Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-7, which seeks to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services. This bill was first reviewed during the last session and is now back before us at the same stage as it was in December.
This debate provides an opportunity to point out a number of things. We will not discuss the overall administration of the department; however, we want to discuss the department's mandate, ways, processes and practices, and to look at its effectiveness. This is basically what I intend to do in the few minutes that I have.
The Liberal government often accuses the official opposition of only criticizing. When a bill is before the House and Bloc Quebecois members discuss it, Liberal members and ministers often say: "All you do is criticize; you have nothing else to say. You cannot make constructive proposals".
In the case of Bill C-7, the official opposition worked very seriously, and I want to pay tribute to the Bloc members who sat on the public works committee during the last session for their excellent work. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to conclude that the government did not take into account the recommendations and suggestions made by the Bloc Quebecois, as is its habit.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Châteauguay raised four points on which I would like to go back. My colleague mentioned the need to monitor the government's financial commitments, and I will get back to this later on. He also talked about the contracting out process. As he mentioned in the question and comment period, the Bloc would like to focus on the need to have an open process so that all our fellow citizens can benefit from government services, especially business people who offer their services to the government. That is why we have contracting out rules.
The Bloc wants members of Parliament to be more involved in the process. Hon. members should be consulted at least on what is going on in their ridings and need to be kept informed, but I will also come back to this issue.
Lastly, I want to talk about ethics in government, by drawing a parallel with the party financing legislation which, of course, does not exist at the federal level. There is one piece of legislation which addresses the financing issue, but its provisions are so broad that I would rather draw a parallel with the rules we have in Quebec and which really set the province of Quebec apart from the other western democracies in this area.
Let us talk about control of financial commitments and the suggestion made by the Bloc Quebecois to ensure that all House committees can meet regularly, at least four times a year, to examine the financial operations and commitments of the departments they are responsible for. Again, we might want to refer to what is done in Quebec. We often hear our colleagues, especially the members from western Canada, criticize what is being done in the province of Quebec, but I think we should also focus on what deserves to be mentioned and recognized. In this instance, I think it would be well worth it.
In Quebec, parliamentary committees and commissions can, I guess any time they wish to do so, summon a minister, of course, but also senior public servants to account for their management. Any day they wish to, they can summon public servants before their committees and ask them to account for the decisions they made in their own department.
This request by the Bloc Quebecois to do the same thing at the federal level is quite in line with the will expressed by this Parliament to change the rules governing the auditor general and to allow the tabling in the House, four times a year, of the report of the auditor general, as asked by the former member for Vanier who now sits in the Upper House. In that context, it appears quite logical and normal-that is, if this government can be logical-to see to it that each committee of the House can proceed with the audit of the financial commitments of the departments or agencies for which they are responsible.
This is a positive and constructive suggestion, and instead of hearing the minister responsible for public works and my colleague for Winnipeg St. James, whom I hold in great respect, boast about what this government did in the contracting out sector, I would have preferred that he take action and announce, as we considered this bill, amendments to allow an audit of financial commitments four times a year.
This brings me to the code for contracting out. My colleague for Châteauguay suitably noted that the federal government is spending enormous sums of money through all sorts of contracts for the procurement of equipment, merchandise and services. Throughout Canada, it is estimated that more than $5 billion were spent for such purposes in 1993-94. Where I come from, that is not peanuts. These are significant sums of money that must be spent wisely and we must make sure that they serve the purposes they were meant for.
Even though it has been mentioned that changes have been made to the awarding of contracts and that some improvements have been made, there is still plenty of room for improvement, particularly with regard to contracting out.
First, it would be important, as I said earlier, that not only the suppliers of services but also the people who receive the services understand the way government works and understand the tendering process.
However, the experience of members of this House-particularly opposition members, who receive many complaints every day in their constituency office-indicates that the federal government's administrative practices for awarding contracts leave a lot to be desired. More often than not, it is a total mess and one has to wonder if officials who have to make decisions do not try to confuse everybody on purpose and to make things as complicated as possible to avoid scrutiny and to avoid being asked questions.
So if we are serious about spending government funds wisely, it is imperative that we establish a code for contracting out, that we have clear and simple rules that would help the Canadian public understand what the government or the public servants are doing on their behalf.
I would like to underline a few suggestions that have been made to improve the process. First of all, members should be consulted or informed. It is amazing that, as elected representatives, we have to rise in this House during consideration of this bill or any other bill to ask to be informed of what the government is doing in our ridings.
As Dr. Laurin, an MNA and former minister in a Parti Quebecois government, used to say, there is something wrong when an elected member has to stand in this House and ask the government to please inform the elected representatives of the people about what the federal government is doing in their riding.
We are raising this issue, because that is not what is being done right now. It is not standard procedure. There is no way our fellow citizens who cannot follow government operations day to day-may God spare them that chore, because they have other things to do, like taking care of their families and paying taxes-can get a clear idea of what government administration is all about when members themselves have to resort to amending a bill so that elected representatives will be consulted. I think the minister or the government should have readily recognized this deficiency and presented relevant amendments instead of waiting for the opposition to do it.
The opposition has kept a watchful eye, it has assumed its responsibilities, and suggested that members be consulted. The goal is not to determine who should get the contract, the way it is being done right now in Liberal fundraising events, but to know the
motives behind government actions in different ridings, the spinoffs, and who is capable of providing the goods or services that are recommended. This is what the Bloc Quebecois is asking for. I would not want to conclude without-
