Mr. Speaker, in Group No. 2, two motions have been added. In Motion No. 4, the Minister of Finance proposed:
That Clause 70 of Bill C-15 be amended by adding, immediately after line 6 on page 62, the following:
"(5) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply with respect to a person or entity that was carrying on business in Canada under a reserved name on the day immediately preceding the day on which those subsections come into force".
The parliamentary secretary says this is only a technicality.
Then, in Motion No. 8, the Minister of Finance proposed:
That Clause 115 of Bill C-15 be amended by adding, immediately after line 43 on page 88, the following:
"(5) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply with respect to a person or entity that was carrying on business in Canada under a reserved name on the day immediately preceding the day on which those subsections come into force".
We are dealing with the same thing, here. Again, the parliamentary secretary says this is only a technicality.
Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary this: Why has the government waited until this morning to add in these technicalities? Why did it not do this before, when Bill C-15 was introduced? In the first session, this bill was introduced as Bill C-100.
Considering that the finance department has hundreds and hundreds of employees at its service, why were these so-called technicalities not introduced at that time? How is it that the parliamentary secretary or the department came up with these amendments around 8.30 or 9 a.m., as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot pointed out? We were informed of these amendments when we arrived at our offices this morning.
Once again, the Liberal government is not taking its responsibilities seriously. It is doing a sloppy job. Its goal is not to better inform the public, to bring forward specific technical amendments to improve the bill. Its only goal is to try to destabilize members of the official opposition at 9.15 a.m., in order to avoid being severely criticized by them.
This is a very important bill we have to discuss and, suddenly, the government decides to move ten amendments. Then, realizing that he cannot respond to the objections raised by the official opposition, the parliamentary secretary tells us that they are not important amendments, that we should not worry about that, that they are just technicalities. Then why were they not included in the bill when it was introduced?
I would also like to add that the amendments proposed by Liberals this morning do not respond to the repeated requests made by the Bloc Quebecois. Where in the second group of motions, Motions Nos. 4 and 8, as in the eight previous motions, can we find a reduction in governmental regulations? Where can we find the elimination of duplication and overlap that the official opposition has been complaining about for two years?
For several months now, the official opposition has been asking the government to let Quebec's legislation play its role. But, once again, the federal Liberal government prefers to increase its interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. In the end, as my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot pointed out, these two amendments, like the previous eight, are nothing but cosmetic amendments.
This morning, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot also talked about Moses' ten commandments. I think he was very generous in comparing these amendments to the ten commandments because at least, in the ten commandments, there was a lot of wisdom, shrewdness and insight, which I do not see in the parliamentary secretary's amendments. If the parliamentary secretary had a minimum of decency, he would withdraw his amendments.