Mr. Speaker, it is not with joy in our hearts that we speak to a bill like this one, except that this afternoon's amendment would make it more reasonable.
My colleagues talked about various provisions earlier, about the state of mind that prevailed at the transport committee. I would like to add a few things myself. Earlier I heard Liberal members refer to their commitment, to the fact that the people asked them to cancel the Pearson Airport contract signed by their Conservative predecessors on whom they put all the blame in this.
The deeper we dig into this issue, the clearer things become. People are starting to dig deeper and that is why the government is in a hurry to get rid of this case once and for all to avoid getting to the bottom of things.
Reference was made to witnesses who found it difficult to come before the transport committee. Obviously, it was not in their interest to shed light on this issue and the government did not want to do it either. Why? Because it is not true that only the Tories or those very close to them were to blame in this.
On top of all this, the government found a way to compensate its friends and I do not think that was what the people asked for. The member for Hamilton West just said: "The people asked us to destroy this agreement, to cancel it". Except that the people never asked them to compensate their friends. They never as
Yes, we were told that next year the Auditor General could look into it. As in all the other cases, it will be on a page in his report, denouncing some other anomalies buried among all the other scandals involving the management of public funds. It will make the news for a day, a few hours, and it will be drowned in other bad news, so the government will be able to get away with it and never have to face the people and be accountable.
That is why the Reform Party's amendment at least suggests that these things should be more transparent, that this compensation should be submitted to the House and debated more publicly and openly.
In this regard, this amendment is a second option. We would prefer not to have any compensation at all, especially with all the scheming-that is really the word for it-surrounding this whole contract and its cancellation. If we had gotten to the bottom of it or if someone some day is able to get to the bottom of this story, there would be a big political scandal that would greatly affect the credibility of the government and of all politicians who were here in the 1980s doing business that way.
It is traditional in those parties. Whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives, they act the same way and there are other agreements made in all sorts of other ways that the people mistrust, perhaps rightly, because when something is rotten in a deal, they refuse to clear it up.
For once we would have had an opportunity to start over on a sound footing, to find the causes and sources of these problems, why politicians are subject to all sorts of-how should I say this?-temptations that make them do deals which are far from beneficial for everyone.
The original idea behind all this of turning airport management over to the community was not necessarily bad. Except that when we see how it is done in practice, we realize that there are many problems. It now casts great doubt on the whole process of privatizing airports or conceding them to community corporations. Now everyone is on the defensive about the process. This is what I had to say regarding comments made a little earlier in the debate.
As for the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency, it has the effect of abolishing clause 10 of the bill. In order to put things in perspective, I will read clauses 9 and 10, and then explain why we propose that the latter be deleted. Clause 9 reads: "No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with the coming into force of this Act". Good! That clause is just fine; the problem is clause 10, which says: "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 clause includes the expressions "If the Minister considers it appropriate" and "the approval of the Governor in Council". In other words, the cabinet could and will grant compensation, because the hon. member for Hamilton West said earlier that we must compensate those who incurred costs related to this project. Is it normal in the private sector to compensate people who, for all sorts of reasons, try to get a contract or work on a project, when their efforts are fruitless?
Some hard thinking is in order because if we did that with every public contract, regardless of the outcome, we would open the door to an endless process. That clause is terrible and it sets a rather serious precedent. After all, no compensation was provided in other cases. In the case of the helicopter contract, for example, any compensation must be approved by cabinet and the Governor in Council. All this is very worrisome.
Who does the government want to protect with this clause? You can be sure that some evidence will have to be produced, or that requests will have to be made by those who participated in the project. Two groups were involved: Claridge and Paxport. One is closely identified with friends of the Liberals, while the other has closer ties with the Conservatives. I am prepared to say that the requests made will not be reviewed in the same way, and this is why it would be appropriate to have a much more open and transparent process. I understand that some information is of a private nature. In reference to the public domain and compensation paid by taxpayers-these same taxpayers, whom the government must represent by cancelling the Pearson Airport contract, will have to pay compensation at the discretion of Cabinet. This is scandalous.
We have seen some of these enemies with Claridge, specifically all of those people who are closely identified with the Liberal Party, such as Senator Kolber, Peter Coughlin, Herb Metcalfe and others. Those people are not identified with the Conservative Party, and a way will be found to compensate them in a bill. So I think the thrust of our amendment-in fact, I am convinced of this-is that there will be no question of compensation in a completely crooked process. Particularly since, in the light of the work of the Committee-as my colleague mentioned earlier-it was never clearly demonstrated that compensation should be paid. The whole story is very nebulous, and there has been a refusal to get to the bottom of it.
Behind the scenes, it is said in secret said that it will be possible to shed more light on all this and get the clarification necessary to provide appropriate compensation, although we know full well that lobbying fees are tax deductible anyway. This is the kind of thing that the public finds extremely irritating. It makes people mad to see this type of process, to see the government caught red-handed in the act of compensating its friends. We cannot subscribe to such a policy.
Why should Canadians and Quebecers pay compensation for a project that was poorly managed, a project that has now been cancelled and that some day will be back on the agenda. The public will have to pay, but it is not unlikely the same parties will resurface in some other form. They will be the big winners. Do not believe for one minute that these people will just disappear. They are still around. Do not be surprised if they become players in the same project, in some other configuration. They will find a way. No one in this group is going to be on the bread line tomorrow morning.
I think it is important to tell the public that the government tried to sneak this bill through. At every stage, in committee, and at second and third reading, we had to go to the very limit of the time available for debate to show there were a number of discrepancies and give people with a more than casual interest more time to take a close look at what was happening. The government is trying to get this bill through the House in record time, and that alone is sufficient cause for concern, both for the public and the opposition parties. I hope the government will wake up and support the amendment that would delete clause 10 of the bill.