Debates of May 6th, 1994

The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to begin by giving a short preamble to our viewers who are watching and wondering why we are working on this amendment. I think it is appropriate to read from Hansard the opposition amendment.

The Bloc amendment effectively states that this House should decline to give second reading to Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, because the principle of the bill is flawed due to the fact that it contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent.

I will go right to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C-22. Under the heading "No Compensation", clause 9 states:

No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this act.

Clause 10(2)(a) and (b) states:

No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to

(a) any loss of profit, or

(b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder, within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Lobbyists Registration Act.

I do not think it could have been stated any more clearly that any activity related to the lobbying on the Pearson airport contract will not have any remuneration at all.

The Bloc motion also calls for an inquiry which is a delay tactic. It is not going to put this file to rest and will not allow us to deal with the real problems at the airport in Toronto.

First, Canadians clearly know that we in the government, we in the Liberal Party did not support the Pearson development contract. It was cancelled immediately. However because we cancelled that contract, it does not mean we are opposed to redeveloping and reworking the Pearson International Airport.

Going back over the last 10 years, we were dealing with a Conservative government that had this ideological thrust to dismantle everything around here. It offloaded to the provinces; it offloaded to the private sector. The last 10 years was like fire sale city. This was that government's last attempt to have a fire sale of the most profitable organization in the Government of Canada, the Pearson International Airport.

Much of the good work the management of Pearson airport accomplished over the years was tainted by this whole exercise. We want to put this file to rest now so that we can come back at it from square one. Does that mean we are going to go out and do the same deal over again with a different set of lobbyists? No.

In fact there are Bloc members over there who have suggested from time to time that there were Liberal lobbyists involved in this transaction. That is a fact.

It is a well known fact that all the lobby firms in Ottawa do not have just Conservative lobbyists. They have Conservatives, Liberals and NDP. In fact they even have a couple of lobbyists who work on the Reform Party, but I do not know about the Bloc.

[An hon. member]

No lobbyists for the Reform Party.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

No lobbyists for the Reform Party. Okay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As the hon. parliamentary secretary knows very well, we were supposed to avoid these kinds of across the floor sword waving. If the member would please put his remarks to the Chair, it will avoid getting blood on the rug, so to speak.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my humble apologies. It must be Friday morning. I think the House is getting to me this week, but I will be going home to my constituency soon.

The problem in the Toronto area is that we have about 600,000 people out of work. It is serious because Toronto has never before been on its economic knees the way it has been in the last two years.

I am speaking on behalf of all members from Toronto at this moment. We talk among ourselves and we rack our brains on how we can get our city going again. Toronto has always been generous to every region in Canada and is happy to do it.

Do not think for a second that a lot of us were not tempted to move ahead with this project because it created a lot of jobs. We knew however that the contract the Conservatives had was not in the best interests of all of Canada. A lot of the money that was made at the Pearson International Airport, unlike other airports in Canada, was used to subsidize the smaller regions of Canada where the little local airports could not stand on their own two feet.

It is very important when we look at Toronto that we do not compare it to the local airport authority in Vancouver. This is a national airport. The profits and the cash flow from this airport service the country.

There was a lot of temptation for us to say: "Wow, this is about a job creation project for 2,000 people", but in the interests of Canada we said no. The Prime Minister, the caucus and the cabinet said we are not striking this deal.

What do we have to do now? We have to revitalize that airport. It invites tourists here, trade shows, people that want to invest not just in Toronto but in every region of our country and we must revitalize it. We have to get it going, but we have to get it going in the interests not just of a handful of developers, and not just in the interests of a few lobbyists.

By the way, I have a lot of friends who are in the lobby business. Yes, I do. I can tell you there have been many times when we have had tough debates on this, but I have always been consistent. I believe in a strong national government.

We have to put this piece of legislation to bed. We have to finish it off. Then we can put people who look at the macro picture of Canada in place to start revitalizing this airport.

I appeal to all members. If you want a good discussion on lobbyists then stand by and wait for the lobbyists registration act. It is going to be coming before this House in the not too distant future. It will be in committee and we can have a good solid constructive debate.

Do not think for a second that we on this side of the House do not share a lot of your views on the way the lobby industry went up by 10,000 per cent in the last 10 years. Many of us who were MPs in the last government felt that the lobbyists around this town had more influence and more power than even the cabinet. If you think for a second that all of a sudden we are going to look the other way, we are going to have a very transparent constructive piece of lobbyists registration legislation.

Everyone knows I have always been emphatic about the fact that tourism is one of the greatest job creators in this country. Linked to tourism is the fact that our transportation instruments must be healthy and must represent the type of community and country we have. Nowhere is Pearson more important than in the tourism industry. Therefore I am asking members from all regions to put this bill through the next phases quickly so we can get on with the business of revitalizing the Toronto market.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me real pleasure today to speak to the issue of Bill C-22 on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada. I am pleased because it is always a pleasure to expose the facts about a bad deal, but also because it gives me an opportunity to show how the Reform Party presents a better option for Canadian voters than the old line parties, the Liberals and Conservatives.

I want to describe something for my attentive audience in the Chamber today and those across the nation who are listening in. I want to tell my audience about one aspect of how a political party is organized and the major problems that this sometimes engenders.

The old line parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, are nearly as old as Canada itself. Even before 1867 they were loose political alliances based on culture and other associations. When we look at the ideology of the two main parties they believe much the same things.

Both parties believe in the great concepts of democracy, the rule of law, the parliamentary system and the general viability of the free enterprise system. Both parties, at least until a few months ago, were national parties. Both have elected English and French Canadian Prime Ministers. In fact there are so many likenesses that a person not acquainted with this country might ask what makes them different.

There is one telling difference. I would describe a political party as a circle of friends committed to a common political purpose. People who are not friends will not be able to work together to achieve this purpose and a group of friends not committed to the political purpose will of course accomplish almost nothing. Both elements must exist in order for an effective political party to exist; a group of friends and a common political purpose.

When we consider this definition the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives becomes crystal clear. They are simply different circles of friends. The Conservative Party is just such a circle of people bound together by common association, bearing allegiance to one another within the party because of generations of common involvement and association. I say generations because this is the case of the old line parties. The Conservatives have been around for over a century. Today's young Conservative might say: "My father was a Conservative, and my grandfather. I am going to vote Conservative".

Imagine how deep party roots go; old friendships, old acquaintances, old loyalties, old trusts and yes, old favours and old debts. The bad goes with the good. Where there are common political commitments there are inevitable favours that go back a long time, and how are these favours repaid? Sometimes they are paid by patronage, sometimes by prestige, sometimes by simple influence and sometimes by money.

When I began my talk today I noted that a political party must have two elements, a circle of friends and a common political purpose. Over generations of political life the purpose begins to waver. Because the political direction seems secure people lose sight of the great political purpose for which they were bound together in the first place and the circle of friends becomes ever more important.

In time unfortunately the circle of friends can completely overshadow the political purpose and the friendships take over. The public interest becomes lost somewhere between the shuffle of favour after favour and the public interest begins to suffer.

This is how political corruption develops. This is exactly how the Conservative Party of Canada has corrupted itself in this Pearson airport deal; a tight circle of friends, bound together no longer by common political purpose but by using their political associations to benefit financially from the public purse.

This is why I believe Canada needs the Reform Party. Canada needs a new circle of friends, people who feel a deeper friendship for the people of Canada and their interests than with each other; a circle of reform minded friends who are joined in a passionate, idealistic political purpose, Canadians for whom that common political purposes stands far above any of these associations for personal gain.

After developing the background in this way, let us now turn to the bill before us. The media did a fine job of exposing the corruption inherent in the Pearson airport contract, the Conservative circle of friends who were benefiting very handsomely from their political friendships in the dying days of the Tory administration.

The Liberals did a fine thing, the right thing, when they promised during the election campaign to stop the deal on behalf of all Canadians. It is not unethical to scrap a contract that was corrupt in the very first place.

The Reform Party of Canada does not oppose the broad outlines of this bill. We agree with its general concept and we agree especially on section 9 of the bill which reads: "No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this act".

If the contract was a corruption on the bidding process in the first place so the parameters of the tender were written to suit just one bid then the entire process is rightly null and void. No compensation should be owed by the crown to these people.

Unfortunately while the Liberals were making a political promise during the election there was a fly in the ointment.

Amid the good things that are being done, toward the end of Bill C-22 in clause 10 there is a statement which causes us to stop short: "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".

The intention of the act is to right a wrong. It is to stop corruption. It is to reverse a deal which benefited a circle of friends in an unethical way. The government declared rightly when it said that it owed no compensation to anyone.

Why then does the act contain a clause which allows the minister to make any payment he chooses, only needing the approval of cabinet which makes its decisions behind closed doors?

After trumpeting self-righteously about the evils of the deal, the minister now gives himself and the cabinet the authority to make a secret deal with the old Conservatives instead of being up front with the people of Canada. Why would that be? Instead of Conservative friends, it could be that there are Liberal friends who took part in this deal whom the minister has not forgotten.

After publicly exposing and denouncing the corruption inherent in the Conservative deal are the Liberals now having the same thing to do with their Liberal circle of friends?

I would note for the public record, and not particularly with glee but with sadness, that there are also many Liberals involved in the contract. Claridge Properties is a company heavily involved. It is controlled by a prominent Liberal Party supporter and fundraiser. There is a Liberal senator involved, a Liberal organizer and a lobbyist. And of course Liberal veteran Bob Nixon was coincidentally named to investigate all the factors in this organization.

Where there is smoke there is fire and the smokescreen that surrounds this thing is starting to get thicker and thicker. Might there be a possibility that there are prominent Liberals and others we do not even know about who are directly or indirectly involved in this and will be entitled to some compensation?

In order to keep the public interest on centre stage and to take the political favours off the scene altogether the minister should not be making these decisions about compensation. The decisions should be made in public on a non-partisan basis by the Standing Committee on Transport in which all members of all political parties can have a say and invite witnesses to come before it.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

This is where everything related to the deal will be made public. If real economic losses have been suffered by innocent parties the committee will make a joint decision in front of the television cameras, in front of the Canadian people to show that no political influence peddling has been involved.

The Reform Party does not believe that it is cost effective to go to the length of having a royal commission on this. We do not think that is necessary. However, we would prefer to see the issue discussed openly before the standing committee with a good number of guest speakers and all willing witnesses coming forward to give their perspectives on the issues.

This royal commission, despite all of the other Pearson flaws, would be like using a hammer to kill a fly and would undoubtedly become a prime example of yet more millions spent uselessly. Therefore, it is becoming more and more obvious that the old line parties are no longer focusing. They need to focus on the public interest rather than on the political interest or the line of friendship that I talked about earlier.

Even when they try to address political corruption they are no longer able to act without making sure that their friends are being taken care of, or at least that impression may be given. Section 9 is claiming no compensation is owed but it is already mitigated and contradicted by section 10 which says that the minister, if he feels so inclined, may give any compensation he feels fit to give.

This whole issue highlights the crying need for change in Canada's political system. It is time for a new political association to wipe the old ones off the map for a while, to erase the old blackboard covered thick with old IOUs. It is time to start with a clean political slate. I would suggest it is time to start with the Reform Party of Canada.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to acknowledge all those taking part in this debate. I understand that we do not all share the same views. I would also like to remind those listening to us that it was two weeks ago that the Official Opposition undertook to shed some light on the now unfortunate tale of Pearson Airport.

The more we debate this issue, the more this sad tale reminds us of how the traditional political parties equate politics with favouritism and lobbying. Indeed, lobbying, favouritism and politics are often viewed as one and the same thing. That is why the Official Opposition, being the responsible group that it is, wanted to shed some light on this transaction. Surely you have never doubted that we are a responsible party because we have never acted other than responsibly since being elected to sit as the Official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the hon. members to applaud my comments?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

We must not, however, lose sight of the fact that this is a serious issue. Since my hon. colleague is speaking about facts, it would be a good idea to remind him that as we speak, the Liberal government has yet to make the details of this deal public. Yet, we are discussing a transaction that has major financial implications. Our listeners should know that we are conducting this debate without the actual contract in hand, without knowing in detail the contractual obligations which bound the former government to the consortium in question.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to review some of the events leading up to this transaction. They clearly show that in our political system, until such time as we have lobbying legislation with teeth, it will always be possible for a government to indulge in favouritism.

The following question arises then. How is it that this government, when in opposition, stressed many times the need to review the lobbying legislation and even made this issue a priority? And how is it that six months after coming to power, it still has made no attempt to conduct such a review? We are critical of the government for its failure to act on this matter.

While we may agree with its decision to cancel the Conservative deal, we can only wonder why it did not see things through to their logical conclusion. Since the two parties are in agreement, something that does not happen often during the life of a Parliament, why will the government not attack the root of the problem by urgently introducing legislation here in the House to deal with the explosive issue of lobbying? Both the Reform Party and the Official Opposition would be ready to move on this matter immediately and would make themselves available.

There would have been no question of an agenda or of a timetable. We would have devoted all of our energies and efforts to studying this legislation as quickly as possible.

It so happens that, like the Conservatives, the Liberals have their political friends. Therefore, they are duty bound to support them. When you have a national party like the Liberal Party and you are looking for financial backup like they do, it is understandable that you be bound by the election fund that allows you to be in politics.

Of course, we, in Quebec, have freed ourselves from such a thing. This is part of René Levesque's legacy, this great political figure Félix Leclerc said was part of a much too short list of liberators of the people. The main thing we have inherited from the Levesque era was this piece of legislation he gave the National Assembly, one of the very first ones introduced in the Parti Quebecois government's mandate. Those were the days, the early days of the Parti Quebecois government, days that will come back though!

You are aware of the political situation. I will not elaborate on the subject, but some optimism is permitted on this side of the House. The reason we are in this predicament is because we do not have legislation "that has teeth" respecting lobbyists.

So, in March 1992, the government called for tenders-also known as bids in government language-for the privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson Airport.

If you were the least bit concerned by the issue, you were already wondering: Why privatize Pearson Airport? In terms of public facilities, can you think of something more common, more public than an airport? Why privatize Pearson Airport then, if for one thing, it was the main airport in Canada and, for another, it was profitable? This was an airport that actually showed profits on its books, an airport that did not carry losses. Already, people were wondering: why privatize a piece of our national heritage which is crucial to the Ontario economy, as we know, when it showed profits?

You will tell me this is typical of the silly way of thinking of a Conservative government in bed with-and almost incestuously so-the private sector. That is what the ideological motivation was.

In the end, in June 1992, two bids were received. Strangely enough, the public tendering process on such a major public stake had produced only two bids, both bidders already having ties with the airport administration. And, let us not forget the time limit potential suppliers were given to submit tenders; the entire process lasted but 90 days. That was the first technical irregularity. Every member who knows anything about administrative law knows, for instance, that the labour standards committee gives 90 days to initiate whatever collective agreement grievance, even for matters much less binding. That is the minimum time allotted in the notice of dispute.

Yet, it was decided to apply this minimum time limit to something as major as a multimillion privatization process. So, that was the first irregularity, and observers did not fail to point it out. That is the crux of the controversy and this is where we really get the feeling of doing our job as the opposition, by raising these facts.

Who were these bidders? Who are they? Paxport is a consortium controlled by Don Matthews group. Don Matthews was president of Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign in 1983. My apologies to Joe Clark for saying this, but Don Matthews was president of Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign. This man is part of the Conservative Party machinery. He is so much a part of it that he was the mastermind behind four or five national fund-raising campaigns. And you know that Tory national fund-raising campaigns generally involve several zeros and that most of the money comes from private enterprise.

So the first bidder is directly linked to this great Tory family, now a kind of nuclear family, we agree, but once a little more extended than it is now.

[An hon. member]

Almost a single-parent family.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Almost a single-parent family, I am told, Mr. Speaker.

The second bidder, Claridge Properties Inc., is a company owned by Charles Bronfman, who is not exactly the most destitute of Canadians or the closest to the Optimist Club or the Salvation Army. He is, however, quite close to the Liberal Prime Minister. And we saw during the campaign the tenuous cocktail-circuit links connecting Charles Bronfman to this Liberal family he is still a part of.

The two bidders are going to merge and, whether Tory or Liberal, it all amounts to the same thing. Our two bidders are going to merge into T1 T2 Limited Partnership, which will be the new company responsible for privatizing Terminals 1 and 2. It reeks of scandal, patronage, nepotism. That is why the Official Opposition thinks we must shed light on this issue. And to do it as expeditiously as the government wants-a government that has still not made public the legal text of this privatization deal-we say a commission of enquiry is needed to deal with this blot on, this breach of democracy.

This case reminds us that the federal administration will be faced with this kind of situation until we have, as demanded by the Official Opposition and the Reform Party, a lobbyists law with teeth. The government must resolve the issue.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take part in the discussion on the cancellation of the contract to privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto, a very profitable airport. The former Conservative government concluded these agreements only two and a half weeks before the election of October 25, 1993. They would have turned over to private sector interests for a 60-year period the development and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at the largest airport in Canada.

In the last election campaign, the Liberals promised to cancel this outrageous contract that by all appearances was a case of patronage and end-of-mandate political manipulation. Clearly, this questionable transaction is contrary to the public interest and the Conservative government's only purpose was to enrich its fund-raisers.

Some provisions of Bill C-22 are contradictory and controversial; for example, clause 9, which says that in principle the government will not have to compensate the parties concerned. However, further on, the bill gives the Minister of Transport full discretion to conclude agreements on payment of money, to pay these same parties the amount he deems appropriate under this law. I think that no compensation should be paid in this case. This latter provision is disturbing. It leaves the way open for lobbyists involved with the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party to obtain the compensation they want.

Furthermore, I very strongly support the proposal of the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, the Leader of the Official Opposition, to create a royal commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of one of the biggest scandals I have seen in Canadian public life and politics since coming to this country in 1974.

Obviously, there was no openness in this affair.

Even the investigator appointed by Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Nixon, says that: "The public should have the right to know the full details of the agreement". Besides examining this questionable transaction, this commission should also deal with the administration of all federal airports in Canada.

This transaction that the Conservative Party wanted to put through was condemned at the time by the labour movement, especially by my old union, the National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW), by the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. These unions also represent the employees of Pearson Airport.

Consequently, I want to pay tribute to the union movement for its clear and firm position against the privatization of that airport, and in particular to CAW president, my former colleague Basil "Buzz" Hargrove, as well as to Cheryl Kryzaniwsky, president of local 2213 of the same union, which represents 8,000 workers from that industry. I spent the last two days in Banff, close to your riding. I met with over 100 delegates from this local chapter representing airline industry employees. These people passed excellent resolutions to face the current crisis in this industry.

These unions opposed policies to privatize and regulate their sector of operation at any cost. For example, they opposed the privatization of Air Canada. Indeed, as a consequence of these policies, several Canadian and Quebec companies have gone bankrupt, thousands of jobs have been lost, and big American carriers are now exerting greater control over those companies which are still in operation.

I want to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the fact that TAP-Air Portugal will stop flying to Canada, that is to Montreal and Toronto, after doing so for 25 years. I was informed of that decision in the last couple of days by the CAW union, which represents employees of that company in Canada, and also by the Portuguese community, which is one of the largest ethnic communities in Canada with close to 500,000 members who reside mostly in Ontario and Quebec. Its leaders have formed a coalition and unanimously oppose that decision.

I therefore ask the Canadian government to make representations to the Portuguese government and to the management of TAP-Air Portugal, to have that decision reversed, because it could have a very negative impact for the travel industry between the two countries, and it will result in the loss of numerous jobs.

At Pearson Airport alone, 56,000 workers depend on direct and indirect airport activities. The annual total payroll for these workers is $1.9 billion, an amount which greatly contributes to the economy of the Greater Toronto Area, including the $630 million in taxes paid to the three levels of government. This gives an idea of the impact of that industry on Canada's economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit that any agreement of any nature must have, as one of its primary objectives, the protection of the rights and interests of workers.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to review some of the red book promises this morning.

The red book promised more integrity in government, it promised frugality, it promised to reduce perks and modify the MP pension plan, and change some of the Order in Council appointments. It talked about transparency in appointments. Appointments would be made to highly qualified people only. It talked about cleaning up patronage.

The third issue was changing the way committees worked. There would be more consultation, earlier consultation and more power to make changes in the committee structure.

I thought I would review how I think the government is doing on these issue. Polls say that the Prime Minister's popularity is excellent. Politicians have risen in public estimation. They are no longer lower than a rattlesnake's belly in some people's estimation. I hope that is true. I would have to say then that the mark for more integrity in government is quite acceptable on these issues.

Integrity is somewhat fragile, however. There are watchful eyes looking for lapses in integrity: the watchful eyes of the media, the watchful eyes of the public and the watchful eyes of opposition parties. One thing we are ordered to do in opposition is to watch for breaches and lack of integrity.

I thought I might mention some of the stumbles that the government may have made in these issues. NAFTA was promised in the election campaign a very specific review; it was signed pretty much as is. Cruise missile testing, something the Liberals had consistently talked against, has been passed.

On the Ginn takeover, a tiny odour settles around that takeover. The issue of election boundary revision is an issue that has a slight odour to it. I picked up a couple of little items from recent news clips. One is entitled "Pork barrel grows larger". In his ongoing investigation of patronage in federal advertising contracts, Greg Weston reports that the ad industry in Toronto is abuzz with rumours that some cabinet ministers are hoping to influence contracting by crown corporations. Such agencies are supposed to be run as independent businesses on behalf of taxpayers, with no patronage.

I refer to little item in the Ottawa Sun . It reports that a junior cabinet minister has been using a chauffeur driven limousine, unauthorized by the Prime Minister. There is a tiny odour in those issues.

I do not want to be overly critical. As I said before the marks on integrity given to the Liberal government at this stage of the game are quite acceptable, but if principles are solid integrity will follow meekly behind. If I could rephrase that, one does not have to work hard at maintaining integrity if one's principles are founded upon a granite base.

Bill C-22 has also a very slight or faint odour about it. It is a faint odour but a definite odour. The cancellation was correct. The desire for fair compensation is correct. However the government needs to bring the bills for fair compensation to the transport committee, have them reviewed in public, and there would be no odour or taint about the cancellation at all. Those bills need scrutiny. They need open review and there would be no problem with cancelling the Pearson airport deal.

There is no room for ministerial approval. There is no need for backroom deals. On this issue integrity is not difficult at all.

For example, in my young life I did some mountaineering. We went on an expedition to Gondeau Traverse which was technically very difficult. We had fixed pitons in place. We hooked up our carabiners and were able to make this traverse with technical difficulties. We took our less talented friends along to show our prowess. When we got to the middle of Gondeau Traverse we had to rappel straight down an unclimbable cliff.

Without failure, when pulling our rope down from Gondeau Traverse it would hook on a large rock above. A friend of mine, a good chum, had done this traverse numerous times. I must say we were showing off when we did it. We thought we were excellent mountaineers. The last time we did Gondeau Traverse we pulled the rope and the huge rock above us came loose. A 2,000-pound granite chunk fell. The two of us scattered and were very lucky to survive. The rock crashed on the ledge below us and ruined the climbing rope. We both looked upon that as a close miss.

I believe the faint odour that relates to Bill C-22 may just simply be the rope hooking on the rock above the government. There is no need for this to happen. It is completely avoidable.

Why would the Reform Party be so free with this advice to prevent the taint on this issue? I say very plainly that it is because the Reform Party frankly would like the Liberal government to be a success. That may be an issue that some would laugh at. I am particularly keen to see the government bring Canada back to its senses and not stumble on issues where there is no need to stumble. I give this advice freely and openly. There is no need to have the taint on Bill C-22.

An example of how keen we are to see the government succeed as a party is when our leader during comments on "The House" was asked if he were disappointed there was no tax revolt after the finance minister made his budgetary statements. His answer was very revealing. He said to the interviewer: "My desire is not to have a tax revolt. My desire is not to see the budget fail. My desire is to see Canada function at the highest level".

He was saying with those comments that his desire was to see the government succeed. We will stand as reminders to the government if it makes mistakes. In my view it is making a mistake with the bill by not having an open, transparent process as it promised. There is no need for a big review. There is no need for a fancy royal commission. There is a need for transparency.

I say for my children's sake: "Don't do this with a taint, don't do this with an odour, don't have the rope hang up on the rock above. It is easy to make this transparent, and I beg you to do that".

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 before the House today aims at cancelling the privatization of the Pearson Airport, and the government, by introducing this piece of legislation, wants to fulfil the commitment it made during the election campaign.

This morning, my colleagues reviewed in detail all the process surrounding the negotiations of this privatization deal, and the Reform member who spoke first this morning mentioned that Conservative as well as Liberal lobbyists were involved in this deal since the very beginning.

In his report, ordered by the government, Mr. Nixon concluded that this contract had to be cancelled, and I quote: "My review 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 in unacceptable. I recommend that the contract be cancelled". Of course, in such circumstances, the Bloc also agrees that the contract must be cancelled.

But today, we are addressing the issue of political manipulation, the transparency of these contracts and the involvement of lobbyists, people close to the government and the friends of the big political parties.

Let me remind you that the Nixon report, as my colleague mentioned briefly, also made the following recommendation: "Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in this agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion. Where the Government of Canada proposes to privatize a public asset, in my opinion, transparency should be the order of the day". He adds what has already been quoted: "The public should have the right to know the full details of this agreement". That is why the Bloc Quebecois is requesting a public inquiry on this matter, on this contract which we never saw.

With this bill, the government wants not only to cancel the privatization of the Pearson Airport, but also to leave it to the minister to settle all of the financial problems related to this agreement. All of these details will be up to the minister. We ask that the amounts and the names be made public and that there be real openness.

We remember that, according to the red book, which the government delights in quoting more and more in this House, the Liberals were probably elected on the promise of wall-to-wall openness. We know quite well that people everywhere in Canada and in Quebec are starting-I dare say-to be fed up with politicians with a tight-lip policy.

If the Liberals were lucky enough to be elected, it was especially on their promise of openness. But what is the reality? When we ask for an inquiry and for the documents on the issue of privatization of Pearson Airport to be tabled, we do not nor will we get anything. The answer is no.

Ever since the beginning of this 35th Parliament, in January, we have been asking the government to open its books to the public and to examine one by one all items of public spending, including tax expenditures. The answer is no. The Prime Minister said recently in the House that if we wanted details on government spending, we only had to ask the committees, since their mandate is to study these expenditures. The Bloc Quebecois asked all committees that sit and the answer was no.

In the case of the Hibernia Project, which is now losing billions of dollars, I for one asked the Committee on Natural Resources to let me see the Hibernia original contract. The answer was no.

This afternoon, we will resume debate on a motion by the hon. member for Richelieu regarding the funding of political parties by individuals. When this motion was first moved, we could see right away that members of the Liberal government were against it. Again, they refuse to make things more transparent.

Meanwhile, the situation is very bad in Canada. According to some figures reported last week, there are 790,000 welfare recipients and 400,000 unemployed in Quebec. We heard this morning that the number of unemployed in Canada grew by 65,000 in the month of April, an increase of 1 per cent in some areas. These unemployed people are concentrated in three provinces: Newfoundland, Quebec and British Columbia.

Faced with this situation, the government cannot find anything to say other than it is the unemployed who are the problem, they are a bunch of beer-drinking couch potatoes. That is why things are going bad in Canada. Also, and this is again related to the policy of transparency, when things are going bad, there has to be a reason. If the government cannot be transparent, it has to find a scapegoat. When things are going bad in Canada, we hear that it is because Quebec is too demanding. We all know that since the beginning of the Canadian Confederation, the whole history of this country could be described-

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He still has a fair amount of time left for his speech. When we resume debate around noon, he will have the floor.

It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.

Bosnian Children Relief

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for several years now we have seen unrelenting images of destruction from the former Yugoslavia. Canadian peacekeepers have been deployed to protect innocent civilians. Parliament has debated our role there and even the possibility of air strikes. But the war continues and so does the suffering of innocent children.

This morning a press conference was held in honour of some very special children who have been brought to Parliament Hill by the Basic family of St. Catharines, Ontario. Saban and Fatima Basic established Bosnian Children Relief in 1992 to aid the most helpless victims of the Bosnian war, the young.

The Basics have travelled to Bosnian refugee camps several times to help provide food and shelter to orphans of the war regardless of their ethnic origin.

These children remind us of the bloodshed and terror they have endured in their homeland, but they also bear a message of hope. Let us congratulate their courage. Let us support their mission and let us all pray for peace on Bosnia.

Eaton Yale Limitée

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Westinghouse, now known as Eaton Yale Limitée , has announced that it will shut down its plant in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, on August 31, 1994, throwing 175 people out of work.

As a former union representative with Westinghouse, I am deeply troubled by this announcement, particularly since Saint-Jean is still reeling from the decision to close the military college.

I call upon the federal government to take action to prevent the shutdown of this plant and the loss of hundreds of jobs. Westinghouse is a supplier of electrical equipment. From now on, the U.S. division of Westinghouse will supply the Canadian and Quebec markets. If the government, which has made job creation its top priority, wishes to be consistent, it will not allow any further erosion of the manufacturing sector which employs thousands of workers.

Mother's Day

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Sunday is Mother's Day and I would like to give my best wishes to all mothers across Canada.

All of my colleagues I am sure have a special lady in their lives. The special lady in my life disciplined me for lighting matches in the woods many years ago in Lakeside, Nova Scotia. What she did not know is that I put comic books down the back of my pants and I did not feel that stern hand upon my backside. I even acted out a five minute crying spree, a skill I am finding quite useful in the House of Commons today. While trying to keep one step ahead of my mother was exciting, I now know she was three steps ahead of me.

Whatever we are in Canada today is a reflection of what our mothers taught us to be. It is Mother's Day this Sunday but let us not wait until then to tell our mothers how proud we are of them.

Happy Mother's Day, mom.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today about Mother's Day which we will be celebrating this coming Sunday, May 8. Across Canada, tributes will be paid to mothers for the invaluable contribution they have made to our lives.

As a mother I know that no sacrifice can be too great for one's children and that no joy can be greater than seeing your children grow to be healthy, happy and responsible members of Canadian society.

I wish to extend my very special thanks and love to the mothers in the riding of Saint-Denis and across Canada and finally to my mother for her unabiding love, her countless sacrifices and for standing by me so that today I can sit in this House.

Happy Mother's Day. Joyeuse Fête des mères.

Israel

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week a historic agreement was signed in Cairo between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Israeli troops are now free to pull out of the Gaza strip and the west bank. After 27 years of strife peace in the Middle East is at last at hand.

A few weeks ago the children of Beth Jacob Hebrew School in my riding gave me a poem they had written. I would like to share their words:

Peace is special, it means love The symbol of peace is the dove Peace means to hope and care And make new friends everywhere There has been a lot of wars We don't need this anymore Enough of all the fighting, killing Too much blood is all we are spilling.

The prayer of these children, all between 10 and 11 years old, has been answered. The dove of peace flies over Jerusalem.

Victims Of War

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the deplorable situation of children living in war torn regions around the world has been condemned by several members of this House.

Whether it be the situation in Rwanda or the situation in Bosnia, we have all witnessed the senseless slaughter of human life. We have mourned such waste and violence.

What is most unfortunate is that innocent children are caught in the middle of such violence between the bullets, the bombs and the carnage-

-and must suffer the consequences and be the victims of the foolish actions of adults. I applaud those European countries which have opened their hearts to these children and I hope that Canada, a just and humanitarian nation, will see fit to do likewise.

Quebec's Major Central Labour Bodies

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's inability to check unemployment, Quebec's major central labour bodies must be praised for their show of social understanding this past week in taking new steps forward in restoring hope to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Quebecers who, needless to say, did not choose to be out of work. By coming up with new ideas like eliminating overtime and dual employment, the CNTU, CEQ and FTQ are leading the way to a better distribution of collective wealth.

I urge all the people of Quebec, employers and workers, to seek concrete solutions to a difficult problem: lack of jobs. What is at stake is the social and economic well-being of our society, a society which has to come to the rescue of a generation of sacrificial victims: youth. Our young people can only gain from initiatives taken by local stakeholders who must take over for an overliberal government.