The government knows perfectly well that an enquiry would bring many of its fundraising friends scurrying out of their hiding places. We know that both camps worked together on this deal.
There is a lesson here, and it is that like great causes and great ideas, money sometimes makes strange bedfellows.
The author of the Nixon report is a former treasurer of the Ontario government. He is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois.
He is a respectable man, probably a federalist-and I respect him none the less for that-who was closely involved in the running of democratic institutions in Ontario, a well-known man, a man of integrity. In a word, the man I am about to quote-and you will notice that his criticism is even harsher than mine-knows what he is talking about. He has submitted the contract to a thorough examination, and was commissioned to do so. What did he find? He said: "To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at through such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable".
In other words, Mr. Nixon, who had neither the time, the means nor the power to conduct a comprehensive investigation was only able to get a glimpse, through the curtain, through the smoke in the ante-rooms of power, of possible political manipulation. Now that we know about this possibility, we must act. We must gather information. We must find out who the players were and who engineered this, if only to make sure they do not receive compensation they do not deserve.
Should an in-depth investigation show that some of the people involved acted in an unlawful, unacceptable or unethical manner in this matter, would we still be expected to pass clause 9, and especially clause 10, that allows the minister to pay them generous compensation? Certainly not! But, unbeknown to us, this doubt, this terrible, gnawing doubt, was put in our minds by the findings of the investigators.
"Possible political manipulation", that is heavy stuff. I could not bring myself to utter those words in my speech, but that is how the formal investigation report was worded. Do we stop here, in case the commission of inquiry decides some compensation is in order? That is a possibility. We do not know. We do not have all the facts. There may be people in there who acted in good faith. Maybe, maybe not. We would need to know which were honest and which were not. Otherwise, the good guy is going to pay for the actions of the others. We would have to sort all that out in a public inquiry that would show to everyone that justice has been served.
In addition, if this commission found that some compensation was called for in certain cases, it could determine the amounts openly and publicly and much more objectively than any Liberal minister, including the minister responsible for this case. We could also protect ourselves in the future by identifying clearly the people who pulled the strings on the Liberal side. We know they are there and we could identify them, thus preventing them from acting the same way with the current government in other cases.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister to set up such a royal commission of inquiry, which is the only authority capable of sorting out the real responsibilities of the parties involved in this case. It is also the only way to promote, in the general population as well as in this House, a healthy debate on the links that should or should not exist between a democratically elected government and partisan political entities interested in promoting private interests.
Such a commission could also, in the course of its work, study the issues underlying all these manipulations such as the management of federal airports. In the current economic context, who is in the best position to guarantee the viability and profitability of airport development? Is it the federal government? Is it non-profit agencies created for this purpose or other formulas? Would it not be better to turn their management over to local administrations, like in Montreal, as advocated in Transport Canada's policy during the events examined by Nixon?
Who in this country is best equipped to manage airports? It is an important question. It appears that even the current Prime Minister is not sure as he objected to Pearson Airport's privatization only on the last day of the election campaign, when it
became obvious that the public was outraged by the deal's secrecy.
We all have a duty to be transparent. It is this transparency that made Nixon say on page 11 of his report: "Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in this agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion. Where the Government of Canada proposes to privatize a public asset, in my opinion, transparency should be the order of the day. The public should have the right to know the full details of the agreement".
On this point, the Bloc can only support the opinion expressed by the fact finder, Mr. Nixon, and demand that the government truly take note of his comments and puts an end to this era of confusion which has everyone wondering.
Openness is a political virtue which has been absent in the country for many years now. Openness is a constant guide. It represents security and inspires confidence. We all know that confidence is a flower that has faded in recent years in Canada.
The disengagement of citizens, smuggling, the black market, general cynicism, all these social phenomena are the products of apparently very disparate factors. They can all be traced back to the same origin: the lack of openness on the part of the state which operates behind closed doors concerned, I would say obsessed, with management matters, too often oblivious to the real needs of all those men and women upon whom it must depend for its very legitimacy.
The time has come to go back to the basics and restore political transparency so as to once again give meaning to Canadian democracy. The Bloc will oppose Bill C-22. First, because this legislation is premature. First and foremost because a royal commission of inquiry must be appointed to clarify this dark episode in which the ethical behaviour of the government and some related players was not up to par.
Moreover, and I will end on that, it is imperative that, before anything else, and especially before trying to hide the reprehensible actions which were taken, strict measures be taken to control the activities of lobbyists. This is the very basis of my amendment.
Therefore, seconded by my colleague the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, I move:
That all the words following "That" be eliminated and replaced by the following:
That this House refuse to proceed with the second reading of Bill C-22, an Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport
Because the bill is flawed since it does not provide measures to ensure the transparency of lobbyists' activities.