René Laurin

[Credit Cards, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 12 years, retail stores have ignored the recommendations made by three separate parliamentary committees regarding credit card user fees and continue to charge interest rates as high as 28.8 per cent on the outstanding balance of their card statements.

Does the Minister of Industry intend to act swiftly to protect the interests of consumers in the face of this unacceptable practice on the part of retail stores, which is leaving some consumers in a state of chronic indebtedness?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion, firstly because I am the critic for public service renewal and secondly, because I am familiar with the collective bargaining process from a labour standpoint, having served as president of a teachers' union.

When one wishes to increase employee motivation, the first thing one must do is respect the employees, not only by following universally accepted practices, but also by engaging in ongoing dialogue and by paying attention to arguments put forward by the union, particularly when the aim is to improve the situation. Federal public servants realized that the government had financial problems, was deeply indebted and needed to find ways to resolve the situation. Public service unions even made some suggestions to the government on ways to achieve these objectives without singling out public servants to bear the full brunt.

The government apparently did not even bother to seriously discuss these proposals. Instead, it imposed a salary freeze. Not only did it freeze salaries, it also imposed a freeze on pay increment increases. This action means that public servants not only take an immediate step backward, they also lose ground for the rest of their working days. Those nearing retirement will see their pension calculated on the average salary earned during the last five or six years, and this salary will have been frozen.

Everyone recognizes that the federal public service is highly competent. The members who have been here for several years have repeatedly said so. We have had the opportunity to judge this for ourselves since starting to work in this House and to rely on the help of the public service.

You cannot on the one hand, contend that these people are competent and deserve our respect and on the other hand, disregard what they have to say concerning possible solutions to government problems.

The best way to ensure someone's co-operation certainly is not to kick them in the rear end. If you want them to work together with you, you cannot just tell them they are nice, good and intelligent people and then turn around and completely disregard their proposals for making things work better.

The way the government has gone about imposing a wage freeze on its employees without any consultation or rather serious consultation, because some may say they have been consulted. Meetings were held, speeches were made and legislation was passed. But that can hardly be called serious consultation. Serious consultation sometimes involves changing your approach.

That is why we are requesting today that before making decisions in that respect, the government be required to submit its plans to a committee of the House of Commons so that a public debate can be held to allow the public to determine whether these decisions were made too hastily or at the expense of a segment of the population, one which has unfortunately been a favourite target over the past ten years. The middle class is always targeted. Yet, it is the one expected to pay yet more income tax. The middle class has been a cash cow for the past ten years. Now it is being eliminated without any regard for its contribution to the nation's coffers.

As far as I am concerned, this is no way to establish and maintain good union-management relations and I hope the hon. members will support the motion before us not only out of fairness for this segment of population but also to show the government's regard for all those members of our society who are willing to co-operate, by asking them to pay no more and no less than their fair share.

The government must figure out what can reasonably be asked from this group of government employees without affecting their motivation, credibility, enthusiasm and the respect they have for their employer.

I hope we will show them the same respect and from now on have these people join us around the table for the sake of maintaining the atmosphere of confidence that must continue to exist in the Public Service.

[Party Fundraising, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I guess things are not going my way this afternoon. I think there is not enough time for me to make my 10-minute speech. First, I want to comment briefly the amendment to the motion, which was put forward by a member opposite a few minutes ago and which would limit the contribution to a political party to $1 per individual.

At first glance, this may seem like a very interesting amendment. For example, there were 85,000 voters in my riding during the last election. With a budget of $1 per voter or $85,000, I would have had a lot more money than the law allowed me to spend. I would have had something like $20,000 more money, without having to do anything, no door-to-door campaigning, no electoral committee, no solicitation for volunteers to work for me. In fact, without leaving my house, I would have been able to receive $85,000 from all Canadians for my election campaign, just like my opponent. And since I had four opponents, all five of us would have received $85,000, at $1 per voter.

This may seem interesting compared to the tax refunds the State has to grant to people who donated to a political party. I know that the tax refunds reached $20 million, at some point in the last few years, but if the federal government has to reimburse $20 million, that means that some voters decided, of their own free will, to donate about $6 million to $7 million. What is at the root of this action and very important for the preservation of our democracy is that, when, as an individual, I decide to donate even only $1 to a political party, I get at least the chance to pick the party I want to support.

The effect of the proposed formula will be that I will give one dollar to my own party and one dollar to every other party. I will have no other choice but to finance all political parties, whether I like it or not, whether their philosophy is compatible with my own beliefs or not. It would not matter anymore, everybody would be entitled to some degree of financing.

I do not believe that it is the way to build a democracy. Democracy is based first and foremost on a personal commitment, a personnel decision to support one ideology rather than another. I would hate to see legislation giving the government the authority to take my tax dollars to finance anyone who would feel like entering politics. Although appealing at first, this measure appears rather antidemocratic and would, in the short and medium term, cause people to lose interest in politics since they would be inclined to believe that it is no longer their business. They no longer would have to get involved. All those who would want to enter politics would have the money to do it anyway and to say what they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want, and they could stay quietly at home.

I am afraid that this is not the way to lay the foundation of a sound democracy, a democracy on the move.

To have to raise money during an election campaign has its positive sides too. The objective of today's motion is not to prevent people from giving money to political parties. Not at all. On the contrary, it is to allow private individuals to contribute, but to a reasonable level. The objective is to make sure that when individuals join a political party they can, irrespective of their wealth, express their free opinion, exercise their choice and be recognized.

We do not want any involvement of companies, unions and interest groups which exist for predetermined reasons. Companies, when they request a charter, state their objectives. Unions do the same, as well as professional associations. When they ask for a charter establishing their existence, they state their objectives, and what goals they aim for by forming an association. Most unions, most professional associations would say: to defend the interests or our members. It is not necessarily for the interests of the community, and not necessarily for the interests of Canadians in general, on the contrary. It is to protect the interests of their members. When they do, they do it well.

We should not allow these organizations, these corporations, these special interest groups to have disproportionate influence because of their financial means, in relation to the private citizen who, without a fortune, cannot have his opinion expressed and recognized by his peers in a democratic assembly because he has less influence, not having had the means to contribute as much.

Democracy is based primarily on respect of individuals. If we want to motivate people to work for our election, we should not do it only by asking them for money but also by giving them responsibilities.

It is when people take the time to work for a good cause that they get together and get involved in the political aspect of every day life. In this way, they take an interest in the operations of the organization not only during an election but in between campaigns.

This is a very good way for a political party to survive and to support itself, just as any good parent would find the money to support his or her family. Any political party should also have the decency and the ability to generate its own revenues so that it be truly democratic and allow its members to participate fully.

Naturally, I will vote against the proposed amendment while supporting the main motion as is.

[Pearson International Airports Agreement Act, May 6th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had reached August 30, 1993, when the Minister of Transport in the Conservative government announced that a general agreement had been reached with the Pearson Development Corporation concerning the management of all three terminals at the Lester B. Pearson Airport. What is Pearson Development Corporation?

It is a corporation specially created to manage the three terminals and that incorporated all the activities of T1 T2 Limited Partnership. This new company was also controlled at about 17 per cent by the Matthews Group-Matthews being the chairman of Paxport-at 66 per cent by Claridge Properties, allied to Mr. Bronfman, and at 17 per cent by public companies which were to provide conventional airport services.

You will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that this structure closely resembles the one of T1 T2 Limited Partnership. On September 8, as we all know, a general election was called by the Government of Canada.

It is then, and only then, that Mr. Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister to be, warned that he would not hesitate, once in office, to cancel that deal if completed. Following this statement, the chief negotiator requested written instruction to sign the contract and, on October 7, Prime Minister Campbell demanded that the legal privatization document be signed that very day.

Three days after the general election, on October 28, the Prime Minister appointed Robert Nixon as special investigator to scrutinize the privatization of the Pearson terminals.

At this point, we should note that Robert Nixon was Treasurer of Ontario in the Liberal government of Premier Peterson, and had been leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.

On November 29, Mr. Nixon delivered the report on his findings, opinions and recommendations to the Prime Minister who decided to cancel the privatization deal on December 5.

The government may want to show its good will by passing Bill C-22 which cancels the deal, but how is it that the Liberal Party never denounced the situation while they were in opposition, and while all these dubious dealings were unfolding before their eyes? Why did the Liberal Party not denounce its political friends and those of the Conservative Party who were gearing up for such favouritism?

Why is the Liberal Party still seeking today to protect its political friends by closing this case in such a way that it will punish the bad Tories who were party to these transactions, but compensate its good Liberal friends who were involved to the same degree in this murky deal?

Why are the Liberal Party and its financial supporters afraid of revealing the hidden side of this privatization?

Why is the Prime Minister still refusing to order a royal commission, the only way to get to the bottom of things?

If such an inquiry is not called, the Bloc Quebecois will not side with the Liberal government and will not support this bill which is as unacceptable as the airport privatization deal itself.

[Pearson International Airports Agreement Act, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was told that there was another speaker before me.

We cannot support Bill C-22, an Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Even if the purpose of this bill is to cancel an inadequate contract which, as Mr. Robert Nixon noted in his report to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, was "arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation", it sets cancellation conditions which, in our opinion, are just as irregular and make us think that they are the result of more political manipulation to protect friends of the party in power.

We must first ask the following questions: Why did the government want to change the management framework of Lester B. Pearson Airport? Was the airport losing money? On the contrary, in 1993, this airport made a profit of $23 million, excluding revenues from renting Terminal 3. Did the government believe that the new consortium would offer customers better services at a lower cost? On the contrary, since the deal provides that, for air carriers, the costs would be raised from $2 per passenger now to $7 at the end of construction. And we know that carriers pass their costs on to passengers.

There was only one acceptable reason, and it was the implementation of the new policy on the future framework for the management of airports in Canada that was published by the Conservative government in April 1987. But there again, the Conservative government at the time departed from its own policy by entrusting the modernization of Terminals 1 and 2 of Lester B. Pearson Airport to a private consortium.

Indeed, the new policy on the future framework for the management of airports in Canada called for the implementation of the new approach chosen by Transport Canada; one of its two main thrusts was to emphasize the commercial orientation of airports, their possible contribution to economic development and their taking into account of local concerns and interests.

That approach called for private sector involvement, especially in traditional or innovative airport services as much as possible.

Instead of delegating the management of Pearson Airport to a local public authority similar to the ones in place in Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton, the government decided to favour a private consortium, thus going directly against its general policies.

It has not been proven that the decision to change the management framework of Lester B. Pearson Airport was made according to generally recognized principles of good public management. One has to look elsewhere to find the real reasons that prompted the Conservative government to sign in a rush, in the middle of an election campaign, the October 7, 1993 agreement.

We would have more luck finding the real motives behind this transaction if the present Liberal government appointed a royal commission of inquiry. We would get answers to some troubling questions. On June 22, 1987, the Conservative government selected Airport Development Corporation to build and operate terminal 3 at Pearson. Airport Development Corporation and Claridge Properties Inc. are essentially the same corporate entity. What do we know about Claridge Properties Inc.? It is a real estate company owned by Charles Bronfman, who is associated with the Liberal Party of Canada. The key people in the company are: Peter Coughlin, the president; Senator Léo Kolber, the manager of Claridge Properties; Herb Metcalfe, a lobbyist representing Claridge Properties and a former organizer for Jean Chrétien; and Ray Hession, an influential former deputy minister who had recently been appointed to the board of Paxport.

On December 7, 1992, Paxport's proposal for the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 was accepted. There were only two proposals, the other one being the one made by Claridge Properties. The companies had only 90 days to submit their bids.

Paxport was then given two months to demonstrate the financial viability of its proposal. That condition was never met. What then do we know about Paxport Inc.? It is another consortium made up of six companies associated with the Conservative Party through some key people, and I will name a few: Don Matthews, president of Paxport Inc, the former chairman of Brian Mulroney's nomination campaign in 1983 and former president of the Conservative Party; Otto Jelinek, a former Conservative minister, now a member of Paxport's board of directors; Fred Doucet, who was mentioned earlier, a lobbyist representing Paxport and long-time friend of Brian Mulroney; Bill Neville, another lobbyist representing Paxport, the former chief of staff of former Prime Minister Joe Clark and a member of the privileged transition team of former Prime Minister Kim Campbell.

What happened next? On February 1, 1993, having been unable to demonstrate the financial viability of its proposal and experiencing some difficulties, Paxport merged with Claridge under the name T1 T2 Limited Partnership. Again, T1 T2 is made up of the same companies: Claridge Properties, Paxport Inc. and the Allders Group.

All of these people have ties to either the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party.

In short, Mr. Speaker, during the whole process, the whole time these transactions were prepared, the present Prime Minister never complained and never said anything about what was going on in this matter.

It was only a few days after the announcement of the general election that the Prime Minister opposed the way it was done. For these reasons, I ask the Liberal Party and some of its supporters why they are afraid of revealing the hidden aspects of this privatization?

[Pearson International Airports Agreement Act, May 6th, 1994]

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

[National Defence, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister of National Defence is not able to answer my question today, could he tell us when a report on the nature of the economic spin-off will be available?

[National Defence, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of National Defence. A $365 million contract for the procurement of heavy logistic vehicles ending in 1995 has been entered into with UTDC providing that this company guarantee economic spin-off estimated at 156,6 million dollars. However, when the last vehicle was delivered, in May 1992, only $16,7 million had accrued to the government.

Since that contract is almost over, could the minister of National Defence tell us why that company has not met the federal government requirements with respect to the $156,6 million economic spin-off that had been promised?

[Publishing Industry, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say policy; I said strategy.

I have a supplementary. In view of the fact that 80 p. 100 of school books in Canada are sold by foreign-controlled companies, can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the real one, tell us when he intends to present a policy to prevent what is left of our publishing industry from falling into foreign hands?

[Publishing Industry, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the week-end issue of The Ottawa Citizen , it was reported that the cabinet had turned down a strategy preventing foreign take-overs of our cultural industries.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can the minister confirm this information and could he shed some light on the reason why he refuses to put in place measures to protect Canadian cultural industries so as to avoid another fiasco like the Ginn Publishing disaster?

This time, I hope that the real Minister of Canadian Heritage is going to rise and answer my question.