moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-52, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 20, on page 3, the following: a ) refrain, where possible, from engaging in activities for or on behalf of any government, body or person in Canada or elsewhere that are in direct competition with private corporations, firms or organizations; b ) ensure, where possible, that public disclosure of decisions and other information is complete and easily accessible; c ) ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and competently, maintaining as a priority the effective use of tax dollars; d ) ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority in the operations of the Department;''.
Mr. Speaker, I begin my little speech about the motion to amend by saying that it has been a very frustrating experience to go through Bill C-52.
We are told it is a routine bill, one that has as its purpose to simply bring together a few departments into one. Actually it is an action that was done by the previous government and is now being rubber stamped by this one.
While we were told in committee to hurry, hurry, hurry and were not even allowed to listen to witnesses in some cases because we were in such a hurry, the message was obviously hurry up and wait. That was over a month ago. The bill has been on the Order Paper four times and now finally we are here.
I want to speak to the motion in amendment. First, this motion to amend standing alone is not very meaningful. We have to start by listening to the first part of clause 7 which states:
In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister shall
We are now suggesting that some four clauses be inserted on things the minister shall do. I must speak briefly about the process. In my little more than one year as a member of Parliament I have discovered that as government backbenchers or opposition members the only way we have any hope of changing anything is to persuade the minister to give the instruction that it should be changed.
However it is very difficult to persuade the minister if the minister will not hear. The only way to get the minister to hear is perhaps if we could ask Liberal members who are listening to hear the quality of the argument, to assess it and then to decide that perhaps these are well founded amendments that should be supported. If those members will then twist the arm of the minister so that he will give instructions on how the party will vote, the amendment will pass. If he does not do that then I speak here in vain.
Here are the arguments. The first paragraph states: "refrain, where possible, from engaging in activities in direct competition with private corporations". I want members of the House to know that my party and I have received a number of representations from individuals, groups and small businesses with grave concerns about the government entering into competition.
There is one kind of competition we welcome in terms of government. If an arm of the government has to compete with private enterprise where private enterprise has shown that it can do things more efficiently, we think the taxpayer gets the best break if the private organization will do the work at a lower cost to taxpayers. Very often when government gets into a position of competing with private enterprise it has a totally unfair monopolistic advantage.
The reason we are supporting this group of four amendments is that we want to ensure that business thrives and indeed survives. At least 80 per cent of the economic activity of the country is derived from small business. To ask these businesses to pay taxes that are used to provide financial backing to the government firm or the government agency to compete and undercut prices is a violation of a fundamental principle of justice and the principle of what is right.
Some may wonder about the wording because we have said: "refrain, where possible". It is because I am a bit of a realist and somewhat pragmatic. I realize the probability of the motion being passed would essentially disappear totally if we made the motion hard and effective the way it ought to be.
We want at least to insert into the bill the requirement that the minister "refrain, where possible". I do not know how he could determine this. There would be times when he would say it is not possible. I suppose that would be subject to debate and perhaps even a court investigation to see whether he was living up to the terms of this clause in the bill. The important point is that the minister would be given the directive to stay out of competing with private enterprise.
The second paragraph indicates that the minister is to "ensure, where possible, that public disclosure of decisions and other information is complete and easily accessible". One problem with the way government does business is in the area of questioning backroom deals. If we accept the integrity of the Liberal government, it has said in its campaign literature and has kept on saying that it wants honesty, openness and integrity. It would provide the minister with the ability to provide openness according to the standards of the governing party, according to its words. We are saying "ensure, where possible" so that it does not come in so hard that they say they are going to throw out the amendment of this renegade third party guy.
We want them to consider it seriously. That is why it has this little softening phrase.
The third motion is that the minister shall ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and compe-
tently, maintaining as a priority the effective use of tax dollars. This is the missing ingredient in Bill C-52.
The overriding concern of Canadians from sea to sea is that we are not being responsible with their tax dollars. We need to build into legislation the necessity of being frugal, of saving money, of cutting expenses, of balancing the budget, getting rid of the deficit.
Canadians are demanding this. One way of achieving it is to require the ministers to actually maintain as a priority the efficient use of taxpayers' dollars in performing these services.
In the last several days we have received the report of the committee that was studying the Canada Communication Group. I am intrigued in reading that report to find that this independent review committee has suggested very strongly that Canada Communication Group, which as most people know does all the printing for the government, among other things, should be privatized. It should be sold to private interests so that when government has a contract to let, everybody out there is on an equal playing field. It is critical that we listen to that report. This motion aids that.
The fourth subgroup in Motion No. 1 is that the minister shall ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority in the operations of the department.
In other words, this amendment would require that the minister pay some attention to the reduction of costs. We in the public works and government operations committee could then ask him to be accountable when he comes before the committee.
We could say to the minister: Mr. Minister, how did you express cost cutting efficiency as a high priority? From minister to minister we can insist that there be measures taken to be totally efficient.
In conclusion, the four points in the motion, if given careful thought, are very reasonable. I urge all members to support these amendments, not because I have asked them to, although obviously I agree or I would not have proposed the motion. I do not urge them to support them because the Reform Party supports them. If they did so, partisanship would enter and they would automatically oppose the motion. I urge those members to consider supporting this motion strictly and totally because it best represents the needs and the aspirations of Canadians who are footing the bill.