[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 12, 1995
.1004 
[English]
The Chairman: Call to order.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I want to advise you at the outset that we have votes today. The hearing will be suspended during the vote and we'll reconvene in this room after the vote.
I remind you that after Natural Resources Canada we have a short presentation from Revenue Canada, and then we are going in camera to consider preliminary observations and proposals for our study on contracting, which we will be presenting on Thursday. So a working meeting will commence at 11:30 a.m.
On your behalf, I welcome from Natural Resources Canada the assistant deputy minister,Mr. Boucher; the assistant deputy minister, Dr. Hardy; and the director general of audit and evaluation, Marcel Gibeault.
I understand you have a very short opening presentation. We'll follow it by questions.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Chanel Boucher (Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services Sector, Natural Resources Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity to speak to you this morning. I know that the time is short. You have received my notes, but I would nevertheless like to draw your attention to at least three points.
First of all, you should recognize that the Department fully supports the government's procurement objectives of openness, equity and fairness. We in management reinforce this message whenever there is an opportunity to do so.
[English]
I'd like to also cover how we handle contracting at NRCan.
Managers of course can purchase directly low-value items below $5,000, either services or goods.
When it's above that, a requisition has to be made for a contract from a departmental procurement officer. These are people who specialize in the rules and regulations of contracting, and they are the ones who emit the contract.
Finally, managers can send their contracting requisitions directly to the government's procurement organization, Public Works and Government Services Canada. Based on the documentation provided by managers, PWGSC has established processes for awarding the contract on a competitive or a non-competitive basis.
Both departments have tools. Of course you'll know about the advanced contract award notification system, called ACANS, and you will also be by this time very familiar with the open bidding system, OBS. This is generally how we ensure the integrity of the procurement process within NRCan.
Managers and their support staff receive training on the requirements of the procurement process, with emphasis on competition, conflict of interest and ethics. The integrity of the system is also ensured by monitoring and the reviewing of contracts by accounts staff and by audits, and we also conduct very important internal audits.
In the interest of time, I would like to now attract your attention to the tables I've submitted, because they are very revealing of the profiles of our contracts.
If you look at table 1, you will notice that historically we have been fairly steady in terms of our ratio of non-competitive to competitive, with a slight increase in the last year. In fact, 47% were non-competitive in 1991-92, 44% in 1992-93, and 54% in 1993-94.
.1010
If you were to rate our department against other departments in terms of its percentage of non-competitive contracts, you would find we're at about the middle of the list - about 24th out of 49 departments and agencies.
If we look at table 2,
[Translation]
it gives you a breakdown of the relationship between competitive and non-competitive contracts for 1993-94. As you can see, the Department makes extensive use of the contracting capability of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
[English]
It's important to note our department uses PWGSC 85% of the time. I believe Bob Little from Treasury Board, when he was here earlier, noted it was closer to 50% for the entire government. Therefore, we are heavy users of the PWGSC services.
If you go to chart 3 you will notice the profile of our contracts is very heavily skewed, with 96.4% of the number of contracts under $30,000; that's 78% in dollar value. So it's not only a large percentage in numbers but also in the overall value.
If you look at the under $5,000 category, you will see that 77% of the total volume of contracts is under $5,000. That is 37.7% of the total value of our contracts. Those are very revealing of a large volume of very small contracts.
As well, when contracts are above $30,000 and they're sole-sourced, you can see on chart 4 there is always a valid reason for sole-sourcing.
Let's take ``C'' as an example. We are a scientific organization. We do highly specialized work. You will see that sometimes, as in this case, only one laboratory has the expertise to do that particular testing. When you're dealing with highly specialized items of science and research and development, you'll often find there's only one possible supplier because only one person has the expertise.
Those are the kinds of issues we face at NRCan. Nonetheless we continue trying to strengthen the contracting process. I would like to draw your attention to a number of the things we are doing. Some of them are quite interesting.
We are integrating contracting and procurement staff within an accounting division. This is to harmonize practices. In a policy sense and in a reporting sense it also allows for the review of contracts issued at the time of payment. This also provides a centre of expertise for the entire payment and procurement process.
Also, within our financial system, we've added new fields to capture information, such as the method of procurement - was it sole-sourced or competitive? - and the services to individuals.
One that is particularly interesting, and I think we are somewhat leading in the government in this respect, is the re-engineering of the entire procurement and payment process. We're using technologies now to ensure data is captured at one time and extra information is put on the system for monitoring.
If you're interested in that and want a bit more detail, on the Natural Resources Canada page on the Internet there's quite a bit of detail on the re-engineering of the payment and procurement process.
As well, we are moving to electronic data interchange, whereby we settle payments of credit cards through an electronic invoicing system. This gives us access to a lot of information that is collected by the credit card company and gives us more information for analysis of what's happening with our contracts.
As well, recently we've developed courses in conflict of interest in contracting, which are being provided to all our employees. We are also developing a departmental policy on hiring of relatives. That is currently being discussed with Treasury Board. Treasury Board will be giving us feedback soon, and it will become the department's policy.
I'm trying to keep it brief, Mr. Chairman, so I will open it up for questions at this time.
.1015
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Boucher.
Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): At page 3 of your document, you say that contracts of less than $5,000 are not granted by going through the formal tendering process but may be allocated by employees by solicitation.
So here is my question. When an employee or someone in your Department needs three items of $4,900 each, will he go and make a request for proposals for those items as a whole or will he be inclined to purchase each of those items separately?
This has happened in some municipalities. For example, an outdoor recreational area that needed sailboards could, under the management procedure, place its orders for purchases of less than $5,000 through a mere solicitation. It has happened in the past that employees purchase sailboards by the unit so as to avoid having to make a request for proposals. They could thereby encourage their friends or favour certain businesses in a municipality.
I see that contracts of under $5,000 account for 37.7 percent of the total budget, a total of 1,436 contracts allocated, which is the highest quantity. This means that a lot more small contracts in this category are being given out. I wonder, therefore, whether certain purchases are being made by the unit in order to take advantage of the system. Shouldn't we be combining things to get a better cost through formal tenders?
This is my first question, Mr. Chairman. I will have a second one.
Mr. Boucher: This is a very interesting question, to which there are two answers. First, it is completely contrary to Treasury Board regulations to allow a civil servant to choose whatever supplier he wants by dividing up a big procurement in order to remain below the $5,000 line, when you could achieve economies of scale and get discounts. This is completely contrary to Treasury Board directives. Our managers are trained not to do that. We do sampling on a regular basis to ensure that it is not being done.
We also do internal audits to discourage this practice. We are not immune to slip-ups. Indeed, of the hundreds of purchases that are made, we find a few that come close. But they are contrary to Treasury Board policies and the policies we enforce.
That being said, there is a new phenomenon that is developing. It is what is called in English just-in-time inventory, under which managers are increasingly inclined to avoid maintaining large inventories and to purchase what they need as they need it. Particularly when wholesale procurement does not yield major savings, some employees are inclined to proceed in this way and to purchase only when the need is felt rather than to shop around and incur inventory costs. So those are two distinct phenomena.
In reply to the main point you raise, what you described runs completely counter to Treasury Board policies.
Mr. Asselin: But you will admit with me, Sir, that a good manager can predict what materials he will need over the course of a year.
Mr. Boucher: Yes.
Mr. Asselin: He could, instead of purchasing piecemeal, issue a request for proposals at the beginning of the year for the purchase of a minimum number of things he thinks he will need during the year. There are some savings that can be made. Do you have effective control procedures through which you can monitor the situation? They might come to you later with some specific instances in which employees had split some purchases in two instead of treating them as one because the whole tendering process seemed cumbersome. At that point they may have wanted to make certain purchases at the regional level and preferred to divide the batch in two.
Secondly, I wonder whether the employees have a code of professional ethics concerning the allocation of contracts, to eliminate conflicts of interest.
Mr. Boucher: They have the conflicts of interest code. You are no doubt familiar with it. It is very demanding. It deals not only with actual conflicts of interest but also with potential conflicts and apparent conflicts of interest. In fact, we work hard at educating our employees in all the potential conflicts of interest.
.1020
We go a bit further; we even look at situations in which there could potentially be an apparent conflict of interest and we try to establish systems and processes to ensure that these do not occur.
What is necessary is to ensure that our employees are well trained, that the duties are broken down so it is not the same employee approving a procurement, carrying it out, making the request for payment and handling the inventory. We ascertain that our staffing officers are well trained and are knowledgeable about the merit principle, that the forms are correctly filled out and that the conflict of interest statements are distributed, so that the employees can attest in writing to what degree they do or do not exist.
It is a complete administrative structure and there are lots of documents that are used to conduct audits. I am not saying that we never turn up anything that is unacceptable or that needs to be corrected during these audits, but this is the goal of the internal audit.
That is more or less how the monitoring is done.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Gilmour, do you have any questions?
Mr. Gilmour (Comox - Alberni): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do get a little bit uncomfortable when I hear one government department comparing its success level to another government department's, particularly in some of these areas where government departments aren't noted for being penny-pinching or cost-effective. They are getting better, but I must say when you have $95 million out of a total $177 million going to a single supplier, or non-competitive bidding, that's more than half. I find that's quite an astounding amount to go to one supplier.
We've asked this of a number of other departments, and it's regarding the $30,000 limit. I wonder if you could supply this committee with your top 50 contracts that started under $30,000 but were topped up over top. I'd like to see the top 50 of those - the names of the suppliers and the names of the contracts - so we can have an idea.
It clearly is an area that can be open to manipulation by underbidding a contract under the $30,000 and then topping it up at a later date. So if you could supply that to the committee, I'd certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Boucher: I certainly will.
Mr. Gilmour: I think I'll pass now, Mr. Chairman. I know we're short for time. We have a vote.
The Chairman: Did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Boucher: I have two points. Yes, our non-competitive letting of contracts is in fact 54%. You quoted that figure correctly. However, you must appreciate that what is classified as non-competitive for the purposes of this reporting is not necessarily non-competitive.
It doesn't mean the manager did not shop around as we asked him to - make a phone call, find out who is most competitive, which is the best cost, which is the best price - and then make a selection. That would come out as non-competitive.
As well, when we send something to PWGSC, they will often put it on the ACAN system and everybody will know that the contract is available, and yet when it's sole-sourced once it's awarded, it will still come out as non-competitive.
So when we speak of 54% non-competitive, that is the absolute outside figure. We know that in reality there are elements of competitiveness brought in that are not formal enough to make the process a competitive process. At least we know 54% is the outside figure. It means if in every case we had sole-sourced, it would be 54%. But we do know our managers did take competitive actions; they did shop around and there was a selection process.
On your second comment on the amendments that take us above $30,000, I don't know if I will be able to dig out 50 contracts. We will provide them for you. We're not a department that does a lot of amendments. We're way below the government average on that score. But I will certainly look into it and provide that.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, if you're wondering, at 10:30 a.m. we're going to suspend, and the vote is not being taken until 10:40. So we'll have ten minutes to go between buildings. Is that acceptable? Good.
Mr. Bellemare, you're first on the block here.
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): On the Bloc?
The Chairman: Not with that Bloc. The Canadian block.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare: At least he didn't accuse me of being a Reformer.
Unlike the group in the Reform party, I will not accuse any civil servant. I think the civil servants do good work. I am not suspicious of them, in contrast to the Reform members.
.1025
A voice: He was when in opposition, but he no longer is.
Mr. Bellemare: I am from the region, and the civil servants know me. I did not do such things. It's more in terms of the system that we have to look if we are to solve the problems. Are you using the OBS Online Service?
Mr. Boucher: We use it.
Mr. Bellemare: Are you satisfied with it?
Mr. Boucher: It's a system
Mr. Bellemare: I am acquainted with it.
Mr. Boucher: "that is fairly complicated. It takes time and it is necessary"
Mr. Bellemare: Should it be modified?
Mr. Boucher: Are you aware that there is a magic instrument called the Internet, which reaches a lot more people and which costs almost nothing?
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, I spent two hours yesterday working a computer with one of the clients of the government, who showed me the problems with the OBS system and how it ought to be improved to make it accessible to everyone without being a burden financially.
Our witness, Mr. Boucher, said exactly what that company was suggesting, namely, that it should be on the Internet and that we should expand the accessibility of the OBS program and make it less expensive.
The company to which I went is well organized, very comfortable, and has no problems with the OBS system. However, they showed me all the costs on a per-item breakdown, and explained to me that it would be impossible for a small firm with one or two engineers to work the OBS system. So I congratulate Mr. Boucher.
We often talk about regional procurement in relation to the savings that can be made. One of my major concerns is that some day we will suffer what I call the Wal-Mart syndrome. I am afraid that the government will some day end up purchasing its products from a single vendor, and perhaps even all its services from a single source, which could ruin the economy in the regions.
We are part of an economic agreement with the United States and Mexico that could easily have some negative effects. All our products might come, for example, from Chicago, from a small warehouse that would deliver everywhere and cut prices to a tremendous degree. We will have been so willing to save on prices that the taxpayers will no longer be able to pay since there will be no more jobs and no more businesses to purchase the products, and we will become clients of the United States, for example.
Do you think there is a danger in pushing the Reform party's idea to its limit, in always choosing the lowest price? Nor should I overlook the Bloc. They would like to buy 500,000 sailboards and rent some warehouses in Quebec in which to store them. In 25 years, we will be wondering why we wanted to purchase so many sailboards.
Mr. Boucher: It is clear that the policies require us to always purchase at the best price. The trends you have identified, those of the major suppliers, are accurate.
What might be of considerable assistance, however, especially in the case of a Department such as ours, which is very decentralized, what has a lot of regional laboratories and offices, often in fairly remote places or in small towns, would be to increase the threshold from $5,000 to $25,000. This would enable us to make more local purchases, to help the local economy, instead of being constantly obliged to apply to Public Works and Government Services and do our sourcing in the major centres. This is a possibility we would have if the threshold procurement value was raised.
Mr. Bellemare: Did the research officer note the suggestion? It would be worthwhile pursuing this idea at some other time, perhaps with Treasury Board, Mr. Chairman. I am going to leave. To another time, if you please.
The Chairman: It is indeed a good idea.
Mr. Bellemare: We should go and vote.
[English]
The Chairman: We're going to suspend this session.
Colleagues, now that more of us are here, I just want to remind you of the drill for the morning. We have a vote, which is only one vote, and then we'll return and finish with this panel.
Then, Mr. Bryden, we're bringing in Revenue Canada for a very short presentation.
Then, colleagues, we will be going in camera with some material you've received. That will go probably until 1 o'clock or 1:15. I understand there will be sandwiches.
We're suspended.
.1028
.1102
The Chairman: Colleagues, I apologize for the interruption. We will resume our presentation from Natural Resources Canada.
We had a last set of questions from Mr. Bellemare. Are there any other questions of these witnesses or this panel?
Dr. Duhamel.
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Thank you for your presentation. Will you open the document at page 3, please?
[English]
I want to quote a couple of things here. I want to understand. In roughly the middle of the page, it says:
- The Department has recognized that tools presently available for the acquisition of goods and
services do not adequately provide the necessary information to not only procure but to also
monitor the process.
A couple of lines further on it says:
- The department has approved the development of an integrated procurement and payment
system that will be available to every manager and support employee in the department.
- This system will also allow analysis of procurement trends, something that is not currently
available. This application is under development and will be available to Departmental staff in
approximately one year.
Mr. Boucher: Our situation would reflect very much the situation in the government. Normally there would be a multiplicity of systems dealing with procurement, inventory, financial cheque issue. We're trying to get a single system that integrates all procurement and payment from A to Z, whereby the data are captured once, there's no reconciliation between systems, you have much more information, and it's consolidated on our single financial system. We're evolving the financial system to do that, so we'll have much, much more information to do monitoring.
A lot of manual steps will be taken out of the process. It will become electronic. Even the settlement of the payment will be on electronic data interchange. For example, a company such as Mastercard will send us an electronic bill at the end of the month.
We're doing that right now. In that case we can replace 70,000 paper transactions with only12 electronic bills, one a month, and they will go directly into our financial system.
[Translation]
Mr. Duhamel: I think I understand how all the components, from the procurement to the payment, fit together, but I would like to have some clarification about the system. Is this system going to belong to you as such or will it belong to the government and be used by all departments?
Mr. Boucher: This system is a sort of re-engineering. We are re-engineering the processes. We are the leaders in this, and we are now inventing some new processes for which there have to be some new investments that we are making in partnership with all the other departments that have the same financial system as we do. Once it is set up, it will be available for everyone.
Mr. Duhamel: Right, thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain, please.
Mrs. Chamberlain (Guelph - Wellington): I want to follow up.
The small business people were in earlier. I don't know whether you would know this, whether you would follow the contracts through far enough, but on page 2 you talk about managers being able to process contracts directly with suppliers.
Once you do that, and once a contract is completed, do you know about the payment?
Some of the people in earlier were saying that payment can be anywhere from a month to six weeks and sometimes even longer. Do you know anything about that?
Mr. Boucher: Yes, we do try to pay soon after we receive the invoice. Once the invoice is in, there's a process in place...we're trying to make that process as efficient and as effective as possible so that the supplier does get paid.
I can't guarantee that suppliers will get paid within 30 days. Certainly that's the benchmark we've set for ourselves inside our department. We're trying to respect those kinds of terms, and where there's a discount for paying early, we also try to get at those discounts.
Mrs. Chamberlain: You say you can't guarantee it, but would most of them be paid within30 days? Is that your understanding, or would they run on this six-week cycle or longer? I mean, it doesn't really tell me a lot when you say....
Mr. Boucher: I don't know whether we have our average payment time.
The Chairman: The others are free to answer.
Mr. Boucher: We couldn't give you the average payment time, but certainly the goal is to pay it within 30 days, which is normal business turnaround time.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I would hope that we're doing that, and in big time, because I think it's really serious when we don't pay people. Since I have come from business, I just don't think that practice is right at all. It really hurts them a lot.
There's a second issue that I wanted to ask you about. If a person doesn't get awarded a contract, how do you inform that person? Do you tell them why they didn't get it?
Mr. Boucher: In a competitive situation in which a lot of people have tendered, PWGSC looks after it. I think they could answer how they handle the post-award better than I could.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Thank you.
.1110
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Asselin, I guess you have another question. Then we'll go to Mr. Bélair.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I have two small questions.
First of all, I would like to know the government's policies concerning the tendering process. When you award a contract through an invitation to bid, is it the government's policy to award the contract to the lowest bidder who complies with the specifications?
The second question concerns the solicitations. Under your policy with respect to contracts of $5,000 or less, do you ensure that the employees making the solicitations make more than one, so the most advantageous and least expensive bid can be accepted?
Mr. Boucher: To answer the first question, the government is always seeking the best value for its purchases and, generally speaking, the best value is found in the lowest bid consistent with the specifications. However, sometimes we can get better value when more things are offered at a higher price that is nevertheless competitive. So we are always seeking the best value. Essentially, it is necessary to comply with the specifications and the price is the major component.
For purchases of $5,000, is there more than one person? Generally speaking, yes. Budget constraints being what they are, and since we now administer salaries and operating funds within the same envelope, the employees are always looking to find the best value. Consequently, for a purchase of less than $5,000, they will normally make some inquiries, telephone around, look at catalogues, select suppliers, and consider things carefully with an eye to getting the best value and the best cost.
Furthermore, Public Works and Government Services provides us with lists of classified and prequalified suppliers, and we ensure that the suppliers who are on this list each get their turn. So there is a certain equity there.
I would like to make a general comment concerning contracts of $5,000 or less. It is hard for us to recommend excessive monitoring. I think we should take advantage of all the technology we have today and use a system that is as highly computerized as possible, to enable suppliers to present their catalogues and let the employees see whatever there is on the market. It is easy to get access to several systems of this type, the Internet being an extremely useful example.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Bélair, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Superior): I would like to begin by thanking the employees of the Department for coming and meeting with us. I was, however, a bit shocked by some of the things that were said about small contracts and somewhat bigger contracts. I am a bit worried to hear you say that the managers are selecting their supplies by telephone.
My first question would be to ask you whether this is professional. Secondly, isn't this almost an overt, scarcely veiled, invitation to patronage?
Mr. Boucher: I referred only to purchases of goods and services of less than $5,000.
Mr. Bélair: I referred as well to those that were a bit bigger, let's say less than $30,000.
Mr. Boucher: Purchases of less than $30,000? No. Normally, when we make an inquiry into what is available for contracts of less than $30,000, we don't confine ourselves to telephone inquiries. We will try to get further information. So the telephone is one tool among others. The more competition there is for the supply of this good, the more important the background work must be and the more careful the employee must be. However, the telephone remains an indispensable tool for small purchases.
Mr. Bélair: And what do you do with the guidelines provided by Treasury Board? They are, after all, very specific about the process that is to be followed.
.1115
Mr. Boucher: The Treasury Board guidelines state clearly that for purchases of under $30,000, a competitive bid solicitation is unwarranted, given what it requires, both in terms of the employees involved and in terms of the suppliers. We are encouraged to use much more informal methods, in this case the telephone. We can avoid an invitation to bid.
Mr. Bélair: Do you have, in the Department, a committee of some sort that reviews contracts and their justification before they are formally accepted?
Mr. Boucher: There is no central committee of that kind, but there are some local committees in the various components of our management. At the central level, where I have some responsibilities, we do some sampling. We take groups of contracts and analyze them in depth and then determine whether there are any problems that we should be taking into account. Mr. Asselin, for example, raised the issue of taking a fairly big contract and breaking it down into smaller contracts in order to stay within the limits of the delegated authority. That is the kind of thing that we monitor very closely, through sampling.
Mr. Bélair: My final question concerns the Open Bidding System Online. Your comments were not terribly laudatory. So I presume that you have done an evaluation. I should say that the committee knows what is now being looked at, and your contribution is extremely significant. That being said, I think that you have done some sort of evaluation of the service. Are you in a position to table it? I suppose it has been done in writing. Can you table the evaluation you have made with the committee?
Mr. Boucher: We have not conducted a formal evaluation, and consequently we have nothing to table in this sense. But we do, however, have some testimony from people who use it, both suppliers and government employees. If such an evaluation were useful to the committee's proceedings. I understand that you don't have a lot of time.
Mr. Bélair: We'll take the time.
Mr. Boucher: We could provide you with something in that regard.
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, could I ask the witness to provide us with at least a verbal evaluation of the service to help us in formulating some new recommendations to Treasury Board? Once again, your contribution is extremely important, and I would not want you to feel defensive about my question. Do you feel free to do as you indicate?
Mr. Boucher: Do you want it to be done immediately?
Mr. Bélair: Yes, yes.
Mr. Boucher: There are people in this room who are more expert than I am in this area.
Mr. Bélair: As you wish.
Mr. Boucher: I would like to introduce to you Richard D'Avignon, who is our expert in contracts and computerized systems.
[English]
Mr. Richard D'Avignon (Re-engineering Project, Goods and Services Team, Department of Natural Resources): The OBS system has been used nine times in this department.
Mr. Bélair: Nine times?
Mr. D'Avignon: Nine times, realizing that we're only dealing with our own in-house contracts. We're not talking about what has been done by -
Mr. Bélair: But still, if we look at the number of contracts that have been issued by Natural Resources Canada, it's absolutely minimal, to say the least. Why, then?
Mr. D'Avignon: We have in a lot of cases selected sources that we have gone out to compete -
Mr. Bélair: Sole-sourcing?
Mr. D'Avignon: No, I'm talking selected-source, where we either have a pre-qualified list of suppliers that we use, or we have a list of companies that we have selected and we will go out and tender our requirements without putting it on the OBS.
Mr. Bélair: Is this when shopping around with the telephone comes into the picture?
Mr. D'Avignon: Not necessarily. We would look at our needs, what type of expertise we are looking for, and again, depending - it could be also the sensitivity of the issue - we would come up with a list of firms that we deem could provide us with the study, and we will tender to those firms.
Mr. Bélair: The OBS system, then, is not of much use to you.
Mr. D'Avignon: We installed the OBS in January 1994. We're only using it in one particular area of the department, which is the contract specialist group. So we've used it nine times for that particular reason.
.1120
We find it cumbersome at times because of the amount of information that has to be prepared for the length of time that the request is on the OBS. Sometimes -
Mr. Bélair: The point is that the same information has to be prepared for the tender, so why not put it on the OBS?
Mr. D'Avignon: We can, depending on.... If the manager has not deemed that there are a group of firms he feels can best provide good value for the department, then yes, indeed, we do use the OBS and shop around that way.
Mr. Bélair: So you're confirming what Mr. Boucher said a while ago, that it's a fairly subjective judgment of one person or very few persons in the whole department to select suppliers.
Mr. D'Avignon: We will look at.... Depending on the requirement, we can sit down in committee and -
Mr. Bélair: That's not my point. I'm saying in general.
Yes, there are exceptions. Mr. Hardy was talking to me a while ago about some chemicals that Natural Resources Canada needs. I suppose there are not that many suppliers that can supply some specific kinds of chemicals. That's the exception to the rule. I'm talking in general.
Your statistics are really alarming. Ten times over two years, Mr. Chairman - and look at the number of contracts that could take it out; there are over a thousand. So what can you tell the committee that would benefit our cause to make those recommendations?
The Chairman: Good question. What are your recommendations?
Mr. D'Avignon: Basically, what we're looking at, too, is that with the nature of our business, what has not shown up on there is an awful lot of the specialized contracts that have gone out that are joint ventures between the department and the private sector, where they in turn have put in money, which eliminates that need. Also, the high amount of R and D work the department does, which becomes specialized in certain areas, has led to sway the statistics in that fashion.
I don't know. I don't have a really concrete answer that I can give you on that one.
Mr. Bélair: Well, you're not using the system. It's somewhat difficult to provide an answer.
Mr. D'Avignon: No, we're not, but we plan to use it more. The thing is, you must realize that there are only two people who are using it at the present time.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. It's very interesting. Mr. Bélair has hit on something very significant, I think, which is that you're not using the OBS, so it's difficult to measure whether or not it's working for your department if you're not using it.
I think, colleagues, that's the second department so far that we've heard that isn't. Health Canada, I believe, was the other one.
Mr. Bélair: Revenue Canada, as well.
The Chairman: And Revenue Canada isn't. It's interesting that the system is there, but it seems to be that not many people are using it. So that's something we have to deal with.
Mrs. Chamberlain, please.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Thank you. I want to ask the witnesses a question.
I have a report here by Chuck Strahl, the Reform MP for Fraser Valley East. He is saying that with the previous government, the Conservative government, 669 contracts were awarded to relatives.
I would like you to comment on that and tell me what your feeling about that is. I realize this is Mr. Strahl's report, but your numbers indicate that there were 2,033 contracts given out. So almost one-quarter of the contracts were awarded to relatives. That seems to be quite... I would like to hear what you have to say about that.
Mr. Boucher: We have no idea where that figure comes from. The only thing we might guess is that there was a report, which Mr. Strahl has, that said there were 669 staffing transactions in one of our offices, and that 669 would include all transactions of a nature of a personal contract, of an acting situation, a promotion, a transfer, and all of those transactions relating to people - movement inside a particular office. That added up to 669 over a 20-month period. That's where we're guessing the number comes from, because I have no idea what that figure means.
.1125
Mrs. Chamberlain: So the answer to that is no, that 669 people were not relatives?
Mr. Boucher: The answer is no.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Every department probably has some of this. Sometimes a relative might be the best person. If you had to evaluate your department, how much of that sort of thing exists? Do you have any sense of that? Have you ever done any figures?
Mr. Boucher: We did do an audit on contracts, and one of the issues we looked at was whether there were conflicts of interest of that nature. We start from the principle that nobody should be advantaged by knowing someone in the public service, but nobody should be disadvantaged either. We try to ensure that in every case the merit principle is observed. Sometimes we find that the merit principle is not observed, and we move to corrective action by training people, monitoring situations and making sure all the formulas are well filled and well documented. That's how we try to keep that kind of thing in check.
When two people of the same family are working for the same organization, that doesn't mean there is a conflict of interest - whether real, apparent or potential - but it does mean that situation should be well documented, above reproach and open to public scrutiny.
Mrs. Chamberlain: In your opinion, is abuse occurring in your department?
Mr. Boucher: No, I don't think there is abuse. We have seen some instances and we moved to correct those situations. We came back to those situations through a post-audit to ensure that they were corrected, and we found that they were.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Would you say that was an abuse before it was corrected?
Mr. Boucher: There could potentially have been the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Chairman: Potentially could have appeared...?
Mr. Boucher: Yes. When we do training on conflict of interest, we find that people have a strong grasp of what a real conflict of interest is, but they have a little more difficulty on potential conflict of interest. People look at their situation and say we're both ethical people, we'll never do anything wrong. Even though in their mind they know there is no possibility of a conflict of interest, from a perception point of view there is a potential conflict of interest there, and we try to ensure those situations don't occur.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I don't want to make this uncomfortable for you -
The Chairman: Go ahead.
Mrs. Chamberlain: - but there are perceptions. Sometimes perceptions are not correct, but sometimes they are. We have seen that in other departments there has been abuse. You have stated that there is no abuse and I hope that's so, but it's hard to believe that in a department as large as yours there has never been a situation where someone received a contract that may not have been....
This is not a witch hunt. I know you already said that when a situation is found out, it is corrected. I think that's the right thing. If we proceed from the premise that sometimes this occurs.... If it has occurred and you are alleging that it hasn't, I will have to accept that, but it is difficult to believe that other departments have had trouble but your department never has.
Mr. Boucher: I can't guarantee that there has never been any abuse in my department, that there has never been anybody in a conflict of interest. On the contrary, I think we can almost be sure there was. Through audits and looking at the systems we try to uncover those situations, and when we do find them, we correct them.
More often than not it's the risk of creating a potential conflict of interest - it's at that level that we're operating. We do training, we have a policy on it, and we try to enforce that policy through the staffing process. Particularly when you have people who are related and work in the same organization, those situations have to be watched closely.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I don't know if Mr. Strahl's study has any merit, and I would not allege that it does, but since this particular study, have you noticed any difference? Departments have told us that there is a remarkable difference between the past government and some of the edicts that have come down from the current ministers, particularly regarding this issue of whether it's perceived or is really happening. Have you noticed any difference?
.1130
Mr. Boucher: Speaking from my own experience, never in my entire professional life as a public servant have I put on pressure to do anything that wasn't ethical or consistent with all policies of Treasury Board.
The Chairman: I thought your question was whether there has been a change in the last two years. Is that right, Mrs. Chamberlain?
Mrs. Chamberlain: Other departments have told us that there has been a marked change of direction in hiring practices, and I'm asking that same question of you. I did not mean to infer that you were doing something incorrect.
Mr. Boucher: Inside my department, from the vantage point of my position, I have to say no.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Thank you.
Your answers have been quite different from what we've heard from other departments over the course of these hearings. I don't know exactly what that means.
Mr. Boucher: I hope it helps your report.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Maybe you have been operating better. I hope so.
The Chairman: Colleagues, we're concluding with this panel.
The researchers asked me to complete the record here. There's one important question that we'd like you to take away from today's meeting. It concerns Mrs. Chamberlain's and Mr. Bélair's point on preventing abuse.
We're looking forward, not backward. Information came to us about some past practices in your department, and that's what we're trying to deal with. I think it's important for us to get your input rather than have an edict come from this committee to Treasury Board, and then from Treasury Board to all the departments.
You must be aware that Treasury Board came forward, convened a meeting of all deputy ministers, and said the numbers that Mr. Bélair has referred to are unacceptable. We want to know specifically what your department is going to do to prevent future problems such as add-on amendments, unplanned expenditures and the kind of abuses that are being alleged in the House of Commons. A policy statement - or in written form - from your department would be helpful, or some recommendations.
For example, would a contracting code of conduct issued by Treasury Board be helpful?
Mr. Boucher: Yes, it would. Let's take that away and provide a submission for you. The policy has modified.... This trend that is so disturbing to all of us has focused attention on this issue of getting a little bit out of control, and we are modifying our policies to make it even more obligatory to look at all sources and be as competitive as possible.
The Chairman: Okay. So to nail you down a little bit, you accept that the statistics you brought are unacceptable. As the senior person within your department, you're not happy with them either?
Mr. Boucher: They are of concern to me and there is a developing trend there that we have to look at.
The Chairman: Does that mean you don't like it?
Mr. Boucher: That means I have to look at it.
The Chairman: So you don't like the trend.
Mr. Boucher: I don't like the trend.
The Chairman: We like to get yes and no answers here. People say politicians don't give answers, but after listening to some of the bureaucrats over the last few weeks, I don't think it's only us.
Treasury Board issues guidelines, and the guidelines go to departments, and everybody has an interpretation of those guidelines. We're trying to help make sure they're fair, competitive, transparent, easily understood and have a small-business focus. I think we've set a tall order for ourselves, but if there are problems in the system, and obviously there's a problem in your department, then we need your input in order to respond to Treasury Board. I think that's what we're all trying to achieve.
.1135
.1139
Mr. Boucher: Yes. You framed very clearly the challenge before you and what the objectives are you want to achieve. Why don't we take that away and come back to you within a couple of days with this and make some suggestions.
The Chairman: That would be great.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): I have a final question, Mr. Chairman. Both Health and Defence appeared before this committee and commented that some of their non-competitive contracts were, as you say, due to the scientific nature of the good or service being sought.
In terms of the technical advice that may be going to Public Works in the procurement of some scientific good or service, or to the procurement officer himself, what system do you have in place to ensure that the person giving the advice isn't using his expertise in a very narrow or biased sense?
The problem with experts is that experts hide behind the smokescreen of their expertise; they shut out the non-experts and say that this is what's required.
Mr. Boucher: In a scientific area, first of all the contract ultimately responds to a scientific program. Already you have to be within those parameters. It's usually not just a single scientist involved. It's on a science project. It's a team of people who are developing a specification. That specification will often take them to a single source because it is so specialized.
We do, in the scientific area, what we call a lot of joint venturing. Indeed, a lot of our scientific contracts come from a private sector company joint-venturing on a piece of research with one of our labs. It's very hard to play with the specs because the objective of the research is very clearly stated. It's approved by management. Everything has to stay within that kind of technology.
There are a lot of checks and balances in this system.
Mr. Bryden: Can't you put the specs out in the OBS system? I ran into this with other witnesses from other departments.
The Chairman: Health was a big one.
Mr. Bryden: They said we deal directly with scientists. You read the publications and it's like a little club. I don't understand why one can't put the specs for a scientific study or good or service out on the OBS system.
Mr. Boucher: It could be put out on the OBS.
Mr. Bryden: But it's not, is it?
Mr. Boucher: When PWGSC has our contract, they can put it on the OBS. WhatMr. D'Avignon was talking about a minute ago was how we use it inside of the department ourselves. How PWGSC uses it on our big contracts is that they would normally put it out on OBS, unless it is clearly indicated for technological or other reasons that sole-sourcing is the only thing that makes sense and that there's no value added by going OBS.
Everywhere there would be a value added going by OBS, where there are competitors out there or alternate sources available, it certainly would be put on OBS.
The Chairman: I'm going to have to step in here.
Thank you very much. We will be looking forward to receiving your submission back to this committee. As you know, our work is really just beginning. Thank you very much.
We'll suspend for two minutes to receive Revenue.
.1140
The Chairman: I'd like to call this meeting to order again.
Colleagues, you'll recall that our colleague Mr. Bryden prepared a bill, Bill C-224.
Mr. Bryden, you had requested an opportunity to bring back the Revenue officials. I want to welcome Mr. Lefebvre and Madame Brickman from the Department of Finance.
Mr. Bryden, I'll turn the meeting over to you, sir.
Mr. Bryden: I think it might be appropriate if Mr. Lefebvre summarized the changes that his department is recommending as a result of the suggestions that came from this committee rather than from me.
Could you just do that, Mr. Lefebvre?
Mr. Denis Lefebvre (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Legislation Branch, Department of National Revenue): Mr. Chairman, we sent a report to the committee some time ago. I can briefly mention that during the hearings this committee had earlier, a number of issues were identified with the information we gathered. This is available to the public with respect to charities.
One issue raised was the lack of clarity of the definition of officers, directors and trustees that led some charities not to give the information or give some wrong information, so we are redefining this and it will be clearer in the guide starting in 1996.
It was noted that many charities were not putting any information on some lines in the return, notably lines 135 and 136. When the public asked to see the returns, very often those lines were blank. So now we have reminded all charities in the newsletter, and when we ask charities to send their annual return, we are going to remind them every time that they have to fill out all the lines and insert all the information. We are also working on developing a better computer system to follow up on this obligation to make sure it is enforced.
Finally, heretofore we are asking charities to identify in their returns just the total remuneration of the five or six highest-paid officers. Now we are changing the form and the guide to indicate that the range of the five highest-paid officers has to be given and they will report on that basis. So it protects the privacy in the sense that it would be a range of every $20,000. We'll have the five highest-paid officers and this will be available to the public.
.1145
So that's basically the changes we are implementing, as we speak, on the charity side. On the report that we provided to you, we mentioned we had consulted with the Department of Finance and we have recently implemented a requirement for not-for-profit organizations to provide us annually with information with respect to their operations. There is a limited threshold. This is for not-for-profit organizations that have assets of over $200,000 or annual revenues of more than $10,000.
We just started to gather this information about not-for-profit organizations, which before that didn't have to provide any information. We're gathering some good information and better knowledge of the sector for tax policy reasons and for tax administration reasons. For the moment we don't see the need to gather information about the highest-salaried people. Our recommendation in the report is that we could perhaps continue to gather more information on the sector for a bit longer before we decide on the next step. Let them digest this new requirement to report. Let this reporting requirement work nicely, if you wish, and then we could perhaps consider other measures if it's deemed appropriate.
That was, Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell, the essence of the report we sent to the committee earlier.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden: Let me say, first, Mr. Chairman, that Revenue officials have gone a step further than Bill C-224 in that the top five senior-paid officers of a charity are required to disclose their salaries. It's a salary range. I'd prefer a specific salary; nevertheless, the range gives us the kind of information that is behind the spirit of Bill C-224. It is a very positive and significant step.
I'm particularly delighted by it, Mr. Chairman, because after Bill C-224 was reviewed by this committee in the spring, there was an article in a publication in which various people chortled about it never going anywhere, and now these people who were convinced that they would never have to disclose their salary -
The Chairman: So you had the last laugh....
Mr. Bryden: - thanks to Revenue Canada, are going to wind up having to disclose their salaries.
When will this change come into effect, however? Is this something that's going to come forward in the coming year?
Mr. Lefebvre: Yes, the charities have to send this information following the end of their fiscal year, and so we want to change the guide and the form for the year 1996 so people who have to report in the year 1996 will have to provide this additional information in their returns.
Mr. Bryden: So you've already acted?
Mr. Lefebvre: Yes.
Mr. Bryden: You mentioned very briefly in your presentation that you're going to improve the monitoring measures with a computer system. Can you just describe it in a little more detail? Are you adding offices to watch what happens?
Mr. Lefebvre: We have some 72,000 charities. As you can imagine, we receive every day - and in some periods more than others - a lot of returns. What we want to do, for instance, is to identify the fields in the form that, in our view, must be filled. If the information is not there in those fields, there will be a letter sent back automatically to the organization saying their return is incomplete and we cannot accept it. It is as if there is no return. When there is no return, we take steps to revoke a status.
We need some assistance; otherwise, we would have to increase the manpower devoted to that exercise. So we have obtained internal approvals to shift resources to have a better monitoring system, assisted with informatics, so it's not overly expensive.
.1150
Mr. Bryden: I have to say, Mr. Chairman, this is music to my ears. Just one final question along this line. I take it this will improve enforcement. Bill C-224 provided for a fine, which was a very definitive penalty. You already had in place the means of revocation, which was rarely used in the past. I take it now there's going to be more opportunity for you to ensure compliance with this new system of policing, shall we say.
Mr. Lefebvre: Yes. We have been revoking many thousands of charities for lack of filing the information returns. We do this every year, and now we have a very reliable system whereby, if charities don't send in the return, we write to them and we call. Sometimes, again, those organizations are staffed by volunteers and we don't want to catch them off guard when there is a change of the volunteers or the officers administering those charities. But after giving them a number of reminders, we are revoking charities not sending the return.
You're correct, Mr. Bryden. We will step up our enforcement efforts in that we will be more thorough. And it's not just not sending in the return. If some essential information is not provided on the return, we will take further steps to enforce the obligation.
Mr. Bryden: Finally, Mr. Chairman, I have a last point and a comment. I note you're not addressing in any of these changes the questions of non-profit organizations raised by Bill C-224. I also note and agree it is not so much a tax administration problem we're dealing with here. It is a question of the impact of not-for-profits on the economy and on business. And it would appear to me to be a matter for the Department of Finance more than the Department of National Revenue.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will continue to pursue this aspect of Bill C-224. But I do indeed appreciate the very large steps Revenue Canada has taken toward meeting the spirit of my private member's bill and I do thank the witnesses for this.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.
Dr. Duhamel, a very short intervention.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Bryden for having given the administrative option an opportunity to meet some of the objectives he had put forward, which I thought were notable ones. Secondly, congratulations to the department for having come forward with something very concrete.
I want to ask one brief question. I know there must be a simple answer to this. People know what my salary is. They know what the principal earns and the police officers earn. I guess they know what people in Canadian Tire earn, what people in the banks earn, and what have you.
Is there something I'm missing here? Why is it we can't have salary ranges of what people in non-profit organizations earn? We now have it for charitable organizations. We have it for virtually all of society. How many other groups do we not have it for?
I don't want to know how much Mrs. So-and-So or Mr. So-and-So earns, but within what range. Why is it not possible in the non-profit sector? Is it not one of the few sectors where this information is not available to the public? Is there something I'm missing here?
Mr. Lefebvre: For one thing, I think there are many sectors where we don't know the salaries of people.
Mr. Duhamel: Salary ranges?
Mr. Lefebvre: Or even salary ranges, I suppose, except now to have companies on the stock exchange in some provinces you have to divulge the salary of the top executive. This is for the purpose of the investors and the shareholders. They want to know something about the management of the corporation -
Mr. Duhamel: Is there a double standard? Excuse me for interrupting. I know we're running late. Is there a double standard here, then? Why do we know some and not others? It seems to me if we're going to be an open and transparent society, let's put it on the table.
Mr. Lefebvre: Well, many not-for-profit organizations are social clubs. I assume members paying the fees, if they ask, can have information about what salaries are paid to the people running the show.
Mr. Bellemare: At the annual meeting.
Mr. Lefebvre: But people who are not members of that club do not have access to that information, and the question is -
Mr. Bellemare: Why should they?
Mr. Lefebvre: - why should they? From a tax point of view there is no particular reason, because if -
.1155
Mr. Duhamel: Why should people know my salary, or yours? What's the purpose there?
Mr. Lefebvre: I'm a public servant, I guess. I'm paid by the public. My shareholders want to know how much I'm paid, or at least my salary range.
Mr. Duhamel: They're paid by the public too. They get public dollars. If I belong to an organization, I'm a member of the public. I pay money.
Mr. Lefebvre: Social clubs, I suppose, are financed by the member fees.
Mr. Duhamel: Who are members of the public.
Mr. Lefebvre: It's a limited public, if you wish.
Mr. Duhamel: I certainly do not understand the rationale, I must confess.
The Chairman: Thank you.
A short question here. We're late for the next meeting.
Mr. Bellemare: In the reporting, do we address the question of how much goes to direct charity and how much is for administration, marketing and so on?
Mr. Lefebvre: No, the focus of the report was on the remuneration of officers of charities and not-for-profit organizations, because that was the focus of the Bill C-224. So we have not discussed in the report other issues that may be of interest to the charitable sector in general.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Bryden was happy to reach first base. I think second base is that when you give money to a charitable organization, you want to know if 90% of the money goes for administration and 10% to the charity itself. This is an exaggerated example, but I think that is what people want to know.
Mr. Lefebvre: The current law is that a charity that raises some funds and manages the charity cannot spend more than 20% on activities such as fund-raising and administration. At least 80% of the funds must be spent on charitable activities, which can, for instance, include the salary of people who are devoting their time to the charitable activity, such as health, in institutions and so on.
Mr. Bellemare: You're telling us, in other words, that these charitable organizations do send a bilan?
Mr. Lefebvre: Yes. It's part of the public information return.
Mr. Bellemare: Thank you.
The Chairman: Last question before we clear the room and go in camera.
Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: The problem with Bill C-224 is that some of the charitable or non-profit organizations have funds for paying part-time or full-time staff. An organization such as the cerebral palsy Telethon, the Red Cross or the United Way has staff to fill out all the forms from Revenue Canada or various other government departments. But it is more complicated in such organizations as a senior citizens' club or the Knights of Columbus, where there are occasional activities such as the guignolée, in which funds are collected for distribution to the needy. Some organizations conduct a draw each year and distribute the proceeds to charitable causes.
As you know, volunteer organizations are managed by volunteers. If the volunteers lack qualified staff to fill out your questionnaires, they will face penalties and even fines.
I would like some details about these two categories of organizations. Some have staff and others don't. Is Bill C-224 going to put everyone in the same bag and take the same approach to an entirely volunteer organization managed by volunteers as it does to a volunteer organization that has paid staff?
Mr. Lefebvre: The object of Bill C-224 was to obtain more information about the salaries paid to people who work for non-profit or charitable organizations.
As to the actual situation, we are aware that some charitable organizations are smaller than others. They have fewer full-time staff who are up to date on all the regulations and able to fill out all the documents.
.1200
In these circumstances, we are prepared to help them. We are extremely patient. If, for example, a questionnaire is incomplete, or an annual return is not sent in, we will write to them or telephone them and tell them what their obligations are. So we try to help the charitable organizations.
As to the non-profit organizations, our department has few requirements, but for one. These organizations, if they are big enough and have assets of $200,000 or an annual income of $10,000, must simply send us an annual report providing a summary of their activities and financial statement. That is their only obligation at this time.
Mr. Asselin: All right. You say that an organization that failed to comply with this regulation would be liable to a fine of up to 50% of all the public funds received during the year. It is said that the Minister will table a list of those organizations that have not complied with the regulation in the House of Commons.
If he tables a list, it means he knows all the organizations by riding. When the Minister tables it in the House of Commons, will a member from a particular riding be able to have a copy of this list in order to inform the charitable or other organizations in his riding and ask them to comply with the government requirements, failing which they will be considered to be in violation of the law? If this is not done, I am afraid we will lose many organizations whose sole objective is to help the neediest.
Personally, as the member for Charlevoix in Quebec, I would like Revenue Canada to notify me that this or that organization in my constituency has not completed a form or has not complied with the regulations.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Asselin, I have to interrupt. We're really out of time.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: I will come back.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you want to make a reply?
[Translation]
Mr. Lefebvre: I can do so very quickly, Mr. Chairman. You are talking about Bill C-224. It states there that there will be a fine of up to 50% if some people fail to satisfy certain reporting requirements. We think this will create some problems, some serious problems, because Revenue Canada will then have to go and claim some money from charitable organizations, for example, and probably some large amounts.
That is why, in the previous report to this committee, we did not really favour the imposition of such a fine, since we would have some difficulty in demanding that charitable organizations give us money that they have had some difficulty in getting.
That is our position concerning this fine, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Asselin: Nor is it very cost-effective, politically.
Mr. Lefebvre: No. We think it is a difficult problem to resolve. To obtain the information you are talking about, we would have to set up some systems that would result in some significant expenditures.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mrs. Chamberlain, you have a short intervention.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I do. I want something very specific. I want to know how I can find out the salaries and the pensions of people like David Somerville and Jason Kenney. I'm tired of being kicked around by these people. They're non-profit.
How do we go about uncovering some of this? Let's find out the real story.
Mr. Lefebvre: I don't know what organization they're in, but if you become a member of their organization you probably can find out. Other than that, there would need to be....
What organization are you talking about, a charity or a not-for-profit organization?
Mr. Bryden: Not-for-profit.
Mrs. Chamberlain: What's the organization called?
Mr. Bélair: National Citizens' Coalition.
Mr. Lefebvre: If it is not a registered charity -
Mrs. Chamberlain: Is it? Do you know?
The Chairman: He doesn't know. He's just here to respond to the bill.
Mr. Bryden: It's not a registered charity.
The Chairman: A very good intervention, I might add.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I'm not done; just a minute.
If there's anything you can do to help us in any way figure out how to go about this.... A lot of people have taken a real bum rap from these people and never have been able to uncover any of their salaries or pensions. I think it's about time people came clean. Let's have the story.
.1205
Can you in any way help us with that? Do you know?
Mr. Bryden: You push through Bill C-224. It would require that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Chamberlain: Well, on that alone I'd be prepared to support it.
Mr. Lefebvre: I don't think I can be of assistance on that, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Thank you for allowing me to put it on the record anyway. I'm tired of being kicked around.
The Chairman: On your behalf, colleagues, I want to especially thank our colleagueMr. Bryden.
You are to be warmly and roundly congratulated for the work you've done on this. We're all very proud of a backbench MP being able to bring forward these kinds of significant changes. I think it also shows the partnership that can occur when you have cooperative departments like Finance and Revenue.
I also want to thank them, colleagues, on your behalf, for the work they've done in responding quite adequately and admirably to the issues Mr. Bryden has put on the agenda.
Thank you for being with us today.
We're adjourned.
[Proceedings continue in camera]