Debates of Dec. 13th, 1994

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1994

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak again on Bill C-42, although I did not expect to be doing so when I last spoke on this legislation on October 4. At that time the Reform Party agreed with the majority of the bill the way it stood and therefore proceeded to committee of the whole and quick passage through the House of Commons. We had one clear objection at that time but it now appears the House of sober second thought has had some other ideas about the bill.

The amendments deal with the French version of the text and are apparently only housekeeping items that I am sure better clarify the meaning of the text. The amendments of concern are those to clauses 61 and 62. Clippings of newspapers were filled with editorials and columns urging the Senate to reject these two clauses of the bill. Apparently the Senate listened well and proceeded to send the bill back to the House with those two deletions. Here we see the power of the media at work.

I am not going to criticize the Senate for sending the bill back with amendments. That is what it is supposed to do. However, I am sure the Senate could have made other more important amendments that would have strengthened the legislation.

Clause 28(3) of the bill states: "Everyone who commits mischief in relation to property that is a testamentary instrument or the value of which exceeds five thousand dollars". The bill would replace the word "one" with the word "five". Why did the Senate not bring forward an amendment to this part of the bill? The reason is clear. The bleeding hearts think this would be too cruel, too onerous. They did not think twice on this one.

In 1954 the dollar indicator for theft over, theft under was $50. The next time this clause was changed was in 1975 when it became $200. The law as we know it today was amended in 1985 to $1,000. The punishment for theft over is an indictable offence and liable for imprisonment up to 10 years. For anything under $1,000 the punishment is usually a summary conviction with minor consequences available.

The government must realize that when it brings forth amendments it will set a precedent on amendments in the future. This government does not think logically. Neither does it consider the past nor the future.

Property crimes in Canada historically account for approximately two-thirds of all Criminal Code offences. In fact in 1990 thefts over and under $1,000 comprised over two-thirds of all property crimes reported to police.

The area of concern is theft over. From 1986, one year following the dollar cut off being raised to $1,000 until 1992, theft over had increased by 9 per cent. I am sure the government at the time felt that raising the rate from $200 to $1,000 would help curb the property crime rates.

Now today with Bill C-42 the government hopes that by raising the limit from $1,000 to $5,000 this increase will help curb property crime rates in 1995 and beyond. The government should take a careful look back at history and see how things failed before charging ahead with an idea that it only hopes will work for the best. In my opinion the government should keep the dollar amount at $1,000. Getting softer with criminals is not going to reduce the crime rate. It will perhaps only increase it.

Bill C-42 was first read on June 15, 1994. The member for London West spoke on October 4, with a speech that perhaps could have been prepared by one of the minister's staff. In that speech she said: "It is important that the rights of accused persons to a fair trial before an impartial jury not be compromised by premature publicity of information which may or may not be relevant in admissible evidence".

The hon. member went on to say: "The rights of witnesses and victims also require protection from the needless public disclosure of personal information. A prohibition would be created to ensure that sensitive material disclosed to the accused for the purposes of making a full answer in defence is not made public for that purpose. This will serve to maintain the balance of interests between the right of the accused to a full answer in a

defence and the confidence the public needs to encourage co-operation in criminal investigations and prosecutions".

The member in her speech stressed that this provision would protect the rights of the witnesses and the victims from needless public disclosure of personal information.

If the member for London West agrees with the justice minister that these two amendments are necessary, that would mean she believes that without this provision in Bill C-42 the rights of witnesses and victims will not be protected because this is exactly what she implied in her speech. Will she come forward and back up the words she spoke in this House on October 4? Not in a million years.

The minister clearly liked the bill or he would not have endorsed it. Now he is endorsing a major change to the bill. Was he influenced by the Supreme Court, his colleagues in the Senate, or was it the backbenchers of the Liberal caucus? Will these groups be factors in other bills, say perhaps in Bill C-41 which is also raising its fair share of controversy?

We are in support of the amendments that have come back from the Senate. However, we are simply frustrated that there were not more changes to other important parts of the bill, namely the theft over clause. Reformers want a more open system of the courts and of government. Do the Liberals?

The public and the media have been screaming to open the courts for all to see and know. Perhaps it is for inquiring minds and perhaps it is for future safety. Reformers look at it for safety and the principle of general deterrence. That is why we recommended for the disclosure of names of young offenders, simply for the good of public safety.

Canadians apparently have been calling for a lift on publication bans and the Liberals listened for now. Good for them for listening. Canadians have definitely called in a louder voice for the names of young offenders to be released, but the Liberals' ears all of a sudden go deaf. Something is definitely wrong.

The minister can stand before this House today and say he is in support of the amendments which come from the Senate but look for future alterations to this same section of the Criminal Code. The minister has said he will try again with these limits. The Liberal member for London West clearly spelled it out in her speech: "Historically this bill and ones like it were introduced on a regular basis. However the last such bill was introduced in 1985. The Minister of Justice intends to return to the previous pattern. He anticipates bringing forward a second bill of this nature once Parliament has dealt with this one". Need I say more?

The chamber of sober second thought did not have enough second thought about what the public wants in view of the demarcation of theft over and theft under. Alternately, deleting clauses 61 and 62 leans toward more openness and disclosure in the courtroom. The top court of the land has said that freedom of the press and the public's right to know what goes on in court should be accorded equal weight with the constitutional right to a fair trial. The public must be vigilant for systems and bureaucracies have a tendency over time to become insular and self-serving, thereby more closed to its operations to not submit to public scrutiny.

We have heard from the other place. They apparently are awake over there. If however the system or this government has failed in respect to the measure of theft over and theft under in the definition, then I call on the government not to proclaim this specific section until broader public support can be demonstrated for it. It is my reading of the public mood that the theft over line is going in the wrong direction.

We are in support of the amendments that are before this House today dealing with Bill C-42. I think I have clearly gone on record to state the dissatisfaction we have with the performance of the Senate and the lack of amendments it produced.

Bill C-42 is a housekeeping bill. The minister is accepting a change from the other place. May he also heed what I am saying today for the Canadian public is also listening.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I am grateful for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker. I just want to comment on one aspect of the hon. member's statement concerning these amendments to the bill.

As I understood the hon. member he referred to the change in the value of property involved in crime in an effort to influence the incidence of crime reporting or the crime rates. Perhaps I did not understand the hon. member's point. I apologize if I have it imprecisely but let me just tell the House lest there be any doubt what our rationale was as a government for proposing that change.

The dollar amount of property involved in such crime is the demarcation point for determining where the trial of such charges occurs. At and below that amount the trial of such charges occurs in the provincial court and within the jurisdiction of a provincial court judge. By increasing the amount we have increased the number of cases that will be tried in that court, without the necessity for the more elaborate procedures of preliminary inquiry and the prospect of a trial by judge and jury.

The change is intended to reflect agreement on the part of participants in the criminal justice system-the provinces that administer the system, the prosecutors, the defence lawyers and government federally that writes the criminal law-that we should encourage the disposition of as many of these cases as

possible in the least expensive and most summary locale, which is the provincial court.

It has nothing to do with crime rates, nothing to do with percentages, but everything to do with the more efficient administration of justice and always in keeping with the right to a fair trial and disposition. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the matter.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the change for theft under or over also is a significant change to the available consequences. On the principle of stare decisis the justice minister knows that there is a going tariff for theft under. This is certainly going to change. For the public to get hold of the idea that the common tariff or consequence for theft under is now going to include property up to $5,000 is quite a considerable shock. When I mentioned this recently to some policemen on the street as I was riding with them on their shift they could not believe what Parliament was doing.

I ask the minister to perhaps consult further with the people at the line level and delay the proclamation of this amount.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts, as reported by the Standing Committee on Government Operations (with amendments) from the committee.

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is a ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-52, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain acts.

There are 11 motions in amendment on the Order Paper for the report stage of Bill C-52, an Act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services and to amend and repeal certain Acts.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: an affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 3. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 2 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 3.

Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 7. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 4 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 5.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 6 and 7. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 6.

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 6 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 7. On the other hand, a negative vote on Motion No. 6 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 7.

Motions Nos. 8 and 9 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 10 and 11 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 10 applies to Motion No. 11.

I will now call Motion No. 1.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

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.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like for a few moments to add a few thoughts to the debate.

Much of what I would add has been said in the previous readings of the bill. However I would like to illustrate something that has been brought to my attention by a number of very interested parties and that is the desire of the federal government to begin to compete with private enterprise at the very time it is ostensibly getting out of business or privatizing.

The illustrations that I would use today will probably deal most directly with the post office but I would also like to bring in the example of Canada Mortgage and Housing and its appraisal process. I would also like to speak briefly about the impact of the bill and the ability that it gives the minister to compete in the private sector with the engineering fraternity.

Ostensibly the bill is a routine housekeeping bill that has the effect of consolidating the department. When we are considering the intrusion of the federal government into private enterprise or into areas that could be better served by private enterprise, we have to keep in mind that the government brings an enormous weight and an enormous amount of sway to the table whenever it decides it is going to get into a business.

Before I entered the political realm I was in the photo finishing business. I can remember being absolutely appalled when some years ago the post office was trying desperately to recoup some of its losses. The thought perhaps never occurred to the post office that one of the ways it could increase the use of its product was to provide a faster, better and more efficient service. It decided it was going to expand its product line. I believe it was Consumers Distributing products that were going to become available in post offices.

There I was, a small businessman, paying taxes to support the post office and finding myself in a position where I would be competing with the post office. Fortunately this did not come to pass.

Recently it was brought to my attention, and I am sure to the attention of other hon. members present, that the post office once again, as it was privatizing and becoming a crown corporation, was trying to increase its revenue rather than trying to decrease its expenses. It had announced a 2 cent price increase in the cost of a stamp. The post office had made, I think, a $26 million profit that year.

The post office was increasing the price of a stamp because it had to have more money. However, there were many sceptics who thought that perhaps the reason it was going to increase the first class postage rate was because it wanted to cross-subsidize and get into other businesses.

The post office started with a tremendous advantage as a crown corporation. It had a distribution network coast to coast. Imagine the situation, if you will, of someone being in the instant printing business, as has happened right here in Ottawa. They wake up one day, open their mail delivered to them through the post office, because of course the post office has a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail, and it is a survey from Canada

Post saying that it wants to be in a position to better serve its customers.

What is it going to do, folks? It is going to offer services such as typesetting, small run instant printing, the kinds of things that as one comes to the post office it would be kind of convenient to have right there. The trouble is the world does not need another instant printer. Instant printers are all over the place and they have, by and large, got themselves into business at their own expense.

Now they find themselves in a situation where they are competing directly with a crown corporation that has a monopoly on first class postage and can raise prices so it can compete with the private sector.

Another instance that has come to my attention concerning the post office has to do with it purchasing a courier company, I believe it was Purolator, and then going into competition with other people in the courier business. If the post office feels that it has the right, the purview and the privilege of going into competition with existing businesses, then should not existing businesses and other courier companies have the same right to go into competition with Canada Post? If Canada Post can compete with small business why then can business not compete with Canada Post?

It would be absolutely reasonable and fair that if Canada Post intends to continue down this path, it should find itself competing for the first class postage delivery.

If the post office finds itself in competition when delivering first class mail, what will happen? I bet the mail will be delivered faster. I bet it will be delivered on Saturday and I wager it will be delivered for less. Usually when there is competition the consumer benefits.

Now we have the reverse situation where a crown corporation with a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail is able to use the profit generated by the monopoly situation to cross-subsidize its ambit into other areas of business.

I submit to hon. members this is not right. It is not fair and it is counterproductive to the notion of free enterprise and privatization which is absolutely essential as our country moves down the path toward becoming self-sufficient and not becoming a sinkhole for taxpayers' money.

The third example I would like to raise is the question-this is part of the broader, more general intrusion of government into business-of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the practice of agents who work for Canada Mortgage and Housing to do appraisals on real estate in competition with the many competent people in private business who are licensed to provide that service.

Does this not have the potential for conflict of interest? An employee of Canada Mortgage and Housing is going out and doing an appraisal on a property that would be financed by Canada Mortgage and Housing. Is that not the same kind of one hand feeding the other dealsmanship that got us into a problem in some of the other financial institutions? Would it not be better if Canada Mortgage and Housing were required to have third party appraisals?

I suggest this kind of creeping intrusion of crown corporations into the sphere of private enterprise is not only counterproductive, but it is unhealthy for our economy because it does not bring in the discipline of the marketplace.

The last and final example I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that Bill C-52, at least according to the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers, would give the public service the mandate, the free rein, to set up in competition with professional engineers. As a matter of fact "the bill's loose wording gives complete power to bureaucrats. The sections read that the minister may incur expenditures or perform or have performed services or work in relation to any federal real property, or any other non-crown property with the consent of its owners".

As the government devolves from the sphere of private enterprise as we are wont and forced to do, in my opinion it would be a very good precedent for this Parliament to set to say that if private enterprise has the ability and the desire to compete in any sphere, then the government through a crown corporation or directly will not compete as a matter of principle.

I would ask that hon. members present give thought to these concerns and whenever the opportunity arises, to give private enterprise the advantage over public enterprise.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-52 and to support the Reform Party's motion because it is an improvement on the bill tabled by the government.

Unfortunately, Bill C-52 lacks vision and backbone. This bill in no way improves the government's regulations. It is so bad that some clauses and provisions in this bill are regressive. It is going backwards-the Liberals and this government are going backwards.

This bill makes changes which are bad for private enterprise or do not improve openness or access to information. You know as well as I do that if there is a department where patronage, favoritism and unfairness are rampant, that is wasteful and contributes to the government's deficit, it is Public Works.

I admit, anyone who reviews Bill C-52 will know the impact it can have on the operation of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Anyone can see how important it is to improve the operation of this department. It would have been easy for the minister to suggest changes to the acts governing these departments, Public Works and Government Services, for instance, to introduce as a code of ethics to regulate contracting out, which is increasing and almost out of control in the federal government.

The minister could also have given officials the power to disclose information, he could have empowered officials in his department and given them the chance to blow the whistle on mismanagement and government waste. Or the minister could have suggested amendments that would have given the public and members of this House better and easier access to information so that this department and this government avoid waste, thus reducing the deficit.

But no. This is a very lacklustre bill that contains nothing new and was introduced by a minister who seems near-sighted, and that is very worrisome. I wonder if this reflects the spirit of the government. The minister introduced a bill that does not improve in any way an old act containing provisions which hinder its efficiency. It is worrisome to have someone at the helm who is near-sighted.

As the Reform Party member mentioned earlier, the debate in committee on Bill C-52 was illogical, if not insane. We made very good suggestions to improve this legislation, but the Liberal members refused to listen, or else they were unable to grasp the underlying logic. Perhaps they have less brains than their own minister, who is already pretty blind. We got the distinct impression that they were only interested in having this legislation passed as quickly as possible, without any amendment.

They refused to let the committee hear witnesses on amendments to some clauses of the bill which have a very serious impact on the operations of the department, and which involve the right of the government to interfere in the private sector, particularly in the consulting-engineer sector.

This legislation is very poor; it contains nothing new and it reflects a total lack of imagination. This is why we will support the Reform Party motion, not because it is the best possible one. Paragraph ( c ) reads: ensure that the Queen's Printer for Canada is operated efficiently and competently-'', while paragraph ( <em>d</em> ) says:ensure that the reduction of all costs remains a high priority-''. These are pious wishes which carry no legal weight. Nevertheless, we are prepared to support this motion, although it has no real impact on the Department of Public Works.

However, paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) are a definite improvement over the existing bill. In the case of ( b ), the Department of Public Works is encouraged to open the door to information, to reveal more information to the private sector or the general public on the way contracts are awarded, and to improve access to information, which is now extremely difficult to obtain. As I said before, it is an improvement. The department and the Liberal government must provide access to information, especially on the process of awarding contracts.

I think the Reform Party's motion is an improvement, but it is flawed because of the words: "where possible". There is no legal obligation on the government to disclose information if the motion is worded this way. My point is that the words "where possible" open the door to all kinds of abuse and arguments preventing access to information, preventing the government from disclosing information on contracts or even members of Parliament from having access to such information when contracts are awarded in their own riding. This is not satisfactory.

We run into the same problem in paragraph ( a ) of the motion, which deals with a matter that is even more serious, coming from the Department of Public Works. A Reform Party member already mentioned the problem about opening the door to competition between the federal government and the private sector. Paragraph ( a ) of motion No. 1 tries to prevent the government from competing with the private sector. But again, ``where possible''. These words open the door to all kinds of abuse. The fact is that basically, the Department of Public Works should not have the right to compete with the private sector.

We are talking about a substantial part of this bill. This is a new power the Minister of Public Works has acquired. It is very skilfully done, by the way, because clause 5 is already an introduction to this new power and clause 10 as well, and of course clause 16, which we will have a chance to discuss later on.

For the first time in the history of the Government of Canada, we have a proposal that the federal government should compete directly with private businesses, especially engineering firms which, incidentally, are well established in Quebec. Several members in this House, including Liberal members, I am sure, have received representations from SNC Lavalin, HBA, Tecsult, and more than 100 companies altogether that are concerned about the unfair competition in which the federal government is about to engage through Bill C-52. So although this Reform Party motion does not go far enough, we on the Bloc side still think it is a definite improvement over the bill as it stands.

In concluding, the Bloc will try to amend this good motion from the Reform Party. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix:

That Motion No. 1, in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ), be amended by deleting the words ``, where possible,''

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The amendment is in order.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

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-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I hesitate to interrupt any member at any time but occasionally the Chair tries to remind all of us to come through the Chair and not be direct to one another across the floor of the House. I ask the member to keep that in mind.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder. My enthusiasm is a result of being upset at my colleague being so unfair and having exaggerated so much. In the spirit of Christmas I thought there would have been some gentleness.

I thought there would have been a little kindness, a little open-mindedness, but obviously they are not yet aware of the approaching festive season.

I think I have made the major points. The way it is worded, as I have indicated, the debate would be whenever it is possible. We simply cannot do this. We believe it has already been covered. We believe this government has been open and transparent and we believe we are going forward in the right direction.

I will limit my remarks at this time. I assure my colleagues that I am ready for a lot more.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before proceeding on the debate of Motion No. 1, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Saint John-Rail Line Abandonment; the hon. member for Quebec-Social Program Reform; the hon. member for Manicouagan-Canada Labour Code; the hon. member for Vegreville-the Canadian Wheat Board; the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden-Banks.

Resuming debate on Motion No. 1, keep in mind that members who have already spoken must wait until we proceed to the next motion. Members have 10-minute interventions without questions or comments.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but do I not have an opportunity now to speak since there has been an amendment to my motion?