Warkentin

[Resumption and Continuation of Railway Operations, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend across the way a question as it relates to rail service, specifically the rail service for those communities that are very dependent on lumber revenues. I am hearing this morning from a number of the mills in my riding that they are fearful they will not have service that is essential to their companies and mills continuing to work. As a matter of fact, we are hearing anecdotes and are getting evidence even this morning that service has dropped and, in some cases, is being discontinued.

I was just contacted by a company that is hanging on by its fingertips because of market conditions and that is stating that if it is not able to ship its product this week, next week and the following week, it will have to shut down, which may be the end of the company. As a matter of fact, things are so tenuous and perilous at this point within the lumber industry that if its existing problems are compounded by transportation issues, these companies will go out of business.

I know the hon. member has an understanding of the forestry sector. I wonder if he can send out words of encouragement to the sector, but also indicate where he stands if in fact this starts to impact the forestry sector in Quebec as well.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, November 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this House this morning and speak to this private member's bill.

I want to thank my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. The hon. member has brought forward this private member's bill which in many ways resembles a bill that I brought forward in the previous Parliament. I want to thank members in this House for their debate this morning, but also those members who were in this House in the last Parliament who supported a bill very similar to this one. They unanimously supported it in this House and got it through committee and then over to the other place, where it died when an election was called.

There is no question that we as parliamentarians have a large responsibility. We have a responsibility to do our work here in this House but we also have a responsibility to work together for the common good of our constituents.

Today we are speaking about an issue that is very close to my heart. It is an issue that impacts, unfortunately, the vulnerable and the young disproportionately to other groups. Therefore, we as members of Parliament have an increased responsibility to address the bill here today, not because people are telling us to, but because we can see the effects on young and vulnerable people across this country as they are affected by the addictive qualities of methamphetamines.

I will give a brief outline as to what these drugs are, what makes them different and why I believe this is an important way to approach this issue and reduce the amount of crystal meth, methamphetamines and ecstasy that are being produced in this country.

Methamphetamines are different. They are synthetic drugs and that makes them different from many other drugs. Other drugs need to be imported in their illegal form or grown in their illegal form. There is a whole chain of events that needs to take place prior to the actual drug being available for people to buy and distribute on the streets.

Crystal meth and methamphetamines are different in that legal ingredients or a combination of legal ingredients and legal tools are used to make an illegal substance. Once that illegal substance is created, it can be out on the streets of any of our communities within minutes. Canadians and organized crime can produce crystal meth and methamphetamines in every single community in this country, leaving none of our communities isolated from the harmful effects of methamphetamines and the illegal distribution of them.

Crystal meth and methamphetamines are unique in other characteristics as well. The addictive nature of these drugs is unbelievable. When I spoke to recovering and recovered methamphetamine users, I found out how addictive it is. There are people with whom I have spoken through my work on this issue who have told me that after a single use they became so addicted to this drug that nothing would stop them from trying to get another fix. It was even more devastating when I spoke to young people whose lives had been completely ripped apart by this drug, who experimented with this drug at a party and after a single use they became addicted.

In many cases, there is nothing to indicate that it will be one kid rather than another who is going to use it. Some of the kids I spoke to were good kids. They had grown up in great families. They had every opportunity to succeed and had done well in school, but they had been tempted to use this drug and had decided to use it. As a result of that, their entire lives had been destroyed.

As we have learned more about this drug, we know there are treatments to help young people and people of all ages with this addiction. However, let us never believe that there is no long-term effect on people who have used crystal meth or methamphetamines.

The long-term damage of this drug is irreparable. There is physical and psychological damage, but there is also damage in terms of broken trust with family and the destruction in terms of a person's education and work. Many different things happen as a result of somebody becoming addicted. I spoke with people who had become addicted to this drug, and in every case, they said that their lives would never be the same.

While it is important to ensure there is treatment for young people, it is even more important that we as members of Parliament try to stand between young people and people in general and their access to the drug.

Questions were raised in terms of what the government has done with respect to spending money on anti-drug strategies. It is important that this come into the discussion. There were questions from an hon. member who had not been here in the last Parliament.

We as government members have worked extensively to develop a national anti-drug strategy. In budget 2007 there was over $60 million allocated to that initiative to ensure that young people would not get addicted at all.

The unfortunate thing is that young people continue to use drugs. It is imperative that we as members of Parliament work together to ensure that young people are educated.

Crystal meth is finding its way into places where young people would not see it as crystal meth or methamphetamines. As a matter of fact, I have spoken extensively with RCMP officers who are incredibly concerned about organized crime's marketing of methamphetamines. Methamphetamines are being blended into many other drugs that are commonly sold on the streets. Because of the addictive nature of methamphetamines, they are being blended into all kinds of drugs. Young people who become addicted to whatever drug they think they are purchasing will also become addicted to methamphetamine because it has been blended into the other drug.

What really concerns me as a father with young kids is that organized crime is mixing methamphetamines with candy. It is being wrapped up to look like candy and it is being sold on the streets. Young people are being given or sold these small candies that are actually laden with methamphetamine. That is just unbelievable for those of us who are parents, the thought that young people are being targeted in this effort by organized crime.

I got involved in the fight to have legislation with regard to methamphetamines for a number of reasons, but it was the stories that had the most impact. I met people in my own community. Communities were referenced where this epidemic of crystal meth started. Those communities were very close to my constituency. We saw the effects of methamphetamines and crystal meth being sold into our communities. I witnessed very strong and independent people being torn apart by the destruction of this drug.

When I found out that the epidemic was continuing to grow and that Canada had moved from an importing nation with respect to methamphetamine to an exporting nation, that made me very afraid. Like other members, I started to look at other countries that had had some success in limiting the production of crystal meth in their communities. I recognized that we were lagging behind as it relates to the precursors and the materials that are used.

Because an illegal substance is being created from legal substances, we have to give the RCMP and other police officers the opportunity to intervene, especially as it relates to organized crime, in the supply and development of this drug. We have to give police the power to go in where they know the products are being used for the production of methamphetamines and close that off. I believe that will be the continuation of this particular fight.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's involvement in our committee. He brings forward a lot of good points, especially today when he is talking about cutting taxes. I hope the next time we bring forward a budget that cuts taxes he will divert from his usual practice of voting against and vote for that particular initiative.

However, I thank him for his interest in promoting the idea of lower taxes especially for small businesses as they are one of the major contributors to the Canadian economy. As a matter of fact, they employ many Canadians and they are absolutely the driver of the Canadian economy.

As it relates to a number of things that we heard in committee, I agree with him and I supported the wording, that people were concerned about and frustrated by the process.

I talked to a person who works in a department today. He is working to expand the standing offers for that particular department. It is moving from a case where over the last 20 years there has been a single supplier for a service, essentially a monopoly. The government is actively pursuing additional competitors to that particular contract so that we do not continue to have a single supplier.

I agree with the hon. member. The government responded to the concerns. We see this in action on a daily basis in every department, across departments. Specifically today, I heard of one where it is moving away from essentially a monopoly. I wonder if the hon. member thinks this is a good process.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I hope that the hon. member did not take my earlier comments as a slight. I do apologize if the hon. member took any offence. I think what she has brought forward is important, in terms of concerns that she has, and I think this is something that we, as government and as members of all parties, need to address.

In terms of the bundling, she talks about it as it was current when we were discussing it at our committee. The government has responded to concerns related to bundling. There has been a decision by government such that if departments have any desire to bundle contracts, they have to have a strong argument for doing so. In fact, they have told departments that they should resist bundling. So, clearly, this is a step in the right direction.

I wonder if the hon. member would take the opportunity to say, yes, in fact, even on this issue, there is progress and we hope--

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to be in the House to hear what is in fact quite a rehash of what the committee heard and the recommendations that were brought forward. It almost seems the hon. member from that time forward has not kept up with what has happened in this area.

I know she expressed interest in the committee and it may be something the committee could look at to update ourselves and become aware of the successes that have resulted from the committee's report.

I note the hon. member talked about the cost and complexity of small businesses trying to compete for government contracts. Significant things have been done so small and medium-sized businesses have access to government contracts, such as the ability to go on MERX and not have to pay the fee and the reduction in the size of contracts, so they, with the resources they have, can fill out the requests for proposal.

The hon. member talked about needing 12 or 13 people to fill in the requests. Many of the departments already have a streamlined process for small and medium-sized businesses specifically so they do not have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to hire consultants to fill out the complex RFPs. That is done, it is being done and it is a great thing. Maybe this is news to the hon. member and it will helpful to her.

The other thing I think she would recognize is the success of the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises, with 23,000 companies being assisted.

Would the hon. member be interested in looking at the current state so we can review it and be updated on it in committee rather than here in the House and would she not be interested in hearing more? Clearly—

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I think that is an excellent question. As a matter of fact, I do recall the testimony of small and medium size businesses about their access to capital, and I will just address that first.

I know this government has actively worked to ensure that capital is available for small and medium size businesses. There has been an increase in the amount of money available to both EDC and BDC so that money can flow to these small businesses to increase their ability to do business in this country. So we, as a government, are responding. There were also a number of other programs brought forward in the budget to ensure that. The Canadian secured credit facility is another one. These types of programs assist small and medium size businesses in getting access to capital.

My second point is that I support any person who will stand in this House and support the idea of lower taxes for every Canadian, and for small and medium size businesses, absolutely. I would like to recommend to the hon. member that the next time we bring forward a tax cut for small businesses, he should stand in this House and support it rather than do what the NDP so often does, and not support it.

Having said that, it a low blow to the member from the NDP because, I have to say, I have a good working relationship with him in our committee. I hope that maybe we can have a committee meeting, and perhaps a day or two, to discuss the small business tax rate in this country and how it relates to that. I would encourage him to recommend that we move in a systematic way to get rid of taxes on small and medium size businesses. I will tell him right now that I will support that, and hopefully there will be unanimous support in the committee for that. I agree, and I will be there on that day, absolutely.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there were a number of things the member brought up.

I know the hon. member has concerns about the availability of the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises. She should be encouraged that 23,000 small and medium size businesses across this country were directly assisted by this office in the last fiscal year. This is good news.

It is a new office. It is something that we as a committee said we needed to raise the profile of. We felt that the government needed to expand the profile of this office. Clearly, it is having an effect, because we are seeing an increase in the number of people who are being assisted by the office, 23,000 small and medium size businesses. That is no small feat for an office with this budget and mandate. This is very good news.

In terms of promoting and protecting small businesses and their interests, this office is undertaking all kinds of important work, including directing and providing feedback to the government about the concerns small and medium size businesses are bringing forward.

I wonder why the hon. member is not standing and congratulating this office for its work and encouraging it to continue that. If the hon. member wants to discuss the mandate or work of this office, I would encourage her to bring forward her concerns to the steering committee, which will look at the office and consider its effectiveness. That would be a good thing. It is something that would be productive in committee and I encourage her to bring it to that forum.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am a little at a loss as to how the hon. member can stand in the House and talk about EI.

I know that is a bit of a segue from what we are talking about today. We are talking about procurement and small businesses, the latter being the engine of growth in all of our communities across this country. I am in agreement with the hon. member as it relates to that specific point, and I am hopeful that he believes that, though I am uncertain about it after having seen him vote against some of the most recent budget measures that significantly assist small and medium-sized businesses. I hear what he is saying but I am not certain he is following that up with action.

As it relates to the Liberals' position on EI, one thing I do recall, which continues to be an issue of contention for every person who pays into EI, is how the Liberals stripped the money that was built up in the EI fund and used it for other projects. Sponsorship was a project that was probably funded by EI funds. The money was stripped away. Therefore, if the hon. member wants to suggest how he might be able to collect those funds and give them back to the people who paid into it, that is an issue I can support. I can absolutely support that.

In terms of EI, what we—

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and maybe during my time I can rebut some of the information that the member opposite was trying to put forward.

I notice that this is a concurrence motion. It might be of some interest to members of the House and people who are watching to know that this motion was unanimously brought forward by our committee. All parties were in agreement.

If the hon. member were to read the committee's report, which she voted for and agreed to, she would find that there is a difference in terms of what she said this afternoon and what she actually agreed to in the report. The numbers that I have spoken about are in that report. This report was voted for by the hon. member, and the numbers are there for all to see.

I am disappointed that the opposition has decided to take this time to pull away from an opportunity to speak about Bill C-57, which is the free trade agreement with Jordan that is being proposed by the government. It is going to make a significant difference for many of our companies that continue to try to find access into markets for products that are being produced here in Canada. This is something that a lot of Canadians are concerned about.

Obviously, since we started this debate this afternoon, we are going to discuss the access that small businesses have to government contracts. I am pleased to have an opportunity to join members in the House in debating this because I think there is a really good news story to be told as it relates to our government and the work that we are doing and as it relates to what all parties in committee recommended.

The committee did bring forward a report entitled “In Pursuit of Balance: Assisting Small and Medium Enterprises in Accessing Federal Procurement”. There were a number of recommendations that all parties agreed to, because we all understand that small businesses are integral to this country, that they are very important to the economy. Our economy will recover only when small businesses are doing well, and we all understand that.

Our government is working very hard on all fronts to create a positive business environment for all small and medium-sized businesses. One of the most important ways we can help small and medium size businesses is to get overall benefits as well as access to government contracts for them.

As the government's chief purchaser, Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for approximately 85% in dollar terms of the $12 billion to $18 billion spent every year by the Government of Canada on goods and services.

Since 2006 this department has awarded on average more than 43% of the total value of these contracts with businesses located in Canada to small and medium size businesses.

In 2008-09 the value of the contracts awarded by public works to small and medium size businesses and enterprises here in Canada was increased from $4.8 billion to $5.5 billion, which represents a 14.5% increase in absolute value.

This government has recognized for some time the need to make it easier for small and medium size businesses to do business with the Government of Canada. Our government has taken a two-pronged approach in doing this: on one hand, by reaching out and having a direct dialogue with the companies that want to do business with the government, to hear their concerns and lend support in any way that we can; and on the other hand, by streamlining the procurement process to ensure that procurement and renewals are done in a way that is conducive to small businesses and that ensures they have access to this information.

As a government, we strongly endorse what the committee has brought forward, the first goal of which was the improvement of the procurement process in order to facilitate small and medium size businesses' awareness of federal government contracts. We know that if small and medium size businesses are not aware of contracts, it is very difficult for them to access them.

First, we want to reduce the procurement barriers for small and medium size businesses.

Second, we want to simplify the contract process so that small and medium size businesses do not have to spend, in some cases, thousands of dollars to hire analysts and people to write their contracts. We want to simplify that so that small and medium size businesses have an opportunity to actually bid on these contracts.

Third, we want to provide training and education for small and medium size businesses that wish to do business with the government.

Fourth, we want to collaborate to improve procurement policies and practices.

Finally, we want to ensure that the concerns of SMEs are heard.

Under the action plan that relates to procurement within the government and the Federal Accountability Act, the office that gets the information out to small and medium size businesses was expanded and has six regional offices across the country. I know my hon. colleague actually did, in fact, admit that there was this office, that it was in place, and that there were six different offices across the country to ensure that every region has representation and the ability to go to this office to get information.

This office has done a number of things, including accumulating a pretty impressive group of statistics. It has directly assisted, in this year alone, 23,000 business people. When the hon. member states that people do not know about this office, that small and medium size businesses do not know about this business, I can assure the member that there are at least 23,000 Canadian businesses that are acutely aware of this office because they have actually been assisted by this office. It is important that Canadians hear this, that they know this, and that they are aware that this in fact is happening.

Speaking on the recommendations of goal number one, Public Works has already made a number of improvements to make the procurement process even more user friendly for suppliers, such as covering the fees of MERX. For those people who do not know what MERX is, it is the computer system that allows companies that want to engage in government procurement to see the types of things that they can bid on.

In addition, the government is developing a comprehensive e-strategy for improving the web presence for procurement that will incorporate 24/7, one-stop access to information on how and what it can sell the government. The first stage of this strategy will be launched this spring, so members can see that things continue to improve and our committee has played an important role in that improvement.

This winter Public Works is expected to launch a new seminar for suppliers on how to complete solicitation documents. Furthermore, the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises will be developing a governance process framework for the management of commodities that will make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to provide comment to the government as well.

Our committee had a second point in the report, and it is to encourage further coordination of federal services and programs for small and medium size businesses to assist them in their abilities to access government contracts. To address this, the government will, among other measures, clarify roles and responsibilities in the forthcoming policy that will ensure OSME as the entity advocating on behalf of suppliers in procurement. That is an important and remarkable change and it speaks to some of the concerns my hon. colleague across the way has brought up.

Similarly, a planned Treasury Board directive governing Crown procurement will reflect the need for coordination among departments in support of the government's socio-economic objectives, including those that relate to small and medium-sized businesses.

I know that this was an issue that the hon. member, as well as my fellow colleague from Winnipeg who sits on the committee as well, had brought to our attention as a concern, and so the government is addressing these things that the hon. members of our committee actually brought forward. This is good news.

The formation of an interdepartmental committee on SMEs' concerns related to procurement, comprised of senior executives from relevant departments, will provide assurances that these matters are brought to the attention of the highest levels of government.

The concerns of small and medium-sized businesses are not going to just stay at the lowest level of the bureaucracy. They are going to be brought up to the highest level of government. This is because our committee has brought forward recommendations that were supported by all members, and activity and movement is happening.

Again, I think it is a little bit premature for the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois to be bringing this issue forward today. I am concerned that this is just a diversion from what we should be discussing in the House this afternoon.

The third goal of our committee's report states that the government must be mindful of SMEs when considering the bundling of contracts and standing offers, and the definition of a contract consolidation. We as a committee had some concerns about what we were hearing in the field. We were hearing from people who were saying that they were concerned about the possibility that bundled contracts would cut out a number of people from being able to bid.

We heard from people and we brought forward this recommendation that there be a clarification of what the government was going to do. The government has come forward and has said that it is going to create what will be a definition of contract consolidation and a review of best practices relating to the part of this policy and how it develops going forward. The government is responding to this.

The framework that it is talking about and establishing at this point will serve to ensure that any contract consolidation is properly justified. Different departments will not be able to bundle contracts simply because it is expedient. We as a committee have brought forward the concern that many people could be cut out if these contracts are bundled and only large companies can bid on them.

Clearly, the government is responding and saying that it is not going to do that. It is going to create a justification process. If departments want to do this, they are going to have to consider the small businesses, and they are also going to have to justify why they are bundling before they bundle. This is good news.

The fourth point that we had within our report applied to concerns about the system of fairness to encourage departments and agencies to use SMEs, but we specified that we were not going to go down the American experience and use just set-asides. We did not believe that small and medium-sized businesses needed a set-aside.

Again, we know that 43% of our contracts given to Canadian companies are given to small and medium-sized businesses. The United States has quite a different situation, where 23% of its contracts go to small and medium-sized businesses as it relates to government contracts. We as a committee decided that we did not want to replicate the American system, where it needed set-asides. As a matter of fact, even though it was being contemplated, the reason that we said that we would not have set-asides is because industry rejected it 100%. I am talking about the small and medium-sized business.

They said that they could compete with the best of them. They said that if they were given a fair and even playing field, they would compete fairly and win contracts. I strongly believe that. I think that colleagues from the other parties believe that, too. That is why we said that, if small and medium-sized businesses did not want to create set-asides, we would not do that.

We also recommended that departments were fair and that they had fairness monitors to ensure that they were contemplating the needs and concerns of small and medium-sized businesses. Another concern that we heard from some small and medium-sized businesses is that the way in which the call for proposals was brought forward, sometimes limiting a small or medium-sized business that had a very innovative product.

We heard from a computer company here in Ottawa that said that it had a program that would be much more efficient than the systems that are here today, but because its system was so much better than the other ones and because the call for procurement was for a different system, it could not get on it, even though if the system were replaced, it would be much more efficient and a lot better for the government in the long run. Our committee brought forward that recommendation and the government is responding. We can see that from what it has done in a number of different areas.

Finally, our committee recommended a fifth goal. We called on the government to ensure that innovation and quality are key determinants in the evaluation of bids in awarding contracts.

We heard from a number of groups. I just mentioned the computer company that had an innovative product it wanted to bring forward and highlight its qualities and the things that were so good about it, but it said that there was resistance because it was not like the systems in place right now. We as a committee said that, in fact, this should happen, and I think there was agreement all around the table.

We heard from engineers. We heard from people who said that the government should consider not only the price but the quality. Where a product might be cheaper than another product, if the quality of the second product is much better, in the long run the government might save money if it went with the more expensive but higher quality product.

We saw in the Speech from the Throne of 2008, it could not have been more blunt in terms of the response. There was a number of different things within the Speech from the Throne that addressed some of these concerns in terms of cutting the red tape to allow for these innovative products to be brought forward and a number of other things.

I get to the end and kind of wonder again aloud, why are we discussing it this afternoon? Clearly, the government is responding to all five concerns that were addressed in our committee. The hon. member has a legitimate interest and we should be discussing these types of things in our committee. We have an opportunity in the next number of weeks to have new things brought to our committee. If we want to build on this report or if we want to review successes or see if in fact these things are moving along, we have opportunities.

I do not know what benefit it is to bring it to the House this afternoon because clearly all five recommendations within our report are being addressed by the government. All of these are moving along and clearly things do not change overnight in government, we recognize that, but I am quite frankly shocked that the hon. member would consider what has happened as not being a major success. I am at a little bit of a loss.

I just came from the industry committee. I actually ran over here to speak to this issue. I had an opportunity to speak to the analyst. It was on a different subject, but it was just fortuitous that I was speaking to him. He told me he has a colleague in the industry department who is actually working specifically on this. They are actually streamlining the process to ensure that high tech companies that are not necessarily big companies can bid on government contracts. There is a whole process. He was telling me his colleague is working in industry to do this, but he says there are colleagues in every department who are undertaking these policies as to how they might reduce the access to government contracts.

Number one, there is a cut in the MERX fee, so these small and medium-sized companies do not have to do that. Number two, these companies do not have to hire people to write these long proposals. He explained to me that in some cases companies have had to spend over $150,000 to write these reports, and clearly, many small businesses cannot do that so they are actually re-writing the policy so that the contracts are simple and much easier to fill out.

Clearly, we see it even today, having spoken to an analyst within the industry department, that these things are happening, they are moving along, and the only thing left to say is congratulations to the minister. He is doing an excellent job and we are looking forward to even greater things coming out as he continues to respond to the concerns brought forward by our committee in a report. I am certain that if my colleagues from the committee are interested in continuing this dialogue, we will have an opportunity to expand on this report in our committee.

[Committees of the House, November 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, just bridging from what the hon. member, my colleague from our committee, was speaking about regarding the difference between the American experience and the Canadian experience, I think it is interesting that in Canada, every year for the last number of years, we have seen an increase in the dollar value of contracts that have been going to small and medium size companies in this country.

That is point number one. Canada is doing very well in extending government contracts to small and medium-sized businesses.

The second point is that the Americans have an office. I forget the exact name of it, but it is similar to our office responsible for small and medium size businesses. In the United States only 23% of government contracts go to small and medium size businesses.

Here in Canada we have almost twice that uptake in terms of the number of contracts that are extended to small and medium size businesses. As a matter of fact 43% of the contracts that public works extends are extended to small and medium size businesses.

Therefore, seeing the increase in contracts that are extended to small and medium size businesses and seeing the success that we are experiencing in Canada, would the hon. member not congratulate the government as we continue to see that exhibited?