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.