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.