I want to quote again from Mr. Nixon's report: "To leave in place an inadequate contract arrived at through such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation is unacceptable".
He goes on to say: "The role of the lobbyist was extensive, going far beyond what I consider to be appropriate activities of consultants that are available to businesses to approach government".
One could almost conclude that the activity bordered on the criminal. Mr. Nixon conducted his report-I have considerable respect for Mr. Nixon-in private, his investigation in private. While we were in opposition and while in government we complained about the process that lead up to the signing of the contract with the Pearson Development Corporation.
Mr. Nixon conducted his hearings in private. Mr. Wright now is conducting the negotiations in private and in my respectful submission I want to say that in order for Canadians to understand exactly what happened, Mr. Nixon did not name any names and perhaps names should have been named publicly so that Canadians can come to a conclusion on whether compensation ought to be paid.
We are being told here by this bill that there should be some compensation for out of pocket expenses. In my submission there ought to be no compensation at all.
With an inquiry or if Canadians are apprised of the total facts in this particular situation they too, I believe, will agree that no compensation is necessary.
I would like to put a question to my friend from the Bloc Quebecois. Would he not agree with me in light of the information that he has available today that there ought to be no compensation at all?
If that is the case would the Bloc Quebecois support an amendment that would delete paragraph 10 from this bill which is the paragraph that allows the minister in effect to have a blank cheque in order to pay out of pocket expenses?