[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 28, 1996
.1537 
[English]
The Chair: Order. La séance est ouverte.
I'd like to welcome the minister in charge of the air-conditioning in all our buildings. It's very needed and it's appreciated on a day like this. I'd like to welcome the minister, who's come here to tell us about the challenges that face her. Please, you have the floor.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Receiver General for Canada): Thank you very much.
I just thought I would keep the temperature hot. That way perhaps you won't be wanting to spend numerous hours quizzing me.
At any rate, I'm quite happy to be here. Before I start, I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce the people who are here with me. Ranald Quail is the Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services; Michael Nurse is the ADM of the Real Property Services Branch; and Alan Williams is the ADM of the Supply Operations Services Branch.
Madam Chair and members of the government operations committee, I see a friendly face sitting at the front of the table, someone I remember from my days as a committee member. It's nice to be back, perhaps in a different position. I'm delighted to be here to make my first appearance before you as the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
[Translation]
I'll be brief in my opening statement so there is more time to answer your questions on my department's Main Estimates and Outlook.
In my view, my department must constantly review its core roles and its operations. To do that, in the interest of all Canadians, I seek the best possible working relationship with you. My job is obviously guided by the Red Book, the Speech from the Throne, and the Budget.
.1540
How I do that job is also guided by my background in small business, my belief in meeting public needs for the common good, my experience as representing the people of Sudbury, and my experiences as a Cabinet minister.
[English]
The Department of Public Works and Government Services is the primary provider of central and common services to the federal government. The government's objective must be to offer the most value for hard-earned taxpayer dollars with fairness, openness, efficiency, creativity, flexibility, prudence and probity.
Serving Canadians better means concentrating on priorities, reducing overlap and duplication, and making it easier for people to receive information from the government or do business with the government. My department must strive to become both more accessible and more affordable.
Be they citizens in my riding or citizens in any riding in Canada, small businesses seeking to compete for government work or public servants worried about their future, Canadians deserve to be treated with respect and fairness.
In fiscal year 1996-97, Public Works and Government Services Canada will achieve cost reductions of approximately $143 million. That will meet a workforce reduction of just over1,850 positions. During this year we will actively continue to pursue savings in all departmental operations. We will seek to provide economies of scale, apply new technologies and, what is perhaps most important, improve services and service delivery.
A solid example of both saving and serving is our progress in making the open bidding service and standing offers available to provincial and territorial governments. These measures indicate the department's realization that there is really only one taxpayer.
The determination to increase partnership arrangements, seek alternative forms of service delivery and move to the forefront of the information age are reaping benefits and will reap more in the future. The Government of Canada Internet site is one worthwhile initiative already in place. So too are cheque production consolidation and the rapid expansion of direct deposit of government payments.
[Translation]
My department is taking a hard look at partnerships, privatization or joint ventures for real property management, computer data services and architecture and engineering services, among others.
The establishment of a common electronic infrastructure will be the cornerstone of the government's portion of the information highway. It will allow various levels of government to work together better. And it will give Canadians, whereever they live in our country, true access to information and services.
By this time next year, we hope to have in place a ``one-window'' national electronic tendering service. We are working in partnership with the provinces to develop this milestone.
My department will support the government's push towards environmental leadership by providing access to a database of green products for all procurement staff.
[English]
We want to reduce demand for federal office space even further through such actions as accommodation service standards and alternative work environments. In fact, in the next three years such efforts should save approximately $160 million.
While redesigning services and reducing expenditures, my department will treat affected employees fairly. I have met with union representatives and that's something I underscored to them. We will provide staff with requisite skills to rejuvenate the department and maintain the competencies to deliver our services effectively.
The challenge of renewal is not a one-time affair. It's an ongoing process. I will therefore be looking to this committee for continuing advice as the department accesses options for service and funding. I welcome the opportunity of being accountable to you and through you to Parliament and our fellow Canadians.
.1545
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I will be pleased to answer your questions et those of other membres of your committee.
[English]
With those comments, Madam Chair, I'm in the hands of your committee.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you. Unfortunately, the minister must leave at 4:30. We therefore have very little time. We will start with 10 minutes rounds for questions.
Mr. Fillion.
Mr. Fillion (Chicoutimi): Thank you, Madam Minister. Since you have to leave very shortly, I will ask you a very quick question. Can we count on you to appear when we discuss other topics, such as Canada Post?
Ms Marleau: I have been told that the Canada Post representatives are to appear tomorrow or at your next meeting, but I am not scheduled to appear with them. However, if I can fit it in my schedule, I will certainly do my utmost to come back, if you wish.
Mr. Radwanski is reviewing Canada Post's mandate and is to give us a report.
Mr. Fillion: If I understood the minister correctly, she will be available at some point; perhaps not tomorrow, but...
Ms Marleau: I definitely will, but we will answer your questions as best we can. I suggest you ask your questions to the Canada Post representatives next time you meet with them.
Mr. Fillion: Madam Minister, if I may, I would like to refer to your opening statement...
In the second paragraph on page 2, it says:
- In fiscal year 96-97, Public Works and Government Services Canada will achieve cost
reductions of approximately $143 million. That will mean a workforce reduction of just over
1,850 positions.
Ms Marleau: The process isn't yet finished.
Mr. Fillion: Are the 1,000 positions at the Canada Communication Group included in the1,850 positions referred to in the second paragraph?
Ms Marleau: Yes.
Mr. Fillion: You'll therefore have to abolish 850 positions in your department. On page 4 of your brief, you say:
- While redesigning services and reducing expenditures, my department will treat affected
employees fairly.
Ms Marleau: Thus, in terms of percentage, more positions have been abolished at the senior level. However, because there are more people earning lower salaries, their numbers are higher. We try to work very closely with everyone.
Mr. Fillion: All things being equal, will there be more cuts at the top or at the bottom?
Ms Marleau: We hope to continue in the same manner as we have for the past two years.
Mr. Fillion: It was towards the top?
Ms Marleau: Yes. If at all possible, that is how we will proceed.
Mr. Fillion: When you met with union leaders, you told them all employees would be treated fairly. You used the term "fairness", a term that can be used virtually anywhere, but what does it really mean?
.1550
Ms Marleau: That means we will try to help them. We have early retirement programs. Right now, we have a whole system that has made it possible for us to avoid laying off people without providing help. We hope to be in a position to provide such help.
If you like, I will ask Mr. Williams to give you further details.
Mr. Fillion: Let me use the privatization of the Canada Communication Group to explain what I mean. In the process of privatization, will your priority be on employees or - if that's still open - the group?
Ms Marleau: Here's the method we're going to use to put priority on employees, if that's the term you want to use. We have told them that they can receive a certain sum to help them prepare an offer if they so wish.
A group of employees may be entitled to receive an amount of up to $25,000 on submission of invoices, for example invoices for consultant services. The group might also be offered financial assistance to help them prepare an offer for a contract. This assistance would be divided into three instalments: $10,000, $5,000 and $10,000. This is how we are trying to help employees prepare an offer. However, all offers will be assessed and examined according to the same criteria.
Mr. Fillion: So if I understand correctly, you offer unionized employees, through the union, an amount of $25,000, which they will receive in several instalments to help them prepare an offer.
Ms Marleau: Not necessarily to the union, but to employees. A number of employees may decide to form a group without necessarily involving the unions.
Mr. Fillion: If there are two separate groups of employees, will you have money available for each group?
Ms Marleau: Yes.
Mr. Fillion: Will you be determining this? Is it up to you?
Ms Marleau: No it's not. The person in charge at CCG will determine whether or not an offer is viable.
Mr. Fillion: So this amount - $25,000 - could be provided to several groups of employees.
Ms Marleau: Yes, it could.
Mr. Fillion: So if there are 10 groups of employees, 10 would get it. There is no limit.
Ms Marleau: That's right.
Mr. Fillion: Will you be granting the same amount to existing companies or to groups outside the public Service?
Ms Marleau: No. These sums are for employees who want to make an offer.
Mr. Fillion: So there is nothing for those who want to make an offer that could be examined later.
The committee established to prepare for CCG's probable privatization comprises four people from private-sector businesses. Is that right?
Ms Marleau: A consultant studied the issue and provided some answers, but I don't think I can answer that question with any accuracy myself. Mr. Quail, could you answer that question?
Mr. Fillion: Minister, while your officials check on that answer, I would like to ask you whether you did your own study and then had a study done by the group you just mentioned.
Ms Marleau: We spent a lot of time studying all the ways we could go about this, and ended up with a process which I and the government considered fair. We are expecting to receive significant offers from parts of the group or the entire group.
.1555
[English]
We're going to look for expressions of interest and pre-qualifying...to lead to non-binding offers. That is the first phase we're looking at.
We were very much interested in putting together something that was viable. We asked the consultants to tell us what the value was, what we could expect. We studied these reports, but we did not necessarily accept all of their recommendations. A number of different options were looked at, and we - and I say we as a government - picked the option we thought would be best for the taxpayers of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: I'll come back to my first question. One thousand PWGSC employees will lose their jobs when CCG is privatized and 850 other positions will be cut in the department.
In your opening statement, you said:
- We want to reduce demand for federal office space even further through such actions as
accommodation service standards and alternative work environments.
Ms Marleau: I don't understand your question.
Mr. Fillion: Let me explain.
Right now, you are investing some $5.3 million in renovations to reorganize space and bring together employees from a variety of departments. This is very recent - you just announced it this weekend.
But what you are saying today is that you'll be defining new office space standards by promoting alternative work environments. I'd like to know what you mean by alternative work environments. Will employees be asked to work at home, in the kitchen, to set up an office at home to save space? Is that what you mean? The text I'm quoting is on the last paragraph of page 3 in the French version of your statement.
[English]
Ms Marleau: Mr. Nurse will answer.
Mr. Michael Nurse (Assistant Deputy Minister, Real Property Services Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services): In looking at the reduction of space that will come with a smaller public service, our intention is to look for various means by which we can achieve that. We have discovered that there is indeed the possibility of employees working at home. That's one of the areas we're looking at.
There's also another concept called ``hotelling'', whereby employees who do not need to use their offices all the time, people who spend a lot of time working with clients or working outside their office...office space can be shared on a scheduled basis. That allows us to make a more efficient use of that space, in terms of the employees.
The other area is to look at new ways of having employees work together in a building. Instead of having a series of individual offices, you will have a suite of offices with meeting rooms, where employees can come together as teams and work together.
As office space evolves, we're finding that instead of the normal process of having closed offices all the way down the hall, it is much better to have open offices, with private rooms to meet in.
As I mentioned, there's also hotelling, where people do not use their office 100% of the time. There are also occasions on which people could work at home.
That's what we're trying to do. We're looking at the most efficient means of using our office space in the future, something that industry and other levels of government have done to try to have the most efficient office space in the federal public service.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: Have you implemented this policy or is it just under study?
Ms Marleau: The policy is already in place. We've started renovating buildings in many different places, including Sherbrooke. Here in Ottawa, we're talking about renovating the East Block on Parliament Hill for the Department of Justice. The renovations are under way, and we'll continue as departments reduce their workforce.
.1600
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Gilmour, because we went over for a few minutes, you'll get equal time.
Mr. Gilmour (Comox - Alberni): Aren't you going to try Mr. Bryden first?
The Chair: I was going to do the first round traditionally, and then do the second round like that. If you want -
Mr. Gilmour: I'm fine.
The Chair: You see, it's such a friendly committee here.
Mr. Gilmour: Welcome, Madame Minister.
As you're probably aware, there was a motion in this committee regarding the Senate, to get them in front of this committee. To date, they have refused to come and discuss their $40 million in the estimates.
As your ministry provides supplies and services to both the House of Commons and the Senate, when the estimates for the Senate are arrived at, do you have any involvement? Does your department have any involvement, or is that strictly a Senate vehicle?
Ms Marleau: No, it's strictly the Senate. They make appropriations for dollars. They make the decisions about their budget. We don't.
Mr. Gilmour: Okay. I appreciate that.
Turning to the privatization of CCG, on July 19, 1995, a specialists committee was established to advise the minister on the privatization of CCG. The release spoke of a process that was to be fair, open, and transparent and the drafting of the final report complete with recommendations. To this day, it remains unclear as to when this committee met, who attended, what evidence was received, and what decisions were made. Despite claims to the contrary, from the standpoint of most of the public, it was behind closed doors.
Now that the committee has finished its work, could the minister finally provide the openness and the transparency by telling us about the committee's activities over the last eleven months and the cost? Would she also table the committee's final report with this committee?
Ms Marleau: Let me tell me a little bit about it. The committee, which was chaired by the chief executive officer of Canada Communication Group, Lynne Pearson, was made up of nine members: five from the private sector and four from the government. It addressed public policy matters related to the privatization.
Specialists committee members were selected based on their experience in privatization and their ability to advise on issues with objectivity. The committee's advice was incorporated into a memorandum to cabinet.
Mr. Gilmour: Was there a report that can be tabled here?
Ms Marleau: No.
Mr. Gilmour: Still on CCG, the government guaranteed the buyers special access to federal contracts for five years. Some of the private people are saying that if CCG were simply shut down, the government would get better prices than they're getting because of the deals. In light of this, can the minister explain how offering special access deals, which is basically untendered government contracting, to the new owners promotes your own goals of making government more efficient? It doesn't fit.
Ms Marleau: Special access is a term for what is in common use now with government departments. Let me explain that CCG has been what we called an optional service; that is, departments can choose to go with CCG or outside government completely. They're therefore quite free to shop and compare prices. If they get a better price, by all means they go away from CCG and into the private sector.
Special permission has been in place, however, for departments to sole source contracts for printing to CCG if they so wish, because at times it may be more expeditious for them. They have the choice of doing it for contracts under $100,000. That is what we're offering to the private sector. We're saying that we will offer to them the same access to sole source contracts by departments, if they so wish, for a period of I believe up to five years. That is what we are in effect offering to go along with the sale of CCG.
.1605
When you say we could just shut down CCG, of course we could. But that would be an incredibly costly thing for the Government of Canada. It is not and would not be the best value for the taxpayer. At the same time, I don't think it would be a very responsible way to deal with employees who are very skilled and have served us very, very well. I think we owe it to the taxpayers, as well as to our employees, to privatize in a way that maximizes the number of jobs that are kept and gets the best value for the Crown.
Mr. Gilmour: Was there a cost-benefit analysis of shutting it down completely as opposed to...?
Ms Marleau: Yes.
Mr. Gilmour: Could you table it with this committee?
Ms Marleau: The problem, as the deputy has just said, is that it might prejudice the whole tendering process for us to make those things public.
Mr. Gilmour: Will you table it after you go out to tender?
Ms Marleau: We'll consider it.
Mr. Gilmour: Strongly consider it?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): I see we are all on the same wavelength here with our interest in CCG.
It is my understanding that the divesture such as the one we are talking about is entirely done by regulation. It has nothing to do with legislation. We as parliamentarians have no formal involvement in this type of activity.
Ms Marleau: We don't need legislation to do that.
Mr. Bryden: So you don't need us at all.
Ms Marleau: No. Well, I wouldn't put it that way.
Mr. Bryden: I think that's the way it is. To carry it forward a little bit, I don't remember the rationale of this divesture ever being debated or raised before this committee. Could you help us out in this regard and give us a sense of why the department is doing it? What are your gains, what motivated it in the first place?
Ms Marleau: First of all, the decision was announced in the budget of 1995. It is the result of program review one. If you can recall, the reason we went into program review one and review two was to look at what kinds of services the government should be in, what kinds of business lines the government should be in. If we were in that particular area, what was the best way of delivering the service? Were there other agencies or private enterprises capable of delivering the service as well as or better than we were, and what was the best value for the taxpayer in the end? That is really what drove the announcement of privatization for CCG.
I can tell you that the printing industry is a mature industry. It is certainly very capable of producing the kinds of documents and so on that CCG produces. We thought this was a business that perhaps the government shouldn't be in. As a result, a lot of legwork went into reaching the point at which we were able to announce the beginning of the sale of CCG.
Certain core components of CCG, such as the Canada Gazette and the administration of crown copyright - perhaps you'll refresh my memory, since there are a few others - are being retained, but we've made the decision to go ahead and sell off the printing.
Mr. Bryden: So the philosophy is for the government to get out of those areas where private enterprise can do the job equally well and perhaps more efficiently because of competition.
Ms Marleau: That's right.
.1610
Mr. Bryden: What about the Canada Post mandated review that is coming down? What is going to happen to that report? Does this committee have any input on the report, or does it go straight to you, Madam Minister, and the decisions fall from that?
Ms Marleau: At this point, Mr. Radwanski will be reporting through me to cabinet. Whether or not this report is made public will be a decision arrived at by cabinet.
Mr. Bryden: So, I'm correct in assuming we as parliamentarians face another situation with respect to Canada Post where a decision may be made to privatize it or do whatever is going to be done to it without us having input until after the fact.
Ms Marleau: Our usual practice has been to make these reports public. I would suggest we will probably do the same thing here, but I certainly can't prejudge the decision of cabinet. I would suspect, though, the report will be made public and you will certainly have an opportunity, at your discretion, to study this and respond to it.
Mr. Bryden: I observe from my colleagues' remarks that the CCG report was not made public.
Ms Marleau: It was not the same kind of...
Mr. Bryden: It is still a document that has gone before cabinet. It has led cabinet to make a decision your department is -
Ms Marleau: You understand it's a highly sensitive issue when you are in the process of divesture to the private sector of a portion of government operations. You would not want to prejudice the sale in any way. So we believe at this time it is better to proceed in this fashion.
The Chair: If I could just interject and seek some clarification. It's my understanding it was this committee that turned Canada Post into the corporation it is. I wonder, do you see a role for us now that we're changing course here?
Ms Marleau: Well, Madam Chair, you know the committee is master of its own destiny. The committee is certainly able to decide on whatever course it might suggest to the government. We certainly will be open to any suggestions you might wish to make.
The Chair: It's a very enlightened response.
Mr. Bryden, I didn't mean to cut into your time.
Mr. Bryden: No, Madam Chairman, I appreciated the remarks and I won't go on much longer.
I wonder if you or your officials, Madam Minister, could put a dollar value on the CCG transaction and the Canada Post value. I just want to know how big a figure we are dealing with when we talk about the future of these two corporations.
Ms Marleau: When it comes to CCG, I would rather not speak in terms of figures.
Mr. Bryden: It's huge.
Ms Marleau: You know as well as I do that with the process of privatization we don't want to be discussing this so openly as to be giving information unfairly to people who might be competing to purchase this.
Mr. Bryden: Can you just give a general value? It's in the estimates.
Ms Marleau: You're talking about the overall gross.
Mr. Bryden: Yes.
Ms Marleau: I don't have it.
Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Deputy Receiver General): I can tell you what the operating loss for the last fiscal year was. That goes back very clearly to the question of access and contracting, because what is it you have for sale? What we're talking about selling is the ability the CCG has with respect to the main plant, with respect to the national capital region printing centres, the regional printing centres, the distribution logistics. Those are the four that are going to be up for people to bid on in the RFP. Therefore, this is the scope of the operation. Access will allow people to come in and use those facilities without bidding.
The operating loss for last year was about $7.5 million on a gross volume of about $120 million worth of business.
.1615
Mr. Bryden: I will just make one comment. I guess the point I'm driving at is that we're dealing with two crown operations, shall we say, of considerable value when we talk about CCG and Canada Post and when we consider their future. I would just like to make the observation that when you're dealing with crown assets, if you will, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, I think it's appropriate for Parliament and the members of Parliament to have some input. If this input is not into the nitty-gritty of the offerings - I appreciate we can't do that - we should at least participate in the rationale behind what you are proposing to do.
I would like to suggest, and perhaps we can deal with this a little later, that I think it would be appropriate for us as a committee to table or put a motion forward asking cabinet to release the relevant documents behind whatever you're going to do with Canada Post. I think we should see the mandated review. I can see no reason why we shouldn't see it.
Also, I think we should have an opportunity to review the CCG document. Again, I can't imagine anything in this document that would prejudice the sale of CCG. If there is something in this document that would prejudice the sale, then of course one has an opportunity to eliminate those passages.
I think it is inappropriate to withhold entirely these key documents from members of Parliament and the members of this committee.
Ms Marleau: Well, we're certainly not going to table the cabinet submission, that you can rest assured of. But we're quite willing to make available to you the request for proposal documents that will be made public at the time. This will be on the open bidding system and will certainly be made available.
The Chair: Thank you. That terminates this round. Mr. Bryden has shown great intellectual prowess. Despite all of the interruptions, he managed to keep on his course of questionning.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): With regard to Canada Post, it isn't just the decision on its new mandate that's important. It's also important that the decision be made openly.
As we all know, the decisions made by Conservatives on Canada Post were instrumental in furthering the cause of Liberals and the Bloc Québécois in many ridings during the last election. The Conservatives' policy of closing down post offices was not well received by Canadians and had a significant impact on the election.
Openness is also very important. As you so rightly said, CCG have the same kind of economic impact, but post office closure has an impact across the country, in every community. The Radwanski Committee conducted in-depth hearings. It received a great many requests for hearings, and was sent a great many briefs and other documents. Its report will be presented to Cabinet.
Could the report be tabled in committee at the same time as it is presented in Cabinet? We don't want to know the recommendations that Cabinet members or the Privy Council would make, we just want to know the recommendations in the report submitted by Mr. Radwanski. Couldn't the report be tabled in committee so that we could study it? This would give us an opportunity to contribute and would benefit all parties, as well as Parliament generally.
Ms Marleau: I am prepared to talk to my colleagues about it and consider your request. As I said before, I do not know what Cabinet will decide, but I can say that the government makes all reports public. For myself, I'd like to see a report like this one made public as quickly as possible. So you can expect that to happen.
Mr. Crête: Do you know whether the report will be tabled by the end of July 1996, as planned?
Ms Marleau: I am told that July 1996 is a firm deadline and that we have a good chance of meeting it. I hope we do, because if we want to get anything done...
.1620
Mr. Crête: Do you expect this report to result in a bill by autumn 1996?
Ms Marleau: We have not yet received the report, and we do not know what recommendations it contains. We will of course not make any decision before receiving and examining the report.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. McTeague, if you would be good enough to share your time with Mr. Jackson...
Mr. McTeague (Ontario): Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. McTeague: Madam Minister, I want to thank you for coming here today.
In your previous portfolio, as Minister of Health, we had a very serious problem with multiple sclerosis victims getting emergency treatment through betaseron and you speeded that through. So I hope perhaps you can help me with another dilemma I'm facing in my constituency. It deals, ironically, with the estimates.
My riding is host to one of the largest tracts of public land known as the Pickering Airport lands. You may want to offer this question to Mr. Nurse, since he seems to be the resident expert in this area. I have some concerns about the cost involved in maintaining land and buildings when this maintenance seems to have inured from rather ancient public policy on which the Department of Transport obviously has not made any final decisions.
You have approximately 19,000 acres - if I can use the old imperial system - under your guise. I'd like to find out if you could let me know now or perhaps down the road just how much it is costing Public Works to maintain many of these buildings. As you may or may not know, there was a recent rash of vandalism and fires, one involving the death of an individual.
I'll get to my second question as soon as I get your answer.
Mr. Nurse: I regret I'm not in a position to give you the specific numbers. We act as an agent on behalf of Transport Canada in the management of those lands. We therefore operate on their instructions. I can certainly find out information on the expenditures in this area, but that's about as far as I can take you right now. I regret I can't give you more than that. But I want to stress that, as a common service agency, we provide service to other departments, and in this case we are servicing Transport.
Mr. McTeague: Madam Minister, I would perhaps request, or like to know, if you've had any opportunity, or if you will have any opportunity, to talk to the Minister of Transport with a view to settling 25 years of bad public policy. We've left these lands in abeyance. The provincial government has already begun the process of selling some of its land. Have you had any opportunity to speak to the minister on this?
Ms Marleau: I haven't since I've become the Minister of Public Works. I do know there are ongoing discussions and they certainly will continue. But I will, at the earliest opportunity, broach the subject.
Mr. McTeague: Okay. Finally, before I pass the torch over to the very capable parliamentary assistant, I simply want to clarify. My interest here is to acquire, if possible, a dollar value on the yearly costs of maintaining those lands and perhaps an aggregate cost of what the public has had to pay to maintain those lands in the absence of any decision by Transport Canada to correct its decision of 1972, a time when a lot of us had less grey hair. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Jackson, you have...
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): Twenty seconds.
The Chair: You have two minutes left.
Mr. Jackson: I'll be quick, as I usually am. I go right to the point and don't beat around the bush.
Madam Chair, I have a couple of curious questions. It has to do with the impact of technology on Canada Post and the impact of the workforce adjustment policy, where the government is trying to get government right, and as a result we're not using many of our buildings.
This is a bit of a preamble to the first question. I noticed or I read somewhere in the paper there was some place out west where a municipality was using their own public servants to deliver mail. The impact was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It reminded me of when I first became mayor. I tried to get those banking machines and they told me how difficult it was going to be and everything like that. Now they're all over the place.
.1625
I suspect that now with the electronic transfer of information, notwithstanding the fact you're losing that revenue, the cities are going to lose that revenue as well. I think you could probably put a machine in that goes right up to your TV set and you could probably figure how much money you owe. So those moneys are not going to come back at all.
Do you have any studies on the impact of technology with regard to Canada Post? I know you have to get mail all over the country to places. People don't have fax machines and all this kind of stuff. Also, what about the number of buildings they have all over? Is there a policy to check to make sure you don't need them, to get rid of that money and bring back some revenues to the Government of Canada?
Ms Marleau: When it comes to Canada Post, you'll understand why it's so important to get that mandate review terminated in the report in here, because there are some really serious challenges faced by Canada Post.
Notwithstanding new technology, we also have to remember there are many regions in this country and there are many areas that continue to need help in receiving certain services. That has to come into consideration whenever we make any decisions at all.
When it comes to new technology, we are able to accumulate considerable savings just in terms of direct deposit. We feel we can save between $45 million to $55 million over the next three to five years. That's only looking at a certain proportion of people receiving their cheques or their cash through direct deposit. As we go on, we hope to see more and more people take that mode of receiving moneys from the crown because it does save considerable dollars. We investigate any manner of savings because that's what we're all about.
When you look at a most affected department such as Public Works and Government Services, where we are downsizing our workforce from 18,000 to 13,000 and where we pride ourselves on continuing to deliver good service to the citizens of Canada, you can well imagine that we investigate every way possible to meet these particular targets.
The Chair: Mr. Gilmour, you have the remaining five minutes.
Mr. Gilmour: Sticking with Canada Post, I wonder if you can tell me if it's within the mandate of the review... I'd better back up. I've been unable to determine what the... You can't get a breakdown within Canada Post of how much the actual postage operation is making from their stamps as opposed to say the courier operation. Is the purchasing of stamps subsidizing the courier business? Because it's all pushed together in an accounting system, you can't pull the two apart.
Is it within the mandate of the review to examine different sectors, the mail system versus the courier system, to break them apart so that they can see whether they're a stand-alone or whether one is subsidizing the other?
Ms Marleau: Yes. But I'm led to believe you can get separate figures for courier, that it is handled in a totally separate manner.
Let me remind you again that Canada Post is coming before your committee. I believe it's tomorrow. I think it might be a good idea for you to ask them at that time whether they can provide you with this information. I think they can. If I'm not mistaken, they operate in a separate fashion.
Mr. Gilmour: Thank you.
Finally, in the sale of real property, some of the provinces, notably Alberta, have legislation in place that puts it out to tender or puts it out to the realtors so that there's a mechanism to get best value for the taxpayer. Is the federal government moving in that direction?
Ms Marleau: Absolutely. We're working now with the realtors in terms of establishing a memorandum of some sort so they can actually do the selling of some of the lands. We've set up a web site where they can access government properties for sale. It's operating now; it was announced three to four weeks ago.
.1630
Mr. Nurse: April 1 was the date.
Ms Marleau: April 1 - my goodness, the time goes by.
They can actually view hot properties through the Internet; they can get the plans for the properties. They have set up a 1-888 number for people to call to get information on properties for sale. In English it's 1-888-GOV-LAND and in French it's 1-888-FED-PROP.
So we're working very much in that direction. Again, we think it will be a cost saving. There won't be the expense of advertising and so on. We are working to do this in the most cost-effective manner. We do believe in getting best value for our properties. We think that's very important.
Mr. Gilmour: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Gilmour, as usual there are two minutes remaining of your time andMr. Harvard begs your indulgence to ask a quick question.
Mr. Gilmour: Go for it.
Mr. Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): It's a quick question. I think maybe Mr. Quail would like to answer it.
Is the department in the position of accepting credit card payments for any products or services? If so, does the department accept all major credit cards or does it prefer only one?
Mr. Quail: That's a good question.
Ms Marleau: I'm under the impression they tend to accept... We get cheques to the Receiver General; we work through the bank.
Mr. Harvard: What about credit cards?
Ms Marleau: I'm not sure the government is accepting credit card payments, but we could look into it.
Mr. Harvard: I can tell you I got a complaint from a Winnipeg resident who runs a small business. She indicates in a letter that a credit card is accepted but only one of the major credit cards. She doesn't happen to do business with that particular credit card company.
Ms Marleau: Are you sure it's Public Works and Government Services? Remember, there are a number of crown corporations and other departments as well.
Mr. Harvard: This is what is not clear. Because you act as an agent on behalf of so many departments, I'm just wondering what your policy is. There may be separate policies as it applies to the health protection branch or the Mint and so on.
Ms Marleau: We will certainly look into it. We don't have an answer for you at this point.
Mr. Harvard: Good, that's all I need.
Mr. Alan Williams (Assistant Deputy Minister, Supply Operations Services Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services): We take cash.
Ms Marleau: We like cash. Cash, anyway you can.
Mr. Harvard: Do it the old-fashioned way.
The Chair: That's happy news.
Ms Marleau: We don't take credit cards at all. You're talking in terms of some of the departments perhaps on orders.
Mr. Harvard: Yes, whatever.
Mr. Quail: Certainly it would vary. It depends on the business line and it varies across the country. With respect to some areas, we would take debit cards from any particular organization the same as they do in the stores. If you want to come in and pay for access to information, we would. But I'm not sure, Mr. Harvard, if I can answer without the specifics.
Mr. Harvard: I'll show you the letter.
Mr. Quail: You show us the letter; we'll look at it.
Ms Marleau: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister, for coming and shedding some light on how Public Works and Government Services works. As Monsieur Fillion suggested earlier, you're always welcome. Thank you.
Ms Marleau: I'm sure.
The Chair: We have some unfinished business before our committee members stray.
Mr. Gilmour: Is our next minister the Privy Council?
The Chair: That's right. Next Tuesday.
Mr. Gilmour: Are we having the Clerk of the Privy Council as well? Because that person is in charge of all public services.
The Chair: We have a scheduling problem, but certainly we'll work towards getting her on.
We have a motion before us put forward by Mr. Bryden that the testimony of March 26,April 16, and May 8, which was received in camera by our committee, be taken out of camera and put on the public record.
Perhaps, Mr. Bryden, you want to speak to the reasons you put the motion forward and then we can discuss it.
.1635
Mr. Bryden: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think these three sessions went in camera by oversight. There was nothing in any of those sessions that should not be on the public record. The first two dealt with Treasury Board testimony, which was a follow-up to initiatives of this committee of the year before with respect to contracting out and contract-splitting. To have this testimony in camera and off the public record does not give the public an opportunity to see the results of what Treasury Board brought back. This is very important testimony.
I don't know why on the third day, May 8, it was in camera. It dealt merely with discussions before this committee with respect to my bill, C-262, which is the child of my private member's bill that was shelved before prorogation. There was nothing in that bill that I think any committee member would feel should not be on the public record.
I would submit to you, Madam Chair, that in the interest of always trying to be open whenever we can, these three meetings be put on the public record.
The Chair: Are there any comments? Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: I have just one quick question. I like everything public except when we're dealing with personnel and property, so I would hope that nobody or nobody's property is involved here, where there would be a problem.
Mr. Bryden: I can assure Mr. Jackson that nothing in this testimony pertains to confidential discussions with respect to personnel or anything like that. It is strictly the legitimate business of this committee.
The Chair: Mr. Bryden, I wonder whether you would consider our informing the individuals who did appear before us. We can take the vote and, subject to their... I think it would be fair to give them at least fair warning that their in-camera session is going public.
Mr. Bryden: I have no objection, Madam Chair, but it puts us in a rather ethical dilemma. It suggests that we believe the people representing Treasury Board, for example, would be giving testimony in camera that is somehow not the same testimony they would give in the public forum.
Normally committees go in camera only when they discuss future business or similar matters of sensitivity with respect to the business of the committee itself, not the business of civil servants. So I would suggest to you, Madam Chair, that although I certainly don't think the civil servants, Treasury Board, and Public Works - it was mostly Treasury Board and Public Works that appeared at those meetings - would have any objection, I think we put them in an awkward spot by even putting the request forward.
The Chair: I was thinking of courtesy more than ethics, to be honest. That was my point.
Is it the will of the committee that this motion be adopted?
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I would like to move that the committee obtain a copy of the Radwanski report from the minister of Public Works and Government Services, and that, in the event the Minister fails to table the report within five days of receiving it, the committee invite Mr. Radwanski to appear before it and present the report.
The Chair: Debate or comments?
[English]
Mr. Jackson: Would he read the motion again?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I move that the committee obtain a copy of the Radwanski report from the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and that, in the event the minister fails to table the report within five days of receiving it, the committee invite Mr. Radwanski to appear before it and present the report.
I can explain the motion if you wish.
The Chair: Please do.
Mr. Crête: I was under the impression that this motion reflected our discussions with the minister. She cannot commit herself today since Cabinet has reached no decision yet, but we are asking the minister to table the report so that the committee can proceed with its work quickly. If the minister is unable to table the report, we do not want to put her in a difficult situation. Thus, we will ask Mr. Radwanski to appear before the committee and present the report himself.
We have to do this, because there have been many public hearings. If we do not see the report, we will have to repeat those hearings in autumn or winter, and that should not be necessary.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Bryden, then Mr. Jackson.
.1640
Mr. Bryden: I would like to support the motion. The reason I do and the reason I think this motion is very important is that Canada Post, unlike most other crown assets, has social and political consequences for the fabric of the nation that go beyond its economic and monetary value.
I think it's a great necessity that all members of Parliament, both opposition members and government members, have an opportunity to participate in the deliberations that may establish the future of Canada Post.
I do not think this motion is unreasonable. The minister has an opportunity, as she's indicated, to refuse, if this is the will of cabinet, and the option that is presented is an option that can be legitimately exercised. Even then, presumably... I don't know what would happen ifMr. Radwanski... Presumably he would have to come before the committee to at least testify, if not actually table his report. I think it's reasonable.
The Chair: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: I'm probably going to vote against it, simply because I don't have enough information. I'm not sure that Mr. Radwanski could give us all the information required, or whether some of these things are subject to an embargo or other problems. I really don't have enough information to vote on this motion.
If you would like to table it until I could find out whether or not it's possible, that's fine. If not, I'll probably vote against it simply for the reason that I don't have enough information.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Crête, Mr. Jackson asked us to table the motion to give us an opportunity to study it.
Mr. Crête: I would like us to vote on it right away, because it seems clear enough to me.Mr. Jackson is always free to vote against it.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Gilmour: Could you please call the question?
The Chair: The motion before us is Mr. Crête's motion.
[Translation]
- That the committee obtain a copy of the Radwanski report from the Minister of Public Works
and Government Services as soon as it is tabled...
Mr. Crête: Yes, that's it.
The Chair:
- ... and that, in the event the minister fails to table the report within five days of receiving it, the
committee invite Mr. Radwanski to appear before it and present the report.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: That terminates our business. Thank you.
The committee is adjourned.