Debates of June 14th, 1994

Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a direct comment on the words spoken by both the hon. member from the Bloc, two speakers previously, and the hon. member from the government House, a speaker before that.

I want to recognize the contribution made by the Split Lake Cree First Nation and indeed all our First Nations people and remind this House that earlier in this session it was a member of the Reform Party who spoke for and argued for the rich cultural heritage given to us by our First Nations people and that therefore we must retain lacrosse as our national sport.

Not one member on the government side or from the Bloc spoke in recognition of this rich cultural heritage in our First Nations people.

Perhaps it is time for all members in this House to stop making hurtful and unproductive comments and remarks in the House. I respectfully submit it is unparliamentary.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Reform Party for her comments. I and all members on this side of the House wish to have an intelligent and informed debate about matters as important as our first peoples in Canada, particularly when it comes to our obligations as a government to respect those rights and implement our fiduciary duties.

I would assure the member that the respect that she is suggesting regarding ongoing discussions and issues is something that we want to adhere to. I do not believe for a moment that anyone in this House wishes to engage in any kind of language that is inflammatory or hurtful, to use her words. We are quite prepared to get down to business if the Reform Party members are to see that this bill gets through with quick and speedy passage.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the transfer of lands, is this land to be taxed in the usual manner as land held fee simple by anyone?

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the hon. member that I do not have the details in terms of the taxation provisions. Certainly this is a complicated matter, something that has been discussed in a number of research and white papers, discussion papers since the 1970s.

It is a complicated matter, one that will have to be negotiated in some detail. I have not checked the exact provisions of the act on particular questions of taxation and resource based sharing agreements with the province or the federal government. I would of course agree that it is an important question and perhaps something that could be considered.

I believe that the legislation is comprehensive, that these issues have been dealt with. Certainly I would support a sound tax base, as in any local government that both the hon. member and I work with at our community levels, that tax provisions for the ongoing support services for aboriginal communities are necessary and important.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member assured the speaker from the Reform Party that standard accounting practices would be used in the administration of the funds that are being transferred to the Split Lake Band.

I would like to ask the member what basis he is using to give us those assurances. Is he using some wording in the agreement or the legislation to give us those assurances?

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to provide a clarification on the taxation side, I am quite sure there will be tax provisions, sufficient provisions. In answer to that specific question, as the hon. member knows full well, the aboriginal First Nations across this country have entered into agreements and undertakings with the Government of Canada on a number of specific kinds of initiatives.

We have everything from health care services to education to transfers of welfare services to the bands. I would assure the hon. member that under almost all of those circumstances the bands have been practising good management and standard accounting practices that are reported at this time through specific kinds of agencies in the department of Indian affairs. I cannot see any reason why the band would not under these circumstances and local government control continue to follow those same practices of good government.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to Bill C-36.

Generally as the House has heard our party supports the goals of this legislation, the transfer of the moneys in the agreement to the Split Lake Cree Nation rather than being held in trust by the department of Indian affairs. Certainly we do not argue with the compensation in land, replacing that land which was flooded under the hydro project.

However, it appears the reopening of the northern flood agreement to accomplish these provisions considerably tops up the compensation provided in the northern flood agreement and enriches it considerably.

There are a number of questions that need to be answered. As we heard before, the briefing material provided by the department on this particular piece of legislation is very vague and incomprehensive, and it is hard to find the answers to the questions we are looking for. Hopefully we will be able to accomplish that in committee.

On a number of questions like the one of standard accounting practices, I do not really think it is reasonable to assume that because most other Indian bands across this country follow standard accounting practices it is reasonable to be able to assure all Canadians that standard accounting practices will be followed in this instance.

There need to be provisions in the agreement, in the act, to provide for that specifically considering that the administration of these funds is removed from the auspices of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and therefore also

removed from the jurisdiction of the Auditor General. That specific concern should be addressed.

One of my other concerns is why when all five bands were covered by the northern flood agreement are we now separating it out and dealing with one specific band instead of all five bands in a single piece of legislation or a single act to provide the same provisions for all the bands?

As I said, generally we support the objectives of this bill and hopefully if those answers can be provided to us in committee in areas with which we are concerned I am sure we can provide support and help a speedy passage of this bill through the process to enactment.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I do not think that the matter was raised, I have a question. When we dealt with the Americans concerning Hydro-Québec, all compensation payments were made by Hydro-Québec. In this matter, I would like to get confirmation that three quarters of the compensation are coming from the federal government, Manitoba Hydro paying the remaining quarter.

I merely want some light shed on the subject. Is the federal government really paying three quarters and Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba a quarter? I would like the hon. member to confirm this to the House.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think this really goes to demonstrate the confusion and the lack of understanding of the provisions of this bill in the briefing material that we received.

I certainly cannot answer the hon. member's question because I have not been able to make the same determination from the material provided. Hopefully those questions can be answered by others in committee or in the House, but I do not know the answer to the question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Let me share with members a ruling by Mr. Speaker on Bill C-22.

There are two motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be grouped for debate but will be voted on as follows:

(A) If motion No. 1 is concurred in, it will be unnecessary to proceed with the vote on motion No. 2.

(B) If motion No. 1 is negatived, a vote will be necessary on motion No. 2.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-22, in Clause 10, be amended by adding after line 35, on page 3, the following:

"(4) The Minister shall cause to be laid before the House of Commons any agreement entered into under this section not later than five days following the entering into of the agreement or, if the House of Commons is not then sitting, on the first day thereafter that the House is sitting.

(5) An agreement referred to in subsection (4) shall be referred for review to a standing committee of the House of Commons or the Senate or to a joint committee appointed for that purpose by Parliament."

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

moved:

That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

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.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport presented the committee's report to the House, following its consideration of Bill C-22. You will agree that the amendments proposed to this House hardly deal with the questions we have raised since the bill was tabled for first reading on April 13.

What the report proposes to hon. members of this House boils down to three short recommendations. The first one is on Clause 11, where we are asked to strike out line 36 on page 3 and substitute the following therefor: "The Governor in Council may, etc." The second recommendation is to add, immediately after line 2, on page 4, the following: "An order made by the Governor in Council under sub-section (1) shall be laid before the House of Commons not later than the fifth sitting day of the House of Commons after it is made". And the third brief recommendation: "A copy of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, relating to this Bill-Issues 7, 8, 9 and 10-is tabled".

After the many hours we have spent working in the House of Commons and the Transport Committee, it is astonishing to read these recommendations by the committee of which I am a member, although a dissident one. Let me explain. On June 11, the Ottawa Citizen gave a good summary of the drawbacks of this legislation and the problems encountered by the transport committee, except that it mistakenly reported, and I quote:

Gouk for instance tried to have key Pearson players subpoenaed to testify before the committee after only seven witnesses showed up out of the 17 who were invited to appear. The Liberals killed that move.

With respect, the Ottawa Citizen was wrong. It was the Bloc Quebecois member who made that request-in fact, yours truly-and I think the hon. member will agree that the attribution was erroneous. However, the Ottawa Citizen was right when it said that the Liberals turned down my request. I submitted a list of 17 witnesses, 13 of whom declined to appear. I asked for three people to be subpoenaed: Otto Jelinek, Peter Couglin and Senator Leo Kolber. This motion was also defeated, thanks to the Liberal majority on the committee. These witnesses would have clarified the issues for the committee and, in that case, the report to the House would not have been the same.

It was not a frivolous request on my part. These three people were closely linked to the process that awarded the contract to Pearson Development Corporation. In fact, Peter Couglin was president of Pearson Development Corporation, and he was not heard. Liberal Senator Leo Kolber, was, according to the Financial Post Directory of Directors , a director of Claridge. Canadians will recall that during the last election campaign, at his residence in Westmount, this valiant senator entertained guests such as Charles Bronfman, who is linked to the project, at a $1,000-a-plate dinner to hear the present Prime Minister who was then trying to get elected.

I had also asked that Mr. Otto Jelinek, former Conservative minister, who now heads the Matthews Group branch responsible for Asia, be subpoenaed.

Why did the Liberal members on the transport committee refuse my request? What were they afraid of? Why did 13 of the 17 witnesses on the list presented by the Bloc Quebecois refuse to appear in front of the transport committee?

Since the bill was introduced in the House on April 13 last, the opposition parties have been suggesting numerous amendments, making many requests, and demanding a royal commission of inquiry to get to the bottom of dealings the Prime Minister himself denounced during the election campaign. And yet, his Liberal government is turning down all our requests, either in committee or in the House of Commons. Democracy is all fine and good, Mr. Speaker, but the Liberal version of it is you talk and we decide.

There is a limit to people's patience. I said it many times here, Canadians were expecting transparency from this government and all they have seen so far is scheming. The Conservatives and the Liberals are cast from the same mold.

I am getting repetitive, you will say. Unfortunately people in Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, whom I am proud to represent, and I have lost faith in the present system.

All the parties in this House are aware that the Pearson airport contract was awarded to the Pearson Development Corporation to benefit friends of the Conservative Party. The proof is that before the elections, the present Prime Minister promised to cancel the deal for the reasons I just mentioned. And yet, today, he refuses to get to the bottom of things and introduces a bill to compensate friends of the former regime. Could it be that he has the same friends and the same financial backers? I do not know, but it makes me wonder.

We cannot allow the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, pursuant to clause 10 of the bill, to 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 the act, subject to the terms and conditions that the minister considers appropriate. As you can see, I quoted clause 10, which we find contentious. We cannot agree to that as long as this House does not have all the facts and does not know exactly how much the cancellation of the contract awarded to the Pearson Development Corporation to manage Pearson airport will cost taxpayers.

Nor can we authorize the Governor in Council to enter into an agreement and simply lay it before the House not later than five days following the entering into the agreement. First of all, we have to know the truth. Considering that requests have been made and rejected, I feel compelled to propose a motion.

I propose the following motion:

That Bill C-22 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

There is a good reason for this motion. Given that, in committee, the minister told us that compensation could be nil, zero dollars, I tell you that, having played an active role in the work of the committee, I am not in a position to determine whether compensation, if granted, will be reasonable. With respect, I ask my colleagues in this House to support this motion and refuse to give the Minister of Transport a blank cheque.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This motion has indeed been received and judged to be in order, therefore the debate is on this motion and the other one.

It is now the turn of a government member. I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

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.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite.

There is no doubt in the minds of members of the Reform Party that the government did the right thing by cancelling the Pearson airport deal. I am sure all members would agree with that.

I think it is important to carry this one step further by way of this amendment. The minister has promised openness and transparency in finalizing the examination of any claims. We are simply asking that the government extend this transparency just one step further.

There is no doubt in anybody's mind in this House I am sure that this was a deal that maybe contained the dirtiest part of politics in this country. It was a deal made between political friends of the past government. It was a deal made that probably epitomized the way that the Canadian public mistrusts the way business with government has been done in this country.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Sleaze, all of it sleaze.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Sleaze, yes, Mr. Speaker, it was sleaze and no other word probably defines it.