Ralph Goodale

[Government Contracts, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the contracts that were in question have been specifically examined by the auditor general and there has been a reference to the RCMP.

I would note that in the auditor general's report she said “our conclusions cannot and do not pertain to any practices that Groupaction followed”. She was referring to the public service not to Groupaction.

In any event, I am confident that all ministers will be examining the business matters within their portfolios and determining that any contracting procedures are in fact appropriate.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I am just seeing if I can find for the hon. member the specific date in my materials. I can advise him that the date upon which the contract was issued was March 28, 2002.

In response to an earlier point that the hon. member made with respect to Chinese matters, I have asked my officials if they have any knowledge of that reference. To the best of their knowledge or information no.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, as the hon. member probably knows the purchase was an off the shelf purchase. It was reviewed appropriately by ministers. I do not have before me tonight the exact date that those transactions would have taken place. I will see if I can find him further information.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I have no knowledge at all of the allegation the hon. member is making. I have no information before me that would indicate that the allegation is at all true.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, to the best of my knowledge that is correct.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the hon. gentleman has referred to two specific treasury board guidelines. Let me make this undertaking to him. I will review those guidelines and get back to him at a later date and as rapidly as I can to satisfy him that the appropriate treasury board procedures are being respected.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I am trying to ensure that I clearly understand what the hon. gentleman is arguing. I would reserve the opportunity to come back to him on another occasion to discuss this in further and better detail.

Clearly there is an implication in that last question that somehow the contracting strategy with respect to this helicopter does not in some way respect the treasury board contracting policy with respect to best value. I believe our strategy is consistent with the contracting policy which states, and I will quote this phrase:

--the objective of government procurement contracting is to acquire goods and services and to carry out construction in a manner that enhances access, competition and fairness and results in best value or, if appropriate, the optimal balance of overall benefits to the Crown and the Canadian people. Inherent in procuring best value is the consideration of all relevant costs over the useful life of the acquisition, not solely the initial or basic contractual cost.

The best value and the lowest price are not necessarily mutually inconsistent, as I said, when we are dealing with something as complex as this transaction.

I would like to better understand exactly the point the hon. gentleman is making. Perhaps we are talking about the same thing and just using different phrases or perhaps we are on fundamentally different pages, but I clearly want to understand his point. I certainly would entertain the opportunity to carry on the dialogue with him because I treat the point seriously.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, there are a whole range of factors to take into account in comparing one bid against another. When we are dealing with something as huge and complex as a helicopter contract, it is a challenge but it is extremely important to ensure we are comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges and coming out at the end of the day with the wise use of taxpayer dollars.

Our procurement process ensures that the companies will be bid exactly what the military needs and therefore will allow the government to seek the lowest price from among compliant bidders. Assuming that all other factors are equal in comparing one bid against another bid, then obviously the conclusive factor would be one of price, but it is a very complicated thing.

It probably cannot at the end of the day be reduced to a single decision making factor. There are a variety of things that need to be taken into account, but broadly speaking, if everything else is equal, then price would be the determining factor.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I am sure the issue of this procurement is one that will preoccupy me and the Minister of National Defence in a major way in the weeks ahead. It is obviously a large acquisition by the Government of Canada.

At the moment certain steps have been taken and are ongoing. There was a prequalification letter published in draft form in the early part of this year with respect to the latest specifications for the basic vehicle for the maritime helicopter purchase. There was a feedback period that went until the middle of March for industry to respond to the draft letter. Its input is now being reviewed and assessed. There is an ongoing dialogue with the industry. The objective is to ensure that when the procurement actually does occur, it will be absolutely above reproach, it will be fair, open and transparent and it will not subject to challenge.

One can imagine that this is a complex process. These are highly complicated machines. It is not like the simple acquisition of the ordinary family car. We have a lot things to take into account to ensure that the process is fair and that taxpayers receive the best value available. To facilitate that along the way, we have used and will continue to use independent fairness monitors to ensure we are handling it properly.

I want to assure the hon. gentleman that this will be a major preoccupation. I take his point seriously, that this is an important issue and it is one that I have no intention of treating lightly.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I would note just for the record that in the market research to which the hon. gentleman has referred, the 69% figure referred to no particular government or political party but indeed to the federal political system. Quite frankly, I think it was a message to all of us that we have to be very sensitive to the concerns among Canadians about the administration of public business.

We can perhaps talk about some of the initiatives that can and should be taken, but one specific step that I would note for the hon. gentleman is that on Monday last, when I had been in office for less than one day, I did take the step of applying a moratorium to any new approvals under the sponsorship program. My concern was to satisfy myself that the criteria of the program were proper and appropriate in the circumstances and that the projects in process would meet those criteria.

That freeze remains in effect. I have been examining the questions over the course of the last week. I hope to remove the freeze in the next number of days but not until I am satisfied that the information before me indicates a situation which respects the public trust. That is an incremental step that I took immediately upon coming into office.