---

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance

Issue 5 -- Evidence

---

Ottawa, Wednesday, May 1, 1996

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-7, to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain Acts, met this day, at 5:15 p.m., to give consideration to the bill.

Senator David Tkachuk (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, appearing before us at this time is the Honourable Diane Marleau, Minister of Public Works and Government Services. However, as we can all hear, the House of Commons bell is ringing. The minister has informed us that she will remain with us until she is compelled to go to the House of Commons, but that she will come back once her presence there is no longer necessary.

We also have with us today Mr. Quail, the Deputy Minister and Deputy Receiver General, who will remain here while the minister absents herself, and we can ask him questions. It is to be hoped that the minister's absence will be of short duration, and that we will be able to complete our meeting with her today.

Senator Kelly: Madam Minister, I have gone through your statement cursorily, and it appears to reassure me on the point that I wanted to raise. I know that same point has been made with you on a previous occasion. I refer to the question of the new entity created by this bill having the ability to compete, both domestically and abroad, with the private sector.

On page 3 of your statement, and again on page 4, you seem to argue that that just cannot be the case, and that the bill in no way makes that possible.

Ms Diane Marleau, P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Works and Government Services: Senator, it is certainly not our intention to compete with the private sector, and we are very sensitive to that. Let me add that this clause is not new; it is part of what the Department of Supply and Services had in place. In the amalgamation of the two departments, we will obviously all operate under the same rules.

Many of the amendments made in the House of Commons were made with a view to calming the fears that had been expressed in that regard, and to show that we were not at all intent on competing with the private sector. As a matter of fact, we are downsizing; we are laying people off. We are saying that we do not intend to do things that the private sector can do.

That having been said, there are many small firms who, at times, wish to work in partnership with the federal government in order to be able to bid on contracts with other countries, and in particular with countries who tend to deal government to government. It is our intention to enter into these kinds of partnerships only at the request of the private entrepreneur who may want our services. In drafting the legislation, we have been very specific that such action by the federal government would only be undertaken at the request of such private entrepreneurs. It would also be necessary to have in place an order in council, and, as you know, acquiring an order in council takes time. Therefore the federal government is not about to go out there and compete with the private sector. We are just trying to facilitate as much as possible the private sector in their wish to do business, especially outside of the country.

Senator Kelly: So far, however, you are talking about intentions, and intentions can change. The legislation itself, it seems to me, allows for all sorts of new intentions.

On the question of country-to-country dealings, I have spent a great deal of my life doing work abroad, and I know that where foreign governments are involved, it is important to have the assurance that the Canadian entity has credentials. However, those credentials are usually earned simply through being able to establish that they have worked for their own governments. A Canadian firm that has worked for the Canadian government has all the credentials it needs to compete; it does not very often need the presence of an engineer or an architect who happens to be a government employee.

Ms Marleau: That may well be, but there are a number of companies which have expressed the wish to continue, and as I have expressed many times, and as the department has also expressed, we are not in the business of competing with the private sector.

Let me quote for you some of the people who have written to us purporting to support this particular piece of legislation. I will quote Francis Ng, of Francis Ng Architect Limited, Edmonton, Alberta, November 1994:

We should not miss these opportunities to show our competitive abilities to bid on any international infrastructure projects. In order to utilize our expertise, technology and experience, your support to assist small or medium-sized professional firms to access these offshore projects is essential.

I have a number of other quotes; numerous small and medium- sized companies have written to us in support of that proposition. Also, let me remind you that this is not a new clause; it is something that was present for many years under the mandate of the Department of Supply and Services, and obviously it is not something to facilitate our being in the business of competing with private entrepreneurs.

Senator Kelly: That is reassuring. I appreciate your answer. May I just ask you, as a matter of interest, when you second a professional to a small or medium-sized firm, what is the arrangement? Do they hire him? Do you set his fees? How do you deal with that?

Ms Marleau: It will vary according to the individual circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, the time is going by, and I must leave you to take my place in the House for the vote. In the meantime, what I will do is ask my deputy minister, Ranald Quail, to answer your question, and I will be back as quickly as I can.

Senator Kelly: Perhaps the deputy minister might care to answer my question. It varies from what to what?

Mr. Ranald A. Quail, Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services: It would vary depending on whether or not we go the route of seconding somebody to the actual firm, or whether we would actually be up front ourselves in terms of leading the way, with them behind us. In today's world, we probably would be looking to be recompensed, and not need to take the money out of our own pocket. However, that also would vary, depending on the circumstances.

Therefore we could either be leading, or we could be seconded and following, or we could be working through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which is another option; we could also work behind their particular entré into a particular foreign country.

Senator Kelly: Mr. Chairman, with respect, at this stage I think that that is perhaps an incomplete answer. I mean no disrespect to the deputy minister, but we will be meeting with officials on an ongoing basis, and if there are various ways, I was trying to find out what are the various ways, as a straight business proposition.

If you lead, do you do the bidding? Do you set the contract price? Who pays the person you second? All those things are interesting in trying to get a sense of what you really mean by "not competing."

Mr. Quail: We can certainly provide to the committee details of any dealings that we have had recently in relation to working with delegations to support them in international affairs. I am not aware, in the last three years, of us entering into any contracts internationally in the name of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, or the Government of Canada per se, as it relates to us.

Senator Kelly: I am not trying to embarrass you or sneak up on you, but in my experience when governments downsize -- and companies try to do the same thing -- it is not unknown for governments to say, "We want to keep these people around but we don't want to pay for them." What usually happens is that you say to the private sector operator, "We are all in favour of what you are doing, and we will give you a good recommendation, but you must take these three people on to your payroll for another six months and then send them back to us after that." I just want to be sure that we are not getting into that kind of a situatuion, that is all.

Mr. Quail: May I respond, although not, perhaps, in specifics?

Senator Kelly: Absolutely.

Mr. Quail: I do not disagree with your comment in terms of it being sort of human nature to protect one's job. Having said that, I would argue that since 1993 when we amalgamated the four groups, the two big departments plus the other two, we have had to reduce our staff by close to 4,000 people in that intervening time. We are not in the business of expansion.

In terms of work and how we handle it, we contract out all of our construction work, and in the areas where we interface with the Consulting Engineers of Canada -- which would be planning, design and supervising of construction -- we vary in the degree of contracting out in that area. In 1989-90, we were at 46 per cent; in 1994-95, we were at 50 per cent. It varies a little bit, depending on the amount of business. This is all internal to Canada. However, last year we were at close to 60 per cent contracted out to the private sector.

Therefore I would argue that the facts on architectural and engineering tell us that we are getting smaller and contracting out more, even in a shrinking market; that, over all, in the department there is significant downsizing going on, and it will continue.

The Chairman: The figure that you quoted, did that represent people or positions?

Mr. Quail: This would be the amount of dollars that we contract out.

The Chairman: No, I am sorry, you said that 4,000 people were removed from the payroll, or 4,000 positions were eliminated, or a combination of both?

Mr. Quail: A combination of both.

The Chairman: Then it was not just people; it was positions and people. I always get confused when I talk to the bureaucracy about positions and people. We had this conversation about the 45,000 let go. Could you then clarify for us exactly what that was? In other words, how many actual people lost their jobs?

Mr. Jim Stobbe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations Service Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services: I have the figures for the fiscal year 1995-96. In excess of 2,000 people were removed from the payroll during the last fiscal year.

The Chairman: They were let go?

Mr. Stobbe: They were let go.

Senator Stratton: Is that department known as Public Works?

Mr. Quail: That is the Department of Public Works and Government Services. That is the department.

Senator Bolduc: You told us that in your department there are 4,000 jobs less, or 4,000 jobs and people less, but that you still have 14,000?

Mr. Quail: Yes.

Senator Bolduc: I have a different type of question, but because you are a civil servant, I will try not to be political. I will just try to stick to another aspect of the bill. I will give an example. Clause 19 of the bill says:

The Minister may, by order, appoint an officer of the Department ...

If I remember correctly, it is very rare that in legislation the power is given to a minister to appoint. It is usually the Governor in Council who appoints. Can you explain to me why this bill gives that power to the minister? This is the first time that I have seen power given to a minister for the appointment of a senior civil servant, a top manager -- in this case it will be the Queen's Printer for Canada. I just do not understand that. I wonder if there has been some mistake there. I know that it is by order, but it is an order by the minister; it is not an order by the government.

Mr. Quail: In drafting the legislation, the way in which we approached the task was to have the minimum number of amendments or changes from the previously existing legislation. This particular clause happened to have been in the previous Department of Supply and Services legislation, so we just moved it from the old legislation into the new.

Senator Bolduc: In the old legislation, the actual legislation, you mean that the minister had the power to appoint?

Mr. Quail: Yes. Section 15 of the Department of Supply and Services Act said:

The Minister may, by order, appoint an officer of the Department to be the Queen's Printer for Canada, who shall, under the supervision of the Minister, exercise such printing and publishing functions for the Government of Canada as are assigned to the Queen's Printer by law or as may be assigned to him by the Minister.

Senator Bolduc: I am sure that that is some kind of a derogation to the general situation in the civil service.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: I have a supplementary question for you. In clause 19, in French, you refer to the "imprimerie nationale." When you read subclause (1) of clause 19, you refer to the "imprimeur de la Reine pour le Canada." In the English version, you refer to "Queen's Printer," then in subclause (1) you refer to "Queen's Printer for Canada." I don't want to be fussy, but I do want to be precise. The more we use different expressions to say the same thing, the greater the danger sometimes of creating problems for ourselves rather than solving them.

Mr. Quail: We have Mr. Lionel Lebel who can answer this question.

Senator Nolin: Some people from the Department of Justice.

[English]

Mr. Quail: Mr. Levert is the Chief Legislative Counsel for the Department of Justice, and he has joined us to pick up some of these points.

Senator Nolin: I have a few problems with translation.

Mr. Quail: That is what we had understood, and we wanted to be sure we could answer the committee's questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Lionel Levert, Chief Legislative Counsel, Department of Justice: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to reply immediately to Senator Nolin's question?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Levert: To repeat somewhat the reply by the Deputy Minister a while back on another point, we have essentially kept to what exists at present. As happens fairly often, we try not to repeat the same thing twice. We have a marginal note, as you see, at clause 19, which reads, "Imprimeur de la Reine."

The imprimeur de la Reine is of course responsible for the Imprimerie nationale. This is a way of providing a bit more information instead of having "Imprimeur de la Reine" in both places. In our opinion, this does not create any problems. They are two facets of the same reality that are being expressed.

[English]

Senator Nolin: Mr. Chairman, may I follow up on the various translation problems before we get into more substantial problems?

The Chairman: Certainly.

[Translation]

We can come back to clause 2 of the Act. In English, you define "Minister," and you don't in French. Is there a particular reason for drafting in that way?

Mr. Levert: It often happens, as you have no doubt noted in other bills, that sometimes you define certain terms in English or French, but not necessarily in both versions. I concede that the context is a bit different from what we have here. Often, it is because the French term --

Senator Nolin: It is not used.

Mr. Levert: It already includes the meaning that is intended or already covers the reality that it is sought to address, while the term in the other language has to be defined so that its meaning is expanded. This is a technique that is used fairly often. Here, however, it is quite clear that, "minister" or "ministre," we are talking about the same person.

It is not surprising to find cases like this in the French version, since very often, in French, we rely much more on the context than they do in English.

Very often, we will try to avoid defining terms when the context indicates clearly what is involved. This approach differs somewhat from what is done in English. As you know, surely, since the late 1970s -- more specifically, in 1978 -- the two versions have been drafted as two independent, authentic versions; neither is a translation of the other.

The purpose of this exercise is to ensure that each of the two versions can reflect the genius that is peculiar to the particular language. In some cases, the technique used is a bit different, the formulation is different. The essential thing for us is to satisfy ourselves that each provision has exactly the same legal effect.

In the example you are citing to me, there is no doubt that the Act as a whole, since we are dealing here with a definition that affects the whole of the document, will have exactly the same meaning whether we define the word "minister" in French or we don't define it. The context clearly indicates that when we speak of a "minister" it is the Minister of the new Department created by this bill.

Senator Nolin: With regard to clause 55, at page 18, 5.1, in the French version, clause 5.1(2)(c), I would like to have some explanation on the whole of sub-paragraph (c). Are you referring to the Queen in right of a province? What exactly do you mean by that?

Mr. Levert: Wait a bit, I am going to read it myself. It may be a case where I will ask my colleague, who drafted the bill, to do it. I can explain to you generally how we approach the various issues. But if it gets more in depth, I think you will get a more satisfactory response from the drafter herself.

Senator Nolin: So, join us!

Mr. Levert: If I understand correctly, Senator Nolin --

Senator Nolin: I am just trying to understand exactly what you mean by paragraph (c).

Mr. Levert: You have some doubts about the equivalence of the two versions?

Senator Nolin: It is not a question of translation. What do you mean exactly by 5.1(2)(c)?

Ms Andrée Dionne, Counsel, Legislation Section, Department of Justice: In my opinion, this is a way of saying Her Majesty in right of the provinces. In the Federal Real Property Act, it speaks of administration and control, it comes from that Act, where you transfer the administration. Between the federal government and the provinces there is not really a sale, it is a transfer of administration and control. So we use the words Her Majesty in right of the provinces.

I will confess to you that I don't remember why it was drafted in that way. We did not say: Her Majesty in right of the provinces.

Senator Nolin: Could it be some other Commonwealth country, too? That is what I was trying to understand. Is it only the provinces? Can it be Australia, New Zealand? I assume it is understood that Her Majesty means The Queen?

Ms Dionne: Yes.

Senator Nolin: Is it some right other than of Canada? So for the province, let's say that I understood. But, do you also want to include some other jurisdiction?

Ms Dionne: In my opinion, no.

[English]

Mr. Quail: First of all, this would be property that would be the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. We do not have any responsibility at this point, that I am aware of, for property overseas. That is not within our current minister's responsibility.

Senator Bolduc: It is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Quail: Yes. Therefore, what we are talking about here is that the transfer of property could be to provinces, it could be to individuals, it could be to municipalities. That is my understanding of what we are talking about. It is property that we own which we intend to sell.

Senator Bolduc: To another government.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: The sale is already covered in clause (2)(a).

Ms Dionne: Between the federal government and the provinces, it is not a sale; it is a specific case of administration.

Senator Nolin: In any event, we will do a bit more research, if at some point we find there is a major problem, we will come back to it.

There is an "e" missing. It is an "e" instead of an "a", it is not major. But nevertheless when these acts are being printed, they are adopted with the errors they include. I understand that every so often omnibus bills are enacted to correct all that. But it seems to me that they might at least put a little more effort into ensuring that at the printing we really have the initial intention of the ministers and parliamentarians.

Ms Dionne: What provision?

Senator Nolin: I mentioned to you two small typing errors that are in the Act and that we will be adopting it with the typing errors.

Ms Dionne: They are where?

Senator Nolin: In clause 60, I told you it was not major, after: "ministre des Approvisionnements et Services". In any case, in my own version it is missing a close quote. The same thing in the clause that refers to the transfer from Her Majesty in right of another jurisdiction. There is an "a": "la préparation pour la transfert." I assume it should be "pour le transfert." When you print them, make sure it is actually the version you want adopted. Try to eliminate the errors.

Senator Bolduc: They know it. When they know it, in the House, they correct it by hand.

Ms Dionne: Yes.

Senator Nolin: There may be a more important problem of interpretation in clause 62.

If Bill C-7 receives royal assent--

I assume you mean C-8?

Ms Dionne: What happened, when they retabled these bills, we were told there was an agreement with the House not to change anything in the existing version; so we were stuck, we had to retable the bill as such.

Senator Nolin: I understand.

Ms Dionne: I don't think it creates any error, from the standpoint of the law.

Senator Nolin: I have a more serious problem. I will get to the heart of my concern. I have two concerns: Senator Kelly raised one of them. It is the regulatory authority of the Department. Did you want to remove the Minister's regulatory authority from the supervisory authority of the Federal Court when you drafted this legislation?

Ms Dionne: You are on the substance.

Senator Nolin: Yes. I am now into my real problem.

Ms Dionne: You are at clause 23?

Senator Nolin: Yes.

Ms Dionne: I don't understand.

Senator Nolin: In the way the clause is written, be it subclause (1), when you use the two words "deems necessary."

In paragraph (2)(a), when you use the same expression: "deems necessary."

Those are expressions that the courts have often held were methods of drafting to give the Minister -- the person holding the regulatory authority -- some discretion. So the courts may not exercise any control over the exercise of this power?

Senator Bolduc: Over the scope of the attribution.

Senator Nolin: You will understand that we, as parliamentarians, have some reluctance to grant that kind of authority -- in any event, without arguing a little -- to try to find out why you want the Minister to have such extensive authority. It involves a power to impose fines, to make seizures. As far as I am concerned, this is a power that at least warrants being supervised by the Federal Court in the exercise of its powers under section 28 and section 18 of the Federal Court Act. But, by the way it is written, are you removing this?

Ms Dionne: I think it is taken from the Public Works Act, but we haven't corrected it.

Senator Nolin: Even if it comes from the present Act, we will settle it tonight.

Ms Dionne: Yes, it is a substantive problem.

Senator Nolin: So, what was your intention in drafting this Act? Did you knowingly use the formula that is here? Such a formula, interpreted by the Canadian courts, deprives the Federal Court of its power of supervision over the government?

Mr. Levert: You are perfectly right to say that, of course, these regulations will to a large degree be beyond the supervision of the courts. However, the courts have held that where there is an abuse of such discretionary authority, they may intervene. So, yes, in a way we are reducing, of course, the courts' power of supervision.

On the other hand, we don't completely remove or we don't wipe out the courts' power of supervision. There is still a subsisting authority in the courts to supervise the forms of abuse that might arise in the application or exercise of this authority. I concede that it is more discretionary than if we had, for example, the cases in which the need must be ascertained, et cetera. Here, obviously, there is a judgment call.

Senator Nolin: It is subjective, it is an authority.

Mr. Levert: It is more subjective, of course, than other formulations. Here again, you are asking us what the intention was? There was no intention as such, other than to repeat the current content of the existing legislation governing the government departments that were merged in June 1993. Which does not mean that you can't ask yourself the question, of course.

Senator Nolin: Can we agree on the definition of the power to impose a fine. Adopting regulations to control access to federal real property, I have no problem with that; I think it is good administration, inasmuch as the procedures and rules for developing regulations and delegated legislation are followed; I have no problem with that. But who is to supervise the imposition of a fine, a power of seizure, if it is not the Federal Court? I have a major problem with this clause. And personally, unless you demonstrate to me that there is an important reason why that authority is assigned to the Minister, I am going to request an amendment to the clause.

[English]

Senator Bolduc: I think probably the text here reflects the history of administrative legislation. The Department of Public Works is a departmental name that has been around since Confederation. In those times, they used to give a lot of discretionary powers to ministers and to the Governor General in Council. This is probably the history of that section. It has probably been there since 1867; I would not be surprised at all.

In those times, ministers had tremendous discretionary powers. However, since then, we have all of the jurisprudence and the federal institutions such as Federal Court, and they have tried, of course, to limit the discretion. This is a very serious problem.

[Translation]

We should take advantage of the fact that we have an Act before us to improve it, because it doesn't make sense.

[English]

I have some other clauses that I would question. For example, clause 21(3). They are not obliged to exercise their power by regulation, but the bill says:

The Minister may, by regulation...

That is too much discretion, really. It would be simpler to say "the minister shall, by regulation..." In fact, what we have is an exercise of fantastic administrative powers, but according to certain rules of the game. That looks like drafting for the Minister of Foreign Affairs; that the minister will make any moves necessary to ensure Canadian interests abroad.

What I mean is that it is so large that if you do that, you do not need legislation to do it. As was done in another case recently, just create the organization without any legislation. This legislation is too broad. In the world of today, we must somehow limit the discretion.

The Chairman: Do you want to comment on that before going to the second supplementary?

Mr. Quail: I might just comment on a couple of point, Mr. Chairman. One, this is a rollover from the previous Department of Public Works Act. The legislation does make and provide regulatory-making powers by way of order in council. However, there is a system in place nowadays relative to how we make regulations, in terms of pre-publication and publication of such regulations.

Finally, I might just note for the record the regulations that we do have, in actual fact. There is the St. Andrew's Lock Regulations; those are in connection with the St. Andrew's Lock and Dam in Manitoba. Then the Selkirk Marine Railway and Dry Docks Regulations, which relate to that facility in Selkirk, Manitoba. Then Esquimalt Graving Dock Regulations, which relate to that facility in British Columbia, for the operation of the shipyard. There is Lauzon Dry Dock Regulations and then Public Works Nuisances Regulations. Therefore, in actual fact we have five sets of regulations that we are currently administering with respect to this piece of legislation, or with respect to the existing Public Works legislation.

Senator Kelly: Perhaps these matters of principle that have just been discussed could be rehearsed again, now that the minister is back, because that is a policy matter. I hope it can be done.

Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my conservative colleagues, I think the whole raison d'être for this bill is the merger of the two departments, and the aim is to do it as seamlessly as possible. However, as everyone has agreed, if there are serious errors here, let us use this opportunity to change them.

What I would suggest to my colleagues is that this legislation has no serious mistakes, that what we have in the books is a system that has existed for many years, that is founded in law, that is in conformity with the Charter, and in conformity with the Constitution of Canada. However, if you think that the discretion of the Governor in Council is a little too wide, then perhaps we could ask the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to look into that for all of the government. Certainly, we would not be able to use this bill to change something that is the standard, the norm of doing things for all departments.

If you have a serious point, I think one of our sister committee, either the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, or the committee that deals with statutory instruments, should look into it. However, I do not think we should be using the consideration of the legislation for merging the two departments as an occasion for entering into this very interesting debate. Being a lawyer myself, I see the interest in it, but I do not think that this is the occasion on which to undertake such a study. If it is to be done at all, it must be done by the committee which deals with the whole issue for all departments.

The Chairman: Our problem, senator, is that this bill was referred to the National Finance Committee. We cannot refer it to another committee. The Senate can, if it so wishes. But we also have a responsibility, I think, to examine the bill in detail because often, as you know -- with no disrespect intended to the other place -- they play a lot more politics than they do examinations in detail. I do not mind the detail if it does not bore us all. However, the minister has returned, so I will try and get back to the speakers' list.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for coming back; I appreciate it very much.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: We had begun to discuss during your absence this question: the Act gives you or the Governor in Council a regulatory authority that the courts would hold was discretionary. Your regulatory authority could not be questioned by the Federal Court.

The extent of this regulatory authority includes, among other things, the determination and imposition of fines, the power to seize, the power to distribute the proceeds of the sale after a seizure. Do you see what I am getting at? It is an enormous discretionary authority.

The Federal Court Act was amended several times, among other reasons, to give the Federal Court the power to supervise the administration in the exercise of its powers. I put this question to your officials: first, was this the intention at the time the Act was considered? Secondly, personally, I think it is a power which is, ultimately, out of line. We should leave the Federal Court with the authority to review decisions by the administration, unless the State, the government, demonstrates to Parliament that there is some important reason why such authority should be included in the legislation. So that is where we are, and I am asking you for your reply because I think it is an exorbitant authority, regardless of what Senator De Bané says.

Senator Bolduc: My colleague is alluding to clause 23, which states:

The Governor in Council may make such regulations as the Governor in Council deems necessary--

Senator Nolin: And especially subclause (2).

Ms Marleau: First, let me tell you that my professional experiences are in the field of accounting and not in the legal field. As a government, one of the things that concerns us a lot is to change the existing regulatory system. I don't know whether a bill was tabled or whether there was a draft bill.

We are continuing to work in this area, not only with the Department of Public Works and Government Services, but in all the government departments. This is something that concerns us a lot because we want to assure you that the community can do business as simply as possible. We call it "streamlining for business" and it is a major concern to us.

This bill is a "housekeeping" measure that covers more than one department, in fact. We can do some things together and we can save money for the taxpayers. And that is why the bill was put forward.

Senator Nolin: I understand that you want to "streamline", to use your expression, which is very descriptive of your objective, but it remains nevertheless that the administration, notwithstanding all the good will in the world, may occasionally, in good faith, exceed its authority. That is why the Federal Court Act was amended. It was to ensure that the administration acted in compliance with, for example, natural justice, which must be complied with by the government when it is acting within its jurisdiction. So, that was the point of the question I raised and I note your reply.

[English]

Senator Stratton: Thank you very much for coming, Madam Minister. I guess I am a living, breathing example of someone who has spent most of his life in the consulting field. I was a managing partner of an architectural firm for 15 years, and you always lived in horror of the fact that the federal government, the Department of Public Works, would do a project that could or should be normally tendered to the private sector.

I will give here a little bit of hearsay evidence, but it can be checked out quite readily. This happened quite a while ago. During the election of 1984, Public Works Canada chose to design and do the architectural services for a health protection branch facility in the city of Winnipeg. They hired the private engineering sector to do the engineering services, but the architectural services were done in-house, as it were. With that incident as background, you can see where my fear and horror arises, and really that fear has been built in there, over time for such a long time, that the federal government will never ever leave the private consulting sector.

The Association of Engineers were in to see me earlier in the week. They are still expressing concern, as is the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, despite the fact that you have met with them, and your predecessor, David Dingwall, had also met with them and assured them that this would indeed not be the case. It just does not fly with these folks.

The living example, I guess, is on the Internet. There it shows a classic example of what is Public Works and Government Services Canada. On the Internet, it says "We are the builders and buyers, we are the engineers, printers, architects, auditors, clerks, property managers, telecommunication specialists, bankers and environmental scientists, translators and accountants." They are saying, "Come and see us. Phone us up. Ask us what we can do for you" -- on the Internet.

Therefore, despite your assurances and those of your predecessor, when the private sector sees that kind of thing, it causes them real concern, and it is really quite insulting to them when they read this and then hear you express the contrary. I do not mean to be impolite. It is just that those in the private sector do not see their proposed list of amendments being considered as serious amendments, and I am sure you are aware of those amendments. They would ask that if you cannot do it by way of the legislation that is before us today, can it not be done through the regulations that arise therefrom? That would be my question.

Ms Marleau: First of all, it may have been said already but you realize that section 16, which is the section that is most in dispute here, covers everything that the department does, not just architectural and engineering functions. It allows us to cooperate with other levels of government in order that we can have a more cost-effective and efficient delivery of services. I think it is important to remember that this encompasses far more than this particular area.

While you may have examples from 1984, and I have no reason to doubt that your examples are quite valid, we are in a time of downsizing, layoffs -- you are a witness to that -- and it is certainly our intention to continue in that mode, and only to use our powers at the request of another level of government or at the request of a partner, and then to go through the regulatory process.

We have tried through various means to reassure the associations. We are prepared to sit down with them and come out with some understanding that will again attempt to reassure them. Meanwhile, however, we must also be able to conduct our normal business.

The Chairman: Why is it so difficult for them to understand?

Ms Marleau: I do not know. Obviously, I have spoken to people who have been speaking with them. I actually sat in a meeting where there were a number of association representatives at the table, and when it was asked of them, "Is there no role for Public Works and Government Services?" some of --

The Chairman: No role where?

Ms Marleau: With their members. At that point --

The Chairman: To do what? To build a bridge in Saskatoon or --

Ms Marleau: No. To partner with them, especially on the external trade. We do not want to build a bridge if they can do it in a cost-effective manner; that is not our role. Our role is to support them in terms of what they do in exporting their expertise.

Senator Kelly: I want to pick up on your words that I was about to introduce in any event in my question: cost effective. Taking an example such as the one described by Senator Stratton where the Department of Public Works in-house architects design something, how do you establish cost effectiveness? Clearly, the private sector can give you a clear indication of what the cost would be, but the calculation of their cost base is carried out in a far different manner. I do not think you have the facilities to come out and decide exactly what your costs really are, compared with how the event may have been accomplished outside government.

Ms Marleau: I will ask Mr. Quail to elaborate on that point.

Mr. Quail: Essentially, Mr. Chairman, we do a little construction and engineering work on the basis of our own department. We do it mostly for other government departments if they want to build something, design something, get on with something. We could get involved, I would agree, in office accommodation.

Therefore it follows that, first of all, the demand to do something comes from other government departments. Whenever we get those demands, we then have a look at whether or not we have some residual capability in the department, or whether or not we should go outside.

As I pointed out earlier when the minister was absent, the number of times we have gone outside has moved from 46 per cent up towards 60 per cent in the last fiscal year. That is a direct function of the desire to make sure that we put as much work outside as we can. However, we do want to keep some core capability.

An undertaking that we did put into place, and that we have ongoing, is a review of the architectural and engineering services. We have established a committee, and we have representatives on that committee from the engineering consultant association, from the architects, and from the unions. We have just recently awarded a contract to an outside consulting firm, first of all to look into the whole situation to see how an appropriate role for the department can be established, and the appropriate amount of contracting out: In other words, are we doing too much, or are we doing too little?

There will be opportunities for all sorts of people to have their input into that particular review, and when it is finished we will arrive at a conclusion on the whole matter. From our point of view, we probably anticipate that the 60 per cent figure will rise further, but our participation will not be reduced to nil. In other words, we do not have anticipate that we will have no engineers or architects in our organization.

Senator Stratton: I agree with you that you need that capability in-house just to keep the private sector straight, in that sense. I guess the concern they have is simply that in order to keep that capability up, as you say, you must practice your trade, and the degree to which you practice that trade is what bothers the private sector, for the most part.

What I would ask is, once this legislation passes, whether examples should be brought forward, showing clearly where Public Works Canada has gone ahead and undertaken a project or projects at a significant amount; a significant amount meaning that the work could have been more readily done in the private sector at more competitive rates. That could be the definition. In other words, how must the associations come forward to you and present those cases and have them addressed? The biggest concern of the associations is that, having had the legislation pass, the department will then just get on and do their job, and ignore the complaints.

I must tell you that the private sector is also experiencing severe downsizing -- and I mean severe downsizing. If governments are cutting back, you can imagine what the private sector is doing. How, then, must they bring forward their cases of concern to you in order to have them heard?

Mr. Quail: My own reaction would be that we are working on this matter, and that there was agreement. The minister met with Pierre himself, and also his board of directors recently, and we did have a discussion on this matter. We did undertake to look into developing a memorandum of understanding with the associations that would set out the principles in terms of how we are to cooperate with each other. We certainly intend to follow through on that. I am not arguing that the MOU will be a panacea at the end of the day, but it should set out the boundaries on how we will work together because, at the end of the day, my view is that we need to work together. There is no other way, and it just does not make sense that we do not work together in terms of sorting out problems. Therefore I would put it this way, senator: Under the aegis of the MOU, we would have a boundary for how we deal with problems that arise.

The Chairman: Is this international work that you are talking about?

Mr. Quail: No. Just every day work.

The Chairman: Any work. Why would you need even that if you are doing work within the government?

Mr. Quail: Because at the moment, as one of the senators has said, there is no trust. There is only one way to build trust, and that is by working together over a period of time. When you do not have trust, there is no hope.

Over a period of time, there was a deterioration in the relationships between the associations and the architectural and engineering groups. That was the first thing. The second thing was that the situation was exacerbated by the fact that business is drying up, so that focuses the mind as well, on both sides, I would guess. I can certainly understand that.

Recently we had a couple of meetings with the association and told them, "Look, we must set the bill aside for a minute. The world keeps turning. If we do not work together, it will pass us by." If we continue to not get along, that will only be to the detriment of our clients, who are also their clients, because they do 50 per cent or more of the consulting work for the clients already. Thus we are talking here about the last 50 per cent of the business -- now closer to 40 per cent -- that we still do in-house. Of course, I am talking about domestic business, since the amount of time we spend on international business is minuscule.

Senator Stratton: I appreciate what you are saying, and I am not disagreeing with you, but say, for example, a particular government agency needed a small office, and it was a small contract of perhaps $300,000 or $400,000. You might feel that you should do that work in-house, because it would be more expeditious and could be done, in your terms, quite well in-house. However, in today's world, an interior designer out there would practically kill to have that contract.

That is the real message I am trying to get across to you: We are not talking here of the substantial projects costing anywhere from one to fifteen million dollars; we are talking about the little guy who is sitting in his basement, trying to survive. That is where my concerns lie.

Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, on that last point, I would like to remind Senator Stratton that if we want to attract competent, talented professionals into the public service of the country, we must give them the opportunity to work on exciting projects, too. Otherwise we will attract only the least talented people. Therefore, in order to attract the best and the brightest, the Government of Canada should also give the opportunity to its officials to work on exciting projects.

Senator Stratton: But should they not compete with the private sector to do that project?

Senator De Bané: I have not heard anything today to suggest that the new department might want to compete with the private sector. What they want to do is enhance their productivity, and enhance their partnership with firms of this country and do more things together, both inside and outside of the country. If I had a small shop, I am sure you would agree with me that my chances of getting a big contract with an outside government would be enhanced if I could say that my partner is the Government of Canada.

Senator Stratton: I am not disagreeing with that at all. I am talking about where they walk in, look at a project and decide on their own volition that they will do it, rather than referring it to the private sector. That is what bothers me.

[Translation]

Senator De Bané: The question raised by Senator Nolin, as you said, is a strictly legal question. I wonder whether the Department counsel could prepare a document for us demonstrating to the committee and to Senator Nolin and Senator Bolduc in particular that clauses 21, 22 and 23 are clauses that have an equivalent in other Departments, if the municipalities have the right to fine --

Senator Nolin: The municipal council or a municipality, that is one thing.

Senator De Bané: It is not the municipal council, it is the police officer or traffic officer who gives me a ticket.

Senator Nolin: Establishing penalties is one thing; ticketing is another.

Senator De Bané: It says: not exceeding the amount referred to in subsection 787. This matter, generally speaking, ought to be examined in a committee reviewing the regulations and other statutory directives, but if it is an important issue for the Opposition members, could you prepare a study for us that could be distributed to the members of the committee?

Ms Marleau: Certainly, we can request it. Even for us, I think it is important.

Senator Bolduc: I think, Madam Minister, that you will acknowledge that the clause says:

The Governor in Council may make such regulations as the Governor in Council deems necessary.

That's fairly far-reaching.

Senator Nolin: That's the formula. That is what provides the discretionary authority.

Senator Bolduc: I know.

Senator De Bané: I can assure you that it was a formulation that existed in all the departments in which Senator Bolduc was a deputy minister.

Senator Nolin: It's time this changed.

Ms Marleau: It is also the government's intention to remove a number of these regulations.

Senator De Bané: Not at the time of the only bill involving a government department.

Ms Marleau: This is a study that is continuing throughout all the departments federally.

Senator Nolin: I understand. I don't want the debate to be repeated whenever the government submits a bill and there is some regulatory authority provided, in principle, generally, I have no problems with regulatory authority. It is when this authority can replace Parliament and tell Parliament: listen, you are very nice, we'll come and see you from time to time, but apart from that, don't disturb us. That's when I am less inclined to go along.

Ms Marleau: We are prepared to put the document together for you. That's not a problem.

Senator Nolin: Perfect.

Ms Marleau: Let tell you that, as politicians, the court of public opinion is still there, following us step by step. We don't always have the opportunity to use those powers if public opinion does not agree. Let me tell you that discretionary regulation is examined very closely by people.

[English]

Senator Bolduc: This is my last question. You have here, in the same department, a variety of big organizations covering such things as supply, various pieces of equipment, publishing, provision of services -- I suspect it is consulting services for departments -- accommodation and other facilities, and telecommunications. When any or all of those agencies provide services for a ministry, are they in competition with some private sector services? Are they put into competition so that a decision can be made as to whether or not they will do the job?

Ms. Marleau: First of all, let me tell you that we serve. We are a service department. We answer to whoever. But the services of some of our branches have been made optional, which means that they are in essence there, they have certain set rules as to how they will price, but departments are free to go out to the public sector to look at what their prices are like.

The public sector actually has far more flexibility, and in many cases departments do choose to go outside to get their work done. If they feel that the price being charged by the Department of Public Works and Government Services, or whatever branch is offering the service, is higher than whatever they might pay outside, they go outside. We have seen that happen in a number of areas.

Senator Bolduc: I was in the civil service for many years, and then I was in the private consulting business. In your department, you have a management consultancy group. Of course they were in competition with us, but they do not pay taxes. We were located in a building in Montreal, and we paid taxes on everything. When a department in Ottawa suddenly decides to have a reorganization, they would consult with that agency within your department, instead of asking for a consultation outside, even without knowing the price.

Ms. Marleau: We have changed our ways. We charge departments. We do not compete with the outside. However, other departments are free to choose us to do the work if they so wish.

Senator Bolduc: Not necessarily free. Sometimes they must go through the public service processes, for example for personnel, for equipment, for telecommunication, and many other things like that. In the area where you have your common auxiliary services, they must go through that, or follow the basic principle of public billing and the lowest price, quality, product standards, and things like that. It is all in place by way of other legislation.

Mr. Quail: From a competitive point of view, if people decide to go to private sector bids, we do not go out and compete against those private sector bids. We just do not do that. However, if someone wants to come to us and ask, say, Consulting and Audit Canada, as an in-house organization to do some consulting work for them, and Consulting and Audit Canada believes that they can do it, then they will undertake that contract. That is it, but they do not go out tendering, beyond those processes. Therefore, they do have access, if you want to use that terminology.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: I would like to come back to the question of competition and the reading of Part III of your estimates for this year. It is clearly established that the government's desire is clear in terms of getting Public Works and Government Services to compete on an equal footing with the private sector. It seems clear to me. In terms of real property services, at page 2.21, it is spelled out.

I support a policy such as that. In other words, you will not have preferential access to a government department. The department will have to choose: am I going to have the design or such work done by the private sector or will I assign it to Public Works. That's my reading of it and I think it is a very good thing.

It has to do with the issue of competition on projects -- to use the earlier expression -- in right of Canada. My problem is the projects of other jurisdictions, of other owners, other than the government of Canada.

You referred earlier to foreign governments. You raised the notion of "partnership" and sub-contracting. Do you act in partnership with a firm to go and get a contract outside or do you sub-contract?

In other words, a firm would say: Public Works, you have three experts on the construction of bridges of this or that type and it's great that you have that. I would put them in my proposal in order to get a contract in Thailand. Do you do that?

Ms Marleau: We're not looking for projects. If the firm comes and sees us and asks if it can use our experts in some field, yes.

Senator Nolin: We are going to include them in our curriculum vitae and this will help us.

Ms Marleau: Yes.

Senator Nolin: I am asking you because I know this is done. It is done with the provincial governments. It is a good way to use this critical mass to which your deputy minister was referring earlier.

However, you have just told me that the Department will never be the project leader.

Ms Marleau: We have expressly written in the bill -- it is one of the amendments -- that it will be done only at the request of another government.

Senator Nolin: But it is indicated.

Ms Marleau: Always at the request, "on request" in English.

Senator Nolin: If you are the project leader and there is a project to build an airport in Barbados. Does the general public do that, build airports?

Ms Marleau: Yes, but --

Senator Nolin: They can manage this kind of project?

Ms Marleau: It is not our intention to go and get such contracts, not at all. If the firm or if the government of a country comes and sees us, it asks us to facilitate its task. We will do that, we will participate, but only at the request of the other party.

Senator Nolin: That is not how clause 16(b) reads.

Ms Marleau: Do you have clause 16(b).

Senator Nolin: If it was the government to another government, I would have no problem. What clause 16(b) tells us is very broad: "with the approval of the Governor in Council", this is an amendment that you introduced in the other place. It says, "--any government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere that requests the Minister to do that thing." That's everyone; it is not just the other governments.

Ms Marleau: No, it is what we said. Anyone can come and ask us to work in partnership, but they have to request it.

Senator Nolin: No, it is the customers. It is not the other suppliers of services. Clause 16(b) refers to a list of types of customers.

Ms Marleau: I don't know what you are getting at. Our intention is not to solicit, only to respond to a request.

Senator Nolin: Tomorrow, we will be hearing some testimony. Your officials should stay here. Some honest Canadian citizens will come and tell us that the Department of Public Works and Government Services competes in Canada and abroad. This does not make sense.

Senator Rizzuto: May I put a question to my colleague Senator Nolin. Your concern, if I understand clearly, is that we could have some private firms coming from abroad or some foreign governments, that could appeal directly to the Department. Is that your concern?

Senator Nolin: In part.

Senator Rizzuto: The Minister, Ms Marleau, has just told us clearly that if there are some requests, it is not the Department that will propose doing work abroad. But if there are some requests, it will make itself available.

Senator Nolin: A page on the Internet that offers its services?

Senator Rizzuto: What would be the problem? You mentioned Australia. We can talk about some other country that makes a request to the federal Department of Public Works. The Department may receive the request. It may perhaps transfer it or it may join with private enterprise to do business with another country abroad. What is the problem?

Senator Nolin: I perceive the concern of the suppliers of services, to mention only engineers and architects. We have not yet spoken of the communication group and translators. They are authorized and it is their duty to engage in competition.

The responsibility and mission of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada is to provide adequate services at the lowest possible cost to the federal bureaucracy. This is not because there is a financial problem. We all have financial problems. The government, too, has financial problems. It must maximize its revenues. If, in order to maximize its revenues, it has to compete with the private sector, that is where there is a conflict.

Senator Rizzuto: I simply don't see this competition in the private sector because you will have a foreign private company appealing to the Department. The Department will have to judge whether it should give the contract to the Canadian private company.

Senator Nolin: Listen, if it were limited from country to country --

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, this is a very interesting discussion, but we do have the minister here --

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: My question has to do with the services of the Canada Communication Group. You wrote in your Estimates for 1996-97, in Part III:

-- that the Department has also entered into negotiations with a view to marketing most of the services of the Canada Communication Group.

What does that mean?

Ms Marleau: We are having discussions at this time. We are, in fact, reviewing a number of options, including privatization. The decisions have not yet been made. It is certain that when we have a firm decision, we will announce it.

Senator Nolin: I am not a journalist. You can trust me.

Senator De Bané: Certainly not!

Senator Nolin: Let's talk about the translators. The translation group that works in your Department, do you sometimes make their services available to organizations other than those in the federal government? Are you providing translation services to others?

Ms Marleau: Yes.

Senator Nolin: To whom are you referring?

[English]

Mr. Quail: Looking at the situation from an international point of view, NATO is one example; we have a small contract with NATO. I think on one other occasion we have translated for an international organization. I cannot call it to mind right now. We have also been asked on occasion to help out the provinces by doing translations.

Senator Kelly: In each of those cases, did the client come to you?

Mr. Quail: Yes, although I would want to be quite careful about the international one, as to whether or not they came to us or we were trying to make sure -- with respect to the international one, I would say we were a bit more aggressive in that we were trying to get some business for Canada in the NATO world.

Senator Kelly: And more specifically, for the department and the staff that you had?

Mr. Quail: Yes, although I would argue that nowadays we contract out about 40 per cent of our internal translation work. If we did manage to get international work, we would not be adding translators to our staff; we would contract out. I would argue, however, that it is definitely in the interests of Canada to see if we can crack that market.

The Chairman: When the government hires translators -- they must use translators, and those translators are hired to translate for the Government of Canada?

Mr. Quail: Yes.

The Chairman: Let me see if I can get this right: If they are hired to translate for the Government of Canada, and 40 per cent of the time they are translating for somebody else --

Mr. Quail: No, I am sorry, I have misled you. We contract out to the private sector here in Canada, through the translation bureau, 40 per cent of the work that we get.

Senator De Bané: In other words, the translation needs of the Government of Canada are serviced in-house 60 per cent of the time, and the other 40 per cent is contracted out?

The Chairman: Then the Government of Canada is not contracting out to NATO? What I am asking you is whether it is the government's own people or people from the private sector whom you are helping with the contracting out to NATO?

Mr. Quail: On that one particular contract that we are looking at, which is an $80,000 contract, we would be doing that contracting and translation using our own people, in house.

The Chairman: Your people, then, go contracting for NATO?

Mr. Quail: Yes.

The Chairman: Those people who usually work for the Government of Canada, when they are not available because they are away doing contract work for NATO or whoever, how do you replace them? Who does the work that they are supposed to be doing for the Government of Canada?

Mr. Quail: We contract out.

The Chairman: You contract that out. Would it not be simpler to help the outside people to get the NATO job, and then have your people working for the government?

What I do not understand here is, what do the engineers and architects do? What do they do?

Mr. Quail: I would suggest that sometimes you must have the "seal of approval," as it were, from the Canadian government in order to crack the market. I will take another example: the vessel traffic management system in the port of Hong Kong did not come to Canada for any other reason than that the federal government lead at that time. The Coast Guard people fronted this deal with the Hong Kong government, and then we used the private sector to actually deliver the contract. However, we were there, and we were up front, by way of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, in order to obtain that contract --

The Chairman: That is fine. I have no problem with that.

Mr. Quail: -- on a sole-source basis for Canada. Without having what I would call the "seal of approval" of the federal public service, or whatever, in the forefront, we would not have been successful in gettinig that contract.

The Chairman: I understand that.

Mr. Quail: From my point of view, minister, I am really arguing the same thing with respect to the translation service.

The Chairman: Let me then just go with that point a little further, and I would address this question to the minister. Earlier on this evening, while you were attending to your House duties, we were told that there were a number of jobs that had been lost within these departments. We were told that these totalled 4,000 positions, but actually only 2,000 people were let go. From what part of the country would those jobs have been lost?

Ms Marleau: They would be spread almost uniformly across the country, with somewhat higher numbers in Ottawa, because that is where there is the highest concentration of public employees.

The Chairman: The percentages would be equal across Canada?

Ms Marleau: Approximately. I do not have the particulars in front of me here.

Mr. Quail: We noted where they were, and what numbers were left. If the committee would like to have those particulars, we will certainly make them available.

The Chairman: Who were they? Were they professionals, deputy ministers, managers, grass cutters?

Mr. Quail: Probably, percentage-wise in our department, the largest number were in the executive category. The absolute numbers would not be high, but the percentage would be. The highest group would be in the executive category; but they were in all categories.

The Chairman: About equally distributed?

Mr. Quail: Percentage-wise or number-wise?

The Chairman: Both.

Mr. Quail: Certainly not number-wise, because we would have more people at the lower classifications than we would at the upper classifications.

The Chairman: Could you provide us with the information on that?

Mr. Quail: Very well.

The Chairman: There is something about clause 16(b) that bothers many of the associations. This is what I do not understand, Madam Minister. We will be hearing from the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada, the Canadian Environment Industry Association, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists, and the Geomatics Industry Association of Canada. If you do not know why they have a problem --

Ms Marleau: What I said to you was not that I did not understand why they have a problem. I understand their fears. What I said to you, though, was that we have done everything possible to address those fears, and we will continue to do so. As the deputy minister said earlier, there is a lack of trust and we must try to build that trust. It does not matter how many rules or how many clauses we add there; until we build that trust, and prove what we are saying -- which we intend to do -- it will not matter.

When they met with me, my question to them was: Is there any role for the Department of Public Works and Government Services? I was told promptly: Oh yes, there is. Some of the people who were there -- I think we told you this, in answer to one of your questions -- were extremely supportive of the role of the Department of Public Works and Government Services in helping them and in working with them. Therefore at times, yes I would agree with you that there is perhaps a lack of trust. At other times, there is the will and the need to have people such as those who are employed by the Department of Public Works and Government Services on their side. That was quite apparent at that meeting, at least to me.

It was the first time I had met with the associations, and I can say honestly that we intend to continue doing that. We have said that we would work on arriving at a memorandum of understanding, if that would help address some of their fears. They said that, yes, it would. Will there be a 100 per cent guarantee? I would say that everyone must continue to work at satisfying and building that relationship -- and it is certainly our intention to do so.

The Chairman: However, if you just took out paragraph (b) of clause 16 -- and I think there is one other paragraph of clause 10 that they find objectionable -- then they would leave us alone. They would say "Thank you very much, we trust you; we love you." Would you not want that to happen?

Ms Marleau: My problem is that we, as a government department, must continue to do the business that we have to do.

The Chairman: How would removing those two paragraphs from this bill prevent you from doing the business that you must do? Let us say we eliminated those paragraphs. How would that change the bill?

Ms Marleau: I will ask our illustrious deputy minister to answer that question.

Mr. Quail: We would not have the authority to enter into any kind of support, as I understand it, to work with industry.

The Chairman: Like what? Do you mean internationally?

Mr. Quail: Anywhere.

Ms Marleau: Anywhere.

Mr. Quail: My only other point is that this section covers other areas besides architecture and engineering.

The Chairman: Yes?

Mr. Quail: From my point of view, in order for us to be able to deliver the services we are already delivering, it is essential to have a clause of this nature. We have examples of that outside of architecture and engineering, if you wish to look, that give examples of that sort of arrangement in terms of procurement. For instance, there is a program whereby we do the federal, provincial and territorial bulk purchasing of prescription drugs and vaccines. That has been in effect since 1973. We do that on behalf of those governments.

The Chairman: Could someone else do it besides the government?

Mr. Quail: I do not think so.

The Chairman: The Department of Public Works would be the only people in Canada qualified to handle that contract?

Mr. Quail: All we are doing is providing the bulk procurement. We are doing the purchasing of the material.

The Chairman: You are saying that if you took out that clause, you would not be able to do that?

Mr. Quail: Our view is that we need clause 16 in order to undertake that work for other levels of government.

Senator De Bané: Mr. Chairman, no other organization in Canada enters into 1,000 procurement agreements per working day. This department has the expertise, and I can understand very well why those governments might say, "Can you handle that procurement for us?" if they know that we have such a large and expert department in procurement.

Senator Poulin: It is interesting. I am sort of smiling here. Mr. Chairman, I have indicated three times now that I wished to speak. I feel that we are giving a very hard time to our minister here, and to our deputy minister, and I do not understand why.

The Chairman: Senator Poulin, I keep a speakers' list, and I try faithfully to keep to it, and to give everybody the same amount of time.

Senator Poulin: I find it interesting, because this bill has a long-standing history that goes back many years, and the objective here is really worthwhile. The objective here is to consolidate services and departments to permit savings and efficiencies. It is extremely important that we, as members of this committee, bear that objective in mind because I think that as a Government of Canada we are in a transitional phase of moving slowly, as the minister and the deputy minister have just told us, to facilitate the permitting of our private services in this country to offer services.

I would like to ask the minister, how far back in time does this department go? Not as it now exists, but for how many years now, in the Government of Canada, has there been a "public works" under any title?

Mr. Quail: Since Confederation.

Senator Poulin: That would mean that we are -- how many years, did you say, Mr. Quail?

Ms Marleau: We are a hundred and --

Senator Poulin: It is a hundred and twenty-eight years, if my memory serves me. In my trips abroad, I have heard a great deal about the quality of the expertise that we have had the opportunity of developing in this country. One of the places where we have been able to develop that expertise is within the government, in a larger infrastructure, and many years before private industry. I think that, as a country, we are lucky today to be able to offer to the world, at a cost, both publicly-funded and privately-funded expertise. We are moving slowly towards facilitating the continuing development of that expertise in our country. We have the chance of having that expertise in this department now, and I think that we should applaud it and facilitate its work through this legislation. That is my first point.

My second point is that in the past I have had the opportunity of working with this department, and I remember the comment that was made by the then minister, that when you speak of a service agency, you do mean that you expect people to come to you to ask for services. Am I right in this?

Ms Marleau: Yes, you are.

Senator Poulin: In this vein, personally I have had two experiences with the department involving a physical refit for a work area, plus an audit, and in both cases I, as the client -- although I was a federal agency -- had the choice of using, or notusing, the Department of Public Works. Does this still exist?

Ms Marleau: Yes.

Senator Poulin: Will the legislation now before us continue to permit this?

Ms Marleau: It varies by business line, but obviously it will continue to be that way.

Senator Poulin: Will the legislation permit public servants, who are, I believe, the mainstay of your business -- but, in any event, responsible public servants coming to you and making comparative studies with private industry in relation to costs, feasibility, efficiency, appropriateness and quality of service?

Mr. Quail: Senator, it would vary, as the minister points out, by business line. For instance, in our function of Receiver General, you have no choice; you deal with us.

Senator Poulin: We noticed that when everybody made their cheque out yesterday.

Mr. Quail: Yes, so while there are some mandatory requirements by which you must deal with us, there are some that are truly optional. For instance, on the printing side in the communications group, if you do not wish to do business with us, do not do business with us. In translation, translation is now essentially optional.

In architectural and engineering, which has been the subject of quite a bit of the discussion today, the way in which it works is that departments must come to us and then there is a decision made with respect to doing the work in-house or not in-house. That is the area where we are presently doing about 60 per cent outside, and that percentage is rising. Therefore, as the minister has said, it does vary by business line. That is my point.

With respect to office accommodation, it depends on where you sit in the government. If you are a department and you want office space, you must come to us. If you want special purpose space, then you may be able to do that yourself. It depends. With respect to purchasing, we have our own rules as well. It does vary by business line, senator.

Senator Poulin: Therefore, what you mean is that senior managers have the opportunity of reviewing a project and basing a decision on efficiency and the quality of service required?

Mr. Quail: Yes.

Senator Poulin: I have a last question regarding regulations, based on comments that were made by my colleagues earlier. Having had the experience a few years ago of applying legislation as head of an agency, I take for granted that it is current practice for a minister to receive the authority to develop and implement regulations.

Mr. Quail: That is right. If you have the enabling legislation, under its auspices you can draft regulations. As I pointed out, we have five sets of regulations and that is all.

Senator Poulin: Are these regulations applied by public servants?

Mr. Quail: Yes.

Senator Poulin: If there is a problem in the application of a regulation, is there a recourse?

Mr. Quail: It would vary. It would depend on what the regulation says, and what the act says. You cannot be outside of your authority with respect to the legislation and the regulations.

Senator Poulin: All that would be foreseen in the legislation?

Mr. Quail: Yes.

Senator Nolin: I think you said earlier, Mr. Quail, that 100 per cent of your construction work is done outside?

Mr. Quail: That is right.

Senator Nolin: I do not mean to be rough with you, but the stairway between the East Block and the Centre Block is currently under refit by the Department of Public Works.

Mr. Quail: True.

Senator Nolin: Therefore it cannot be 100 per cent. What is the answer?

Mr. Quail: I was referring to the part that relates to architectural and engineering, and as it relates to major construction work, we do not have a construction force. We are not a construction company. Do we have some capability to fix buildings in-house? Yes. Do we have a group of stonemasons at Plouffe Park who can come over and work on the wall outside -- not on the building itself but on the wall? We have some capability, and we will try to do some of that in relation to small projects. If you put all of that under the heading of construction, then what I said earlier was incorrect. I mean, if you want a door fixed, it is --

Senator Nolin: No. I am talking about construction work. That is why I made a note when you said, "One hundred per cent of our work is done outside."

Ms Marleau: I would think that there might be a differential in some areas between regular maintenance and repairs and small project versus construction. Perhaps that is what the deputy meant. As far as I am aware, any construction project, per se, other than some of the more maintenance-oriented types of projects, are contracted out.

Senator Kelly: Just a quick follow-up. I understand what is being said here, but I must say that I was offended, Mr. Deputy, at your reference to it as a door, or a plugged toilet or something. The question that the senator asked did not have to do with doors or small things like that. It had to do with major construction that is going on, and therefore it might help us feel better if you could -- in that particular instance, Senator Nolin, you were talking about the tunnel or the stairway, or something or other?

Senator Nolin: The stairway between the two blocks.

Senator Kelly: Yes. Perhaps you could give us figures on just exactly what percentage of what contract that represented, to see whether it is indeed just a door or whether it is a great deal more. That is all. We are not trying to fool you, but I do resent an attempt to diminish something that is being asked seriously.

Mr. Quail: I was not in any way trying to diminish that, senator. I am sorry if I did, and I apologize for doing so. What I was attempting to do was give an explanation and an answer to the question.

Senator Kelly: I understand, and then when you said 100 per cent, that could have been plus or minus. We understand that.

Ms Marleau: When we say construction, that means all major projects; all projects that are named as such go to the outside contractors. There may be some repair work that is done in-house. I think perhaps that is the differential.

Senator Kelly: I think it was a misunderstanding on both sides.

Senator De Bané: I prefer to hear that there was some misunderstanding, rather than that my colleague Senator Kelly was offended. That is fine, but I do not think anybody wanted to be offensive.

The Chairman: Does anybody else have any further questions?

[Translation]

Senator De Bané: We are doing some work. I sit on the Senate Committee on Internal Economy. We have had at least three meetings over the last year with the representatives of Public Works on the work that is being done here. The members of both Houses have a lot to say about the administration of the two Houses and the services that are provided.

Apart from informing us of the work that is being done, the two internal economy committees are not part of the decision-making process. I would like you to think about the lack of reality in having members participate in this major project when, in the Committee on Internal Economy, we are busy with all the minor administrative details.

However, on this great project that has been going for fifteen years or so, we have briefing meetings but we are not part of the decision-making process. We are not asked for our opinion. I leave these comments for you to think about.

Ms Marleau: Certainly.

[English]

The Chairman: Does anyone else have any further questions? If not, I will say to you, Madam Minister, and to Mr. Quail, that we thank you very much. I will say also to the officials who have been here for the last two hours, thank you for coming.

Senator Nolin: Would it be possible for Mr. Quail to come back at the end of the process, if we need to have some clarification?

Senator Poulin: I do not think he will want to, after today.

The Chairman: I do not see why he would not.

Ms Marleau: Mr. Quail is a most cooperative gentleman. I am certain that if you wish to have his services, he will return.

The Chairman: Tomorrow we meet with the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada and the Canadian Environment Industry Association. Wednesday we have three more groups coming in, so perhaps we could have Mr. Quail back next week, on either Wednesday or Thursday, if that would be all right, Mr. Quail?

Mr. Quail: Yes.

The Chairman: I had forgotten that on Thursday we will be studying the Main Estimates. It would need to be Wednesday.

Mr. Quail: At what time?

The Chairman: We will phone you if we think we need you. How is that? If you could tentatively circle Wednesday evening on your calendar, I think that would be appropriate.

The committee adjourned.

---