Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on the motion from the member for Red Deer, since the very essence of this motion is in line with what the Bloc Quebecois has been asking for and I should say that it is also what my constituents in Chicoutimi expect.
The objectives of the Bloc and the official opposition are clear and precise. We want greater transparency and openness in the management of public affairs and respect for the taxpayers' acquired right to know what the government is doing with public funds.
This motion says that Parliament and crown agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. At present, the Access to Information Act, passed in 1982, gives access only to federal government documents. Under this law, therefore, government institutions must make their documents available.
Nevertheless, there are exceptions. Some of the 112 federal crown corporations and several government agencies, including the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and officers of Parliament are not subject to this law.
The Bloc Quebecois believes that the Access to Information Act must be extended to any government institution financed with public funds. In a democratic system like ours, public affairs must be run as openly as possible. That is what our constituents want. Openness, yes, but it is a word which frightens my colleagues opposite.
We see it in the way they have run the affairs of state for a little over a year. Need we mind you of their reticence and great lack of openness on many issues? First, on Bill C-52, concerning the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Liberal government persists in blocking any amendment which would make this department's awarding of government contracts more open. It is hard for members of this Parliament to obtain relevant information on their riding from this department.
Members of Parliament are the last to find out about the reorganizations going on in their riding. In Chicoutimi, a reorganization of post offices was announced to the public after the fact. Moreover, firms of consulting engineers or architects were never told why they could not bid on certain contracts.
A public inquiry might shed some light on how these contracts are awarded, but I imagine they are reserved for friends of the regime. You will also remember this whole episode when the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote to the CRTC about an application. Some said it was a lack of ethics, others talked about a lack of transparency, while others concluded that it was patronage. The government did not follow the principle of transparency, and was caught in the act. It is Bloc Quebecois members who dared to reveal that the Minister of Canadian Heritage got personally involved in issuing a broadcasting licence.
And the Prime Minister did not even take any sanction against that minister, who had intervened. The Prime Minister even had the nerve to excuse his minister by saying that other Cabinet members had also been involved in similar patronage activities. The government also objected to the bill on public financing for political parties. That speaks volumes about their desire to ensure transparency. Past experience tells us that the main financial backers of political parties are usually the ones who get lucrative government contracts. These people are called friends of the regime.
Then there are the reports of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which are submitted to the Solicitor General. However, the solicitor refuses to let the parliamentary subcommittee on national security have access to these documents. Why was that subcommittee set up if it cannot have access to the reports tabled by the agency responsible for monitoring intelligence activity?
Given this lack of transparency, which is becoming more and more prevalent, the Access to Information Act remains one of the only means for elected members of this House, and Canadian taxpayers, to obtain information on the operations of departments and government agencies, including crown corporations.
Thanks to that act, MPs were able to have access to the findings contained in a SIRC report. SIRC concluded that the inquiries conducted by one of the branches of CSIS are not related to threats to Canada's security, as defined in the act but, rather, to threats to the security of private businesses. In conducting such inquiries, CSIS duplicates the operations of the federal and provincial police forces.
As my colleague from Bellechasse pointed out a few days ago in this House, it is unfortunate that parliamentarians are the last ones to be informed of such allegations. Without the Access to Information Act, this government would not reveal anything, either to the official opposition or the citizens of this country.
This time around, the government cannot deny the public its right to scrutinize the management of public affairs, which are financed in large part through the taxes it pays.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the objective of making the whole federal administration accessible and transparent, for the sake of fairness and equity.
We have been elected by our fellow citizens; our mandate is to report to them on the activities and functions of the public administration.
Moreover, the Access to Information Act should also apply to the Senate, an institution which is appointed, not elected.
However, the act should not apply to government agencies and crown corporations which hold confidential information for the purpose of competition, insofar as that information is concerned, but the act should apply to them in the case of general information such as expenditures, budgets, trade practices and personnel management.
In view of the many examples I have just listed, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this motion since it promotes more transparency. Let us hope that our friends opposite will know enough to take advantage of this opportunity.