Paul Crête

[Criminal Code, March 29th, 1996]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was expecting to introduce a few bills today. I had been told that I could introduce them at noon.

[Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister agrees these pensioners are not being treated fairly, why does he not commit to passing the appropriate tax measures to compensate Quebecers and Canadians, if the U.S. does not respond favourably to his request.

[Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

When tens of thousands of pensioners saw their American social security payments cut by 25 per cent, the only thing the government found to say in this House on March 14 was that it would raise the issue with the U.S. government, in order to find a solution to this inequity resulting from the new Canada-U.S. tax treaty.

Such a meeting has not yet taken place, and the pensioners are still waiting. Will the minister commit to raising the issue on his next visit to Washington, and can he tell us right now exactly when that will be?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the two amendments are very special in their effect. On the one hand, they will be reducing the available information that could be given to people on such matters as the amount of a benefit or the status of a recipient. On the other hand, they are increasing the number of people to whom information may be made available in the government. There is even talk of adding Canada Post to those with access to records.

Canada Post, it must be kept in mind, is no longer a government body per se, but rather a crown agency with considerable leeway, and its mandate is in the process of being reviewed. We could find ourselves in the situation of giving access to a virtually privatized organization, which could surely create significant problems.

What is involved here is the ability to trace mail, am item sent to an individual, where there was a need to find out from Canada Post why it had not been deliverable, or to what address it had finally been delivered. There is something a bit dangerous in this, I think.

As well, the delegation to the provinces of access to certain information is being removed. The door is being slammed in the provinces' faces, while at the same time being opened to a number of organizations. The public is being denied the right to certain information, while it is being granted to a number of federal bodies.

I think amendments of this type are along the same line as the ones discussed previously, or in other words that the government is giving itself even more opportunities, and the individual is seeing the confidentiality of certain information concerning him or her being eroded a little bit more. We must always be on guard in such situations. With modern communications technology, we are intruding on people's privacy more and more, and it is not necessarily appropriate to do so.

The official opposition will be opposing this proposed amendment.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Group No. 4 in fact resembles the bill itself. Just a while ago, the parliamentary secretary had some nice things to say about the bill as a whole. He said that the Bloc had spoken about things that were not in the bill.

Still, one should be aware of what the federal government has done for a number of years now, which is to interfere in the provinces' jurisdiction over manpower training without any statutory basis, and to table a bill and put forward a motion creating the equivalent of a federal department of education.

This is not just a housekeeping bill, this is not a bill that merely sets out the existing situation. It is an attempt to legitimize an approach that does not accurately reflect the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government.

This leeway in the bill comes up again in Group No. 4 and is just as confusing. The question the public should be asking itself about the amendments proposed is the following: Just how far should the government be allowed to go in obtaining personal information?

In Motion No. 8 they want to add the departments of national revenue, finance, and supply and services. In Motion No. 11, they talk about the justice department and the Attorney General of Canada, for the purposes of investigations in relation to war crimes.

There are important elements involved, with an impact on confidentiality. Having been a member of parliament for two and a half years, I have really seen the weight of the bureaucracy brought to bear on individuals. I have seen how, when there is an investigation with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act, for instance, it is the reverse of what we usually see in the courts. People are declared guilty until they prove otherwise, the opposite of the approach taken in the legal system.

Let us not forget the amendments to the legislation the last time to prevent people from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, such as the case of the beneficiary who had to prove that he had not been let go for whatever reason. We might have a lot of questions to ask about the government's objectives in seeking to broaden the scope of investigations in this manner.

Was the idea to go after unemployment rather than the unemployed? They think that they can solve unemployment by heaping further penalties on people who find themselves in difficult

situations, whose circumstances are such that they are not always aware of the complexity of legislation.

It is for that reason that, before passing an amendment authorizing the government to cross-reference information with National Revenue and Finance, Supply and Services, and in other cases with the Department of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, we must be certain that these actions will be carried out with respect for the right to confidentiality of certain information.

If similar information requirements were applied to individuals who have family trusts or benefit from any other tax avoidance scheme, would their rate of non-compliance not be considerably higher that what is currently observed among the unemployed, those who use this particular social program?

Does this kind of amendment not create a double standard?

These are questions we can ask ourselves. The same way we can ask ourselves if this is not the government's roundabout way of completing the job it has been doing on the UI reform, creating a climate where users of the system are penalized and nit-picking relentlessly, even if it means going too far sometimes in looking for information.

We in Canada have had experience with this kind of approach in other areas. We have seen the effect it has on social assistance when the government assumes the right to intervene, to go looking for all sorts of information concerning an individual. At some certain point, it becomes immoral. Knowing how easily this kind of information can be retrieved by powerful computer systems, we are certainly very reluctant to vote in favour of such an amendment.

I would therefore urge the government and the Reform Party to think twice before passing this amendment. All the hon. members of this House have had, in their ridings, people walk in their office and explain how powerless they feel when dealing with the bureaucracy, how difficult it is to handle a letter informing you that you are not eligible to UI benefits when you have had the same job for three full years, just because all of a sudden someone somewhere has decided to interpret a rule differently. When they are denied a cheque and this is their only source of income, individuals are not equipped to face the government and work their way up the government channels.

I think individual citizens should have a fair chance to argue their points and make sure that information provided in confidence to one party or the other will not be used indiscriminately, because that creates a climate of distrust which is unhealthy, is not fair to the citizens and contributes to making our society very wary about any government action. The government should give some thought to this before passing this kind of amendment.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate this amendment.

First, we can ask ourselves why the Reform Party felt the need to move this kind of an amendment. There is a very good reason for that.

The fact is that, as plentiful as the information available from Human Resources Development Canada may be, it is not very clear. More often than not, you get a pile of information, but the way this information is presented or interpreted, you cannot make much sense of it. And if ever there was an area in which things have to be set out clearly, this is it.

Take for example the statements made by the minister yesterday about those who misuse the UI system, in which he puts in the same basket abusers and people who simply misunderstood a rule. I doubt that any one of us understands every single rule set in the UI Act. At present, the available information can be used to substantiate just about any statement on the subject.

That is why it is important that clearer information be provided, so that our decisions can be based on facts and actual results, instead of using information to support individual perceptions, which may or may not be accurate.

It may be important to be able to look at a piece of legislation like the UI Act and ask ourselves: "In this whole thing, what have we done about money, about labour force participation? How efficient have these measures been and what positive results did they have?" It is especially important to answer these questions as early as possible in the process, because this factual information is needed not only to report on how things went, but also to make appropriate changes to our approaches and attitudes and to develop more pro-active policies.

In our present economic context, there are many indications of the fact that economic growth does result, as would be expected, in job creation. In order for the government to adjust quickly and for Parliament to be able to make interesting suggestions in this regard, information must be made available as soon as possible. With the electronic tools that are available today, it should be possible to produce information more quickly.

There is more. The system used by Human Resources Development Canada is very complicated. It is very difficult and hard to evaluate actual effectiveness. It goes without saying that this is partly due to the fact that the federal government gets involved in all sorts of areas which do not directly come under its jurisdiction and that a lot of money is paid in transfer payments to other levels of government. In the end, the public has a hard time assessing the situation. This is currently the case with all the information and perceptions that shape public opinion regarding unemployment insurance reform.

Those who are currently experiencing the reality of unemployment insurance, who are unemployed, who found out that, this year, they will not have the required number of weeks to complete the cycle and have a decent income throughout the year know very well what it means, because their income, the money they require for their daily needs, is affected.

On the other hand, people can say from these figures, as the minister did yesterday, that there are over 100,000 cheaters taking advantage of the UI program. Who does that group include? Who are these people? What proportion is made up of people who acted in good faith? It would be interesting to know if these people are real cheaters or if they are simply guilty of misinterpretation.

Let me give you an example. Last year, the issue of insurability was raised. As you know, people who have a business or a company are insurable under certain conditions, if the employee is not too closely involved in the decisions of the company, etc.

For one year now, we have been asking what the government's position is on this issue. Is the government doing something about this issue? Will it correct some situations? We were told: "Indeed, there is a problem; there is a backlog". However, we can never get

accurate data on it. This is the type of information we should have in a report, so that the problem can be solved once and for all.

This issue is not one of a political nature; it has nothing to do with partisanship or political ideology. It is merely a matter of looking into something that does not work from an administrative point of view and finding a solution. The way to do that is to have the necessary information.

When you know that there is a backlog of hundreds of cases in a region, in the offices of Revenue Canada, and that these cases could be dealt with, through a decentralizing process, in the offices of the Department of Human Resources Development, when you have the figures and the reports, then it simply becomes a matter of having the political courage to apply the necessary solutions and to make the required changes.

In this respect, the amendment proposed by the Reform Party at least expresses the frustration of having to deal with a huge bureaucracy full of information but which is very sparing with this information.

Let us take another example. We are now considering a number of very minor amendments that will not change much to the unfairness of UI reform, but we are unable to find out from the department what the economic impact of these amendments would be. This kind of long-delayed information leaves room for a lot of useless interpretation.

It can be said that this amendment is legitimate, that we should be given the information needed so that people can find out without delay how effective a department is, so that parliamentarians and members of the human resources committee can respond as quickly as possible.

Let us look at the impact of deadlines. If the report is tabled early enough, we can interpret the results, see right away the impact on the next budget year and make the required corrections. If the information comes a year late every time, by the time we try to address it, the problem is already elsewhere. So there is something to be done in this respect.

Also, the federal government should tell us clearly what its vision is in terms of numbers, given what has been said in the last few years on duplication, on the costs generated by two levels of government getting involved in the area of manpower.

Why is this not clearly specified in the department's annual report? Is it because the costs confirm what the Bloc Quebecois is denouncing, that the federal government should withdraw? Or is it because the information was never sought, which would be even more serious? This amounts to closing one's eyes to a reality that is intolerable and should be changed. Closing one's eyes and saying: "We are staying the course simply because we think we are right and because we are the federal government".

This kind of attitude would surprise me. It must be because they have not succeeded in setting up mechanisms to obtain information more quickly, and in today's society, information is power. Information allows us to make changes, to adjust our programs to the reality people are experiencing. In this regard, the amendment is interesting.

Will the government pay attention to this amendment? I hope so, and I hope for at least some changes in the way information is made available to us, so that we can be assured that our information is as accurate as possible before making decisions.

Let us think, for example, about all the studies commissioned by the government with regard to UI reform. Of 23 studies, 8 were made public. Where are the other 15? What is in those studies? Did they, in fact, contain nothing of interest, or were they not in line with the government's reform?

These are questions that we are asking ourselves, questions that we are entitled to ask, and, once again, that explain why we are looking for clearer information so that we may understand the reasoning behind the Reform Party's amendment. We want to see the government come up with more effective tools for managing information so that we can treat people better, ultimately, and so that Quebecers and Canadians, whether they are employed, unemployed or looking for work, have the greatest chance possible of receiving top service.

We still do not see this information in Bill C-96, and we would like to have the necessary information to be able to do something about the reality we face. We would like to be able to identify, among the 750,000 unemployed people in Canada today, those able to complete their training and move into the available jobs, and eliminate unemployment in Canada.

In short, the amendment seems interesting. It should be considered by the government, and I hope that, afterwards, we can have the most satisfactory management information system possible.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the Reform's amendment is not so much intended to create a nightmare situation, as has just been suggested, but rather to maintain an existing nightmare. If we look at it carefully, the first part appears worthwhile; they want the minister to be able to enter into an agreement with an agency of a province after obtaining the approval of the lieutenant governor in council of the province. One's reaction is: "Fine. That will respect provincial jurisdictions, and the jurisdiction of Quebec".

But then comes another part, "may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies, other than an agency of the province, as the Minister considers appropriate". This, then, is an agreement aimed at concretizing the current muddle that exists where manpower training is concerned. All is does is offer a snapshot of what the federal government is already doing. It is a somewhat useless amendment.

Now, for some concrete examples. This would mean that an organization such as the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, a public provincial body, could not enter into an agreement with the federal government without the authorization of its province. This can perhaps be defended, but it also means that a financial institution, such as the Bank of Montreal or the Mouvement Desjardins, or any other, could also sign this type of agreement without necessarily having Quebec's agreement.

This would recreate exactly the situation that currently exists. All kinds of organizations get involved in training, with more or less recognition, with criteria, paying more or less attention to the objectives of the education department. This creates the chaos that we have now with two levels of government being involved. The government responsible for manpower training and education does not have control over how training is provided.

Some people arrive on the labour market with a senior matriculation in office technology, for instance, while others have taken a course of one name or another that is not officially recognized by the department of education. When these people arrive on the labour market with their credentials, they are often in for a shock. They were told they were getting an education that would give them access to the labour market, but all of a sudden they discover that something is missing. Since they do not have the training required by the department of education, they cannot get equivalent certificates or diplomas, which creates all kinds of problems.

This is exactly what the Reform Party is proposing with the amendment before us, especially where it says: "financial institutions and such other persons or bodies-".

Nothing would prevent the federal government from signing a contract with an individual, whether or not the training to be provided is in line with the priorities of a Quebec region regarding manpower development. Such is the situation now. Quebec set up manpower committees to plan manpower requirements in each region, with a view to maximize job creation.

By contrast, under the current situation, which would be formalized under the Reform Party's amendment, the federal government can award training contracts to people in a given region, even though this initiative may not be in line with the priorities set by the region's stakeholders.

This will result in the useless spending that currently exists in that sector. A federalist minister from Quebec, as well as the Quebec Liberal government that preceded the Parti Quebecois in office, both recognized that $250 million are wasted in this fashion. This money is lost because two different networks are set up to train people for the same labour market. The result is that, in the end, we train people who have no jobs.

Everybody acted in good faith, including the people who purchased the federal program and those who received the training. The latter attend classes for a year full time and when they try to find a job they are told: "It is unfortunate, but we have decided to give priority to other applicants who completed three years of vocational training." The opposite is also true, but many times we have provided training for people who, in the end, have no job opportunities.

This is today's harsh reality. There are so many jobs available and people out of work, but we do not seem to be able to match them. According to a study made by the OECD, an international organization which enjoys a certain credibility when it comes to employment, Canada does not have a good manpower training system. This is one of the main reasons why we have a lot of trouble competing against other countries.

In our day-to-day lives, we also have to face this situation. If you go to an employment centre and say that you are unemployed and wish to get some training, you are invited to join a group of people with the same goals. You register, attend classes for a year and, in the end, find yourself in a dead-end because the training you got did not give you the qualifications you need to re-enter the labour force.

This also leads to undue competition between workers. This is why it is important to find another way to deal with this situation. The type of amendment put forward by the Reform Party will not solve the problem. The problem could have been solved if the current federal government had accepted the referendum results and come to understand what even the Director General of the Conseil du patronat du Québec told them, which is that the federal government should withdraw from manpower training and realize that Quebec's federalists and sovereignists all agree that the provincial government should be the only one responsible for any proactive employment measure and the only one empowered to act in this field.

So, we will need more than this kind of amendment to solve the problem, especially since this amendment only reflects what we have already. This is why we will vote against this type of amendment which is only a smoke screen. We would ask the government, instead, to reconsider its position and finally recognize the consensus in Quebec in terms of manpower training, to realize that the only efficient solution is to have the government closest to the people provide the appropriate training so that, in the future, we will no longer make a difference between welfare recipients and the unemployed, between those who get a government cheque and those who do not, but we will have instead an overall proactive employment policy.

The first thing to do is to ensure that we do not have two levels of government involved in the same jurisdiction. This is why we will vote against the Reform amendment.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, March 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I feel it is important, as we start considering the

amendments to Bill C-11, to remind the House of the initial purpose of the bill, which is to create a Department of Human Resources Development. Incidentally, this department has already been in operation for three years, but the government went ahead without parliamentary approval and we are now trying to regularize the situation.

What is important to know is that this bill will, in short, formalize systematic encroachment in the areas of education and manpower and will, for the first time, make it possible for the federal government to legally interfere as much as it wants in all areas that have long been recognized as provincial jurisdictions.

Second, this department is, I believe, a bureaucratic monster that will encompass very different sectors. One may be a little surprised by the amendment put forth by the Reform Party, since not appointing a Minister of Labour would bring about this bureaucratic world. This, I think, goes against Reform policy, against giving members of Parliament and ministers more say in what the government does. Because of the size of this department, the minister must very often rely on the positions advocated by senior officials.

The best proof of this is the department's stubborn determination to go ahead with a UI reform no one in Quebec and Canada wants. After being told stories by bureaucrats and perhaps also by other groups that would benefit from a deterioration in people's working conditions, we must now deal with today's reality. We must not make the problem worse. I think the Reform amendment should be rejected.

Let us consider the consequences of no longer having a Minister of Labour. Let us not forget that some emergency situations may require special legislation, as when the government felt we needed a special law in the area of rail transport. Not having a Minister of Labour per se could create some very difficult situations. The Minister of Human Resources Development cannot spend all the time needed on those activities. There must be some independent thinking on issues that are closely related.

The Department of Human Resources Development deals with pension issues. The Minister of Labour often has to appoint people as negotiators or conciliators to intervene in labour conflicts involving this kind of situation, and he could be placed in a conflict of interest position. It would therefore be better for the government to appoint a Minister of Labour.

Another major reason to proceed like this in the future is that we must go ahead with the reform of the Canada Labour Code that has been promised for so long and on which the government is dragging its feet. If passed, the amendment put forward by the Reform Party would just give the government one more excuse to delay amending the labour code for another six, eight, twelve or eighteen months. But if, on the other hand, there was someone in cabinet who was identified as responsible for this, we could check with this person, in April, May or June, if indeed the consultations under way will result in changes to the labour code. Will anti-strikebreaking legislation covering federal areas of jurisdiction finally be introduced, yes or no? Only a minister can answer this kind of question.

If the responsibility rests with someone else in cabinet, this could be will just one issue among others and any delay, like those experienced in amending the labour code, will seem more normal or acceptable.

Let me give you another example. In the past weeks, a bill authorizing nuclear industries to be subject to provincial labour laws, if need be, was considered in committee.

If there were only one minister responsible, it would be more difficult to get things done, like having a sub-committee look into a matter. Should we need the minister to appear before the human resources development committee and the labour committee at the same time, it would be physically impossible for him to be at both places at the same time. This goes to show that the proposed amendment would have a very negative effect on labour relations in Quebec and Canada. I do not think that we will be able to support it.

Why is the Minister of Labour important? Why is it necessary to have one all the time and to be able to appoint one when the government sees fit? To make sure that action can be taken. The anti-scab legislation I referred to earlier is a very important issue in our society. There are two realities. There are workers who are covered by provisions ensuring that their labour relations with their employers are much healthier and on a more equal footing. The are also workers who have no protection in that respect.

Unless the federal government takes a strong stand, clearly showing his commitment to resolving this problem and actually resolving it, this will result in a repetition of situations like the dispute at Ogilvie Mills.

Remember the strike, not the one in 1920, but in 1995. Workers on the picket lines had to contend with bullies hired by the company to let non-union workers go in. Such a deplorable situation-the use of scabs-is very bad for labour relations. The malaise persists long after the signing of a collective agreement, sometimes forever. This type of situation greatly affects labour relations. If we do not have a labour minister who is accountable, it will be even harder to settle such conflicts.

What is the purpose of the Reform Party's amendment? It may simply be a matter of reducing costs. However, we have to make sure that it is indeed the case and that we are not in fact killing investments. If we come to the conclusion that there is no need for

a labour minister, we will also conclude that this is not an important sector.

There may another reason behind this amendment. Perhaps the Reform Party realized that-and the government is partly to blame for that-after the new human resources development minister took office, the first person appointed as labour minister was someone who was not a cabinet member. That person was to be responsible for the referendum issue, and we had the impression that the government had created this position strictly to allow her to come on board.

This left a very negative impression. That person has since been replaced. It goes without saying that, during the months when she was in charge of the labour portfolio, the former minister spent most of her time working on the referendum. Several issues that should have been taken care of were left untouched, and it may be that the Reform Party feels that the same situation could happen over and over again, and that we will never have someone who will put all his energy into dealing with this issue.

I feel that we will be better able to solve the issue by working in this House, asking questions and criticizing the labour minister's performance. If, in fact, the current minister is spending the bulk of his time on political organizing because he is the minister responsible for electoral organization in Quebec for the Liberal Party of Canada, then we will be able to judge whether he has devoted more time to the political organization of his party than to workers, who will have to look at his performance and see whether he has been effective.

Not just workers, but employers as well, because we are increasingly realizing that for Canada and Quebec to be competitive, it is important that there be more joint action, more pooling of ideas with respect to objectives in order to be able to secure a good position on world markets and keep up with the competition.

For these reasons, it seems to me that the Reform Party amendment, however good the intentions behind it, does not correspond to the needs of Quebec and of Canada because we need a labour minister, and in the short term, we need a reform of the labour code and new anti-scab legislation.

[Taxation, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of the adjournment proceedings, I would like to go back to a question that I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development in early March. It referred to the fact that the minister had acknowledged that the bill on unemployment insurance reform, known as employment insurance, would penalize several workers if thorough changes were not made.

Essentially, what we would like to know is what are the changes that the minister will put forward. The committee has now been sitting for a few days on the subject and the minister has given us very vague indications. On every occasion, on amendment proposals coming from the Liberal members, they were always talking about very cosmetic, very technical changes. These are minimum changes that do not go to the heart of the issue.

Essentially, the real question is this: Will the minister be able to change budgetary parameters? In the unemployment insurance reform, the government expects to use the surplus in the UI fund to compensate for the federal deficit. Even though the UI fund money is provided totally by workers and employers, the Liberal government expects to use the money that is in the surplus. It is $5 billion for this year alone. Yes, $5 billion.

Will the minister to able to do anything to ensure that the reform will be changed root and branch? Because the one that is presently on the table has been condemned everywhere, by all people involved in this reform.

Will the minister be able to do anything in the budgetary parameters? Will there be a strategy for regional economic diversification? It is one thing to try to put the burden of the unemployment issue on the unemployed, but seasonal workers do not want unemployment. These are people who are caught in a seasonal economy, an economy of regions that live on natural resources. They have the jobs that they can, and if they could have more, they would take them.

In the reform project, it would be important that the minister gives up this principle that is found in the documents saying that seasonal workers are lazy. That is essentially what is being said. In all testimonies, we have seen that does not reflect reality.

In conclusion, will the minister be able to come back to common sense? Will he use the fact that there was a change in ministers to thoroughly change the unemployment insurance reform, to put back on the table the main things that concern him and to ensure, once and for all, that there is a reform, but a reform that will really make it possible to fight unemployment and allow more people to get jobs?

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 seeks to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts. Why was this department set up? It is probably in order to improve its services, increase its efficiency and allow it to operate in the most appropriate way in the future.

However, this piece of legislation does not contain any change to deal with the very blatant flaws currently found in the system. As a new member of the committee on government operations, I was able to how centralized the procurement operation of the federal government.

Granted, they are trying to find ways to ensure that procurement is made at the lowest cost. They are also trying to ensure some openness in the procurement process. However, they forgot a very important concern: is that process to the benefit of Quebec, of Canada and of the various regions of this country and does it allow for development of those regions on a fair basis?

In committee, I was told, for example, that the figures on the actual breakdown of government procurements between the various provinces were not available.

This to me is a major flaw because, while they put forward a reform of the unemployment insurance system, while they say they will try to find ways of helping the regions hardest hit by the reform, regions with seasonal economies or with an economy dependent on natural resources, they cannot put forward real measures devised to give new impetus to these regions in diversifying their economy. One of the more concrete ways to do so would be for the government to ensure that its procurement program has some impact throughout the country and that it can efficiently assess this impact.

During the 1970s, the federal government opened a number of offices, for instance to process tax returns and other similar information, which had some kind of synergic effect in some areas, but we do not see that anymore and we cannot even get this kind of information nowadays.

Another element which we think is being somewhat overlooked in this bill is the fact that federal members of Parliament from all political stripes should be consulted and kept informed of any government contract awarded in the federal ridings they represent.

Right now, there is no systematic information mechanism to ensure that the public is made more aware of what is going on. One criticism that we can make-and I have seen this in my riding in the last few months-is the following: what process do small businesses have to follow to be eligible to join the bidding process and to be included in the computerized contractors system. It is very complicated and very hard to gain access to this network but even tougher to reach the insiders, those who know how the procurement system really works. Let me give you a very concrete example by telling you about an experience a company in my riding went through.

There was a call for tenders for the building of fibre glass shelters. Upon seeing the ad in the newspapers, a company in my riding decided, all in good faith, to request all the information it needed. After reading the documentation-and I have seen all of it-it dawned on us that it was impossible to develop a proposal based on the information made available to companies.

To make things worse, the company called to get additional information but could not get any. That came about because the project was developed with a particular company in mind, and even though the government called for tenders, it was in fact already a done deal. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to compete

because the companies are not even provided with all the information they need.

So, with this bill, the government would have had a great opportunity to act on this issue and on the creation of the department, and to provide for transparency and get rid of the old myth that government procurement is always based on patronage and also to deal with the whole issue of administrative contracts. There is still a lot of room for improvement. The government could have done a lot more to better target its action.

They could also have tried to make public servants more aware of the money they were spending. We are often told, these days, that calls for tenders are done correctly and in such a way that anyone can bid on them, but the government never tried to have a real impact on the development of small or medium size businesses in our regions. What would be more meaningful in an area with high unemployment than to inform businesses in that area and to have federal civil servants going on a tour of these businesses to make sure that they can take part in the procurement system, have the chance to know exactly how it works and submit proposals, answer calls for bids and get contracts?

We have seen this as members of Parliament for the last two years and a half. The system is often made in such a way that people with a lot of potential and capabilities and who are already part of the system get the information they need and are encouraged to perform even better. But our responsibility in government is not only to make sure the strong and the rich get what they need, but also to see to it that new types of small and medium size businesses can take off, develop as well as create and maintain jobs. The federal government has still a lot to do in that regard. I think some progress was made in recent years to make tendering more available. There remains much to do but I can see no will to do it in the bill before us.

The Bloc Quebecois' approach is based on government transparency and that of its administration. Currently, anyone trying to deal with the government or the public service is confronted with a colossal maze preventing them from getting more information.

If the example I gave earlier was an isolated case, we could say that it is an exceptional case, but there are also others. In my riding, well known businesses, medium size and large ones that have been operating for many years are having a lot of difficulty finding their way around in the government procurement process, and I believe that there is work to be done in this regard.

There is an element which, of course, cannot be solved by the bill on the public works department, but which is always present in these situations. It is the question of the political party fundraising. As you know, Quebec has a law which provides that only individuals can make donations to a political party. No bank, no union, no community association, no foundation can make donations and claim a deduction.

In the federal government, things are different. Businesses, unions, community groups, everybody can make donations to a political party. This does not necessarily mean that businesses are dishonest, but it can give rise to conflicts of interest. I believe that if we change the law governing contributions to political parties along those lines, there would be more openness and transparency in the awarding of contracts, and I believe that would be much more appropriate.

Another element the Bloc Quebecois considers as important is the establishment of a code for contracting out that would force the government to adequately monitor the use of outside contractors and to make the process transparent. The monitoring process should be acceptable for all the parties involved in this important question. The contracting out process is a current issue and it is a dynamic process which can be very profitable. On the other hand, as public organizations, we must ensure that we do this with enough visibility, allowing people to see that their money is spent properly.

I would like to come back on the consultations, on the information required by the contracting out process and on the role MPs must play. A federal member of Parliament, regardless of his or her political affiliation, is someone who has been elected and who is responsible for representing his riding as far as legislative issues are concerned. But he has more than legislative responsibilities. Administrative decisions have impacts which are very real, and one of them has to do with public procurement. There are public expenditures of this kind.

The elected representative has the power to question government on all its expenditures. However, can we do that job properly if we do not have the necessary tools to really know what the federal public administration is doing in our riding? That kind of information would be very useful and could even help in the elaboration of economic development strategies for a given region. An area that does not benefit from a lot of government investments could think of attracting some or decide to continue looking for other kinds of investments. If it does not benefit from that kind of investments, it could try to find out why not.

How could we do things otherwise? Could we have federal civil servants give business owners up-to-date information? There could be another reason. Perhaps some ridings do not get many federal contracts, not only because the necessary information is not

available, but because they do not try hard enough to get it. There is an interesting economic potential that could be developed at a very low cost.

The government is constantly seeking ways to create jobs. Well, one of the ways to do it would be to make sure that its purchasing is done fairly and appropriately in all areas of the country. So there has to be a process where everyone has a chance to compete and to be awarded a contract.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, would also like to have a mechanism for blowing the whistle on any waste of public funds. It is not a matter of hitting people over the head. Perhaps we should follow the example of municipal governments. If you talk to a councillor or a mayor in a small municipality, you can be sure that, when money is spent on things that are not really necessary, they know it quickly because people see those things in their daily life; they see the work done at the street corner, they see everything. That is probably why municipal governments follow what goes on very closely.

At the federal level, governments may not have been as vigilant as they should have in the past, as is shown by our deficit. We can easily imagine the kind of unnecessary expenditures that are made regularly. In the fight against the deficit, if we did things right, if we followed the situation more closely, we could put less pressure on social programs and stop chasing unemployment insurance recipients. Instead of that, we could try to find the major elements that we have to work on in order to save money.

So there could be significant cuts in government spending. I think that it could imply greater accountability for public service employees. The area of government procurement may be a priority area where, in creating the department, the government could have clearly shown its desire to improve the situation in this regard. However, we do not find these elements in the bill as it stands.

There is another issue of interest to us, and it is the issue of advance payments by the government. This practice is used by public service employees and managers. These people are afraid of having their annual budget cut if they do not use all the resources allocated to them. In other words, when the end of the fiscal year is near, suddenly the money has to be spent to be sure that next year's budget will not be cut. We all have heard about that, we all have seen it in the departments. I think the government should have done something to provide for better control in this area.

Finally, the Department of Public Works is responsible for processing requisitions from other departments. Maybe there is a period during the year where the department should be particularly vigilant to see if these purchases are really necessary. Do they really need these things? Is it not at the beginning of the year that it is finally realized that the full amount budgeted is not really needed? The unnecessary purchases and horror stories we hear, which often take place at year's end, would be avoided.

The Department of Public Works must therefore be a credible watchdog over advance payments by departments. This department spends over 50 per cent of government commitments. In each department, the amount that can be authorized is minimal and responsibility rests with the department of public works. This is therefore very important because we are reviewing the act governing this department.

It is therefore very important to be sure, at this stage, that the bill contains all the means necessary to carry government purchasing into the 21st century, allows a sufficient degree of transparency and, above all, ensures that government spending benefits regional development.

For these reasons, I think that the government will have to review its bill and see whether amendments are not required.