You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to speak for the second time on Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, in Toronto.
The Pearson Airport is the biggest airport in Canada, with 20 million passengers yearly, that is some 57,000 daily. It occupies 1,792 hectares, includes three terminals and employs 15,000 people. Some 800 aircraft land every day at Pearson and take off for 300 destinations in 60 foreign countries. This is the only Canadian airport that can be considered a true crossroads.
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. It is a critical national gateway and a hub service to travellers, families and shippers. It cannot be duplicated by any other facility in the area, indeed the province or the country, although Vancouver is getting there and Montreal has the potential. This combination of its economic and social importance to the region, the province and the country, and the fact that it is a unique service for which there is no alternative, transforms the airport, in my opinion, from a simple transportation facility into one of the most important public assets in the southern Ontario and Canadian economy.
After all the speeches we in the Official Opposition made on the subject, you surely know that our biggest reservation about the bill, indeed our strong protest, relates to clause 10, which reads as follows:
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.
That is the problem. You also know by now that the opposition supports the cancellation of this shocking contract because there are many reasons to do so. What convinced me, I must say in all humility, is the Nixon report that I read in full several times. I understood why Mr. Nixon, Liberal as he is-and an honourable man, close to the circles we are talking about, including the Prime Minister's friends-because of his fairness and his sense of responsibility, had no choice but to talk about "manoeuver".
A careful reading of his report shows why he used such strong language. In Webster's New World Dictionary, "manoeuver" is defined thus:
To manipulate or scheme.
So this is indeed strong language.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House some excerpts from the report that are very informative and illustrate the cloudy, obscure and shocking nature of this affair.
As we in the Official Opposition have repeated on many occasions, we need a royal commission of inquiry to determine whether or not there were shady dealings involved.
For example, on page 5, there is a short paragraph that gives us a hint on the scheming. Scheming is the common thread that runs through the entire Nixon Report. Let me quote the following paragraph:
In the calculation of gross revenue (on which rent will be based), there are 10 deductions which I am advised are unusual in commercial transactions.
Mr. Nixon also goes on to say that T1 T2 Limited Partnership, which would oversee the airport's administration, is a multiple rather than a sole purpose corporation.
According to Mr. Nixon:
The lease does not restrict the freedom of T1 T2 Limited Partnership to carry out an undertaking other than the management, operation and maintenance of Terminals 1 and 2. Therefore, the financial health of T1 T2 Limited Partnership could be adversely affected by the financial failure of a venture which has nothing to do with the management, operation and maintenance of Terminals 1 and 2.
With respect to passenger traffic, the report states the following:
The Government of Canada undertakes not to permit development of any airport facility within 75 km of the T1 T2 complex that would reduce passenger traffic at Pearson by more than 1.5 million persons per year, until the volume of passenger traffic at Pearson reaches 33 million people per year. Present projections predict this number to be reached by approximately the year 2005. If the Government of Canada chooses to engage in such proscribed development-
The scheming is clear, as is the understanding between those who are close to and exert undue influence on the government.
Another interesting and revealing point is worth citing:
About the end of September 1993, T1 T2 Limited Partnership represented to the Government that it had entered into 10 contracts with non-arms length parties-
therefore parties with ties to the project, Mr. Speaker-
-prior to October 7, 1993. One of these was said to be a construction management agreement with Matthews Construction. This information was not publicly disclosed.
We must know that Matthews is directly involved. It is a party to the whole deal and closely linked to Paxport's operations. It goes on to say:
After permitting the privatization of Terminal 3 at Pearson, the process to privatize Terminals 1 and 2, the remainder of the largest airport in Canada, is inconsistent with the major thrust of the policy of the Government of Canada announced in 1987.
It is under this policy that the government rejected the offer made in 1989-90 by the same players. Time and undue influence having done their job, the government showed a great deal of interest in 1993, and we know what happened.
Another very important finding of the Nixon report concerns the proposal submission time frame:
The RFP having as it did only a single stage and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame-
As we know, even with a $700 million investment, people have only 90 days to decide. I now continue with the quote:
-created, in my view, an enormous advantage to a proponent-
namely Paxport. That is what I call scheming, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Nixon goes on to say:
-that had previously submitted a proposal for privatizing and developing T1 and T2.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, given everything surrounding this deal, we are surprised, first, that the report itself does not make that suggestion and, second, that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, despite all its claims to transparency in the red book, did not do it. A royal commission of inquiry must be set up to shed light on this shocking event that, in my opinion, brings shame to Canada and its institutions.
I remind my friends opposite that the Liberal red book emphasizes in several places the need to restore people's trust in their government by making it more transparent. Disturbing facts in this case lead us to question the transparency of the Liberal government and the previous government as well as the legitimacy of any decision to compensate the businesses involved. The Lobbyists Act is a key element of this transparency. I will close by quoting an excerpt from chapter 6 of the red book dealing with the question of transparency and lobbying:
The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.