Debates of March 25th, 1996

Food Safety

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to food safety there is no room for smugness or complacency.

The attitude we have always adopted in Canada is one of great vigilance and care. We set and we enforce standards which are among the highest in the world. That is why we can say with confidence that Canada's meat supply is safe.

Under our surveillance system BSE has not been detected in any domestic Canadian cattle herd. The one reported case, in 1993, occurred in an animal imported from the United Kingdom. During 1993-94, as the House knows, the government took extraordinary measures to protect Canada's livestock industry and consumers to eradicate that disease in Canada, even though those measures were criticized by some, including both the opposition parties in the House.

Appeal Centres

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who was here a few seconds ago. In his absence, I think I can put my question to the revenue minister. It is about a project by her department to create an appeal centre for eastern Canada. This project could involve three cities, Shawinigan, Quebec City and Sherbrooke.

I would like to receive assurances from the Prime Minister that neither he nor his office intend to intervene directly or indirectly in the decision that is taken and that the three cities concerned will have an equal chance to make their case.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of comprehensive reviews the department has been looking at its services and operations. As a result of technology and changes we have been able to consolidate offices in different parts of the country.

We will definitely consider all aspects of the consolidation moves and they will be done in a fair and equitable manner.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in

both official languages, the government's responses to two petitions presented during the first session.

Income Tax Act

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of interest on mortgage loans).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and introduce my private member's bill, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, deduction of interest on mortgage loans for first time homeowners.

This bill proposes there may be deducted, in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year, an amount equal to the interest paid by the taxpayer in the year to the mortgage lender on the first $100,000 of a mortgage secured by an individual's qualifying home.

Some conditions apply to this bill, outlined in it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Divorce Act

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-245, an act to amend the Divorce Act (granting of access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent).

Mr. Speaker, this bill is in the same form as Bill C-232 at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-232 at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

(Bill deemed read the second time and referred to a committee.)

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:

That Jim Hart be added to the list of associate members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition with over 1,500 names from the riding of Drummond. The petitioners call on Parliament to withdraw bills C-11 and C-12, and return to Quebec full responsibility for measures to protect and maintain employment and manpower training, including unemployment insurance and the associated budgets. They criticize the employment insurance reform and call on the government to establish real job creation programs.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is from Calgary, Alberta. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, having to do with health warning labels on alcoholic beverages, comes from Sarnia, Ontario.

The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability. Specifically, fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions. The first, signed by 40 constituents, draws the attention of the House to the situation of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, signed by 35 Canadians, is with respect to the repeal of section 43 of the Criminal Code.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

moved that Bill C-7, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, be read the third time and passed.

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.

The opposition's co-operation in this saves time, energy and money.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

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.

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.

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.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

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.

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.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

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.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

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.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

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.

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.