Mr. Speaker, I take the opportunity to do at least two or three minutes prior to the break because it is nice to have members of the committee from the government side listen to some of the comments I am about to make.
I know that when I give these comments and they are done in a logical fashion, they will listen to logical arguments. I know they will do that.
First of all I would like to state emphatically that this House has introduced closure, even though they wish to say it is time allocation. There are a number of issues, a number of things that should well be said on behalf of our constituents by individuals who are elected to this House, the parliamentarians, to give forward their views and their thoughts on the amendments. The hon. member who sits on the committee gave us his closing arguments on Bill C-4.
We are dealing with group 7, the amendments that have been tabled. We have dealt with groups 1 through 6 and there are a number of good amendments.
This section is the one I have the most concern with. I have said to the minister, to other members of the committee and to my own constituents who do not like this legislation that, in fact, if this particular clause were removed from the legislation I would reluctantly consider looking at the whole legislation in favour.
However, the inclusion clause is the clause that scares the living daylights out of me. I should tell you why. The inclusion clause was not in the original piece of legislation that was tabled, Bill C-72, prior to the House adjourning for an election. During the period of time from April to June 2, it seemed there were literally hundreds and thousands of people who approached government who wanted to include into this piece of legislation an inclusion clause that would allow other commodities to be put into the legislation to be on a monopoly single desk selling basis.