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.