Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that I do want to raise with respect to this amendment--it's the amendment, less so the subamendment perhaps--is that it is unclear to me, in the scope of what we're doing under proposed section 42, when the amendment refers to government contracts.
I just want to make a point here. We were very careful in the language we chose in proposed subsection 42(1)--kind of the chapeau part of the section, if you will--to talk about contracts, meaning any legal agreement that would be considered a contract. So it's larger than just a services contract or a goods contract; it would include employment, a real estate agreement, a lease, anything.
And we were very specific in proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) to narrow...where necessary. So, for example, under (b), where it's meant to only apply to government procurement, if you will, we were very careful to talk about contracts “for the performance of work, the supply of goods or the rendering of services”.
I'm not sure what the intention of the motion is.
If it's actually meaning all government contracts, which would include transfer payments, grants and contributions, all real estate, leases, procurement of goods, procurement of services, then, quite frankly, we are probably talking over a million; I don't know if we're going to get into millions, but we are talking a very large number. It would be well above the 450,000 procurement contracts.
So I just want to raise that there is an issue in terms of what this particular amendment is actually focusing on.
