Mr. Speaker, I am a little frustrated in getting up here. This amendment comes from the Liberal side. I know the way things work around here with the majority over there and the less than majority over here that it will pass and what we say probably will not.
I will not miss this opportunity to go on record as powerfully and as strongly as I can to say that this is not the answer to the problems we have in this country, specifically on this one issue.
When I first saw this amendment I thought of a television show I watched for about 10 minutes one day. This lady was put into a box; the box was closed; the magician sawed her right in half. It was incredible. Her body was cut in two. Then he opened the box and she was fine again, there was no severance. That is what this particular amendment does. It gives the illusion of accomplishing something but really nothing is accomplished at all.
It is important for us in considering what we are talking about to really know what this motion says. Originally it said the minister may do anything for or on behalf of any department, board, or agency of the Government of Canada or a crown corporation or any government body or person in Canada or elsewhere.
It was mentioned earlier here that this was already in the previous act, the one this bill replaces. Not quite right. The two words "or elsewhere" were added. In other words the ability of the government to perform these functions now goes even outside of our country according to what it first proposed.
We now have this amendment. It still has exactly the same words except the one little word "a" has been taken out. Other than that the words are all there. The only difference is that for the minister to do anything for or on behalf of any government body or person in Canada or elsewhere, he or she must now obtain the approval of cabinet. In other words there is no restriction at all on whether or not government can still do anything for anybody.
The other day I was giving a little speech to a few people. I said the rough paraphrase of clause 16 of Bill C-52 was simply that the minister may do anything for anyone and the taxpayers pick up the bill. It was then said to me that that was not quite fair and that I was overstating it. Yet, it is very difficult to read anything else into this when it says that the minister may do anything for or on behalf of, and then everything listed includes anybody because finally it gets down to that every entity is
either a government, a government agency, a body, or a person. There is no exclusion.
I would also like to make reference to a quotation. It is from a letter written by no other than the minister himself. These are his words: "I have already decided that Public Works and Government Services Canada will not be competing with the private sector by offering services outside the federal government". That quotation is from a letter signed by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
I am at a loss to understand if that is his intention why he would hesitate for a second to state that in the legislation. The legislation says one thing and the minister says exactly the opposite. He is trying to assure us and the critics of this bill that we ought not to worry because it is not his intention to do this. Yet the bill clearly says that the government may do it. I do not see where the logic lies there; it misses me completely and I think it would miss anybody who stopped to think about it.
We have had a number of very strong presentations on the intrusion of government into private enterprise. I have a whole stack of them here. I know I cannot refer to them so I will not, Mr. Speaker, but they are here. Most of them are from small business firms and notably among them are consulting engineers. I will not quote it but I remember one of them said that this legislation cuts right to the very core of small engineering firms whose lifeblood is bidding on and providing services for provinces and municipalities.
This legislation now says that the taxpayer is going to be subsidizing the competition because government agencies are also going to be bidding. That introduces such a large unfairness into the free enterprise process.
I would also like to read a statement from a very well-known organization which does things along the lines of analysing our economic problems and difficulties and solutions to those problems. This is that organization's assessment of this bill, not mine: "It is clear that if the implication of the bill is that the federal government intends in any way to engage in the undertaking of work for private purposes in competition with contractors in the private sector, this would be entirely wrong and the bill ought to specifically preclude the federal government from doing this".
There are other references. As I said I have many of them here from individuals, groups and businesses. They all give the message that the government should not be in the business of competing with private enterprise, period. Why it is in this legislation at all is a total mystery to me.
Now there is an amendment that clause 16 ought to be amended by dividing the two parts. One part says to let the minister go ahead, but in the other part he has to get a nod from the other cabinet ministers, behind closed doors, no openness, no accountability and no restriction on what he can do for anyone anywhere on planet earth.
I object. On behalf of all of those people who wrote to me and my colleagues, I object. I object on behalf of all of those small businesses, those engineering firms, the printers, the small newspapers who wrote. They said they do not like having government taxation subsidy driving them out of business. For all of them I say as strongly as I can, please, members of this House, reconsider this. Do not pass this legislation and then regret it later because I know you will.