Mr. Speaker, once again, government members confuse and mislead the public with their arguments that do not hold water. For instance, they say that the president of the association of consulting engineers of Canada agrees with this motion. I can tell you that I was on the phone with him this morning, as I have been repeatedly these past few weeks, and he keeps telling me that he is against this motion and this clause in Bill C-52.
I want to tell the government that the association has demonstrated its opposition by issuing countless press releases stating that the government is not listening, that "The government is not listening, it is encroaching on our markets". The association, which is concentrated in Quebec, represents 800 consulting engineering firms whose 35,000 members question this bill.
The government member would have us believe that the government is creating jobs. This is pure nonsense. What this clause does is threaten high-quality jobs that have evolved over several years, perhaps mostly in Quebec, jobs that are not created overnight. What is at stake here is top expertise that our consulting engineering firms have demonstrated around the world. It is mainly this sector which is being targeted.
The government cannot mislead the population by saying, as my colleague did earlier, that it does not intend to compete with the private sector.
The minister himself said in a letter that "in response to your question, the primary purpose of Bill C-52 is"-imagine that-"to authorize Public Works and Government Services Canada to provide common services to the departments, boards and agencies of the Canadian government". Clause 16 increases this power by allowing the minister to provide common services, similar to those offered by federal Crown corporations, to other governments and to the private sector in Canada and abroad.
A few paragraphs further, the minister goes on to say: "Clause 16 is not intended to make the Department of Public Works and Government Services into a fierce competitor of the private sector". Certainly not a fierce competitor, but a competitor nonetheless under the monstrous guise of trying to compete and reduce this government's deficit through economies of scale.
Let me give you an example. What is proposed is that the government would provide all the supplies, as well as all other goods and services, not only to itself but maybe also to the provinces, the territories and the municipalities across the country. This is a concentration of purchases. If we had a warped mind like some government members, we might think that there are economies of scale or savings to be made. But we know very well that this is not the case. This would only create a monster like the former U.S.S.R. That country enjoyed a government
monopoly and had economies of scale in every sector. But look at what happened to the U.S.S.R.: it no longer exists.
The basic problem is that the government does not understand that the public and private sectors each have a specific role to play. When you mix the two together, particularly if the federal government starts to compete with the private sector, the whole system becomes skewed, because the federal government can hide all sorts of costs. It can change numbers to make it look as though a particular item or service costs less or money is saved here or there. In this way, the government can compete with certain companies and put them out of business, while favouring friends of the party. This is wonderful-