Debates of Nov. 27th, 1995

Department Of Public Works And Government Services

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We will now proceed with consideration of group of motions No. 3.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill c-52, in Clause 17, be amended: a ) by replacing line 5, on page 6, with the following:

"17.(1) The Minister may, subject to any regu-"; and b ) by adding after line 16, on page 6, the following:

"(2) Before any fees or charges are fixed under subsection (1) or increased, the Minister shall cause to be published in the Canada Gazette and in no fewer than two leading newspapers in each province a notice clearly indicating a ) the products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes, approvals or use of facilities provided under subsection (1); and b ) the fees or charges that have been fixed or increased pursuant to paragraph (1)(a).''

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With respect to MotionNo. 5, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River has indicated he will not be present and will not be moving the motion. I might add while I am on that subject that Motion No. 7 by the same member also will be struck.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-52, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 16, on page 6, with the following:

"17. The Minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this section, charge for services provided by the Department pursuant to this Act or any other Act in force at the time this section comes into force."

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is proposed essentially to allow the government to be more open in its method of setting the price of goods and services. Our suggestion, basically, is that all changes involving the price of supplies, the awarding of contracts or almost anything else be published in the Gazette and even in daily newspapers.

Clause 17 in fact gives the government or the minister the right to change the charges for passports, for example, or for any other service the government supplies at the present time. The minister would be entitled under this section to change the set charges without notifying the House or the public in advance. All we want

is for all changes to be published in the Canada Gazette and in newspapers, so that people are informed and the government is transparent.

The non-transparency of government can be seen in a number of areas. Moreover, the government does not even listen to the suggestions made by the general public. For example, the preceeding clause, 16, contains the same problem as 17: lack of transparency or not being attuned to the concerns of the general public.

Where clause 16 is concerned, it is even more flagrant. It is not solely a question of publication, but is really a question of respecting private enterprise. The committee even heard representations from the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers. Engineering representatives joined with more than 12 other Canadian organizations to oppose clause 16. In fact, that group of associations was a coalition of 12 of the most important organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers, the architects' association, boards of trade, the federation of independent business, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, and so forth. These 12 associations represent 280,000 Canadian companies opposed to clause 16. They were violently opposed to clause 16 because, with it, the minister assigns himself the power to compete with the private business sector, particularly in the areas of engineering and architecture.

In my opinion, this is an abuse of power. The hon. member for St. Boniface said that the minister had no intention of competing with the private sector.

However, in a letter sent to committee members, the minister himself stressed they did not intend to bid the private sector out of the market, but he did say they intended to compete. This is in fact abuse of power, because not only does the government not respect the opinion of those concerned, as in the case of clause 17, but it acts as though nothing was wrong.

After all the representations made in committee, the government fails to act on this request by the coalition of Canadian associations. The hon. member for St. Boniface said that they set up a committee to review this sector, at least as far as competition between the government and the private sector on engineering and architecture projects was concerned, but this is just another phoney committee. The federal government is very good at setting up committees that do nothing, know nothing, hear nothing and see nothing.

The committee was set up nearly a year ago. Can you believe it? In fact, the president of the coalition, Pierre Franche, told me they had yet to meet. Imagine, they have not discussed the problem. In fact, he said there was absolutely no hope for any changes, especially in clause 16. That is pretty obvious, because today in the House, the government wants to adopt the same clause tabled a year ago, without any changes.

This is not openness, and this is not necessarily listening to the general public. We can hardly say this is a government that is working very hard to meet the needs and deal with the concerns of Canadian citizens or associations. They are doing nothing. Zilch. Not one word changed.

In fact, the government's proposal concerning clause 16 is to maintain all the elements that have raised the concern of these 12 Canadian associations which represent 280,000 companies in Canada. That is a lot of people. The government did not budge and insists on maintaining this clause, while saying, of course, that no, this will not necessarily increase the minister's powers: no, the minister will not act in such a way as to establish competition with private businesses; and no, we will be on our best behaviour. This power, accorded the minister under this clause in the bill would not be abused.

Well, if government members are honest, candid, and really up front, as we hope they are, if indeed the minister would not abuse this increased power, if indeed he would not use it and if 200,000 companies in Canada oppose this clause, let the government abolish it. It should abolish it. Why are they keeping it saying they will not use it, despite the opposition to it? If they keep it, it is because, hypocritically, they want to use it.

Obviously, the government would not hang onto increased power knowing that it would not use it, despite the opposition expressed by so many responsible companies and organizations across Canada. It wants this power. And this, basically, is why the government is keeping the clause intact. What also concerns me is that any engineering industry and architectural expertise we may have in Canada is mostly concentrated in Quebec.

Engineering firms have developed admirably in Quebec. The industry is very important to Quebec. It is one of the most important ones given all the hydroelectric projects and the consultation development done.

Is the federal government positioning itself to set up coalitions with certain private corporations in these sectors? Does it want to set up coalitions that may compete with and even destroy other engineering firms? Could this lead to patronage? Is there a possibility of collusion to support certain policies rather than others?

This provision opens the door to abuse, to competition between the government and the private sector. I find this extremely dangerous. We have seen, across Canada and around the world, several cases in which competition between government and private enterprise is never good. This morning, we talked about Canada Post, a crown corporation that competes with the private sector in the area of courier services and mail advertising delivery, for example. This is costing Canadian taxpayers a lot of money. Do

you know why the federal government is running such a huge debt and deficit? It is because it is not really dealing with this.

I basically think that clauses 16 and 17 are unfortunate. Again, the main purpose of our motion is to ensure maximum openness, so that the general public will know exactly what the government is doing, because between you and me, Mr. Speaker, this government does not always act honestly and in a straightforward manner.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken really was discussing section 16 of the act rather than the amendment he has put before the House regarding advertising in newspapers.

While there may be some relevance and I am not arguing that, I think he has misunderstood the thrust of the amendment that has already been proposed and which is subject to a vote. Also, I think he will be well satisfied with this bill and the Canadian public will be well satisfied when we have completed the amendments that have been proposed in the House today. I think the hon. member for Québec-Est knows that perfectly well.

I would like to speak in support of the amendment I proposed to clause 17 of this bill. Clause 17 deals with the powers of the minister to fix certain charges that may apply to the various services provided by the minister's department.

The government's original intent was that the legislation dealing with the departments of public works and government services, industry, and heritage would all include an identical clause dealing with fees for the sake of consistency and uniformity. However it is recognized that public works and government services differs from the other two departments in that the focus of its mandate is internal to government as opposed to delivering government programs to the Canadian public which is the case in the other departments I listed.

The vast majority of contractual arrangements that the minister signs and that involve charging for goods or services are made with other federal agencies. Generally speaking, the department delivers common services to some 150 federal departments and agencies. These services cover a wide range of activities.

They include: providing office furnishings and supplies; consulting services; real property and realty services; architectural and engineering services; communications and telecommunications services; and many more. The important point is that these are essentially intergovernmental arrangements that do not impinge directly on the department's relations with outside interests.

As a result and subsequent to debate on this clause, I put forward an amendment to its wording. Under the proposed amendment, the full wording of the clause would be as follows:

1. The minister may, subject to any regulations that the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this section, charge for services provided by the department pursuant to this act or any other act in force at the time this section comes into force.

Not only does this revised wording simplify the description of the minister's power in this area, it also more accurately describes the nature of the department and its functions. The use of the words "charging for services" rather than the original wording "fixing fees and charges" reflects the reality of the service nature of the department. It is in line with the wording found in the existing Supply and Services Act. For this reason I ask hon. members to support this amendment.

Clause 17 of this bill as amended establishes a clear, relatively simple and unbureaucratic regime for establishing charges for services made by the department. It is in line with the general thrust of the bill, which is to streamline government operations, reduce red tape and make the delivery of common services more cost effective.

However, the minister's powers in this area are by no means unlimited. One of the major constraints is that many of the services his department provides to the government are optional; that is, the client may accept them or look elsewhere for better value. This in itself is a powerful incentive to make sure the department's schedule of charges is well thought out and competitive with outside sources. Of course in establishing charges the minister must take into account the rules and guidelines of his own department, the Treasury Board, and other government bodies.

By giving the power to set charges to the minister rather than the department, clause 17 ensures the minister will be ultimately responsible to Parliament to answer any questions that may arise with regard to charges.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

As it should be.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As my hon. friend from Hamilton West says, that is as it should be. I agree.

This being the case, members can rest assured that these powers vested in the minister under clause 17 with the amendment I have proposed will not be abused. Passage of Bill C-52 with this amendment will give the minister the legislative authority he needs to continue working for more efficiency and cost effectiveness in government operations.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the proposed amendments to Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.

The four proposed amendments-now two, as two have been dropped-have been grouped together for debate. All address clause 17 of the bill. Clause 17 proposes to allow the minister of public works, subject to any regulations the Treasury Board may make for the purposes of this clause, the authority to "fix fees and charges that the minister considers appropriate to be applied to products, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes or approvals and the use of facilities provided by the minister, the department or any other board or agencies of the Government of Canada for which the minister has responsibility, including public works and federal real property under the administration of the minister".

That is a very longwinded way of saying that the minister would be free to set fees and charges for any department services under his portfolio completely at his discretion. This amount of ministerial discretion and power goes too far and is clearly unnecessary.

This clause moves in exactly the opposite direction to where we feel we should be heading. Canadians want a bottom up system of decision making. However, proposals such as clause 17, with decisions concentrated in the hands of the minister, support a top down system of policy and decision making. Somehow the Liberals must have their signals crossed, because this is definitely a move in the wrong direction. Either they are not listening, which happens quite often, or they are hoping to slip one by the public when it is not looking. This may explain why the government has sat on this bill for so long, nearly a year, because such controversial proposals simply will not be accepted by the Canadian public.

It is not surprising that a number of amendments have been proposed to address this clause. What is surprising is that these changes are being proposed in the first place.

The first proposed amendment by the member for Québec-Est is to change clause 17 so the minister would have to publish any fee or charge increases in the Canada Gazette and in no fewer than two leading newspapers in each province. This notice must clearly indicate the product, services, rights, privileges, regulatory processes, approvals or use of facilities provided under subsection (1), and the fees or charges that have been fixed or increased.

However, this proposal would do nothing to change the intent of the clause as it stands. The only benefit, and it is a benefit, is that the public will be made aware of the changes. But the minister still retains complete discretion in the setting of fees. For this reason, this amendment is redundant and I see little cause to support it.

The member for Scarborough-Rouge River proposed an amendment and then withdrew it. The amendment had the effect that the fees and charges for government services did not exceed the cost of providing the service. The motion would have restricted the minister in how much he or she could raise fees for services. I could not have supported that in the long run, so I am pleased to see the amendment withdrawn.

The parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government also proposes an amendment to clause 17. However, I fail to see why this amendment was proposed in the first place, because it changes nothing, except perhaps the wording of a particular clause. The intent of clause 17 is the same. Fees would be set by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services at his discretion or whim, giving the minister far too much discretion, which I am not confident he can handle. I cannot in good judgment support this amendment either.

Motion 7 was proposed by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River and is the only amendment to clause 17 that makes any sense. Perhaps that was why he withdrew it today. Motion 7 would have proposed to delete clause 17 altogether. That made good sense. This amendment clearly would have had our support, because Canadians are demanding a more open and transparent system of government. They want honesty and integrity restored to our government.

Canadians are simply tired of governments that do not consult them, disregard their views, and especially governments that conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors. Yet closed door politics that allow government ministers to make random changes to fees and service charges, with no system to scrutinize and oversee changes, can hardly be considered a step in the right direction.

The Liberal government has made a lot of promises regarding open government. We often hear the term open government, but we see little action. On the contrary, we have seen quite the reverse. This is just one example of the government grasping at more power and control. When this government proposes decision making to be concentrated in one person, the minister, and conducted behind closed doors with no accountability, this is not open government. This is a step toward a more autocratic, not democratic, system of government.

The Liberals promised in the red book that "open government will be the watchword of the Liberal government". Right. It is obvious that the Liberals need to reread their book of promises. When put to the test on this government's commitment to open government, it has failed miserably again and again.

It is unfortunate to note that with the problems the government has had regarding patronage and abuses of privilege, clause 17 is certainly not appropriate. Clause 17 has no criteria in place to guide decisions to raise or lower fees. It is completely lacking in any system of checks or procedure for making fee changes known to the public.

In addition, who will scrutinize the minister's decision when fees and charges are raised or lowered at his whim? Will it be the ethics commissioner, who has been notably absent in a number of allegations of impropriety? I rather doubt it.

The government is proposing a system that will be left wide open to the possibility of abuse. That is what concerns me most with this portion of the bill. Unless the government will impose a system of checks and balances to ensure accountability, it is best not to leave the entire Department of Public Works and Government Services and all its operations open to the possibility of abuse.

Let me remind the House and Canadians who are watching that this is the same government that allowed one of its backbenchers to take money from two different government departments for one piece of equipment. In this case there was no system of checks and balances to assure that the money was used appropriately. This is just one example of the government's irresponsibility in the managing of taxpayers' money. And now we are looking at a proposal to give the Minister of Public Works and Government Services complete discretion over rates for his department. Give us a break.

This is the same government that promised to scrap the GST. Where is it now? Right back where it was.

There is a definite lack of accountability. This makes it very difficult to consider giving unlimited ministerial discretion. Time and again this government has made a mockery of open government. Last session closure was invoked on several bills in an effort to hide the bills from public scrutiny.

In conclusion, Canadians will not tolerate this abuse of privilege again and again. Canadians must be allowed to participate in debate and decisions. It is time for this government to take a step in the right direction, and that is to strike clause 17 from this bill altogether.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the general thrust of Bill C-52 is to allow the Minister of Public Works and Government Services the opportunity within existing laws and regulations to develop the most efficient possible system for delivering common services to the government.

An amendment has been put forward by the member for Kingston and the Islands to clause 17 of the bill, which will allow the minister, subject to Treasury Board regulations, to charge for services provided by his department.

This is a simple and direct approach to price and fee setting and determination.

This approach reduces to a minimum the administrative time and costs involved, both to the department and to its client departments.

Another amendment to clause 17 proposed by the hon. member for Québec-Est would have exactly the opposite effect. Adopting this motion would result in substantial additional costs, a heavier bureaucratic structure and considerable delay in the price setting process for the department's services.

This goes directly against the grain of what the government and most members want to see; namely, more efficiency and economy in government operations and less red tape.

There is already a framework within government that ensures that any authorities granted are being executed to safeguard the interests of Canadian taxpayers. It should also be noted that the services provided by the Department of Public Works and Government Services are offered to other departments on an optional basis and not to the general public.

This means that client departments and interested agencies may either accept the department's rates or look for other ways of satisfying their requirements.

This in itself is a very strong incentive to the minister and the department to ensure that the rates they charge are fair and competitive with others in the marketplace.

The wording proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is better suited to the realities of Public Works and Government Services Canada. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Québec-Est would just create a heavier bureaucratic structure, result in higher costs and not protect the public interest any better.

The motion being put forward by the member for Kingston and the Islands more appropriately reflects the approach to be taken in this instance. I ask all members of the House to support it.

We must show the taxpayers that we can operate more effectively and serve them better with fewer people and less money.

This is essentially what Bill C-52 is all about. The new department has already demonstrated its value in cutting costs and eliminating duplication.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The vote is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.