Debates of June 2nd, 1994

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi-Association Canadienne-Française de l'Ontario.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I would like to start by pointing out the blatant contradiction in the position of the Official Opposition. On the one hand the Bloc argues that federal intervention is ineffective for Quebec's economic development. On the other hand it criticizes the federal government for cutting back on the budgets of the regional agencies. It cannot continue to have it both ways. Liberals believe that federal programs from unemployment insurance, to health care, to community development, to education, to regional development can and do assist each and every region in Canada to grow and prosper.

From the perspective of western Canada it can be said that the concept of a regional economic development agency based to promote western interests is crucial in terms of diversifying the

economic base of western Canada in creating jobs, increasing our international trade and in obtaining a greater share of federal contracts.

Many people in western Canada have come to identify western diversification as the voice of the west in Ottawa, a department which has done a great deal to ensure that western Canada's interests are always taken into account in the national decision making process.

Western diversification assists western businesses to get equal access to major government contracts not by interfering in the process but by ensuring that there is fairness and equity involved in the awards, that the contracts go to the businesses with the best technology and the best people capable of providing a quality product.

I am sure members will all agree many of those high quality companies and people are based in the west, making a major contribution to the economic strength, not just of western Canada, but of the nation as a whole.

The western share of industrial and regional benefits from major federal procurement contracts has risen from just over 7 per cent in 1988 to just about 35 per cent today, representing some $1.7 billion.

I would also like to commend the Minister of Western Economic Diversification for the work he has done in bringing the western provinces together to the table to look at pan western initiatives which will prove of enormous benefit to the economy of the region and the nation as well. He has taken the lead in saying to the provinces that we should work together in the spirit of co-operation because the government recognizes that co-operation at all levels of government is essential to achieving and maintaining a strong economy not subject to the ebb and flow of international commodity prices, but one which is developed from the strength of the region's people, its skills, and its natural resources.

This kind of co-operation between governments does not create overlap but rather enables all levels to maximize the return on their investment of taxpayers' dollars.

As the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn I know first hand of the importance of diversifying the economic base of Saskatchewan. Biotechnology is now a flourishing industry in Saskatoon thanks in part to the assistance given by western diversification, the NRC and other federal programs that appreciate that Saskatoon has the necessary human skills as anywhere else in Canada. We are building a niche in agricultural biotechnology that is unsurpassed but it is only possible because of the partnerships that are being facilitated by the federal government.

Western diversification is also working closely with business, labour, educational and other institutions for the betterment of the economic well-being of western Canada and the nation as a whole. If western Canada is strong all of Canada benefits and the same holds true for Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic.

Repayable assistance for small and medium sized businesses by western diversification has helped more than 4,000 projects get off the ground and has created or maintained over 40,000 jobs.

I know that my colleagues from the Reform Party would rather wipe out this kind of assistance but as my government colleagues have already pointed out with many compelling examples from across the country, by helping some of those innovative entrepreneurs get their foot through the door opportunities that otherwise would be lost are instead being created.

Although working with business in this regard is still a major role I believe the department's advocacy role and its increasingly close ties with the provinces and municipalities are both key to the future strength of western Canada.

Our infrastructure program is a compelling example of the importance of such partnerships. Strategic initiatives such as information networks which ensure economic and business information are shared across the west. Other initiatives such as an agri-food initiative which will increase the export of value added food products and benefit farmers and food producers across western Canada and the rest of the nation can only be regarded as positive and proof indeed that western diversification is not only working as a concept but is making a very real, very positive contribution to the nation's economic strength.

The motion calls on the House to condemn ineffective regional development interventions. This Liberal government is working actively to improve and strengthen regional development initiatives across Canada. Indeed we were elected on our policies which include the following commitment in our red book:

We see strong regional economies as the building blocks of Canada. One of the most important ways of making this happen is to develop forums for economic co-operation, joint action and integrated development at the regional level.

This is the approach that we are embracing and promoting. I do not support the opposition motion, as I believe that our federal interventions in regional development are essential to strengthening the social and economic fabric of Canada today and in the future.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just presented gave a quote from the red book. I would like to give a quote from the red book that I gave earlier:

A reliance on "granterpreneurship", as opposed to entrepreneurship, has fostered artificial local competition and created distortions in local markets.

That is a quote from the Liberal red book and that is the part of the quote that you left out from the quote that you just presented to us. I think the hon. member maybe should consider that in his comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would ask the hon. member to address his comments to the Chair.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask some questions about western diversification.

The hon. member has mentioned some success stories, at least in his mind they are success stories, and I would like to ask about some other people, for example the local owner of a sausage plant in my constituency who has been competing and been struggling but he is making a go of it. This family business as a sausage plant has had to compete with a sausage plant down the road that has received western diversification money. This is unfair competition with his tax dollars that he has paid to the government to help support the competition.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he feels that is fair.

What about the two local businesses, the largest businesses in our neighbouring town, that are funded through western diversification, both now out of business and have left the town grasping for something to replace them and it is not there.

What about the swather manufacturing business in Saskatchewan, a very successful business, which was forced to compete against a swather manufacturing plant funded with western diversification money. The result was they both went out of business because of this unfair competition.

I would like to ask the hon. member what about those businesses and what about Albertans who have paid $100 billion to $165 billion more in tax dollars through the national energy program and through transfer payments to the federal government than they received over the past 25 years. Is it fair to those Alberta taxpayers to be funding these programs in other provinces?

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have reference to the red book again. I am very pleased that the members of the Reform Party are making such good use of the red book since I trust that it will go down in history as one of the finest productions that made in the political history of this country. It is nice to hear that they continue to refer to it. I am pleased they have referred to it.

When we make reference to the red book we see the new direction the hon. minister in charge of that department wants to take western diversification. The direction is not one of giving away money to businesses but one of helping businesses identify export markets, helping businesses arrange the financing, not giving them financing, and helping businesses compete on the international market.

In my province in western Canada we see industries are expanding and increasing their exports into countries like the United States in the areas of farm machinery in particular and of meat products. These are being expanded and we cannot ignore such businesses.

This will continue because our government intends to help business increase exports, not compete against each other unfairly in our country but compete on the international market.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Madam Speaker, like many Quebecers, I certainly do not agree with the motion as it is tabled by the opposition.

It is interesting that, just last week, the United Nations told the whole world that Canada is the number one country in terms of its quality of life.

For that reason, I find it curious that some, particularly opposition members, say that every measure taken by the government of Canada has been a failure. Let me tell you this: Since 1974, the Federal Office of Regional Development has invested over $1.6 billion. All kinds of agreements were concluded, including on tourism, forestry, fisheries and job stimulation. Over the last few months, there has even been talk of a dynamic federalism, because we rely a lot on measures taken in the past.

Madam Speaker, I must also tell you that over 80 per cent of the money invested in Quebec was transferred to that province through administrative agreements. We are there to stimulate the industry as a whole. We are there to help small businesses.

We did not waste any time since we took office. We launched the infrastructure program. We have allocated over $60 million through partnership projects with the province and the municipalities. This program was initially endorsed by the mayors of Quebec city and Montreal, and surely by several dozens if not hundreds more throughout the province.

There is a lot to do. All Canadians must make sacrifices, as well as the province and the municipalities, but we are there to stimulate employment.

As regards the environment, the hon. member for Malpeque and myself did not wait. We looked after the Irving Whale issue. There are members who take environmental issues seriously. The members opposite must know that the federal government has just announced a $100 million project for the St. Lawrence River, with a contribution of $60 million from the province of Quebec. This is a serious government which is concerned first by the employment situation, but also by the environment issue.

We can also talk about the Cod-Fisher Assistance Program. It is true that cod-fishers, not only in Quebec, but throughout Atlantic Canada, are going through a rough time. We have invested $1.9 billion, including $100 million in Quebec.

The weekly benefits these people receive have gone from $171 to $219. We are ready to invest significant amounts of money in the Gaspé Peninsula for job creation and economic recovery, by urging people to open small businesses, to take up aquaculture, to participate in some programs and to develop their entrepreneurial spirit. That is the role of the federal government, the role of the Government of Canada.

We can also talk about the Federal Office of Regional Development. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata said: "The federal did not invest in anything. I am looking, but I cannot see where it invested". I want to point out to her that there is a Federal Office of Regional Development in Rimouski. As a resident of the Gaspé area, I can tell you that Rimouski has received more than its share, compared to other regions in Eastern Quebec. The time has come to do something about this.

You know, we have invested in more than 1,000 small businesses in Eastern Quebec. Of course, we have invested in corporations which have become, with the help of the Government of Canada, multinational companies, like Canadair and de Havilland, and also Bombardier, a world-renowned Quebec company. We have invested in Noranda and in the mining industry.

The Government of Canada takes its responsibilities seriously. I can give you some more examples. I see here that the Corporation of the mining community of Bourlamaque, in Val-d'Or, has recently received $3 million in subsidies. Spielo, in Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, got $1 million, which is not an insignificant investment for a region hard hit by unemployment.

And this one is my favourites. You know that we firmly believe in education. Incidentally, I went in the beautiful constituency of Rimouski to hand out federal scholarships to young and promising students, to future leaders of Canadian society. I can tell you that we want our young to achieve excellence. At the Université du Québec, we invested more than $9 million in the Engineering Department building, because we believe in the scientific sector in Eastern Quebec. Sure, people will tell me that education comes under the provincial jurisdiction.

Here is a question for you, Madam Speaker: Why is it that several school boards in Quebec have a drop-out rate of 35 to 40 per cent? We know very well why. The answer is easy. Because it comes under provincial jurisdiction. But why has the province, which has had jurisdiction over education since 1867, been unable to correct this situation? And we know that 95 per cent of young people complete their studies in Korea, and 90 per cent in Japan. It is often said that students in some developing countries have a better completion rate than Quebec students. The Quebec government and the Opposition members should take their responsibilities.

By the way, the policy of the Bloc is obviously suicidal for Quebec. It does not address the real issues for Quebecers, that is job creation and protection. But I do not want to conclude with this. I want to tell you about the Town Corporation of Rivière-du-Loup, which recieved $1.3 million; the Forestville sawmill, $4.75 million. And that is not all.

I told you about the dryers in my beautiful constituency of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and we invested more than $4 million in the Outaouais region. In Forestville, there is a $1.1 million project funded by the federal government; and the Tadoussac Town Corporation got almost $775,000.

Maybe I should say a few words about the riding of Bonaventure. We invested over $300,000 last winter in surface grinders to help tourism. We invested $50,000 in studies for the museums. We invested $120,000 in the Youth Service Corps. We have already invested a lot of money, even though we have been in office for only six months, and we are about to invest several million more. We have a business plan and we are very serious about our job.

We have acted instead of preaching about sovereignty, independence and separation, about destroying the best country in the world, about getting a divorce-that was the word used by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata who, by the way, did not propose anything. It is easy to criticize. Admittedly, Canada may not be easy to govern, but it is a generous country. It is recognized internationally.

The Leader of the Opposition even went to see the Europeans and the Americans to ask them if they would recognize Quebec as a sovereign state. Essentially, they said: "We recognize Canada as a country".

In the business world, in the private sector, in real life, it is important to know with whom you are dealing. Canada has been known as a country for 125 years. It is a welcoming country, a country which sacrificed many of its sons and daughters in the First and Second World Wars. Canada has a very good credit rating. But some people do not realize that we have a lot of work to do and that we must do it together. They do not realize that those who would suffer the most as a result of the divorce proposed by the opposition would be the workers of Quebec. Everybody knows that. Ridiculous numbers are often thrown at us. Some people do not understand that we have an obligation towards all Quebecers and all Canadians. We have to take care of their future, but it is not by talking about separation and about

destroying this country as we know it that we will give a better life to Canadians, especially to Quebecers.

We know that only 5 per cent of Quebecers, opposition members included, believe that independence is the most pressing issue. I see that my time is running out, but we have many questions to solve and I think that we are going to solve them together. We are going to solve them among Canadians. But I find it totally unacceptable for the opposition to laugh at us when we say that we want to put Canadians back to work, particularly Quebecers, but they offer no alternative but sovereignty and wishful thinking.

I urge opposition members to look around them and maybe to co-operate with us in the search for solutions-which will certainly not include sovereignty-to put Quebecers back to work.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to a few points mentioned by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine when he vaunted the Liberals' regional development programs. First, with regard to education programs in Quebec, he said he was concerned about the drop-out rate in Quebec. But he never said we were losing between $250 and $300 million a year in occupational training, money which should be spent in Quebec to help solve the problems caused by dropping out. Education budgets have been cut for nearly ten years in Quebec and, again, it is a Liberal government which, for the last eight years, has reduced grants to school boards and continually asked them to do more.

Neither does the member mention duplication in regional development, where federal programs overlap with provincial programs, and sometimes all this is done without considering evaluation programs. They do not want to know what the results will be. All they want is to throw some money in order to convince Quebecers that the federal government is the best. They are not interested to know if the programs will help create jobs, all they want is to spend money to impress people.

Where was the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine last week when we spoke of putting the regional infrastructure in place for building a high-speed rail line? Not a single Liberal member from Quebec rose in this House to support this bill, which could create 120,000 jobs. This is a real regional development project, it is not an infrastructure project creating only short-term jobs. But the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine was not here to support it.

When one speaks of measures, one must be sincere and follow one's principles and thinking through to their conclusion!

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, members opposite speak about vocational training. In 1975 and 1970, more than 20 years ago, we had five or six vocational training programs at the high school in Bonaventure. Today, there are only a couple left.

Quebec withdrew from its commitment to vocational training. That should not be blamed on the Canadian government. A question was asked about the $250 or $300 million funding. This is a matter of harmonization, and of reaching an administrative agreement with Quebec. Negotiations are under way and I can tell you we are making good progress.

They talk about the high-speed train between Quebec City and Windsor. What would happen if Quebec became independent? Are we going to set up a border? Probably. You think everything will be easy, but there are hard and cold facts. Liberals want to concentrate on job creation and economic renewal. Quite honestly, sovereignty does not solve any of our real day-to-day problems.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion of my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. It is the first time since I have been in the House of Commons that we talk about regional development. The motion moved by a member from the Bloc aims at making the public aware of the sad situation that exists in the regions of Canada, and particularly of Quebec.

The motion says: "That this House condemn the federal government's ineffective regional development interventions". Today, I heard our Liberal friends speak highly of Canadian federalism. I heard them speak about grants, about money given everywhere in Quebec and in Canada. According to them, that is a godsend for the good people and everyone should be happy and say "thank you, my good government". But if we look at what is presently going on in Quebec, particularly in the regions, what do we see? We see unemployment, regions that are stagnant, populations that are not growing and, most of all, we also see, and that is dramatic, young people who are leaving their region.

I look at my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, and particularly my town. Ten years ago, in Jonquière, there were 62,000 inhabitants; now, there are perhaps 58,000. What happened? The young people do not like their region any more? That is not the case. What happened is that people have to leave their region in order to survive. There are regions in Quebec that have almost become under-developed countries. Why are people leaving their region to go elsewhere? It is because they want to eat. And that is what are presently doing many Quebecers who are leaving their region to go to Quebec City or Montreal because they are hungry, they are hungry for work and for opportunities.

Let us look at our regions. What happened? Is it because people who work there are inefficient? There is a considerable number of development programs both at the federal and provincial levels. Some people work on the development of those programs as administrators or regional sponsors. Those people act as volunteers and give their time and their energy

because they are committed to the development of their region. There are also federal and provincial civil servants working.

Since my election I have been in contact every day with a lot of federal civil servants. I know they are competent and committed to their work but if we look at the results we can see that nothing works well because of the endemic unemployment in the regions. In my own area of Chicoutimi-Jonquière, the unemployment rate is about 17 per cent, or 15 per cent in the greater area. There must be something going wrong. I cannot see what our Liberal friends have to brag about or congratulate themselves for. They should meet the unemployed and the students who cannot find work and tell them that everything is going well; and we will see what answer they get.

Let me give you two examples of the inefficiency of regional development in my region. I blame that situation on the inefficiency of Canadian federalism. In my own region, an incredible story has been going on for about fifteen years and it is about the famous Alma-La Baie Highway.

This is a highway which was to link the towns of Alma and La Baie. There was a federal-provincial agreement for the construction of this highway. The federal agreed, the provincial agreed, the municipalities agreed, everybody agreed, but there is still no highway. Every two, three, four or five years we add three or five kilometres. When we want to go ahead there is always someone to object.

At times it is the provincial government which objects, other times the federal government which asks for delays. There is conflict, and discussion, but no construction.

This is an example of a non-functioning federal-provincial agreement endorsed in good faith by local governments which did not realize that there was a fundamental flaw: there were two decision-makers. When important decisions can come from two different places, very often none are made.

This is an example that shows that Canadian federalism does not work in the area of regional development. A divided highway is essential for a region, but we still do not have one because Canadian institutions are flawed.

Let us take another current example. There is a passenger train service between Jonquière and Montreal which is managed by VIA Rail. Some people in Canada say that rail service is not cost-effective. They say that some lines make no profits, and that cuts are needed. But where should we cut? Of course they are going to make cuts in the means of transportation between the large centres and the remote areas. They want to eliminate one mode of transportation which is important for my area, in several respects.

First of all, it is important because an area like mine, which is quite remote, needs a variety of means of transportation for its development and to be connected to larger centres. We have the Laurentian Highway, which is not yet a divided highway, in spite of several projects which might come to fruition some day, for our grand-children to see. We have a deep water port and we have the railroad.

An essential and fundamental aspect of rail transportion is that it carries passengers. The Jonquière-Montréal train is a very well kept secret. There is no publicity. People think it does not exist any longer. They believe it is gone for good. So, nobody takes the train, and since nobody takes the train, it becomes easier to eliminate it.

A rumour is circulating to the effect that the railroad is going to be closed. It may be more than just a rumour. I can tell you that people in my area do not agree. The CRDE, municipal councils from Jonquière to Montreal, people in Joliette, in Shawinigan, the Prime Minister's own town, have been sending petitions asking that the train be kept running. What has the federal government done? It does not have a regional development policy and it does not see how important and fundamental this train is.

It will be even more important in the future. Right now, road transportion is in. Trucks carry very heavy loads through the Parc des Laurentides and ruin the road. It would be better done by train. If the railroad is used less, and if there is no passenger service any longer on that line, what are the great planners in Ottawa going to say? Your train is not being used. Let us also eliminate rail transportion of goods, remove the tracks, and build bicycle paths instead. Where we come from, bicycle paths are the major projects.

In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, the biggest development project is the construction of a bicycle path around the lake. We support the bicycle path, it is important, but when in a area, the major project, the highest priority, is to build a bicycle path, it means that something is wrong with regional development policies. We are going to have to solve the problem. How are we going to do it?

The Bloc Quebecois has a solution. We will not talk about sprinkling grants around, but we will say that someone in the regions must be responsible for regional development. Who should that be? We believe that it should be the government closest to the people. And who might that be? The answer is the Quebec government and regional governments.

As part of the Bloc's sovereignty program, every possible decision-making mechanism would be handed back to Quebec. This is what a sovereign Quebec would do and this is how

regions would be treated. We want them to have decision-making and spending powers.

We have devoted this entire day to focusing on regional development with the intent of getting this message across to the House of Commons and to our regions. Our regions want to survive and to have effective policies. They want a future in which they can flourish and continue to build on past accomplishments. With the good will, ability and talents of the regions, I am confident that a sovereign Quebec will flourish and I am especially confident that this day will come very soon.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, before putting a question to my colleague, I must comment the remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

Modest as usual, he sang the praises of the federal government and the Federal Office of Regional Development and their past achievements. He also referred to a United Nations report according to which Canada was number one in terms of quality of life.

I would just like to make one thing clear. This report was based on 1992 data. If my memory serves me right, the Conservatives were in power in 1992. All of a sudden, the very people who criticized the Conservatives for all their political and economic actions are-or so it seems-singing their praises, telling us they have given this country the best quality of life in the world, after saying just the opposite during the election campaign.

These reports and their basis could all be challenged. You probably remember this report on poverty that said: "Canada may be the industrialized country with the highest poverty rate, but to reduce that rate, all you have to do is lower the poverty line". We could go on about this at length. The hon. member also mentioned a grant to the University of Rimouski. Again, I will point out to him that this grant was made by a Conservative, namely Mrs. Vézina-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his comments must be addressed to the Chair.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Very well, Madam Speaker. When I heard my colleague talk about train service, it reminded me of what the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine had said. My question is twofold.

The first part refers to what was said earlier. My colleague mentioned train service. The word is that there is talk across the way about a high speed train to develop both regions, Toronto proper and the metropolitan area. This train would apparently have to stop at certain borders.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that, because as far as I know, planes do not stop in mid-air when travelling from one country to another to have all passengers passports checked. I think there is a serious problem there.

I would also like him to tell us about independent workers. He never said anything about it, but there were designated areas in which assistance was provided to unemployed workers who wanted to start up a business. But this year, all designated areas will receive almost no money at all. I would like to know what my hon. colleague has to say about that.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the high-speed train, I must point out that such a train will link France and England. I do not think it will stop in the middle of the Chunnel for a passport check.

Assistance to independent workers has been cut. I think it is unfortunate because this program was very beneficial to some workers. I could add that, a month ago, my city of Jonquière became a designated area under the independent workers assistance program. We can say it is great and congratulate one another, and I think all the local people were glad, except that we and Sherbrooke have one of the highest unemployment rates in Quebec.

We had large paper mills. We had the Alcan plants. We were clearly well off economically and, 10 or 15 years later, we have become a designated area and we are forced to accept with pleasure for the time being but after we take control of our own destiny, we will certainly do what is needed to escape the poverty the federal system has plunged us into.

However, for now, we must say that we are very glad to have a good program, as my colleague from Bonaventure was saying earlier, except that there is a 27 per cent unemployment rate in his riding, so I hope he will tell his unemployed constituents that there is a new dryer and that a subsidy has been granted to Rimouski. Everyone must be happy, the subsidy machine has come through.

The people of the Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence have been subjected to planning experiments for many years and have benefited from federal programs which were scrutinized by everyone but, after 20 years of work and of federal and Liberal subsidies, they still end up with a 27 per cent unemployment rate.

So there is nothing new under the sun. They boast about federalism and theorize but when we go see the people on unemployment or on welfare-go ahead and laugh but these people may be at home watching us and shaking their heads.

They say it is very nice. There is a nice post office with a nice red flag in my village but I am afraid that-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 81(19), proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as indicated on today's Order Paper.

Government Contracts

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should systematically table, every month, all contracts awarded by departments and by the agencies that report to them, with any related information, in order to ( a ) keep the taxpayer appropriately informed, ( b ) stimulate competitiveness, and ( c ) ensure that government decisions are open and transparent.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to submit this motion to my colleagues because it concerns a basic right in our society, the right to information. In this case, the information sought from the government concerns all contracts it concludes with the private sector.

The reason I am presenting such a motion is that since I was elected to Parliament, I have found it very difficult and time-consuming to obtain information on all kinds of contracts awarded by the federal government.

If we as members of Parliament can only obtain this type of information with great difficulty, I really wonder how an ordinary citizen goes about obtaining it. I see this as an inappropriate barrier to information.

Indeed, in a democracy, how can one hold back and not make freely available information related to contracts that are fully paid by taxpayers? How can one tell taxpayers that they cannot know what goods and services the government buys with their money?

I think this is undemocratic and violates our great principles about the right to information. I would like to make an aside here about our rights as elected officials in this House, more specifically on one way we have to obtain information, namely a question on the Order Paper.

On February 18, I asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to give us complete information on all contracts awarded by his department for the period from December 1, 1992 to December 1, 1993 and from December 2, 1993 to February 18, 1994.

As usual, the minister has 45 days to answer this question. Yesterday, after waiting more than three months, the minister answered this important question. What a surprise! Three little pages of statistics that were already known. However, at one point, the minister telephoned me to say that the answer to this question would require tabling a huge pile of documents, a sea of boxes full of papers. Yesterday I got his answer in three pages! The minister must be a magician. He transformed dozens of boxes into three little pages. What a feat he accomplished.

A letter accompanying these three pages says: "This document is only a summary of the contracts awarded by the former Department of Supply and Services during the five-year period which ended on February 28, 1994. It is only reliable to show the number of contracts awarded, negotiated and signed during a given fiscal year".

The letter goes on to say: "The statistics in this report cannot be used to determine the impact of these contracts on Canadian economic activity".

The minister can keep his useless document. The minister is laughing at taxpayers. He does not give a damn about those who pay for all these contracts. He hides behind unjustified reasons to scorn the taxpayers' right to be informed. The minister is afraid. He is scared to get caught with his pants down. He does not want to provide all the information on contracts awarded because he may have something to hide. Is this why the Liberal government and its minister are so reluctant to provide information? The minister's answer is inadequate and totally unacceptable. His answer to a question on the Order Paper raises doubt in our minds and in the minds of Canadians. It is a legitimate doubt based on the popular belief that government contracts are a form of patronage, and on concrete examples of blatant suspicious dealings which make you sick.

The Conservatives were very good at this. They are not here any more, because the people woke up and told the Tories to stop undermining the voters and supporting the friends of the Conservative Party. Voters send a very clear message that remains the same for the Liberal government. Taxpayers expect openness and honesty from their government and, to date, the Grits have followed in the path of the Tories.

All the rhetoric and the promises of openness by the Liberals were only idle talk, shameful promises that do not meet the expectations of the people.

If members opposite do not agree with me, they should prove me wrong. I challenge them to urge the minister of Public Works and Government Services to answer truthfully and openly to question Q-16 on the Order Paper. I do not think they will be willing to meet this challenge. You are all proud of your policies, but when the time comes to support intelligent and reasonable demands, you all turn up as mild as a lamb, following the orders of the ministers. I am sure that makes you uneasy at times. I am sure that, in your ridings, you feel like bowing your

heads in front of some of your voters who are unhappy with the policies your party has laid down.

Go ahead, ask the minister to table all these contracts and the relevant information. Prove us wrong! Prove to the population that these contracts were awarded according to the rules and from a completely impartial standpoint!

That is a lot to ask. It is especially hard to shed some light on contracts that are potentially embarrassing.

The government is also aware of all the pressure coming from lobbyists, from its friends and from people who make contributions to its war chest. Does the government have anything to hide from the public? Are so-called goodies an obstacle to the disclosure of information on government contracts? Are we still stuck with the old-style system of awarding contracts, where transparency and openness were ignored to serve the interests of certain people?

Members opposite are saying: no, no, no. The Liberal government is not like that or, at least, not any more. All right, I believe you. The public believes you. But give us proof and release the supporting documentation.

Question Q-16 on the Order Paper is no small matter. I would rather not have to go through the whole procedure again, which does not work anyway in this case because the minister can use his magic wand to make any changes he wants.

The motion before the House today is a proposal to set up an information system. We want the government and its agencies to table regularly all the contracts they award, and to do so on a monthly basis.

The Liberals will say this is impossible, the job is too big and too complex and the cost of the operation exorbitant. Come on! What about the electronic highway and sophisticated computer programs? The government spends a fortune on top-of-the-line equipment, so let us use it.

Tabling these contracts on a monthly basis will make it much easier for taxpayers to get the facts and find out which companies are getting their tax money. However, the system must be clear and accurate. We do not want a pile of documents dumped every month. We want information presented in an orderly manner, neatly classified to make it easy to consult but also presented in such a way that we can analyse how the government spends taxpayers' money.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services alone is responsible for awarding 175,000 contracts annually. Last year, the department acquired $13 billion worth of goods and services under 17,000 general categories. It made purchases on behalf of 158 federal departments and agencies. This is the largest share the government purchases. In addition, there are purchases made directly by the departments and agencies themselves.

I would like to know who benefits from all those billions of dollars. Taxpayers have a right to know which companies do business with the government. That is a basic right. The federal government also has a duty to abide by its great principle of equity, a principle the Liberals like to flaunt in this House: regional development, equalization, redistribution of wealth, fiscal fairness. The Liberals keep repeating the same old story every day. Tabling government contracts would give us relevant information on the government's effectiveness in its Robin Hood role.

According to an article that appeared in Le Droit on May 16, Robin Hood does not necessarily do a good job in the case of federal contracts. According to the article, Ottawa-Carleton gets 99 per cent of $2.5 billion worth of federal contracts, while the Outaouais region gets the rest, a meagre 1 per cent. In the National Capital region, 25,000 contracts are awarded annually, and only 250 of those 25,000 are awarded to companies on the other side of the river.

In view of these figures, one is entitled to ask the following question: On one hand, is this problem of concentration happening in other areas in Canada, and on the other hand, is the government trying to dilute, so to speak, this extraordinary concentration? The tabling of all the contracts, every month, would answer our first question. The conclusions would be easy to reach. Well organized information would rapidly show whether there are other areas like Ottawa-Carleton which are reaping the federal manna.

The second question deals directly with the government's will to allocate all its contracts, in a fair and just manner and, in so doing, spreading around all this federal manna which always benefits the same lucky few, in the same area.

Does the federal government make it possible for every contractor to have access to its contracts? Better yet, should it not favour contractors in other areas, even in remote areas? Contractors outside of the larger centres would create jobs and stimulate the regional economy. Of course, goods and services might cost a little more, but in the end, it would have a positive impact on the economy as a whole and on these areas which have been hard-hit by unemployment.

In reality, the truth is very different. Moreover, instead of opening up the whole process, and favouring remote areas, it would appear that the federal government itself is creating obstacles for contractors. One of them is language. Since my election, I have met several contractors who have been complaining, or at least, wondering about their chances to get a contract when they answer in French a call for tender in English.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in his 1992 report, the Auditor General states that 80 per cent of specifications sent to Quebec contractors are written in English. O Canada! Bilingual? Not when it comes to contract specifications or calls for tender, which only appear in French as summaries. Such a situation is unacceptable and contrary to our language legislation.

I wonder about the treatment that the supply service of a department would give to a tender entirely in French from a Quebec company. Would it receive the attention it deserves? Some French- speaking contractors told me they had doubts about that.

This motion, if it is received by the government, will shed light on all these questions pertaining to contracts. We believe that it is high time that the government comes clean in this area, and our demand is backed by the people.

The motion has another objective, and it is to promote competition. Disclosure would certainly pike the interest of a great many companies. They would then seek to offer their products or even to diversify in order to produce the goods required by the government.

It is not everybody who knows that the government buys flour or soybean oil for CIDA, and that it rents aircrafts or buys textiles for National Defence. Disclosure would draw attention to the opportunities offered. With more people interested in tendering, we can expect lower prices and therefore savings for taxpayers. In my opinion, these savings should be reinjected into the system in order to support the companies based in the regions. With a real development policy for local companies, specific measures could guarantee a fair redistribution of the savings. In the long run, such measures would be economically worthwhile.

I am fully aware that, unfortunately, this motion depends entirely on the government's will. I am sure the Liberals, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services being the first, will refuse to even consider my request. It is easier to evade one's responsibilities using false pretences than it is to fulfil the legitimate expectations of the population.

I urge them to seriously think about the ultimate purpose of this motion, that is the right to information. Nobody in this House can object to such a fundamental right. Refusal by the Liberal government to systematically table every month the information required to keep the taxpayers appropriately informed of the spending of their tax money would be perceived as an important breach of proper democracy.

Such a refusal would also clearly prove the lack of courage of the Liberals, stemming no doubt from the fear of disclosing embarrassing information. Transparency and openness were your campaign leitmotiv and are the main themes of your red book. Your leader keeps repeating that you are a good government with nothing to hide. Now is the time to prove it!

The government and the minister have not heard the last about the transparency of government's contracts. We will always be watching because the population has the right to know. The small king of government services can stop ruling over his kingdom because he showed us his colours: red, red, red; a sure sign of lack of transparency. One day soon, he will have to answer to the population and on that day he will find out that acting like a king can be very dangerous.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the member of Parliament for Laurentides has moved that the government table all contracts entered into by federal departments and agencies on a monthly basis.

According to the motion the purpose of this activity would be threefold: to keep taxpayers informed; to stimulate competitiveness; and to ensure government decisions are open and transparent. There is no doubt these are worthy goals. However, I would like to assure the member and the House that these concerns are already carefully and responsibly addressed by this government.

What the member is suggesting with this motion is the creation of another layer of bureaucracy. It would duplicate and overlap with currently existing services which disseminate the information being sought by the member. What the member and her party are calling for is a waste of taxpayers' money.

Obviously, administering the procurement process is an enormous task for the federal government. However, a number of systems enjoying an excellent cost effectiveness ratio are already in place at Public Works and Government Services Canada. These systems ensure that the Canadian public is served fairly and efficiently and is given unrestricted access to information concerning government procurement.

Therefore, there is no need to waste taxpayers' time, energy or money tabling reports on the procurement process, since this information is already available and readily accessible to the Canadian public.

The questions raised in the motion now before us for debate, namely access to information about contracts, competitiveness and the integrity of the procurement process, have and continue to be priorities of this government.

As one of the largest purchasers of goods and services and as a major administrator of real property holdings, Public Works and Government Services Canada ensures that basic information

enabling all companies in Canada to do business with the federal government is readily available to them.

One of the tools it uses is the Open Bidding Service. Also known as the OBS, this system is an electronic bulletin which posts information and provides everyone with an equal opportunity to bid on government procurement contracts. The OBS supplies information on contracts that will be opened shortly and on the documents businesses will need to have in order to submit bids. All Public Works and Government Services Canada construction or maintenance services contracts valued at $60,000 or more, as well as all other types of contracts of $25,000 or more are posted in the OBS. Each year, more than $5 billion in purchases are made through the OBS.

The OBS ensures that every person, regardless of where he or she lives in Canada, has access at the same time as everyone else to the same information and for the same price.

Public Works and Government Services Canada also publishes a printed journal entitled "Government Business Opportunities" which, like the OBS, lists all contract opportunities. This journal, which is published three times a week, also provides information as it becomes available.

This information is also available in the federal business bulletin and the R and D bulletin.

The federal business bulletin, which appears twice a week, gives a brief description of the contracts awarded across Canada. With about 100 editions of this publication produced every year, approximately 1,200 contracts awarded by the government are announced in this way. The document is available to anyone who asks to be put on the mailing list.

The R and D bulletin provides information on contracts in the science and technology field. On a monthly basis it provides up to date information on federally funded science and technology contracts that have been awarded.

In addition to providing information about contract opportunities with the federal government, OBS also gives advance notice of contracts to be awarded. These are notices of contracts that the government intends to award without tender, called sole source contracts. Advance notice is displayed in OBS to give companies an opportunity to challenge the government's decision to call on only one supplier. If another supplier proves that he can meet the requirements of a contract that is to be sole-sourced, a call for competitive bids will be issued. This is another effective way that the government uses to stimulate competition.

Besides providing all Canadians with information on opportunities to bid, the government also makes available to them information on contracts already awarded on a regular basis. Canadians thus have access to this information as soon as it is available, and not only once a month, as the hon. member proposes. The Open Bidding Service also offers a historic data base with which any Canadian can find out all competitive contracts announced since 1989.

Thus anyone in Canada can find out what companies obtained contracts by open bidding, for what good or service and when.

The Open Bidding Service was designed so that everyone could have easy access to information on current purchasing possibilities and on contracts already awarded by the government. This system meets all the requirements for access to information, competition and accountability.

Easy access to relevant and timely information is the key to ensuring the fairness and openness required for the purchasing process. Nevertheless, our government believes that suppliers must also have an appeal mechanism at their disposal if they think that the government has not kept its commitment to act fairly and openly.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is an independent body that gives suppliers quick recourse at low cost for contesting the awarding of contracts subject to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

If they win their case, they can receive compensation or be allowed to participate in a new bid. This is a mechanism to ensure the integrity and honesty of the purchasing process.

More generally, each department accounts for its activities and acquisitions to Parliament, and thus to suppliers, to the media and to all Canadians, through the Main Estimates and the Auditor General's Report, which are tabled annually.

The public sector is under constant scrutiny, Madam Speaker. Canadians demand not only that the government keep its expenditures and the cost of its services under control, but also that it show integrity.

With all the procedures already in place, there is no doubt that government contracting is open to all, that the process is equitable and that all related information is already available and accessible to all Canadians.

There are a number of problems with the motion before this House today. The mere fact of tabling in the House the information relating to all contracts awarded will not make this information more readily accessible to the Canadian public.

Up to date information on contracts awarded is currently available every day to any Canadian anywhere across Canada on the OBS. This information is very time sensitive for suppliers. With the information currently available and accessible, suppliers know right away whom to approach for example for subcontracting activities.

A monthly printout is not only a duplication of information already available but of very limited benefit to suppliers as it is only an historical record. The cost of producing monthly reports of this nature must also be taken into account. Given the volume of contracts let by the federal government every month this would be an extremely costly and time consuming activity. The tabling of monthly reports of contracts awarded is a duplication of efforts.

As the hon. member herself told this House, we must strive to eliminate duplication and overlap so as to reduce costs, save money and ensure efficiency.

This government is streamlining and eliminating waste. It is not the intention of this government to spend taxpayers' dollars reproducing reports which already exist and are an effective and proven means of accessing the same information.

On the very day that one Bloc member is calling for the reduction in duplication and overlap, another Bloc member is also calling for another layer which duplicates an existing program, creating once again administrative chaos. The Bloc cannot suck and blow at the same time.

This government's commitment to the integrity of the procurement process was made very clear with the recent release of new guidelines for public and open research and advertising contracts by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. This announcement by the ministry clearly illustrates the commitment of the Prime Minister and this government to an open and fair process for the Canadian people.

Once again Canadians already have access to up to date information everywhere in Canada on the government procurement activities. Not only here is there no need for repackaging this information, but it would be a waste of effort and energy. The government strongly believes in the importance of the integrity of the procurement process. Canadians have the right to know how their government does business and who it does business with. They also require that their government not waste money.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that all those years in opposition the Liberals wanted accountability and now we hear them talking like they do not want it. This is a request for information.

Although the information that is being requested may have some problems with it in that it is voluminous and the information on a monthly basis may be quite a tribunal to produce, especially in this world of paperwork in Ottawa, I suppose we might be able to look at limits on the types of dollars that are reported, and so on. Nevertheless, the Liberal government would be very wise to keep an open mind on what is being asked here of my colleague.

I am a member of the public accounts committee and it is again ironic that I have asked for information relating to current expenditures of this government and I have been unable to get it on a current basis. Once a year we produce a public accounts list and you can get it at that point. What we are looking for here is money that is unwisely spent at the time it is spent, not a year from now that we go complaining about it.

Why are we asking for this in the first place? Why are we asking for the government to disclose what it is spending and why and how?

How often have we wished in this country that we could elect politicians who possessed the fortitude, the integrity, to be frugal, to spend the taxpayers' money as though it were their own, who end the practice of patronage and have the greatest desire to be held accountable to the people? It seems like we threw the Liberals out in 1984 in the hope that the Conservatives would exercise these responsible attributes. What happened? The Conservatives were just as bad, if not worse, than the Liberals.

Here we are in 1994 throwing Canadians back into the political pot with the Liberals, who already have shown signs of poor judgment, political patronage and wasteful spending.

Is it any wonder why today in this stage of our country's development millions of Canadians cannot tell the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives?

My colleague who just spoke from the government side said: "Carefully and responsibly addressed by government'. That is how he is suggesting that moneys are being spent in this country today. Earlier this week we disclosed in this House that if you call giving prisoners in this country old age security, CPP and GST rebates responsible, I am afraid there is quite a difference of opinion as to what is responsible and what is not. We do not consider that responsible.

Let us take the political placement of the NAFTA headquarters in Montreal, the millions in grants to the Prime Minister's riding for a museum of industry, and a $30 million grant to Quebec City for a conference centre. One can only wonder since they are basically patronage payouts how many people are

getting contracts within those allotments that are indeed inappropriate.

What the member is asking for here is some legitimizing of the process, some information going back to the taxpayer that discloses what is going on.

The fact is that there is no difference between Liberals and Conservatives of the past, they are both out of touch. They are both big spenders and firmly believe in spending your money the way they prefer and not the way you prefer.

What must all Canadians do to protect ourselves these days? I think the hon. member for Laurentides has a solution to part of the problem at least. Systematically table every month all of the contracts awarded by departments and by the agencies that report to them. What is so difficult about something like that?

It will be interesting to see whether or not this flaccid Liberal government supports this motion. After all, it does have the potential of keeping the taxpayer appropriately informed, stimulating competitiveness and ensuring that government decisions are open for public scrutiny. We will see when the vote comes. It is probably Monday or Tuesday night, and we will be watching for it.

Since we know that the Liberals and Conservatives are kindred spirits in the same world of politics, let us look at some expenditures of the past that were made on behalf of the citizens of our country. They can judge for themselves whether they would have spent money on these projects. If they disagree, they should write their members of Parliament and tell them what they think. They should confirm that they want some safeguards instilled to protect them and their hard earned income from the Liberal process of mismanagement.

I want to run through a couple. I want to make it very clear that these were expenditures within the Conservative government. However, I am making my point here that there is very little difference between this Liberal government with regard to management of fiscal resources in this country and the Conservatives.

Let us look at what the National Capital Commission spent in 1991; $10,800 of taxpayers' money to finance a poll to find out what Canadians thought about Christmas lights. Is that a wise expenditure? I do not think the people of Fraser Valley West would think that way.

In 1990 the finance department spent $300,000 to produce and distribute 40,000 videos explaining how the federal government spent money-very good. We will be watching for these expenditures all through the next five years. If the government thinks it is going to get away with it, it has another thing coming with the Reform Party because we are going to watchdog every expenditure it has.

I will give a couple of more because there are so many. Let us talk about the $147,000 to examine lullabies, the form and function in infant directed music-very good. I think the people watching are getting the point.

[An hon. member]

What have you got against children?

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

One of my colleagues asks what I have against children. I have absolutely nothing against children. In fact, that is one of the reasons I am here. The children of this country are not going to fare very well with a $40 billion deficit this year. They have to pay that debt. It is going to be on their backs. What have I got against children?-nothing. We are here to protect their future, not like this government.

Once the report is issued, if it were issued on a monthly basis or a semi-monthly basis or whatever, what do we do with the information? Do we fire a bureaucrat? That is unlikely, the way we are looking at things here. We cannot even get at the jumble of fish and find out, as they say, who done it. Do we question the House on the merits of these expenditures in Question Period in the House of Commons?

If anybody has been watching Question Period in the House of Commons since it has opened, we have yet to get decent answers from this government when we ask the ministers questions. How do we get at these kinds of issues?

Perhaps we take it to a committee of the House of Commons. Maybe we should take it to the public accounts committee. We are back to the vicious circle where I started. Actually I had asked the question time and time again in public accounts and I get the answer: "Wait until the public accounts report comes out from the Auditor General or the Comptroller General". That comes out once a year. Here we are retroactively dealing with it.

If contracts are going to be let, let us give the people in this country the ability to look at the repercussions, the patronage, the unwise spending of this government. It is truly unfortunate we Reformers are here to be the watchdog on this Liberal government to protect the public's interest, but it is a necessity.

Let us hope we make a difference because certainly this government will not.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, on May 4 the hon. member for Laurentides proposed:

That the government should systematically table, every month, all contracts awarded by departments and by the agencies that report to them, with any related information, in order to (a) keep the taxpayer appropriately informed, (b) stimulate competitiveness, and (c) ensure that government decisions are open and transparent.

As the member for Dauphin-Swan River I want to assure the hon. member that from the very outset of its mandate this government has been committed to fairness and openness in government contracting. This government has stressed the need for maximum use of competition by departments and agencies when contracting for the goods and services it requires from the private sector to fulfil its various programs.

I believe there is a compelling need especially these days for strict fiscal restraint to ensure that each dollar spent by the government is a necessary expense and that it represents the best value that can be achieved in the use of that scarce resource. At the same time I agree that all government contracting must be undertaken in a manner that keeps the taxpayer informed, stimulates competitiveness, and ensures that government decisions are open and transparent. Treasury Board already has in place contracting policies that address these specific goals.

I should like to point out the magnitude of the government's contracting activities. The Government of Canada is the country's largest user of private sector supplies. There are over 200,000 transactions each year ranging from small purchases such as items of stationery to major procurements such as military equipment.

By relying on the program experts of departments, only a very small percentage of government contracts often associated with large and risky initiatives require the collective review of ministers. All contracts however are subject to the requirements of the Treasury Board contracting policy whose principles and procedures I again emphasize ensure an open, transparent and competitive contracting process.

While the Department of Public Works and Government Services undertakes many contracts on behalf of other departments, close to half of all contracts are awarded under the authority of individual departments.

In these circumstances I cannot agree that the government should impose the suggested detailed monthly consolidation of all this contracting information. The cost of preparing such a list and the time spent preparing it would far exceed any benefit. Information on the magnitude of government contracting already exists.

This government is making improvements to ensure even greater transparency. Each year the public accounts include substantial information on contract expenditures. This is listed by individual department. It is then further broken down by individual contractor for all contracts which exceed $100,000.

For professional and special service contracts, an area which has grown over the past decade, I refer the hon. member to the convenient summary in the public accounts. It groups contracts for each department under the most common types of services the government acquires, such as accounting services, engineering and architectural services, information services, legal services, training and educational services, and the like.

In addition, there is Canada's international trade commitments which require specific detailed reporting on contracts awarded. For example the comprehensive reports required under the North American Free Trade Agreement are currently being implemented.

In this regard I would like to inform the hon. member that under the terms of this agreement the government is committed to the use of open and competitive contracting for all the procurements in excess of the NAFTA thresholds. This means ensuring that American and Mexican as well as Canadian companies are aware of the government's needs and have an opportunity to bid to provide them.

Even as we are adjusting to the international aspects of this new operating environment, we must also make preparations to provide the other parties with the annual report which I previously mentioned. This will prove that we are fulfilling the terms and the spirit of the agreement. I know that achieving trilateral agreement on the nature and precise detail of what is to be recorded has not been easy.

Furthermore, at least in Canada's case, there is a related ongoing period of difficult adjustment. As departments develop and begin to put in place systems to collect the required information, I can assure the hon. member that the end result of this long and arduous process will be a publicly available document which will more than meet any need for statistical information on government contracts.

As well, because this report will be public, departments will doubtlessly consider this to be a further incentive to use the competitive contracting process.

As the member for Dauphin-Swan River I agree that interested suppliers need to know what acquisitions the government plans to make. This is the key to a truly competitive process.

Treasury Board policy encourages the use of open bidding service for advertising upcoming purchases of goods and services. The open bidding method uses both electronic information technology and the print medium to advertise bids. It is compulsory for advertising all procurements subject to NAFTA.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services uses this means for communicating with industry for all procurements over $25,000.

When the government knows that it must acquire a good or service it uses the open bidding service and the government

business opportunities publication to inform suppliers of a proposed purchase and thereby to solicit proposals from them.

The related notice of proposed procurement is carried by these media for either 40 days if it is subject to the NAFTA or 30 days if it is not covered under the NAFTA. The notice identifies what is needed, how much of it, any related technical specifications, the supply timeframe, and any other relevant information which pertains to this proposed acquisition.

As well it lists the criteria which will be used to evaluate whether the supplier is qualified to provide the good or service and the second set of criteria which state what will be used to evaluate the proposals of the qualified suppliers.

By providing all this detail up front business is assured sufficient time to decide whether it could supply the item, whether it wants to supply it, to seek any further clarifications which it may wish and then to develop and submit its proposal.

There are of course other situations where the government anticipates that it will need a good or a service in the next little while but it does not need it immediately. Again, the open bidding service and the government business opportunities can be used to identify a list of possible suppliers which can be turned to when the item is actually needed.

In this case the government places a notice of planned procurement on them for either 30 or 40 days depending on whether or not the item is covered under NAFTA. This particular notice will in a comparable manner to the notice of proposed procurements state what is wanted, the quantity thereof, and the like.

In this case though it will only identify the financial, commercial and technical aspects which will serve as the criteria to be used to evaluate whether a supplier is qualified to be included on the suppliers' list.

Again by using the open bidding service and government business opportunities to create this list companies are placed in a position of having ample information and time to determine whether they are interested in pursuing this possible business opportunity.

In view of all the preceding, I cannot agree that the imposition of more detailed and expensive reporting requirements on departments and agencies would serve the best purposes of either the House or the taxpayers of Canada.

This government strives to have the most effective public service in the world. The motion proposed by the hon. member would require a transfer of human and technological resources from areas where they could better serve Canadians and redirect them to meet the proposed monthly contracting reports. This simply cannot be justified as a cost effective use of these limited resources. In this context, I would suggest that the hon. member especially think about the many small departments and agencies which do not have the resources to assume an overhead burden like the one which has been proposed.

If this suggestion were to be adopted these organizations would end up redirecting their resources with the possible result and that thereby could be diverted from meeting their primary mission to Canadians.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, as member for Charlevoix, I am pleased to rise today to support the motion moved in this House this afternoon by the hon. member for Laurentides, Quebec, and seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.

What does the Bloc Quebecois demand in this motion? Simply that the government put all papers on the table and fulfil through concrete measures the promises made by the Liberals during the election campaign, namely to be transparent, to act with integrity and to hide nothing from Canadians.

I am terribly surprised at the beginning of this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Laurentides because we are simply asking the government to table all contracts awarded during the month. It is very transparent, very normal. The government has the responsibility-just as we do as the Official Opposition-to ensure that public funds, that the taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians, are well administered.

When the hon. member for Laurentides told me about her motion, I was sure that it would not make waves, that it would be adopted by unanimous consent in this House, that the Liberals would always throughout their mandate-and not only during the election campaign-want to preserve this great spirit of transparency.

We want to raise another issue. Quite recently, I attended with the hon. member for Laurentides a meeting where the Minister of Public Works and Government Services was present. That is where the shoe started to pinch.

Would you, Minister of Public Works and Government Services who, with your officials, administer a very large budget, agree-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry but the hon. member must address his remarks to the Chair.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was asking the minister how he would feel if, some day, he was accused of patronage. I know that the minister does his best to monitor his department but, as I asked at a conference on taxation: Is it the civil servants who spend too much, or is it the politicians who are bad managers?

The Minister of Finance replied that it was the politicians who were spending too much.

I think politicians spend too much, often because of a lack of adequate controls. To provide us with the list of contracts awarded is simply a form of control allowing us to monitor the money spent in each department.

During the proceedings of a commission on public works and government services, I asked a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

My question was: "Minister, are you prepared to confirm and to pledge to this commission that you will make public tenders in the newspapers, prepare a public notice and adequate specifications, review the tenders, and then accept the lowest qualified bid?"

You will not believe the minister's answer. He said: "I will not pledge to accept the lowest qualified bid". Again, we are talking about the lowest qualified bid. As I said at the beginning of my speech, a minister's responsibility is to administer public goods and taxes; yet, the minister will not pledge to accept the lowest qualified bidder.

This means that the minister who, I am convinced, spoke in good faith, runs the risk of being betrayed some day by someone who might give a contract to a friend, with the result that the newspapers would relate another patronage decision benefitting some friend of the party who may have paid $1,000 to attend a fundraising dinner, or who may have made significant contributions to the party's finances.

This would be unfortunate for the minister, and also for department officials. We want the government to do what it, not us, said it would do. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said that, if elected, he would promote total openness and integrity, and would open all the government books.

As Mrs. Guay said, patronage decisions were made during the nine years of Conservative government. If we do not provide a way to monitor the process, the present government may well be faced with a similar situation.

They also say they want to reduce the deficit. I think it is an excellent idea to prevent waste by agreeing to call for tenders and give all bidders a chance to bid on a contract and give them a chance to work for the government.

To give them that chance, the government has to give public notification and publish such notices in the media. We do not want a situation like the one the Conservatives created when they agreed to privatize Pearson Airport, something the present government could have ratified.

The present Liberal government could have ratified this contract and the helicopter contract as well. Why did it refuse? Already there are some doubts. They should abide by what was said during the election campaign and what they said in the red book. You said you would be open to a fault. You said you would reduce the deficit, although the government's last budget predicted a deficit of $39.7 billion.

You also said you would get rid of the GST, although the government is getting ready not to abolish the tax but to change its name-VAT, TOC, whatever-but the GST will not disappear. I think the government has a responsibility to manage our tax money. They are responsible for managing the revenue they get from taxpayers. And we in the Bloc Quebecois who with other Quebecers send $28 billion annually in income tax to the government, are concerned about the way our tax money is being administered, and this does not include what we pay through the GST.

We think that the government is ashamed or just does not want to table the documentation which is simply a way to find out in which ridings in Quebec and Ontario contracts have been awarded.

It might be interesting to find out how much it costs the government to do something within its own administration. If the government does not table this information, that is because it is a poor manager. The government should manage taxpayers money as carefully as municipalities do this in Quebec, and I am sure in the rest of Canada.

I was a municipal councillor for 14 years in Baie-Comeau, and according to the legislation on cities and towns, the municipal council was obliged, by resolution, to award a contract to the lowest bidder. I would ask the government, which manages far more money than the municipalities, to be as careful as they are about managing taxpayers' money.

As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, I know I can have access to certain documents thanks to the Access to Information Act, but this is quite a production. You need the nature of the contract, the contract number and the date on which the contract was awarded, and the result is still zilch.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Time for Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

The adjournment of the House is deemed to have been moved pursuant to Standing Order 38.