Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak again to Bill C-22, which concerns the privatization of the airport in Toronto. Pearson Airport is the largest in Canada. It employs 15,000 people and is used by 20 million passengers annually. It adds an estimated $4 billion to the economy of the province of Ontario each year.
The government was right to cancel the contract signed by the previous Conservative government during the last election campaign. However, the real question we must ask about Bill C-22 is this: Why does the Liberal government want to pay compensation to parties who feel their rights have been violated as a result of the present government's decision to cancel the contract awarded by the previous Conservative government to privatize Pearson Airport?
In my opinion, a government has no right to consider paying compensation to individuals who took the risk of signing a controversial contract in the middle of an election campaign and who are all in good financial shape, at a time when this government is cutting or intends to cut social programs. Or else it should apply the same principle to the cancellation of the helicopter contract or to any business or individual penalized by the coming into effect of new legislation.
For instance, there is a small business in my riding to which the government might consider paying compensation. This particular business packaged cigarettes.
Bill C-11, which was recently tabled and debated in the House, will prohibit the sale of cigarettes in packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes. This particular business, whose headquarters are in my riding, was the only one in Quebec that manufactured packages containing five cigarettes. It will have to close down as soon as this legislation comes into effect, since it is strictly engaged in the manufacture and sales of packages of five cigarettes.
I am not saying that I am against legislation to limit tobacco sales to young people. That is not what I am saying. My point is just that all of a sudden, a business operating legally and in good faith sees its existence jeopardized by the implementation of a new act. Yet, no compensation is provided for in this case.
This start-up company cannot afford lobbyists. Does this mean that there is a double standard with regard to financial compensation granted by the government?
Many more examples could be provided; in fact, my colleagues have mentioned several already in this debate.
It seems clear and obvious that the affluent members of this society stand to gain more from their dealings with the government than the rest of the population. While the Pearson Airport contract appeared to favour mainly Conservative Party backers, many of these also contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada fund.
The most influential lobbyists are often former high-ranking officials in the federal system. They have established excellent relationships with officials in various departments, senior officials in particular. This means they have easy access to government policy makers and can thus position themselves faster and have an advantage over other firms. Lobbyists work for the most affluent members of our society. They care very little for ordinary people and even less for the unemployed and welfare recipients. They would rather reap the benefits at the expense of the less fortunate segment of our society.
People who attend the $1,000-a-plate dinners still organized by the old parties are often lobbyists. Who else would pay $1,000 without hoping to gain some favour in the short term? Ordinary citizens cannot afford to attend such meetings.
Despite the change in government, it appears that nothing has really changed. Today's government seems as much in the pay of big corporations and their lobbyists as the former government.
Will they have the courage to prove otherwise by refusing to pay any compensation to those who hoped to get richer in the Pearson Airport privatization project?
The best way to change this would be to pass a law to prohibit financing of political parties by businesses or interest groups. This government should draw inspiration from the provisions of the Quebec electoral law that deal with political party financing. The hon. member for Richelieu's motion to restrict political party financing in Canada should move this government to pass a new law. The hon. member for Richelieu moved that the government legislate to give only private citizens the right to finance political parties and to limit contributions to $5,000 a year. The main objective of this motion is to ban corporate financing, which puts political parties at the mercy of lobbyists for powerful companies that donate several thousands of dollars and expect favours in return.
The same principle applies to individuals.
Wealthy individuals give a lot to some political parties, always for the purpose of getting something in return. The reason for such a motion as this is to make the relations between individuals and political parties more fair and equitable, because someone earning less than $30,000 a year cannot afford to contribute $10,000 to a political party, whereas someone else whose annual income is over $100,000 can of course give more.
Besides, big companies which can afford to give thousands and thousands of dollars to political parties also can afford to hire lobbyists who work to get something for the money which their bosses invested in the political parties.
Values like honesty, integrity and openness should guide political and democratic life. Well, in the Pearson Airport affair, there is a glaring lack of openness. We are faced with a shady deal that is a disgrace to the democratic spirit which should guide politics in this country.
The citizens and voters who sent us here to sit in this House must wonder whose interests we really serve when they see how our governments act. Men and women vote, not banks, unions or companies. Therefore, it is time that political parties stop being at the mercy of their financial backers.
Let me give you the example of the Bloc Quebecois, which won 75 per cent of the seats in Quebec, yet only accepted contributions from individuals. The Bloc has shown to other federal political parties that the important thing is not to get corporate financing but to defend legitimate ideas. The other parties will not go bankrupt if the motion tabled by the hon. member for Richelieu is passed. In fact, it will give them an opportunity to get closer to their constituents.
One thing is certain: The House must implement measures to avoid a repeat of the Pearson Airport scandal.