Debates of March 26th, 1996

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did hear you ask if there was a debate, but I think that members thought that the House was ready for the question. We said "question". You put the question and we voted on it.

I am sorry. I do not want people to think that members from this side of the House refused to discuss the bill. I believe you were very clear. You asked if we wanted to debate the bill and no one got up. Consequently, we voted on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We had a long debate on Bill C-7 yesterday. The government spoke and members of the opposition parties spoke. As far as I am concerned-

[Some hon. members]

We are on Bill C-3.

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

We are on Bill C-7, are we not, Mr. Speaker?

[The Speaker]

In answer to your question, we are to be on Bill C-7 but we are now discussing Bill C-3.

The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve understood that he would be speaking on Bill C-3. When I called for debate, I looked around the House and there was no one rising. Therefore, I put the question and it was passed. That seems to have been the agreement of the House.

I have explained that to the hon. member who has raised some objections. However, it has passed. I asked the hon. member if he would like to ask the House for unanimous consent. He said no, or at least that is what I understood. Therefore, we will proceed with Bill C-7.

We are now on Bill C-7 and I am asking if there is any debate on Bill C-7.

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker]

If there is debate, we will hear it.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with a colleague.

I am pleased to discuss Bill C-7, which is the former Bill C-52. As my colleagues pointed out on numerous occasions during the previous debates on this legislation, the Bloc Quebecois' position is based, as with many other bills debated in this House, on the government's alleged transparency or, rather, on its lack of transparency.

During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada used its now famous red book as its book of promises.

But we know that the government has broken its promises more than once, and I give one example that comes to mind. Most of my Liberal colleagues campaigned on a promise of scrapping the GST, and we know what became of that promise. The GST is still with us, and it will still be around for the next election, where it may become yet another promise.

As the members on this side of the House take a malicious pleasure in quoting from the red book in order to remind the government of its broken promises, I would like to read from it two brief passages. The first is on page 92 and reads as follows:

In the House of Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation, through House of Commons committees. These committees will also be given greater influence over government expenditures.

A little later, on page 95, we read:

We will take an approach of openness in decision-making.

These passages are short, but they speak volumes about the willingness of the government to keep its election promises. And yet, during the last election, transparency and the openness of the decision making process to all levels was a real profession of faith with the Liberals.

It is my contention that the government has failed, in Bill C-7 before us today, to put in place a mechanism for demonstrating the full transparency of the government. There is no longer any doubt that the government is making no effort to keep its promises, as can be seen with what happened to the GST. A point by point analysis of the bill confirms this. You can hear every note of the lullaby the government is hoping to lull us off to sleep with.

Let us keep in mind that the government opposed the motion we proposed on public funding of political parties. It was my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, who proposed at the beginning of the session that the same thing be done in Ottawa as in Quebec City as regards public funding of political parties, so that the Liberals would no longer be funded by business, but rather by individuals.

To quote an expression that is very popular in Quebec, "He who pays the piper calls the tune". This government, this party is funded by major companies, banks, organizations of all kinds, to the tune of $25,000, $30,000 or $50,000. So the ties between these two groups are quite obvious. But it was the Liberals who campaigned with the promise of cleaning up Canadian politics by eliminating this rather questionable cronyism. Yet this government has demonstrated to us, unequivocally, its intention to preserve the privileges it holds with those who contributed to its campaign coffers.

The best example came very recently, in the last budget, when the Minister of Finance announced the creation of a technical committee on business taxation, at least five members of which had together contributed over $80,000 to the party's coffers. The entire question of tax havens is being studied by those who are themselves the heaviest users of them. Are we to conclude that the government adopted a transparent approach here? Hardly.

Let us keep in mind as well the famous bill on lobbyists. It was meant to make the relationships between them and the government more transparent. Here again, the Liberals bowed to the lobbyists, who managed to amend the bill aimed at controlling their own influence. Are we to conclude that the government adopted a transparent approach here? Hardly.

We know that the Department of Public Works and Government Services we are dealing with here is one of the hugest and most influential departments, controlling as it does the procurement of federal goods and services-we are, of course, dealing in billions here. It administers all contracts entered into by the government, and has one of the biggest portfolios around.

It is therefore up to the government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the money spent through this department is spent in accordance with our laws and regulations and, if possible, in a transparent way.

The Liberals promised members of Parliament that they would be allowed to monitor government spending much more closely. This is another red book promise. Well, it is in this very area that members of Parliament should get involved.

It would be logical, cost effective and desirable for us, the elected members of this House, to have the right to monitor this government's numerous expenditures, but this right is not spelled out. The federal government should follow the example of the Quebec National Assembly, which demonstrated how effective such a monitoring process can be.

Unfortunately, we must recognize once again that the government made some very nice promises that it has no intention of keeping. Today during question period, we talked about the appointment of census representatives. We are being asked to provide the names of people in our ridings who could help conduct the census but they will, of course, come after the priority lists drawn up by the department. So much for transparency.

Also, as elected representatives of the people, we have a right to find out about the money spent in our ridings. We have a duty to check if the expenditures ordered in our ridings by departmental officials are really justified. Otherwise, how can we know if they are useful? Should we not find out if these expenditures are legitimate? Is this not the reason why we were elected? Why should the people elect members of Parliament if we have no say in how taxpayers' money is spent? We might as well have only a govern-

ment and get rid of the opposition, because monitoring the government's spending powers is one of our basic duties.

It is deplorable that we as members of the official opposition have to raise this point, when we should be granted such a basic right without having to ask for it. As elected members of Parliament, we are accountable to the people so long as we have a say in public matters.

We are consulted, we are asked to vote on a considerable number of issues, yet we are denied the means to check in the field if the government's decisions are consistent with the recommendations made and legislation passed by this House.

Of course, elected members have the power to question the government on all public expenditures. But how can we carry out in good faith our duties in this House without the means to really find out about the activities of the federal public service? That is the basic question.

There is another point to consider: the accountability of our officials. As you know, the federal public service is the largest employer in Canada. Day in day out, public officials make decisions that have or could have financial implications. The costs involved, as minimal as they may be individually, add up to a huge amount.

In times when we have to put our fiscal house in order, it is imperative that we get a grip on government expenditures. And I will remind you that, at the very beginning, the Bloc Quebecois asked that an ad hoc committee be established to review government expenditures, item by item, but we never got an answer on that.

The public administration must conduct a self-examination to assess the expenses incurred by the various departments, including the one at issue today, namely Public Works and Governmental Services Canada.

As I said earlier, this department handles most of the federal government's goods and services procurement contracts. We must therefore make sure that it does not make any excessive or unnecessary expenditures. Judging from the auditor general's report, year after year, I would say that many expenditures are questionable.

The Bloc Quebecois had suggested putting in place a system whereby public servants could blow the whistle on squandering. If implemented, that solution might result in significant reductions in government spending in the short, medium and long terms. As for the public servants who oppose that measure, they should be told the facts. They should know that it is in their best interest to participate in this type of exercise if they want the government to rely more on them, instead of contracting out. It would also be in their interest to participate, because budgets are being reduced and departments must face cuts, because of the ever increasing deficit and debt. This is not very reassuring in terms of their long term job security.

As regards contracting out, over the last few years, there has been a definite trend showing that the federal public service is relying increasingly on that process.

The government contracts more and more outside the public service. If it results in savings for the government and, indirectly, for taxpayers, and if it stimulates the private sector, so much the better. However, we should be able to know for sure that it does not promote patronage and the awarding of contracts to friends of the government. This is why much greater transparency is required and why opposition members, regardless of their allegiance, must have much more direct access to information.

The total figure for such contracts from the Department of Public Works and Government Services is several billion dollars every year. Such a level of spending should be subject to clear and fair guidelines. The stakes are too high for federal public servants, contracting firms and Canadians.

The government will soon have to tell us what it intends to do about the contracting out process. It had a chance to do so with Bill C-7, but it did not. I cannot understand why the government did not take this opportunity to innovate. Measures must be taken to avoid the wasting of public funds. The government probably thought that we would turn a blind eye on that bill, since it is supposedly just a bill establishing a new Department of Public Works and Government Services.

We see nothing in this legislation that will make the contracting out process more transparent, and that will make us, members of Parliament, more responsible, since we do not have the necessary information.

With this bill, the government distances itself from its election commitment and its red book promises. It distances itself from its obligation to ensure maximum transparency in all its activities. We will continue to strongly condemn that as long as we are in this House. If the government is afraid to give greater transparency to its actions and decisions, then it is hiding things from the public.

If the government has things to hide, then it is doing things that it should not be doing. We have no choice but to come to that conclusion. Some day though, we will know what is going on with this government.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just before we begin to discuss Bill C-7, it seems to me that there was confusion among certain members, both in the opposition and in government. Each had at least one speaker on Bill C-3 and it appears that when you invited the speakers to take the floor, neither of the two speakers heard you.

We wonder what has become of Bill C-3, since we have not voted on it, nor have we spoken to it. We are wondering, from a procedural point of view, how you see this bill, because we never voted on it, you never asked if we were for or against, in any case, we said nothing. First of all, I would like your answer to this question so that we can determine if there should not be some sort of solution to satisfy government as well as opposition members.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may I suggest that it is entirely clear that the Speaker did call for debate. Seeing no member rising for debate the Speaker called the question. The question was carried and the Speaker so announced.

I am aware that my colleague on the other side of the House is disappointed. A colleague from our side is prepared and would like to speak on the bill. If the opposition agrees, we are quite prepared to give consent to go back to Bill C-3 for one speaker only from each party, provided that we proceed with and complete the business on Bill C-7 first. Then my colleague from the other side may put his request for unanimous consent to the House. We will be quite pleased to give it.

[The Speaker]

We have a situation where I need unanimous consent. I want everybody to know what is going on. We are now debating Bill C-7. But for one second I am going to put that to one side.

I have also a point of order. I am going put it aside until I know what I am doing.

I have been asked by the whip of the Bloc Quebecois to return to Bill C-3, notwithstanding that the bill has been passed, so that one of their members can put his speech on the record.

At this point we have had an intervention by a member of the Liberal Party saying, yes, that party is prepared at some time, which I will clarify in just a minute, to go back to Bill C-3 for one speaker from each party. That is where we are right now.

I have not heard at this point from our colleagues from the Reform Party. I presume they are in agreement. Is that correct?

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The bill has already been passed, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

All we are asking is for unanimous consent to have one speaker from each party, if each party so desires, to go on the record with a speech. Do members understand what is in front of us?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Yes.

[The Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to allow, at a future time which I will describe in just a minute, for one speaker from each party to make one speech on Bill C-3? Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I indicated quite clearly that my party would give consent following the passage of Bill C-7. I would ask my hon. colleague opposite to withdraw his request for consent until we have completed consideration of Bill C-7 in order to not further confuse the business of the House.

[The Speaker]

It was not my intention to intervene immediately. It was my intention to finish up with Bill C-7. That is what we are doing. Then at the end of Bill C-7, I will invite the hon. whip of the Bloc Quebecois to put his motion for unanimous consent, as I have described it here. That is what we are going to do.

Right now we have a deal. I know you will go with the deal after. But right now I am staying on Bill C-7. That is where we are. Bill C-3 is going to come after Bill C-7. All right, we all understand the rules.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

In the misunderstanding that arose over Bill C-3, you must, at some point, have asked the Bloc Quebecois, through our speaker just a moment ago, the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, to speak to Bill C-7, when normally, if procedure had been followed with Bill C-3, I would have had the floor for 20 minutes.

Given the situation, will you allow me to speak for 20 minutes on Bill C-7?

[The Speaker]

Yes. That is understood. And the hon. member who preceded you was also entitled to 20 minutes. So you have 20 minutes. You have the floor.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7, which is a resurrection of Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.

The purpose of this bill is to join the former Department of Public Works and the Government Telecommunications Agency.

This bill could have done a lot more, however, for the people we represent, especially as regards the transparency the government is supposed to display before its electors. I see no transparency in the bill before us, on the contrary.

Since its election, the Bloc has been asking the government to be totally transparent in connection with its expenditures. The Department of Public Works and Government Services is the department where the federal government should be cleaning house from top to bottom. It is a shame this bill does not improve transparency or access to information. Yet this is what the government promised in the red book, but, as we know, the promises in the red book fade.

I would first like to raise the matter of the awarding of federal contracts. At the moment, anyone outside the government or the public service trying to submit a bid must deal with a very cumbersome system. The department has set up a series of impressive obstacles to confound those trying to understand how contracts are awarded under the federal system.

There are in fact innumerable contractors who are looking for contracts from the department and who initially fail to discover and subsequently fail to understand all the intricacies of the government structure. I should have kept track of the number of constituents who complained either to me or to my staff about this, since the elections in 1993. Things are so complicated, the federal government itself paid agencies in order to understand how this administrative approach works.

Here is an example that I personally consider a good one. Last year, the centre d'incubation technologique d'entreprise-Cité 2001-in the Outaouais region trained some 40 business executives to enable them to find their way round the chaos of federal contracts. The centre had noted that only 1 to 5 per cent of federal contracts awarded in the region, totalling some $2 billion, had been awarded to Quebec contractors. Not a very high percentage.

So, Cité 2001 studied the computerized federal bidding system for these 40 businesses. The results were decisive, and a number of these firms now do business with the government. However, we have to ask ourselves why these people did not bid previously. Why were they not doing business with the federal government? Were things too complicated, was there too much paperwork or were bids made and then dropped because the criteria were too difficult to target?

So a publicly funded pilot project was needed in order to look at the system and understand how it works so people could deal with the federal government. If ridicule could kill, I know a lot of people who would be out of it.

Not all regions were as fortunate as the Outaouais. On the other hand, the Outaouais is not fortunate enough to be represented by members of the Bloc Quebecois. So much for that. In regions some call remote, just imagine the hard time our businesses have in dealing with the federal government. Of course they complain to their MPs about the process, eligibility criteria, or the awarding of contracts they consider unfair. This is the case in my riding.

As for transparency, in 1994, my colleague from Richelieu wanted the federal government to pass a law similar to that of Quebec concerning political party funding. Of course, the Liberals refused to go along with this.

Even though it was rejected by the House, the Bloc Quebecois adopted these measures for its own funding. Yet, voters expect elected representatives to serve the common interest, not those of some privileged few. This bill would deny businesses the right to finance political parties.

Voters who give political parties $5, $20 or $40 know very well they can expect nothing in return. But no one can convince me that a business is giving the party $50,000 just because it likes the MP's looks. How can a $3,000 a plate dinner bring together people who expect nothing in return? What goes up must come down.

This political practice hides many dangers. One of them certainly is that friends of the government may be made aware in advance of contracts to be awarded by the Department of Public Works. The same logic applies to lobbyists. Lobbyists have much influence on the government because the companies or interests they represent are more often than not committed to a political party and, therefore, the government owes them something.

Nothing in this bill would add to the openness of the contract awarding system. I hope the new minister will not follow in the footsteps of her predecessor as regards information given to members.

The Bloc Quebecois believes it is very important to encourage accountability of members, to keep them informed and to consult them regarding the awarding of departmental contracts in their ridings. Indeed, whatever their political affiliation, members are elected to represent their ridings in Parliament.

MPs, or at least we members of the Bloc Quebecois, know perfectly well that our responsibilities are not limited to legislative considerations. We have to study the country's affairs. We have to vote on a considerable number of things, but when it is time to check what is going on in our ridings to see if decisions made by the government comply with what was voted in the House, of course we are denied this right.

A number of my colleagues have already mentioned the fact, because I am not the only one concerned with matters of openness, as you very well know. I want to quote again part of the letter the previous Minister of Supply and Services sent me when I requested a detailed list of all contracts over $100,000 awarded in my riding since October 1993.

The minister replied that his department could not produce statistical data on contracts broken down by riding and that no document could provide the information I wanted. Finally, the minister said that, in order to answer my questions, he would have

to make thorough searches in various sectors of his department and that, by and large, this would entail an excessive workload for his department's employees.

Is this not the admission that this department's files are an incredible mess? It is also an obvious lack of collaboration and openness. The government could put in place a public monitoring body whose mandate would be to scrutinize contracts and thus ensure transparency.

Such a body would be asked to list, on a monthly basis, all government contracts, in a simple, accessible and easy to understand manner. These lists would always be available. This is a step a government serious about transparency would take.

As an elected representative, it is my duty to know what the federal government is doing. How can an MP do his job seriously and earnestly in the House if he is denied the means he needs to check if the decisions made here reflect what is going on in the field. Believe me, sometimes, a lot is going on in our ridings.

Giving members on all sides this kind of tool would restore the credibility of the political world, a world which has an urgent need to regain some prestige these days. This would provide people with a new instrument. At long last, the federal government would become accessible to all. I do not know if members opposite work this way, but for my part, when I think that something could be good for them, I tell them as soon as possible.

It is desirable, on both sides of this House, I am sure, for people to have confidence in their elected representatives. Accordingly, the government should make sure such confidence is truly deserved.

I find it deplorable that we, the members of the official opposition, have to intervene on such a fundamental issue. Our position is clear, and I believe it to be extremely important, since it shows the concern we have, and must have as elected representatives, with regard to controlling public expenditures, useless public expenditures which have such an impact on the government's economic health.

We should never forget that we have an inheritance to pass on to our children. It must be worthwhile. It is not by throwing money out of the window, by wasting public funds that we will deal with the problem. In a way, we must, all of us, become auditors of government spending. We must do all we can to stop the haemorrhage that now characterizes this spending. I really do not understand why the government will not innovate. I also fail to understand why it will not seize the opportunity this bill provides and finally practice transparency.

One of the principles we should all consider is the possibility of public servants blowing the whistle on the squandering of public funds. They know about most of the goods and services acquisition contracts. There is often some waste, it can go unnoticed. Therefore, we must implement a mechanism whereby public servants would have the right to blow the whistle on the squandering of public funds and whereby that right would be recognized and valued. Government expenditures are, for a good part, generated by public servants and that is quite normal given their role within the public service. However, the government machinery is not perfect. The annual report of the auditor general makes very disturbing revelations in that area.

Public servants know very well that decisions are made but that they may be questionable. Let me give you a small example. This is something a public servant told me last week. The Canada Post Corporation launched a complete restructuring of post offices in my riding. They centralized all of their operations in one building. The old post office building will be disposed of. In addition to post office employees, there were also human resources development employees working in that building and they too will be relocated in a few weeks. Last week all the interior doors of the offices of that building were replaced. Where is the logic? The civil servant who mentioned it to me was shocked by that, and he was right. Why is the federal government doing such things? Because this civil servant fears reprisals, he does not intend to go any further in his whistle blowing.

This is a very simple example, a very small one. One can easily imagine that there are many more cases of the same nature.

We can also question all the moves that are planned in various Quebec ridings by the Department of Human Resources Development. The minister responsible announced the closing of employment centres in several ridings. What will such moves cost? In my riding, there will be a refitting of the building where these civil servants will be housed. Are we saving money? Are we consulting the people involved in order to get the best prices? Of course not. Everything is done on the sly. Even managers, those who are supposed to make decisions, very often do not know what is going on: guidelines come from higher up.

Civil servants also deplore another situation, and that is contracting out. In 1992-93, Treasury Board valued at $5.2 billion service contracts awarded outside the federal government. In my opinion this is enormous.

The Bloc Quebecois would have liked the department, in its Bill C-7, to establish provisions forcing the government to regulate contracting out in a proper way. Public servants would agree with such a code. It would guarantee that when the government contracts out it does so only after having exhausted all its resources.

How can you ask a company to put all its people to work on a project when public servants are being fired or shunted into a siding? It makes no sense.

The government must therefore put in place a mechanism to respond to the people's expectations in terms of contracting out. In the present context, government employees and their unions certainly see contracting out as the evil thing to kill. If employees see contracting like this, it is because it is done any which way. The government must therefore clearly set out its policies concerning contracting out and how it uses it.

If such a mechanism is put in place, I am convinced public servants will no longer see contracting out as another way of stealing their jobs. Contracting out is necessary, but I repeat, it must be used advisedly.

Since you are signalling me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois, during the study in committee, made some proposals that were worthy of consideration. Naturally, the Bloc Quebecois is concerned with transparency. The government should take in consideration what the official opposition put to it. It would feel that much better for it.

Access to information is crucial to the public, businesses in general and elected representatives. It would be a proof of good faith if the government were to accept putting these principles in its bill, but it refuses to listen. I am forced to believe that it is satisfied with the system. It had condemned it when the Conservatives were in power, but now that it is in control, it is going overboard.

I truly hope that the people will remember that the government is refusing to give them information about its spending. I also hope the people will remember that it voted for a legislation that put it in competition with their businesses.

Like the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, I do not trust this bill. It does not respect the most fundamental principles of democracy. It does not respect the moral values that must be part of each and every one of us. Worse still, this bill gives more power to a minister who already had too much.

Since I was elected to defend the interests of the people I represent, I cannot accept that they be tricked by supporting a bill such as this one. I will vote against the bill, and I invite my colleagues to do the same.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because of a misunderstanding I spoke before my turn, but my colleague pointed out the difficulty companies, in Quebec in particular, but I suppose it is the same in Canada, have in negotiating with this department. This department has even to some extent paid people so it could understand what it was doing.

The question is often raised in my riding as well: Why is it that it was so difficult to deal with this department? We note, and perhaps this is part of the answer, in the case of the task force on taxation that was established, that the people who will be paid to study the impact of tax havens are in the first place the main users of those tax havens and major contributors to the Liberal Party.

In fact I think the difficulty in gaining access to this department has something to do with whether or not one contributes to the campaign fund. My colleague also pointed out that we-I think it was the member for Richelieu-had already introduced a bill a few years ago relating to party funding by the people. The Parti Quebecois for example is funded under this formula, in other words companies cannot make political donations, and the amounts individuals can give are limited to a maximum and the names of all people who contributed are made public.

We know that the Bloc Quebecois is doing exactly the same thing. Even if the law allowed us to do otherwise, we voluntarily agreed to restrict our fund-raising to the private sector, to avoid business contributions, and to solicit relatively small amounts.

I know that, like myself, my colleague is currently raising funds. We know what this means. It means that, night after night, we go door to door to solicit donations of $10, $15, $20 or $100 if we are lucky from the 200,000 members of the Parti Quebecois or the 100,000 members of the Bloc Quebecois until we reach the goals we have set for ourselves.

In this context, I would like to ask my colleague who knows about such things whether he feels like me that this fund-raising formula for political parties, which was never adopted and against which the Liberals voted-even those from Quebec who are familiar with the impact of this legislation in that province-increases transparency and allows people to buy their own freedom to a certain extent by helping fund political parties in this way.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member first raised the issue of businesses which, through public works, should normally be able to bid and participate. As we can see, Bill C-7, clause 16 in particular, creates all sorts of difficulties for businesses wishing to deal with the federal government. Remember that this department handles more than $10 billion a year in supplies, services, equipment, and so forth for the federal government.

No doubt small businesses, whether they are architect or engineering consultant firms, have a very hard time doing business with the government. But if you look elsewhere, you realize that some businesses having many more employees, larger companies, through lobbyists and employees they pay just to gain access to government, go all out to negotiate contracts involving large sums of money and contribute, through lobbyists, to party election funds. Eventually, the party's coffers are well filled, so members of this governement do not have to beg for $2 here or $5 there to fund their activities.

My mother used to say: "They were born with a silver spoon".

The Bloc Quebecois gave itself a transparent way of getting funds, which allows people to contribute minimal donations. Our money comes from the grassroots. As donations must come from individuals and not businesses, companies cannot interfere in the contracting process. The same situation does not apply to companies contributing to the Liberal or Conservative election funds, because these companies expect their favour to be returned some day. For Canadian and Quebec taxpayers, this is where their money goes down the drain.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to comment on my hon. colleague's remarks. I rise instead on a matter of procedure. Shall I wait that my hon. colleague's time be expired?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would prefer that the questions and comments period be over before we go on to something else. We will come back immediately after to the question you want to raise.

Any other questions or comments? Then I recognize the hon. member for Joliette.