[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, May 8, 1995
.1102 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. We have a quorum. Since the minister is punctual, I think we should be as well. In fact, somebody was telling me a few minutes ago how nice it is to have a minister appear on time.
There's a little kudo for you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, and thank you for coming. I gather you have the double duty today of speaking to to the estimates as well as to your outlook report.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I believe everything has been tabled. The departmental outlook has been filed with you and I am sure members will have a copy of that as well.
[Translation]
I am pleased to meet with your committee to discuss the main estimates of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, Canada Post and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
[English]
I would like to zero in on the issues of efficiency, partnering, privatization and contracting out.
As a result of the departmental amalgamation, the program review and the budget, the Public Works and Government Services annual operating budget will decline by an estimated $353 million over the course of the next three years. As one of the eleven most affected departments, our work force will decline by over 30%.
The committee, Mr. Chairman, is well aware that the department will make further changes, as other departments and agencies which look to us for common services complete their own plans flowing from program review.
We are attempting within the department to rationalize all operations, to do those things that only the government can do, and to do only those things government does most cost-effectively.
Efficiency means taking advantage of new technology. Thanks to more powerful computers, laser printers and various technologies, we will reduce the number of cheque-production centres in the country to four. The original eighteen centres were reduced to eleven only a couple of years ago, and as a result of program review, we will reduce the sites to four, which will yield annual savings of about $4.8 million after implementation.
Efficiency means cutting costs while improving service wherever possible. I think that's an important element of our deliberations not only here, Mr. Chairman, but indeed in how government conducts itself in terms of the implementation and in terms of improving the service for its clients. That is why the department is moving to make direct deposit the standard form of payment. We can save taxpayers up to $20 million annually and increase security and privacy for the recipients of payments at the same time.
.1105
[Translation]
Efficiency means substantially reducing the government's advertising and polling budget and then bringing costs in well under budget.
[English]
Efficiency means making decisions on what is core and what is not core. For instance, last month the translation bureau became a special operating agency working on an optional and cost-recovery basis. This agency is in transition, and portions of it could be privatized as early as three years from now.
Of course, efficiency means eliminating overlap and duplication. The department has no reason to provide services where there is a very healthy and competitive private sector clearly able to do the job. We are moving to privatize commercial aspects of the Canada Communication Group. We will get out of the operating side of the dredging business, and we have already acted to close down stocked-item supply.
[Translation]
These measures are taken in part in response to a legitimate case made by the private sector that individual businesses can often provide the best value and stimulate economic development.
The Prime Minister has asked me to take a lead in facilitating and promoting the concept of partnering between the federal government and the private sector.
[English]
The creation of the Secretariat for Public-Private Partnering demonstrates our commitment to include partnering as a normal business practice, an option to be considered in any decision on program or service delivery.
I believe we have made a good start. For example, we have had great response to the federal buildings initiative to make 35 buildings more energy-efficient. Private sector energy service companies can make improvements to federal buildings, recovering their costs, interest charges and profits out of energy savings that they must guarantee. We want a solid partnership approach to green procurement and set-aside programs for small businesses.
We have also a proposal call for the provision of office space in Fredericton. This project will demonstrate our desire to seek innovative solutions to our requirements by linking our call for office space to the reuse of two Crown-owned heritage buildings in downtown Fredericton.
We will also be working with the private sector in the redevelopment of properties the government owns on Sparks Street and on the west terrace of Parliament Hill.
We will work in cooperation with industry and union representatives to review the planning, design and construction components of the Architectural and Engineering Services Branch to determine the most appropriate levels of outsourcing, consistent with the objective of what is most cost-effective for the government as a whole and of course for the Canadian taxpayer.
Contracting out is one option for meeting some of the department's responsibilities, but each option must be examined closely for fairness, transparency, access, sustainable competition, responsiveness and overall benefits. I am open to the views of the committee both today and indeed in further deliberations you might have on this particular matter and on how we ought to proceed.
I am also open to your thoughts on the guidance for Canada Mortgage and Housing and Canada Post. I realize you've already had exchanges with the respective presidents of these two corporations in the last few weeks. But I would like to follow up on a few issues that underscore the importance of building partnerships in all government activities.
The $2 billion provided to CMHC for social housing assists over one million Canadians. The $270-million funding contribution shown in the estimates can be accomplished partly as a result of direct financing, and overall in administration and research, but also in large part as a result of amalgamation of housing authorities and a real focus on partnership with the provinces and the private sector.
Canada Mortgage and Housing's Centre for Public-Private Partnerships in Housing helps Canadians obtain adequate housing at a minimal cost. We need to do more to further our national housing agenda, focusing on areas such as harmonized building codes, shared responses to environmental problems and a joint approach to international housing opportunities and barrier-free housing.
.1110
As members know, I have shown a willingness to deal with some of the postal issues, from stamp increases to office closures. I think it important, however, for the committee to realize that Canada Post deserves praise as well as criticism.
For years, Canadians were subjected to seemingly endless postal strikes. This year, Mr. Chairman, as a result of a concerted partnership effort, collective agreements were signed with all four postal bargaining units. For the first time in living memory, an agreement was reached with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers before the expiry of the previous contract. Grievances have declined by 36% in the past year.
The committee has already discussed both the subsidy for Canadian books and magazines and the compensation provided to Canada Post through Indian Affairs and Northern Development. But I want to make two quick points.
By 1997-98, there will be some $58 million made available to the publishing industry, rather than being paid directly to Canada Post. Cabinet is reviewing the subsidy for the mail transportation of perishable food and other essential goods to northern communities.
Mr. Chairman, my statement is considerably shorter than it has been on previous occasions, because I know you, sir, and other members of the committee will probably have some meaningful interventions to make.
At this opportunity I want to acknowledge my Deputy Minister for Public Works and Government Services, Mr. Quail. I'm open for questions or suggestions. If possible, I'll try to give an answer. If not, I'll call upon the deputy, who can answer them much better than I can.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Good morning, Mr. Minister. First of all, we are all aware of the fact that the budgets passed by the Progressive-Conservative Party during the past years contributed to the increase in the deficit. The Liberal government has shown the resolve required to reduce the deficit.
Reducing the deficit, Mr. Minister, can be done, but not at any cost, because it might tarnish the quality of services. Taxpayers have the impression they are paying more and more and getting less and less.
Today, we dealt briefly with social housing. We know that there are lengthy waiting lists for elderly people who want social housing. There are also single-parent families and families with a disabled member who are also waiting for social housing.
As to cuts to the transfers made to the provinces in the last budget, it would seem that the federal government has endorsed the previous conservative government's idea by continuing to cut social housing, which means the Parti Québécois is right when it asks the federal government not to cut transfers to the provinces. The Quebec government can invest its part, but if the federal government doesn't invest its part, the provincial government is penalized.
This also means that the Bloc Québécois is right when it states that the federal government is making cuts at the expense of the most impoverished, to reduce its deficit. The chairman of the CMHC, who recently appeared before this committee, stated on page 6 of his document:
- To support the federal government in its deficit reduction efforts, the CMHC has given up $270
million in savings in the February 27th budget.
Mr. Minister, how will the CMHC and the federal government provide quality services and sufficient materials to those waiting for social housing while at the same time cutting $270 million from the budget?
.1115
[English]
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. Before I come specifically to his question, I do want to say a number of things in relation to his preamble.
I think it is important that as a national government we attempt to address our fiscal situation. The hon. member quite rightly makes reference to those Canadians who need the assistance of others. But if the Government of Canada does not get its fiscal house in order, the opportunity and the leverage it subsequently would have to assist any individuals in need, be it in the field of social housing or whatever particular program, would be limited. It would be restricted even more than it is today.
Our attempts in this department, Public Works and Government Services, $353 million; $200 million-plus under Canada Mortgage and Housing.... Other departments have had to take major reductions.
I want to assure the hon. member that notwithstanding those decisions, the Government of Canada's record in Quebec under the fiscal environment we now have has been rather reasonable, if you will, in terms of what we have to deal with.
There are approximately $2-billion worth of annual commitments to existing social housing stock. That is a sizeable amount of money. If memory serves me correctly - and I'm sure my deputy or others know - out of that, $350 million was spent in the province of Quebec in 1993-94 for approximately 140,000 housing units, and 21% of the units were under Canada Mortgage and Housing's administration.
That's a fairly substantial piece of work by any government, keeping in mind the kinds of financial restrictions we have.
A number of other programs have been put into place over the last year and a half for the province of Quebec, trying to address some of the concerns the hon. member has referred to. I think the $2 billion annual commitment to the existing social housing stock is pretty significant.
Finally, coming back to your point in terms of the reduction of services, we did close almost 20 different offices of Canada Mortgage and Housing across the country. That was not done because we wanted to be mean-spirited or anything of that nature. We had to cut down our overhead and our cost and we think we have suitable back-up facilities for those areas of the country to get the same kinds of quality service. I think a number of the stakeholders recognize the kind of environment we're in, and as a result, I think they've accepted our decisions, however difficult they may have been.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Minister, the committee has also studied Bill C-58, about which I have some concerns. I am wondering if it is appropriate for the federal government to take over architectural and engineering services when those services have always been left in the past to the private sector. In your speech today, you state that the federal government and specifically your department want to demonstrate a spirit of transparency.
In such a spirit of transparency, wouldn't you say it would be desirable to leave architecture and engineering work in the hands of the private sector? The government is increasingly moving towards privatization. Take for instance the translation services in the House. So if we are increasingly moving towards sub-contracting, it is surely because there are savings to be made. Why would the government choose to take over architectural and engineering services? This could harm considerably the private sector.
.1120
[English]
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, I think the bill we are referring to is Bill C-52. I may have said Bill C-58.
I think the bill is self-explanatory. I have met with a number of people who have had concerns about the expenditures for architectural and engineering services. To give you an approximation of the gross value - the deputy minister can forward some of the specifics if need be - the business volume of AES as we know it is roughly a billion dollars. This is a pretty sizeable amount of their work. About $835 million of that goes out to the private sector.
The actual dollars for the work architectural and engineering people do is roughly about $240 million, half of which is done by the private sector. As I have told committee members through my deputy, we and Treasury Board have decided to undertake a review for which I have just completed the terms of reference. I want to have a committee of private sector and public policy makers come together to look at the possibility of providing more of that work for the private sector.
The overriding principle, or the paramount consideration we as public policy makers must contend with, is that of value for the taxpayer's dollar. If it can be shown that these services could be done more cheaply, efficiently, and effectively, we would obviously want to move in that direction. I think the review will be able to provide us with some of those answers. I don't think we should jump to conclusions until we see the review.
We have been criticized, I think quite unfairly, for governments wanting to work together to cut overlap and duplication. That was a section of the bill that concerned some interested people. But surely the Government of Canada in cooperation with the Quebec government or municipal government can look at ways to reduce their costs. After all, there is only one taxpayer in this country; he or she may simply pay it out in different ways.
We think we have gone a long way in accommodating some of the private sector concerns about Bill C-52, and I think the review will be helpful in gathering the kind of information the hon. member needs and I need in terms of effectuating a change in public policy.
I want to assure the hon. member that I will be providing those terms of reference to him and other committee members very shortly.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Epp, eight minutes.
Mr. Epp (Elk Island): I would like to begin my intervention by apologizing to the minister. Someone said to me recently that I was in opposition, giving the Minister of Public Works and Government Services a free ride. I apologize for not giving you more excitement in your life. I'm trying, but you know, we do compete in our party for the spots on Question Period and so on.
One of the items that caught my attention in your report this morning, for which I thank you, is on page 5. I have a question on this. In the middle of the page it says:
- We need to do more to further a National Housing Agenda focussing on areas such as
harmonized building codes, shared responses to environmental problems, a joint approach to
international housing opportunities and barrier-free housing.
- The word ``international'' caught my attention. Are we planning now on extending CMHC
right around the world? Is this what's happening? What is the implication of that word
``international''?
.1125
When we talk about a joint approach to international housing opportunities, those in the private sector, with whom I have met repeatedly on this particular issue, have indicated to us that in the international field they need the help of the Government of Canada. They want to be in different countries, whether they be Third World countries...in terms of trying to sell our technology, our products, our know-how.
We are there trying to assist and to facilitate our private sector so that they can penetrate markets.
I will give you an example. China has a requirement of approximately ten million housing units per year for the next ten years. It would be beneficial if the Canadian private sector in the housing field could get a piece of that action. We want to try to facilitate their entry into that market.
If you look at some of the opportunities as a result of the World Bank and its funding of various infrastructure projects throughout the world, there is an opportunity there for some of our housing developers, people in the private sector, to penetrate those kinds of markets.
One of the repeated calls, however, is, what is the involvement of the Government of Canada? Do they support your particular initiative?
We have basically said that we don't have any money to put on the table, but we have some know-how, we have contacts, we have information, we can facilitate that kind of entry. We want to do that, of course, in cooperation with External Affairs, International Trade and other agencies of the Government of Canada, to penetrate those kinds of markets. That's the attitude.
Mr. Epp: So you're not proposing that we are going to be spending a bunch of money all around the world, financing housing in these different countries?
Mr. Dingwall: No.
Mr. Epp: A general question. We get reports from all of the different departments, yours included, on how you are cutting, cutting, cutting, and it is quite impressive. I have a mathematical question. If everybody is cutting, then how is it that we are still spending $2 billion more in total in the government this year than we did last year?
Mr. Dingwall: Overall government expenditures?
Mr. Epp: Yes.
Mr. Dingwall: I think Minister Martin outlined in his budget that $29 billion over a three-year period will be reduced from government expenditures. I know in my own department - and that is the only one I think I am obligated to talk about today -
Mr. Epp: Yes.
Mr. Dingwall: - over a three-year period, it is $353 million. The deputy may wish to comment. Each year will trigger different expenditure reductions, but we have used a three-year model of $353 million in Public Works and Government Services and in excess of $270 million over three years in terms of Canada Mortgage and Housing. And those are real cuts.
Mr. Epp: In other words, real absolute dollars, no smoke and mirrors?
Mr. Dingwall: The smoke and mirrors, if one wanted to make that kind of claim.... I used to make that when I was in opposition, but this is real. It is real because over 5,200 employees are going to be displaced. That's real. That is a big part of the $353 million.
Mr. Epp: I have a question on a completely different subject now. There is a little project that is under your direction, which is the debt servicing and reduction account. There is a little report here on the number of donations received and so on. There is a move to try to encourage Canadians actually to send in money along the line of charitable donations, in order to reduce the debt, yet the debt keeps growing by leaps and bounds.
When Canadians send a donation to the debt servicing and reduction account and they are told that this money goes directly toward the debt, how can they know that it does?
.1130
Mr. Dingwall: First of all, I have received a fair amount of mail over the last twelve months. People who have written enclosed their cheques for that particular purpose, and I have acknowledged and thanked each of the donors.
Secondly, there is a special account with the Government of Canada we could provide that information to. It's only a matter of tearing the page out of the appropriate book, the estimates, and forwarding that on so that they would know, in terms of the number of donors, the amount of money that has been attributed to that particular account.
Mr. Ranald Quail (Deputy Minister, Department of Public Works and Government Services): I have one point as well. As you know, the Receiver General does publish a book of accounts for the Government of Canada, Public Accounts of Canada, where we take care of where the money gets allocated. That's an annual publication.
Mr. Epp: It seems to me that the way it's advertised and the way it works in practice, it really is just a voluntary tax. I have a lot of questions about this thing, because the people who are being encouraged to send money to it genuinely want to help the debt problem. I would like to suggest that there be a trust account set up, or something like that, where this money is all kept separate and is only available to the government when they balance their budget. As long as they keep on borrowing, all it does in essence is say that instead of borrowing so much from Canadians, we can get an outright cash gift from so many Canadians. So it really is just an indirect tax.
Mr. Dingwall: If I may, Mr. Chairman, my colleague has asked an interesting series of questions, and I want to be very clear and very factual.
This debt servicing and reduction fund was set up in June 1992, a result of a federal statute that was passed in Parliament known as the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act. There are special provisions in there that the money go into the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes of cutting the deficit. It's very clear. I think the deputy has made reference in terms of the statements that are made by the respective officials of the Government of Canada.
On the other hand, a number of individuals who, for whatever reasons...either a voluntary tax, if you want to call it that, or some people put it in their wills. In fact, we had a donation not so long ago where a fairly prominent individual bequeathed a sum of money to the Government of Canada for the purposes of reducing the deficit. It was directed into that particular account, because it comes to me as the Receiver General of Canada.
So the figures are all there. It's very clear, very transparent. We would be happy to provide any of that information to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface): Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your presentation. I have two comments to make and four questions to ask.
[English]
The first comment is with respect to the debt servicing and reduction account. I had indicated at a previous meeting that if we were to have a one-page write-up, members of Parliament might be able to inform Canadians about this. We could all cooperate and participate in alerting Canadians to this particular initiative, and I just bring it up again today.
I want to commend you for the international initiatives you're taking in the area of housing. I think there's tremendous potential there.
My four questions are as follows. I'll start one at a time.
The workers are being cut by 30%. You're our most affected department. Some people will call the cuts impressive. I'm not sure I would use that descriptor. It's a huge task, a daunting one. How do you feel this will resolve itself?
There are going to be early retirements. There are going to be people who choose to go as a result of certain incentives. Will some of those jobs be picked up by the private sector because of some of the tasks that will be abandoned? What's your say on this? I know, as we've had some chats about this in the past, you were concerned about the number of people who were affected. What's going to happen here?
.1135
Mr. Dingwall: I think any time government would reduce its workforce by 5,263 employees over a three-year period, that is a very, very significant cut-back, and I don't think we can minimize or sugar-coat the pill. It's a tough pill in terms of that kind of reduction. It's tough for the individuals who are directly affected and it's tough for their families. There's a significant morale factor as well.
As you know, the government was able to put in place a buy-out package. Many of them will take advantage of that particular program to be able to be provided with meaningful income for subsequent years.
On the other hand, a number of these employees will have opportunities in the private sector and with non-profit organizations that might want to retain their particular services.
Some of them have even gone one step further and said that they want to be creative. They figure they might want to start their own business in some aspect of not necessarily government work, but the private sector.
I think, Mr. Duhamel, you're quite correct that this is a tough measure. We have a program in place to try to deal with it, but again, the overall rationale for the reduction was to meet our deficit target, and we're going to meet them.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you.
You have made a reference in your address to perishable goods, which is a policy that is being reviewed. What's the intent? My interest stems from the fact that I have a constituent who is involved with the sending of perishable goods. Are you free to give us some sense of why that's being done right now?
Mr. Dingwall: Canada Post operates in terms of getting goods and services to our northern peoples. If you're in the north, a quart of milk is a hell of a lot more expensive than it is in downtown Ottawa. The necessities, if you will, of life are substantially higher than they are elsewhere.
In order to get these goods and services to the people who are going to need them, Canada Post, in cooperation with other government departments, has been providing a subsidy in order to transfer those goods, because we've deemed them to be necessary for the people who are working in our northern communities.
Cabinet reviews this on an annual basis, along with Canada Post and the affected agencies, whether it be Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada or our own Department of Public Works and Government Services, and we will continue that review.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you. As you well know, funding for Harbourfront has been a big issue recently. Did you reverse your original decision to reduce Harbourfront's funding for this year and eliminate funding for it completely next year? I'm not sure I have all the facts straight on that. Would you care to comment, please?
Mr. Dingwall: I would be delighted to comment on Harbourfront; I wish I had one of them in my riding.
The reality is that we had been dealing with senior members of the board for a considerable period of time. We indicated that the amount of money we could provide in future years would be substantially less. Cabinet made a decision. I communicated that decision to them.
Thereafter, I think the message was registered. They were able to come back to the table and we had some meaningful discussions in terms of addressing our concerns about reducing their A-base budget, while at the same time trying to maintain some activities at Harbourfront.
It generates about $117 million to $121 million in cultural activities in terms of the tourism trade, which is quite significant, regardless of where you're at. We hope to be in a position fairly soon to appoint a facilitator to work with the private sector, other levels of government and different stakeholders in order to ensure that they'll have some sort of longevity in terms of their operation.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you.
Mr. Minister, I understand you're currently expanding the use of direct deposit. I would like to understand just a bit better how savings will be realized and whether or not you might expect resistance from the general public. I think it was my colleague, Mr. Epp, who made a suggestion to the deputy minister about providing a $10 incentive to Canadians to sign up. Would you care to comment on that as well, please?
.1140
Mr. Dingwall: I think direct deposit is the way we have to go. If you go out and cash a cheque at a bank, it costs the Receiver General 10¢. That's what we have to pay. If we go to the direct deposit, it's 1¢. So a considerable savings can accumulate for the Government of Canada just because of that mere fact.
Some people have said that there might be some privacy concerns and what have you. In my examination of the subject matter, however, we haven't found that to be a substantive concern. In point of fact, when you mail in a cheque it has your address on it, and your area code in most instances; and there are a whole lot of things can be obtained in terms of the postal code. But direct deposit provides quick, efficient service for a lot of individuals. I have to tell you that over the last ten to twelve months, we have not had any significant opposition from the general public, which is the recipient of government money in terms of the direct deposit, if you will.
There is a problem; that is, we're not moving quickly enough to direct deposit. I would like to see more individuals who deal with the government operate that way.
Mr. Duhamel: Are you telling me you'll take Mr. Epp's suggestion, then?
Mr. Dingwall: What was that again?
Mr. Duhamel: He had suggested $10 for every person who signs up.
Mr. Dingwall: Well, if we could charge that back to the Reform Party as a contribution to their goodness, we might want to consider it.
I don't know if we could pay someone $10 in order for them to change. It's certainly an incentive, but in this period of fiscal restraint I don't know if we would be inclined to go that route.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you.
The Chairman: It might be a little risky, Mr. Minister, because we hear the Reform Party is in a deficit situation itself.
Mr. Epp: Not true. In fact, the Reform Party is the only party that has a positive balance, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: That isn't what we hear -
Mr. Epp: You're not hearing correctly, then.
The Chairman: - but we'll leave that for another day, Mr. Epp.
Mr. Epp: You brought it up. Let's keep it straight. The Liberals have a $2 million debt. We have - and I forget exactly how much - about $200,000 or $300,000 in the bank.
The Chairman: Easy, now. I didn't realize you could get so exercised over such a trivial matter.
Mr. Epp: I will when you don't tell the truth.
The Chairman: At any rate, Mr. Minister, you talked about the notion of expanding the so-called public-private partnerships. You might want to give us a bit more detail on what you're involved with in that regard.
While you're telling us about that, you might want to address the following. There is a belief held by some, and perhaps I'm included in that group, that when government joins the private sector in particular enterprises, very often it's the private sector that comes out the better for the deal. Private business people tend to be very tough; hard-nosed, as it were. If we're going to get into these partnerships more often, and maybe they're a good idea, how can we, particularly the taxpayers, be assured that in these joint enterprises there really is an equilibrium, that there is really an equal partnership, and that the taxpayer is as well served as the private investor?
Mr. Dingwall: There are two points. I guess we should be clear with one another that private-public partnering is not a new concept for Canada. It's been around for a long, long time, and we've seen public-private partnering in a variety of different ways.
In terms of the public-private partnering secretariat we have within our own department, Mr. Chairman, I think the essential element is that the private sector has to share the risk, or at least a good part of the risk. I think you can probably refer to proposals in the past where there may have been a partnership, but where government has in actual fact assumed all of the risk. I think we have to move towards the sharing of the risk with the private sector in a variety of different initiatives.
.1145
The third point I would share with you is that we are moving more in this direction because the government does not have the financial capital to do some of the kinds of projects we would want to do. The second point on that issue is that the private sector would have access to the capital as well as a better means of delivering the end product, as opposed to going out and hiring more public servants.
I think if you looked over the last ten years - probably twelve years - you would have seen that the government's level of public servants goes up and comes down, it goes up and it comes down. But if you go through the auspices of the public-private partnering, I think you'd have much more equilibrium, where you would not have to retain the services of public servants. That work could be performed quite adequately, responsibly, and efficiently by the private sector.
We're looking at a number of initiatives. I mentioned the federal business initiative. We announced an initiative here as it relates to Parliament Hill and the City of Ottawa; we're trying to work co-operatively with them as well as with the private sector in having different activities taking place here on the parliamentary precinct. We're looking at a whole host of things. I think we have about 25 or 26 projects in our own department, and of course other agencies of the Government of Canada are looking to the private sector as well on a number of public-private partnering initiatives.
The Chairman: Are those contracts always open to full public scrutiny?
Mr. Dingwall: Yes, they are. I, as the minister, have had some difficulty with some of the private sector firms, because we have told them not to go out and retain a big firm and submit to us an unsolicited proposal. What we want from the private sector is their ideas on how we can be creative and where they believe there can be some opportunities. But I think it would be unfair to the private sector to go out and invest $200,000 on a particular initiative that may not see the light of day for a variety of good public policy reasons. They have accepted that disclaimer by me in terms of dealing with different initiatives.
We are actively pursuing the private sector on ways in which we can be more creative with them, but at the same time we don't want them to spend large sums of money. That ensures that the process has integrity, that it's open, fair, and generic across the board, as opposed to giving one company a leg up on another company. Maybe at the end of the day the file may be switched around for whatever reasons: who knows? So we don't want to get into that.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Asselin.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: You should come and visit us more often, Mr. Minister, because there is a great number of subjects we would like to discuss with you, including contracting-out, and privatization. At present, airports are going to be privatized as well as some infrastructure facilities, more particularly some wharfs that are the property of Public Works. We touched upon social housing and that issue could be examined in further detail.
In addition, what will happen to some of those buildings as a consequence of employee cutbacks, more particularly at Canada Post? We also discussed very briefly Bill C-52, although I doubt that it will be brought back to us. There is a lot of controversy regarding this bill, including within the Liberal Party.
I have a few questions regarding Bill C-82, recently tabled in the House, whereby the minister intends to have the $2 bill replaced by $2 coins. According to some, there is some doubt as to the savings this would bring. Can the minister tell us what would be the savings associated with that change and what would be the cost for business? According to the Canadian Bankers Association, there is at present a surplus of $1 coins amounting to between $30 million and $50 million.
Further, did the government consider simply eliminating the $2 bill so that demand for the $1 coin would increase? A recent survey by the Royal Canadian Mint indicates that the striking of a $5 coin is being considered and that the one penny coin would be eliminated. Would it not be preferable to proceed with all these changes at once, as it would reduce transition costs?
.1150
[English]
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, the question with regard to Bill C-82 and the introduction of the $2 coin was a result of the budget our colleague, Minister Martin, tabled a couple of months ago. In my discussions with a variety of different stakeholders, the $2 denomination is still thought to be important. I don't think there would be any consensus for us to move away and get rid of that denomination.
We moved in this direction for a number of reasons. I don't want to take too much time, but I think it's important for members to understand that when we talk about program review and ministers having to look at a variety of their different operations, this is one example. We looked at the Royal Canadian Mint and wondered how we could have this particular operation generate more income for the purposes of reducing our deficit, which we believe to be important.
I'm happy to say that as a result of the $2 coin we hope to have, there will be a $250-million savings over the next 20 years. Within the first 18 months of the issuing of the coin, there will somewhat of an injection, if you will, of $449 million to the federal government. This is a result of the difference between the stated value of the coin and the make-up of the coin. Seigniorage, they call it: that's the difference between the cost of manufacturing the coin and its face value. That's quite a significant piece of work.
With regard to the $5 coin, I don't want to mislead the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. We are looking at that, but we are not in a position at this point in time to proceed. That will be something for the future. I wouldn't want to have Canadians focused on that issue, as opposed to the bigger one, which is the $2 coin.
I don't know if that answers all of the questions in this preamble.
The Chairman: Just on that point, Mr. Minister, when might we see the new $2 coin?
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, when the bill is passed, we hope next year to be able to introduce that coin.
I know you'll be disappointed, Mr. Chairman, to learn that your picture will not be on the $2 coin. We had a straw vote among the committee members and they determined that you would not be on the coin.
The Chairman: I'm really flabbergasted. I wasn't even consulted on that. I know the Queen is going to be on the obverse; it was the reverse I was really hoping for.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): Minister, I would just like to draw your attention to page 7 of the outlook document. I noticed this under the real-property program: municipal grants. I assume those are grants in lieu of taxes that we're talking about.
Looking at the years 1995-96 to 1997-98, they're essentially frozen. I'm curious as to whether that's an indication that municipalities should expect that their grants in lieu of taxes will be frozen over the next few years.
Mr. Dingwall: I think you're probably aware that we had made a decision as a government that the sum of money that had been made available for municipalities in terms of grants in lieu of taxation would be frozen in terms of its overall amount.
You will find that it's sort of like an evolutionary process. Some properties will decrease; others will increase. Within that allotted sum we have fixed, we believe we can look after any increases that may take place, because there inevitably will be decreases in other parts of the country.
The Canadian government believes very clearly we have to pay our fair share of taxes to the municipalities. But let us be very clear that it is a grant that is paid to the municipalities by the Government of Canada. There is nothing in law. However, the Government of Canada has seen fit, over the years, previous governments included, that we have to pay our fair share of taxes to those municipalities that provide service to us.
From time to time - this may be part of your second question, if I'm anticipating it correctly - there are difficulties in terms of the assessments that are given on different properties. I think we've been able to put in place a process that addresses most of those concerns.
.1155
Mr. Murray: I do have some concerns there, but they're probably too detailed to pursue in this forum. On that same page, I notice most of the figures decline or stay the same, but if you move down to corporate management, executive and corporate services bumps up from $33.8 million to almost $61 million in 1997-98. Again, I'm curious as to why we'd see a jump in that item.
Mr. Dingwall: Basically, the corporate services will keep the core amount, if you will, of the Government of Canada in terms of its dealings with its activities. Public Works and Government Services is going through a whole host of re-examining the ways in which we've done business in the past and whether or not the particular function we're providing is a core service. I think the buzz word public servants would want to use, with due respect, is mandatory versus optional service of the Government of Canada. Within corporate services and corporate management for all of the departments that come under Public Works and Government Services, you will note an increase, but that's to examine and maintain a small core. When you mean a small core and a whole lot of different divisions, it adds up fairly significantly.
Mr. Murray: On the same page, I also notice with the translation bureau, which has moved to a special operating agency - which I assume means the government can look elsewhere if it wants to purchase those services - that the figure has increased slightly. It's not a big increase; it's from $33.7 million to $34 million.
Mr. Quail: Mr. Chairman, just to explain, there are two points on translation services. If you actually go back and look in another spot, you'll find that the total dollars allocated with translation services has gone down dramatically, because the money associated with translation has been put into the departments, and the departments now buy their services from translation. The money that's in our budget now for translation services is just for support to the House, support to the committees, interpretation services for special conferences, things of that nature. So we have changed it dramatically, and that portion deals just with that small slice.
Mr. Murray: I was interested in your private-public partnership. Would it be possible to imagine smaller firms getting involved with the government and having the resources of the federal government there to back them up financially when they're borrowing money, say, to work on a....? It's a question of access to capital, which we spend a lot of time as politicians worrying about for small businesses. Is that the sort of thing we could see perhaps, a small business that otherwise couldn't get into a certain area but because it's partnering with the federal government has access to financing it wouldn't otherwise be able to attract?
Mr. Dingwall: One of the things I didn't touch on in any detail was the mandate we have given to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which assists and facilitates many small and medium-sized businesses across the country on the international side in selling their products. A lot of countries, before they will do business with Canada, whether it be on a big scale or a small scale, want to have the affirmation, if you will, of the Canadian government that company A is what it says it is, its directors are the same, it has the kind of economic wherewithal to finance the particular transaction. We provide an intermediary role with that small and medium-sized business for the purposes of international business.
Domestically, in terms of procurement - and I think that's the heart of your matter in terms of small and medium-sized business - there is an interdepartmental committee of the Government of Canada that examines all of the expenditures in excess of $2 million. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of small businesses.... Well, there are a lot of small businesses that can take advantage of that kind of a process, but what happens when they're under $2 million, which I think would affect a lot more?
We're presently examining ways in which we can facilitate more private sector firms, if you will, into the procurement process. The big thing we have to remember, though - and I think it's very important for the purpose of regional development and for the purposes of small and medium-sized business - is that the best lever they have is the open bidding system. Everything goes on the open bidding system within our department. They can readily recognize a particular opportunity so that they can pursue it. In years gone by, we've all heard of the preferred list; the not-preferred list; the lobbyists; people having to be retained for the purposes of fast-tracking this or fast-tracking that.
.1200
The open bidding system allows all the small businesses - whether they be here in the national capital region or in parts of northern Ontario - access to that kind of information so that they can make the kind of alliances, be they Ottawa firms or other firms, in order to get a piece of the action as it relates to procurement.
The Chairman: Mr. Epp, the minister has introduced the new word ``seigniorage''. I'm sure you'll want to add that to the Reform lexicon.
Mr. Epp: I know what it is, Mr. Chairman.
I'd also like to apologize for my little outburst. I do react when people pass off as truth something that is patently false. Some reporter somewhere reported that the Reform Party's income was down. He reported that as a deficit. Other people picked it up and said we were running a deficit. That's not true, and that's why I objected so strongly. My apologies.
Mr. Minister, in your outlook plan on page 5, about reductions in government office space, you say that the government has committed itself to reducing total federal government office accommodation by 10% over five years. Where did that number, 10%, come from? Is this because we have 10% office space currently vacant? Is it because it's anticipated to be vacant, or is it just an arbitrary goal?
Mr. Dingwall: No, it's a result of the program review, a decision of the budget, and a realistic target that we can achieve. There's no sense me coming in and telling you we're going to get rid of this office space and that office space when we know we have long-term leases that are very costly to the government, and to break them would be even more costly. So this is a real figure.
Mr. Epp: That was my next question. I've become particularly aware in the last several months of the fact that the government frequently enters into long-term lease agreements. What proportion of this 10% do you anticipate are lease agreements that are about ready to expire, and are they at all the right places in the government service?
Mr. Dingwall: That's a very thoughtful question, and I don't want to minimize its importance. The fact of the matter is, where we can terminate a lease that we believe to be surplus to our needs, we would want to do that quickly and efficiently, presuming value for the taxpayers' dollar, of course. However, if we have an existing lease with a particular company and they're providing the particular service for the Government of Canada and to terminate that lease would be more costly to the taxpayers, I think we have to follow with our overall principle and paramount concern, which is value for the Canadian taxpayer.
It's pretty easy to come in and say we're going to cancel this and cancel that, but we're not going to do that.
Mr. Epp: It has to be done correctly.
Mr. Dingwall: Yes.
Mr. Epp: I became aware this weekend, in talking to an official who is very low in the organization, that your lease agreements also quite frequently - at least in his experience in the province of Alberta - include buy-out clauses. For instance, after 25 years of the lease agreement the property becomes yours on the payment of a further dollar. When you take that into account, if a lease is five years from expiring, you'd be very unwise to cancel it and lose the right to own the property five years hence.
What activities does your department undertake, then, to make use of space that is empty but where it would be very uneconomical to dump the lease and dump the property?
Mr. Dingwall: We go through a fairly rigorous examination before we would terminate a lease.
Second, upon the termination, as part of that process, we would be looking to co-location, for instance. We are examining those prospects and have signed some agreements with provincial governments and others in different parts of the country. We would want to make sure the needs of the Government of Canada and the various departments in that particular region are considered. If they have a particular need, they would want to take advantage of it.
Finally, anybody we can get to occupy that particular facility...having in mind, of course, whatever agreement we had consummated as a result of the lease.
.1205
Mr. Epp: My next question is I think a very important one. I had the opportunity to visit with a small businessman who owns property adjacent to empty federal government property. He said they have an endless hassle with it because the weeds always grow and the federal government doesn't look after it. It's worth several million dollars, he figured, because of its location, and yet there seems to be no foreseeable use for it, as far as he can tell, and yet the federal government owns the property.
He made a suggestion to me. He was just an ordinary small businessman, a taxpayer. He said: why doesn't the Government of Canada sell at best possible price all of this redundant property and apply that to the debt? That would make an effort. He guessed there must be several billion dollars worth of property around the country.
Is there an inventory, and is it available to people such as myself, of all Canadian government property that is currently unused and unneeded? Is there such an inventory?
Mr. Dingwall: First, on the substance of your intervention, I concur. We are doing that. We will dispose of property to the private sector or to others at fair market value. The question becomes, what's fair market value? The interpretation you put on it on May 8, 1995, might be quite different from what you might put on it on September 25, 1995. There's a certain subjectivity, if you will, in terms of the fair market value.
However, in terms of the disposal of assets, not only do we have assets that I think we have to dispose of, we have non-performing assets to dispose of as well. You're probably referring to a particular building in the province of Alberta that is really an asset of the Government of Canada. We might be able to dispose of that and generate some income for the Crown, as well as some economic activity in that area of the country, but there are a lot of non-performing assets, that is, property that nobody really wants. It has a very small market value and because of its remoteness in many instances or the state of the building itself, the private sector is not overly interested in terms of picking up those kinds of property.
In terms of an accounting of the various assets, I'd like to take a look at that and see if I can get back to you with some information. I have so many hats, from Canada Post to Canada Mortgage and Housing, so let me take a look at it.
The Chairman: Mr. Epp was saying you haven't been cutting your grass, Mr. Dingwall. Tell me it's not so.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): I have just a couple of quick questions.
I'm very interested in your comments about the open bidding process. The access to information commissioner, in his annual report of 1994, recommended that details of bids be released comprehensively. I don't know much about this, but he was referring to the fact that the details of bids of companies that were not successful were not available for public examination, and even for those that won bids, only partial details were available.
Is this an area you're prepared to look at? I don't know exactly what the access commissioner is driving at here. Is there a lack of openness or transparency in this area?
Mr. Dingwall: I wouldn't say there's a lack of openness and transparency. I think it's the complete opposite. There is openness and transparency. In fact, since we've come to office we've been able to make available to members of Parliament for a small fee, if they wish, access to the open bidding system in terms of who has bid for the various contracts and who has been successful and who hasn't.
I have to tell you - and I hope the committee will accept my intervention as being a very serious one - I do 350,000 contracts a year. At any given point in time, if there are two bidders per contract, that's 700,000 people. There are 350,000 people automatically pissed off because they didn't win.
Translation didn't get that, did they?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
.1210
Mr. Dingwall: Really, that's what happens, and quite naturally you would have accusations that this was done incorrectly or that was done incorrectly. So what we have to do, as a government agency, in terms of being transparent, open and fair, is to go back and check on each and every one of those.
I would be open to the suggestion you have made, but I think we have to colour it in such a way that we know exactly what we're doing.
A number of people will complain after a contract is awarded, particularly if they were not successful, and sometimes they will lobby members of Parliament, they will lobby other ministers, they will lobby all sorts of individuals, but at the end of the day we've made a decision to award a particular contract based on our primary concern, which I think everybody agrees with, which is the value of the Canadian taxpayer dollar.
Mr. Bryden: I take it, then, you would have great sympathy for Mr. Grace's recommendation that the details of bids be open to public scrutiny, so if someone complains I can say, here's the details of the various bids and you can examine them yourself.
Mr. Dingwall: I think we have to be prudent in terms of going down that road. The concept is great in theory and it's a wonderful intellectual argument to pursue, but the issues of confidentiality, business probity.... For example, if Mr. Epp is making a submission and I am making a submission, I don't think he should have any access to the private and confidential ways in which I have put my bid together in terms of where I have made savings and what I've done to get to that conclusion.
So I have some concerns with it, yes.
Mr. Bryden: Just to finish the point, if the openness were comparable to the private sector, would you find that acceptable?
Mr. Dingwall: Do you think the private sector is open?
Mr. Bryden: I'm just putting it to you. Where there are competing bids, the details should be at least equivalent to what's required in the private sector or available in the private sector.
Mr. Dingwall: I think we have to be reasonable. I think we have to be prudent and I think that kind of information in a general way can be provided. But in terms of every detail, how everybody has put their bid together, I don't think the business community would find that very fair.
Let me give you an example. Someone goes out and spends $100,000 on a bid; someone else goes out and spends $5,000 on a bid. Do you want to take that information this person has gathered for the purposes of his bid and give it all out on the open bidding service, because they won the contract?
I know what I'd be doing if I were a business person. I would be watching these like a hawk to gather up as much information as possible, and it would be at the cost of someone else.
Mr. Bryden: I submit, Mr. Minister, that's a little like the patent office. You submit your ideas to the patent office for a certain amount of protection. In exchange for that, all your competitors can see what you're thinking. But it is another area that seems to be working okay.
Another question, if I may. I'm interested in the kind of guidelines you might have in place for civil servants in assessing contracting out and the bidding process. I'm sure you do have guidelines. Is this something you can make available to us, the method by which the bids are assessed? I would like to examine that in some detail, if I could.
Mr. Dingwall: I'd be happy if you would, with the other committee members. I'm going to ask my deputy. It's a big manual they have, and he reads it every night. He's apprised of all the details.
Mr. Quail: Mr. Chairman, as the minister has pointed out, we do have procurement manuals. The question on evaluation of contracts, I'd have to say, would vary depending on the contract. There would be differing kinds of evaluations depending on whether they could be...whatever is in the specifications. If you're going out for space it would be different from going out for computers. It's that type of thing.
But the manuals are there. I'd be happy to provide a briefing or provide background on it.
Mr. Bryden: One final question,
The Chairman: We're out of time, Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden: Okay, that's fine.
The Chairman: In fact, we're 90 seconds over, but I should remind you that you're a new member of the committee. We've been delving into contracting out -
Mr. Bryden: Yes, I've read the background of it.
The Chairman: - and we've heard from these people. We hope to hear from them again before we complete our examination.
.1215
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Mr. Minister, you say at page 3 of your document that
- We will withdraw from the operational aspects of dredging. You said that the government
would not go into dredging, that it will subcontract dredging work, that it won't do any more
dredging. I would like to have more explanation about that.
Mr. Dingwall: The Government of Canada in years past used to have these big dredging operations, big capital assets that went out and actually did the dredging, whether it was in western Canada or parts of Quebec or the Atlantic.
This equipment is pretty old and not very functional, and what we've determined in many of those instances is that we will not do it as an in-house service. What we will do is go out to the private sector and have them bid on various projects that have to be done.
So the service will be done but it will be done by the private sector and the government will pay for it accordingly.
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin: Very well.
[English]
Mr. Bélair (Cochrane - Superior): Mr. Chairman, I have three short questions.
The Canada Communication Group is a fairly well-organized and successful group. Now there are plans for privatization. Of course, at the same time some jobs are going to go with it. Is there some kind of mechanism within the department whereby the impact could be softened by giving the preference to those former employees who may be hired by whoever is going to pick it up?
Mr. Dingwall: In regard to the Canada Communication Group, you will recall - I think it was the third month into our mandate - we had received a lot of substantive complaints about the impartiality of what was taking place, and the way in which business was being done. A number of allegations were made publicly as well as privately to me, so we had an auditor come in and take a look at the particular operation. He made recommendations, and one of the recommendations, which I've accepted, was to privatize the Canada Communication Group.
We are now in the process of setting up the committee that will facilitate the privatization of the Canada Communication Group, which will be comprised of private sector representatives and senior public servants.
That's something we could examine in terms of your suggestion, but I want to do this as quickly as possible. I'm sure if good ideas are out there, the committee wouldn't mind taking a look at it. But we're proceeding very boldly with the privatization.
Mr. Bélair: Do you have anything else to add on that?
Mr. Dingwall: No.
Mr. Bélair: My second question would deal, Mr. Chairman, with the $58 million that will be transferred to the publishing industry instead of being paid directly to Canada Post.
Could you first give us a bit of background, first, and secondly, how will it benefit the publishing industry?
Mr. Dingwall: First of all, we should be very clear here. This is a program for which in actual fact the question should go to the Minister of Heritage.
Just very briefly, in regard to Canada Post, this is a policy that is set by Heritage Canada, not Canada Post. We were the recipient of that money. Then we were criticized by the competitors of Canada Post for accepting an undue subsidy, if you will, as it relates to that particular aspect of their operations.
Heritage Canada and cabinet review this on a regular basis. It will now be paid to the publishers themselves, directly through Heritage Canada, which has been their policy decision. We'll no long be in receipt of that moneys on our books from Canadian Heritage, and the sum of money is being reduced.
.1220
Mr. Bélair: My third and final question, Mr. Chairman, has to do with pornographic material that is delivered by Canada Post. Of course, here again we and Canada Post have to tread a very fine line as to where and when they start and stop inspecting in order to respect the privacy of parcels and letters.
Is there any new development on this? Is there a process or method by which you can evaluate?
Mr. Dingwall: This is one of the issues that has certainly puzzled me as the minister, because we're dealing with a substantive law that is pretty clear in terms of what Canada Post can and can't do.
The other social issue is that you have a lot of people who are calling you and saying, ``Look, I have this stuff in the mail. I haven't asked for it. How did they get my name? Why am I receiving this material? It's pornographic.'' I've had elderly persons call my office in a rage. They tell me that it is not correct and Canada Post should not be doing it.
I have asked the lawyers to come back to me with some suggestions on how we can curb that activity. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the provisions of the federal statute talking about confidentiality and privacy in terms of what is circulated.
Canada Post has no legal venue or opportunity at this point in time to curb that kind of activity. I've asked the lawyers to see if they could put a plan in motion, along with others, to see if we can curb that kind of activity.
Mr. Bélair: Minister, if, hypothetically, Canada Post can possibly identify the source, can it relay this information to the RCMP, who in turn would investigate?
Mr. Dingwall: I think that's one of the possible opportunities I've asked the lawyers to look at, how you would actually do that. I think it's something we should pursue, and pursue fairly vigorously. When I get the report from my solicitors I'd be happy to share the results with the committee members. I think it is of some interest.
Mr. Bélair: Hate literature could be included in that, too.
Mr. Dingwall: Exactly.
The Chairman: Mr. Epp, five minutes.
Mr. Epp: I now embark on one we want to tread very carefully on, because I want to make sure this is not misunderstood.
I am, and I believe you are too, a person who believes there should be essentially equal opportunities for all Canadians, individuals as well as businesses. On page six of the document we've been studying here, about strategic procurement initiative there's the little subheading ``set-aside programs''.
It says there that the department is considering support to small and aboriginal businesses through set-aside programs. I really and seriously do question the wisdom of this. Is it really good to tax individuals and businesses and use some of that tax money to subsidize those who could be their very competitors - that based on, among other things, the race of a person?
I know this is a very sensitive issue. I am, as are many Canadians, concerned that we bring the aboriginals of our country into the mainstream so that they can function.... I would love them to have true self-government, as all the rest of us have, in terms of being independent from government intrusion in their lives.
The way I read this and the accompanying document, it seems to indicate that when applying for or bidding on a job, there will be now a line that says, ``What race are you?''. If you're in one of the positive races, then you will have preferential treatment and actually even additional money set aside here. The way I understand it, it becomes a budgetary item.
I would like you to comment on how you defend that to Canadian citizens. I also want to know, how much is this going to cost? How is it going to be administered? How are you going to keep fairness in a situation where you interject criteria like that into the bidding process?
Mr. Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, I accept Mr. Epp's intervention, and I thank him for the cautionary language he used around this issue. I certainly respect him for that.
.1225
The strategic procurement initiative and the set-aside program is something that small and medium-sized business across this country have been asking for over a number of years - aboriginal groups as well.
In fact, our neighbours to the south, the United States, who are great free traders, wonderful free traders, unbelievably wonderful free traders except when it comes to the Americans and their government, have a small business set-aside program.
This is on page six of the outlook document. It is not part of our policy today. It is something we are presently examining. We are having exhaustive communications and consultations with a variety of different groups across the country on the very substance of the nature of the program, but I think I would be less than candid with you if I did not tell you that many groups over the years have asked specifically for what is labelled here. No decisions have been reached.
I said some time ago that we would do a comprehensive consultation, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for example, or whole host of groups. We will want to complete that. That is not completed as of yet. When it's done, then we'll be in a position to add further light to it.
With regard to aboriginals in particular, we believe it's important if we want to facilitate their activities in the marketplace, if we want to have them become full partners, if you will, that governments have to try to help. We think this particular program might be of some benefit to them.
We are going to look at the numbers, such as you have raised, and complete our consultations. Thereafter, we will be able to make a definitive decision. I thank you for your representations on that.
Mr. Epp: Where will that decision be made? Will it be made at the ministerial level?
Mr. Dingwall: It will be made by the cabinet.
Mr. Epp: By the cabinet. So it won't be discussed in Parliament?
Mr. Dingwall: It's being discussed in Parliament now. This is Parliament.
Mr. Epp: I have fair reason to believe that in the United States as well those programs do not enjoy broad public support. In fact, there they have citizen's initiative. There are many areas there where the citizens are introducing ballots asking that an end be put to these discriminatory programs.
I have also observed, because I live in an area where we do have businesses of all different kinds, including some that are run by aboriginals, that there actually is an increase in resentment rather than an increased acceptance of the aboriginal people when they have advantages that are given to them by legislation.
It's a very sensitive area, because as soon as I say this I know some reporter can now twist that and say, ``Ken Epp and the Reform Party are racists''.
Actually, if you stop to think about it, I think what I'm saying is just the opposite. Racism is where you give a benefit or a perceived dis-benefit to someone based on their race. I'm saying that we should have a program that's based on ability to fulfil a project, to complete a contract, and so on. It should take the race element out of it.
Really, what I'm saying here is just the opposite of racism, that in fact this type of a policy is racist.
I would like to encourage you, when you're considering these decisions, to think very hard about both. How can we really help these people, and is this the best way of doing it? I think it tends to breed resentment against them more than helping them.
The Chairman: We're out of time, but you can answer if you want to, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Dingwall: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman.
That's one interpretation you can put on it. I don't like to debate different issues, but one could take a very different view of the types of sentiments you've expressed as it relates to our aboriginal community. I'm going to accept you at your word, and I'm not going to get into that debate.
.1230
But let's be pretty clear here. This is not a policy yet. Consultations are ongoing. If one has a view that we want to make certain that our aboriginal people at every opportunity are given a fair shake in terms of what is transpiring in our society, then sometimes we have to take different kinds of action that we would not normally take. If you agree with the objective, perhaps there's a way in which we can facilitate achieving that particular objective.
That's the essence of our consultations that are taking place now with aboriginal groups, as well as small and medium-sized businesses, across the country. I don't think everyone in society can be judged totally and completely, as you have said in your remarks, because at the end of the day we may very well not achieve the objectives we all want to achieve for our aboriginal people and others.
The Chairman: I just want to mention that there are a number of small airlines headquartered in my riding. They serve areas of northern Manitoba, where there are major aboriginal communities. The owners and operators of these small airlines are concerned about how this issue may be resolved. Maybe I should add that naturally some of these small airlines, even though they are small, involve millions of dollars in investments, and there are a lot of jobs at stake.
Do you think there is middle ground, a common ground? Can this be resolved in a rather amicable fashion and in a way that can help aboriginals and yet at the same time protect the interests of airlines that have been in the business for a good long time?
Mr. Dingwall: I think it can, but there are a few preconditions: first, you have to be reasonable; second, you have to be fiscally prudent; and third, there has to be goodwill. If you don't have those three preconditions, it's going to very difficult to effectuate a policy change in that regard.
I'm sure different specialized groups would not want to have the favour of the Government of Canada if in fact it was going to cost an exorbitant amount of money and was at the end of the day found not to be feasible. I don't think that would be helping any of our groups, nor any of our specialized interest groups, at all.
If I'm sure there's some reasonableness, if there's a willingness, and it is fiscally prudent, I think there is a possibility we can arrive at an accommodation.
The Chairman: Thank you for coming. It's always nice to have you here.
Mr. Dingwall: It's always good to be here. Invite me back again.
The Chairman: We will, you can be sure. Thank you for your cooperation.
Mr. Dingwall: Thank you.
The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.