Debates of April 26th, 1994

Government Response To Petitions

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to certain petitions.

Military Training

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to provide information to my hon. colleagues on a subject we all care about, and that is the opportunities the Department of National Defence will provide young Canadians to receive officer training in the Canadian forces, in a fully bilingual Canadian military college.

I promised the hon. member for Roberval some weeks ago, when there was topical questioning as a result of the budget and the closing of the Collège militaire in St. Jean, Quebec, that within a number of weeks I would make a progress report to the House to let members know what the Department of National Defence is doing to ensure the bilingual nature of the military college system once there is consolidation at Kingston.

Tomorrow I shall be appearing before the Senate finance committee. I understand the prime focus for the questioning on that date has to do with the collège militaire and its closing. I felt it was only courteous to members of the House that I make a statement in my own Chamber to let the House know how our thinking has evolved before I went to the Senate committee.

The amalgamation of our three military colleges into a single institution has been dictated by both budgetary constraints and the operational requirements of the Canadian forces. Since 1989 the strength of the officer corps of the regular force has been declining. As a result of the 1994 budget the number of officers will continue to decrease until 1998. Thus the number of cadets in military colleges will obviously be reduced from the current level of about 1,600 to about 900. A single college will therefore be sufficient to meet our needs.

Once we have one military college it will have to be fully bilingual for two reasons. First, our college must accommodate young Canadians from all regions of Canada, whatever their first official language. Not only must these young Canadians know they are welcome in their military college; they must feel at home there. Second, the principle of equality of the status of the official languages as well as the spirit of the Official Languages Act require us to ensure that the training of officers is carried out in both official languages.

Bilingual training is also important because our officer corps must be able to command personnel from both linguistic groups. It was therefore recently decided that beginning in academic year 1996-97 all graduates of the Canadian military college must be functionally bilingual. I shall return to this point in a few moments.

The establishment of a fully bilingual military college is typical of the challenges we face in Canada. Among our goals is to promote relationships based on respect for differences as well as harmony and co-operation in the name of a common cause: to serve and protect Canada. The Department of National Defence has taken on this challenge willingly. My department has developed both a transition plan for the period from 1994 to 1997 and a plan to make the Royal Military College in Kingston fully bilingual.

As part of the transition plan measures will be put in place to ensure the replacement of the programs currently offered by the three military colleges by the end of the 1996-97 academic year. We are also considering several options to replace, starting in 1995-96, the qualifying year offered by the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, in Quebec.

At the same time, the Department of National Defence is developing a plan to make the Royal Military College fully bilingual. Here is an outline of this plan. The Royal Military College is already partially bilingual, the science and engineering curriculum having been taught in both official languages for

many years. Both French and English have also been used for a long time in daily activities, alternating from week to week.

The plan national defence officials are presently working on is geared toward making the Royal Military College fully bilingual and creating an environment where young francophones and anglophones will be motivated to study to become bilingual officers of the Canadian Armed Forces.

This plan will have an impact on the four pillars of the Canadian military college system, namely academic training, the military training plan, sports and physical fitness, as well as second language skills. It will apply to the directing staff and the officer cadets and affect administrative support and all aspects of the daily operations of the college.

As part of the rationalization of our military college system all academic programs that are retained will be offered to new entrants in both official languages. To meet this objective college commandants and principals are currently assessing francophone and anglophone staffing requirements, both military and civilian.

Because the level of bilingualism demanded of the Royal Military College graduates has been raised, increased emphasis will be placed on the day to day use of both French and English at the college. Cadets who need to upgrade their second language skills will take summer language training in an appropriate linguistic setting.

The bilingual nature of the college will be enhanced by the simple fact that the cadet population at RMC will soon be 30 per cent francophone and 70 per cent anglophone, as compared to the current breakdown of 17 per cent and 83 per cent respectively.

As for the military staff, the commandant is already working with personnel staff in Ottawa to ensure that the staff composition of the college reflects its requirements.

It must be pointed out that in July Brigadier General Charles Émond, who is the current commanding officer of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean, will be taking on his new duties as commanding officer of our new centralized military college.

In other words the commandant at the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, Québec, Brigadier General Charles Émond, will move to the Royal Military College in Kingston to ensure the smooth transition to one college system and that the bilingual presence will be maintained.

I draw this to the attention of members on the other side of the House, especially my friends in the Bloc Quebecois because they were most concerned about the consolidation into one college at Kingston. I have great confidence that General Émond, the commandant now at CMR, will be able to realize our goals in making the Royal Military College in Kingston a truly proud bilingual institution all of us will admire.

Brigadier General Émond graduated from the Collège militaire royal and received a diploma from the RMC. We are counting on him to make our new college continue to reflect the National Defence vision of bilingualism among Canadian Forces officers.

I will now outline in greater detail the bilingual officer corps concept within the Canadian forces. This concept was adopted by the Armed Forces Council on June 28, 1988. It met the senior officers' need to lead their subordinates in both official languages.

This concept is now being studied by a special joint task force made up of representatives of National Defence and of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We intend to refine this concept and resolve the issues raised by the Commissioner during our consultations.

Our goal is to establish the following policy: effective January 1, 1998, all officers promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel will normally have to be bilingual. I already mentioned this fact during oral question period in this House.

The steps taken to offer second-language training to francophone and anglophone officers are part of the Official Languages Program of the Department of National Defence. This program is based in part on the 1988 Official Languages Act and contains the following elements: language of work, equitable participation, communications with the public, service delivery and language training.

First, with regard to language of work, we have adopted a special model that takes into account our unique environment and the organizational arrangements needed to achieve bilingualism within the Department of National Defence and Canadian forces. The second element is equitable participation.

In 1992 a detailed review of the linguistic designation of every unit and every position revealed that much still has to be done to increase the number of bilingual anglophones in the military.

To examine the participation rate of francophones within the Canadian Forces, we undertook a comprehensive analysis of

recruitment, enrolment, promotion and attrition rates of officers and non-commissioned members in the last 15 to 20 years.

This review of all ranks and military occupations ended in December 1992. It found that, by and large, the goal of equitable participation was reached except in three out of 135 military occupations.

The third element of the Official Languages Program deals with communications with and service to the public. Our personnel co-operate on a continuing basis with Treasury Board Secretariat officials to ensure that the Department of National Defence honours the spirit of official languages regulations.

At present, second language training is provided in house. In an effort to rationalize the program, senior staff of my department together with representatives of the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board are looking at the feasibility of transferring our second language training to the Public Service Commission.

As for the more general criticisms directed at us by the Commissioner of Official Languages, rest assured that my department will continue to improve its performance. Let me underscore three areas I have just covered, namely our blueprint for a fully bilingual military college, the concept of an effective bilingual officer corps and the study aimed at improving the efficiency of our second language training.

These three initiatives are striking examples of just how seriously the Department of National Defence considers the question of official languages. We will continue to work within the framework of the Official Languages Act and its associated policies. We will continue to work closely with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

I hope I have convinced my colleagues that we are striving to make the Canadian armed forces as a whole better reflect the Canadian reality. I also hope to have assured them that the doors of the new Canadian military college, one of the main paths to a career as an officer in the Canadian Forces, are wide open to all qualified candidates, be they anglophones or francophones.

As Minister of National Defence I am proud to be part of the creation of this bilingual military college. Indeed we can all take pride in this initiative, for our military college will be a unique institution, one that mirrors the linguistic duality of our country. It will welcome young Canadians, our leaders of tomorrow, regardless of their province or their territory of origin.

Before I sit down I would like to apologize to the critics opposite. I am not sure they received sufficient notice of my statement. I think they got an hour or two, but they were most gracious in letting me go forward with the statement today.

I would like to mention for the member for Charlesbourg who arrived just as I was beginning that one of the reasons for making the statement today is that I felt it was only courteous to give these comments to the House of Commons. Tomorrow I will be appearing before the Senate committee on finance where I understand I will be questioned most rigorously on the closing of the military college and the future of our military colleges.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

First of all, Madam Speaker, I was planning to point out to the minister the delay in informing us of the time he was to deliver his speech, but I accept his apologies.

I am pleased to speak once again on this issue of burning importance to Quebec, that is the closure of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean and the decision to use only one college, Kingston's Royal Military College, for the future training of officers. The closure of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean has never been justified, either for cost cutting reasons, or because of the need to reduce the size of the military. Nor has the government demonstrated that the military college in Kingston is capable of taking up the slack.

I have no doubt that the minister is being sincere and is making efforts in this area, but despite the speech that he just delivered this morning, I think that we have to be realistic. The Official Languages Act was around long before this Liberal government took office. RMC, the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean and Royal Roads Military College should have been bilingual and operating in both languages for a number of years by now. Based on the information we have and according to the criticisms of official languages pointed out by the minister, we know for a fact that the results of the legislation leave much to be desired.

This morning, the minister of defence gave us an overview of a proposal to convert the Royal Military College in Kingston into a fully bilingual institution. As I have just indicated, we have some doubts as to whether this is at all possible, despite good intentions and the efforts that will be made. We are given the broad outline of the proposal, while at the same time, we are told that DND officials are in the process of drafting a plan. Are we to understand that the minister was merely throwing up a smokescreen this morning? There is absolutely nothing tangible in this plan.

The minister talks about the consequences of a plan which we have not seen and of which we know nothing. We know nothing about its aims, its concepts or its mechanisms. Francophones expect more than vague concepts. The only details which the

minister released to us concerning his concept of a bilingual officer corps is the date on which this concept was agreed to. He informs us that this concept is presently being reviewed by a special joint task force. Another task force.

Plans call for refining this concept and resolving the issues raised by the Commissioner of Official Languages. The minister defers to the department's Official Languages Program. We all know the kind of results this program had at the military college in Kingston. Worse yet, all officers promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel are not expected to be bilingual until 1998. The minister has already made this fact clear to the House in response to questions put to him. I wonder what a normally bilingual lieutenant colonel is. What does "normally bilingual" mean? How can we accept it? It is too little too late.

Furthermore, the minister tell us nothing about what he intends to do to promote French culture within the military college in Kingston. The environment counts for a great deal in training an officer cadet trying to master a second language. Learning a new language takes more than an academic program. It also takes the right environment and immersion. I am well placed to speak on it since I have trouble learning a new language. Even though we are in a situation of partial immersion here, I intend to take total immersion.

From the recommendations produced by the official languages committee in the department of defence and in the Canadian Armed Forces, it appears that the committee recommended immersion as an important factor in training officer cadets. It recommended that all officer cadets at the Royal Military College and the Royal Roads Military College spend at least a year at the Saint-Jean campus, while those at the military college in Saint-Jean should spend at least a year at one of the other two colleges; this would help everyone develop their language ability and provide exposure to the other culture.

This brief excerpt shows how training bilingual officer cadets is not something that can be achieved with a hastily conceived academic program such as the one the hon. minister has presented.

It would certainly be more promising to emphasize immersion and exposure to another culture.

Some positions explain why my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I are opposed to closing the military college in Saint-Jean and have been opposed to it from the beginning.

We all know that more francophones than anglophones in the Canadian Armed Forces are bilingual and most bilingual anglophones in the forces went to the military college in Saint-Jean.

There is a big shortage of bilingual military people whose mother tongue is English, but a surplus of bilingual military people whose mother tongue is French.

An internal report of the Canadian Armed Forces on bilingualism in the military reported a serious deficiency in this regard. This report said that 2,861 more francophones than required were bilingual, while there was a shortage of 1,424 bilingual anglophones.

Of course, this sample includes more than the officer corps, but it shows how much it has been left to francophones to promote bilingualism in the Canadian forces.

Remember the climate surrounding the announcement that the military college in Saint-Jean would be closed. The defence minister said that the military college in Saint-Jean would be closed to save money. It is also for economic reasons that he has decided to put francophones in an English speaking environment for their military training.

In his statement, the minister talks about an environment that encourages francophones to study in Kingston. Unfortunately, I think that is hypocritical, because many past and present officer cadets question the statement which the minister made this morning.

The minister made optimistic predictions about the level of bilingualism in the officer corps. I will give him some more realistic projections: yes, there will still be bilingual officer cadets, but more and more of them will be from a French background. That is reality.

There is nothing specific in this plan, nothing about how to get there, nothing about extra costs, nothing to satisfy us. There is nothing that could justify closing the military college in Saint-Jean or offset the loss and the major setback for francophones in the Canadian Forces as a result of this politically motivated closure.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to accept the minister's apology for the late delivery of his statement. We have managed somehow even though it is late.

In answer to the minister, it must first be understood that Royal Military College in Kingston is already a rather bilingual institution and has been for years.

It must also be recognized that, following the closing of CMR in Saint-Jean, there must be a place where francophone officer cadets can complete their studies.

Consequently, it is desirable and rather easy to have a fully bilingual institution such as CMR.

I also want to add that, after talking this morning with a former commanding officer of the college, I really think that bilingualism there is something which promotes national unity.

While agreeing that bilingualism at RMC is desirable and achievable at little extra expense, the point could be made that with the closing of CMR and Royal Roads there will be considerable savings.

Nevertheless it is necessary to signal a cautionary. The watchword from DND, the Department of National Defence, cannot be RMC today, tomorrow the whole country. There is a real and present danger underlined by the words of the Minister of National Defence in the House in February when he announced that by 1997 officers in the Canadian forces must be bilingual if they wish to be promoted beyond the rank of lieutenant colonel.

English speaking Canadians should be able to have a full and unfettered career in the English language, however desirable it is to be bilingual.

The recent booklet of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, "Official Languages: Myths and Realities", states: "English speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians regardless of ethnic origin or first language learned have equal opportunities for employment and advancement". It also states: "The federal government is bilingual but the individual citizen does not have to be. You have every right to remain unilingual. Universal bilingualism has never been the goal of the policy". Finally it is stated on page 16: "Individual bilingualism is a matter of personal choice".

In conclusion we can endorse the completion of the bilingual process at RMC for the reasons noted, including cost savings. However we caution the government against carrying the enforced bilingualism policy too far as it is doing in the rest of the Canadian forces.

Voluntary bilingualism, yes; enforced, no.

Canada Petroleum Resources Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

(Motions deemed agreed to, bill read the first time and printed.)

Petitions

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my honour to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions. It is signed by 60 residents of the Hodgeville-Glen Bain district in my constituency.

Briefly the petition states in part that the petitioners humbly pray that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and uphold the Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide, euthanasia. I support the petition.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Questions On The Order Paper

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 22.

Question No. 22-

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Following the 1989 report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas, will the government proceed with the termination of the tax benefits for certain northern and isolated areas?

[David Walker, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Because of the inequities associated with previous approaches of providing tax assistance to northern residents, in 1988 a task force was established to study this issue and to make recommendations. The task force held public meetings in many communities across the country and received a number of written submissions. On the basis of these consultations, the task force concluded that an approach based on broad zones of eligibility was preferable. The northern and intermediate zones were defined using ranking systems developed by the task force which were comprised of objective criteria relating to environmental factors, community characteristics, and location.

Full implementation of this system will result in gradually making certain communities ineligible for some or all of the benefits. For example, those communities becoming ineligible for all benefits were entitled to full benefits until the end of 1992, received two-thirds benefits in 1993, will receive one-third benefits in 1994, and zero thereafter.

A review of the events that led to the implementation of the current system establishes that the zonal approach is the right one. The system must be given a chance to reach a mature stage.

When the full impact of the current system is known after the transitional measures have run their course it will be possible to determine whether the current policy is fairer, simpler, and more effective than its predecessors at providing tax assistance to residents of northern and isolated areas.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 26 minutes.

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-22, an Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, today I have the pleasure of proposing the second reading of this very important piece of legislation and I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the Minister of Industry, who was kind enough to table this bill on my behalf.

Bill C-22 is a measure to cancel agreements between Her Majesty and T1 T2 Limited Partnership.

The arrangements I refer to were entered into by the previous government. They would have turned over the development and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Canada's largest and most important transportation facility, Lester B. Pearson International Airport, for 60 years to a group of private developers.

Our government after careful examination of the agreements has determined they are not in the public interest. Our examination included a report by Mr. Robert Nixon who described a flawed process clouded by the possibility of political manipulation.

This government rejects the previous government's way of doing business on behalf of Canadians. A reliance on lobbyists, the backroom dealings, the manipulation of bona fide private sector interests and the lack of respect for the impartiality of public servants are absolutely unacceptable.

It should be noted the request for proposals for the project was released in March 1992 after a ministerial announcement in October 1990. The claim for compensation from the partnership however shows that as early as August 1989 one of the partners was working on a proposal to develop and operate terminals at Pearson International. This would lead one to believe that someone other than the government was in charge of the privatization project at Pearson.

The government intends to be in charge of the public agenda. We will make the decisions that affect the national interest. We believe matters that could significantly affect our economy and our competitive position as a nation should be decided in an open and accessible process, not by lobbyists and certainly not by five-year old governments in the dying days of their mandate. Decisions made by our government will reflect Canadians' traditional sense of fairness and fair play.

In deciding to legislate an end to this quagmire, the government took account of several factors: the need to come to an early decision on the future needs of Pearson unencumbered by these agreements; the government's intention to put the national interest ahead of private sector profit; and the fact that the private sector would have taken control of one of the country's most important transportation assets, an asset that if not managed in the public interest could jeopardize the country's economy and its international competitiveness.

These concerns and the government's response to them are reflected in the legislation before us today. The legislation contains several provisions. It declares that the agreements have not come into force and have no legal effect.

Further, no court action of any kind may be taken against Her Majesty, her servants or agents owing to these agreements, the process that was followed to enter into the agreements or to terminate them.

No one will be entitled to compensation from Her Majesty as a result of this legislation. However, the Minister of Transport may with governor in council approval provide for appropriate payments to the partnership for its out of pocket expenses, but nothing will be paid for lost profits or lobbyist fees.

The bill will allow the Government of Canada to retain control over the future of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson. It will provide a framework to allow for a fair and equitable disposition of the matter.

The legislation reflects public statements made by members of the government that predate the signing of the agreement. Those statements included a clear warning to the developer not to sign an agreement and to risk cancellation of the agreement if it was found not to be in the public interest.

As well, there have been the subsequent statements by government that it would consider paying out of pocket expenses but that nothing would be paid for lost profits or lobbyist fees. The government decided on no lost profits because we believe to pay such compensation is simply not appropriate in these circumstances.

The warnings not to sign these agreements and the subsequent action taken to cancel them are absolutely consistent. Uncontrolled lobbying conducted behind closed doors that leads to a contract detrimental to the public good cannot and will not be condoned. The government's decision not to pay lobbyist fees recognizes that individuals and companies involved in the process did not take the public interest into account.

The government wants to make it as clear as we can that we wish to deal with the private sector in an open, fair and responsible manner, but we will always take the taxpayers' interests into account. This decision should signal to all parties that abuses in the political process and practices we consider to be unacceptable will not be tolerated.

The government has decided it may pay out of pocket expenses in recognition that this particular privatization process no matter how flawed was an accepted practice by the previous government. The parties were playing in a game that in this particular case was heavily influenced by the actions of lobbyists.

It is recognized that the cancellation of the arrangement will have an impact on the developers. Several of the companies spent large amounts of money to plan, design and negotiate this deal. I am well aware some will say that expenses such as these should not be paid because of the manipulation that occurred. However we believe as a government that we must make every attempt to be reasonable and equitable.

I want to emphasize another point. This legislation does not lessen the government's desire to reach a negotiated settlement with the developer on these out of pocket expenses. These negotiations are under way.

The legislation clearly sets out certain parameters for these negotiations, including a time limit. A time limit is necessary to ensure that negotiations are not unduly protracted, thus allowing the government to proceed with planning the future of Canada's largest and most important transportation facility.

The matter must be finalized so that we can plan the future of Pearson International Airport. It is our objective to provide clear direction on the future of Pearson before the end of this year. I have stated that on many occasions. This will include decisions on a future management regime for Pearson and its development needs.

These arrangements cannot be finalized while these contracts are not cancelled because they could very well hamper the ability of a new management system to respond to the essential needs of Pearson. Lengthy delays could have significant economic consequences not only in the metropolitan Toronto area but across the country because Pearson is the hub on which Canada's aviation system turns.

In summary the legislation is designed to formally put an end to those agreements relating to the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson that were arrived at as the result of a flawed process.

I reiterate that in cancelling the deals the government will attempt to negotiate fair and reasonable out of pocket expenses compensation, but it will not pay for lost profits and it will not reimburse anything for lobbyist fees.

The government will not be held hostage to any lengthy negotiating process that could impact on the future of Pearson, our economy, the international competitiveness of that facility and in the final analysis the public good.

If an acceptable settlement cannot be arrived at and arrived at soon, the legislation provides that no compensation shall be paid.

It is time to get on with the business of providing Canada with an efficient, safe and affordable national airport system. It is time to get on with the future of Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, this government has introduced Bill C-22 as an example of renewed political transparency. Or so it claims. In fact, in some respects, the proposed legislation casts a cozy mantle of discretion over the actions it was intended to censure.

First of all, the bill itself raises a number of questions, and I hope this debate will help clarify the grey areas about which we have a quite a few queries. In fact, Bill C-22 is unsatisfactory, not because of what it says but because of what it does not say.

Of course, the government wants to get rid of a hot potato that has been passed back and forth for months, from the anterooms of politicians to law offices, from lobbyists' offices to the halls of government. However, if the powers that be expect this bill will put an end to this disgraceful manoeuvring, they are wrong. On the contrary, there is some fancy legal wording that says a great deal about the hidden agenda of the government, one instance being section 9 of the bill which provides very clearly, as the minister just said with some satisfaction, that no com-

pensation will be paid. Section 9 provides very clearly, and I quote:

1. No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this Act.

Now that sounds squeaky clean, does it not? The problem is, that the bill immediately goes on to say in section 10(1) that:

1. (1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council-

In other words, the cabinet. It continues:

-if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.

With his ministerial discretion and considering what he thinks is sensible and the interests of his government and those of his friends, he may:

enter into agreements on behalf of Her Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this Act, subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.

Of course the government is not at all trying to protect the interests of the parties involved with these agreements that will be made at the minister's discretion, in the privacy of cabinet, with the Liberal Party's lobbyists in attendance. That is the situation. That is what bill C-22 is all about. Although section 10(2) provides:

(2) No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to (a) any loss of profits, or (b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder-

We still have no indication of the nature of the amounts the minister may pay at his discretion or of the identity of the individuals who may benefit from such ministerial discretion.

This is disturbing. It is disturbing because this particular case is overrun by lobbyists. It is full of people wheeling and dealing in the corridors of power with the two big parties, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.

And it makes the hon. minister laugh. It amuses him. He is laughing at the thought that, by this evening, his concerns will be put to rest by a vote, while those who were mixed up in this sordid affair are loosing sleep over it.

Furthermore, even if lobbying fees are not compensated under the legislation, the fact remains that the taxpayers will be paying part of the companies' lobbying expenses indirectly, in the form of corporate tax deductions.

How can you justify making the taxpayers in Quebec and Canada contribute to the funding of such crass patronage? Even the current Minister of Transport has suggested that lobbying fees not be made tax deductible. Even he, the minister who is laughing here in this House today!

His government did not listen to him. Did he protest? No, he smiled. He was voted down by Cabinet on this issue. He finds it amusing and defers to Cabinet solidarity and the party line.

This is to say that we are not alone to rebel against this policy. What is the government asking for here?

It is asking us to back this shameless political sham. They would want us to give the minister a blank cheque to compensate their friends and others spoilsmen that they would not go about it any differently.

Never will the Bloc Quebecois accept to support in any way a government plan to take with the right hand what it is apparently forbidding itself to take with the left hand.

They would have us be taken in by Bill C-22, colloquially speaking. Just to set things in perspective, allow me, to look back briefly on the recent past.

I would like to reemphasize some basic facts of this complex issue. I see that the minister has little interest for the issue, since he is leaving! He has more important things to do than to listen to the truth on this issue.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

And you, where were you when I spoke, you hypocrite?

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, unparliamentary language has just been used by a member whom you had not recognized. I would ask that you to call him to order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In the interest of courteous debate, I wonder if the minister would be willing to withdraw his comments.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I apologize. It is just that the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois was referring to the fact that I was having a private conversation with a colleague while he was speaking.

I simply pointed out that he himself was not in this chamber when I gave my speech and that it is somewhat hypocritical to mention my presence or absence when he himself was not present when I made my remarks.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I would like to remind you that, about a month ago, I used the same word or words to the effect that the hon. member who was tabling a particular petition was acting hypocritically, that it was hypocrisy and, at the time, the Chair had stood up and asked me to withdraw my remark.

I wanted to explain myself, but was turned down and told to withdraw immediately what I had said. Out of respect for the Chair, I complied immediately, withdrew my remark, and apologized to the hon. member I had called a hypocrite. That is how much respect I have for the Chair and for this institution. I think that a Cabinet minister should do as I did and, at the request of the Chair, withdraw his remarks and apologize.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Like you, I noticed that, when the Chair asked the hon. minister to withdraw his remark, he rose only to reiterate it, using the word hypocrite again in what should have been an apology.

I think that the least that could be expected from a minister, in particular a veteran of this House, when we are debating a point of paramount importance on a subject that directly concerns him as the minister responsible for the subject, the gentlemanly thing to do would be to withdraw his remarks.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, if, with the Opposition Leader's vast experience as a member of the government that created the problem we are trying to solve today, he does not consider himself a hypocrite, I will withdraw my accusation.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

We will resume this very important debate on one of the biggest Canadian political scandals in recent years involving the two major parties. This affair is somewhat reminiscent of a political and financial soap opera. What is the plot? Who are the actors? Who is the director? It leaves a lot of unanswered questions. One thing is clear: there is no answer to be found in the bill we are being asked to approve.

Although we are not entirely sure of the actors and the plot, one thing has been clear since the beginning: that the stage is lit with red and blue lights-a very bright, Liberal red and a tasteful dark Tory blue. Transparency is reduced to a bare minimum. In fact, the only thing that is transparent in this sensitive case, in my opinion, is the will of the parties involved to make things as unclear as possible.

The most distressing aspect of this sorry business is that we are here today to debate a bill concerning the cancellation of an airport privatization which was accepted by the government whose official policy on airport management was, and still is as far as I know, to return the management of airports to the local people and not to private interests. As you can see, the plot thickens even before the curtain rises.

In April 1987, as members will recall, the previous government announced with great to do an overall policy for airport management in Canada. That policy advocated in particular that the running of airports be entrusted to local administrations, not to consortiums or friends or the party in power but to truly local administrations.

Transport Canada in pursuance of that policy and recognizing the economic importance of airports for the regions they serve favoured local groups to run them, groups made up of local elected officials and businessmen, in other words, those people who have the best understanding of all the economic factors involved and of the need for a forceful and realistic management approach.

Furthermore, in the case of Pearson International Airport such a group had been formed in April 1993 and was ready to take in hand the operation of the airport.

The Ontario government was strongly in favour of turning over the operation of the airport to a local non-profit organization of that type. The federal government, using as a protest certain disagreements within the group, preferred to satisfy the appetites of the moneylenders and the lobbyists and, disregarding its own policy, proceeded to privatize the airport.

What was the pressure to privatize? There was pressure of two kinds. First it was in 1993.

[An hon. member]

You were in cabinet.