Madam Speaker, I too would like to speak to Bill C-7, formerly Bill C-52. I must tell you that even as late as this morning, I was not going to speak, but upon closer examination of the issue, I am pleased to comment on this bill and to echo a number of my colleagues' concerns with respect to the nature of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
A great deal of money flows through this department. It could become very closely linked to patronage, unless a very stringent code is developed that would place tight constraints on its ability to act without a transparent process, give everyone equal access to contracts, and allow effective control of the system for managing public funds.
First of all, I would point out that it is no small amount that Parliament and cabinet are called upon to manage. This year, the federal government will spend some $165 billion, of which of course close to $45 billion will go to interest on the debt; this aside, $120 billion are nonetheless spent on programs.
A good part of this budget will funnel through the Department of Public Works and Government Services, which approves the operating expenditures of the various departments, whether for rental of accommodation, or all the other sorts of things departments need to operate.
It is quite surprising to discover just exactly how difficult it is to obtain precise information in this regard. I had some fun a few months back trying to determine how much had been spent renovating buildings in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. It was a very difficult exercise because, even when it is possible to obtain overall figures, total amounts, there is never any very precise data on who won the contracts and how large they were. Were there cost overruns compared to tenders? Information like that requires painstaking research. I did not get the feeling that the people I consulted were very enthusiastic about helping me find out what I wanted to know.
The Bloc has made some very interesting suggestions. I would like to address each of these items briefly. One of the first suggestions made by the Bloc for improvement, to ensure that administration was more efficient, was to make sure that one or more committees-of the many House committees-the standing committees, would be able to make a quarterly examination of the expenditures of the various departments. Initially I think the suggested level for this was $25,000 and up.
So, all expenditures in excess of $25,000 ought to be assessed by parliamentary committees. This would get MPs more involved in government administration. It would increase monitoring and all those who might be tempted to fiddle with public funds would be more nervous if they knew that these expenditures would be examined in a public exercise where a number of people could voice opinions and even hold a debate. If it was felt appropriate, they could even call the people in question in to explain themselves. This strikes me as merely a normal process to ensure more efficient and more responsible administration.
At a time when the public is being asked to make sacrifices in the battle in which the various governments are engaged against the deficit, we must ensure that what we are administering is at least administered as efficiency as possible, in order to improve public confidence.
If I recall correctly, those words were used in the Liberal Party's red book, which talked of greater transparency and restoring public confidence. When the time comes to put their money where their mouth is, and to bow to the arguments suggested by the opposition parties, one might say that their reflex for self-protection, keeping the political machine as non-transparent as possible, won out over the Liberals' good intentions while they were in the opposition and were experiencing the frustrations a goodly number of MPs are now experiencing.
Of course, there must be some members of the government party who manage to obtain some information, thanks to their good relations with ministers or because of their participation in previous campaigns, the support they gave, or I might even say because of political debts tied to a leadership race or similar things. Nevertheless, this is not a normal situation because as elected representatives, whatever our political party, we were all elected in ridings and therefore each of us reflects a majority of electors in his or her own riding.
Of course, those constituents voted for a political party but they also voted for an individual and they expect their member of Parliament to be as effective as possible and to be the best representative possible in Parliament.
Therefore, being able to study all those expenditures in committee can harm no one. I would like the government party to tell us why it is against such a measure. How would the suggestion that all expenditures over $ 25,000 be thoroughly examined by a committee render Parliament less efficient and less vigilant regarding in terms of managing public funds?
We are aware that it would impose a large amount of work on members, but this is part of our role. We might be much more efficient if we did this rather than certain things done in committee and which, and I hope you will allow me to be sceptical, have very little impact on departments if they have not given directives, or circulated reports from the committees. This is why members of committees should be given more autonomy.
For those who are following this discussion, committees are composed of members of recognized political parties. There is a number from the government party and from the two opposition parties, the official opposition and the third party. These people could look at these expenditures over a few weeks, meeting a few times a week.
The government has said nothing about the follow-up to this suggestion, and today is not the first time we have made it, but nobody has considered it worth acting on.
Another aspect concerns contracting out. In recent years, the government has cut its staff drastically and contracts out increasingly. It can thus save money. We have nothing against this of itself, but it is very dangerous if it becomes a devious way to provide work for one's political friends.
Need I point out that, unlike Quebec, which has very strict legislation on the funding of political parties, here, companies can make donations to political parties. Recently I was looking at a 1994 report which revealed that a lot of companies contribute to political parties. I am talking about the traditional political parties, because this does not apply to the Bloc, which is funded by individuals. Companies provide most of the funding of these parties. I cannot believe that this is a disinterested gesture on their part. When an individual gives $75,000 or $100,000 to a political party, I am not so sure he is expecting nothing in return.
It is more complex than that. Contributions can even be made through numbered companies. So, trying to find out who really financed the political parties can be a very difficult and demanding task, requiring a lot of time and energy to see who financed what and whether contracts are awarded according to contributions as well.
As we know, there is a growing trend toward contracting out. How is it that the government did not deem it appropriate to clearly define a code of ethics on the awarding of those contracts that would be far more severe than the one in place? Here again, transparency, a word repeated over and over in the red book, is absent. They did not find it appropriate to act on that recommendation.
I will make the same argument as earlier. How would this make Parliament less efficient? It seems to me to be a good suggestion. You know, today people expect a lot from us. They ask us to not just criticize the government but also to make suggestions forcefully. That is what we do. We make concrete suggestions in order to make the management of public funds as efficient as possible.
I have a third point, and it is important. The member for Berthier-Montcalm referred earlier to something that occurs sometimes, and more often recently. One learns that important things, major things are happening. They may happen in our ridings without us being informed whereas if we, as representatives of those citizens, had been informed, we could have warned people and reacted as efficiently as possible. In his case, it was a problem with major environmental impacts. A similar example came to my mind.
Public Works has transferred, or is in the process of transferring, the management of docks to the municipalities. I represent a little municipality of barely 250 inhabitants called Moffet. There is a federal dock in Moffet. The kind of renovations done to that dock could have been managed much more efficiently by the municipal administration. One day officials from Public Works came to undertake the renovations-in co-operation with Fisheries and Oceans, of course-but these people did not take into consideration particulars or comments. Because the town's mayor showed up at the site. In a small town, when people from outside are coming in, they are spotted at once. On that day, the people rushed to meet them and seeask what they were doing. Then, they realized they were coming to repair the dock. It was obvious to the local population that what was about to be done would not be work, but nobody had told the contractor. He had the contract, and he had to abide by it to get paid.
The person who got the contract said: "If I want to be paid, I must follow the specifications, and I will". Six months later, everything had to be redone, because the repairs did not last. There had been an error in assessing spring flood levels and other factors.
If my office or myself had been advised that the government was considering such work, we could have contacted the municipality's officials or officials from other regional county municipalities that had carried out similar projects. We could have been more efficient and we would not have had to do it twice. Moreover, we could have informed local contractors that repairs were to be done and that the bidding process was open. We can say repeatedly that the process is open, but not everybody knows that. If we were more involved at the local level, we could be more efficient. There would be more economic spinoffs in our regions.
What the Bloc Quebecois suggested to avoid this kind of thing was to inform members of what is going on, and in the present case, namely the management of public funds under federal jurisdiction, to give notice to the elected representatives of the people of what is coming, what will have to be done, and even what has been done so far. But of course, acting in a more transparent and efficient way is not one of the present government's priorities. I insist because I am convinced that it will lead to more efficiency.
Why not try to be more efficient? This is a question we might well ask.
It might be to protect certain interests. To play politics, or worse, to use patronage to reward friends of the government by granting them a number of contracts and kickbacks in exchange for their political ties.
When people elect us they believe that we have a lot of power. They think we can change many things easily. Increasingly, they get the feeling that we are fighting a machine trying to protect itself, to be more or less transparent, to account for things in a certain manner. Three or four years later, the books are kept differently, the way data is presented is changed, it is very confusing, several sets of data are combined together, the whole of Quebec is lumped together, even the whole of Canada. It becomes very difficult to know exactly what was done in each area.
Returns which are more local in nature or deal more with specific ridings are more difficult to get. Sometimes, it is possible, but it is generally quite rare. They are certainly not available from the new Department of Public Works and Government Services. And yet, a lot of money is channeled through this department.
Perhaps, if there was more consultation, if people were more involved, there might be fewer buildings with empty offices, fewer very expensive buildings or fewer very expensive renovations.
Once I spoke with someone responsible for building maintenance or improvement, especially for federal buildings. This person benefited from the spinoffs and said to me: "I certainly have no right to complain, but it is incredible to see the amount of waste".
That is what he said. And I, a member of Parliament, felt totally powerless in front of that situation. When you call for information, you would think you were asking for the moon because it takes quite a considerable effort to obtain a statement of expenditures for a specific building and to find out if there were misuse or squandering.
Naturally, people who authorize squandering try to justify it. To prevent that, we should act before and not after the fact. This is one of our problems. Our society is largely focused on remedial action; we try to solve problems but we do not try hard enough to prevent them. It is the same with the management of public funds. It would seem only normal to ask for statements.
The year 2000 is almost here. Computer services are well developed and it would be very easy to obtain statements from the different ridings.
The auditor general is supposed to be the watchdog of government. It costs nearly $50 million a year for us to monitor the
government, for the government to check its own administration. His task would be made easier if elected members were more involved in the monitoring of public spending. Everybody knows that we have administrative assistants, people who work for us, and we could follow very closely the spending of public money in our ridings, and influence the way things are done.
This would greatly enrich the role of elected members-and especially members of the governing party-who would feel that they have real influence on the decision making process in their communities. If the public knew that their local representatives can watch very closely, can monitor, and even influence or neutralize things which are not done efficiently, they would feel a little closer to politics.
What worries me the most is seeing how far they can go. This reflects the attitude of the Prime Minister, a slight lack of respect for democracy as a whole. Whether it be through a desire to influence the rules of democratic consultation, or through processes like the one dealing with the Pearson airport or by an attitude when faced with suggestions like the ones we have made, which would serve to reinforce democracy-because MPs are representatives of their constituents-one wonders to what extent politicians are protecting each other with the backing of the bureaucracy. I am talking about the highest ranks of the bureaucracy, because local civil servants usually act in good faith and are willing to co-operate. There are some departments where things are going very well.
In my riding, for example, in the Department of Human Resources Development it is working very well. In that department, they are in the habit of consulting members of Parliament. However, it is getting less common, because previously the signature of an MP was required, but now it is less often the case, although consultations on a voluntary basis remain, depending on the person in charge, on whether he or she was appointed by the present or the previous government, on the mood of the minister in charge, etc.
I believe this was a very valid component of organizational culture that recognized the role played by the elected reprresentatives. It is very dangerous to get away from that.
Before closing, I would like to give an example of something similar, which is happening with the appointment of people who are going to be in charge of the Statistics Canada census. There was a usual, familiar processus, but it would appear that political interference is on the rise, and this is not necessarily sound and not necessarily desirable.
So, in closing, we have very interesting suggestions which will ensure that the worst that could happen for the government is that it be more efficient. So I wonder why government members are opposed to that. If they are acting in good faith, they will adjust their bill. We are at the third reading stage, there is still time to improve it and then we could considere supporting these government actions, which will ensure that we will become more efficient and above all more responsible.
