Madam Speaker, before I get into the text of my speech I wonder if I could make a couple of observations that are rather striking and troublesome.
We have heard from both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party. They have questioned the way the Pearson deal came about and the substance of the deal. We all agree that the process and the substance were seriously flawed in many ways because the Canadian public interest was not protected. Yet both opposition parties are voting against the bill.
That is rather curious. I must admit I was rather surprised that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois would take the time to address this issue. He talked about a number of things, from lobbyists to other circumstances. He went on ad nauseam about the fact he had left the government before he had anything to do with it. I believe that perhaps he has a guilty conscience.
He is right. He left the government in May 1990, but he was part of that gang, part of his colleagues, part of the cabinet, part of the so-called friends he now wants to deny he ever had anything to do with who put this darned bad deal together. It is rather curious that the Bloc leader would go on at length trying to divorce himself from a bad gang, as Canadians would know it, as he knew it. Yet he participated maybe not in the Pearson deal, but right from the beginning he knew exactly what was going on.
He went on and on. He must have a guilty conscience about the fact that he had anything to do with the gang that operated in Ottawa for nine years.
He then starts talking about the bill being a smoke screen and in fact talks about Pearson being a very important economic instrument and transportation mechanism. What does he ask for? A public inquiry that would probably cost millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars and waste a lot more time. We need to get on with the planning of Pearson. The bill needs to be put in place to effect the cancellation because the former government did not put a cancellation clause in the agreement.
I find it rather curious that the Bloc talks about integrity. It is really talking about wasting a heck of a lot more time so that we cannot get on with the business of deciding what we need to do in the public interest with regard to Pearson.
The comments of the Reform Party were equally absurd. They talked about the flawed process, about the flawed contract. Yet what is it talking about? It is talking about delaying.
The member for Simcoe Centre said that Pearson was an important employment generator. We can put people back to work. Yet he said Reformers could not support the bill until certain other things happen. That is not being fiscally responsible, like the Reform Party likes to pretend it is, at least in the minds of Canadians. I do not really understand where the Reform Party is coming from in terms of delay and timing. We want to do exactly what I thought the member said, and that is get on with planning the future of Pearson and national transportation.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on this important legislation, Bill C-22. I want to add my support to the Minister of Transport who has brought this legislation forward to cancel the agreements entered into by a previous government for the operations of terminal 1 and terminal 2 at Pearson International. This is a necessary step not only to ensure the future of Pearson but also to restore the faith of Canadians in their democratic institutions.
We are not cancelling this deal because it was fashioned by a previous government. To do so simply for partisan reasons would be unjustifiably frivolous. Rather the government has said that we will build on some of the previous government's initiatives when, and I emphasize when, such works serve the interests of the people of Canada. Pearson airport did not serve those interests.
The people of Canada voted in the last election for open and transparent government. The process that led to this deal was neither open nor transparent, nor did it stand up to scrutiny byan impartial observer, Mr. Robert Nixon. As we all remember,Mr. Nixon, the former Ontario treasurer, advised the government to reject the deal saying: "To leave in place an inadequate
contract, arrived at with such flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable".
I want to digress perhaps a little for a moment, although it is related. One of our important commitments as a government is to renewing Canada's infrastructure and that includes our transportation system.
As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Transport, said in his speech in February, we intend to help Canadians build a stronger economy. One way to do this is through policies that bring immediate gains in transportation efficiencies. This kind of forward thinking will contribute to long term economic growth by enabling Canadians to do business and move goods quickly and efficiently at competitive costs. Yes, we need to improve our transportation infrastructure but not at the expense of the long term interests of the people of Canada.
To get back to this particular deal, perhaps it would be useful to look at some history, to get some perspective on where things started to come apart. I know that other speakers have already indicated that. On April 8, 1987 the then Government of Canada issued its policy framework for the management of airports in Canada. On June 22, 1987 the government selected the Airport Development Corporation to construct and operate Pearson's terminal 3. I should point out at the same time that the Leader of the Opposition was in the Conservative cabinet.
The Falcon Star Group which included the Matthews Group of companies was an unsuccessful bidder in this competition back on June 22, 1987. In September 1989 the Matthews Group submitted an unsolicited proposal to privatize terminals 1 and 2 but this proposal was not accepted by the then government in September of 1989.
In October 1990 the then Minister of Transport announced the government would privatize terminal 1 and terminal 2 at Pearson. A year and a half later on March 11, 1992 the government issued an RFP for the privatization and redevelopment of terminals 1 and 2. The original RFP provided only 90 days for response, although that was extended, if we can call it that, by an additional 30 days.
It is not as though the construction industry was booming in southern Ontario in those days. Yet no other firms were given reasonable time to participate, so the process was flawed right from the beginning.
On December 7, 1992 the government announced Paxport's proposal was the best overall, but Paxport still had to demonstrate that its proposal was financially viable. When it could not do this it turned to Claridge, its rival for financial support. By February 1, 1993 Paxport had joined forces with the other original bidder in a joint venture partnership which became T1 T2 Limited Partnership.
By May 1993 when most outstanding issues had been dealt with sufficiently for formal negotiations to start, we now find that Claridge, the second place finisher, in effective control of the joint venture.
On August 30, 1993 the then Minister of Transport announced that a general agreement had been reached to redevelop and operate the two terminals. Then just nine short or long days later, depending on your perspective, on September 8, 1993 the government called the long awaited election. We all remember that campaign well and we all remember the concerns raised by the public and media about the Pearson deal.
The soon to be Prime Minister warned the parties to the deal not to sign it, that a new government would not hesitate to cancel it if it was not found to be in the public interest.
It should perhaps be noted that the circumstances were such that the government's chief negotiator asked for written instructions about whether to complete the transaction. That chief negotiator got those instructions on October 7, 1993 despite the concerns expressed by many Canadians, the soon to be former Prime Minister issued explicit instructions to conclude the deal. We now know where the push came from. It seems that the Canadian people had some doubts as well and we know how they expressed themselves at the ballot boxes.
What would the Government of Canada have gained by the agreement? Remember the terms of the lease was 37 years with an option for an additional 20 years. This means the government could well have been signing away control of a major national asset for almost three generations.
The agreement also included a constraint on alternative airport development within a 75-kilometre radius of Pearson. How did the previous government suppose this government would serve the people of London and the rest of southern Ontario by this kind of provision in the agreement?
Extensive reviews have shown that the airport facilities in the area of south central Ontario must be co-ordinated. Southern Ontario airports must, for planning purposes, be considered part of a single integrated system. This clause alone would have severely constrained future governments, eliminating many sound planning options. Under the agreement the government could have done nothing to alleviate the pressures of growth at other airports until Pearson topped 33 million passengers a year.
As Mr. Nixon said in what I take to be restrained understatement, the agreement did not serve the public interests.
I know my allotted time is running out, but I cannot leave the matter without some mention of the appearance of cronyism conveyed by this deal. It is this appearance that is so corrosive to public confidence in the government and its institutions. While we are not suggesting that anything illegal was done by any of
the parties, some of their actions conveyed the impression that they had something to hide.
Everyone knows how much concern was expressed about lobbyists and political staff seeming to have an inordinate influence on decisions that should have been made on the basis of public interest, influencing them so much that senior public servants felt pressured.
We have a long tradition that requires openness and transparency in any undertaking that involves the public purse. Canadians are entitled to disclosure when it comes to a deal affecting their assets.
I am afraid there is much more, but time does not permit me to examine the rest of it. What is also important now is that it is time to move forward. The government understands that the people of Ontario, in fact all Canadians affected by Pearson's operations, would like a prompt decision on how we are going to manage Pearson. That is one good reason for proceeding with the bill, to cancel the agreement as we must formally through this legislation as quickly as possible. Pearson is too important a national asset to languish while we debate. The Minister of Industry said when he introduced the bill: "We need to get the cancellation over with so we can get on with the job of planning for its future operations".
However, as has been clearly stated by the Minister of Transport, we will not be put in the untenable position of cobbling together a solution. Pearson is too important and we are too much aware of our responsibility to Canadians to rush simply for the sake of doing something, anything, as some members opposite seem to want us to do without proper care for the long term effects of our decision.
The fact of the matter is that the decisions we take at Pearson do not just affect that single airport. That is why we are consulting with a great many people. Yes, we are consulting with our Toronto members of Parliament. They were elected and are the rightful voice of their constituents in Parliament, in our caucus and in our government. We will consult with provincial, municipal and regional governments and local community leaders. We are doing that and the minister is doing that. We intend to do it right, not like the previous government has done.
In fact, as some of our other counterparts have indicated in the debate this morning, Pearson is not a local airport. It is a national airport and we are seeking national consultation.
The fact that our party is a national party with representatives from all parts of this country is a positive for us, not a negative. I cannot say that about the Bloc which only has members in one province nor the Reform Party which has members in only two or three provinces. We are a national party with national representation. We will consult with our national caucuses as to what to do about our national airport.
The government intends to make a final decision on Pearson's administrative structure before the end of this year. It is now time to close the book on this sorry chapter and move forward with planning for the future of Canada's transportation hub. Passing the legislation will allow us to plan the future of Pearson unencumbered by these flawed agreements.
No one should be surprised by anything in the legislation. It is nothing more than what we said we would do before the election, after the election, and when we introduced the legislation.
We will negotiate only for out of pocket expenses. We will not negotiate for lost profits and we will not negotiate for lobbyist fees. We are doing what the Bloc has indicated we should not; we are doing what the Reform has indicated we should not, which is to negotiate lobbyist fees. We will not pay for lobbyist fees. We will not pay for lost profit. We will pay for out of pocket expenses.
The legislation does not limit the amount of any potential payment nor does it preclude any continued negotiations because negotiations must continue. It does make clear to all the parties what the government is and is not prepared to consider. It makes it clear that these negotiations cannot go on indefinitely.
We are not saying that lobbyists should not be paid. We are saying these parties should take up the matter with the people who employed them, the developers, and not the taxpayers of the country.
I would like to close with this reminder. The most important asset a government can have is the confidence of its citizens. During the nine years of the previous government-and I was happy to hear the history lesson from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois because he participated in part of those nine years in that government-we saw a steady erosion of confidence in the public sector.
This erosion had many causes, from the behaviour of certain elected politicians to an arrogant style of political leadership. One of the key causes of this erosion was the practice of conducting public business behind closed doors giving the idea of favouritism.
Canadians deserve better. The government intends to do better by delivering to Canadians the leadership and the innovation demanded by today's changes backed by integrity and supported by principles that will never be sacrificed to expediency.
We look forward to working with both parties at committee to improve the legislation, if we can. We need to get on with the business of planning Pearson's future. We cannot unless we pass the legislation. I look forward to the comments of members from both sides.
