Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment to Bill C-22.
First of all, I would like to briefly review the sequence of events. In 1989, Paxport Inc. spontaneously submitted a proposal for the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2. The government of the day nixed the idea. That was in 1989. However, in October of 1990, the government invited the private sector to submit proposals for the redevelopment of Terminals 1 and 2. In 1991, Terminal 3 opened for business under the management of Claridge Holdings Inc. On March 11, 1992, the government formally issued requests for proposals for the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson. This preceded the decision on the proposed expansion of the runway system at the airport. Only a one-phase process was called for, involving no prequalification, whereas the bidding for the privatization of Terminal 3 involved a two-stage process, initially soliciting interested parties and selecting a short list of bidders, and then encouraging detailed submissions.
As for the competition process itself, the Nixon report states the following on page 2, and I quote: "The Request for Proposals did not set out many of the fundamental aspects of the proposed development, but left these to bidders to define for themselves". Therefore, it was left to bidders to make projections on passenger traffic at the airport. Yet, data on passenger traffic is critical to determining the pace and scope of the redevelopment. With a project of this magnitude, how could it have been left to the bidders to define such crucial parameters?
Moreover, only 90 days were provided for responses. This is an unusually short deadline, considering that we are dealing with a highly complex, long-term contract covering a period of 57 years. What reason could there be for setting such a tight deadline if not to give an advantage to certain companies, such as Paxport which had submitted an earlier privatization plan in 1989, and Claridge which was already managing Terminal 3 at Pearson? In the end, the government received only two bids, one from Claridge and one from Paxport.
On December 7, 1992, the Paxport proposal was selected as the best of the two bids. The company was required to demonstrate by February 15, 1993 that its proposal was financially viable.
As it could not do so nor, according to its president, obtain the necessary capital from other sources, Paxport and Claridge established T1 T2 Limited Partnership less than two months later. In fact, Paxport created a joint venture with its only competitor.
Why did the government then in office award a 57-year contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to a financially-troubled company that was also close to the party? All interested parties in the Toronto region knew at the time that Paxport was in financial difficulty. The government cannot claim it acted in good faith.
As you may recall, one of the reasons Paxport was chosen was to encourage healthy competition between the manager of Terminals 1 and 2 and the manager of Terminal 3.
On August 30, 1993, the Minister of Transport announced a general agreement between the two parties. He promised that a final agreement would be signed in the fall.
On September 8, 1993, the Government of Canada called an election. The Nixon report summarizes the events as follows: "Prior to the conclusion of the legal agreement the Leader of the Opposition (now the Prime Minister) indicated clearly that parties proceeding to conclude this transaction did so at their own risk and that a new government"-that is, the people opposite-"would not hesitate to pass legislation to block the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 if the transaction was not in the public interest". The legal agreement was signed nevertheless.
Under the pressure of public opinion, the government ordered a review of this highly controversial deal and the Nixon report was published on November 29, 1993. On December 3, 1993, the Prime Minister announced the cancellation of the agreement.
The Nixon report outlines the process and argues that it strongly favoured one of the proposals since Paxport had already submitted a privatization proposal.
The report itself describes in plain language the abuses that were committed in this deal: "Other management and construction firms not having been involved in the maneuvering preceding the RFP had no chance to come up to speed and submit a bid in the short time permitted".
Other companies should have been invited to bid and should have been given a reasonable deadline. No prequalification financial analysis was required in this request for proposals.
Finally, the Conservative government signed the contract in the final stretch of an election campaign. Allow me to quote from the report. "It is a well-known and carefully observed tradition that when governments dissolve Parliament they must accept a restricted power of decision during the election period". The report concludes that the privatization process was far from promoting the interest of the public to the fullest.
We demand a royal commission of inquiry. The Nixon investigation was conducted in private. In the red book, the Liberals say that people are irritated because key parts of public business are conducted behind closed door.
The government keeps harping on about transparency. Here is a chance to show us they believe in their principles and can apply them responsibly.
A government that preaches transparency has to shed some light on this whole issue. Taxpayers have the right to know and to be provided with inside information on these transactions. The government cancelled the privatization plan, yet this bill provides for compensation, although the parties were aware of a possible contract cancellation.
The Crown does not have to compensate investors for miscalculations. Clause 10, paragraph 2, reads as follows:
No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to ( a ) any loss of profit, or ( b ) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act , in connection with any agreement.
It has to be stronger than that. Public funds are at stake.