She said: Mr. Speaker, I thank the opposition parties for agreeing to proceed with Bill C-7 at exactly the point it had reached in the previous session of Parliament.
[Translation]
The opposition's co-operation in this saves time, energy and money.
[English]
I also thank members of Parliament from all parties for their advice in making Bill C-7 a good piece of legislation. I am particularly grateful to members from my party for their ideas to ensure this bill offers Canadians modern, flexible, accessible, innovative, efficient, affordable and improved government services.
Bill C-7 merges a variety of related government operations into one department. The new Department of Public Works and Government Services delivers virtually all common services to federal government departments and agencies. The bill creates a more streamlined, efficient and effective responsive department. It represents a rethinking of the delivery of government services to guarantee that new, alternative and better methods of service delivery are implemented. It represents an approach based on a spirit of partnership with other governments and the private sector.
The legislation saves money for Canadian taxpayers through the reduction of office space and administration and the elimination of overlap and duplication. By placing several government services in one department we make it easier for Canadians to do business with the government and easier for Canadians to receive information from the government.
The legislation provides single window access for suppliers and contractors to the government. It rationalizes government operations to provide specialized expertise and one stop service for client departments and Canadian citizens. It modernizes services to reflect the information age in which we live. It simplifies and strengthens the administration of federal programs and services.
[Translation]
The bill affords the federal government greater flexibility and a broader choice of options for collaborating with provincial and territorial governments and the private sector. The new legislation will make it possible for the department to join with other levels of government, if they are agreeable, sharing premises, purchasing and support services.
It will make it possible for the department to enter into partnership agreements with Canadian businesses in order to help them break into foreign markets, again if they wish to take advantage of that assistance. By consolidating programs, eliminating administrative constraints, stressing the essentials and taking advantage of the latest technology, the department will be in a position to effect rational and concrete changes, and thus to serve Canadians with equity, transparency and cost-effectiveness.
(1515)
We will be able to serve Canadians better, while at the same time reducing the department's budget by $353 million over three years. The number of employees will be reduced by 30 per cent over the next five years.
The consolidation of skills and resources, the rationalization of systems, and the adoption of new service delivery approaches, are already making it possible to save money and to deliver improved services. By eliminating government office supply stores and warehouses, we have been able to cut 280 positions and to withdraw from that sector of activity.
The direct deposit of salaries and payments has allowed us to reduce processing and mailing costs. In 1994-95, we saved $28 million. Moreover, it is my pleasure to inform the members of the House that, since October 1995, as the result of an information campaign, more than 1.7 million recipients of federal government payments have registered for the direct deposit program, which means an additional saving of $7 million.
At the moment, some 40 per cent of payments by my department are made directly. We are aiming for 60 per cent over the next three years, and resultant savings of approximately $44 million. I would like to thank all Canadians who have signed up for the direct deposit program. I invite all those who have not yet done so to take advantage of the program.
Through agreements with other levels of government, we are able to combine purchases of medicines and vaccines in bulk, which means additional savings.
[English]
Those are exactly the kinds of practical and important partnership efforts stressed in the new speech from the throne. They are a fulfilment of our red book commitment ``to work closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and improve service delivery in all areas where governments are involved''.
As the member of Parliament for Sudbury, I know how important it is for small businesses in my community to be able to compete on a fair footing for government work. All Canadians know that a more competitive contracting system means a better deal for taxpayers.
Through the electronic open bidding system, we are enabling Canadians from every part of the country to bid on government contracts and to know what contracts have been given to whom and for how much.
Bill C-7 will require the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to follow through with even more initiatives for enhancing integrity and efficiency in the contracting process.
Passage of this bill will also guarantee that the work of the department in seeking to co-operate with other levels of government has legislative authority. This will give my department permission to enter into constructive partnering arrangements with the private sector in order to benefit small businesses in Canada and to serve the economic well-being of Canadians.
It is important legislation to confirm the legal propriety of more than 70 bilateral discussions taking place with other governments to harmonize services for Canadians and reduce the cost of those services.
My department certainly wants to be in a position to enter into even more common sense arrangements with other Canadian
governments in the important fields of informatics, realty services and procurement. That too will be authorized by Bill C-7.
I cannot stress too much how essential it is for my department to work in harmony with other governments. It is essential for the department to work in harmony with the private sector as well. My department is not, should not and will not be in the business of competing with other Canadians. We are in the business of serving Canadians.
(1520)
The legislation before the House underscores that point by stating explicitly that Public Works and Government Services Canada will enter into a partnering arrangement with a private sector firm only on request. I want to make it clear that my department will only offer its services to another level of government on request.
Bill C-7 states that the department can enter into these kinds of co-operative arrangements with other levels of government or can partner with the private sector only on the approval of the federal cabinet. This ensures the kind of political accountability which Canadians expect from their government.
What is really most exciting about this legislation is that it will allow the Department of Public Works and Government Services to advance the Team Canada approach so vigorously pursued by the Prime Minister at home and abroad. Through partnering initiatives with the provinces and territories, my department will help deliver high quality, low cost services to Canadians in all parts of our country. That is particularly important in areas of Canada such as northern Ontario where I come from. It is also particularly important in rural Canada.
Through new partnerships with Canadian businesses, we will use the department's resources, credibility and know how to help Canadian firms reach new international markets, increase their exports and fuel the job creation which those exports make possible. That is particularly important for providing the future oriented employment we all want for young Canadians.
This bill has received widespread support from professional organizations and industry groups in every corner of the country. We are changing the responsibilities of the Department of Public Works and Government Services today in order to serve the interests of Canadians tomorrow.
[Translation]
The passing of Bill C-17 does not mean that the way government services are administered will be cast in stone. On the contrary, the approach will be practical, flexible and intelligent. We will continue to modernize. We must continue to try alternate solutions to meet the needs of Canadians.
The federal government, as the throne speech promised, can and will be open to change and must continue to find new ways to better serve Canadians.
Right now, I am awaiting a report from my department on the planning, design and construction of architecture and engineering projects. The aim of the study is to determine which activities could be given to the private sector. The study is being done by a team of engineers, architects and technicians representing the private sector, unions and government.
Through their co-operation, we will ensure that the government really serves Canadians.
I know most Canadians are not aware of the details of this legislation, but I think I can fairly say that all Canadians would agree with the underlying objectives of the bill. We all want to stop wasting public funds. We all want government services to be effective, accessible, reliable and sensitive to our needs. We all want best value in terms of quality and price.
[English]
As members of Parliament, we want to move forward in rationalizing government services and in forging new partnerships with other governments. We want to be in a position to be an ally of Canadian businesses, particularly small businesses, in competing in a tough global market. We want to provide better services to Canadians, better access to those services, more efficiency from those services and new savings from those services.
(1525 )
These objectives are the very essence of this legislation. That is why Bill C-7 should receive the support of all sides of the House of Commons. I encourage members to pass this bill with enthusiasm.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-7. This bill is in the same form as Bill C-52 of the first session of this Parliament. As a result of the government's manoeuvre, which was condemned by all opposition parties, this bill to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts is now at third reading.
The Bloc Quebecois' position is as follows. Since the beginning, the Bloc Quebecois has objected to this bill and based its approach on four points: amending the operating rules regarding financial commitments; establishing a code for contracting out; greater involvement by members of Parliament; and regular statements on the awarding of contracts. Let us go briefly over these four points.
First of all, operating rules. We believe the federal government should set operating rules governing federal financial commitments. Under this process, all House of Commons committees
would be required to review four times a year all government spending in the areas under their jurisdiction.
This review of government spending would apply to all expenditures above $25,000. To set this process in motion, the federal government should follow the example set by the Quebec National Assembly, whose practices have proven very effective. Second, we ask that the bill clearly lay down a code for contracting out.
Third, we demand that members of Parliament from all parties be consulted on or kept informed about the process for awarding government contracts in the ridings they represent.
Finally, we ask that Public Works and Government Services Canada produce regular statements that clearly show the contracts awarded by the federal government and spell out its operating rules.
There are other points with which the Bloc Quebecois disagrees. First, the fact that there is no way federal MPs can know what government contracts, if any, are carried out in their own riding. We have also suggested that the government make federal officials accountable for the expenditures they make, so that any discrepancies can be reported.
We discussed the issue of advance payments, which result from a squandering of public funds at the end of every fiscal year of the department. Finally, we questioned the scope of the bill, which enables the department to offer its services to provincial and municipal governments.
In the wake of the last budget, this would leave the door wide open to more duplication and squandering, the two main causes of our being in debt, a debt that will amount to $600 billion in 1996-97.
Let us take a closer look at this bill, as third reading calls for taking stock of this government action. First of all, regarding the code of conduct to ensure the acquisition method's transparency. The main amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois was to reject the bill, because it did not provide for the establishment of a specific code of conduct to make transparent the method of procurement, for all goods and services purchased by the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
(1530)
This was a major amendment in that its purpose was to completely change how the public, experts and elected representatives have access to information on government expenditures made through the department.
The approach favoured by the Bloc Quebecois was based on transparency as regards the money the government and its administration spend within the government and the work they contract out.
At present, both outside of government or within the public service, anyone who tries to get more information is confronted to this huge labyrinth and cannot get the information he or she is looking for. This bill will not solve this problem.
Another factor is definitely the complex structures and the technical terms that considerably hamper the research process and dampen the spirits of those interested in knowing what governments do with public funds.
The public service in general and the department in particular have created impressive obstacles to confuse those who try to understand how the federal administration allocates government contracts.
There are countless entrepreneurs who try to get contracts, but are unable to figure out all the intricacies of the government structure.
And there are also many who contact their MP to complain either about the process, the eligibility criteria, or the contracts awarded, because they feel the system is unfair.
Also, given the current legislation on the financing of federal political parties, any company or legal entity can contribute to the election fund of a federal political party, without any limit being imposed.
This lack of limit poses a number of risks. Financing political parties can help companies establish close links with the government and it can open doors for them.
Greater transparency and simplicity in the awarding process would no doubt help avoid such situations, and would provide all Canadians and Quebecers with a fair and easily accessible system.
The same logic applies in the case of lobbyists. Lobbyists are very powerful people because the companies or the interests they represent have provided financial help to political parties, which have thus become indebted to them.
It is for all these reasons that the Bloc Quebecois was in favour of rules to monitor the federal government's financial commitments. However, the latter always turned a deaf ear to that suggestion.
Let us now look at contracting out. Over the last few years, there has been a definite trend showing that the federal public service is relying increasingly more on contracting out.
For the year 1992-93 alone, the Treasury Board estimated at $5.2 billion the total dollar figure for that activity.
During the period from 1984-85 to 1992-93, all contracting out activities, whether for professional, computer or maintenance services, experienced unprecedented growth.
With the downsizing of the public service, that activity is bound to grow even more.
Such a level of spending should be subject to some guidelines reflecting the federal government's future plans in that regard.
The stakes are too high for federal public servants, contracting firms and Canadians to leave that issue in limbo indefinitely.
The Bloc Quebecois would have liked the bill to set provisions, rules, or a legal framework forcing the government to properly oversee the contracting out process and make it more transparent. Such a monitoring system would also have to be suited to all those involved in this important process.
(1535)
Both the government and public servants, and the general public will agree that such a code would be useful, because it would facilitate relations between the government and its employees, on the one hand, and would ensure that contracting out does not take place in an unclear context, which would certainly please the public.
A modern government uses modern means to meet the expectations of the public. There is no doubt that contracting out is still one such means. A way must be found to get a better handle on it so that it is an acceptable part of our everyday affairs. At the present time, contracting out is seen by public servants and unions as a formidable adversary and an ideological enemy that must be eliminated.
We must ask ourselves why this perception of contracting out is so persistent? The reason is very simple. Contracting out is feared because it is uncontrollable, both in its present form and in its present volume.
As long as the federal government refuses to state clearly what its contracting out policies are now, and how it will go about contracting out in the future, the climate will continue to be unhealthy, aggressive and potentially explosive. It must be recognized that approaches to this issue are so divergent that the department will have to ask some serious questions.
The ideological differences are so great that they could lead to a crisis for the government, which has unfortunately not followed the Bloc's proposal to include in this bill sensible legislative provisions for the management of contracting out, with the emphasis on transparency, so that all stakeholders would have their concerns addressed.
In my opinion, contracting out ought to be guided by three factors: healthy competition, the specialized or uncommon nature of the product or service, and the need for a greater or lesser volume than usually available resources can provide. The question of contracting out is not merely the result of the current situation, but a trend that threatens good management and proper operation of the federal public service.
The third point: consultation of all federal MPs. It is important that all be given a sense of responsibility and kept informed and/or consulted about the awarding of contracts in their ridings. Regardless of their political stripe, all MPs are elected representatives and have been delegated with the legislative representation of their riding. Their jurisdiction is more than just legislative, in that when called upon to decide affairs of the state, there are obviously concrete administrative consequences as well.
Elected representatives are consulted in the House, called upon to vote on a considerable number of items, but denied the means of checking out in their ridings whether the state's decisions are in line with House recommendations and legislation.
Public expenditures fall in this category. Elected representatives have the right to question the government on all expenditures by the public administration, and ministers back up the administrative decisions from their departments. How then can an MP fully and worthily fulfil his role in the House, if he or she lacks the means to really find out what the federal public administration is doing in his or her riding?
In a word, I cannot understand why, in this day and age of modern telecommunications, MPs' offices cannot find out which companies in their ridings are responding to calls for tenders. Are they really meeting the criteria of these calls for tender?
(1540)
In the Standing Committee on Government Operations, a Liberal member mentioned that he had managed to change a decision to move a Canada Post warehouse and thus saved the public treasury $1 million. All to his credit. However, the fact that this member knew what was happening in his riding is due to his having seen the call for tender inviting companies to bid on the contract. He had not been advised of this expenditure. By chance, or through research, he learned that projects involving this sort of expenditure were happening in his riding. How easy and logical it would be if this member, and all members, could be informed of government expenditures in their respective ridings. No one can say our proposal would be costly to manage. One single example of the type I have just mentioned represents a significant saving.
In short, to conclude this point, I would like to suggest that all members' offices have access, without additional cost, to all calls for tenders and all contracts. This sort of mechanism should have been in place long ago.
Public officials have a responsibility too. We have information that certain states are considering the right to report public waste. Without going into a whole lot of detail, this principle should be debated in this House, particularly because the bill concerns the Department of Public Works and Government Services, which
concludes most of the government's contracts for goods and services.
Questioning government expenditures from outside is certainly a good way to control public spending. This is what we were driving at earlier. However, for the picture to be complete, questioning must also come from inside on the practicality of the department's expenditures. This is what we proposed and what the government rejected.
We continue to believe that a mechanism giving public servants the right to report wastage of public funds should be put in place and this right promoted. For the major part, public expenditures are initiated or paid by public servants themselves, which is within the scope of their duties in the public service. However, the workings of the federal government, just as the workings of other western governments, are not perfect and one can easily imagine that all kinds of useless expenditures are made on a regular basis.
To sum up this paragraph, this act would have allowed public servants to blow the whistle on the government for spending millions of dollars during the campaign leading to the October 30 referendum, which was contrary to the Quebec Referendum Act.
The auditor general's reports are a delight for those who enjoy learning about the federal government's useless expenditures. There is no other way to become aware of useless internal expenditures. Moreover, too often, the government takes forever to follow up on the auditor's analysis and recommendations. We might consider legislation to compel the government of the day to act on the auditor's report. This is my suggestion.
Other measures should be put in place and we would have hoped that the review of this bill would have provided the opportunity to do so. But as is often the case, the government did not answer the call of common sense.
(1545)
Let us move on to federal advance payments. An advance payment amounts to making the most of the resources available to a departmental service so that it has access to the same level of resources in the following budget year. This practice is used by public service employees and managers responsible for providing services for fear that, if they do not use all the resources at their disposal, their annual budget will be cut.
I have a suggestion to make in this regard. Why should the budget rules imposed on members of Parliament not also apply to all departments? We as members of Parliament can carry up to 5 per cent of our annual budgets over to the following year without suffering any cuts simply because we did not spend our whole budgets. On the other hand, we are responsible for any overbudgeting. Why should public service managers not have the same accountability?
Why should members of Parliament be responsible for their budgets in their ridings but not the government? These are all questions that deserve answers.
I will conclude by saying that, when establishing the Department of Public Works and Government Services and amending and repealing certain acts, the government missed a great opportunity to address the real problems, and especially to help resolve these problems. This is unfortunate. The four points that we brought to its attention and on which we expected developments have not been heard.
The government will not establish a code of ethics guaranteeing the transparency of procurement methods. The government will not establish a code for contracting out. The government will not increase consulting mechanisms for all members of Parliament. The government will not take steps to make public servants more accountable.
In a word, the government will continue to make promises it does not keep and to ignore the comments of others. It overlooks solutions that could work wonders, perhaps because the government is not the solution but the problem.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-52 which was presented to the House back in 1993. Just a scant three years later we are looking for approval of provisions for which most in fact are probably already in place.
I do not want to dwell on this subject for an extended length of time because the bill was introduced and then became C-7 in 1994 and the changes within the bill are already in place. However, I would like to make a few points about the bill and the practices of the department in general.
I and my party have some serious reservations about particular sections of the bill which appear to give the minister unlimited discretion with respect to fees, business practices and other operations within the ministry which in itself is sort of scary. As a matter of fact, I have received quite a number of letters, faxes and calls from people who have concerns in relation to those aspects of the bill.
Clause 16 is particularly worrisome because of the broad range of powers it implies and gives to the minister. It states that ``the minister may do anything for or on behalf of'', and then it enters into a number of conditions. Given the history of the Liberal government when it has such a free rein, that can present a scary situation to a lot of people who are concerned about how the government spends money.
(1550 )
Given the government's penchant for spending money and its history of giving choice favours, if I may use that word or we can call it patronage, to friends of the government, giving a minister this kind of leeway and discretion is particularly worrisome to ourselves and indeed to many Canadians.
Clause 16(b) states that public works can do anything for ``any government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere''. The term ``in Canada or elsewhere'' is rather questionable. I thought the purpose of any government in Canada was to serve Canadians.
Why would this minister seek to have a provision that would allow the minister to do things on behalf of Canadians with people outside the country when we are talking about government operations and public works? The focus should be to deal within Canada in any area.
Why is the government giving powers to a department entering into contracts with foreign governments, companies or individuals? We have all those resources here in Canada.
One of the most worrisome parts of this bill is that the government appears to be and is getting involved in providing services that are already available in the private sector. It is our opinion that the government should not be competing with the private sector. The provisions of this bill allow it to do exactly that.
We question why the government would want to get involved in competition with the private sector which pays taxes, tries to do business in this country, provides jobs for Canadians, provides a living for the owners and tries to build a company. Instead, the private sector comes up against a government that is competing with its own tax dollars and generally far more resources than any private sector company has in this country. That is a real concern of ours.
Clause 16 also permits the minister to do what he or she pleases with whom he or she pleases. That is scary in itself. One can apply that principle to any of the functions that might occur in that department.
When we give a minister that kind of wide ranging power to do what he or she pleases with whomever he or she pleases, given the history of the Liberals' penchant for spending money, giving away very lush government contracts to friends of Liberals and appointing friends of Liberals to very well paying positions, we have to ask if this power is excessive. Should it not be curtailed more?
We have put forward amendments that would address these wide ranging powers and the freedom they give by curtailing the department's ability to compete with the private sector first. However, as history will show, when we put through common sense amendments they are defeated by the government. This is curious since the government operations committee just released a preliminary report on the contracting process entitled: ``Small Business is our Business''. The report flies in the face of what this bill intends to do.
One of the main findings of the report is that more contracts should be awarded to small and medium size businesses. It sounds good to me. However, here we have Bill C-7 which permits the government to enter into direct competition with those very enterprises the report states it should be doing more business with.
In our opinion, the government should have adopted the amendments put forward by the Reform Party which would have been in line with the report ``Small Business is our Business''. We think it should have listened and should listen to the committee and prevent the department from competing against the private sector.
(1555)
Many letters have been written to many MPs in this House from private sector companies, whether they be small or medium size companies, stating their distress about the fact that the government can and is entering into competition with them using their own tax dollars to do so. Reformers believe these companies have a very legitimate concern. Why should their own government compete directly with them?
The government should have adopted some of the amendments put forward by Reformers and it should have listened to its own standing committee which dealt with this and provided a number of recommendations.
Ultimately the government should be downsizing the department and getting out of those areas that are controlled and well served by the private sector. Why should the government be involved in areas of operation that are served very well by the private sector business? However, we see the reverse when we examine Bill C-7.
The government operations committee identified a number of areas of concern with respect to the department that are not addressed in this bill. For instance, the committee was concerned that 40 per cent of the contracts, worth about $3.5 billion, given out by the government were sole source. In other words, those contracts did not go out to public tender. They were just given out with no tendering process to particular firms. Nothing in this bill addresses this situation.
As members know, sole sourcing can very easily lead to abuses within the system. This was one of the things we discussed at length in the standing committee. There were a lot of concerns from Liberal members themselves about sole sourcing of government contracts. We discussed it before the House prorogued and before the government decided to take an extra holiday in February. We were prepared to deal with it and hopefully we will now get back to dealing with it in committee. We will send more recommendations to the government in the hope that it will start to listen.
The committee recommended that Treasury Board and public works draft a code of conduct for contracting out which would lay out very strict guidelines on how contracting out would be done by the government. However, the committee report went further by stating that the reporting framework for contracting needs had to be significantly revised.
In all, there is a great deal of concern over the contracting process. What really concerned us was the amended tenders, the amendments that could be made to contracts given out by the government. In other words, someone can bid a price and after they have the contract they can go back to the government at the local level and request their tender or bid price be amended. How could any private business ever operate like this?
When I was in business, after an agreement was made to purchase something from a supplier, a price was quoted, the deal was made and we agreed to it. However, the situation here is that the government can put out a contract, someone can bid on it and win the bid and then turn around and ask for an amendment. Given that the contract is at a certain level, say $30,000 and under, the decision to amend the contract can be made locally within the region. We feel this opens up the process to all forms of abuse and we asked in committee to have it dealt with. We see nothing in the bill that deals with it. We hope that when the committee deals with it again some of the recommendations that come forward might be added into this bill as amendments.
(1600 )
Even though the committee's work is fairly recent, we are all well aware of some of these problems that are hounding the government's contracting procedures. I talked about the contract amendments which add on to the contracts and drive the price higher than what the original agreement was.
To talk about that for a moment, there are some astounding figures. For example, in 1990 contract amendments totalled $602 million. These are not the original prices; these are the add-ons. By 1993, in just a short three years, once the people who were submitting the bids found out how to work the loophole in the system which allowed for contracting amendments and get around the contracting process, the amendments went from $602 million in 1990 to a staggering $1.8 billion in 1993. That is totally unacceptable. No private sector operation could even dream of operating in that way.
This is another situation we feel the Liberals and the House of Commons have to deal with immediately. Reform has been talking about this situation for almost three years now. There have to be more controls to safeguard the public purse. We cannot allow the discretionary power within the department that exists. It is open to all forms of abuse.
There really are no procedures in place other than this discretion that will really safeguard the public purse. These are tax dollars we are working with. These tax dollars are given to the government by hard working Canadians who want to see their tax dollars spent in a prudent fashion. Let us never forget that the tax dollars are basically funds paid into trust by Canadians. The government should regard taxpayers' money as a sacred trust and should do everything it can so that there is no question by Canadians as to how the government spends that money.
Whereas there should be more controls to protect the public purse, Bill C-7 in fact increases the power of the department and the minister and loosens control. What on earth is this government thinking about when it puts in a bill like this and when it asks its members-let me rephrase that-when it tells its members to support a bill like this?
The department is famous for being partial in its provision of information which at best is very difficult to receive. Reformers put forward amendments which would ensure that the disclosure of information was complete and easily accessible which is not unreasonable. Our party appears to be the only one in the House concerned about how taxpayers' dollars are spent by this government. We asked that information on how the money is being spent be easily accessible. We asked for that in the form of an amendment. The Liberal government in an effort to protect its little empire, which gives it all sorts of powers to spend money and reward friends, defeated our amendment which asked for accessibility.
What kind of a message does that send to the Canadian taxpayers, who as we all know are among the highest, if not the highest taxed wage earners in the whole world? What kind of message does that send to the people who are paying taxes, that this government will not allow a party like the Reform Party, who want to be the guardians of the taxpayers' money, or for that matter any other interested and concerned people access to how the government departments spend their money? It is a very poor message indeed. We put forward the amendment for disclosure. It was defeated by the government.
(1605 )
When we consider that $9 billion was spent on contracting last year, we think the public has a right to know exactly how the money is being spent. However, Bill C-7 does not address this issue. It is almost laughable. For all the Liberal government's talk about transparency and openness, all the promises it made on the campaign trail and in the red book about being transparent and open, the public still has difficulty obtaining information from the department of public works.
Forget about the public having difficulty; Reform members have difficulty obtaining the information we want in order to check on how the government is spending the money. I have requested information through access to information a number of times only
to obtain about one-tenth of what I requested and even that was blanked out in many cases. What kind of a message does that send to Canadians?
All of this reminds me of a related issue, which is the privatization of Canada Communication Group I spoke about in the House the other day. Canada Communication Group falls under the control of the department of public works. In July 1995 the minister announced that it would be privatized. In some respects we do not have much of a problem with privatization if it is going to save money and increase efficiency. We thought we would wait to see how it was going to work.
The government struck a committee to advise it on a process which was to be fair, open and transparent. The committee was to advise the government on how the privatization should be implemented. The process was going to be open, fair and transparent, as the government says it would like to be some day. We and the public have yet to hear from that committee. Equally distressing, as I understand it the committee is reporting to the minister behind closed doors on an as required basis.
What happened to the fair, open and transparent process which was to be the committee's criteria? There has never been a report from the committee which has been made public. It is reporting only to the minister who at her discretion can advise Parliament as to how the privatization implementation is proceeding.
All of this is very disturbing to our party and to concerned Canadians who want a little more openness with respect to how their dollars are being spent. Once again the Liberal government promised one thing but did another. That is why we must be wary of the Liberals' promise that Bill C-7 does not confer broad powers on the minister. I would suggest that it does exactly that.
Furthermore, when the bill was before the government operations committee in November 1994, it was rammed through in typical Liberal fashion by the Liberal majority sitting on the committee. Amendments and witnesses were put forward by Reform. We submitted our lists, we submitted our amendments and the Liberals on the committee refused every one of them. So much for openness and transparency. So much for wanting to make available information on how the government operates.
One has to ask, what is the government afraid of? Why does it not want the Reform Party looking into the way it spends taxpayers' dollars? Why does it not want Canadians to have an understanding of how it spends taxpayers' dollars? Is the government trying to hide something?
We have seen contracting out. There is a company that does a lot of business with the government. SNC Lavelin is a very well known Quebec company that does a lot of business with Canada Post and other departments, including Transport Canada. It is a big company with a zillion subsidiaries and is involved in a zillion consortia.
(1610)
I have been trying to find out why this company is getting so many government contracts. I know it has been getting them for years, contract after contract, untendered for the most part. It has received a number of multimillion dollar contracts from Canada Post through its subsidiaries, SLS Corp. and Clientech and others with no tendering process in place.
We can talk about the contract for the mine sweepers for the coast guard on the east coast. Fenco MacLaren, a company which bid on the work to be done for the government, outbid Halifax shipyards. I was not involved in the committee that was looking into that but I found out that Fenco MacLaren is not even a shipyard. I thought it strange that a company that does not even own a shipyard could get a huge government contract which common sense dictates must go to a shipyard. Yet Halifax shipyards which bid on the contract did not get it. Lo and behold, in looking into the research data on Fenco MacLaren what do I see? It is owned by SNC Lavelin. Well, my questions have been answered so far. We will delve into that one a little more, let the Liberal members be aware and particularly the minister who was in charge of that one.
The Liberals promise one thing and they do another. We put through common sense amendments to open up the process to what is going on and to make it more transparent and the Liberals shoot it down.
The amendments and the witnesses we proposed to the committee were refused by the Liberal members. They wanted to get out of the committee as soon as possible. They did not want a detailed examination of Bill C-7 in any way, shape or form. They rammed it through committee and let it flounder on the Order Paper for about 16 months.
The bill appears to be largely administrative but as I noted earlier, members should have some real concerns about some of the power conferred on the minister. Members should be asking why the bill permits the government to compete with the private sector. Why? If the government is so serious about creating jobs and helping small business as it claims in the flyer ``Small Business is our Business'', it would not allow particular clauses in the bill which allow it to compete with private sector small business to go forward.
I urge MPs who are concerned about job creation and the health of the small business sector to vote against the bill. Even Liberal members who feel this way are invited to vote against the bill as well. I know Reformers are going to be voting against the bill because we have serious concerns about the powers that are
bestowed upon the minister and her department. Reformers will certainly not be supporting the bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We are now entering the next stage of debate where members will have 20 minute maximums for their interventions subject to 10 minutes of questions or comments.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-7 I cannot help but note that this very straightforward piece of legislation has been under consideration by the House of Commons for a very long time. Members of Parliament have had the opportunity to examine the bill very closely and they have made a number of suggestions to improve the bill. That was very much welcomed by the government.
(1615 )
Key amendments have been put in place to satisfy the legitimate concerns that have been brought forward through the process. I hope that now, with a sense of goodwill on all sides, we can move forward to pass this legislation which has, at its very heart, the basic goals of providing Canadians with savings, efficiency and improvement in services.
Passage of this legislation will enshrine in law the merging of a variety of related government operations into one department. The Department of Public Works and Government Services delivers virtually all common services to government departments and agencies.
In essence, the bill creates a more streamlined, efficient, effective and responsive department. The department saves money for Canadian taxpayers through the reduction of office space and administration, and the elimination of overlap and duplication.
The federal government is by far the largest purchaser of goods and services in the country. Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for the orderly processing of about 65 per cent of federal procurement. Clearly the move toward a more consolidated approach to government purchasing is of benefit to all concerned.
It provides a single window access for suppliers and contractors to the government. It rationalizes government operations to provide specialized expertise and one stop service for client departments. It modernizes services to reflect the information age in which we live. It simplifies and strengthens the administration of federal programs and services.
As a government we have made a firm commitment to all Canadians that we will provide them with an administration that is efficient, innovative, co-operative and fair. Canadians are rightly concerned about the cost of government at all levels.
They are aware that overlap, duplication and poor co-ordination with other levels of government have contributed to the tax burden that they must bear. They expect, and they demand, that we take every measure possible to streamline government operations, reduce administration costs, cut out red tape and improve service delivery of government programs.
Bill C-7 responds directly to these challenges. The bill modernizes government services so that the federal government can concentrate on doing what it does best and most cost effectively and leave the rest for those who can do better. The department has had to rationalize all of its operations to achieve these savings, efficiencies and improved services.
For the department this has meant taking advantage of new technology. For example, thanks to more powerful computers, laser printers and developing technologies the number of cheque production centres in the country has been reduced from 11 to 4. This means annual savings of $4.8 million after implementation.
Efficiency means cutting costs but it also means whenever possible improving services. That is why the department has moved to make direct deposit the standard method of payment. This means annual savings of $20 million to Canadian taxpayers and at the same time increased security, privacy and convenience for recipients of payments. Efficiency means providing equal access to all suppliers to government.
Through the electronic open bidding service we are enabling Canadians from every part of the country to bid on government contracts and to know what contracts have been given to whom and for how much. The open bidding service is a nationally accessible service which 25 other departments and crown corporations as well as the provincial governments of New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have chosen to use to advertise their procurement needs as well. It is sort of a one stop centre. This is a good example of co-operation between various levels of government in an effort to reduce overlap and duplication.
(1620 )
Through the open bidding service, the Department of Public Works and Government Services has long sought to provide a single window for suppliers on the estimated $57 billion Canadian public sector market from all levels of government. We are very optimistic that this can be achieved through this process.
Throughout the examination of Bill C-7, considerable attention has also been directed toward the availability of procurement information and the integrity of the system. Members and the public in general want to easily and effectively monitor government spending and ensure that contracts for goods and services are entered into in a fair and reasonable manner.
The Liberal government agrees that the procurement processes must be, and be seen to be honest, open and fair. If government is to play a positive role in society, honesty and integrity in political institutions is a definite requirement.
To this end, we promised to restore the public's confidence when we said in the red book: ``Open government will be the watchword for the Liberal program''. Since being elected 28 months ago, ministers have insisted on the highest standards of integrity and honesty in fulfilling their mandate. On that, members can refer to the speech from the throne on February 27, 1996. The government has taken many concrete steps to make openness and integrity a prime focus within the procurement process.
As already mentioned, the government has stressed the importance of the open bidding system. Not only is this system efficient, not only does it reduce the paper burden and lower the cost to the taxpayers, it also ensures that everyone with an interest has access to the government's contracting requirements.
This service is available not only to companies that do business or would like to do business with the government, but also to members of Parliament, provincial governments, the media or any Canadian citizen that wishes to track the course of government purchasing. What could be more open, fair and transparent than that?
In May 1994, a couple of years ago, guidelines were issued to regulate for the first time a fair and open regime for the purchase of advertising and public opinion research. Regulations were also brought in to curb the power of lobby groups to influence decisions regarding government purchasing.
One of the amendments that has been incorporated in the bill requests the minister to investigate and develop services for increasing efficiency and economy and ``for enhancing integrity and efficiency in the contracting process''.
Dealing fairly and honestly with the thousands of Canadian individuals and companies that do business with the government is a matter of very high priority. The public sector, at all levels of government, is under intense public scrutiny today. Canadians demand that governments not only control their expenditures but that they operate openly so that the public may judge the effectiveness of their operations.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services is meeting this challenge by providing equal access to the federal market by showing fairness in awarding contracts and by ensuring that contracting information is available and acceptable, whether accessible to all Canadians in the most efficient and cost effective way.
The government has taken these positive measures by operating the Department of Public Works and Government Services under order in council. The passage of this legislation will give parliamentary approval to that government decision.
The government wants to move forward in rationalizing its services. It wants to provide better service to Canadians, better access to those services, more efficiency from those services and new savings from those services.
Bill C-7, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services is a good bill made better by the suggestions of members of this House. I ask for support to give it speedy passage.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I have two or three questions that I would like to address to the parliamentary secretary.
(1625)
First, I wonder how Bill C-7 accomplishes what the business community has requested for some time, a fair and equitable method of tendering for projects, regardless of size. Second, what is the amount of the estimated savings proposed as a result of this new bill and its amalgamation efforts? Finally, does the bill address our concerns of duplication of effort and if so, how will this be accomplished? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might like to comment on those questions.
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from my colleague.
We are talking about a lot of money when we talk about savings. After this bill reaches its ultimate effectiveness, savings will be in the neighbourhood of $180 million by fiscal year 1997-98. To all taxpayers in the country that means a lot of savings.
I will give a micro example of that. I spoke about the direct deposit system. By directly depositing cheques the government save money on postage, bank fees and paper. Already about 40 per cent of government employees are enrolled in direct depositing. We would like to have that up to about 60 per cent in two or three years. Just that one initiative alone saves about $20 million. Twenty million dollars here and another million dollars there and it all adds up. In total it adds up to about $180 million.
Businesses know that the government is a big business. The government is involved in a lot of procurement. A lot of contracts have to be made out or extended. It works out to about 1,000 contracts a day, big and small. It is incredible. Businesses people want a system that is open, fair, transparent and above board. Through this open bidding system that is what they get.
Business people want information. They will make the judgments. To make the judgments they have to have information. All federal contracts are available on OBS. A number of provincial governments are tied into the system. It is all there: the price of contracts, the intentions of contracts to be let and so on. It is an enormous repository of information for business people.
In my humble opinion businesses are very happy with the kind of information that is made available to them. From time to time there may be difficulties. When dealing with a department that is as large as this and with a market that is worth billions and billions of dollars, it is hard to be perfect. There are going to be times when there are differences of opinion. In the main, Canadian businesses are very happy and very supportive of the open bidding service. I am glad that it is in place.
The minister wants the system to work even better. Nothing on the face of the earth cannot be improved. If it is made by human beings there will always be imperfections because we are imperfect, so we are looking for ways of improving the system. If there is a way to do it, if there is a way to save money, that is our objective, that is our target and that is exactly what we will do.
I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague.
(1630)
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would have a few questions to ask and also a few comments to make following the remarks my hon. colleague just made. The hon. member responsible for the Standing Committee on Public Works, who just spoke, chaired the Standing Committee on Public Works during both sessions of this government's mandate.
He reminded us that the Liberal government was elected to put an end to squandering and to administer public funds efficiently. I think that there is a far cry between the government intentions, as described in the red book, and reality.
First, I think that the best way of eliminating waste or squandering is through a procurement policy. The government should have its procurement policies in writing.
We know that the vast majority of government procurement transactions are conducted through tender or electronic bulletin board. I sat on the committee, and the Bloc Quebecois suggested that, to procure goods, materials and services, the government use, in addition to the electronic bulletin board, ads or public notices published in newspapers to ensure that it gets the best prices and that many people have the chance to bid and show their products to the government.
We know that, at present, only those who subscribe to the bulletin board can get referrals and know the government's requirements in order to bid.
In my riding of Charlevoix, there are people who would like to bid to offer their products or services, but they do not have the equipment required to offer their products or services to the government.
I would like the hon. member to tell me something. Does he intend to set himself the goal, in the performance of his duties, of bringing the government or the ministerial side to commit to going to public tender, after specifications have been drawn up, and to awarding the contract to the lowest bidder that meets the requirements?
Also, will there be a written material management policy? Will there be policies regarding equipment inventory? Let me give you an example for the benefit of hon. members. In my constituency office, in Charlevoix, I have only one person working for me, an assistant. When the government furnished my office, in December 1993, I was told that I was entitled to three computers. ``Why am I entitled to three computers if I have only one employee, I asked? All I want is one computer, but a good, efficient and efficient one''. ``No, based on government policy, on House of Commons rules, you need three computers, came the answer''. So three computers were installed: it took them a week to install three computers, two of which are never used. Just think of the costs of materials and labour.
This was under previous government policies. And even if this government was elected to eliminate waste, as promised in the red book, nothing came of it. Today, the same policies apply within the House of Commons.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the observations made by my hon. colleague from Quebec. He has a concern about waste, as he should as a member of Parliament. All members on both sides of the House are concerned about waste.
Over the decades all governments have had reputations of waste. I can say with enthusiasm that this government and especially the minister, since I am talking about the new Department of Public Works and Government Services, want to hear about waste.
I will not stand in my place and pretend everything works absolutely perfectly. When there is waste, when there is inefficiency, when there is a better way of doing things we want to hear about it.
(1635)
I would always invite the hon. member whenever he comes across examples of inefficiencies to bring them to our attention. It is a big department and things will not always work well. I would be more than happy to entertain concerns, whether relatively small or relatively large.
The hon. member asked about an open process. I believe we do have an open process. If there is a better way to make it more open, transparent and fair, let us do that.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. We are working on it as best we can.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-7, which seeks to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services. This bill was first reviewed during the last session and is now back before us at the same stage as it was in December.
This debate provides an opportunity to point out a number of things. We will not discuss the overall administration of the department; however, we want to discuss the department's mandate, ways, processes and practices, and to look at its effectiveness. This is basically what I intend to do in the few minutes that I have.
The Liberal government often accuses the official opposition of only criticizing. When a bill is before the House and Bloc Quebecois members discuss it, Liberal members and ministers often say: ``All you do is criticize; you have nothing else to say. You cannot make constructive proposals''.
In the case of Bill C-7, the official opposition worked very seriously, and I want to pay tribute to the Bloc members who sat on the public works committee during the last session for their excellent work. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to conclude that the government did not take into account the recommendations and suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois, as is its habit.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Châteauguay raised four points on which I would like to go back. My colleague mentioned the need to monitor the government's financial commitments, and I will get back to this later on. He also talked about the contracting out process. As he mentioned in the question and comment period, the Bloc would like to focus on the need to have an open process so that all our fellow citizens can benefit from government services, especially business people who offer their services to the government. That is why we have contracting out rules.
The Bloc wants members of Parliament to be more involved in the process. Hon. members should be consulted at least on what is going on in their ridings and need to be kept informed, but I will also come back to this issue.
(1640)
Lastly, I want to talk about ethics in government, by drawing a parallel with the party financing legislation which, of course, does not exist at the federal level. There is one piece of legislation which addresses the financing issue, but its provisions are so broad that I would rather draw a parallel with the rules we have in Quebec and which really set the province of Quebec apart from the other western democracies in this area.
Let us talk about control of financial commitments and the suggestion made by the Bloc Quebecois to ensure that all House committees can meet regularly, at least four times a year, to examine the financial operations and commitments of the departments they are responsible for. Again, we might want to refer to what is done in Quebec. We often hear our colleagues, especially the members from western Canada, criticize what is being done in the province of Quebec, but I think we should also focus on what deserves to be mentioned and recognized. In this instance, I think it would be well worth it.
In Quebec, parliamentary committees and commissions can, I guess any time they wish to do so, summon a minister, of course, but also senior public servants to account for their management. Any day they wish to, they can summon public servants before their committees and ask them to account for the decisions they made in their own department.
This request by the Bloc Quebecois to do the same thing at the federal level is quite in line with the will expressed by this Parliament to change the rules governing the auditor general and to allow the tabling in the House, four times a year, of the report of the auditor general, as asked by the former member for Vanier who now sits in the Upper House. In that context, it appears quite logical and normal-that is, if this government can be logical-to see to it that each committee of the House can proceed with the audit of the financial commitments of the departments or agencies for which they are responsible.
This is a positive and constructive suggestion, and instead of hearing the minister responsible for public works and my colleague for Winnipeg St. James, whom I hold in great respect, boast about what this government did in the contracting out sector, I would have preferred that he take action and announce, as we considered this bill, amendments to allow an audit of financial commitments four times a year.
This brings me to the code for contracting out. My colleague for Châteauguay suitably noted that the federal government is spending enormous sums of money through all sorts of contracts for the procurement of equipment, merchandise and services. Throughout Canada, it is estimated that more than $5 billion were spent for such purposes in 1993-94. Where I come from, that is not peanuts. These are significant sums of money that must be spent wisely and we must make sure that they serve the purposes they were meant for.
(1645)
Even though it has been mentioned that changes have been made to the awarding of contracts and that some improvements have been made, there is still plenty of room for improvement, particularly with regard to contracting out.
First, it would be important, as I said earlier, that not only the suppliers of services but also the people who receive the services understand the way government works and understand the tendering process.
However, the experience of members of this House-particularly opposition members, who receive many complaints every day in their constituency office-indicates that the federal government's administrative practices for awarding contracts leave a lot to be desired. More often than not, it is a total mess and one has to wonder if officials who have to make decisions do not try to confuse everybody on purpose and to make things as complicated as possible to avoid scrutiny and to avoid being asked questions.
So if we are serious about spending government funds wisely, it is imperative that we establish a code for contracting out, that we have clear and simple rules that would help the Canadian public understand what the government or the public servants are doing on their behalf.
I would like to underline a few suggestions that have been made to improve the process. First of all, members should be consulted or informed. It is amazing that, as elected representatives, we have to rise in this House during consideration of this bill or any other bill to ask to be informed of what the government is doing in our ridings.
As Dr. Laurin, an MNA and former minister in a Parti Quebecois government, used to say, there is something wrong when an elected member has to stand in this House and ask the government to please inform the elected representatives of the people about what the federal government is doing in their riding.
We are raising this issue, because that is not what is being done right now. It is not standard procedure. There is no way our fellow citizens who cannot follow government operations day to day-may God spare them that chore, because they have other things to do, like taking care of their families and paying taxes-can get a clear idea of what government administration is all about when members themselves have to resort to amending a bill so that elected representatives will be consulted. I think the minister or the government should have readily recognized this deficiency and presented relevant amendments instead of waiting for the opposition to do it.
The opposition has kept a watchful eye, it has assumed its responsibilities, and suggested that members be consulted. The goal is not to determine who should get the contract, the way it is being done right now in Liberal fundraising events, but to know the
motives behind government actions in different ridings, the spinoffs, and who is capable of providing the goods or services that are recommended. This is what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for. I would not want to conclude without-
(1650)
Mr. Bélair: He has nothing left to say.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): The member says I have nothing left to say, but I would ask him to just listen to what I will be saying over the next five minutes. He will learn and profit from it because if he gets his information only from his party's caucus, I can understand why he is so uninformed at times.
Let me conclude, if I may, by talking about-
Mr. Boudria: So soon?
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): No, not so soon Mr. Boudria, you still have five minutes to benefit from what I have to say. Oh. Please excuse me, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead just earned himself a 15 or 20-second penalty. Let me remind him he must always address the Chair.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): You are perfectly right, Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely.
I would just like to conclude my comments by saying that it will be necessary not only to establish a code for contracting out, to consult members of the House, to make sure civil servants are responsible for their decisions, but also to assure the public that the government will make decisions based on political ethics. I am referring of course to the act on the financing of political parties.
Earlier, my colleague from the Reform Party complained about the fact that SNC-Lavalin gets many government contracts without any justification. Maybe he is right. He did not give any details on that. I wish he would have also given examples from elsewhere and not only from Quebec, but politics have reasons that reason very often ignores.
On that point, let me stress one thing: the fact that, at the federal level, the political party financing legislation authorises companies, corporations, to finance political parties greatly jeopardizes the awarding of contracts. As I mentioned a moment ago-some may have thought I was joking, but I am very serious-I believe a greater number of federal government contracts are considered within the Liberal Party financing system than in parliamentary committees.
It is totally inappropriate that things should happen that way. But why is it so? Simply because that is where companies, those who provide money to the Liberal Party, that is to say the government-and it was the same under the Conservatives-that is where
they are able to get information which otherwise might not be available to them.
I might have to conclude on that, but let us take the example of the Pearson deal. For weeks, even months, the Bloc Quebecois battled the government which settled the Pearson airport deal in a totally unacceptable way.
We all remember that during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to undo the decision of the Conservative government and make sure that Pearson remained a public company, belonging to the government, and was not sold to private interests. We were in total agreement with that. However, lots of examples, each one more convincing than the other, showed that the interests which prevailed in the Pearson deal were those of lobbyists and bagmen of the various political parties which exercised power during the last few years, that is to say the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. So much so that the government felt obliged, in order to regain an image of integrity, to introduce a bill on lobbyists, and have it passed by the House. It was actually a very timid piece of legislation.
(1655)
If the government is serious when it says it wants government contracts to be granted in an equitable and fair manner, it must accept suggestions made by members regarding public disclosure of contracts to be granted.
But we must also make sure that the solution to this kind of problem is not found through the funding of political parties. This is why we have to introduce a bill to reform political party funding and make sure that not only the spirit but also the letter of the act which now applies in Quebec, which has set a precedent for all western democracies, is also applied at the federal level.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for identifying the problem in this bill very well, but especially for raising an extremely important point, that is, consultation of elected officials.
I think that is at present a major flaw, one that is not being corrected in Bill C-7. Currently, and with the bill, it is impossible for federal members of Parliament to know what government contracts will be given out in their own riding. They are being consulted on almost anything, they are invited to vote on all kinds of pieces of legislation, but they are refused access to information allowing them to know exactly what will happen and what contracts will be given out in their own riding.
How do you think an attentive and combative member of PArliament, whoever he may be, can fulfill his role with dignity and efficiency if he does not know what government activities are going on on his own territory? I will give a concrete case that I am presently living in my riding. I will then ask a question to my colleague.
Transport Canada, Harbours and Ports, has decided to dredge the surroundings of Wharf No. 2, in Sorel, in order to restore the river to its initial depth, which was 9.1 metres. Over the years, sediment has accumulated and the depth is now 7.5 metres. So, they want to take away, on the Sorel side, 1.6 metre of sediment and contaminated silt, but to move it where? To the other side of the river, in my riding, on the shores of the municipality of Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola.
Who was informed of that? Hunting and fishing associations in Sorel, the outfitting operation in Tracy, the city of Tracy, the development corporation of Lake Saint-Pierre, Saint-Joseph-de-Sorel and Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola, but this latter is invited to an information meeting for the dredging of the port of Sorel.
The municipality does not wish to know about the impact of dredging at Sorel, so it is not represented at the meeting. The municipalities' representatives were never told: ``Come to the meeting, because we will dump the waste at your place''. No one felt the need to inform the federal member for Berthier-Montcalm, whose riding will get the waste. He would have known who would be interested. This issue has nothing to do with patronage, as the hon. member said.
An hon. member who knows his riding and knows people who might be interested in a particular project, as I would be, if contaminated waste was being dumped, incidentally, on an uncontaminated site, will inform the islands' hunting and fishing association, tourist agencies like the SIRBI and the SABA, boating associations, etc. The hon. member knows his riding, so he would have got these associations interested in the issue.
However, they do not wish to inform hon. members, because they wish to do as they see fit and, above all, to avoid being held accountable. Well, they are in for a surprise. In this particular case, I knew what was going on and they will have to justify their actions. That is another story though, but I hope the hon. minister got my message. She will certainly hear from me again about this unacceptable issue.
(1700)
Here is my question for the hon. member. Does he not feel that, in such a situation where it is proposed to carry the equivalent of 40,000 ten-wheeler rigs full of contaminated silt from the south shore to the north shore, it would have been normal to advise at least the members concerned, the member for Richelieu and the member for Berthier-Montcalm, even before putting money into this project, in order to know what they thought and what they had to say about it, whether there were groups they wanted to have consulted, and whether they could give us guidance?
First, does the hon. member find it normal that the government did not advise us? Second, while we are overhauling these pieces of legislation, would it not be normal to deal right away with this flaw by making it a duty to inform the members concerned by a project even before putting money into it?
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): First, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Berthier-Moncalm on his speech. As I said at the beginning of my own speech, there was an opportunity to review a bill such as this one, which, at first sight, may seem technical or insignificant to most of our fellow citizens. When we study the bill more closely, however, when we take a closer look at it, when we analyze it like the official opposition did, we see right away the effects this bill or these bills will have on our fellow citizens, and the example given by the member for Berthier-Moncalm is eloquent proof of that. I hope the minister is listening carefully to my colleague's words, not only in this particular case, but also to realize that she has to consult all members of the House, whatever their political stripes.
I believe that if we were elected by the people, if we ran a campaign, it proves that we have been involved in our communities for some time. We cannot learn everything overnight, it takes years. Generally speaking, members of Parliament are knowledgeable people; they know what is going on in their riding. Consequently, they should be consulted.
Earlier, I described the suggestions the Bloc made to improve this process also. When we are speaking of the monitoring of government contracts, of departments' financial administration, which could be done by the committees, it would also be appropriate at the same time to ask questions to departmental officials, the minister and senior civil servants about situations like those that the member mentioned.
Finally, I would like to say to the minister and the government in general that it is in their interest to change their practices in this regard. Our fellow citizens are less and less willing to accept to be kept in the dark about government decisions, at all levels.
For example, right now in Quebec there is a group called Mouvement pour le redressement économique du Québec, whose aim is to question governments on the way they spend the money they have to provide services to the population. We see more and more of that kind of spontaneous grassroots organizations.
What message are they sending to our political leaders? They are telling them: ``We will no longer accept that you make decisions on our behalf without consulting and informing us in advance''.
(1705)
It seems to me that the very least a government could do is to consult the men and women that were elected by the population. If the government is really serious when it says that it wants to improve the efficiency of its administrative structure, particularly with regard to contracts, then it should say so right now, during our present debate. It should say in a clear and open way that it intends to consult the elected members of Parliament on the contracts it is giving out.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak to Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-52. I must tell you that even as late as this morning, I was not going to speak, but upon closer examination of the issue, I am pleased to comment on this bill and to echo a number of my colleagues' concerns with respect to the nature of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
A great deal of money flows through this department. It could become very closely linked to patronage, unless a very stringent code is developed that would place tight constraints on its ability to act without a transparent process, give everyone equal access to contracts, and allow effective control of the system for managing public funds.
First of all, I would point out that it is no small amount that Parliament and cabinet are called upon to manage. This year, the federal government will spend some $165 billion, of which of course close to $45 billion will go to interest on the debt; this aside, $120 billion are nonetheless spent on programs.
A good part of this budget will funnel through the Department of Public Works and Government Services, which approves the operating expenditures of the various departments, whether for rental of accommodation, or all the other sorts of things departments need to operate.
It is quite surprising to discover just exactly how difficult it is to obtain precise information in this regard. I had some fun a few months back trying to determine how much had been spent renovating buildings in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. It was a very difficult exercise because, even when it is possible to obtain overall figures, total amounts, there is never any very precise data on who won the contracts and how large they were. Were there cost overruns compared to tenders? Information like that requires painstaking research. I did not get the feeling that the people I consulted were very enthusiastic about helping me find out what I wanted to know.
The Bloc has made some very interesting suggestions. I would like to address each of these items briefly. One of the first suggestions made by the Bloc for improvement, to ensure that administration was more efficient, was to make sure that one or more committees-of the many House committees-the standing committees, would be able to make a quarterly examination of the expenditures of the various departments. Initially I think the suggested level for this was $25,000 and up.
So, all expenditures in excess of $25,000 ought to be assessed by parliamentary committees. This would get MPs more involved in government administration. It would increase monitoring and all those who might be tempted to fiddle with public funds would be more nervous if they knew that these expenditures would be examined in a public exercise where a number of people could voice opinions and even hold a debate. If it was felt appropriate, they could even call the people in question in to explain themselves. This strikes me as merely a normal process to ensure more efficient and more responsible administration.
(1710)
At a time when the public is being asked to make sacrifices in the battle in which the various governments are engaged against the deficit, we must ensure that what we are administering is at least administered as efficiency as possible, in order to improve public confidence.
If I recall correctly, those words were used in the Liberal Party's red book, which talked of greater transparency and restoring public confidence. When the time comes to put their money where their mouth is, and to bow to the arguments suggested by the opposition parties, one might say that their reflex for self-protection, keeping the political machine as non-transparent as possible, won out over the Liberals' good intentions while they were in the opposition and were experiencing the frustrations a goodly number of MPs are now experiencing.
Of course, there must be some members of the government party who manage to obtain some information, thanks to their good relations with ministers or because of their participation in previous campaigns, the support they gave, or I might even say because of political debts tied to a leadership race or similar things. Nevertheless, this is not a normal situation because as elected representatives, whatever our political party, we were all elected in ridings and therefore each of us reflects a majority of electors in his or her own riding.
Of course, those constituents voted for a political party but they also voted for an individual and they expect their member of Parliament to be as effective as possible and to be the best representative possible in Parliament.
Therefore, being able to study all those expenditures in committee can harm no one. I would like the government party to tell us why it is against such a measure. How would the suggestion that all expenditures over $ 25,000 be thoroughly examined by a committee render Parliament less efficient and less vigilant regarding in terms of managing public funds?
We are aware that it would impose a large amount of work on members, but this is part of our role. We might be much more efficient if we did this rather than certain things done in committee and which, and I hope you will allow me to be sceptical, have very little impact on departments if they have not given directives, or circulated reports from the committees. This is why members of committees should be given more autonomy.
For those who are following this discussion, committees are composed of members of recognized political parties. There is a number from the government party and from the two opposition parties, the official opposition and the third party. These people could look at these expenditures over a few weeks, meeting a few times a week.
The government has said nothing about the follow-up to this suggestion, and today is not the first time we have made it, but nobody has considered it worth acting on.
Another aspect concerns contracting out. In recent years, the government has cut its staff drastically and contracts out increasingly. It can thus save money. We have nothing against this of itself, but it is very dangerous if it becomes a devious way to provide work for one's political friends.
Need I point out that, unlike Quebec, which has very strict legislation on the funding of political parties, here, companies can make donations to political parties. Recently I was looking at a 1994 report which revealed that a lot of companies contribute to political parties. I am talking about the traditional political parties, because this does not apply to the Bloc, which is funded by individuals. Companies provide most of the funding of these parties. I cannot believe that this is a disinterested gesture on their part. When an individual gives $75,000 or $100,000 to a political party, I am not so sure he is expecting nothing in return.
It is more complex than that. Contributions can even be made through numbered companies. So, trying to find out who really financed the political parties can be a very difficult and demanding task, requiring a lot of time and energy to see who financed what and whether contracts are awarded according to contributions as well.
(1715)
As we know, there is a growing trend toward contracting out. How is it that the government did not deem it appropriate to clearly define a code of ethics on the awarding of those contracts that would be far more severe than the one in place? Here again, transparency, a word repeated over and over in the red book, is absent. They did not find it appropriate to act on that recommendation.
I will make the same argument as earlier. How would this make Parliament less efficient? It seems to me to be a good suggestion. You know, today people expect a lot from us. They ask us to not just criticize the government but also to make suggestions forcefully. That is what we do. We make concrete suggestions in order to make the management of public funds as efficient as possible.
I have a third point, and it is important. The member for Berthier-Montcalm referred earlier to something that occurs sometimes, and more often recently. One learns that important things, major things are happening. They may happen in our ridings without us being informed whereas if we, as representatives of those citizens, had been informed, we could have warned people and reacted as efficiently as possible. In his case, it was a problem with major environmental impacts. A similar example came to my mind.
Public Works has transferred, or is in the process of transferring, the management of docks to the municipalities. I represent a little municipality of barely 250 inhabitants called Moffet. There is a federal dock in Moffet. The kind of renovations done to that dock could have been managed much more efficiently by the municipal administration. One day officials from Public Works came to undertake the renovations-in co-operation with Fisheries and Oceans, of course-but these people did not take into consideration particulars or comments. Because the town's mayor showed up at the site. In a small town, when people from outside are coming in, they are spotted at once. On that day, the people rushed to meet them and seeask what they were doing. Then, they realized they were coming to repair the dock. It was obvious to the local population that what was about to be done would not be work, but nobody had told the contractor. He had the contract, and he had to abide by it to get paid.
The person who got the contract said: ``If I want to be paid, I must follow the specifications, and I will''. Six months later, everything had to be redone, because the repairs did not last. There had been an error in assessing spring flood levels and other factors.
If my office or myself had been advised that the government was considering such work, we could have contacted the municipality's officials or officials from other regional county municipalities that had carried out similar projects. We could have been more efficient and we would not have had to do it twice. Moreover, we could have informed local contractors that repairs were to be done and that the bidding process was open. We can say repeatedly that the process is open, but not everybody knows that. If we were more involved at the local level, we could be more efficient. There would be more economic spinoffs in our regions.
What the Bloc Quebecois suggested to avoid this kind of thing was to inform members of what is going on, and in the present case, namely the management of public funds under federal jurisdiction, to give notice to the elected representatives of the people of what is coming, what will have to be done, and even what has been done so far. But of course, acting in a more transparent and efficient way is not one of the present government's priorities. I insist because I am convinced that it will lead to more efficiency.
Why not try to be more efficient? This is a question we might well ask.
(1720)
It might be to protect certain interests. To play politics, or worse, to use patronage to reward friends of the government by granting them a number of contracts and kickbacks in exchange for their political ties.
When people elect us they believe that we have a lot of power. They think we can change many things easily. Increasingly, they get the feeling that we are fighting a machine trying to protect itself, to be more or less transparent, to account for things in a certain manner. Three or four years later, the books are kept differently, the way data is presented is changed, it is very confusing, several sets of data are combined together, the whole of Quebec is lumped together, even the whole of Canada. It becomes very difficult to know exactly what was done in each area.
Returns which are more local in nature or deal more with specific ridings are more difficult to get. Sometimes, it is possible, but it is generally quite rare. They are certainly not available from the new Department of Public Works and Government Services. And yet, a lot of money is channeled through this department.
Perhaps, if there was more consultation, if people were more involved, there might be fewer buildings with empty offices, fewer very expensive buildings or fewer very expensive renovations.
Once I spoke with someone responsible for building maintenance or improvement, especially for federal buildings. This person benefited from the spinoffs and said to me: ``I certainly have no right to complain, but it is incredible to see the amount of waste''.
That is what he said. And I, a member of Parliament, felt totally powerless in front of that situation. When you call for information, you would think you were asking for the moon because it takes quite a considerable effort to obtain a statement of expenditures for a specific building and to find out if there were misuse or squandering.
Naturally, people who authorize squandering try to justify it. To prevent that, we should act before and not after the fact. This is one of our problems. Our society is largely focused on remedial action; we try to solve problems but we do not try hard enough to prevent them. It is the same with the management of public funds. It would seem only normal to ask for statements.
The year 2000 is almost here. Computer services are well developed and it would be very easy to obtain statements from the different ridings.
The auditor general is supposed to be the watchdog of government. It costs nearly $50 million a year for us to monitor the
government, for the government to check its own administration. His task would be made easier if elected members were more involved in the monitoring of public spending. Everybody knows that we have administrative assistants, people who work for us, and we could follow very closely the spending of public money in our ridings, and influence the way things are done.
This would greatly enrich the role of elected members-and especially members of the governing party-who would feel that they have real influence on the decision making process in their communities. If the public knew that their local representatives can watch very closely, can monitor, and even influence or neutralize things which are not done efficiently, they would feel a little closer to politics.
What worries me the most is seeing how far they can go. This reflects the attitude of the Prime Minister, a slight lack of respect for democracy as a whole. Whether it be through a desire to influence the rules of democratic consultation, or through processes like the one dealing with the Pearson airport or by an attitude when faced with suggestions like the ones we have made, which would serve to reinforce democracy-because MPs are representatives of their constituents-one wonders to what extent politicians are protecting each other with the backing of the bureaucracy. I am talking about the highest ranks of the bureaucracy, because local civil servants usually act in good faith and are willing to co-operate. There are some departments where things are going very well.
In my riding, for example, in the Department of Human Resources Development it is working very well. In that department, they are in the habit of consulting members of Parliament. However, it is getting less common, because previously the signature of an MP was required, but now it is less often the case, although consultations on a voluntary basis remain, depending on the person in charge, on whether he or she was appointed by the present or the previous government, on the mood of the minister in charge, etc.
(1725)
I believe this was a very valid component of organizational culture that recognized the role played by the elected reprresentatives. It is very dangerous to get away from that.
Before closing, I would like to give an example of something similar, which is happening with the appointment of people who are going to be in charge of the Statistics Canada census. There was a usual, familiar processus, but it would appear that political interference is on the rise, and this is not necessarily sound and not necessarily desirable.
So, in closing, we have very interesting suggestions which will ensure that the worst that could happen for the government is that it be more efficient. So I wonder why government members are opposed to that. If they are acting in good faith, they will adjust their bill. We are at the third reading stage, there is still time to improve it and then we could considere supporting these government actions, which will ensure that we will become more efficient and above all more responsible.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it behoves me to respond to some of the statements made by members of the Bloc. I do not think they can be allowed to go unchallenged.
A few minutes ago the member for Berthier-Montcalm raised the issue of the dredging contract at Sorel, Quebec. He more or less implied that the public has been ignored, that certain concerns have been overlooked and that people who have legitimate concerns have been shut out of the process. I say unequivocally and categorically that is not true.
Yes, there are environmental concerns surrounding that project. Those environmental concerns are being met. Already there have been public meetings on this issue. There were two meetings that I know of, one on January 5, 1996 and another on March 14, 1996. Those meetings involved public consultations.
For the hon. member to somehow suggest that the public is being ignored in this process, he is just not being factual and is not rendering a service to the House. I can state that if further public meetings are required that will happen. As I said, there are environmental concerns. The Department of Public Works and Government Services has a responsibility to address those concerns.
I want to put those statements on the record. I do not think that the hon. member from Berthier-Montcalm had all the information at his fingertips. I would hope he would take what I have said into account.
I also want to address one of the issues raised by the hon. member for Témiscamingue. If I can put it in my own words, the hon. member for Témiscamingue was asking out loud what is going on in his riding or in other ridings in Quebec. He was saying that the government issues contracts and he, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, does not know what is going on.
I would suggest that he should do his homework better. There are means available to the hon. member for Témiscamingue and for other members from the Bloc, other members from the province of Quebec, other members from all provinces in this country. There is ample opportunity for-
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The member is now in question and comment period concerning the speech made by the member for Témiscamingue.
(1730)
The member is now responding to allegations that I am making. If we want to set the record straight, the member is giving false information, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): This is not a question of privilege.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, let me continue with respect to what the hon. member for Témiscamingue was saying. In effect he was saying he did not know what was going on in his own riding and that members of the Bloc Quebecois should know more about what is going on with respect to the letting of government contracts, that it should know more about what is going on in its ridings.
If the members do their homework they can find out. We talked about the open bidding service before and I will talk about it again. For example, I cite what is available on OBS: all contract opportunities; notices of plans, sole sourced contracts as well as notices of contract awards; the open bidding system also offers contract histories, that is information on contracts that have been awarded in the past to whom and for what amount.
He is also somehow suggesting we should make all this information available on a riding to riding basis, which would invite all kinds of red tape. We already have red tape in the government. We already have too much paper and we are providing this information through the electronic system, OBS.
If the hon. member really wants to know what is going on he can do it. It may take a little work but if he ties into the open bidding system he can get the information he needs.
I go back to what the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead said. I am not exactly sure what he was talking about. I know the hon. member. He is a personable, engaging fellow, but I think he has had a bad day. Somehow he was talking about promoting a contracting out code.
We have the system in place that is open, that is fair, that is transparent. It is above board. What the members from the Bloc are suggesting is that we draw members of Parliament into the system-
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I think the hon. parliamentary secretary has just woken up from a long sleep, and before he goes back in time to the throne speech or his election in 1993, we should remind him that this is the question and comment period following the speech of the member for Témiscamingue.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Your point of order was not valid at all.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, I will finish my last point in a moment. I thought I was doing a service to the members of the Bloc by providing this information. I believe I am providing a service to all Canadians watching this debate.
The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead seems to be suggesting we politicize the public service. I think we have one of the greatest public services in the world. It is professional and public servants do their jobs in a professional manner. The last thing I want is to politicize that service. I believe we have a system in place.
If the members of the Bloc do their homework, if they need information, if they want information, it is there. They may have to do some work but after all that is what they are paid for. We have a system that works and we should be very proud of it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would like to remind you that the question and comment period is 10 minutes long. As should be obvious by its name, it is a period for questions or comments.
Mr. Brien: Madam Speaker, in the three or four minutes I have left, I will respond to the parliamentary secretary. First of all, I would like to remind him of a few points. In his comment, question or lecture, if you like, the hon. member referred to my work as a member of Parliament. I say to him that the constituents in my riding will decide for themselves in the next election and I invite him to come to my riding to discuss this matter, perhaps sooner than he expects. I will then be pleased to be accountable to my constituents.
(1735)
He referred to the situation in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm. I wish to tell him that some of the information he gave is wrong. He should ask the people in his department to do the job if he does not want to do it himself. First of all, the first public assembly was held January 15 and not January 5, and it was in Sorel by invitation. Only one person from the north shore had been invited and was present.
The second public assembly, which was held March 14, was organized by my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm and not by his department or by the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
So I would ask the parliamentary secretary-
An hon. member: To apologize.
Mr. Brien: Not to apologize, it would be asking too much, but at least to congratulate my colleague in some future speech, because we know that he likes to revisit past issues, the next time he has an opportunity to do so in about 20 minutes.
In closing, I would like to get back to what the hon. member said about working harder and not being afraid of work. We are certainly not afraid of work. What we are asking him is to submit contracts worth $25,000 and above to House committees, to elected members, for review and analysis so that we can do our job properly. We are not afraid of work. If he himself is afraid, that is his problem. We, however, want to be more effective and, as I was saying earlier, more accountable.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to participate in the debate at third reading on Bill C-7 to merge two former departments, namely Public Works Canada and Supply and Services Canada.
This bill does not change the legislation much at all. On the surface, the bill is not controversial. That is the problem. Since Bill C-7 was introduced, the official opposition has taken issue and continues to take issue not with what the government has done but rather with what it has not done. Basically, the old system is being kept. Change the designation, change the first page and put everything back together unchanged.
Members will recall that this is the department handling the majority of the federal government's goods and services procurement contracts. Billions of dollars are involved, and with billions of dollars at stake, almost nothing is being done, no effort made to determine how this money could be spent more efficiently. Contrary to what they had promised in the red book, they are not taking the time to put in place a transparent system to make these expenditures more efficient and effective. I will give you more examples from my riding in a moment. If the hon. parliamentary secretary who wants to see whether we have done our job, he could start by telling me if he has done his.
When tabling Bill C-52, now Bill C-7, the federal government had an opportunity to innovate. It had an opportunity to establish a model department, a department from which all the cumbersome red tape would have been removed. As a rule, a modern government uses modern tools to meet public expectations. The federal government, thanks to proposals from the official opposition, had a chance to fulfil its electoral promises and ensure maximum transparency in all aspects of power.
As my colleagues said earlier, people generally feel that opposition members object for the pure delight of it, but our party proposed four clear and precise amendments that would allow the government to improve its supply and services system, boost its popularity, and, at the same time, restore public faith lost because of the all too present patronage seen in government. What have they done? Absolutely nothing. They replaced the front page, changed the title and the number of the bill, and trotted it out again.
So, nothing at all was done. Of all the amendments presented by the Bloc Quebecois during the previous debates on the bill, none was retained. Let me recall a few just to show how appropriate they could have been to improve the bill's effectiveness.
(1740)
First of all, I must state the Bloc Quebecois's concern that there were no simple and transparent rules. If a contractor in my riding wishes to deal with the federal government, he will have to go some distance to locate a resource person. Before knocking on the right door, before speaking to the right person, before reaching the appropriate service, this contractor, or his business, must have the following qualifications: he must be very familiar with the system, be a generous donor, have a lifelong knowledge of the system, and have friends in the right places.
This is precisely what we wanted to change. We wanted to change that perception regarding access to an imposing structure that discourages anyone, including ordinary citizens, experts and elected representatives, interested in finding out more about the department and how public funds are spent. I will give you some examples later on.
As I said earlier, it should be possible and in fact easier for anyone, such as a contractor, to have access to that structure and offer his services. I want to remind this House of the experience of some of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who, a few months ago, sent a written request to Public Works and Government Services Canada to obtain a list of the contracts awarded by that department in their ridings.
Such a request from an elected representative is perfectly in order. After all, in the case of the infrastructures program, we regularly receive in our offices a list of the projects submitted in our ridings. The list also specifies which projects are approved and which ones are rejected. That list is a public document. We can quite appropriately discuss it with local politicians.
So, some Bloc Quebecois members simply asked the department responsible for awarding the supply and services contracts how the government spends public funds. As member for Terrebonne, I should know how that money is being spent in my riding.
These members sent their written request to the Department of Public Works. The minister's reply was especially surprising and disappointing. The Minister of Public Works and Government Services answered that it was unfortunately impossible to reply to their requests because it would entail too much expense. We do not know how he did it, but he gave an estimate of $160,000 for those expenditures at that time.
This example clearly shows how cumbersome the department is. It also shows how members who, like my colleague for Témiscamingue, like my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm, like myself and like all my colleagues, including Liberal members and Reform members, want to do their job-
Mr. Landry: And the member for Lotbinière.
Mr. Sauvageau: And my colleague for Lotbinière, I am sorry. It shows how impossible it is for those members to do their job well and to know about the expenditures that have been made in their ridings. Departmental officials tell us that it is impossible to give us an answer, that they do not know how much they are spending and they do not know either how the contracts are awarded.
The public service, and more specifically the Department of Public Works and Government Services, have set up impressive obstacles to confuse people, like members of Parliament, who try to understand the workings of the federal machinery for awarding government contracts in our ridings.
The number of contractors who try to get contracts from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, but do not manage to understand all the ins and outs of the government machinery, is very large. I think every member from every party gets that kind of complaint in his or her constituency office. That explains how a select club of contractors came to exist, people used to the workings of the system, who too often take advantage of the government largesse.
Official opposition amendments providing for simple and transparent rules have all be defeated. Another amendment I will deal with momentarily provided for a contracting out code. It has met with the same fate. As the hon. member for Témiscamingue mentioned a while ago, I think we need easy, clear and transparent rules and standards. Contracting out is a fact, and I will give figures later on, but it could be made more effective.
The Bloc Quebecois amendment simply reflected a tendency to contract out that has been growing over the years in the federal public service. The last available data are for fiscal year 1992-93. According to Treasury Board estimates, services that have been contracted outside the federal government totalled $5.2 billion during that year.
(1745)
The federal government was certainly not unaware of that trend when it introduced Bill C-7. It should have taken this opportunity to regulate this new procedure.
The President of the Treasury Board has told us year in and year out: ``The number of public servants has dropped by 3 per cent, or 5 per cent, and the public service has been shrinking''. What he forgot to tell us is that, in the meantime, contract budgets have been rising. What we would like to know, as elected representatives of the people, is how much money is being wasted-yes, wasted-in contracts and how these contracts are awarded.
Why is the number of public servants decreasing year after year while contracting out is on the rise? We have a good idea. It means fewer responsibilities in terms of labour relations and job security, fewer responsibilities for the employers towards their employees.
Should we issue a contracting out code? We did propose one. What did we get for an answer? Nothing. The Bloc Quebecois thought Bill C-7 would establish such a code, or at least rules for the government to properly control the contracting out process and to make it more open.
Everyone from the government and its employees to the general public would have benefited from such a contracting out code. This is the kind of code that ensures better work relations between the government and its public servants, while contracting out is often perceived by the public service and unions as a fearsome enemy they have to fight all the time.
By developing clear contracting out rules, everyone's role would be well defined and everyone would benefit. Also, such a code would have cleared up the whole contracting out process, something the population would have appreciated. We would have solved the problem. It is by setting these kinds of standards rather than by rejecting a whole series of proposals to make positive changes to the awarding process that we will restore the Canadian population's confidence in our abilities and revive their expectations.
By refusing to follow up on the two recommendations from the official opposition regarding the importance of establishing a contracting out code and establishing clear guidelines, the Liberal government is encouraging or giving the appearance of encouraging outmoded practices, for which the public is still and always the first to pay.
I would remind you that in a recent survey, school board officials and municipal, provincial and federal politicians had the trust of about 4 per cent of the population. If we add up the number of school board officials and municipal, provincial and federal politicians, they represent about 4 per cent of the population. This was not a very strong vote of confidence and it is not going to get any better with standards like these. If we then look at the error rate, something like 4 per cent, we did not do very well.
In another vein, I would like to draw the attention of this House to another recommendation of the Bloc Quebecois which never went anywhere, that being the involvement of MPs, regardless of affiliation. This is not a partisan recommendation, to involve them in the letting of Public Works and Government Services contracts in their respective ridings, as is now the case with infrastructure projects.
At the present time, it is literally impossible-let anyone correct me-for an MP to find out about contracts let by the department in
question in his or her riding, as we mentioned earlier. This makes no sense, if we accept the principle that MPs are the people most aware of what is going on in their own ridings.
The problem of the wharf in Témiscamingue was mentioned earlier, as well as another problem in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm. It is now my turn to tell you about a problem in my riding. It concerns the unemployment office.
We learned at one point that, because it did not conform to standards, the Terrebonne unemployment office had to be moved-which is quite commendable-to another location that was larger, better suited, more modern, with new carpeting, new furniture, new lights, a new computer system, etc.
The move was made about six months ago. It cost hundreds of thousands of dollars with the work that was done at the new location and the signing of a ten-year lease. To show you the great consistency between government departments, a month later, we learned that the Terrebonne unemployment office was going to be closed.
(1750)
How many tens of thousands of dollars, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars, were spent on a ten year lease for beautiful, brand new premises, just to announce one, two or three months later that the office was being closed down? When? Unknown. That makes for an excellent work atmosphere. They tell the workers: ``You will be cut, and the office will be shut down. We do not know when, but give us a year or two and it will all be over. We have just set up fancy new offices, but forget about an office-warming party''. There was not even an official opening ceremony. No time, it was closed. Or going to be closed. Now, that shows a really coherent policy. How more with it can anyone be?
So that is another example, and we could go back a bit in time for several more. As my colleagues have said, MPs need to be aware of what departmental contracts are being awarded in their ridings, so as to be effective and efficient, and to help the government as well. Whether Liberal, Bloc Québécois, or Reform, who are the ones who should be informed of what is going on in our ridings? The MPs, first and foremost, not the public servants, but the MPs. Not so that we can carry out our own political patronage, but to offer our opinions, as is done everywhere.
Besides, this recommendation of the official opposition was based on the principle that the competence of members of Parliament goes beyond the legislative framework, inasmuch as they have to study matters of state and this, of course, has practical administrative consequences. Nevertheless, even if members of Parliament are consulted, even if they are invited to vote on various kinds of issues, as they will be called to do in a moment, they are still denied any means of verifying if votes, expenditures, income tax and government decisions comply with the recommendations and legislation of the House.
In a few moments we will vote on one bill and tomorrow we will vote on another. Then we will try to see whether our vote is well represented in our riding, and we will be denied this information. If members cannot have access, as the minister wrote, to information on the expenditures by the various departments in their ridings, how can an ordinary individual unfamiliar with the intricacies of government machinery obtain information? It is impossible.
The government's refusal to inform a member about federal government activities in his or her riding is another of its failings. Why not consult, or at least inform a member, as in the infrastructure program, when a contract is awarded in his or her riding? This would be an opportunity to encourage transparency and efficiency in an overloaded system.
Furthermore, members of Parliament could be used as safeguards against the blind waste of public funds. They could, for example, advise a public servant who does not know how things work in Témiscamingue and who, in turn, could advise an architect before any plans were drawn up. A public servant could visit the riding to consult other public servants before setting up premises, drawing up a 10-year lease, etc. if the office is to be closed before its official opening. I think there may be more intelligent standards to be set in the public service if we want to get more than 4 per cent.
In addition to stressing the merit of having members of Parliament involved in the system, the Bloc Quebecois stressed the importance of making public servants accountable since these are the first to know how public funds are used. The Bloc Quebecois recommended the implementation of an instrument allowing-even though I do not like the term-exposure of waste of public funds by civil servants and valuing the practice. What we mean by that is not a ``stooling'' system revealing situations where someone is spending more than the other. It is simply a system allowing civil servants to report the inadequacy of some program without being penalized.
As I said, the underlying principle is not to frighten employees who would suspect others of checking up on them, but rather to admit that useless spending is made regularly.
Finally, I would conclude this short speech by reminding the House of another recommendation we made and which is largely approved by many MPs of all parties.
The Bloc Quebecois seized the opportunity to firmly condemn the practice of advance payments. What is advance payment? It is a practise which consists in using all the resources available to a
departmental unit. This way, the department makes sure it will have the same budget for the following year.
What does this mean? It is simple. If, in a department, you have $1,500,000 to spend, you must make sure you spend it all. If, towards the end of the last month, you still have $150,000, buy $150,000 worth of dictionaries if you want, but spend it all.
(1755)
Practices like these account for a rating of 4 per cent in people's confidence in the government. Practices like these have been condemned by the Bloc Quebecois throughout consideration of Bill C-7.
To conclude, these four amendments, these four proposals by the Bloc Quebecois would have allowed every one in this House, not only the Bloc, not only the sovereignist movement, to regain some respect and improve their public image.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I really cannot believe my ears. I am absolutely amazed that members of the Bloc would propose the politicization of the letting of contracts. It is really hard to believe in this day and age that any member of Parliament would suggest that they should directly intervene in the letting of contracts.
What is the point in having a professional civil service? What is the point of setting down an objective set of criteria if members of Parliament, even with the best of intentions, were allowed to interfere in the letting of contracts or in the invitation of bids. It simply would not work.
If we hear today outcries about patronage, which we do from time to time, can you imagine, Madam Speaker, the kind of outcries you would hear if we were to pursue the course suggested by the Bloc? I suppose if the government were to let a contract to someone who had ties to the Bloc, then of course everything would seem open, fair, transparent and above board. It would be seen as okay.
What would happen if the government ever let a contract to someone who may have some kind of remote ties to the government? Right away the accusation of patronage would be heard.
We went through this in the 19th century. Surely the Bloc would not want to have that kind of political patronage come back on to the political scene.
The Bloc members have been more or less implying or suggesting that we do not listen and if only we would listen we would do a far better job. Let us talk about Bill C-7 or in its former incarnation Bill C-52. Members voiced concerns about clause 16. They were concerned about the discretion that the original version of clause 16 gave to the minister. They were concerned that the minister would have too much power.
What was done? The clause was amended. Under clause 16 the minister no longer has that discretion. Now the discretion must be exercised by order in council, in other words by full cabinet. Not only that, but it was amended so that when it came to entering into contracts with other governments, whether they were inside the country or outside the country, it cannot be done by the federal government on its own, in other words, it cannot be done proactively. It has to be done as a result of an amendment only on request.
Even if the government thought it would like to enter into some kind of contractual liaison with another province, it cannot do it unless that province approaches us and asks us specifically to enter into a contractual liaison. That is an example of listening.
When the members of the Bloc talk about us not listening, I would submit very sincerely that they are being disingenuous. To put it in clearer language, they are not being sincere.
With that kind of talk, I do not think the members of the Bloc do service to themselves, their constituents, the people of Quebec, and certainly not to Canadians in general. We have what is called an open bidding system, which is open, fair, above board and transparent. If members of the Bloc want to acquaint themselves with the system they will find that it is a good system and it is working.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being six o'clock, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage and second reading of Bill C-14, an act to continue the National Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or repeal other acts as a consequence.
Call in the members.
(1815)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 69.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Reed
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-90
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Mackenzie and I voted at the beginning and at the end. We are not trying to vote twice but we did not hear our names over the microphone either time. I would like to be assured that we were recorded as voting in the affirmative for this amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): You can rest assured it was called.
[Translation]
I declare Motion No. 1 negatived. Motion No. 69 is therefore negatived as well.
The next vote is on Motion No. 25.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion before the House. Liberal members will vote nay.
I also wish to add the name of the Secretary of State for Agriculture to the list for this vote.
Mr. Charest: Madam Speaker, my colleague for Saint John and myself being the sponsors of this motion, I wish to inform the government whip that we consent to apply the vote on the previous
motion to this motion, and also, of course, to add the name of the Secretary of State for Agriculture to the list.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the offical opposition will vote nays.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, except for those who might wish to vote otherwise, we will vote yes to this motion.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the NDP votes yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): No, Madam Speaker.
(1830)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I invite the honourable member for Sherbrooke to repeat the comments he made earlier about the vote because they were not recorded.
Mr. Charest: Madam Speaker, of course I intend to vote in favour of this motion. Therefore, if I heard my colleagues well, there is unanimous consent.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Cauchon
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godin
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Venne
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-112
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 25 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 29.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, I have a problem. The Reform Party would like to support Motion No. 2 but it has been tied to Motion No. 29 which we do not support. I wonder if you would pry these apart and give us separate votes on Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 29.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That was in the Speaker's ruling, therefore we cannot change this unless we have the consent of all the MPs in the House. Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe that you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion before the House. Liberal members will vote nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, Reform members, except those who do otherwise, will vote against the motion.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the NDP votes yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): I vote against it, Madam Speaker.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manning
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Venne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Young
Zed-146
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 2 lost.
(1835)
The next question is on Motion No. 29.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion presently before the House, with Liberal MPs voting nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the Official Opposition members vote no.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: The Reform Party votes no on this motion.
Mr. Blaikie: The NDP votes yes on this motion, Madam Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, the only elected independent member votes no.
[English]
Mr. Epp: Madam Speaker, I hope the Table has noted that the member for Sherbrooke has absented himself and should not be counted in any of these future votes.
[Translation]
[Editor's Note: See the list under Division No. 22.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the Motion No. 29 defeated.
The next question is on Motion No. 31.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent that the results of the vote taken a little earlier today on Motion No. 1 at report stage be applied to the motion presently before the House, adding of course the presence of the Secretary of State (Agriculture) who will vote too against the motion.
I wish also to seek unanimous consent that this vote applies to the following motions: Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 68.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, we do not give unanimous consent to apply to Motion No. 38 or Motion No. 27. We would like a standing vote on those two, please.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion concerning the procedure. If we agree to reverse or to apply votes we do not have to get up and say how we vote. We just agree to apply them. We agree to apply them.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, I will vote against the motions.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should reword this to say that I am seeking unanimous consent to apply the result of vote 1 to report stage Motions Nos. 31, 36, 37, not 38 just for greater clarity, and 68.
I believe that would find unanimous consent.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
(1840)
The Acting President (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 31 defeated.
The next question will be on Motion No. 36.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 23.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question will be on Motion No. 37.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 23.]
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on Motion No. 38.
(The House divided on Motion No. 38, which was negatived on the following division:)
Barnes
Bélair
Bernier (Beauce)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Fry
Gaffney
Gallaway
Gerrard
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Harb
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Simmons
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-91
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
(1845 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 38 defeated.
[Translation]
The next question will be on Motion No. 4 in Group No. 5. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 9, 14 and 15.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I was under the impression we were now voting on report stage Motion No. 4. If that is incorrect perhaps the Chair could indicate it to me.
[Translation]
The Acting President (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We will now proceed with the question on Motion No. 4, in Group No. 5.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion before the House. Liberal members will vote nay.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the offical opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, if the Chair will confirm that we are voting on Motion No. 4, the Reform Party votes no, except for those who might vote otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the NDP votes no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, I vote nay on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Chamberlain
Chan
Crête
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Dhaliwal
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Guimond
Harper (Churchill)
Iftody
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. Motions Nos. 9, 14 and 15 are therefore also defeated.
(1850)
The next question is on Motion No. 17. The division on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 72 and 73.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the present motion, with Liberal MPs voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the official opposition will vote yea.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, Reform members will vote no, except those who wish to do otherwise.
Mr. Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the NDP votes yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Beauce): Madam Speaker, I vote nay on this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 17, which was negatived on the following division:)
Ur
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Young
Zed-125
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 17 negatived. Therefore, Motions Nos. 72 and 73 are also negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 27.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to apply the division on the previous motion to this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No.26.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I therefore declare Motion No. 27 negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 68.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 23.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on Motion No. 6.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent to apply the results of report stage Motion No. 25, the second item we voted on tonight, to the motion presently before the House, Motion No. 6, as well as to Motions Nos. 8, 23 and 66.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 21.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Therefore, I declare the motions negatived.
The next question is on Motion No. 8.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 21.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on Motion No. 18.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to apply the result of the vote on Motion No. 17 to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under division No. 26]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 18 lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 23.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 26.]
(1855)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The next question is on Motion No. 24.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to apply the results of report stage Motion No. 2 in reverse to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Jordan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Manning
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Ringma
Robichaud
Robillard
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
Solberg
Speaker
Stewart (Brant)
Stinson
Szabo
Telegdi
Ur
Venne
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams
Young
Zed-146
Jacob
Kirkby
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 24 carried.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 57. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 58 to 65.
If Motion No. 57 is carried, it will obviate the need to vote on Motion No. 66. If Motion No. 57 is defeated, Motion No. 66 will have to be voted on.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe the House would give its unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote on Motion No. 4 to the motion now before us.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 25.]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare Motion No. 57 negatived. I also declare Motions Nos. 58 to 65 negatived.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.) moved that the Bill be concurred in at the report stage with further amendments and read the second time.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that the House would consent to apply the result of the vote at report stage on Motion No. 1 in reverse to the motion now before the House, with the addition of the Secretary of State for Agriculture, who, I believe, will vote in favour.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Charest
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Dalphond-Guiral
Duncan
Epp
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harris
Hart
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -58
Laurin
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loubier
MacAulay
Maloney
Marchand
Ménard
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Nunziata
Paradis
Paré
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Regan
Shepherd
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Northumberland)
Terrana
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Verran
Wood
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being7 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).
(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)