Mr. Speaker, let me take the opportunity in addressing the two amendments to make some comments vis-à-vis what both opposition members have indicated.
I thank all members of the committee and the chairman specifically for the way he managed the affairs of the committee. I also thank the critics of both the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party for their co-operation on a very difficult issue. We understand that and their co-operation was necessary. However I must disagree with what has been said today. It is important for me to clarify some of the allegations made by both my friend from the Bloc and my friend from the Reform Party.
The government wants to do the right thing and wants to do things right. Let us not forget that the bill before the House does what we promised to do during the election. One was a promise to review the Pearson privatization bill and appoint an arbitrator to take a look at the process and the deal to ensure the public interest was being protected. Mr. Nixon did that in an admirable fashion. He made a recommendation to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, as promised during the election, cancelled the Pearson deal after we became the government.
This bill formally cancels a bill and an agreement signed behind closed doors by the former government two weeks before the election. We know the process was not right. We know the public interest was not being served. By virtue of Bill C-22 the government has formally cancelled the bill and the contract. We have honoured our commitment to the Canadian people who put their trust in the Liberal Party to do exactly that.
Let it be very clear that we are not talking about a process whereby we are trying to hide behind the curtains or trying to do something behind closed doors. The agreement formally cancels the Pearson deal and puts Pearson back into the hands of the government. Therefore we are doing the right thing.
The Reform Party said that two wrongs did not make a right. I would agree with that philosophy but there were not two wrongs. There was one wrong and that was the putting together of the deal by the former government. We know what happened to the former government. It was thrown out of office at election time because of the way it operated generally and because of the way it operated on that bill.
To suggest that this bill and the conduct of this government are wrong is absolutely false. First our program and bill state that we will cancel the agreement, and that is what we are doing. Second, there will be no compensation paid, especially for lobbyist fees, profits and lost opportunities.
The people who entered into the agreement were warned before the election not to sign it. The new government in waiting gave them notice not to sign it. They chose to sign two weeks before an election. They took their chances. However the bill specifically says that we will only pay out of pocket expenses. We will only pay invoices where there was value for work done. If they cannot prove there was value for work done by way of an invoice, they do not get any money. It may very well be. Clause 10 says there may be no compensation unless they can prove that
they had a bona fide invoice prior to their signing the agreement or even after signing the agreement on October 7.
I also want to talk about some allegations that were made here today. Government members on the committee did not stand in the way of calling witnesses. Of the 17 witnesses the Bloc and Reform parties put forward, government members had said to invite them all in to tell their story and shed some light on the process. We only objected to two witnesses because we felt they were doing the negotiating. Mr. Wright and Mr. Nixon had already given advice to the government. Government members agreed to invite every other witness to the committee on that list, including Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Cogler and Senator Kobler.
We cannot force them to come to the committee if they do not want. Mr. Jelinek could not make it. Mr. Coughlin did not. I cannot remember whether or not former Prime Minister Campbell was invited. I do not know. A number of them chose not come before the committee.
The Bloc critic suggested that we should subpoena them. I understand the subpoena method has not been used in the House of Commons since 1913 or 1930. It is a complicated process that would have taken months. The House of Commons would have to be involved; the Senate may have to be involved. It could have taken months.
The Canadian people want us to put the matter to bed. They want us to cancel the agreement, get on with taking over Pearson and start to look at the opportunities with regard to Pearson. We have to formally cancel the contract. The bill does so.
We have to move forward. The delaying tactics the Bloc has put forward such as subpoenas and public inquiries would have cost millions of dollars. They would have taken too much time and at the end of the day, guess what? We would have arrived at the same conclusion the government arrived at: to put a bill before the House to cancel the contract and negotiate fair compensation, whether or not there should be any compensation. I think we are at that stage.
I want to get to the meat of the amendments put forward by the Reform Party and the Bloc. As far as transparency is concerned the Reform Party has suggested in its amendment that the minister shall cause to be laid before the House any agreement entered into. While that might sound innocent enough, let me suggest to the member who put it forward that it is redundant. There are checks and balances in the system that will lay transparency and accountability at the feet of the minister. Anything the minister pays-one nickel, one penny or one dollar-will be subject to public scrutiny of the auditor general. It will be subject to the public accounts committee of which a Bloc member is the chair. After an agreement it could ask to review the agreement.
The House of Commons indirectly deals with those matters. Government is transparent. Government will be subjected to the court of public opinion. Whether or not compensation is finally arrived at, if any, it will be in the court of public opinion. The process is transparent. Accountability is to the House and to the government, which in a democracy is exactly where it should be.
For the Bloc to suggest by virtue of its amendment that no compensation should be paid whatsoever is wrong. We have said that there shall be no compensation for lost profits. There shall be no compensation for lobbyists. This was a signed agreement, maybe repugnant. We may not agree with the process. We may not even agree with the content but it was signed legally by a government and legally by another party.
Our clause 10 suggests that you have to show value for work. We will not pay more than one cent than we have to. That is what the Prime Minister had indicated and I think that is reasonable.
We have international obligations. We have to be seen as being reasonable. This was a unique bill for some very unique circumstances. Never in the history of this country I believe has such a bill said either you negotiate, and you have 30 days to negotiate, and after proclamation you have 30 days thereafter or there shall be no compensation whatsoever.
This government took bold action because it agreed that the process was flawed, that the public interest was not being served at all. We cancelled the Pearson deal and we said to those people "come to us with the legitimate invoices and we will only pay what we can and if you don't like what we think about what you should be paid there shall be no compensation whatsoever".
We need to get control of our destiny in terms of Pearson and this bill does it. Those amendments do nothing to this bill to improve it but in fact move to waste more of the taxpayers' money and cause us more time loss.