Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take my turn in this debate on Bill C-22 respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto.
I assume that, after listening to all the speeches we have had so far, you have realized that the very serious reservations of the Official Opposition about this bill concern section 10, which reads as follows:
- (1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, 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.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine you have also understood that the opposition approves of cancelling this highly improper contract because there are many reasons for doing so. I became convinced after reading the Nixon report several times from start to finish. I found out why, although Mr. Nixon is as Liberal as they come-a very well connected Liberal who is very close to the circles we are talking about, including the friends of the Prime Minister-why his intellectual honesty and his sense of responsibility forced him to use the word "maneuverings".
After carefully reading his report, one realizes why he had to use this word, which could be translated in French as " magouillage ''. The Petit Robert defines the word magouille'' as follows: Manoeuvres, tractations douteuses ou malhonnêtes ''. The English definition is: ``Maneuverings, questionable practices or shady dealings''. So this is pretty strong language.
I thought I would simply bring to the attention of this House a few passages from the Nixon report which are self-explanatory and which illustrate the murky and shocking aspects of this affair, and as some people are saying, we may need a royal commission of inquiry to determine whether bad faith was involved.
For instance, on page 5, there is a short paragraph that gives us an indication of the maneuvring, and a theme that runs through the entire Nixon report, and I quote:
In the calculation of gross revenue (on which rent will be based), there are 10 deductions which I am advised are unusual in commercial transactions.
Mr. Nixon also said that T1 T2 Limited Partnership, which would manage the airport, is a multi-purpose rather than a sole-purpose corporation.
The lease does not restrict the freedom of T1 T2 Limited Partnership to carry out an undertaking other than the management, operation and maintenance of Terminals 1 and 2. Therefore, the financial health of T1 T2 Limited Partnership could be adversely affected by the financial failure of a venture which has nothing to do with the management, operation and maintenance of Terminals 1 and 2.
The report also says, with respect to air traffic:
The Government of Canada undertakes not to permit development of any airport facility within 75 km of the T1 T2 complex that would reduce passenger traffic at Pearson by more than 1.5 million persons per year, until the volume of passenger traffic at Pearson reaches 33 million people per year. Present projections predict this number to be reached by approximately the year 2005. If the Government of Canada chooses to engage in such proscribed development-
-we can see the manoeuvring, the understanding which exists among people who are close to the government, have undue influence and who may even, and we will see this later on, condition and intimidate senior officials-
-it must either pay economic loss to the Tenant
-we know who that is-
-or provide the Tenant with access to Area 4 at Pearson, an area explicitly excluded from
the RFP.
Another interesting and revealing point.
About the end of September 1993, T1 T2 Limited Partnership represented to the Government that it had entered into 10 contracts with non-arm's length parties-
-in other words, parties connected with and involved in the project-
-prior to October 7, 1993. One of these was said to be a construction management agreement with Matthews Construction. This information was not publicly disclosed.
The point is that Matthews is directly concerned and involved in the whole transaction and was closely connected with the activities of Paxport.
The report also says the following:
After permitting the privatization of Terminal 3 at Pearson, the process to privatize Terminals 1 and 2, the remainder of the largest airport in Canada, is inconsistent-
-this is fundamental-
-with the major thrust of the policy of the Government of Canada announced in 1987.
It was on the basis of this policy that the offer made in 1989-90 by the same parties was turned down by the government. With the passage of time and as a result of intense lobbying, the government became very interested in 1993, and we know what happened.
Another consideration in the Nixon report, a very important one this time, concerns the time frame the parties were allowed to submit their proposals.
The RFP having as it did only a single stage and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame-
-we are talking about an investment of $700 million, and people are being given 90 days to position themselves.
-created, in my view, an enormous advantage to a proponent-
-Paxport-
-an enormous advantage-
-this is the maneuvering-
-that had previously submitted a proposal for privatizing and developing T1 and T2.
This was referred to earlier. It was the proposal turned down in 1989.
Other management and construction firms not having been involved in the maneuvering-
-this is Nixon speaking-
-preceding the RFP had no chance to come up to speed and submit a bid in the short time permitted. With little construction and development occurring-
-by honest people-considering the state of the economy in Toronto as well-
-others should have been sought out and given reasonable time to participate.
Further, it is significant that no financial pre-qualification was required in this competition. For a project of this magnitude the selection of a "best overall acceptable proposal"-
-that was the basic criterion-
-without complete assurance of financial viability seems to me to have been highly unusual and unwise.
Finally, the concluding of this transaction at Prime Ministerial direction in the midst of an election campaign where this issue was controversial, in my view flies in the face of normal and honourable democratic practice. 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.
There is no question that a financial deal of this magnitude-$700 million-which would have privatized a public asset for 57 years should not have been signed at that time.
I will end with one of the conclusions of Mr. Nixon, who believed that the process: "to privatize and redevelop Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson fell far short of maximizing the public interest". Therefore, considering all that surrounded the "negotiation", it is imperative-and one is astonished that the report does not make any recommendation to that effect, and that the Prime minister who preaches openness in the red book has not taken any action in that direction-that we have an inquiry that can get to the bottom of that shocking event that is so damaging to the reputation of Canada, a country known for the quality of its institutions.