Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on what has been said, and then I will highlight the key points with respect to this motion.
The first colleague who addressed this bill called it a routine bill, which it is. It is an important bill but a routine bill.
Members have complicated it. Either they have not understood it and therefore by virtue of that it has been complicated for them or they have understood it and by virtue of that they have tried to take advantage of it for political reasons.
We talk about not having been able to get witnesses. Of course we had witnesses but there comes a time when we have to stop meeting. Are we going to wait for the whole of Canada to come forward? We know that many of the witnesses had absolutely nothing to do, the witnesses they wanted, with clarifying the elements.
And the only reason was petty politics, an attempt to embarrass the government, pure and simple.
My colleague refers to backroom deals. What backroom deals? If he knows of a backroom deal put it on the table. He should not suggest that members of government have been dishonest. Either put up or be quiet. It is inappropriate behaviour for any member to be suggesting that someone else has been dishonest. Either he has proof or he does not. Do not slur the reputation of colleagues. That is not the way a parliamentarian is supposed to act.
He refers to the question of desire to compete. I have any number of quotes I can bring forward by reputable Canadian organizations, some of them from the province of Quebec, that indicate quite clearly that they do not see this as the government's intent to try to compete.
We are trying to get the best deal when we are dealing with other governments for Canadians. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to respond to the private sector if it asks us to respond to assist it. I would be delighted to share some of those in the process of this particular debate.
The second speaker referred to Canada Post and CMHC, I guess the point being that government is becoming increasingly involved with the private sector. I hope it was not suggested that Canada Post and CMHC are somehow involved with this legislation. I want to make it perfectly clear they are not. I would dispute the claims being made with respect to government competing with the private sector in those instances as well.
I want to point out very quickly that one of the weaknesses of the particular motion, and it has been addressed in part, is where possible what would happen if this were to go through?
The opposition would always say it was possible and we did not do it. All of us thought we would be debating in the House of Commons the interpretation of where possible is. On that very basis it has to be set aside.
As I said earlier, I do not wish to accuse all the members of the Bloc of engaging in petty politics. But the one who just spoke made accusations of patronage, without any proof, of favouritism, without proof, and waste, also without proof. It is very easy to make such accusations in the House of Commons and not back them up. This is unfortunate, most unfortunate.
He said that the minister lacks vision. This is insulting! Because he does not understand the bill, he blames the minister. Because the bill has limited scope, he accuses the minister of lacking vision. This is too bad. He says that the Liberal members are deaf and blind. How insulting to those people who are so afflicted! That is what he said, Mr. Speaker. Now, I suppose he will deny it. In the House of Commons, he can say anything he wants, without proof. He likes to hear himself speak. How very unfortunate!
To top off everything he has done and said, he criticized the motion and then went on to say that he will support it. What a contradiction!
I simply wanted to mention that I have been very patient in this first round. Not all of the comments have been terribly relevant but in the second round I shall try to make awfully certain that I bring to members' collective attention any comments that are off topic.
I have a few more comments to make and I shall be brief. I know that my colleagues are anxious to get on to other palpitating clauses and motions as I am. With regard to the motion that was made, the amendments proposed by my colleague from Elk Island are already addressed in clause 7(1)(a) as amended by the committee.
I want to read that clause and make awfully sure that I do not mislead anyone. Clause 7 has already been amended at committee and the words "and for enhancing the integrity and efficiency and the contrasting process" were added to the clause.
With respect to competition, one of the issues, we have already addressed this at great length in committee and we will be talking about it some more. This is the debate. This is it. We are in disagreement.
We are not in agreement. That is fine, no problem. Do you want me to produce my 1,000 witnesses? You will produce a thousand more, and then we will decide who makes the most sense. Well, I think that sometimes you have to pause and start afresh.
On public disclosure, members know as well as I that the minister has offered to the members of this House the open bidding system, the government business opportunities publication. He has provided guidelines for advertising and public research by the government.
This minister and this government have been open and transparent. Those members have not been able to get the figures when they wanted them in terms of what they wanted even though those have not been available, and so they choose to attack the government and pretend that it was less than up front.
With regard to the Queen's Printer we want what the member wants but we want it for all of the government's operations, that is, being efficient and cost effective. The Queen's Printer has had a long and proud history providing government and advancing the printing industry. When there was a problem in that sector, the minister moved forward boldly and corrected the situation.
With respect to efficiency and savings they suggest 4,000 people, a billion dollars saved by the year 2005. I guess when you say that you really do not care very much about the 4,000 families that are going to be affected or you do not understand how much a billion dollars is-