Madam Deputy Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall Ottawa

Thursday, February 4, 1993 Sir,

I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. John Sopinka, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 4th day of February, 1993, at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Bronte-Missisquoi):

Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for introducing this motion about the contract awarding system of the federal government or, in other word, its procurement system .

Through the Department of Supply and Services, which awards $8 billion worth of contracts every year, the federal government gives small businesses the opportunity to prove their capabilities and to develop new expertise.

Like the abolition of the manufacturers' sales tax, like the free trade agreement, which was intended to create a larger and freer market for our small and medium-sized businesses, the policies of the Department of Supply and Services are specifically meant to develop a more accessible and more competitive Canadian market.

Like all my colleagues who participated in this debate, I think that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt underestimates what this government is doing for our small businesses.

February 4, 1993

My colleague should not consider solely the details of our policies, he should consider the whole consistent package they represent. I will not repeat what others have already said about the importance of the small-business sector for our economy.

Every single member of this House could elaborate on that theme, because small business is really part of everyday life. What is more important is to underline the consistency of our policies taken as a whole.

Supply and Services Canada has restructured its policies to take into account the need to find new prospects for small businesses with the constraints of a more demanding national and international economic environment. The department helps give our small businesses a chance to excel in this country and elsewhere in the world.

Since 1989, the minister has tried to give better access to federal contracts, to streamline its policies, to modernize its systems, to encourage competition and to give Canadians the opportunity to question the department's system for awarding contracts.

You can see that it was no easy task, but it was carried out, and small businesses know how to take advantage of it. Recently, for example, I had the opportunity to announce, in my riding-

Madam Speaker:

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy to this Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:

Private Members' Business

Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and

other bodies-Chapter 1;

Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another Act

in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters-

Chapter 2.

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):

Madam Speaker, when the debate was interrupted, I was about to say that last week, in my riding, I had the pleasure to announce that a contract for $1,974,987 had been awarded by Revenue Canada Taxation to Imprimerie Montreal-Orford in Magog.

This is a reminder that more than 80 per cent of our suppliers are small businesses that can take advantage of these opportunities.

We have already heard detailed descriptions of the open bidding process which is the main component of the department's reform.

I would, however, like to stress two aspects that are a tremendous asset to the process, and I am referring to the Procurement Review Board and the Canadian content policy which some people seem to overlook.

The integrity and fairness of the procurement process must, in the final analysis, be able to stand up to a detailed review by an independent third party.

In the case of contracts covered by the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, suppliers who feel they have been treated unfairly can bring their case before the Canadian Procurement Review Board. The board has proved to be a quick and inexpensive way to deal with complaints.

If the supplier wins his case the board may award costs and recommend compensation, including payment of a certain amount, or order a repeat of the procurement process on a competitive basis. This is a precedent for Canada.

When we talk about government openness, I think Supply and Services Canada and the Procurement Review Board are a case in point. I would even go so far as to say that it is up to us as members to inform small businesses of these mechanisms.

February 4, 1993

Private Members' Business

Many industrial businesses and associations have said that such a redress mechanism should be made available to Canadian suppliers for more goods and services purchased by the federal government.

Consequently, the government intends to introduce a bill expanding the mandate of the Procurement Review Board. Once passed, this bill will allow the board to review the purchasing of goods, and later the purchasing of services, in order to determine whether access to information was fair and if the evaluation criteria were clearly defined.

I am convinced that hon. members of this House will vote in favour of such a bill.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to our Canadian content policy. We favour a "Buy Canada" approach, as evidenced by our Canadian-content policy.

For a long time now government procurement in Canada and elsewhere has been considered an instrument for industrial and regional development.

Supply and Services Canada is convinced that these goals will be better served by an open and competitive purchasing process. Competition on the domestic market ensures that Canadian suppliers can make it on the world markets. Government procurement will not be used to favour or support non-competitive suppliers.

Canada has played and continues to play a leading role by applying stricter business practices relating to preferential purchasing on the domestic market.

However, subject to our obligations under GATT and the FTA, Supply and Services clearly favours buying in Canada. This is done by restricting the competition to qualified Canadian suppliers when there are enough of them to insure that there is competition.

In order to take advantage of this preference, suppliers must be able to guarantee that the goods they have to offer are entirely made in Canada or, if they are made up of both imported and Canadian components, that the final product complies with the rules of origin.

Generally it means that a significant proportion of the manufacturing or processing must take place here in Canada in order to make a new product out of these various components.

In the case of services, the value of the work done in Canada by staff located in Canada must generally account for at least 80 per cent of the bid value. For big public projects or large purchases, review committees still make a detailed evaluation of the possible regional and industrial benefits.

I hope that my colleagues opposite will be able to appreciate the impact of the measures I just talked about. Personally, I am convinced that such a policy benefits our small businesses.

I will say again that the government is doing everything it possibly can to help our small businesses.

What I wanted to stress is how coherent, dynamic and innovative our economic policies are. Supply and Services Canada illustrates our commitment to meeting the present and future needs of our small businesses.

Consequently, I cannot but oppose the motion before us today as it contradicts the thrust of our policy on contracting.

Soon, the government will introduce a North American free trade agreement in Parliament.

Here is another example of a policy which, together with all the other existing policies, will provide better opportunities for small Canadian businesses, allowing them to reap the benefits of international trade and to grow and create stable employment for Canadians.

Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues on this side of the House, I am happy to take part in today's debate on the motion of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. Let me remind the House that the hon. member's motion, as worded, seeks to develop a healthy small business sector in Canada by targeting more federal contracts to small businesses and establishing a more aggressive Buy Canada program.

like all my colleagues in this House, I favour the development of a stronger small business sector in this country. However, the second part of the motion, the targeting of more contracts to small businesses, raises many questions, as we could gather from the comments made earlier by my colleagues.

I would like to stress one aspect of the debate that has been ignored until now. I mean the divergence of opinions when it comes to choosing the best way to support small businesses. There are two contrary opinions stemming from different points of view about today's economic realities.

February 4, 1993

My colleagues have detailed the policies in question. I will therefore refrain from repeating data and figures already known.

There is no doubt in my mind that the government is making all the necessary efforts to meet the needs of our small businesses in Canada. Everybody knows that this government's priority is economic growth and the creation of secure jobs.

Small businesses are largely responsible for the vigour of our economy and consequently for job creation in general.

Therefore, I remind my colleague opposite that the present restructuring of the Canadian and international economies turns out to be a major test both for the government and for our wealth-producing small-business sector.

This government has managed to put in place structures and programs adapted to the needs of our small businesses.

In an ever-changing environment, we have acquired what if takes to compete internationally and gain access to the most promising markets.

As the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi indicated, the free trade agreement, the abolition of the manufacturers' sales tax, the North American free trade agreement and a host of policies and programs are all designed to help our small-business sector, and their consistency is striking.

Indeed, the government offers our small business sector the chance to become more competitive, to excel on lucrative markets, to develop new expertise and new technology, in short to thrive.

There would be no point in granting contract quotas to our small businesses. It is an outdated principle as our daily experience confirms.

Now more than ever, Canada must preserve and assert its status as a trading nation which can provide high-quality goods and services at competitive prices. To do so, we will have to face tough competitition and prove we are the best. Our small businesses know that and act accordingly. They have to if they want to survive. It is a harsh reality from which there is no turning back. The world will not wait for those who cannot face the music.

Private Members' Business

Protectionism still creates much tension between the major trading countries, but it is undeniably losing ground as more multilateral and bilateral trade agreements are negotiated. As far as I am concerned, I would rather believe that an increase in present and future business opportunities for our small businesses will bring us prosperity.

I want to commend the government for its efforts on behalf of our small businesses. I also want to congratulate in particular Supply and Services Canada and the hon. Minister of Supply and Services for the contract awarding system. In a situation where you are always asked to do more with less, the hon. minister was able to align his priorities on the needs of our businesses. Under his leadership, Canadian government procurement has become a more competitive, fair and accessible one. No doubt our business people will use this as a springboard to reach foreign markets. I do not think it would be going too far to call the hon. Minister of Supply and Services a reformer and innovator.

Right now, I doubt that my colleagues on the other side would agree with me. Their philosophy on change and economic growth points them in a direction leading nowhere: protectionism. As if Canada could isolate itself when it is one of the most powerful and most respected countries in the world. There is no reason to be afraid. We should be confident and rise to the greatness of this country.

Rejection and a wait-and-see attitude should be banished forever. Canada is a young country, it is vigourous and it has a great future provided it remains open to the idea of profound political and economical changes both on the domestic and international levels.

I would like my colleagues opposite to take note of the policies of Supply and Services, including those of the Procurement Review Board and then I would like them to meet the management of small businesses in order to hear their comments concerning those policies. The only way to really establish the value of a policy is to confront it with everyday reality.

Let me say that small businesses all over the country approve the actions of the Minister of Supply and Services and those of the government. They only want a chance to compete, to test the realities of the market and to be treated fairly. They trust themselves and want us to give them a real chance.

February 4, 1993

Adjournment Debate

The motion debated is based on an outdated perception of economic development. It implies that the government can control economic development as it wishes and act as if other countries do not exist. I object to a statement that denies, yes, denies, today's reality. We should not conclude that the present government fully meets all the expectations of our small businesses. No government could attain that objective. But I say that the direction and the specifics of our policies are meeting the challenges of the day, and that the Department of Supply and Services is a concrete example of the common sense that guides this government with regard to awarding of contracts.

As you will have guessed, Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion as presented does not reflect what we should do to help our small businesses.

Therefore, I will vote against the motion of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the motion is dropped to the bottom of the list in the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to a question I put to the Minister of Transport on November 19, 1992.

On November 17 of last year Canadian Pacific Railway announced its intention to abandon all its rail lines east of Sherbrooke, Quebec. This decision means the loss of 358 kilometres of rail line in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and eastern Quebec. It will also mean the loss of more than 300 jobs in a beleaguered region.

On the date in question I asked the minister to use his discretionary power through section 23 of the National Transportation Act to reverse this decision. The minister refused to act, stating he would wait until after representatives from all sides of the debate had made their opinions known.

Section 23 also stipulates that the minister's discretionary power must be exercised before these hearings take place. The move indicates the government is ready to forsake its already tattered commitment to regional development. This is not a local rail line into the maritimes, it is a lifeline to the rest of Canada.

The National Transportation Act is the key to regional and economic development and it is under this act that viable transportation links to all regions of the country are recognized. The minister's refusal to act signals his department's abandonment of Atlantic Canadians and it also shows something that we have already known for a long time, that this government has a dearth of a transportation policy.

Although CP Rail is a private corporation, it is still regulated by the federal government. The federal government has the responsibility to maintain essential links. Under the NTA regulations, once abandonment is applied for, the National Transportation Agency must decide whether or not the operation of a line is of economic benefit to the affected region.

Given the fact that this is the main artery into the maritimes, it is without doubt of vital economic importance. Without it Atlantic Canada must depend on the region's rapidly deteriorating highway system.

I once again call upon the Minister of Transport to take the initiative and reverse CP Rail's decision and maintain the federal government's commitment to regional economic development. The government's reluctance to act is yet another illustration of its lack of a coherent national transportation policy, one that is creating difficulty in my region and across the country.

Given the past investments made in CP Rail, the time has come to invest in the workers of this company and Atlantic Canada. Save the railway and save the jobs. Creating jobs entails saving jobs.

February 4, 1993

Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the motion from the hon. member for Halifax.

Railway companies under federal jurisdiction have a legal right under the National Transportation Act of 1987 to apply to the National Transportation Agency for authority to abandon operations of any of their lines.

The legal and logical extension of that right means that the agency must accept and process all such applications for abandonment of rail line operations submitted in accordance with the rail line abandonment provisions.

It is also true that sections 23 to 26 of the act provide the Governor in Council with the power to issue binding policy directions to the agency. However, the hon. member opposite can appreciate that neither the Governor in Council nor the Minister of Transport can order the agency to ignore its statutory responsibilities. By giving notice of intent to apply for abandonment, CP Limited has initiated the statutory review process.

Those concerned over the effects of that abandonment or any abandonment of CP's lines may have on Atlantic Canada should, and I am sure will, use the provisions of the act to present their views about the continuation of rail services. Every party must also understand that the railway will and should have the right to equally represent its case.

Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):

Mr. Speaker, have you ever been to Cyprus? I was there last November with the Canada-Cyprus parliamentary committee and I had an opportunity to walk the green line. The green line is the name of the United Nations buffer zone that runs through the city of Nicosia, which is a divided city. In fact it is the only divided city in the world. It used to share that honour with Berlin but now the only divided city in the world is Nicosia.

On one side of this green line there are some 35,000 Turkish troops and some 8,000 Thrkish Cypriot national guards. On the other side there are some 10,000 Greek Cypriot national guards and about 900 Greek troops. Right in the middle are the UN peacekeepers including some 575 Canadians.

Adjournment Debate

It is a really weird feeling to walk along that green line in Nicosia because it is as if time stopped in August 1974 when the fighting stopped. That was almost 20 years ago. There are abandoned buildings pock-marked by 50-calibre machine gun bullet holes. There is a car dealer with dozens of new 1974 automobiles. There are abandoned houses that have been vandalized and littered with 1974 newspapers. It is a veiy weird sight indeed.

What is the solution to the problem? I think the solution is a new federal constitution for Cyprus, a return of the property or some compensation in lieu of that for the refugees who have been expelled from northern Cyprus, the settlement of the boundary line reflecting the fact that in 1974 80 per cent of the population were Greek Cypriots and only 18 per cent were Turkish Cypriots, and the withdrawal of all foreign troops.

Is that achievable? The United Nations is about to sit down and try to negotiate such a settlement just 30 days from now. However, without waiting to see what the results of those negotiations will be Canada has decided to withdraw all of its peacekeeping forces this year. Are we just going to walk away from Cyprus after 30 years of trying to help keep the peace there? What else can we possibly do? Constantine Georgiadis, an associate professor of philosophy at McMaster University, wrote to me saying that it is time for Canada to put genuine pressure on Turkey to renounce its 18-year occupation of Cyprus.

I agree with Dr. Georgiadis and tonight I want to hear whether the minister agrees.

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. Last December we did announce that we would withdraw our troops from Cyprus beginning in June 1993, after 18 years of service there during which time thousands of Canadian men and women have made us very proud. They have done so under very difficult circumstances. After 28 years of both sides having an opportunity to come to some sort of an agreement-maybe they are unable or maybe they are unwilling, we cannot answer that right now-they have been unable to negotiate a political solution. It is really time that Canada withdrew from Cyprus.

February 4, 1993

Adjournment Debate

Parties in dispute, whether in Cyprus or elsewhere, must understand that there are limits on the duration of peacekeeping operations for all countries.

The basis for any peacekeeping operation has always been and always will be, within the immediate future, an agreement by the parties involved that they will try to the best of their abilities to work out a settlement.

Our withdrawal does not mean an end to our involvement in diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute nor does it mean an end to the UN peacekeeping missions in Cyprus. This is a decision for the UN to make.

With regard to the negotiations my colleague mentioned that they would resume again this spring. We look forward to attempts by the UN through diplomatic negotiations to try to resolve the effort. However, Canada has been there 28 years and neither side has been willing to come to some agreement. We feel that our commitment to international peace is so strong that perhaps it is time our troops served in other missions, either in Cambodia, Bosnia, Croatia or Somalia.