Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-52 and to support the Reform Party's motion because it is an improvement on the bill tabled by the government.
Unfortunately, Bill C-52 lacks vision and backbone. This bill in no way improves the government's regulations. It is so bad that some clauses and provisions in this bill are regressive. It is going backwards-the Liberals and this government are going backwards.
This bill makes changes which are bad for private enterprise or do not improve openness or access to information. You know as well as I do that if there is a department where patronage, favoritism and unfairness are rampant, that is wasteful and contributes to the government's deficit, it is Public Works.
I admit, anyone who reviews Bill C-52 will know the impact it can have on the operation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Anyone can see how important it is to improve the operation of this department. It would have been easy for the minister to suggest changes to the acts governing these departments, Public Works and Government Services, for instance, to introduce as a code of ethics to regulate contracting out, which is increasing and almost out of control in the federal government.
The minister could also have given officials the power to disclose information, he could have empowered officials in his department and given them the chance to blow the whistle on mismanagement and government waste. Or the minister could have suggested amendments that would have given the public and members of this House better and easier access to information so that this department and this government avoid waste, thus reducing the deficit.
But no. This is a very lacklustre bill that contains nothing new and was introduced by a minister who seems near-sighted, and that is very worrisome. I wonder if this reflects the spirit of the government. The minister introduced a bill that does not improve in any way an old act containing provisions which hinder its efficiency. It is worrisome to have someone at the helm who is near-sighted.
As the Reform Party member mentioned earlier, the debate in committee on Bill C-52 was illogical, if not insane. We made very good suggestions to improve this legislation, but the Liberal members refused to listen, or else they were unable to grasp the underlying logic. Perhaps they have less brains than their own minister, who is already pretty blind. We got the distinct impression that they were only interested in having this legislation passed as quickly as possible, without any amendment.
They refused to let the committee hear witnesses on amendments to some clauses of the bill which have a very serious impact on the operations of the department, and which involve the right of the government to interfere in the private sector, particularly in the consulting-engineer sector.
This legislation is very poor; it contains nothing new and it reflects a total lack of imagination. This is why we will support the Reform Party motion, not because it is the best possible one. Paragraph ( c ) reads: ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and competently-'', while paragraph ( <em>d</em> ) says:ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority-''. These are pious wishes which carry no legal weight. Nevertheless, we are prepared to support this motion, although it has no real impact on the Department of Public Works.
However, paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) are a definite improvement over the existing bill. In the case of ( b ), the Department of Public Works is encouraged to open the door to information, to reveal more information to the private sector or the general public on the way contracts are awarded, and to improve access to information, which is now extremely difficult to obtain. As I said before, it is an improvement. The department and the Liberal government must provide access to information, especially on the process of awarding contracts.
I think the Reform Party's motion is an improvement, but it is flawed because of the words: "where possible". There is no legal obligation on the government to disclose information if the motion is worded this way. My point is that the words "where possible" open the door to all kinds of abuse and arguments preventing access to information, preventing the government from disclosing information on contracts or even members of Parliament from having access to such information when contracts are awarded in their own riding. This is not satisfactory.
We run into the same problem in paragraph ( a ) of the motion, which deals with a matter that is even more serious, coming from the Department of Public Works. A Reform Party member already mentioned the problem about opening the door to competition between the federal government and the private sector. Paragraph ( a ) of motion No. 1 tries to prevent the government from competing with the private sector. But again, ``where possible''. These words open the door to all kinds of abuse. The fact is that basically, the Department of Public Works should not have the right to compete with the private sector.
We are talking about a substantial part of this bill. This is a new power the Minister of Public Works has acquired. It is very skilfully done, by the way, because clause 5 is already an introduction to this new power and clause 10 as well, and of course clause 16, which we will have a chance to discuss later on.
For the first time in the history of the Government of Canada, we have a proposal that the federal government should compete directly with private businesses, especially engineering firms which, incidentally, are well established in Quebec. Several members in this House, including Liberal members, I am sure, have received representations from SNC Lavalin, HBA, Tecsult, and more than 100 companies altogether that are concerned about the unfair competition in which the federal government is about to engage through Bill C-52. So although this Reform Party motion does not go far enough, we on the Bloc side still think it is a definite improvement over the bill as it stands.
In concluding, the Bloc will try to amend this good motion from the Reform Party. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix:
That Motion No. 1, in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ), be amended by deleting the words ``, where possible,''