Debates of June 15th, 1994

Motions For Papers

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I want to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 21 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, be read the third time and passed.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak at the third and final reading stage of this most important bill. This bill is an act respecting certain agreements for the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport. In layman's terms that means it is the bill to formally cancel the agreement which was entered into by the former government. This issue has been debated at length in this House and in committee.

This bill reflects another election commitment made by this government. During the course of the election, our leader who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, gave notice that after the election the agreement would be reviewed by the incoming new government.

True to his and this government's word, upon election of the Liberal government we had Mr. Nixon review the agreement to ensure that the public interest was being served. His conclusions and recommendations which formed part and parcel of the Minister of Transport's recommendation has resulted in this bill.

To make it clear to everyone, including the opposition parties, the bill effectively and formally cancels the agreement. Both opposition parties agree with the government that the agreement should be cancelled. There is unanimity in this House with regard to its cancellation. There seems to be no dispute whatsoever as to whether or not this agreement needed to be cancelled. I am happy to thank both opposition parties for supporting this legislation.

Having said that, the opposition parties have given their qualified approval but have voted against the bill at report stage. They will probably also vote against it tonight because in their opinion they have serious reservations with regard to the bill. Therefore, it is only appropriate for me to take the opportunity to try to answer the questions put by both opposition parties and the improvements which in their minds need to be done to this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois throughout the course of debate on this bill seems to be fixated with putting blame, or finding out where the blame lies. The government side understands that is important and essentially that is why we introduced the bill to cancel the agreement. We knew the agreement was flawed in its process and its substance. The process was questionable not in legal terms but in terms of the role of the lobbyists in putting together such an agreement.

Bloc Quebecois members have insisted that a public inquiry by a royal commission was needed to find out who was to blame for putting this agreement together in the first place. We could go on a wild goose chase to find out who was to blame. At the end of the day however even after a public inquiry by a royal commission, legislation would still have to be put in place to effectively and formally cancel the agreement, not to mention the millions of dollars and the time that would be wasted in such an exercise.

The Canadian people themselves gave a verdict to the people involved in that deal, namely the former Conservative government. The agreement was signed two weeks before the election, after being given notice by the present right hon. Prime Minister not to do so but to wait for the new government to review it. Despite that warning, the former Conservative government signed the deal. We know what happened to that government. Public opinion was that what had occurred was not in keeping with what was perceived as good government practices. Hence, that government was defeated. There were many other reasons for that but I suggest this agreement was part and parcel of it too.

With respect to the other parties that signed this agreement, the testimony at committee hearings and Mr. Nixon's report makes it clear that while we may not have liked the process and we might question the roles of the government, the partnerships and the lobbyists, the fact remains that an agreement was signed legally and formally by another government and another party.

During the hearings this government and its members did not stand in the way of asking for witnesses to come before the Standing Committee of Transport to question the people who were directly involved. I heard someone mention yesterday that perhaps all the parties did not avail themselves of that opportunity. That is perfectly true.

The solicitor from the Pearson Development Corporation was there. The Paxport people were there, including Mr. Don Matthews. The former president of Paxport was there, Mr. Hession, and a number of other witnesses. However, a number of witnesses, including former government members and lobbyists, indicated they could not or would not appear before the committee. That is regrettable because the government and the people of Canada deserve to know all the facts. We would have wanted that, but that did not occur.

There was some mention of putting subpoenas before witnesses as suggested by the Bloc. As worthy as that might seem however, that process was fraught with peril in terms of time and of whether or not we would ever get to the bottom of the story.

One fact is clear: The government, the opposition parties and the Canadian people agree that this deal should be cancelled. So what would be accomplished by going on a so-called witch hunt to look for that person who may or may not have done something right or wrong? Mr. Nixon said that nothing illegal occurred, that in fact, as we have all agreed, the process and the substance was flawed.

This bill has essentially tried to do a number of things. First and foremost however it was necessary to cancel the deal formally because there was no cancellation provision in the contract. The government needed to do that formally.

Second, the bill outlines what can or should be paid to the parties to this agreement. The bill does provide guidance and restrictions to the Minister of Transport.

This government has said it does not believe that the process was as it should be and that lobbyists played a very big part, perhaps too big. In the next day or two the Minister of Industry and the parliamentary secretary will introduce changes to the lobbyists act to ensure that the rules are clear to everyone as to what lobbyists can and cannot do with government or members of Parliament. It will put in place a code of ethics among other things.

However, the purpose of Bill C-22 is not to debate or discuss the role of lobbyists. That is a bigger issue which will come later. The bill does say the government will not pay one cent in lobbyists' fees. We will not pay one penny toward lobbyists' costs.

The bill also says we will not pay for the lost profits or lost opportunities that Pearson Development Corporation or the limited partnership might think that in cancelling the agreement they are entitled to.

This government has said clearly no lost opportunity, no lost profit. The only thing that we think this government will pay and should pay is legitimate out of pocket expenses that can be justified, that in fact show value for work received because there are a number of third party claimants that are part of the whole apparatus. They are to a certain extent innocent parties to an agreement, parties which might have done some architectural work, engineering work or other legitimate work which was invoiced to the partnership. The government is prepared to consider those invoices and to meticulously look at them to ensure that in fact they are legitimate, that they were for the purposes of Pearson airport and not for something else.

We have a negotiator presently looking at each and every one of those invoices. Some 60 volumes of paper need to be gone through to ensure that, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport said, the government does not pay a penny more than what needs to be paid. We want to ensure that our process can withstand the scrutiny of the public, the opposition and the Auditor General.

We want to make sure that the cabinet by order in council only pays those invoices that are in fact legitimate. That is the process. There is a negotiator and that is what is happening now.

The Reform Party has had some problems with respect to the question of transparency. What is it that we are paying? Who should decide what should be paid? It was suggested that the parliamentary committee on transport look at those invoices and make recommendations to the minister and in fact have a hearing on what invoices should be paid. Those are legitimate questions.

The minister and I and others have stated that the system, the bill, the process within this House of Commons and government operations are transparent. Before even one cent is paid the Auditor General will obviously be very interested in this.

There is a public accounts committee of this House of Commons, chaired by the opposition that can ask for all the documents to be brought forward. There is the accountability of government. The cabinet is accountable to the people of Canada for making those kinds of decisions. There is an apparatus in place to ensure that the process is transparent, that accountability is clearly to the government.

The minister indicated, and I think we passed an amendment by the Bloc at committee, that he will table with this House all the documents that he can table respecting freedom of access to information and guidelines and rules as to what can and cannot be made public. There was a commitment made to this House that would take place.

The bill says, yes, we might pay something, but you will have to prove to us that each and every invoice is legitimate. One must take this bill in its context. This is a very unique bill, unheard of really in terms of Canadian history, where a government would move so boldly as to cancel an agreement and say no loss of profit and no lobbyist fees. It says something much more important.

It says that we need to get on with managing the future of Pearson because it is an important transportation hub in this country. It is a nationally significant airport that impacts the west, the east, Quebec and Ontario. We need to get on with planning the future of Pearson. This bill is absolutely necessary for us to do that. We cannot plan its future unless we formally cancel the agreement and deal with this matter once and for all.

The bill also says that if there is no successful completion to negotiations, 30 days after proclamation of the bill there shall be no payments at all. That is a pretty strong stick for this government to use to try and bring all the parties at the table to a reasonable completion to the negotiations. That is an important aspect to this bill because we cannot and I am sure the opposition parties would not want us to continue to carry on fruitless negotiations. This bill does put in place a sunset provision that says 30 days after proclamation, if there is not a negotiated settlement there shall not be one penny paid.

It also protects the government against lawsuits. We cannot take it to the courts because we believe we need to get moving on it.

I know that the debate will continue somewhat today and that both opposition parties will try to make their case again for more transparency, more accountability. The Bloc will suggest that we cannot deal with this bill because we do not really know the true facts about what happened behind those closed doors. That is true and it is regrettable but we have to deal with reality. The reality is that we need to get on with planning Pearson's future, dealing with the bill. There will be other opportunities to discuss the influence of lobbyists and so on and that will come in a subsequent bill.

I want to touch base on a couple of points that I think are absolutely necessary. Talking about expediency, when the bill moves to the Senate where it will go through a similar process, we hope that the Senate will respect and move expeditiously in passing this bill. It is in the best interests of the country to do so in order that the government can get on with planning for the future of Pearson and assisting the travelling public as much as possible.

We believe that this is a very unique bill in Canadian history because of some very unique circumstances. Hopefully they will never occur again.

I believe we all will have learned from this process what governments can and should do prior to an election, especially on nationally significant issues. Perhaps decisions do not have to be made in the last minutes before the end of a government's mandate, especially on an issue that captured the attention of this House some one and a half years before the election. Our party spoke very often and very forcefully to the government, raising concerns about the process and as to whether we ought to divest ourselves of a nationally significant piece of property which serves millions of travelling Canadians as well as people visiting this country.

I know how frustrated we were. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry will tell you that we were very frustrated because we had no opportunity to discuss whether or not the concept of privatization of Pearson should even proceed. We were not given the opportunity. It was done in a very heavy-handed way by a former government. It paid the price for those kinds of actions that Canadians saw as being very cynical and having caused an awful lot of problems for politicians in general as well as the House of Commons with regard to its credibility and integrity.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to accuse us of essentially doing the same thing as the former government. Heaven forbid. The fact is that we are cancelling this contract. We will not pay compensation to lobbyists for profit. We will only pay invoices that are legitimate. They will perhaps say there are some Liberals somewhere in there that we are trying to protect.

This government before, during and after the election and up until now has made one commitment to the Canadian people. It did not fudge, hedge, or anything else.

This bill does cancel the agreement totally. The only thing left is to decide if there is any compensation to be given to the other party that signed that agreement.

I would hope that the opposition parties, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, support the government in cancelling this agreement and also recognize that no bill is ever perfect.

We agree that amendments sometimes are made. In fact the committee did report an amendment and the government side supported it. We agree. Yes, there were amendments put yesterday by both opposition parties. I tried to tell the opposition parties that transparency and accountability are built into the bill as well as built into the system.

Yes, we are all mistrusting of the system. We have been here only seven or eight months on the government side. We will have to show members and restore everyone's faith in the system. There are checks and balances in the system to ensure that only those invoices that need to be paid shall be paid and we will, as a government, be subject to the court of public opinion.

I am not sure that the public wants us to write a cheque to rid ourselves of this problem. Of course not. The minister and the Prime Minister have said that we will not pay a penny more than we have to. It was a legally signed agreement. As repugnant as it was that a former government should even do it two weeks before an election, it did it. That government did it.

Therefore we have obligations. When a government does what it is doing today by this bill, it has to consider its impact on future contracts, on the international reputation that we have as to whether or not a government can be trusted that once it enters into an agreement, it will in fact fulfil its contractual obligations. That is a worry and members should understand that.

That is why it allows the discretion in the bill to pay for the legitimate expenses. I hope as we wrap up debate on this issue that the opposition parties will understand that this government wants to get on with planning the future of Pearson airport and the aviation industry in this country.

The only way we can do that is to finally put this agreement behind us and get on with completing the negotiations. In fact, if the negotiations are not completed and this bill is proclaimed 30 days thereafter there shall be no compensation.

We hope that our friends in the other place, the Senate, do not play any games with this bill and the public interest is best served. We hope it expedites this bill as quickly as possible so that we can get on with again planning the future of Pearson.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today somewhat disappointed, but not beaten. On Tuesday, June 14, this House adopted the report of the Transport Committee, despite the amendments proposed, warnings given and negative vote entered by the Official Opposition and the third party. Yet the amendments we presented would, we hoped, have enlightened our colleagues on the compensation which the government intends to give to the former directors of Pearson Airport, namely the Pearson Development Corporation.

I was very disappointed to see and hear the Chairman of the Transport Committee tell this House yesterday that he did not intend to spend a million dollars to call witnesses who, in one way or another, would repeat what we already know. He also mentioned that even if witnesses were called, the result would be minimal because the process is too cumbersome and it simply would not be worthwhile. He informed us that the last time witnesses were subpoenaed was in 1913, when the matter had to be taken to the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms was sent to get the witness. The outcome was that the person wound up in jail. This is not what we are requesting. What we are asking for is the application of quite recent precedents, one of which was set on Tuesday, August 20, 1991, before the finance committee, where the following motion was introduced. I will read it in the language of Shakespeare so that everyone can understand:

On a motion by René Soetens, it was ordered, that-Diane Woodruff, from Price Waterhouse, Frank Kolhatkar and James Goodfellow, from Deloitte & Touche, be summoned and required to appear before the Committee.

Another precedent was set on Monday, October 21, 1991, when the hon. member for Windsor, the current Government House Leader, who was in opposition at the time moved:

That Anwar Khan be summoned to appear before the Committee.

After debate, the question being put on the motion it was by a show of hands, agreed to: YEAS: 3; NAYS: 2.

The motion was agreed to. More recently, on Tuesday, December 8, 1992, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs agreed to summon the Minister of National Defence to appear before the committee on February 2 to discuss the Auditor General's 1992 annual report.

I wanted to set the record straight and I can tell you that both the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and the chairman of the transport committee were aware of these facts yesterday because I had made the same presentation in committee. The chairman of the transport committee and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport refuse to spend $1 million to make the truth known to Canadians.

At the same time, their party is considering paying as much as $250 million perhaps to friends of the two older parties -the Liberal and the Conservative Party- although we do not even know yet if we should pay a single penny in compensation or if Pearson Development Corporation should not be reimbursing the government instead.

Also, my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in this Liberal government, has no qualms paying the bills Pearson Development Corporation may submit, because, as he indicated: "The Auditor General has a job to do and he will report any irregularity in the bills paid by the government." Let us not forget that, as is always the case with reports from the Auditor General, observations are made after the fact.

That is why we in the Official Opposition, wanting to prevent such occurrences and ensure that the taxes of Canadians and Quebecers are used wisely, have reacted. We proposed that a commission of enquiry be established to uncover the truth. That is not serious.

I trust the Auditor General and his recommendations but I am not confident that the current government will take them into account and recover the amounts actually spent, even if it was recommended by the Auditor General. If this government is really serious, it should read the Auditor General's latest report and make the requested corrections immediately. We may then believe that it is possible to act first and then to make the recommended corrections.

Yet some members of the transport committee such as my colleague from the Reform Party asked only for incremental measures, a certain openness and a transparency that the Canadian people want to see right away. Liberal members do not seem interested in seeing again Tory ghosts like Otto Jelinek, as my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, stated in response to my speech on June 13.

I am not interested either in seeing these ghosts again. In any case, we only have to look at how often the current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and hon. member for Sherbrooke sits in this House to be convinced that if we saw him, we would have the impression of seeing a ghost. That is true, but I would like to compel them to come before the transport committee to shed light on the previous government's actions in awarding the Pearson Airport privatization contract.

We are now at third reading and I am trying one last time to inform my colleagues properly on the history of the Pearson Airport privatization. Together let us look at some important dates.

On April 8, 1987, the government published its policy on airport management in Canada and recommended that airports be operated by local authorities. On June 22, 1987, the Government of Canada designated Airport Development Corporation, Claridge, to build and operate terminal 3 at Pearson.

In September 1989, Paxport presented a proposal to privatize terminals 1 and 2 which was rejected by the government. On October 17, 1990, the government invited the private sector to help modernize terminals 1 and 2. No details were provided at that time.

On February 21, 1991, terminal 3 began operations under Claridge Holdings Incorporated. On March 11, 1992, the government officially called for proposals to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson. A single sentence, no prequalification.

Early June 1992, bidding closed. Two bids were received: one from Paxport, the other from Claridge.

On December 7, 1992, Paxport's proposal was selected; it had until February 15 to show that its proposal was financially viable. This condition was not met.

On February 1, 1993, Paxport and Claridge merged in the T1T2 Limited Partnership. From February to May 1993, the financial viability of the project and Air Canada's lease were discussed.

In May 1993, official negotiations began and Claridge took control of the T1T2 Limited Partnership. On June 18, 1993, a memorandum of agreement was signed on the privatization of terminals 1 and 2. On August 30, 1993, the Minister of Transport announced a general agreement between the two parties and promised a final agreement would be signed in the fall.

On September 8, 1993, the Government of Canada called an election. On October 7, 1993, the legal agreement on privatizing terminals 1 and 2 was signed. On October 25, 1993, the federal election was held. On November 29, 1993, the Nixon report was published, and on December 3, 1993, the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the agreement to privatize the airport.

Before the final signature, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and present Prime Minister warned the parties that he would not hesitate to cancel this agreement. Following that statement, the chief negotiator asked for written instructions to proceed to the signing of the contract. The then-Prime Minister requested specifically that the transaction be completed that same day. Mr. Nixon found in his report that the lobbyists' role in this matter went beyond the usual normal bounds. In fact, lobbyists were directly responsible for the reassignment of several senior public servants and the request from some others to be replaced.

The 90-day call for tenders was surprisingly short, and it was impossible for groups other than those already involved in the administration of the airport, such as Claridge and Paxport, to submit a valid bid. This explains why only two bids were received. Paxport had previously submitted a privatization plan in 1989, and Claridge was already operating terminal 3.

It is surprising that no prior financial analysis was required in this proposal. It is not usual democratic practice to sign a transaction of this magnitude during an election campaign, thereby binding the soon-to-be-elected government to a policy established by the previous government.

From a financial standpoint, as previously mentioned, Pearson is the only profitable airport in Canada. The agreement prohibits Transport Canada from making investments that might have a detrimental effect on Pearson's traffic in any airport within a 75-kilometre radius of the Pearson Airport; this clause gives preference to Pearson over other airports in the region.

My purpose in reviewing the events of 1987 to 1993 in this matter, first of all, is to make sure that my colleagues in the House are aware of the importance of the decision we will be called upon to make-a decision that will make people aware of the kind of democracy in which they live.

Parliament has all the instruments it needs to find out the truth and decide accordingly. But we must be prepared to forget partisan considerations and to probe some apparently disturbing facts. We have four instruments: the House of Commons, the committees, royal commissions of inquiry and finally, the justice system.

In this particular case, the Prime Minister quickly cancelled the privatization contract because he thought there might be misappropriation of funds. However, since he made that decision, what did we find out? Not much, but it was not because the opposition lacked the political will. Here in the House we asked for a royal commission of inquiry. Our request was turned down. In committee, we invited witnesses. What happened? They did not appear.

Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I will go through the list of 17 witnesses I tabled in the transport committee. We invited Ray Hession, who agreed to appear. We invited Robert Nixon, but our Liberal colleagues said that his detailed report was clear enough. Ramsay Withers refused. Herb Metcalfe refused. Fred Doucet refused. William Rowat refused. Huguette Labelle refused. Former minister Jean Corbeil refused. In the case of Robert Wright, our Liberal colleagues made the point that since Mr. Wright was responsible for negotiations between the parties, it was perhaps irrelevant to invite him to appear before the

committee. We agreed. Jodi White, the former prime minister's chief of staff. Doug Young, the Minister, who agreed. Robert Bandeen refused. Peter Coughlin refused. Don Matthews agreed. Former minister Otto Jelinek refused. Representatives for Air Canada agreed to appear, and finally, Liberal Senator Leo Kolber refused.

That was the list of 17 witnesses I invited to appear before the committee.

When we look at the connections of these people, I understand why my Liberal colleagues refused to let people testify before the committee, when we are talking about certain representatives or lobbyists who are close to the Conservatives. I disagree in the case of people with very close connections with the Liberal Party. For instance, Otto Jelinek, a former Conservative minister who is now president of the Asian branch of the Matthews group, and Ray Hession, a former Deputy Minister of Industry and senior executive at Supply and Services under the Trudeau governments.

We could add Herb Metcalfe, a lobbyist with the Capital Hill group, a former representative for Claridge Properties and a former organizer for Jean Chrétien. We could mention Ramsay Withers, a Liberal lobbyist with very close connections to Jean Chrétien and a former Deputy of Transport.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order! I wish to remind hon. members that the proper procedure is to refer to a member of this House by his title. For instance, when speaking about the Hon. Jean Chrétien, members should refer to him as the Prime Minister.

I would also mention at this time that the same holds true for our colleagues in the other place. I wanted to point this out as we begin this debate.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. In the heat of the moment, I forgot the rules, most likely because of my lack of experience.

I was speaking about Mr. Ramsay Withers, a Liberal lobbyist with very close ties to the current Prime Minister, and a deputy minister of transport during the tender process for Terminal 3 at Pearson Airport.

Let me also mention a member of the other place, Mr. Léo Kolber, who also happens to be a member of the board of directors of Claridge, according to the Financial Post Directory of Directors. This same person hosted a $1,000-a-plate dinner at his Westmount home. On hand for the occasion were, among others, Charles Bronfman and the current Prime Minister, who was in the midst of the election campaign.

Finally, another player in the deal is Mr. Peter Coughlin, a senior official with Claridge Properties who has twice refused to testify before our committee. I suggested that we subpoena him, but my proposal was defeated by the Liberal majority on the committee. The same thing occurred when we wanted to subpoena former minister Otto Jelinek.

So, since the witnesses did not appear, and since we had unsuccessfully asked the committee chairman to insist that the witnesses appear, I asked the transport committee to employ the means provided by our ancestors to find out the truth, namely to subpoena the witnesses and thus force them to appear. The motion was again defeated in committee.

Even if we would have had to take the matter again before the House, even if the Sergeant-at-Arms would have had to take the necessary steps to bring the witnesses before the committee, even if it had cost a million dollars-which I seriously doubt-, we should have made use of the tools at our disposal to shed light on some worrisome facts, as the Nixon report indicates.

Democracy has its costs. If we want to preserve democracy, we must be prepared to assume those costs. It is the only possible way to protect society from certain abuses by individuals who would do anything for their own personal gain.

To prevent certain people from appropriating public assets to which they are not entitled, it must be made clear to those people that the government will use whatever means are available to it to "air out the dirty laundry", so to speak.

By failing to act like a responsible government and to assume its responsibilities, the government is encouraging certain groups to bypass normal channels and to try to turn quick profits without worrying about tomorrow.

Why is the present government in such a hurry to pass this bill? Is it worried about having to pay a few dollars in interest on unpaid invoices? But perhaps there will not be any compensation. How could there be any interest if there is no compensation? Or is the government rather afraid of losing contributions to its election fund?

The government cannot, for partisan political reasons, suppress such a scandal that might impact upon previous and future generations of politicians. We must clear up this matter. We must show that we act openly. We must restore the trust of Canadians. The money owed to the government must be recovered, and we must stop making handouts in this matter.

For the sake of social justice, we must let the public know the truth.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on third reading of Bill C-22.

I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for London East about the process that we are going through. I am sure he, like many other members when they were campaigning in the last election, was absolutely distraught at the level of cynicism that we found among the voters as we went door to door. I must admit the mistrust they had of politicians put me at an all time low.

Bill C-22 really focuses on the mistrust and the cynicism that people have toward politicians. I believe that mistrust was reflected in the fact that we had such a huge turnover in members in the 35th Parliament. When we start talking about the Bloc looking for blame, or the Reform Party looking for transparency, really what we are talking about is trying to establish the credibility of politicians and returning the trust that has been lost in this place.

I am sure the Canadian people applauded the decision to cancel the Pearson contract because during the campaign it was obvious it was under a cloud. I would suggest that those same people would not be very happy with the fact that the negotiations for any possible compensation are proceeding under what appears to be a cloud.

It was suggested that the Nixon report did not say that there was anything illegal. While that is true, a lot of questions were raised in that report. Indeed, beneath the questions that were raised there may be something illegal. We will never know how things are proceeding because of this reluctance to open up the process to public scrutiny and working toward restoring trust in ourselves and in the system.

I see two contradictions with the red book in Bill C-22. First, the government was elected on the premise of jobs through infrastructure development. Here we are talking about what arguably could be the biggest piece of infrastructure in Canada. Much needed development is being held up because of negotiations regarding compensation which are going on behind closed doors. Six months have passed since the contract was cancelled and nothing has happened toward construction or job creation.

Mr. Nixon stated in his report that construction should proceed. I would like to quote from his words on page 13, para-graph 4:

I further recommend that Transport Canada continue for the time being to administer Terminals 1 and 2, and proceed with necessary construction. Thereafter, I recommend that Transport Canada recognize the airport authority. Once operational, the airport authority would receive from Transport Canada, the responsibility of the day to day operations of the airport complex. It would also deal with the planning, financing and construction of airport infrastructure. In particular, this would include Terminals 1 and 2 and the runways, taxiways and aprons at Pearson.

To this point, nothing is happening as far as construction goes.

The other contradiction is the reluctance to open up the process to the light of day. This again flies in the face of the red book promise of governing with integrity. I would like to quote from chapter six of the red book, which deals with this particular issue. I think it fits very well with what we are talking about tonight:

This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership. The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors.

That is very significant in what we are doing here in Bill C-22.

We in the Bloc have attempted to open up the process. The Canadian people should be aware of what is going on. They are the ones who will be paying whatever compensation may or may not be agreed on.

As I mentioned earlier, the Nixon report raised a lot of questions and yet provided few answers. We owe it to the taxpayers to answer those questions. We owe it to the people who were identified in the report. They should have an opportunity to clear their names and reputations.

However, transparency is not to prevail. The cloud over the initial deal under the Tories is now covering the compensation that may or may not be paid.

Why are we even considering one nickel of taxpayers' money to a group that does not deserve a penny of hard earned dollars? Let me review. The deal was signed on October 7, 1993, just 18 days before the election was called, knowing full well that the deal likely would not survive a change of government.

We were not dealing with people who were political novices, unfamiliar with the system. We are dealing with both Tory and Liberal supporters, politically well connected people who apparently were about to line their pockets at the Canadian taxpayers' expense. When you consider the challenge, you have a government run operation generating some $70 million of profit each year.

[An hon. member]

Some years more.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Some years more. Governments do not have that reputation for making money. In fact the reverse is true. There have been cases where they have taken over money making propositions and soon run them into the red. Here is an unbelievable opportunity, a government run venture about to be turned over to the private sector.

Under normal circumstances there should have been a stampede to bid on this project. The term, a licence to print money, is very appropriate here; a sure winner, you cannot lose. Making money with this deal is as sure as death and taxes.

The original Tory group made a big issue in its proposal that there must be competition in terminal 3. That was a key part of its proposal. This was the only way to ensure protection for the public using this facility. When it was discovered that the group did not have the financing or financial ability to proceed, it went looking for a white knight.

Again, when you remember the fact that this was a guaranteed money maker, you would have thought that there would be no problem finding a suitable backer for such an airtight money making project. We do not know how many people sought to become a part of the plum, but what we do know is that the operators of terminal 3, the Liberal connection, turned out to be the white knight. Out the window goes competition. Any possible challenge to future profits was removed and the taxpayers and the travelling public are now in the hands of a monopoly.

Canada's most important piece of infrastructure is now shared by both Tory and Liberal supporters. A suspicious mind might consider this to have been a very smart move to insulate the deal from political interference.

What is interesting about the Nixon report is that it did not deal with the Liberal connection with the same intensity to which the Tory group was subject. They might have been successful had the public not reacted so strenuously to this deal. A shady deal by the Tories is no different than a shady deal by the Liberals. The Canadian taxpayer does not know the difference in shades of dirt.

Let us go back to the deal for a moment and see if we can find any reason for paying taxpayers' dollars to anyone. No evidence exists of any work being done between October 7 and the cancellation date; not one load of gravel, not one shovel in the ground. In my opinion, nothing happened during that period because of the uncertainty.

The original Tory group had presented an unsolicited bid for this project back in September 1989 and no compensation was requested or paid when it was rejected at that time. No doubt a great deal of work went into this proposal and it placed the group at a very distinct advantage when the government in March 1992 decided to request proposals for privatization.

The fact that 90 days only had been allowed to produce these proposals gave the original group of 1989 a tremendous advantage, a point not missed in the Nixon report.

Our problem is that no compensation as opposed to something in the order of $25 million to $30 million for out of pocket expenses or $180 million if we buy the ridiculous argument of lost profits. Why not let the principals prove in an open forum what money was spent on this project between October 7, the signing date and December 2, 1993, the cancellation date. If any costs were to be justified, this is the only timeframe that should be considered.

Today's Toronto Star reports that this review could cost taxpayers as much as $98,000, a further expense in salaries and expenses to Bob Wright, the lawyer appointed by the government to handle this wrap-up. Mr. Wright is a former fundraiser and law partner of the Prime Minister. I would suggest without questioning Mr. Wright's integrity or ability, the public perception is not the one we wanted them to have. Here we are trying to restore this level of trust and confidence and with an appointment like this one the public perception is that it appears to be more of the same.

One has to ask why the Liberal government is going out of its way to protect the previous Tory government. If the deal is half as bad as the Nixon report speculates, the taxpayers of Canada deserve a full explanation. If more time were required to accumulate witnesses who were prepared to attend, why not allow for it? For reluctant witnesses, why not use the subpoena process available to committees to force their appearance?

In closing, while many voters supported the government's decision to cancel the project, those same taxpayers are sure to be offended at the way the compensation package is being negotiated. The fear we share with so many Canadians is that there is the potential for possibly millions of hard earned tax dollars to be paid to people who are more deserving of criticism than compensation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We now move to the next stage of the debate where members will have a maximum of 20 minutes for their interventions, subject to 10 minutes for questions or comments.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in third reading of Bill C-22.

Before I get into the main body of my remarks I would like to say to the member from Simcoe in the Reform Party through you, Mr. Speaker, that the bill states quite clearly under subclause 10(2) entitled "No compensation":

No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to

(a) any loss of profit, or

(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act ,

in connection with any agreement,

The Minister of Transport said quite clearly in the House last week that not a nickel's worth of taxpayers' money would be spent unless it was directly related to the contract.

All this is subject to the auditor general, which ultimately means that the Reform Party will have access to it. We will be publicly accountable for any decision the government takes in terms of using taxpayers' money with regard to Bill C-22.

It is never after the fact when one is talking about a transaction like this one. The previous government paid a very heavy price because in opposition we took a very strong stand on the issue of privatization of the Lester B. Pearson airport. I am happy to say that I have not wavered on the issue. I have always considered the Lester B. Pearson airport not to be a metro Toronto airport. It is not even an Ontario airport. It is an international airport.

There is a great misunderstanding about the contribution of the Pearson International Airport to the economy of Canada as a whole. That is one of the reasons I personally do not support the Toronto Star position of handing over the Pearson International Airport to an LAA, a local airport authority.

I acknowledge the member for Simcoe Centre was absolutely correct when he mentioned that it was a very profitable operation. The profit from Pearson International Airport has not just gone into the Toronto region. Traditionally the profit from Pearson has been used to help other disadvantaged airports in this country.

The airport system, whether it be North Bay, Hamilton or any other part of the country, is inextricably intertwined with Pearson International Airport.

We said this in opposition and we said this during the campaign and we said to the Prime Minister of the day, Ms. Campbell, not to proceed with that contract.

I am proud to be part of a government which immediately upon assuming office the Prime Minister appointed someone with real credibility to look at that contract and it was discovered that it was not a good contact.

There are a couple of things that bug me about the previous government's contract on Pearson. The thing that bothered me the most was the flip clause. There was a flip clause in this contract which meant that there was a possibility that if Claridge Holdings Inc. or the Matthews Group Limited wanted to sell Pearson that option existed in that contract. The possibility existed in that contract which we have cancelled that we could have been in a situation in which Pearson would have been owned by the Taiwanese or by the Libyans. Think what could have happened.

I was very rigorous in my opposition to selling off Pearson International Airport. I believe that selling off Pearson is no different that selling off the East Block or the West Block. I believe that Pearson is an instrument of government which does not just look after air travel but is intertwined with some of the disadvantaged regions of our province and of our country. I also believe it is an instrument which can affect our tourism policy, our trade policy. It it not only the gateway to Toronto but one of the major gateways to our country. I believe this is the room, this is the Chamber that should be ultimately responsible for making decisions on how Pearson is managed.

There are times when we have been very tough on the bureaucrats who have operated Pearson international. Is it not interesting that these same bureaucrats, and the member for Simcoe Centre acknowledged this, managed to always make a profit at Pearson International Airport?

The argument from the private sector will be: "We could make a lot more". I accept that point of view from the private sector that there probably is room for improvement at Pearson International Airport. I think we should consider bringing in the experts. Hire some people, give them a four or five year management consulting contract.

Why should we give away Pearson when we can give a management contract? If the management expertise wants to compliment or support the officials of Transport Canada in increasing the profits or developing other options of profitability and testing them, bring in the management consultants and give them a contract. If they meet certain levels of profitability pay them. If they go beyond their budgets and produce more profit then pay them a bonus.

With all due respect to captain Messier of the New York Rangers, and he made a tremendous contribution in helping the team win the Stanley Cup, you will give him a good salary but you will not give him the franchise.

That is where I have strong views on this issue. The catering is done by a very good firm in terms of the way it manages and operates it and gives a percentage back to the Crown; the parking, the taxi service, the construction. We do not want the construction. Put all of that out to the experts, but the notion of giving to the private sector an instrument of public policy-it is an instrument of public policy, not just for the Toronto area but it affects every region of this country-I believe is not the way to go.

Another thing I want to touch on is the way these public servants who are managing the airport tend to be underestimated. Is it not ironic that the manager of the airport, Chern Heed, is now respected as one of the top three airport operators in the world and is now running the Hong Kong airport?

It is a pity that we lost such a great airport manager and I hope there will be a day when we can bring him back as a public servant to participate in managing the Toronto international airport.

I want to go back to this notion of a local airport authority. A local airport authority usually is made up of representatives of the city and the surrounding boroughs in the greater Toronto area. I am sure we would have some representation on that board.

My concern with that is twofold. When you are only concerned with issues as they relate to your own city, you tend to be a little parochial. The difference between being involved in city politics or provincial politics versus national politics is centred around the fact that when we deal with issues in this Chamber, it is our responsibility to not just think of our own communities, our own ridings, but we have to think of them in terms of how they would affect each other's ridings on a national basis.

My concern about a local airport authority stems from the fact that I do not think that unit would have the capability of really dealing with the national interest. That is point number one.

Point number two is the member from Simcoe Centre in his speech talked about a sum of money of revenue somewhere in the neighbourhood of seventy-odd million dollars for 1993. That was a bad year. Our passenger count is down by a tremendous amount right now. Imagine when the economy comes back and we can develop some more efficiency in that airport.

Think four or five years from now when that airport could be generating a couple hundred million dollars a year. Imagine how we would feel as national members of Parliament if four or five years from now we saw a local airport authority that was generating close to a couple hundred million dollars a year. The private sector would say we are getting the first $25 million or $30 million. Forget it, this airport is there for the national interest.

I am speaking now as a member from Toronto. Four or five years from now, after we have renovated the airport and cleaned it up, because I really do hope that the money that the airport generates between now and then can go into the renewal and go in the deal, on the point the member from Simcoe Centre was making, we have to get some jobs going in Toronto.

We have talked about infrastructure. The member is right. The airport is a terrific area where we can begin. Let us plough some of that money back into the airport and renovate it, renew it, do the things we have to do. Four years from now after those renovations have been made it still will be the Government of Canada operation working in partnership with terminal 3 which, by the way, is a private sector operation. That to me is a pretty good compromise.

Personally I would not have supported the privatization of terminal 3. Ideologically I do not support that thrust. However, there could be a compromise, a private sector operation in terminal 3 and Government of Canada in terminal 2. I do not think we can sustain terminal 1 the way it is right now. It is a mess.

The point is that is a good competitive synergistic approach. Let us be proud of the fact that five years from now when all of those renewals are done the cash flow coming from that airport can go into other projects in the national interest.

I say to members of the Bloc, the notion of a royal inquiry is only going to delay the process. We already know it is not a good deal, so why kill a dead cat? The Prime Minister announced that the deal is cancelled. Why take another year and a half, spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to find out what, that there were some Liberal lobbyists involved?

Well Liberal lobbyists were involved. Naturally some of my best friends are Liberal lobbyists. Do you think they did not try to lobby me to change my mind on the airport? That is their job, but it is up to us to either agree or challenge their lobby. What do you want to do? Is it going to be such a big deal?

The member from the Bloc mentioned some Liberal lobbyists so the Bloc wants to have a royal commission of inquiry into what happened. We are going to bring a bunch of Liberal lobbyists forward and they are going to say they lobbied the member for Broadview-Greenwood or other members. That is irrelevant. It is not important because we stopped the deal. We took a stand; the lobby did not work on us.

A public inquiry is not going to produce anything different from what the Auditor General's analysis will produce. The Auditor General is going to look at the disbursements the Minister of Transport will make in terms of settling this deal. He will analyse those things. Opposition members will analyse them. The press will analyse them. If there is a nickel's worth of taxpayers' money which has been spent inappropriately they are going to raise hell in this House which is fair ball.

I have to talk about my city for a minute. Toronto is going through a very difficult economic period with close to 600,000 people out of work. We want to put this file behind us so we can come back at it with a renewed thrust in order to get something going. As Mr. Nixon has recommended I believe that the airport is a good place to get some activity going, but we said not at any price. That is why we stopped the deal. It was tough to say no to that deal when there were so many jobs, but we just cannot give it away at any price.

It is important that we get this behind us so we can come at it with a renewed and fresh approach involving the Government of Canada. Once we get the renovation and renewal done on the whole Pearson operation, then let us hope that three to five years from now the cash flow that place throws off can help every other region of the country.

I encourage hon. members to please let us put this bill behind us so we can start with a fresh slate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before we proceed to questions and comments there is a matter of other business we have to deal with.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Yukon-Aboriginal affairs.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Government House Ottawa

June 15, 1994

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter de C. Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 15th day of June, 1994, at 1700 for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General

Message From The Senate

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-26, an act to amend the National Library Act; and Bill C-27, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, and certain related acts.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member talked about stalling this project and trying to expedite this matter as quickly as possible. There are repairs to be made to terminal 1, it is in pretty bad shape.

Could the member update us as to when Pearson started to make money? The Canadian people probably put a lot of money into it before it actually started to make money. At what point in time did this airport start to make money?

I know it is a big generator of jobs in Toronto. There must be at least 20,000 people working there.

Also, how quickly would they get the runways and the infrastructure on terminal 1 going?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the precise year Pearson started to make money. It used to be Malton Airport before Prime Minister Trudeau named it Pearson on December 13, 1983. It was his last supper in Toronto when he announced the name as Lester B. Pearson. I do know that the now Pearson International Airport was making money in 1980.

The member has touched upon a very good point. He is alluding to the fact that over several years Canadian taxpayers have invested millions and millions of dollars in developing the airport and infrastructure, bringing it to the point it is at today.

About five or six weeks ago there was a study which ranked Pearson airport in its current state as seventh in the world. We are tough on Pearson, but the operators of terminal 3 have done a very good job. It is working well.

I agree with the member that terminal 1, the terminal in the middle, the original terminal, is not in good shape. We all recognize that. However terminal 2 has gone through a constant renewal, both in terms of construction and efficiency. The officials at Transport Canada have done a remarkable job.

The member has raised a very good point. When we talk about 20 million passengers a year, all of them are not from Toronto. They are from every part of the country.

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.

And being returned:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-2, an act to implement a convention between Canada and the Republic of Hungary, an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Zimbabwe, a convention between Canada and the Argentine Republic and a protocol between Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to income taxes and to make related amendments to other acts-Chapter No. 17.

Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994-Chapter 18.

Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter 19.

Bill C-26, an act to amend the National Library Act-Chapter 20.

Bill C-27, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related acts-Chapter 21.

Bill S-5, an act to incorporate the Canadian Association of Lutheran Congregations.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, and I still do not understand why he is refusing to convene a royal commission of inquiry to look into this very dubious affair, the likes of which I have not seen in the 20 years that I have been in this country, and to examine the lobbying issue as well. Some light needs to be shed on this affair and on the role played by lobbyists. In my opinion, all of these issues need to be clarified.

Tomorrow, the government will be introducing a bill aimed at regulating lobbying activities. I hope that they will be very clear and that we will have the opportunity to debate this very important bill.

I also fail to understand why the bill is so contradictory. On the one hand, the government says no compensation will be awarded, while on the other hand, the bill allows the minister to grant sums of money to the parties involved. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry enlighten me on this apparent contradiction?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you I say to the member for Bourassa that we should be perfectly clear and should not leave the impression with the people of Canada that there will be any compensation for lobbyists.

The bill states very clearly in subclause 10(2):

No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to

(a) any loss of profit, or

(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder-

We should make sure that point is clear. Somehow the Bloc mixes the lobby issue with disbursements that might be paid for the leadup to the conclusion of the contract. Lobbyists will not be paid.

There is a point we have to make. I believe my colleague and seatmate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, tried to make the point about the seriousness of the bill to the Bloc. The bill has no precedent. We have taken a contract that was signed by a previous government, as the member acknowledged, 18 days before election day.

There is a convention in our country that in the last period of an election campaign senators are not appointed, deals are not signed, and we await the outcome of the election. The previous Conservative government broke that convention and the victim was that private sector firm.

Now we have to be fair to the victims, the subcontractors and other people who led up to the packaging of the bid which was called by a duly elected government. We are trying to communicate to the opposition, not the Reform Party but to the Bloc Quebecois, that there will be no compensation for future profit and no lobby money will be paid. We believe the small and medium size operators that were part and parcel of the bid and

had some legitimate expenses that went into that consummated transaction should be treated fairly.

We are trying to strike a balance which is accountable. We are accountable once it is over. I want to say to members opposite through you, Mr. Speaker, that a royal inquiry will take millions of dollars and another 18 months. During that same period we could have the renewal and renovation of an airport which is so vital to the national interests of the country looked after.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to be able to speak on Bill C-22 at third reading. I will not hide from you that the Bloc Quebecois is against this bill, especially the part that allows the government to pay the compensation it sees fit to those who signed the contract for privatizing Pearson Airport, without releasing full information on the circumstances which led from the decision to privatize the airport to the signing of the contract.

The Prime Minister promised us a clear, open, rigorous process to get to the bottom of this failed transaction and to fully elucidate the involvement of political staff or former political staff and lobbyists in this affair. Remember the summary report prepared by Mr. Nixon. He said that political staff and lobbyists had an uncommon role in negotiating this transaction, but it stops there.

Some even say that this could be one of the biggest contracting frauds ever on Canadian territory. The conditions under which this contract was awarded are suspect and we are being kept in the dark about them. Bill C-22 even leaves open the possibility or gives the government complete latitude to compensate those who might have lost when this process of privatization was halted.

Why not get right to the bottom of this question? It could prove useful to deal with similar cases in the future, because we must not lose sight of the fact that in many cases, the political staff and the lobbyists who were involved in this transaction and in the whole Pearson Airport privatization process are the same ones who are now working on other files, whether to promote the interests of the companies they represent or simply as professional lobbyists.

As we have said over and over and will continue to repeat for the next three years if necessary, we from the Bloc Quebecois are under the impression this is one of the worse cases of patronage in the history of this country. I am starting to wonder, and even if I never managed to get an answer since Bill C-22 has been under consideration, I put the question to the Liberal government: Is it because it realized that the interests of friends, former friends or great friends of the party were at stake that, on the strength of a simple report, the Liberal government now refuses, or so it seems, to answer to an extensive and in-depth commission of inquiry into the whole process, a process which according to Mr. Nixon's summary report, was mind-boggling, full of inappropriateness, oddities and things never heard of in this sort of transaction?

This was a contract to privatize one of Canada's most profitable airports. So, all the considerations, the entire process which have led to this contract being drafted should be brought out in the open. The players should also come out in the open. Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, the names of a few of the friends of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party who were involved in this process, this privatization attempt. It is always a pleasure for me to name names because, so far, the government has refused to clarify the involvement of these people, when we know full well that they are very closely tied to the Liberal Party of Canada and perhaps, in fact certainly, to the party fund as well.

As you know, the Liberal Party of Canada, like all major Canadian establishment parties, is not subject to any legislation on political party financing or rather on the financing of political parties by the people, unlike the Bloc Quebecois. So it is quite normal that a contract of this nature or a process leading to the privatization of the biggest Canadian airport would bring up the names of people, organizations or business owners who contribute large amounts of money to political party funds. Something like that could not happen with the Bloc Quebecois because our hands are not tied by corporate, anonymous and impersonal contributions. We are disciplined in this respect and only accept contributions from real Quebec citizens. I think it is good for us and for democracy.

It is probably because they realized that friends of the Liberal Party of Canada were involved in this deal that they refuse to shed light on it. I repeat, as it can never be repeated often enough: the list of the people involved may help us understand not only why the Liberal government refuses to disclose all the facts but why its bill gives it all the latitude needed to bribe those directly or indirectly linked to the failed Pearson Airport privatization process.

You remember Senator Leo Kolber. He was the one who organized the cosy $1,000-a-plate dinner where the guest of honour was the Prime Minister. Guests could shake hands with the Prime Minister in the midst of the election campaign and talk to him about their little problems, perhaps in connection with the Pearson Airport privatization or to the money they would lose if the privatization deal was cancelled. In short, Senator Leo Kolber was a stakeholder in this event and especially in the whole Pearson Airport privatization process.

There was also Mr. Bronfman, who did not hesitate either to attend this $1,000-a-plate dinner to shake hands with the future Prime Minister. Herb Metcalfe was also present. He is a lobbyist and former organizer for Mr. Jean Chrétien before he became Prime Minister. He is close to the Prime Minister and was very involved in the whole process to privatize Pearson Airport.

Ray Hession was also present. He is a former deputy minister of Industry and senior civil servant with Supply and Services, under the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mr. Hession was also involved in the process to privatize Pearson Airport.

There were others too, including some Conservatives. The current government is Liberal. I think it is worth repeating that we have serious doubts about the purpose of Bill C-22, given the names of the key players, the contributors who finance the Liberal Party of Canada, and also the inclusion of a clause designed to compensate those who may have suffered a prejudice when the Prime Minister decided to cancel the privatization process.

In addition to the fact that this government refuses to shed light on the role of these players, who are known to be very close to the Liberal Party of Canada, there is also the fact that the contract for the privatization of Pearson Airport is full of very unusual clauses.

That document is something else. Let me give you some examples which are still mind-boggling at the conclusion of the review process of Bill C-22.

The contract was for a 37-year period expiring on October 31, 2030, with an option to extend that period for an additional 20 years. Why is that? It is because the Ontario legislation provides that, on leases longer than 50 years, a provincial tax applies to any transfer of property.

Normally, if the duration of the lease had not been split, those involved in the transaction would have had to pay around ten million dollars to the Ontario revenue ministry. Just imagine, with the federal government's complicity, individuals were making deals and the terms of their contracts were such that they could avoid paying legitimate taxes to the Ontario government. That is rather amazing.

When in this country's history have we ever seen the federal government paving the way for a party to avoid provincial taxation? This is quite extraordinary.

Rent is calculated on the basis of gross revenue. According to the contract, Pearson Development Corporation was to turn over 30.5 per cent of its gross revenues for the previous year to the government, up to a maximum of $125 million in gross revenues. For any amount in excess of $125 million in gross revenues, Pearson Development Corporation was required to pay the government 45.5 per cent of its gross revenues from the leasing operations.

Calculating gross revenue is an extremely technical process, but very important nonetheless because this type of clause is rarely found in contracts, even in those far less important than the one to privatize Pearson. For the purposes of this calculation, gross revenue includes all revenues generated through the operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson, excluding ten significant deductions, which reduce the buyer's rental, accommodation and contracting costs.

The deductions amount to the taxes collected from consumers and passengers which are pocketed by Pearson Development Corporation on the government's behalf. Extraordinary sources of revenues are discounted for the purposes of calculating gross revenue. This is unusual when determining basic rent in a transaction such as this.

When we look at revenues which, although not unusual, are infrequent and are not generated through the normal operation of the terminals, including access sales, we see that these too were not included in the calculation of gross revenue on which rent will be based.

The same holds true for investment revenue. The contract contains a number of bizarre provisions. Unless these are closely scrutinized and unless those individuals associated with the privatization process, the principal players in this deal, are called upon to testify -I named a few of these players a moment ago, but there are many others -until such time as we can ask them questions, we will not know the whole story as far as this deal is concerned. There are many incongruous aspects to the Pearson privatization contract.

Many questions also arise about the rebates and refunds awarded by Pearson Development Corporation in the case of airport equipment. Here again, we find some strange provisions. There is also something odd about the way the government will recover the costs associated with the occupation of airport space.

I will not give you a complete list of all the incongruities since time will not allow it. During the course of this debate, we have been able to bring to light a number of the contract's incongruous provisions which make this deal unparalleled in Canadian financial history.

We could have also talked about severance pay for Transport Canada employees. That situation is also disgusting. If you look at the facts, even dispassionately -passionately it is worse- if you think that the government of Canada had offered separation allowances to 160 of its own employees despite the fact they were guaranteed employment for two years with Pearson Development Corporation-

Separation allowances totalling $5.5 million would have been paid to 160 federal employees while allowed to keep their jobs. That is revolting! It is totally unacceptable, particularly in view of the unemployment levels and the housing situation, when people are asking for social housing and getting none. I am bringing up social housing because I just attended a meeting on the subject and once again, the government has refused to at least consider alternatives so that the neediest -some 1.2 million households nationwide- can find decent housing and not have to spend in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent of their income on rent.

You can imagine how I feel about a government that does not want to listen to the complaints or the cries of despair of the most ill-favoured members of our society, that does not want to pay any attention whatsoever to the social housing situation in Canada and is pursuing the very policy it had been denouncing in no uncertain terms since 1992. I am speaking on behalf of all their spokespersons when I contrast this with the government allowing employees guaranteed to keep their jobs for the next years at least to be paid $5.5 million in compensation. I am at a loss to know how social justice works in this government.

The latitude the government is giving itself as well as the almost impudent fashion it presents the capacity the government has to compensate friends of the system without specifying any amounts -it could be in the millions- can also be contrasted with the brick wall we are facing when we want to raise issues like social housing and unemployment insurance cuts with the government. However hard I try to stay cool in face of such injustice and double standard, my blood boils. Friends of the party -the very rich friends of the Liberal Party of Canada and contributors to the party fund- get to be treated one way while those who have no voice, no power and no lobbyists representing them on the Hill, in ministers' offices or in the office of the Prime Minister are treated differently.

I think there are enough grounds -and I still cannot see why the government is so obstinate- for making an effort to bring to light the whole story regarding the privatization process at Pearson, with all the dealings involved and all the financial inconsistencies. I think this deserves an answer from the government. If it is not true that the friends of the system had their palms greased and stand to benefit even more under Bill C-22, then let us get to the bottom of this business and get all the facts.

We want to believe you but not on the basis of a superficial analysis commissioned by the Prime Minister, which probably has some value-I am referring to the Nixon Report-but not as much as a thorough, serious review of all the elements surrounding this deal and of what it could involve in the future.

I think we will be able to continue this debate beyond Bill C-22 after the lobbyists bill is tabled. We should find out the general provisions tomorrow. Let us not forget, however, that many of the Pearson players, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, are professional lobbyists. These people will continue to haunt the halls of this building and try to persuade the government to go back on its decisions, sometimes perhaps with bad intentions.

I am not saying that all lobbyists have bad intentions. On the contrary. I know lobbyists who express their clients' views in a quiet manner, but I also know other lobbyists whose integrity can sometimes be questioned, especially when they are much too close to this government and when they represent interests contributing to the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-22. We are still demanding a commission of inquiry to uncover all the facts on this deal, and it is not true that such an investigation would cost millions of dollars and take a year and a half. I think that the House of Commons has all it needs to conduct such an investigation and that, if we act in good faith, we should be able to proceed rather quickly by having the principal players in the failed Pearson Airport privatization deal testify.

I also think it is worthwhile for transparency's sake that the people of Quebec and Canada find out how the government deals with such important issues and how much influence lobbyists exert, often in an underhand way. Lobbyists often cast a shadow over government decisions, especially when they may represent the interests of the Liberal Party in some respects.

I hope the government will respond favourably to our request. It would be a good example of what it claims it wants to achieve during this mandate, that is, acting with honesty and transparency and serving the people of Quebec and Canada well. I think it would be a good start. If members on the other side of the House share our sense of democracy, they should agree to the Bloc Quebecois's request.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what our colleague said. The hon. member recalls the commitment which the present Prime Minister made in the last election campaign. First of all, if we were elected, we would immediately conduct a full review of the Pearson transaction, which we did, and that we would have a person of some standing to conduct this inquiry. In fact, the person who did it is a former representative of Ontario in London, a former minister, a former deputy premier of Ontario, someone who is well known, at least to all the provincial parties in Ontario, as really qualified and of unquestionable integrity.

On this point, the member opposite would have trouble finding anyone in the Ontario Legislature, in the present NDP government, in the provincial Liberal party or among Conservative members at Queen's Park, who would disagree with what I just said.

So we had a person of that stature to do the work. He recommended that we end the contract. The government did so. Then the government said that it agreed to defray only the expenses of those who entered this contractual agreement with the previous government but not lobbyists' expenses.

I wonder what the member opposite is driving at. Obviously the lobbyists will not be compensated; we know that. The profits that the companies lost will not be compensated; we already know that. We know all those things. The parliamentary committee heard just about all the witnesses who wanted to appear before it, maybe not all the witnesses that my colleague opposite wanted, but still a good representation of the population and we did what we promised Canadians.

The hon. member will have to explain to me and to Canadian voters what more could be asked for. We did what we promised Canadians. We did it in good faith. We terminated that agreement which of course was contrary to the interests of Canadians.

The hon. member must understand that this agreement concluded by the government was not good and we ended it. Our government ended it. The hon. member should speak up and recognize the good decision made by the Liberal government. I tell you that if the hon. member searches his conscience in the next few minutes and answers us after Private Members' Business, he could easily see that he is wrong to oppose this bill. He could even vote for it a little later today on final reading.

I submit this proposal to you.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order! I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, but I am certain that the House would like to hear from the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot before we move on to Private Members' Business.