Ralph Goodale

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, ethical behaviour is a topic that should be treated seriously and it is important to every member of the House. It certainly is to me. I am very pleased that my department has very recently been recognized by the Conference Board of Canada as a leading edge organization for its explicit ethics program. In my early briefings by departmental officials last week that was one of the programs that was drawn to my attention. I am very glad that the department does have that very explicit program.

As the question was being asked, someone called out from somewhere in the House and said that that may be what the conference board thought but what did the auditor general think. The auditor general has described the ethics program of Public Works and Government Services Canada as very sophisticated.

The ethics program is intended to provide a framework to guide and improve the ethical conduct of employees by promoting awareness, leadership, decision making and action in the field of investigation. It is important to concede where there are areas of difficulty and to pursue the solutions to those difficulties aggressively.

As I said earlier this evening, my department in a typical year does something in the order of $4 billion of business on behalf of Canadians. The complaints that have been raised over the last number of weeks and months have related to one particular program that involves a budget of about $40 million. That is $40 million on an expenditure base of $4 billion. That is 1% and I think it is important to keep things in proportion.

Having said that, let me make it clear that whether the issue is big dollars or small dollars, every penny counts and it is very important for high ethical standards to apply whether it is a big contract or a little contract, a big issue or a little issue. We must all bear in mind the ethical principles that should guide us.

I am very pleased that my department has a formal policy with respect to this matter and that it has been recognized both internally and externally for the efforts that it is making. I certainly intend to advance that cause within my department and to build upon the ethics foundation that is there.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I believe that the particular case the hon. gentleman raised in his question, having to do with the advertising in Almanach du peuple, will in fact be one of the areas in which the auditor general will be inquiring as she does her government wide review with respect to advertising and sponsorship issues.

However I would point out that my predecessor took the decision to terminate that advertising because in his view, I think correctly, he felt that it did not fall within the proper definition of sponsorship. The promoters behind that idea were referred to other types of government programs for which they may qualify. They made some inquiries and found out that they were not eligible there either so that initiative no longer exists.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I indicated earlier that the type of advertising the hon. gentleman has referred to is now explicitly excluded from the criteria of the program. The complaint that he has expressed is one that the government identified earlier, and we have taken corrective action.

In terms of specific projects that receive sponsorships, the hon. gentleman has indicated his objection to some types of projects. I would be interested in his views on a couple of other projects, like the projects known as Rimouski en blues and Tour de l'Île d'Orléans à la nage. I have letters of representation from members of parliament in the Bloc Quebecois supporting these projects and I wonder if he would support them as well.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, I will take the hon. member's point as a representation. If I am correct, he is saying clearly that in his view sponsorship funding could better be directed toward other types of sporting, cultural or community activities rather than professional sporting events. I would be interested in hearing the views of other members of parliament on that same point.

For this year, and the years that have gone by, that type of activity did fit within the program criteria. For next year, and subsequent years, we have the opportunity to reshape things somewhat differently. I would be interested to hear whether members of parliament and others think that program criteria should be changed in such a way as to make the type of activity that he has referred to specifically to be outside the criteria of the program.

I would again make the point that I have made a couple of times earlier this evening. In the specific examples that are being used here they are, in every single case, in the period of time that predated the year 2000. We are talking about that period in which difficulties did occur prior to the year 2000. Since the internal audit in 2000 and subsequent corrective actions we have taken steps to substantially improve the administration of the program.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, there are various purposes that are served by a sponsorship initiative. One purpose is to support the event or activity to which the sponsorship is committed. Another purpose is to promote and explain the programs and services of the Government of Canada across Canada. Exposure at major national sporting events or cultural events can be a good way to communicate with a large number of people in a concentrated area.

There are a variety of purposes to be served here. I do not think there is one single purpose or one single formula that would suit the sponsorship initiative in all cases. There has to be a little flexibility. As we identify the problem areas and move forward in a way that is constructive for the future, I would look forward to having the advice of members of parliament, in terms of the kind of activities or the magnitude of activities that would be appropriate in terms of future terms and conditions.

I take it the hon. member is suggesting that there is more merit in a sponsorship program focusing on smaller, more community oriented activities than larger and more commercial types of activities. That is a representation that I am happy to take into account. It perhaps goes to the credibility of the program and I would want the program to be credible.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, one thing that I have been struck by in the eight or nine days that I have been reviewing the files in this portfolio is the strong interest that many members of parliament take in this program. They are members of differing political parties, provinces and communities from right across the country.

Members of parliament making their views known, particularly about the projects they support, is an extremely valuable thing. That is an issue I will be looking at in terms of the future administration of the program. Is there a vehicle by which members of parliament can indicate to me the types of projects that have that kind of community merit that would justify sponsorship by the Government of Canada?

In terms of the contracting process I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that 92% of the contracts managed by this department were awarded on the basis of competitive tenders. There were only 8% that were managed in a different way and needed to meet the requirements with respect to sole sourcing.

Competition is the foundation of our contracting process and if I can find ways to enhance the competitive process to make it more open, competitive, transparent and therefore, as the bottom line, more fair and probably less costly to the Government of Canada, I will be interested in pursuing those various techniques.

As I said earlier, sponsorship performs a valuable service. Sponsorships are provided by the private sector, municipal and provincial governments, and by the federal government. They support good and worthy activities across the country. The issue is not the principle or the validity of the concept, nor is it the merit of the local community based projects. The issue is the delivery mechanism and I am committed to finding the most cost effective, open, transparent, accountable and value for money effort to deliver on these sponsorships in the way that Canadians would expect.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, the point raised by the hon. member about this type of advertising is a valid point. I am advised that steps were taken some months ago to stop these types of radio spots because they simply did not fit within the proper definition of a sponsorship initiative.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Madam Chairman, by way of background perhaps I could offer a bit more explanation.

In November 1999 the auditor general tabled a report on the use of advance contract award notices, otherwise known as ACANs. The more significant observations made by the auditor general included the following: that there was in her view no independent review of challenges to ACANs; there was a lack of justification for posting of ACANs; there was a lack of information contained in ACANs; and ACANs were often not posted for the required 15 days. Those were the observations back in November 1999.

The auditor general's report was the subject of a series of meetings by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The committee reported similar observations and criticisms about the ACAN system as those referred to by the auditor general. It made a couple of recommendations that in fact went beyond the observations of the auditor general.

In any event, following the tabling of the auditor general's report back in November 1999, an interdepartmental working group chaired by the Treasury Board Secretariat and of course involving my department was formed to address the various issues the auditor general had raised about ACANs.

As a result of that process, guidelines were prepared. They were subsequently published in November 2000. This information has been broadly circulated throughout the government to all procurement officers, noting the key points and the way in which this policy is evolving and changing over time.

We are obviously anxious to ensure that ACANs are fair and reasonable, that they are handled properly within the system, that they enhance a competitive system. I think the statistics bear that out.

As I mentioned earlier, the statistics we have for 2001 would indicate that there were in that year 3,311 ACANs issued. About 10% of them were challenged, that is 323. So the vast majority were not challenged, even though the opportunity to challenge was there. Of those that were challenged, 76 were found to be cases where the challenge was valid and in 76% of those cases they proceeded to a formal tendering process.

As the hon. member mentioned in his question, the ACAN system provides the opportunity for competition. In the statistics I have cited that opportunity seems to be a legitimate one.

I would point out that there is now a minimum requirement of a posting of 15 calendar days so that everyone has a full and fair opportunity to know that the notice is out there and has the ability to respond within that time frame.

I would also point out, contrary to some assertions that were made earlier tonight, we have put measures in place to provide an independent review of the statements of capabilities that come in to make sure it is not the same person sitting as judge and jury on the appeal, that there is in fact due process and fairness. Sometimes it will be totally different officials from the first officials that looked at the case. Sometimes it will be independent third party fairness advisors from outside the government.

We understand the concerns that were expressed by the auditor general. We are trying very hard to make sure that the ACAN system is not a way to circumvent competition, but a means to complement competition and make sure that the system is transparent and fair.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, I can fully understand and appreciate the sentiment that has been expressed by the hon. member with respect to his province of New Brunswick and his part of New Brunswick, specifically the community of Shediac. There would be many parts of my own province of Saskatchewan where the same line of reasoning and the same feeling and sentiment would apply.

The Speech from the Throne that opened this session of parliament talked about such exciting concepts as innovation for the future and so forth. One recurring theme through that throne speech was the theme of inclusion, inclusion of all Canadians in every region, every province and every community where they feel fully plugged in to their country and that we function together as a cohesive national whole. That is a principle which is extremely important to the government.

I am very sympathetic to the line of reasoning that the hon. gentleman applies with respect to a significant Government of Canada operation in a community like Shediac. The superannuation directorate located in that community employs approximately 410 people. They pay over 220,000 annuities to retired public servants and/or their survivors across Canada.

At the present time my department is actively looking at several ways of modernizing its various pension systems and modernizing the way we do business with respect to pensions. As we go about that modernization study, we will want to be inclusive with respect to the employees at Shediac.

I want to say clearly that we have no plans with respect to privatization or closure of that facility. Obviously with modernization will come some degree of change. I fully intend that to be change that is characterized by opportunity for things to improve and to be dealt with properly in terms of future additional technology, learning opportunities, employment and so forth.

Shediac is very much a part of our plans. I for one will be working very closely with the hon. member to make sure the issue is dealt with properly and fairly. If that was an invitation to visit Shediac in the next little while, let me say that I accept.

[Supply, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that sort of message is already very clear. Quite frankly, I will make some inquiries to see if it needs to be clarified further.

The situations that were described by the internal audit people in my own department as well as by the auditor general were unacceptable. Those practices need to be improved in a major way.

Between the year 2000 and now those improvements were and have been made in a very progressive way. However it is very clear to me that when we are dealing with public money and the taxpayers' trust there needs to be transparency, accountability, value for the money expended and proper filing and bookkeeping to make sure the paper trail is evident.