Mr. Speaker, I have some statements which are relevant to the amendment. I do not know if you noticed, but I think I was very close to being on topic speaking about the four points of my amendment one by one. I was very careful to do that.
I would like to say a few things partially in rebuttal to the hon. member from the Liberal Party who just spoke. He indicated how patient he has been. I suppose if we were to blow up our chests a little those of us on the other side would say that we too have tried to exercise patience in trying to work together and I shall continue to do that. It is not my objective here to merely fight for the sake of fighting. I want to do what is right and what is best for the Canadian people.
The member said that there was a time to a stop in these discussions. I think the record ought to show that we probably discussed Bill C-52 in committee for 10 hours maximum. That is my estimate. We heard one witness. That is my recollection of it. I stand to be corrected if that is wrong.
Second, the member made some statement about backroom deals. I did not accuse anybody about backroom deals. I said the perception out there among the people is that governments engage in backroom deals. Because the Liberal government has said it wants more openness and honesty and integrity, and Reformers are also saying this, surely we can agree that we will
do away with any reality of that which may have occurred in the past. Let me be really charitable in the spirit of Christmas and say it happened before the Liberals were elected, some of them, at least to the government side.
We need to do away with not only the reality of it but the perception of it. The only way to guarantee that the perception is removed is by actually putting into legislation that there is this openness.
With respect to the amendment to my motion that says "where possible", I do not know how to say this in such a way that it does not come out wrong. I am going to try very hard to do that. The only reason that we inserted these two words in sections (a) and (b) was the government side. Observing the way discussions went in our committee and recognizing that if we were to come with an amendment which would be very hard and which would say the minister must engage or make sure, refrain from engaging in activities and so on, we were quite certain that the Liberal side would have just said nix to it. We softened it deliberately for them, to give them an opportunity to vote for this so that the minister has greater flexibility. That is why the words are there, to say "where possible".
I know the hon. member from the Bloc is most sincere and actually made an amendment to my motion to remove those words which would have been my first choice. I know they do not have a chance of getting it passed. Instead of not going anywhere, I would like to at least move the government a little in the right direction, and that is why we said "where possible'. That is my comment with respect to the amendment that has been made.
In the spirit of Christmas, if I may quote the hon. member for St. Boniface, in the spirit of gentleness let us get together on this and let us vote in favour of the motion but let us leave those words in so that the Liberals can feel comfortable voting for it.