Mr. Speaker, consideration of this bill has been long and very perplexing for many of us. We have dealt with it in the House and we have dealt with it at committee. We think there are still some very serious problems with it.
Essentially I believe that two wrongs do not make a right. Many wrongs have been alleged in this bill. Right from the very start of the whole Pearson development program there has been an allegation of interference in the system of setting up the contract and awarding it.
There have been allegations of inappropriate lobby tactics and of crown princing, which is when something is designed so that only one prechosen person or group can qualify for it. There have also been allegations of generally improper government contacts in setting up this whole contract.
A public hearing in this whole process would have been desirable. A public hearing could have laid to rest who was at fault, whether or not this was a bad deal in terms of the contract itself, and whether or not the entire process by which this was done was flawed. This was something we tried for. It was something the opposition also tried for, but we were not successful in getting the government to agree.
What we got instead was the Nixon report which in effect was a non-report. We are not quite sure as the public is not sure exactly what the terms of reference were for Mr. Nixon. We are not sure exactly how he conducted this. We do know he did not call on several of the principals involved in this contract. We know he did not have anybody testify under oath. We know he did not make the information he received public. We know that the principals involved did not get an opportunity to refute any of the information he had gathered. He then made a recommendation to the government which interestingly coincided exactly with what the government planned to do.
There should have been some process whereby all the people involved in this contract and the way it was set up and awarded would have made public the very things they were involved in.
We did ask many of the principals and the lobbyists to attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport. Unfortunately, most of the principals and virtually all of the lobbyists declined to appear. We in the opposition attempted to put in a very long list of witnesses for the committee to subpoena but this was not done.
After two attempts at getting the principal witnesses in and their choosing not to attend, the committee decided there was no need to go any further. On the basis of the fact that these people were invited to committee and they chose-and I do use that word very clearly-they chose not to attend, this puts to rest for all intents and purposes the whole question of whether it was a good deal and whether it was a flawed system by which this whole contract operated. They had the opportunity to come forward and expose where they thought the government was making a mistake and this is something they did not do.
I am not aware of this in Canada but in the United States legal system there is a plea of no contest in addition to guilty or not guilty. No contest is when someone accuses you of something or alleges certain wrongdoings and you simply choose not to deny these and the court makes its decision accordingly.
While we may not have that legal concept in Canada that is in essence what has occurred in Bill C-22. The people involved who say they have been wronged chose not to come to the committee meetings. The government, which says this was a very bad deal and a bad system, also chose not to go public and expose to Canadians what in effect was wrong with this deal. Since they have chosen to do this I am essentially prepared to go with that and say that fine, if the principals do not wish to contest that they were unfairly dealt with and the government chooses not to defend its decision, then so be it.
It does leave one last aspect on which the government has to have some input and some knowledge of the process that is taking place. That is the process of the government arbitrarily choosing behind closed doors to pay or not to pay compensation to the players in this whole deal.
Given that they were not prepared to come forward and defend themselves in terms of whether or not the government made a bad decision brings to question whether or not any compensation should in fact be paid. I am certainly more than willing to listen to the claims they might have. I proposed an amendment at committee stage so they could bring their claims to committee, but that did not pass.
Now we have a situation in which the minister can choose to either accept or reject claims. The public and for that matter even the committee in this House are not going to be privy to what those claims were, what the justification was or even to whom these claims are paid.
As the master contract was to the Pearson Development Corporation it is quite possible the minister may choose to make the payment, if he makes one, to the Pearson Development Corporation. It can then disburse the funds within its own organization and we will never know who really got paid.
This whole process is wrong. The government has now hired Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright is not running this whole program but he is collecting these claims to the government. They are then being turned over to auditors who examine them to see if they involve lobbyist fees or lost profits and a recommendation will flow from that to the minister. He can then choose to accept or reject the recommendation.
Mr. Wright is being paid $1,000 a day on top of his expenses. I am not questioning whether or not Mr. Wright is worth that money. I am questioning why we hired Mr. Wright when the proper conduit for these claims and for these claimants to come
forward and make their case should have been to the Standing Committee on Transport. That is the proper process.
We are here to represent all of the people of Canada. In that way they can see that justice was done. That is the process we still need. That is why I brought forward this motion. I want it to go on record that it was originally drafted by the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc brought forward the motion but held off in favour of the amendment I brought in. I bring it forward now because we are still seeking some way to keep this entire process visible and transparent.
My amendment did not tie the minister to following our recommendations, only that we got to see and make those recommendations in the first place.
I would like to close by simply suggesting that we have to do the right thing. A wrong process has been flowing through this program all the way. I will conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning of my speech: Two wrongs do not make a right.