Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22, the subject of today's debate, is a rather particular piece of legislation. This bill deals with agreements arising out of the request for proposals for the terminal redevelopment project at Lester B. Pearson Airport, and the negotiations concerning that project.
The bill states that these agreements have not come into force and have no legal effect. Moreover, it provides that no action or other proceeding may be instituted against Her Majesty in relation to these agreements.
This is an extremely serious piece of legislation. The previous government concluded a contract with some corporations, and this government is trying to renege on that deal by pretending that it never took place.
Why is that? Later on I will show how the process was flawed in a number of ways and that indeed the government should not go ahead with this contract.
The bill also authorizes the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements to provide for the payment of amounts in connection with the coming into force of that act. This second part seems to be a convenient provision to ensure that parties which may have been prejudiced can be adequately compensated following the cancellation of the contract.
However, while it may seem appropriate to do so, the wording of the provision makes you wonder, and so do some connections which can be made between various events. I will attempt to show that, because of these events which may leave public opinion with a bitter taste, it is important to look more thoroughly at what went on before the agreements were negotiated and concluded, as well as to what is going on now.
To put the legislation in its proper context, clause 3 provides that the agreements which have been concluded:
- are hereby declared not to have come into force and to have no legal effect.
Moreover, clause 4 says:
- For greater certainty, all undertakings, obligations, liabilities, estates, rights, titles and interests arising out of the agreements are hereby declared not to have come into existence.
As for clause 9, it provides that:
- No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this Act.
So far so good. However, everything is spoiled by clause 10 which reads:
10.(1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, -if he considers it appropriate- -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.
I certainly do not question the good judgment of the minister or the governor in council. However, I would like to refer to a few excerpts from Mr. Robert Nixon's report, who was appointed last October 28 by the current Prime Minister to look into this transaction. Mr. Nixon's report was submitted a month later, on November 29. What does this report tell us? To quote Mr. Nixon:
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 would not hesitate to pass legislation to block the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 if the transaction was not in the public interest.
Mr. Nixon's report goes on to say: "On October, 7, 1993, the chief negotiator for the Government of Canada received his written direction indicating that it was the explicit instruction of the Prime Minister that the transaction be concluded on that very same day. On October 7, 1993, therefore, the legal agreement to privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2 was made".
It was a very substantial agreement. In fact, when we talk about terminals 1 and 2, we are talking about a major air transportation hub in this country. To quote the Nixon report:
According to a 1987 Transport Canada study, Pearson has a $4 billion direct economic impact on the economy of the province of Ontario and was directly and indirectly responsible for over 56,000 Ontario jobs. It is by any estimation more than the sum of its parts or the total of its assets and liabilities.
This is a contract which has an enormous impact on a region's economy, by letting private interests manage an air terminal of that size, while for many years, airports near nonheal have been under-used. In Central Canada we have created a powerful magnet for air traffic that can draw traffic away from the country's other major airports, especially those near Montreal.
And how many years would this contract be in effect? I am still quoting Mr. Nixon: "Terminal 3 will be privately leased and operated for"-I was going to say at least 25 years, but no, Mr. Speaker-" a further 57 years". Not only our own generation and the next, but our children's children would have suffered as a result of this agreement. There would be fewer objections if the usual procedures had been followed. Again, I quote from Mr. Nixon's report: "The RFP having as it did only a single stage"- specifications with a single stage are not only unusual, Mr. Speaker, but also extremely disturbing-"and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame".
I used to be in business, and I received government calls for tenders, and believe me, it is quite a job to read all the specifications. There are pages and pages of the stuff, and you have to read them carefully. And then, preparing a bid is also a complex undertaking. The primary concern is, of course, to make a bid that will not bankrupt the company. The price should be right, but you still have to make a profit, because if you do not make a profit, you cannot deliver. So the first thing is to make a bid at the right price and be able to make a profit.
Second, you have to make sure that your bid will be competitive with those of the other parties who are bidding, so the price has to be fine tuned to give you a good chance to get your bid accepted and win the contract.
You see, Mr. Speaker, when you know that there are only 90 days for something that complex, you can assume that there will not be much competition and, consequently, the price is probably not the best the public could have had. I quote Mr. Nixon again: "In summary, it is my opinion that the process to privatize and redevelop Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson fell far short of maximizing the public interest".
All that happened under the Conservative government. Having the Liberal government cancel the deal is a good thing. However, the clause I was mentioning a moment ago, which will allow the minister to consider compensation when appropriate, is more troublesome, particularly knowing that major actors in this Pearson deal have connections with the Liberal Party.
We could mention Claridge Properties, a company belonging to Mr. Bronfman; we could mention Mr. Colbert, from Claridge, who gave a dinner for Mr. Bronfman and the Prime Minister at a $1000 a plate. I am not questioning the honesty of members and ministers of the Liberal Party, what I am saying is that there is an appearance of conflict and the only way to shed light on this affair and dispel any doubt in the eyes of the people of Canada and Quebec, is to have the public inquiry that the Bloc Quebecois and I are requesting.