Debates of April 29th, 1994

Committees Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the main estimates of the House of Commons.

The committee has considered the estimates and reports them without amendment.

I also have the honour to present the 19th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the list of committee members.

With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.

National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, considering that most Canadians consider it desirable that we have a day in recognition of Canada's original inhabitants and considering that Canadians earnestly seek an example of their commitment to honouring native cultures, this bill would set aside June 21 of each year to be called national solidarity day for the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Just for certainty, Mr. Speaker, this day would not be a legal holiday nor would it be required to be kept or observed as such.

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

Committees Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to present yet another petition requesting that Parliament ban the importation and sale of killer cards.

By now it must obvious that the wide public outrage over these despicable cards must be addressed swiftly by government.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first is signed by 31 residents mainly from the city of Calgary that ask the government to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards.

I note with some satisfaction that the government has tabled draft legislation relevant to this subject.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition concerns a national referendum on the issue of the two official languages in Canada. It is signed by 36 citizens, mostly from the city of Calgary. I think such a referendum could succeed better with a policy based on the territorial principle proposed by the Reform Party of Canada.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Questions On The Order Paper

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, question No. 17 will be answered today.

Question No. 17-

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

For the years 1992 and 1993, have any departments, agencies or crown corporations contributed funding to the legal education and action fund and, if so, (a) which ones (b) in what amounts?

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

I am informed by the Departments of Justice and Human Resources Development as follows:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary has been answered.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Transport; of the amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Gaston Péloquin, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by Question Period, I was mentioning that Stanley Ryerson, a political scientist, was arguing some fifteen years ago that the Canadian federation was created, in 1867, because of pressure by certain interest groups. I would like to quote him.

"Macdonald and Galt were representing the general interests of English Canadian business circles. And Brown was the spokesman for Toronto's commercial and industrial circles. Finally, Cartier represented the conservative wing of the French-Canadian bourgeoisie and of the clergy. The new political structures were tailored to the economic and politic interests of the dominant social groups".

Our proud Fathers of Confederation were therefore Canadian bankers, financiers and businessmen pressuring the British Parliament to unite the Canadian colonies in order to widen their markets and protect themselves against the economic threat posed by the U.S. According to that view, Canada was created by lobbyists, and successive governments have perpetuated that long tradition of favouritism. Since then, the two main national parties have always relied on large corporations to finance their political activities.

The Pearson airport privatization proves that things have not really changed since Confederation, except that interest groups have gained more and more influence on the decision-making process in the Canadian government.

Today, our society is organised around a corruption system perfectly institutionalized. The voice of the people is getting weaker in the hallways of the Parliament of Canada, and Bill C-22 does nothing to prove it is not so. On the contrary, it makes the system even more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups.

The names that keep cropping up concerning the sale of Pearson airport show how the system works in Ottawa. Here is a list of friends of Mulroney and Conservative organizers: Otto Jelinek, former Conservative minister; Don Matthews, former president of the Conservative Party; Bill Neville, Joe Clark's former chief of staff ; Hugh Riopelle, lobbyist and friend of Mr. Mazankowski; Fred Doucet, former chief of staff of Brian Mulroney; John Llegate, lobbyist and friend of Michael Wilson; Pat MacAdam, lobbyist and friend of Mr. Mulroney; Bill Fox, lobbyist and friend of Mr. Mulroney; Harry Near, lobbyist and Conservative faithful; Scott Proudfoot, Conservative lobbyist.

On the Liberal side we have: Herb Metcalfe, former organizer for Mr. Chrétien; Leo Kolber, a Liberal senator.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order! I ask the member to refer to those who presently hold a seat in the House by their title. For example, when referring to Mr. Chrétien, he must call him the Right Hon. Prime Minister, since he happens to be speaking about the head of the Liberal government. I am committed to maintaining tradition whether members are present in the House or not. I know the member for Brome-Missisquoi has gained a lot of experience in a very short time in the House but I ask his further co-operation in this matter.

[Gaston Péloquin, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

All those people were more or less implicated in the secret dealings surrounding the sale of Toronto Pearson International airport up to this point. Because of their political contacts those lobbyists succeeded in having the government sign a bad contract. In order to thank them, our government is now considering compensating them because they could not carry their shady deal to fruition.

That is exactly the kind of situation that confirms the population's cynicism towards politicians. According to a popular saying, a politicians's promise is a broken promise. This brings the credibility of the whole Canadian parliamentary system into question. Bill C-22 will certainly be adding to the contempt and scorn with which Canadians regard politicians. In fact, Cana-

dians should not be surprised to see the Liberals act exactly the way they do each time they form the government in Ottawa.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this extremely important debate. This bill concerns the cancellation of the deal signed by the Conservative government. But it also puts to the test the government's credibility and the integrity of the parliamentary process.

The point I would like to raise in the next few minutes concerns the compensation provided for by bill C-22. When I read this piece of legislation, I had serious doubts. You, and all the members in this House, will surely agree with me that when parliamentarians make legislation, they must respect certain principles to ensure that our legislation is clear, the wording as precise as possible, and the clauses consistent.

Clause 7, regarding compensation, reads as follows:

No action or other proceeding, including any action or proceeding in restitution, or for damages of any kind in tort or contract- may be instituted by anyone against Her Majesty, or against any minister or any servant or agent of Her Majesty-

In other words, clause 7 means that no compensation may be paid in connection with the Pearson deal.

But when reading clause 10, we find that:

10.(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.

And further, still under clause 10:

(3) No agreement may be entered into under this section after one month after the coming into force of this Act.

When comparing those two sections, in my area, we would say that "there is something missing" because on the one hand, we have the impression that no action may be taken by anyone against the government in relation to any possible agreement or compensation while on the other hand, the minister may, with the blessing of Her Majesty, enter into an agreement, but only within one month after the coming into force of the bill.

After rereading those sections, I finally managed to find some cohesion. Basically, what the bill is suggesting to us in terms of compensation is that there is already a done deal. We now have to find a way to go ahead with the deal. We have to be careful not to fall into two or three traps. First, according to section 7, we must not give the impression of giving away compensation. Better still, we say to people: "Don't worry, you will not have to take us to court because we are going to forbid that. So, there's no problem, you see the minister-under section 10-and you make a deal with him which does not seem to be related to the transaction itself but which will basically allow you to achieve the same result".

The reason I say that in all likelihood the deal has already been made is because of the obligation to come to an agreement within one month after the coming into force of the bill. Therefore, there seems to be some urgency because the legislator, who does not usually speak for nothing, comes to the conclusion that all agreements must be entered into within one month. That is what I wanted to point out.

I will go on about this deal, which has obviously already been struck, although we know nothing about it. As was mentioned by some of my colleagues, including the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who just spoke and others who repeatedly said so this week, lobbyists belong to every party and feed at every trough, whether it be with this Liberal government or with the former Conservative government. They just turn coat, then go meet the minister and get the same results.

Everybody remembers the famous $1,000-a-plate dinner held during last election campaign. Charles Bronfman, unquestionably a francophile emeritus who, in 1976, the day after the election of the Parti Quebecois, had nothing better to say than he would move the Expos out of Quebec, attended this dinner party and was told by the Prime Minister that the agreement concluded for the privatization of Pearson airport would be cancelled.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister took great pride in saying that Mr. Bronfman paid $1,000 to hear that his agreement was no good. The dinner must have lasted a little longer that this conversation, and Mr. Bronfman surely got guarantees for what was to follow.

Several people reached that conclusion, especially the chairman of the board of inquiry, Mr. Robert Nixon, who said in his report: "My review has left me with but one conclusion: To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable. I therefore recommend that it be cancelled".

Also, still with reference to the famous $1,000-a-plate dinner, I would like to quote the comment made by André Pratte, a journalist for La Presse , during the election campaign: ``If a $1,000 gift can help you drop a few words in the leader's or the potential prime minister's ear, what privileges do people who give $5,000 enjoy?''

And what does a business like Canadian Pacific, which gave $64,000 to each party last year, get? These questions have to be asked; and they have to be answered! There is an old saying, "A man is known by the company he keeps". We have to know the facts, we have to find out about these relations.

Therefore, it goes without saying that I support the Bloc Quebecois's amendment and the Reform Party's sub-amendment requesting a commission of inquiry. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to come and legislate in this House, even if we support the purpose of the bill, which is to cancel this ridiculous contract, but we must also ensure that the government and politicians never again find themselves in such a situation.

And to ensure this, we have to know the facts. To find them out, since we have the report prepared by Mr. Nixon, who conducted an in camera inquiry but still came up with some serious conclusions, it is absolutely justified to appoint a commission of inquiry. I repeat that we must not permit this bill to end a process which, in my opinion, reveals some troubling facts.

We have to know the truth because those who elected us throughout Quebec and Canada want to know what this is all about. The credibility of the government and of all parliamentarians is at stake, and that is why we need a commission of inquiry.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today on Bill C-22 to explain how my constituents may be indirectly affected, by the more or less successful privatization of this major airport.

Pearson airport in Toronto is Canada's largest airport, with nearly 20 million passengers coming through annually, which is nearly 57,000 per day. Pearson airport has a direct economic impact worth nearly $4 billion annually on Ontario's economy.

Considering these figures, Pearson airport is considered to be, and indeed is, a very profitable airport. That is good news, because in a big country like ours, where equalization is the rule so that all citizens get a fair share, profitable airports in the south make it possible to finance the operations of airports further north.

We need a commission of inquiry to investigate the transactions that took place and those that might have been concluded to realize the real financial potential of this airport-whether or not it is sold to private interests-in order to measure the financial impact and ensure profits can be used to finance the maintenance and development of northern airports.

Air transportation in the north is a vital part of local communications between communities and provides a vital link between communities in the north and the south. Considering the fragile economy of these communities, free competition could adversely affect the security and autonomy of the people in these regions. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the privatization policy the government wants to implement in Canada and Quebec. I think that in both cases, Pearson airport and the government's plan to privatize air traffic control, the result will be a loss of services for people in the regions.

Some time ago, the Minister of Transport announced that studies would be conducted on the privatization of air traffic control in Canada and Quebec, to be followed by consultations with users, unions and groups with an interest in Canada's air navigation system.

The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the implications and especially about the lack of transparency around this project. The information we are getting is extremely vague. The Bloc Quebecois is therefore anxious to find out the real reasons behind the government's plan to transfer nearly 6,000 jobs, including 2,000 air traffic controllers, to an as yet unknown entity.

Will this be a Crown corporation, like Canada Post, or a completely private enterprise?

Does the minister intend to give us the names of the companies, commercial groups or interest groups that have shown an interest or even tendered bids for an air navigation system in Canada or parts of that system?

We think it is important that the public should know who wants what and what the conditions will be for the sale of the system, if there is one. We do not want the scandal of the Pearson airport privatization happening again.

Air traffic safety. If there is a transportation area where decisions concerning the safety of the travelling public should not be delegated to the private sector, it is certainly air traffic safety. Can the government explain to us how it will force this new company to offer air traffic control services where they are needed?

Will the government force this new company, or these companies, to offer air traffic control services even in regions where air traffic is not lucrative? Let us take, for example, an airport with thousands of small plane flights every year which does not bring in much money in terms of landing fees and which is not economically viable, but where the volume of flights is such that the danger of air collisions is high. Will the government force this or these new companies to offer air traffic control services even if they were to lose some money on that part of their activities? We are not too sure about that.

How will remote areas such as Abitibi or the North Shore, or any other Northern or remote area, be treated? How will the government force this new commercial entity to monitor the level and quality of services provided?

You will recall the Dryden crash, where it was demonstrated that Transport Canada had had trouble enforcing laws and regulations. It has been proven that self-regulation does not

work and is unacceptable, especially in air travel. How will the government enforce air traffic safety?

If there is a service which is of national interest, such as the Armed Forces, how can the government think about transferring this responsibility-I am talking about air traffic control-to commercial interests?

By the same token, can the minister tell us what will become of the travellers protection, given the fact that he is now considering putting an end to the presence of permanent and professional fire fighters in regional airports in Canada?

We have not forgotten the cuts in services that followed when Canada Post became a Crown corporation. In remote and isolated areas mail service was drastically reduced in order to save money and in the name of profitability. Does the government intend to do the same thing in the case of control towers, flight service stations and fire fighters in regional airports? Will we end up with airplanes being controlled from Quebec and Montreal? In a nutshell, is the government getting ready to shut down regions by reducing services to a minimum?

Furthermore, can the minister explain why his government is still going ahead with its project of "modernizing" the air traffic control system by closing thirteen control towers in Canada? Why does the department want to close four towers in Quebec, or 44 per cent of all towers in Quebec? Must I remind the minister that three out of those four towers are located in peripheral areas, namely Val-d'Or, Sept-Îles and Baie-Comeau? What a coincidence!

In addition to air security, how air traffic controllers and other workers who are currently public servants will be treated is of great concern to our party. Can the minister tell us what will become of those men and women who have given 5, 10, 15 and, for some, 20 years of faithful service to the Canadian public? Will the minister dismiss those who refuse to join the new private corporation or company? Does the minister intend to offer them maybe a "grandfather" clause which would allow them to remain public servants although working within the new air traffic control system?

Is the minister aware of the fact that many believe the air controllers working for the new entity could have the right to strike, which they do not have now? Can the minister confirm or deny that rumour? Can he tell us what he intends to do to clear things up concerning that essential service? Will the government require that seniority and other benefits accumulated by theses employees as public servants for the Canadian government be respected or will these people be at the mercy of every whim of the new managers?

If the government maintains that project of privatizing the Canadian air control system, will it force the new company to abide by the Official Languages Act with regard to services offered to users and employees? Will the pilots, private or professional, still have access to air control services in the language of their choice? Will the employees enjoy the same work rules as they have now, for example the right to receive training and communications in French wherever the legislation permits?

I mention these points, Mr. Speaker, to stress the possible impacts of loss of income in the south which would allow grants and support for the northern regions.

Any privatization project which is of national interest, be it the Pearson airport or the air traffic control system, should be reviewed with everyone's interests in mind and in such a way that citizens in the northern regions or remote areas would be treated fairly.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the debate on Bill C-22 to show how the Quebec City airport has been unfairly treated by the federal government up until now, to the point that it is slowing down the development of Metropolitan Quebec City.

What is striking in this bill is the double standard applied by the Liberal government when dealing with the airports in Toronto and Quebec City. In the case of Quebec City, the Liberal government is dragging its feet. But in Toronto, it uses a steam-roller approach, overlooking a lot of things, probably under the pressure of lobbyists.

As a matter of fact, I am starting to understand what some Liberal candidates in the Quebec City area meant, during the last election campaign, when they mentioned the corridors of power. They probably meant the corridors used by lobbyists. But do people really want to leave the task of influencing the government's actions to the lobbyists? Or would they rather have their elected members make representations to the government? I believe the latter.

Otherwise, Quebec should probably consider speeding up the HST project or upgrading the Quebec City airport, to shorten delays, since lobbyists for Quebec City appear to be less powerful than those for the Toronto airport.

For some time now, the federal government has known that the Quebec City airport infrastructure is totally inadequate to meet the needs of an area where the capital city of all Quebecers is located. On June 23, 1993, on the eve of Quebec's national holiday, representatives of the federal Conservative government held a big ceremony during which they unveiled a new sign and announced that Jean Lesage airport in Quebec City would henceforth enjoy the status of an international airport. Without wanting to minimize the promotional impact of this new status, plans to expand Jean Lesage airport are still collecting dust on the responsible minister's desk.

A simple sign identifying the airport in Quebec City as an international facility will not resolve the bottlenecks that occur. The international flight passenger waiting area is so small that overcrowding occurs on a regular basis, particularly when several international chartered flights carrying hundreds of passengers arrive at the same time. To avoid total chaos,

passengers on the last incoming flight must all too often wait to disembark.

A circus atmosphere prevails when hundreds of passengers converge on the sole luggage conveyors in the area reserved for international flights and on the customs area. How can we hope to attract major international carriers when a short stopover in Quebec City on a Paris-Los Angeles flight can mean a delay of several hours for passengers who must patiently wait until those wishing to disembark can do so and the flight can resume?

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the many past attempts by airline companies to establish international links to Quebec City have been quickly abandoned.

Another good reason for expanding the airport is Quebec City's bid for the Winter Olympic Games in the year 2002. According to the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, Jean Lesage airport is too small to handle the traffic that would be generated by the Olympic Games in eight years' time.

The association is of the opinion that, because of its bush-league airport, foreign travellers will be left with the impression that Quebec City is, and I quote, "a banana republic". In fact, in our region, people can hardly believe how little was done to fix the airport in recent years.

Again, the president of the air transportation workers union was quoted in a Quebec City daily newspaper as saying: "The main runway was widened so 747s could land. It is all very well but runway lights were not even moved, so if that heavy aircraft veers slightly off course, it will hit the lights and the necessary repairs will slow everything down".

A brief that the air transportation workers union sent to the people responsible for the Quebec City airport development plan and to Corporation Québec 2002 lists four major deficiencies that need to be addressed quickly. First, a runway less than 4,000-feet long running parallel to the main runway would separate heavy aircraft from lighter aircraft for better safety and efficiency.

Second, a taxiway network should be developed to allow aircraft to quickly leave or enter the main runway, thus reducing waiting periods. Third, access ramps must be widened as they are getting more and more congested. Passengers must walk long distances outside, an embarrassing and sometimes dangerous situation, especially in winter.

Fourth, customs personnel must be increased. The lack of customs officers sometimes creates long and tiring line-ups at peak times for international passengers.

It is worth pointing out that these recommendations were tabled on December 8, 1992. We are still waiting for a concrete response from federal officials, something other than simply designating as international an airport with such a status but without the necessary facilities. Whatever we do, we must not make the mistake of minimizing the importance of an adequate airport for the 2002 Olympic Games.

Salt Lake City will certainly be Quebec City's fiercest rival. It even has a truly international airport with all the amenities likely to sway the people who will pick the winning city among the applicants.

The applicant's guide to hosting the 19th Winter Olympic Games in 2002, issued by the International Olympic Committee, says under "transportation" that, as previous experience shows, one of the keys to successful Games is an efficient transportation system. This guide recommends that applicant cities focus on three key areas, namely the transportation of people, equipment and luggage, as well as customs clearance. This is a very good reason to increase the number of customs officers and put in new baggage conveyors at the Quebec City airport.

Of course, the decision to expand the airport should not be based only on the possibility of hosting the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. We must consider above all the needs of the Quebec City region, before and after the Games. The figures quoted in this House on Wednesday by my colleague from Louis-Hébert demonstrate the need for expansion due to the dramatic increase in transborder and international flights at the Quebec City airport between 1988 and 1992.

According to Transport Canada's own figures, as quoted by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, transborder flights have increased by 179 per cent in Quebec City. In comparison, they went up 12.5 per cent in Halifax, 13 per cent in Winnipeg and 15 per cent in Calgary.

I can hear from here the government side argue that investments were made to upgrade the runway to accommodate jumbo jets like the Boeing 747. It was a very minor reconstruction project, a $7.5 million project, while the $33.5 million five-year capital plan announced in September of 1990 called for the construction of a new control tower, among other things.

Now what has come of that plan? I fear that, as usual, this government will say it is under consideration, the classic excuse to avoid admitting that, again, nothing was done.

The fact of the matter is that millions of dollars were spent to reconstruct the runway, just to prevent grass clippings blown away by the 747s' jet engines from blowing back on the runway. That is the kind of upgrade the Quebec airport has undergone!

But the business community in the Quebec City region have been calling attention to the deficiencies of our airport for a great many years.

Our region's development depends for a large part on technological enterprises open on the world and on tourism. Quebec has acquired international stature after it was declared-the only city in Canada, by the way-World Heritage City by UNESCO. Its cultural life and festivals make it a choice destination for tourists from around the world. However, our development is being compromised because, once again, a central government out of touch with local needs is dragging its feet.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am pleased to speak in the debate on Bill C-22 and, following them, to shed some light on this bill. This bill absolutely must be clarified because, as you heard in everything they said, there are grey areas, some very dark grey areas, in this bill.

A major topic of the government's red book, the real political manifesto of the Liberal Party of Canada during the election campaign, is to question the disproportionate and decisive influence of behind-the-scenes lobbies on government policies.

The purpose is to restore the image of this same government so that the people again trust their political elite and democracy will experience an unprecedented renewal. The Liberal bible says: "We will develop a Code of Conduct for Public Officials to guide cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, senators, political staff, and public servants in their dealings with lobbyists".

Indeed, a key word in the Liberals' election campaign was openness. However, the reality is quite different. Instead, it shows this party's shameless opportunism and its thirst for power with a view to consolidating the political and financial establishment in Canada.

In the attempted privatization of Pearson airport in Toronto, there is a series of troubling facts that make one seriously question the openness of the Liberal government and of the previous government.

Bill C-22 is a unique opportunity for the Bloc Quebecois to shed light on all the lobbyists who are the real leaders in the old parties, a shadowy area in Canadian politics, Mr. Speaker.

When the federal government published its policy on airport management in Canada in the spring of 1987, it showed that it intended to turn airport management over to local authorities, such as provincial governments, municipalities or boards authorized by federal or provincial legislation. Transport Canada is to provide a safe and efficient airport system. This can be done through appropriate legislation and financial support, without Transport Canada owning an airport.

In the summer of that year, the Conservative government designated Claridge Properties Inc. to build and operate terminal 3 at Pearson. Since then, this consortium owned by Charles Bronfman has had a monopoly. In the first half of the 1990s, he, with the help of the Conservative Party, was in a position to become the sole manager of the airport's three terminals. Not more than a month after his triumph in English Canada last November, the Prime Minister, acting completely contrary to a spirit of openness, asked a former Ontario Liberal minister, Mr. Nixon, to conduct an inquiry behind closed doors, yes, in secret, on this incipient monopoly. As you know, doing something behind closed doors is just the opposite of ensuring transparency. Yet, this is the way these old parties work. Mr. Nixon writes in his report:

Terminal 3 will be privately based and operated for a further 57 years. To contemplate the privatization of the remaining two terminals of this public asset is, in my view, contrary to the public good.

In March 1992, the government blatantly contradicted its political statement by officially requesting proposals for the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport. The deadline for proposals was 90 days. A 90-day period in this case was not normal, because this was no ordinary call for tenders, since it involved a very complex contract over 57 years. So, why have such a short bidding period, if not to favour those firms which had already expressed an interest, including Claridge Properties Inc. and Paxport, which had already submitted a privatization plan in 1989?

Let me give you some details on Paxport. The Don Matthews Group, which has a 40 per cent interest in this consortium, has links to the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. Mr. Matthews was chairman of Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign and is a former chairman of the Conservative Party. When Paxport made its bid following the government offer to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson, its president was Ray Hession, a former deputy minister of Industry and senior civil servant with Supply and Services where contracts are awarded. In other words, all the key players were related to the previous Liberal governments. The president of Paxport Inc. himself hired the group of lobbyists which was to work on the privatization project for the benefit of the company. He then resigned from his position as president in 1992, once approval of Paxport's bid was confirmed by the government. And there you have it.

In February 1993, Paxport and Claridge Properties Inc. merged and became T1 T2 Limited Partnership. One of the reasons Paxport's bid had been accepted was that it would create healthy competition between the manager of terminals 1 and 2, Paxport, and the manager of terminal 3, Claridge. Consequently, the merging of the two companies had the effect of totally eliminating any such competition. Not to mention that Claridge

managed to acquire a 66 per cent interest in the consortium. So, this is a monopoly.

Claridge Properties Inc. has very close ties to the Liberal Party of Canada. Senator Léo Kolber, who sat on the board of directors of Claridge when the agreements were signed, is the same guy who held a benefit dinner at his home, in Westmount, for the Liberal Party, at $1,000 per guest, where the guest of honour was the current Prime Minister. Now you see why they tried to keep this benefit dinner secret.

Herb Metcalfe, former party organizer for the current Prime Minister, is a lobbyist at Capital Hill Group and represents Claridge Properties. Ramsay Withers, former deputy minister of Transport at the time the request for proposals concerning Terminal 3 at Pearson airport went out, is a Liberal lobbyist who has very close ties to the current Prime Minister.

Given these facts, we have to wonder about the nature of this government and about its ties to the Toronto financial establishment. What about the openness they promised us? What about the ethics? Be serious. What we have here is cover-up and patronage benefiting some private interests at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, and particularly middle-class citizens, which the government always picks on, and the underprivileged. Let us be blunt. The Liberal Party of Canada has always been in cahoots with the financial establishment.

On October 7, 1993, the legal agreement on the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 was signed. However, Claridge Properties had taken control of T1 T2 Partnership Inc. a few months before, in May of 1993. So, the October agreement was between the government and Pearson Development Corporation.

What is Pearson Development? It is a joint venture partnership which manages operations at all three Pearson airport terminals. Claridge Properties, which is the contractor for terminal 3, holds a 66 per cent interest in Pearson Development and is also the majority shareholder in Paxport, which was awarded the contract in December 1992 for the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2. Once again, so much for transparency and ethics! The least we could say is that the Pearson deal is nothing more than the takeover of all three terminals by a financial power that has a friendly relationship with a so-called democratic government.

Clearly, whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, it is all the same. Today more than ever before, it is increasingly obvious that powerful financial interests, to achieve their ends, will put at the head of the Canadian government a friend who will stop at nothing to stay in power, a person who will have absolutely no regard for the most fundamental rule of transparency and ethics.

Due to the troubling circumstances under which the 1993 agreement was negotiated and executed-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I am sorry but your ten-minute period has expired. We have to move on.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

May I conclude my remarks?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will leave it to the hon. members. If they give unanimous consent, I have no objection.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the member for Richmond-Wolfe to conclude his remarks?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.