House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was parties.

Topics

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and amendment.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Bloc

Roger Pomerleau Bloc Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC

Mr. Speaker, before the break in the question period, like all of my colleagues present here today, including the Reform Party members, I mentioned the non-transparency of the government in the cancellation of the Pearson Airport privatization. Afterwards, I spoke of the general lack of transparency on the part of the government each time they are asked to open the books to the public whether in the House or in committee.

Added to that is the fact that when there is no transparency, someone has to be blamed for the way things are going. So they talked about welfare recipients and the unemployed. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say this morning, in reply to a Reform Party question, that the question was a vicious attack on the unemployed when in fact it was absolutely reasonable.

I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the most vicious attack against the unemployed and welfare recipients was made by her own government and the Prime Minister himself when he accused all the unemployed of being beer-guzzling couch potatoes.

Then they tried to blame the whole thing on Quebec's whims. If everything is going wrong in Canada, it is due to some passing fancy of that province. But it is a well-known fact that all of Canada's history can be reduced to Quebec's attempt to obtain real powers within Confederation. We only have to remember the various commissions that followed one after the other and that cost an enormous amount of money: Laurendeau-Dunton, Pépin-Robarts, Spicer, Beaudoin-Dobbie, Castonguay-Dobbie, Dobbie-Dobbie, and so on ad infinitum, up until the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord failures.

Non-transparency also in the way the facts are presented. Another issue was raised this morning. Another 65,000 Canadians have joined the ranks of the unemployed. When the Deputy Prime Minister was asked how she could explain this, she told us that these 65,000 people had regained hope at last. In reality, these 65,000 people have lost their jobs, so we have non-transparency in the way the facts are presented.

They suggested that if things were not going well in the country, it was because of separatists, when we know full well that the Moody's credit-rating agency has just issued a warning to the government. If things are not going well in Canada, it is not because of separatists, it is because we owe $500 billion to our bankers, because we are unable to pay them and because we swear to them that in three years we will owe them $600 billion. That is serious.

As far as separatists are concerned, I remind this hon. House that Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been around for a while, said that Quebec sovereignty would not be a problem, that they could live with it. If Quebec opted for sovereignty, Americans would not have a problem with that.

And this too is part of the non-transparency. I remember the Prime Minister jokingly indicated to this House that construction of a high-speed train could not be seriously contemplated because there could be a border between Quebec and Ontario. In fact, there has been a statement on this subject today. In Europe, high-speed trains run across all the countries and nobody seems to have a problem with that. A high-speed train running through the recently opened Chunnel will link two countries and that does not seem to cause any problems.

Every day, hundreds of trains circulate freely between the United States and Canada, and that does not appear to create any problem. Yet, there seems to be difficulties when trains travel between Quebec and Ontario. Therefore, I think that the facts are totally misrepresented. The presentation of those facts lacks transparency.

It is also suggested-again by the Prime Minister-that we are afraid of him coming to Quebec during the next election or referendum campaign. Indeed, I must recognize that we are afraid, but we are afraid that he might not come.

There are many issues which require greater transparency, and there are many people in Quebec who have very specific questions to ask to the Prime Minister on these issues, including his role in the decision to impose the War Measures Act in Quebec, which resulted in hundreds of people being beaten up, imprisoned and deprived of their rights. In fact, all Quebecers were deprived of their rights. Yet, the facts clearly demonstrated later that there was no justification for such action.

Quebecers also have questions to ask the Prime Minister regarding the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution, a decision which was unanimously rejected by Quebec's Nation-

al Assembly. They have questions to ask him about the night those long knives were planted in Mr. René Lévesque's back. They also have questions regarding the kiss to Clyde Wells, when the Meech Lake Accord failed, and when, unfortunately, the Quebec Premier was on his knees, and even crawling, to get a minimum minimorum for our province.

The major issue which will have to be debated in a few months with absolute transparency, although I am not sure that we can trust the government to do that, is this: Why should Quebec keep 25 per cent of the voting shares of a country which is literally going bankrupt?

To conclude, I believe that greater transparency is required on the government's part and we will monitor its actions.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

We are getting into bad habits. Members who wish to speak have to stand if they want to be recognized.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought we agreed this morning that there would only be 10-minute speeches, with no question or comment period.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I think the Chair is partly to blame, but you have to remember that, in practice, members of all parties can rise if they want to carry on with the debate. That is why when I rise and see that no one wants to take the floor, I feel kind of compelled to ask the question. I will now recognize the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Péloquin Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

We should follow the right order, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind. According to the list, I think you should recognize the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry accused the official opposition of using stalling tactics to delay the passage of Bill C-22.

I want to tell the hon. member that he is absolutely right. By opposing this piece of legislation, we are delaying compensation payments the government cannot wait to pay to its friends, under section 11 of Bill C-22.

The Bloc Quebecois put forward an amendment to Bill C-22 respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, which gives me the opportunity to complete the picture I began to draw last week. In fact, I began to compare the situation at airports in various cities with the situation at the Jean-Lesage Airport, in my riding.

I wanted to demonstrate how unfairly the Quebec airport was being treated, by raising a number of issues, including the areas occupied by airports in several provincial capitals. As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, except for the airports in St. John's, Newfoundland, and in Charlottetown, Regina, Yellowknife and Whitehorse, airports in every other capital city occupied larger areas than the airport in Quebec City. I also provided data on the terminal facilities themselves. You will remember that airports in Ottawa, Winnipeg, Halifax and Edmonton have no cause to envy the Jean-Lesage International Airport, quite the contrary since they all have a greater surface area, that is an additional 6,000, 12,000 and 24,000 square metres respectively.

The demonstration I made last week also showed that, between 1988 and 1992, transborder and international flights have increased much more at the Quebec airport, at an average ratio of 10 to 1 compared to other airports.

After that speech, instead of being outraged at such an injustice towards the people of the Quebec City area, a member opposite said my evidence was "bordering on slander". Let me remind this House that the data supporting my demonstration all come from Transport Canada reports. In these days when communication techniques have improved by leaps and bounds, such abysmal ignorance is totally inadmissible, even more so for a member of the House.

Therefore, I wish all members of the government, instead of refusing to admit reality and resorting to insults, would examine quite objectively the motivations supporting Quebecers' desire to leave the Canadian federation; they are simply convinced that it is not beneficial for them and that it cannot be improved.

Last October 25, Quebec elected 54 members from the Bloc Quebecois because voters were convinced that the defence of Quebec's interests could not be left to the two big national parties, both of which having centralizing tendencies. It is therefore in keeping with my mandate to defend Quebec's interests that I pursue in the same vein as last week.

We see the same unfairness in the area of research and development applied to transport. According to the Transportation Research and Development Board, Quebec had 45 per cent of the research capability in 1987 and 55 per cent in 1989; however, it only got a few crumbs as far as investment is concerned: 19 per cent from 1983 to 1986; 16 per cent from 1986 to 1991; and 12.3 per cent in 1991.

Therefore, the more research and development capability we had in the transportation sector, the less money we were getting. It is like trying to square the circle. You probably have to be federalist to understand. When confidence is lost, the responsibility for restoring it does not rest with the one who lost it.

I will continue to accumulate proofs that Quebec City airport is being treated unfairly. In the summer of 1993, the federal government, to try and woo some voters, gave Quebec City airport international status. Considering how antiquated and small the terminal is, a promise of modernization should have been made at the same time. But it was not forthcoming, Mr. Speaker, on the contrary.

Since then, Transport Canada is continuing its demolition derby at the Quebec City Airport. Despite all attempts by economists and politicians from the area, it is sticking with its plan of shutting down the radar air and traffic control room. On April 1st, the security services normally provided by the RCMP were withdrawn. It is important to note that out of the eight airports affected by this mean decision, Quebec City airport is by far the most important.

To be convinced of this, suffice it to name the other airports affected by this decision: St. John's, Newfoundland, Moncton, Windsor, London, Regina, Saskatoon and Victoria.

But the carelessness and lack of responsibility of Transport Canada did not stop there. Against its own safety rules, Transport Canada is poised to reduce the fire fighting service at Quebec City airport. According to Transport Canada this airport belongs to group 6. In an international airport of this category, the fire department must be operational 24 hours a day; however, at the Quebec City airport, there is no service between 1 a.m. and 7 a.m.

At the Quebec City airport, the category 6 rescue service is geared to handle planes measuring a maximum of 128 feet in length. However the Air Canada Boeing 767 which serves Quebec City three times a week is 160 feet long; the Air Transat and Royal Lockheed 1011s, which use Quebec City airport several times a week, are 180 feet long; the Air Transat Boeings, which land regularly in Quebec City, are 155 feet long.

Far be it from me to prevent these planes from coming to Quebec City; it is up to Transport Canada to make its fire department comply with its own regulations and not to air carriers to abandon a lucrative market.

The Minister of Transport, who can only talk about safety when asked questions in this House, is poised to eliminate one fire truck and to lay-off one fireman. Because of this decision, Transport Canada will probably have to downgrade the status of the Jean-Lesage Airport. This is how it develops air transportation in Quebec, and prepares for Quebec 2002 and the increasing needs for efficient and modern means of transportation. If the federal government wanted to make sure that Quebecers would vote in favour of sovereignty at the next referendum, it could not do any better than this.

Let us now compare Toronto airport with Montreal airports. When the government decided to privatize major Canadian airports, Transport Canada turned over the most profitable one, the Toronto airport, to the private sector, and Montreal airport to a non-profit corporation. This is much to the credit of stakeholders in Montreal, but the same cannot be said of those in Toronto.

As if this picture of political power at work in Canada were not bleak enough already, in Transport Canada's newsletters for February and April, you can read about investments the department plans to make in construction projects in Canadian airports. In Thunder Bay, construction from January to October; in Toronto, from April to December; In Ottawa, from May to December; in Lac-du-Bonnet, Manitoba, from May to August; in Saskatoon, from June to August; in Vancouver, from June 1994 to June 1995. And back in Ontario, from May to October, construction in the Hamilton, Oshawa, London, Muskoka, Sault-Ste. Marie, Timmins and Windsor airports. In Quebec, sweet nothing!

To conclude, I would like to quote remarks from the Minister of Transport himself, as reported in a press release from Transport Canada dated February 10, 1994: "The federal government will not patch up Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Decisions regarding development plans will be tied directly to those regarding the administrative structure of the airport. I am anxious to hear what all the federal members of Parliament from the greater Toronto area, members who are here to represent the interests of their constituents, will have to say on the subject. I am confident they will reflect faithfully the majority opinion of their communities. If they can achieve a consensus on the future of number one airport in Canada, the government will comply with their recommendations".

That is precisely the attitude the Quebec City region is asking from the Minister of Transport, because a consensus has existed for quite a while in our region to keep the terminal control unit, build a new control tower as well as expand and modernize the Jean-Lesage International Airport.

As for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry's agog over the delays caused by this debate on investments to be made at the Toronto airport, it leaves me cold as a January morning.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Péloquin Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is a perfect example of these "scorpio" bills to which the Liberal Party has accustomed us. Innocuous at first sight, it can become disastrous if one is not careful. Bill C-22 is only four pages long and contains only twelve short sections. But beware! The fatal sting is in clause 10, which provides that developers who lose a deal as a result of public pressure may be entitled to compensation. Liberals could not really drop their

old friends. They found there a particularly deceptive way of giving them satisfaction.

By introducing Bill C-22, the Liberal government gives even more strength to the Bloc Quebecois' campaign slogan which roughly translates as: "Giving ourselves real power". Indeed, last october 25, Quebecers gave themselves real power in Ottawa. Not the power to favour friends of the government, not the power to grant lucrative contracts to companies that gave money to the party or are able to hire the services of large lobbyists firms. No, Mr. Speaker, real power! The power to defend the interests of real people, the interests of all those who are indignant about questionable initiatives such as Bill C-22.

It is no wonder that some members opposite question the legitimacy of the Bloc Quebecois. It is difficult for them to accept the presence, in this House, of members whose party did not get any financial support from large corporations. It is not necessarily because of ideological or political differences that the financial establishment did not support the Bloc Quebecois during the electoral campaign. In fact, several companies have clearly expressed their support to the Bloc and wanted to give it funds. Our party simply refused to play the games of the lobbyists. Our legitimacy rests on people, not on corporations.

As you know, when a company or an association asks to meet a member of the Official Opposition, that member does not have to follow the same ritual than a Liberal member. It is not necessary to look on the electoral list to decide upon the length of the interview or the interest that must be given to it. The only criterion which is used to determine the political agenda of a member from the Bloc Quebecois is the defence of the interests of the people from Quebec. Do the Liberal members really think that people are stupid enough as to believe that a person who contributed five dollars to the Liberal Party fund is going to get the same attention as a multinational which contributed $100,000?

I would like to clarify one thing just to make sure I am not going to be misunderstood here. I am not saying that the ministers and government members who received contributions from companies are all corrupt and ill-intentioned. Not at all! I rather look at those poor Liberal or Conservative members as victims. They are the victims of a legislative tradition that allowed the institutionalization of a patronage system in which only the rich can be heard. The only way to restore the system would be to eliminate the donations companies make to political parties by amending the legislation.

The old parties reject such a measure. According to them, there is no need to amend the federal legislation on political financing which is so beneficial to them. If people want to be heard, they can turn to a lobbyist firm. This mentality is so deeply entrenched in Canadian political habits that the government members feel they have to do things as usual in order to be true to tradition. I can understand that, but I do not understand why they refuse to amend the rules that force them to figure out all kinds of schemes to please their generous donors.

As our dauntless Prime Minister often says, it is a question of dignity. I would even say it is a question of public morality. Not an obtuse and puritan kind of morality, but one that is based on honour and respect for the most fundamental principles of a democracy such as ours.

By giving compensation to those who tried to swindle the country, Bill C-22 confirms the opinion of some who are increasingly convinced that the House of Commons is there to defend the interests of the rich like Power Corporation and Seagram's and not those of the ordinary people.

If the original sale of Pearson International Airport was a flagrant mistake on the part of the Tory government, the compensations provided for in Bill C-22 are nothing short of criminal. As the member for York South-Weston rightly said in this House, it is a sting of the worst kind. I say to the government it should be careful because, as dangerous as it might be, a scorpion can always be crushed. As we have seen on last October 25, Quebec's population knows very well where to stomp.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that in the last election campaign, the Liberal Party and its leader kept on saying that if elected, they intended to lead this country with honesty, integrity and openness and that they wanted to consult the people and Parliament, either in this House or in various committees.

However, I think that we can question this government's real desire to really consult and to be open. Yes, we have had some debates in this House that are rather unique in Canadian history, debates on fundamental issues like the presence of Canadian UN troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Croatia, and on cruise missile testing on Canadian territory.

But often we feel that we are involved in these debates in a very symbolic way, since we sense that the debates are being used to legitimize decisions that have already been made by the government. One reason that I think we can question the government's real desire to listen to what is going on in this House is Bill C-22. For two weeks, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and in the Reform Party have spoken in this House to explain why we think this bill is unfair and unacceptable, but the government seems to pay no attention to what we say in this House.

Liberal members rise one after another to defend this bill which we think is completely unacceptable. We think that the very principle of privatizing Pearson Airport is questionable.

The unethical nature of this affair and the shady dealings surrounding the signing of the contract to privatize Pearson Airport have been brought to light. My colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve this morning raised a very interesting question: why were they so keen on privatizing Pearson Airport?

It was and still is the most profitable airport in Canada. In 1993, it generated profits of about $23 million, according to what we were told. So why privatize it, especially since the approach proposed by the Conservative government at the time was to entrust airport administration to local authorities, to turn the administration of airports over to those people who were most aware of the needs of the region. Even so, and in spite of its own airport management policy, the government decided to go ahead and privatize Pearson Airport.

We saw how swiftly they proceeded with the privatization of Pearson Airport, and called for tenders within 90 days for the contracts to manage Terminals 1 and 2. As of 1992, only two bids had been received, one from Paxport and the other from Claridge, which already managed Terminal 3. The government awarded the contract to Paxport, without even bothering to check the financial stability of the company.

What happened next? Paxport was forced to merge with Claridge. Yet, Paxport had been the preferred choice precisely so that Claridge would not have a monopoly over the management of the three terminals. Finally, the two companies merged under the name of Pearson Development Corporation, and a contract with the consortium was concluded within one day, at the very end of the election campaign. Up to then, the Liberal Party had kept relatively quiet about the deal.

Considering the public's reaction, the Liberal Party promised to cancel the contract as soon as it took over the reins of government.

There was then some consensus among the public, the media, the Liberal Party, the Ontario Government and the Bloc Quebecois that this deal, which was especially profitable for the parties concerned and especially harmful to passengers, had to be cancelled. It was said that the Pearson Development Corporation intended to raise passenger fees from $2 to $7, which would have generated additional revenues of $100 million.

The first logical thing for the government to do would naturally have been to cancel this deal without any compensation whatsoever and to undertake a serious, independent and open public inquiry into the circumstances of this deal and into the role played by lobbyists. Such an inquiry could have helped to distinguish stakeholders who acted in good faith from those who did not. And it could have allowed us to eventually compensate, if need be, parties who are entitled to compensation and to do so according to a public and open process.

The government might also have ensured that this never happens again by amending the Lobbyists Registration Act, thus allowing greater control of lobbyists. It might also, as the Bloc Quebecois keeps proposing in this House even if its proposition is never taken up by the government, have passed an act on the funding of political parties similar to the one in Quebec, which stipulates, first, that only voters have a right to contribute money to political parties, second, that there is a maximum contribution not to be exceeded and, also, that any donation in the amount of $100 or more must be made public.

Of course, such an act would prevent any suspicious collusion between major corporations and old federal political parties. Any new attempt on the part of the government to interfere in the Pearson Airport situation should be based upon openness, integrity and co-operation between all three levels of government and the various local groups involved.

Instead, after the election, the government decided to proceed with an internal inquiry, led by a former treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Robert Nixon, a very respectable man, I agree, who came to some very harsh conclusions about this famous contract signed by the previous government. Despite all of this, the government introduced Bill C-22, which leads us to believe that it is payback time for its old political friends.

Clause 9 of Bill C-22 states that there will be no compensation for any loss of profit or any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying. But in clause 10, the Minister of Transport is given the authority to provide, as he sees it, any compensation he considers appropriate to businesses he feels are entitled to be compensated.

In conclusion, I just want to add that section 8.6.3 of the request for proposal clearly stated that the companies would not be compensated. It said that all costs and expenditures incurred by the bidders for the preparation of the proposals are payable by the bidders. The government will not be obliged to cover these costs and expenditures, or to reimburse or compensate promoters, under any circumstances, including the refusal of the proposal and the cancellation of the project.

If those companies were aware, at the time of the tendering process, that they could not be compensated, why are they now expecting compensation from the government? This is unacceptable, and we will continue to oppose this measure and to use all our allotted time to stop this bill from being passed and get to the bottom of this.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Before recognizing the next speaker, I want to apologize to the hon. member for not warning him that his time was almost up.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the privatization of Pearson Airport, in Toronto, from the perspective of a resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean. What does a resident of Jonquière or Saint-Félicien see when he watches TV and hears about this project? He sees that the privatization of Pearson Airport was quickly and hastily decided during the last election campaign. Pearson Airport is not a lame duck; it is not a venture in deficit. It is profitable airport; in fact, it is one of the most profitable airports in Canada. Some civil servants in Ontario claimed that this privatization would cost somewhere between $140 million and $240 million annually.

The resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean who is watching sees hundreds of millions go by. However, behind the scenes he also sees lobbyists who are friends of the government. He sees Conservatives, Liberals, former deputy ministers and senior civil servants hired by lobbies, and businesspeople used to getting lucrative government contracts and attending Conservative and Liberal fund raising dinners at $1,000 a plate.

The resident of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean then compares this situation to the needs of his region, which are important needs. The history of our region goes back 150 years. It is a region with a glorious industrial past. Our region's development was based on natural resources: our forests provided paper, while lumber and hydro-electricity were used for primary aluminum.

In my riding, Alcan's Arvida plant was at one time the world's largest aluminum plant. Back in 1943, the Shipshaw hydro station in my riding generated the most hydroelectric power in the world. That is what I mean when I refer to our glorious past.

As for the present, the region is still fairing relatively well. It is home to seven pulp and paper plants and to four primary aluminium plants. However, it is also experiencing major economic problems. In the past few months, the official unemployment rate-not the unofficial, but the official rate-in the greater Chicoutimi-Jonquière region was the highest in Canada. The rate is unbelievably high. For a region that lived through the golden age of industry, this situation raises a number of questions.

We all know the reasons for this situation and we have analyzed them on different occasions in the region. One reason cited is technological conversion, the fact that our major industries have modernized their operations. That is quite normal. Another reason is globalization. A company like Alcan is investing around the world. Finally, the region's economic woes can also be attributed to the fact that more money is flowing out of, instead of into, the region. The Health and Social Services Board produced a study which found that our region experienced an annual shortfall of more than $100 million. Imagine what could be accomplished with an extra $100 million in a region such as the Saguenay-Lac-Saint Jean, considering its needs and its population of roughly 300,000 people.

Regional development policies have also been ill-conceived. Both the federal and the provincial governments have resorted to the old trick of divide and conquer. Year after year, the region is given several million dollars and left to decide how to allocate the funds. It is somewhat like throwing a bone to a pack of dogs and watching them fight over it.

Meanwhile, no new regional development policies specifically geared to a region such as ours have been formulated. This too raises some questions.

Despite everything, the region's future still seems bright. I can say this because residents are resisting the exodus of young people, the loss of jobs in our major industries and the rise in unemployment. At the Abitibi-Price and Alcan plants, the unions have taken steps, in co-operation with the different companies, to increase production and performance levels. Their actions are supported by the politicians.

At the Vaudreuil plant, in Arvida, a plant providing employment to about 1,200 people, the union asked Alcan to make investments in order to make that plant even more profitable than it is now. The 54 Bloc Quebecois even supported in a petition the Vaudreuil plant workers who are asking for investments.

Politicians then, particularly in the sphere of influence of both the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, are doing all they can to get new investments for the region.

As people from the region, we are also asking for multinationals to re-invest locally some of the profits they derive from the development of our natural resources. Natural resources have been leased to big companies, whether it be Alcan or Price. Since these companies have been granted access to our resources, people ask that more substantial spin-offs benefit the region.

This happened last year, when Alcan sold to Hydro-Quebec tens of millions of dollars in surplus electricity. This money was probably invested abroad or went to shareholders. If Alcan was allowed to develop our rivers, it is because it promoted job creation and not dividends to its shareholders.

We ask that these funds be reinvested in the region. I would even go so far, Mr. Speaker, as to ask that an investment funds be set up with the money generated from these surpluses in order to promote the development of small and medium-sized business in that area.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what we really need are the tools for our development: a radical decentralization and the powers required to make our decisions. In the same way that Quebec wants to acquire these powers by becoming a sovereign State, at the regional level, we want to have a say in the decision-making process.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing for several days now what members opposite are saying about this Bill C-22 and I note the interest that my speech seems to generate. Several members are getting ready to listen carefully to what I have to say. I can feel it, Mr. Speaker.

You see, members opposite are telling us, by way of an amendment, and I will read it:

This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-22, An Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport-

and please take note of this,

-because the principle of the Bill is flawed due to the fact that it contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent.

In other words, according to them, legislation to amend the Lobbyist Registration Act should be part of Bill C-22. I think that someone just said yes.

Mr. Speaker, if the government had dared to amend public morality legislation, such as the acts on lobbyists or conflicts of interest, without the prior consent of the House, and had introduced it as a government bill, can you imagine what the members opposite would have said?

I have worked on several occasions in the past on bills dealing with public morality. You will recall, I am sure, the bill of 1987, which came after the unanimous report of a parliamentary committee. I recall that members from all sides of the House were saying: "Finally, we will have legislation on lobbyists because we worked together and not because the government dictated it, since a public morality matter must be part of a consensus".

All right. Then had we today introduced as a government without consultation with the opposition an amendment to the Lobbyist Registration Act inside a bill for the Toronto international airport, first of all we would have likely been out of order because that would have been an omnibus bill with no binding provisions in it to join the bill together. The Reform Party member across will know that is a prerequisite. In other words, there must be a mechanism to hold those two things together. If they were inside a bill there clearly would not have been then, and so it would have been out of order.

Second, in the unlikely event that the bill would have been in order, those people across the way would have been the same ones to pooh-pooh-not to use any other words that would be unparliamentary-the efforts of the government because they would have said this is not the way to introduce a lobbyist registration bill.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh, yes.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

It is the way, says the member across the way. I think he had better make up his mind. I am looking forward to his speeches. How do they expect us to introduce those amendments to the LRA, the Lobbyist Registration Act?

It was an honour for me to work on two parliamentary committees dealing with lobbyist registration. Because of the defeat in the last election of certain members of other parties, I am the only member in this House left among those who worked on that issue.

We as a government have promised in the red book on page 94 that we would amend the lobbyists-

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

An hon. member

Read the red book.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

My colleague challenges me to read the red book. I will read from the red book, page 94. All members must pay attention to this, it is very important-lobbying reform:

The lobbying industry has expanded enormously in Canada during the nine years of Conservative government. The integrity of government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists-

Serious concerns have been raised in the minds of Canadians-

It goes on to say that a Liberal government will move decisively to address these concerns. We will produce amendments to the Lobbyist Registration Act based on the report of the committee, the report that I have here. That is what we are going to do. That is what the opposition says it wants. Except that today it is asking us to put these amendments inside a bill for an airport. Is that a way to propose a bill involving public morality? I say no.

My learned colleague from Moncton, learned in the law, says no. All my colleagues who know far better about these things say no. I am sure the members across say no.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I say to the hon. members, why do they not just withdraw this superfluous and trivial amendment? It has nothing to do with the subject that we are talking about. It is there to delay the passage of a bill, a bill that was promised as part of our commitment to the people of Canada that we would stop the nonsense that the Conservatives got into which was the giving away of one of our largest national assets, the Toronto international airport, more commonly known now as the Pearson airport.

I have here the June 1993 Holtmann report to amend the Lobbyists Act. In its red book, the Liberal Party promises to enact the amendments proposed in this report.

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

When will Bill C-22 be passed?

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Soon, dear friends opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I bet you that the day the bill is brought before this House, the members opposite will tell us that it should not be passed right away, that there must be a consensus, that it must be referred to a parliamentary committee, that hearings must be held. That is what they will tell us. And rightly so-

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Pearson International Airports Agreement ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

-because it is a matter of public morality. That is the way it should be examined and not the opposite as proposed in today's motion.

You see, they said yes to a bill with consensus, in-depth study and everything, but at the same time they tell us to hurry up and put it in an amendment to the bill before us. Make up your minds, ladies and gentlemen. You cannot have it both ways.

It is one of our commitments to the Canadian people. We will honour this commitment despite the efforts of members opposite to prevent us from delivering on our promise to the people. We will do as we promised. We were elected on this commitment, and Liberals, as you know full well, always keep their promises.