Mr. Speaker, most of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who have taken part in the debate on Bill C-22 so far looked at it in terms of government openness, and all of them came to the obvious conclusion that a royal commission of enquiry should be set up to look into the whole issue of the privatization of Pearson airport.
In the speech he just made, my colleague for Brome-Missisquoi brought out quite well the large number of friends of the government, both Conservative and Liberal, who were involved or had a hand into this matter, which represents millions of dollars.
My colleague for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead told us how this piece of legislation before the House today was put together: under clause 7, no action may be instituted against the government by any company that could have grievances against it, but clause 10 allows the minister to make a direct but secret settlement with people who might want to claim some small compensation.
Besides, the Nixon Report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, concludes along the same lines. I would like to quote its conclusion:
My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract arrived at through such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation is unacceptable. I therefore recommend that it be cancelled.
Leading to that conclusion, Mr. Nixon said: "Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in the agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion".
In my opinion, when the government proposes to privatize a Crown asset, openness should be mandatory and the public
should be entitled to know all the details in the agreement. That is why, on the whole, we are asking for an enquiry in that matter.
I would also like to quote some remarks made by the hon. member opposite for York South-Weston and reported in the media. They were reported in the November 26, 1993 issue of the Ottawa Citizen , and I quote:
"I didn't spend the last nine years in Ottawa bashing Tory sleaze to have it occur in our party or for our party to condone it".
Some other remarks were also reported by the Globe and Mail where he was quoted as saying:
"This will be a true test of Mr. Chrétien's commitment to integrity in government and I have considerable confidence in him that he will kill the deal".
Of course, this is the bill that kills the deal. The only problem is that giving the Minister of Transport discretionary powers to compensate people party to this behind-the-scenes deal is tantamount to having the fox in charge of the chicken coop, and the Bloc is obviously against that.
Why was the privatization of Pearson airport ever considered to begin with? It is quite simple. Pearson airport makes money. Incidentally, it is one of the very few money-making airports in Canada. Why does it make money? Because everything was done to put it in that position.
The Mirabel airport was built many years ago because the Montreal airport was crowded with international flights. A few months after Mirabel was built, the ban on international flights landing directly in Toronto without a stop-over at Mirabel was lifted. After that, all international flights could land directly in Toronto without stopping first in Mirabel.
What did that mean? It meant killing Mirabel and increasing the number of international flights landing directly in Toronto. Today, Mirabel airport is a white elephant and we are on the verge of expanding Pearson airport at the cost of millions of dollars, several million of which will come from Quebec.
The same pattern can be seen in the case of the port of Montreal, with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Over the years, that system diverted traffic from Montreal to Toronto. The port of Montreal is failing and the one in Toronto is thriving.
The same thing happened with the Borden line. It was recommended by the Borden commission, on which not a single Quebecer sat. It resulted in the petrochemical industry of the east end of Montreal being transferred to Sarnia.
The Auto Pact is another example. It was signed with the United Stated, which goes to prove beyond the shade of a doubt that a small country like Canada can strike deals with a giant such as the United States. But that deal was made for Ontario. Quebec did not get anything out of it.
What is the logic behind all this? They want Ontario to be the economic heart of Canada. This is a Canadian way of thinking. Concentrate all the economic activity in Ontario. Unfortunately, this concentration is to the detriment of Quebec. In the four points I just mentioned, thousands of jobs were lost in Quebec.
Once Toronto's and Ontario's international attraction is established, many companies deciding to come to Canada will follow the same logic which says: "If you want to do business, go where the business is". So they all go to Toronto or elsewhere in Ontario because that is where the business is.
Once this attraction has become extremely strong, it even drains Quebec's own companies. And I am referring to companies like Cadbury, Black and Decker, Electrolux, Habitant Soups, which all left Quebec because there were better opportunities in Toronto. Of course, this endless corporate exodus is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Quebec. As we speak, the media report that there are 790,000 welfare recipients and 400,000 unemployed workers in Quebec. And the media-and I heard it again this morning-tell us about an economic recovery.
There is no economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. The Prime Minister of Canada, under the circumstances, must find a culprit because he does not want to admit the phenomenon I just described. Of course someone to blame is always found, as we saw recently in the House: the unemployed and the welfare recipients, they are to blame.
So they are officially accused of being beer drinkers slouched in front of their TV, this after their jobs have been taken away. Unfortunately all these people are in fact looking for a job. Since he got a very strong reaction, the Prime Minister is attempting to find other reasons why the situation is bad, even if the corporate exodus from Quebec to Ontario is very clear. And now the Prime Minister has called all of Quebec's legitimate and historical demands whims.
I would like to say a few words on this. All the Premiers of Quebec, whatever their political party, as far back as I can remember-and I am not very old, but I still remember it-always said the same thing.
In the mid-1950s, Maurice Duplessis wanted Ottawa to give Quebec back its due. This was not a whim on his part; he said it because he believed that we were being had by Ottawa.
In the early 1960s, Jean Lesage liked to use the expression "masters in our own house"; that was no whim. He was simply convinced that we were not in charge of our own affairs and that Ottawa always controlled everything.
A few years later, Daniel Johnson used the expression "equality or independence". That was not a whim either. He simply felt that, with the way things were in Canada, Quebec was not getting equal treatment. The situation was such that ultimately Ottawa always decided what was best for Quebec.
Of course, several years after that, René Lévesque began to champion the cause of Quebec sovereignty. And that was no whim either. He believed that sovereignty was the only way for Quebecers to become masters in their own home.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission came to the same conclusion. Either Canadian federalism undergoes a radical change to ensure that Quebec is given its fair share, or Quebec becomes sovereign. That conclusion was certainly no whim. It reflected the clear consensus of all Quebecers who appeared before the Commission.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that I have one minute remaining. There is so much more that I could say. When we say that we do not want the federal government to intrude into our field of jurisdiction with respect to vocational training, it is no whim. This is the unanimous position of the National Assembly.
The Prime Minister claims that disaster will ensue if the separatists-this is the word he used-are elected. Need I remind him that Moody's, which is certainly not a den of nasty separatists, has pointed out to him that the debt, not the political situation, is responsible for what ails Canada. When the Liberals came to power in 1980, the debt stood at $80 million. They managed to increase it to roughly $200 million. Under the Conservatives, the debt rose from $200 million to $500 million. Now the Liberals, in office once more, are saying that the debt will come in at about $600 million.
It does not take a genius to figure out why our bankers are nervous. The fault does not lie with the nasty separatists. They are nervous because they are owed money. May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?