Debates of April 26th, 1994

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw the remark, my apologies to the House.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London East, ON]

I would hope that the member on the other side would find it possible not to also send out derogatory remarks such as calling members on this side of the house puppets because that is impugning the character of members on this side of the House.

The Bloc has put forward an amendment and a proposal asking for a public hearing. I want to know how the member can justify the great delay that would take, the great expense that would also entail and would it not be prudent to put this behind us? The bill is pretty clear as to what we will pay and what we will not pay. We will not pay lobbyist fees, we will not pay loss of profits, loss of opportunities but we will pay out of pocket expenses. The bill is pretty explicit. In fact it says that we negotiate on those terms. If we cannot negotiate on those terms, 30 days after proclamation there in fact will be no further negotiations and the people will get nothing.

The Bloc talks to us about fiscal responsibility, talks to us about transparency, talks about getting on with building this country, building Pearson and so on. How can it put forward a proposal that will cost the Canadian taxpayers more money, not less money, and in fact delay the process even further?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, I want to express on behalf of all chair occupants my respect and appreciation to the member for London East for his reconsideration and withdrawal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I accept my colleague's apologies.

Why should we convene a royal commission of inquiry? I will give you several reasons why. First, to respond to the recommendations of Mr. Robert Nixon who brought to light a number of irregularities. At one point, he said that lobbyists had played a very crucial role in this whole affair, along with friends of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Therefore, a royal commission would shed some light on this deal and would perhaps prompt the lobbyists running around on Parliament Hill trying to influence ministers, members, caucuses and the Prime Minister to behave as good citizens, not as schemers acting in cahoots with former senior officials with close ties to the Liberal Party.

If the collective conscious of the members opposite is clear, why are they so reluctant to convene this royal commission of inquiry, in keeping with a recommendation made not so very long ago by the Minister of Transport? Why do they refuse to set up a royal commission? Second, I find my colleague to be somewhat of a complete cynic when he states that, with this bill, the palms of those who likely benefited from other projects, albeit perhaps not on the same scale as the Pearson deal, will no longer be greased. Once a professional lobbyist, always a professional lobbyist, in so far as federal areas are concerned.

How can he say that no more palms will be greased as far as this project is concerned, when it is stated that the Minister of Transport can choose whether or not to compensate the parties involved and when the final decision as to the amount of compensation to be paid, and to whom, rests with him? Imagine, he enjoys a virtual dictatorship.

Therefore I would ask my colleagues not to be so cynical and to stop boasting.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague that I agree with him that a royal inquiry is needed.

I want to say to the member that I agree with him and his party in their request for an inquiry into this matter, especially in light of what Mr. Nixon had to say.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, my party will examine the hon. member's suggestion on its merits. One thing is for sure, we welcome the hon. member's remarks and we are relieved to see that not all the members opposite are puppets or marionettes.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe on his brilliant speech, in

which he set out troubling facts arguing for a royal commission of inquiry.

I would also like to make a comment about my colleague and friend, the hon. member for London, who spoke against a royal inquiry. He also accused our leader of using unparliamentary language and linked him to decisions made by the previous government which went along the lines of the decisions concerning Pearson Airport. I think he should reconsider and agree with us on the need for a royal commission of inquiry. Then, he would see who the real players were, on both the Conservative and Liberal sides. He would understand better why it is so important that all the information be made available to the public.

So, I would invite my colleague, as well as his colleague, to support this request for an inquiry. I think that, following tomorrow's caucus meeting, the government members will sing another tune. I am convinced that, by tomorrow afternoon, they will readily support the Bloc Quebecois amendment proposal.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, Ethanol; the hon. member for Lévis, Youth Action Plan; the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, VIA Rail.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some submissions with regard to this bill before Parliament, Bill C-22.

As a member from metropolitan Toronto I took a particular interest in this matter not only during the election campaign in the fall but indeed a number of years before when I chaired a federal Liberal Party task force studying the future of Pearson International Airport.

The committee submitted its report on June 12, 1989 and in this particular report we concluded that it would be a mistake to proceed with privatization of any of the terminals at Pearson. We as a party have maintained that position throughout the last number of years.

Much to our chagrin the previous Tory administration decided in its wisdom, if you will, that it would privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson, having already allowed private interest to build and operate terminal 3.

It became abundantly clear over the last year and the months preceding the general election campaign that what was happening with regard to the privatization of the airport terminalswas that Tory ministers and, I would submit, the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, and Prime Minister Campbell knew exactly what was going on with regard to the privatization and in fact gave their blessing to a process that Mr. Nixon would subsequently call flawed and have a lot of very strong comments on.

The negotiations took place behind closed doors. The deal was consummated in the shadows. Lobbyists were involved. Lobbyist earned hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars as a result of what was occurring.

I keep repeating Mr. Nixon's quotation: "My review has left me but one conclusion, 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 went 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". He also pointed out in his report that senior transport officials were replaced when they objected to the contract.

Imagine, the previous government when faced with bureaucrats who had as their preoccupation the public interest objected to this particular contract. They in effect were constructively dismissed from their positions and put elsewhere. They were replaced with people who would agree with a contract that in effect rewarded Tory loyalists and supporters.

During the election campaign the government, indeed the consortium, recognizing that the Conservative government was on its last legs, tried to and in fact did sign the contract on October 7, 1993, two and a half weeks before the general election.

It thought that having signed the deal the new Liberal administration would not cancel the contract. It had another think coming because during the election campaign the Prime Minister, as the leader of the Liberal Party, made it clear in advance of the signing of the contract that if elected he would cancel the contract.

He said on October 6: "I challenge the Prime Minister to stop the deal right now". He went on to say: "You do not make a deal like that three weeks before an election when hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. We will not accept it. I am dead serious. To anybody involved in that, I say: `Don't get too excited tomorrow. We will review the deal when we form a government. If it is not a good deal, we will not proceed"'.

He also said: "It is the Mulroney mentality at its worst. They are really trying to put one over on us at the last minute and I say it is totally unacceptable". This is the Prime Minister speaking in the election campaign: "I am warning everyone involved that if we become the government we will review this transaction. If necessary, legislation will be passed to overturn the deal".

What could be more clear from the Leader of the Opposition in advance of the signing of the deal? What could be more clear that his government would cancel the deal? To have Mr. Charles Bronfman and the consortium come to the taxpayers of Canada, cap in hand, after doing what they did to get this deal signed and after signing the deal when warned by the man who was destined to become the next Prime Minister, for them to come seeking $200 million from the taxpayers of Canada, that takes a lot of balls. It takes a lot of audacity to do that.

I say shame on Mr. Bronfman and shame on his corporation for having the audacity to do that after what Mr. Nixon had to say and what the Prime Minister had to say when he was the Leader of the Opposition.

This bill allows for limited compensation. I have to take exception to any compensation being paid at all. No one has established why any compensation should be paid. All kinds of reasons can be given. We have heard from various members as to why there ought not to be any compensation at all. I have not heard anybody say that because they were acting in good faith or because they expended money unbeknownst, they were innocent, they deserve some compensation. I have not heard that reason.

There is not a reason. That is why members have not heard any justification or rationalization or rationale for paying the Pearson Development Corporation any money at all. For that reason I believe that paragraph (10) which allows the minister to pay compensation should be deleted from this bill.

I would urge members of the committee who study this bill to delete paragraph (10) because that is the paragraph that empowers the minister, in effect gives the minister a blank cheque, subject to no compensation for lobbyist fees or lost profits but short of that, to compensate not only the Pearson Development Corporation but everyone involved with them for out of pocket expenses.

I would submit that it would be unconscionable if they were paid any money whatsoever not only because of what was said during the election campaign, and what happened behind the scenes, but also because of the very clear statement and the request for proposals that was put out in March 1992. At paragraph (8.6.3), it says this. Again Mr. Bronfman and all those who were participating in this contract were well aware of what was in the request for proposals.

It said: "All costs and expenses incurred by proponents relating to proposals will be borne by the proponents. The government is not liable to pay for such costs and expenses or to reimburse or to compensate proponents in any manner whatsoever for such costs and expenses under any circumstances, including the rejection of any or all proposals and the cancellation of the project".

What could be more clear than the statement in the request for proposals that said to all those who wanted to contract with the Government of Canada, that wanted to enter into this contract, that you are doing so at your own risk, that not only might your proposal be rejected, but even if it does happen to be the best proposal the government reserves the right not to proceed with the project.

Why then would there be any compensation at all? The request for proposals goes on to state at paragraph 8.7.1: "The government has the right, number one, to reject any or all of the proposals; number two, to accept any proposal, and three, to elect not to proceed with the project, all as it so determines in its sole and absolute discretion".

What could be more clear? If that is the case and they were all aware of what they were doing, why would the poor taxpayers be requested to pay anything at all to the Pearson Development Corporation, which is majority owned by billionaire Charles Bronfman from Montreal?

That is the question the committee and Parliament has to grapple with. I would submit that the overwhelming majority of members of Parliament would agree that in the circumstances there should be no compensation.

There is a Latin phrase which says: "Ex turpi causa non oritur actio". It is something they taught us in law school way back in first year. When you go to court you have to go with clean hands. You cannot be the author of your own misfortune or you cannot be party to a fraudulent transaction, or you cannot be culpable in any way, shape or form and then expect to go to the court to seek out justice, equity or compensation.

It could hardly be said that Mr. Bronfman and the Pearson Development Corporation and its predecessors, Paxport and all those involved in putting together this unhappy and unfortunate transaction were not aware of what they were doing and what was going on behind closed doors.

The Canadian people were hoodwinked by the previous Tory administration. We were told for example that there would be competition at the airport and yet the contract was awarded to a friend of the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney. Then, for financial reasons, he goes to Mr. Bronfman and says: "I can't carry this out". Mr. Bronfman, who owns terminal 3, all of a sudden becomes the monopoly owner of all the terminals at Pearson International Airport.

Where was the public interest? Was there anybody considering the public interest throughout this whole sorry matter? I would submit not. There were a lot of people who were more concerned and people who are presently before this Parliament seeking compensation, were more concerned about somehow gathering and squeezing out of the taxpayers as much money as possible. They were prepared to border on activity that could be

conceived as criminal or fraudulent in order to strike a deal which, as I have said, is totally unconscionable.

All the responsibility lies with the previous administration. The present Prime Minister made it clear during the election campaign that he would cancel the deal and that is what he did. No one could ever call into question the integrity of the Prime Minister as far as the cancellation of the Pearson contract deal is concerned. He conducted a review. The review took place and the deal was cancelled. In effect, the deal was cancelled on December 3, 1993. The bill before Parliament today gives legal effect to the decision of the Prime Minister on December 3. It goes further. While I agree in principle that the deal ought to be cancelled, I disagree fundamentally with compensation being paid pursuant to paragraph 10. More important, I disagree with the proposition that Parliament be called on to discuss, in effect, a proposal that we do not know about.

The consortium led by Mr. Bronfman has put forward a claim. I would submit that the people of Canada are entitled to know exactly what that claim is. Where is the claim? What exactly does he want to get paid for? We know he is not going to get paid for lost profits, but he is still seeking, reports indicate, some $30 to $35 million in compensation for out of pocket expenses.

Before Parliament can effectively deal with this matter, the committee should request and Parliament must have a detailed listing of exactly what the compensation is for if Parliament is to give the consortium anything at all. In my submission it ought not to be given anything.

I hope the minister is not prepared to sign a cheque to the consortium and keep the taxpayers in the dark as to what the cheque is for. I have considerable confidence in the integrity of the Minister of Transport and I know he will not allow that to happen, and that the claim will come before Parliament. At committee I hope a request will be made that whatever claim is being made the details will be put forward.

Those are my submissions on the issue of compensation. I agree that the deal has to be cancelled by law. It is obvious that the consortium, the Pearson Development Corporation, will not simply walk away. It should, in effect, be told to take a hike but it appears it is not. It is pushing the issue.

The other issue that has to be dealt with is the future of Pearson International Airport. In the few minutes remaining I want to make a few comments about that.

Having decided to cancel the transaction, the government now is faced with making a decision as to what ought to happen at Pearson International Airport. The debate will decide ultimately whether a private group, a local airport authority, should control Pearson or whether Transport Canada should continue to have direct control over a federal government asset that generates close to 100,000 direct and indirect jobs and is responsible for billions of dollars in economic activity.

A more thorough debate will have to take place but in my respectful submission, given the importance of Pearson airport to the national economy, to the national transportation system, the Government of Canada should continue to have direct control over Pearson through the Department of Transport. We ought not to transfer responsibility to a local airport authority. A local airport authority would be concerned primarily with the local area of metropolitan Toronto, in this case, as opposed to the impact that Pearson will have on the nation as a whole.

I hope the minister at some point will allow Parliament to deal with the greater question of the future of Pearson International Airport and who should control it. I think most members will agree that it ought not to be privatized, that that is a mistake. Our main international airport should not be handed over to the private sector for private profit and gain.

We all want to see Pearson refurbished but some say that the government simply does not have the money to refurbish Pearson. That is not quite true. Looking at the profit and loss statements of Pearson International Airport over the last 10 or 20 years and in particular over the last few years when we were in the midst of a recession, the airport in effect has been making significant profits. Those profits could be used to refurbish.

Some 20 million passengers travel through Pearson annually. If push came to shove, given the numbers of passengers, if a $5 fee were levied to refurbish Pearson which is not unreasonable then the necessary funding could be received without having to privatize the airport.

Given the importance of Pearson, the task force I was part of recommended that a royal commission of inquiry look into the future of Pearson International Airport, its purpose and use, the problems with air traffic control, the need for additional runways and their environmental impact. I do not believe we can look at any one aspect of Pearson in isolation from the overall picture.

I urge the minister to engage this Parliament in a debate as to the future of Pearson and what the best mechanism will be to determine what route should be taken.

In closing let me reiterate this bill must be amended to make it absolutely clear that no compensation should be paid whatsoever to the Pearson Development Corporation. In any event, before this Parliament can effectively deal with this bill the claim that is being put forward by Mr. Bronfman should be made public so the taxpayers of Canada know exactly what the nature of the claim is.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for his clear presentation. I think that he knows the issue quite well-that is pretty obvious.

I would like him to tell us what effect it will have on the people of Quebec and Canada not to hold a public inquiry in a situation like that, if, as it seems very clear, there were many underhanded dealings in this case, many people who took advantage of the over-representation by lobbyists and the questionable lobbying practices.

So I would like to know from him what he thinks the impact on the public and on the future of the present Liberal government would be if we were led to believe that it is a free-for-all and that we will continue to operate with the same kind of system, and at the same time, what message does it send to those who are not part of this wonderful system where special contacts and having friends in the right places are what counts.

For ordinary people who are caught in the current economic bind, with all the attendant difficulties, and who are being hit with an increase in the number of weeks needed to qualify for unemployment insurance, for example, what message does it send when a whole government tolerates such situations and would let them be by not holding a public inquiry that could clarify matters?

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the Prime Minister promised integrity in government. Last year on December 3 he sent out a very clear message to all those who would like to do business with the Government of Canada. That message was if you wanted to do business with the Government of Canada the public interest must be paramount, public concern must be discharged and he would not hesitate to denounce and cancel any transaction that was consummated in a fashion contrary to that public interest.

To his credit the Prime Minister has always maintained there ought to be fairness and equity in deliberations with the Government of Canada. I think that message has been well received by the people of Canada.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that clause 10, including all of its subclauses, is a means by which compensation is going to be paid. That seems to be clear. Therefore one can conclude this clause is a direct result of representation being made to the government by someone.

Consequently what appears to be happening is that compensation is going to be paid. Someone has made application to the government for compensation and probably the sums have been clearly articulated. Through clause 10 this document is going to allow for that payment to be made.

The hon. member has laid this out so well and he seems to be clearly in opposition to what his own government is doing. Would the hon. member respond to what appears to be surfacing, that the application for compensation has been made, the legislation is in place under clause 10 to provide for that compensation and there is nothing we can do about it.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree. I think there is a lot we can do.

This bill is before Parliament. We are all parliamentarians. We have a responsibility to make sure this bill discharges the public interest. I expect all hon. members who feel as I do to speak out for the repeal of clause 10 in this bill.

If you read clause 9 of the bill it says that no one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this act. This makes it clear that the deal is cancelled, but I have very serious reservations about clause 10.

The hon. member is correct. It is the vehicle by which a cheque could be written to Pearson Development Corporation and that is wrong. In my view it ought not to be paid anything.

I am not part of the transport committee, but I expect and hope that members of the transport committee will move an amendment rather than being sidetracked on issues such as a royal commission. That is a separate issue. With regard to the bill before Parliament, I hope that hon. members will move an amendment to delete clause 10. The deletion of clause 10 in effect will not allow for any compensation at all.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for York South-Weston for his frankness and courage. Unfortunately, we have not observed the same qualities in all members of the party opposite.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks, based on his experience, which I have tremendous respect for, because he has been in this House for a long time now and his reputation and honesty are well established, and based on the legislative program presented to us or which we can expect, if we will have a chance, as the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon said earlier, to review this whole Pearson Airport saga, especially when the famous legislation on conflicts of interest or lobbies on Parliament Hill is presented. In any case, it is rather hard to get an idea of what kind of legislation is coming, but I think that

he knows to what legislation I am referring. Does he think that we will then be able to deal with all that, as the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon said?

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is important that all the details of the Pearson deal be made public. I am not sure what vehicle should be used, but all the documents should be made public.

Mr. Nixon made some very strong comments but he did not go into the details. The details are necessary so we know for example exactly which lobbying firms in Ottawa were part of the deal and which individuals who are presently dealing with the Government of Canada partook in an activity Mr. Nixon found to be totally unacceptable. Public interest requires all those details to be made public. For that reason I support an inquiry.

The transport committee could conduct an inquiry. A three-month royal commission with a limited mandate and a limited budget could serve the same purpose. Or, Mr. Nixon who has already been involved in this matter could conduct the inquiry in an open fashion so that all the evidence could be heard and Canadians would know the exact details.

I do not think the decision or the desire to pay them compensation can be adequately discussed or debated unless we rely on the details presently available. As I said earlier based on the information I have and the statements made by Mr. Nixon, my conclusion is that there should be no compensation at all.

For future reference, given that we will be discussing an ethics package before Parliament, this deal could serve as a very strong example of how governments and lobbyists can harm the public interest in its deliberations and the type of activity that ought to be avoided.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue. I certainly appreciate the member's comments in opening up the matter quite clearly for all of us. I also hope this will peak the interest and raise the ire of Canadians across the country.

The privatization of Pearson airport and this government's hasty reversal of the privatization decision smacks of a political soap opera with very real consequences for the people involved, for Torontonians and for all Canadians. At this rate the soap opera will not have a happy ending.

The privatization of Pearson was a complex animal right from its conception. One of the reasons is that it was all done behind closed doors. It was a decision which grew more complex with, the passing of time and the ever increasing involvement of political players.

Now Bill C-22 comes along. It is not really a complex piece of legislation on the face of it. However the simplicity of its prose I am afraid masks what many believe is a complexity of intent on the part of the government.

Needless to say the Reform Party supports the cancellation of the privatization deal for Pearson, despite the fact that privatization of most if not all government industries would represent a great leap down the road to a new Canada. It is truly a shame the previous government and previous governing party was so mired in scandal and pork that it could put such a bad light in the minds of Canadians on this whole concept of privatization.

Of course Bill C-22 is no solution or remedy to the mess created by the former government. It just creates a new mess of its own. That is why it is imperative we scrap Bill C-22 by passing the motion of my colleagues in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and start from scratch to untangle this web of political intrigue, patronage and bad politics.

As we untangle this web we may find a new list of names along the way which played a prominent part in this whole episode. That I fear is the motivation in proposing carte blanche out of pocket compensation in Bill C-22, a bill that will not fix the Pearson problem but only make it go ever so quietly away.

I refer to the Pearson saga as a soap opera, but this soap opera has real players who have been genuinely hurt by this mess. As usual, the people who have the least to do with creating the problem are most likely to be hurt by it and least likely to be helped by the solution proposed by this government.

I refer to the residents of Toronto. They so very badly require Pearson to become a world class air terminal to serve a world class city. I refer to the men and women who would have done the work to modify Pearson. Those people were counting on jobs. I refer to all Canadians who whether they know it or not depend on Pearson, the most important hub airport in Canada, to keep business flying, to take Canadians efficiently to overseas trade destinations and to bring foreign traders in.

It is always the case that there is a ripple effect whenever a government makes a decision of any kind. This is precisely why government must learn to restrict itself, for it is inevitable that government when it acts will often disrupt the lives of people who have no stake in whatever particular project is undertaken.

Again, privatization is to be encouraged but when that privatization breaks down due to mismanagement and corruption, as it did in this case, then the reversal of that privatization must be undertaken with the greatest of care, even if it takes a bit of time.

That is not what happened here. This government wants to ram Bill C-22 down the collective throats of this House. It wants to ram Bill C-22 down the throats of Canadians. Whenever traditional government takes the decision to study something and issue a report, it is customary to expect that with the amount of time involved before bureaucrats get around to actually concluding something, so much dust will have settled and the pages turned so yellow with age that the problem will have evolved into something entirely different.

That was certainly the case for the last government and was also most certainly the case when this party was last in power. It is not in this case. I have become so sceptical about the workings of traditional politics that I cannot help but be suspicious that the sheer speed with which this government published its Nixon study and decided to allow for compensation reveals that this government has something to fear when it comes to leaving this issue on the table for too long.

The Pearson deal as it was struck needs to be revoked. Let us do that. Then, rather than granting the minister the power to dole out vast sums of money, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $40 million for out of pocket expenses, a politically suspicious phrase if I have ever heard one, let us dig deeper into the issue to discover a couple of things. Number one, let us find out the degree to which the previous government bungled this deal.

A public inquiry, that is one dead horse that deserves to be beaten a bit more for fear that it may rise from the dead and trample once again on the political process in Canada. Let us take time to find out just how wide the web of political blunder has been woven. In particular, let us find out precisely the role of the lobbyists in this deal. Let us discover how many people have been needlessly and through no fault of their own adversely affected by the Pearson debacle in order that this government can provide restitution where restitution is due.

It is interesting to note the players who have come into being and whose party or whose companies and names have been published in other manuscripts. They should be examined closely. Let us use this as a case study in politics gone wrong so that it hopefully will never happen again.

We need to see just how much of a liability Pearson has been for the government. We know that a major liability has been incurred already and will grow if Bill C-22 is passed, especially with section 10.

Last, let us re-examine the privatization of Pearson to see just how to make it work. This time around I hope the government in power will exercise the political will and common sense wisdom necessary to bear in mind that political decisions like this affect more than just the political players involved. They affect everyone, the people who work at Pearson, the people who would rebuilt Pearson, and all Canadians who depend on Pearson in so many ways.

There is a valuable lesson to be learned from Pearson. By proposing Bill C-22 this government has proven to the Canadian people that they have learned nothing, especially with the compensation package. I hope that it will redeem itself by supporting the amendment to kill this bill, to stop the blind power of the minister to make huge repayments without accountability and by starting over.

If not, this government will have proved that narrow political interests are still at work controlling Ottawa and that the interests of hard working people have yet to be adequately represented by traditional political parties.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member who just spoke because his comments are very much to the point.

Since the hon. member is also in favour of setting up a royal inquiry commission, I want to ask him if he agrees with the Liberal member who said earlier that the costs related to such a commission would be somewhere around $27 million.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question as to the evaluation of costs. What do out of pocket costs or expenses mean if one is talking about repayment? I do not think I can evaluate that compensation package at this point. It would have to be exposed to the public and a clear examination done.

The hon. member mentioned something about a royal commission. I question whether a royal commission is necessarily the way to go. I certainly agree to an inquiry to have the package exposed to public scrutiny but not necessarily to a royal commission.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the comments made by the previous speaker, who said that we must distinguish between privatization under circumstances which justify such a measure, and privatization under rather dubious circumstances such as in the case of the Pearson Airport.

I want to ask the hon. member if, in some future legislation on lobbies, it would be appropriate to include specific provisions on the concerns related to lobbies under particular circumstances where privatization is anticipated. Should we have specific rules concerning lobbies which could apply to this case, but which could also apply to any case, so as to be sure that those who have a vested interest are kept at arm's length?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, lobbying has been around for as long as politics has been around. To really stamp it out through legislation may be a very difficult thing.

One matter that must be brought forward on any deal, compensation package or transaction the government involves itself in with private industry is if it is all laid out on the table for it to be examined by the public and everyone knows exactly where they stand in any operational deal, one is going to avoid a lot of questionable activities. If it is protected and hidden behind closed doors, the lobbyists will be the most effective. Exposing it to light, of course, they are the least effective.

From that point of view I would like to see things certainly brought to the forefront when it comes to any kind of privatization deal in the future.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an aspect of the issue which concerns me somewhat. Several members expressed concern regarding the cost of such an inquiry, and whether a royal commission is the way to go. Perhaps we could have another type of inquiry. The important thing is to have an instrument, a commission which will have the power to find out the truth. When it comes to deciding between a material interest related to the quick construction of an airport terminal and the common interest, we should not even hesitate if we want the public to trust institutions such as ours: we must favour the common interest and ensure that the public is protected.

If we have to wait a further six months before a third terminal can be built at Pearson, then so be it. During this time, the taxpaying citizens will know that their tax dollars are being used wisely. Moreover, if the government party's conscience is clear with regard to the former government's transactions and if the current government believes that it is not acting in a similar fashion, then it should have nothing to fear from a commission of inquiry. It would have no reason to fear that a commission would uncover some deals in which it may have been involved itself.

A transparent government like the one the Liberal Party likes to boast about should not have any concerns about inquiries conducted by a royal commission. It should not be afraid of answering questions put to it. Yet, the government continues to object to this request. Taxpayers may very well begin to question this government's sincerity. They may start asking themselves why the Liberals are trying so hard to avoid appearing before a commissioner of inquiry. When someone's hands are clean, there is no need to fear the truth, or investigators. There is no reason to fear disclosing someone else's past activities because they may be associated with ours.

I think that the comments made were sincere, but this should not be the end of it. We must ensure that the truth comes to light, that the public is informed of it, and above all, that with respect to other projects-it could be Hibernia or maybe the helicopter contract, another cancelled deal-the same questions will not come up again. When questions do arise and when the public interest is at issue, there should be no reason to fear asking the questions openly.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I do not know if the member for Calgary Northeast wishes to comment to the last intervention.