Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on Bill C-22 because as members know, this was an issue I was quite active on when in opposition and also during the campaign. Pearson International Airport is not directly in my riding but it is located in the city that I represent with many other Liberals.
I want to go back to the days when we opposed the privatization of Pearson International Airport and make it perfectly clear that when we told the then government we were against this particular project, the privatization of Pearson, we were very specific about our reasons.
One of the reasons we put forward was that Pearson International Airport is probably the largest profit centre the Government of Canada controls. I was just looking at some figures that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, handed me during question period. These numbers are taken from years 1991-92 and 1992-93 where the positive cash flow after operating expenses and capital expenditures was over $50 million. That was during a period of time when revenues and travelling were down. In 1992-93 it was $67 million and in 1993-94 the revenues were close to $68 million again.
If we go back to the mid and late 1980s there were a couple of years when the Pearson International Airport was generating
close to $100 million a year. We heard from the Conservative government at that time that if we let the private sector take over Pearson it could do a better job than the bureaucrats and the officials.
The position we took was that if there were management people out there who could do a better job than the bureaucrats who were at that time generating $100 million a year, and even during the depression over $50 million a year, that was interesting. Why not introduce us to these management experts and let us give them a contract as management consultants?
In other words, if they said that they could improve the cash flow at these airports from 51 to 60 or put some specific targets in place, let us give them a base salary and a percentage of what they would pick up as they increased the efficiency or the cash flow from what the officials or the bureaucrats were doing.
We thought that we could probably achieve everything that the government wanted to achieve: a better cash flow, renovate or renew the airport and clean up the parking lots without giving it away. That was the position we took.
I know that during the election campaign several people were involved in the airport transaction. They had actually come to me in my campaign office and said: "Dennis, listen, I hope you aren't as rigid on your view of Pearson". I would tell them: "I am as rigid today as I was then". I am not against giving people a contract to renew or construct new construction at the airport. I am not against using the private sector to do the food services, the parking lots, the cleaning services, all these things that the private sector can do better. However the thought of handing over a crown asset, a jewel in the crown, that essentially had the potential to pay for all of the renovation and renewal required in about a 10-year period out of the existing cash flow.
Again I felt that our position was constructive in opposition when we said: "Look, if there is room for efficiency we will accept that. There is always a possibility, but let's hire these so-called experts who can operate it better. Let's give them a contract but let's not give away the whole franchise. Let's not give away the whole store". If a business was doing well and somebody came along and said "I can improve your profits or your cash flow by 10 per cent or 20 per cent", it would say: "Sure, let's do it". However, if the person said: "No, no, no. I want to own the business. I want to take your business", there is not a member of Parliament who would go along with that deal.
Therefore the Prime Minister made the right decision during and after the campaign when he shut down this contract because it was not good in the long term interests of the Canadian public.
The thing that makes me feel bad about this contract is that we could have had that airport under construction right now if the people who had all of this expertise and all these plans on renewal and renovation had come in with a proposal that did not say we need to own it. It is a fact of life that we have to clean up the parking lot and we have to do the renewal and renovation there and we could have had people working. It is too bad they did not take the compromised approach that many of us suggested. Hopefully we can get through the bill today and maybe get back to this with a fresh approach.
There is another part of this contract that I did not like. I want to credit my colleague from York South-Weston for bringing this up. My colleague from York South-Weston as everybody in Canada knows really led the way on the debate on the merits of why we should not proceed with the privatization on this deal.
I will never forget one particular evening when we were in a meeting. It is like any family, some people in the room are for or against and take different positions on an issue. I remember the member for York South-Weston turning to someone in the room who had an awareness of certain contents related to the contract and he asked: "Is there a flip clause in this particular Pearson privatization contract?" The person said yes, at year 10 the owners have the opportunity to flip this. That is exactly what was said.
I remember all of a sudden the lights went on with all of us. We said: "Imagine if this contract had gone through, 10 years from now with the private owners of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. Can you imagine what the people of Canada would have said if we had basically sold this airport to the Libyans or sold it to some other offshore group?" I remember we said jokingly that night that 10 years from now it will be called Gaddafi International.
Just the thought of selling the Pearson International Airport to an offshore group-if there were ever a piece of good, positive contribution to our community and our country as Pearson airport, to think that we would be so stupid as to construct a deal that would allow it to be given away ten years from now, there is just no contest on that point alone.
I am happy to stand in the House today in support of the bill. I want to say to the members of the Bloc Quebecois who put forward an amendment today proposing that this go to a royal commission of inquiry that I know exactly where the Bloc members are coming from. They want to do a detailed analysis of the players, the participants, and who constructed this deal. If that is put into a royal commission mode that would go on for months and months and perhaps years, and it would cost literally millions of dollars.
The basic objective the Bloc members are trying to achieve could be done when we do the lobby registration bill. We need speedy passage of the bill so that we can start from scratch in renewing and renovating Pearson International Airport. Not only do we need it for creating immediate jobs but because Toronto is a major access point for tourism, trade shows and all kinds of other activities. It is not just in the greater Toronto area
but in every other region of Canada. It is really important that we get on with that.
I hope when we come to the table the next time with the private sector it will understand that we respect its skill in terms of giving us advice on how we can manage the place. We would certainly want it to do the construction and everything else because that is not government's business. It also has to understand that in the long term interests of Canadians it is best that the Lester B. Pearson International Airport stay in the hands of the Government of Canada.
