House of Commons Hansard #99 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was transport.

Topics

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition signed by a large number of Canadians from many provinces including Ontario and Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.

It calls upon Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to ratify the law of the sea. Among the many reasons given for this very important step, Canadian failure to ratify the law of the sea by November of this year would jeopardize Canada's eligibility to participate in the law of the sea dispute settlement tribunal and decision making council.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Tony Valeri Liberal Lincoln, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to table two petitions from my constituents in the riding of Lincoln pursuant to Standing Order 36 and duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.

The first petition calls upon Parliament to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code of Canada.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Tony Valeri Liberal Lincoln, ON

Mr. Speaker, my second petition requests that Parliament retain the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide or euthanasia.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to present petitions signed by over 100 constituents from Williams Lake, 100 Mile House, and Lillooet, British Columbia.

My constituents call upon the government not to amend the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality.

They also call upon the government not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation in the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

I present this petition with my concurrence.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my honour to table a petition signed by 196 people from the town of Maple Creek in my riding. The text is that whereas except in police states there is no evidence that the incidence of criminal or suicidal misuse of firearms is impeded by restrictive legislation, whereas Canadian citizens are already overburdened by unnecessary and ineffective gun control legislation, we humbly pray and call upon Parliament to desist from passing additional restrictive legislation with respect to firearms or ammunition and to direct its attention to the apprehension and adequate punishment of those who criminally misuse firearms or other deadly weapons.

I heartily concur with this petition.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present three petitions duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions on behalf of the constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the present provisions of the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibiting amendments to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships, homosexuality and the undefined phrase sexual orientation remain in force.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present two petitions today on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.

The first is on the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners request that current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is requesting the Government of Canada not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are concerned about including the phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define the statement leaves the interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present the attached petition. It has been signed by 4,801 of my constituents.

These petitioners draw the attention of the House to the following: that everyone has to be accountable for the mounting debt burden; that members of Parliament should demonstrate self-restraint to the citizens by cutting back on their lavish pensions; that the qualifying time period for an MP's pension is far too short; that the eligible age to receive an MP's pension is much too young; that by MPs setting such an example of restraint the tolerance of the citizens would be more forthcoming.

Therefore your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation to change this pension plan.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Devillers Liberal Simcoe North, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions from Simcoe North totalling 100 petitioners supporting the status quo with regard to firearms ownership.

The petitioners ask the government not to impose any new restriction regarding firearm acquisition certificates. They also ask Parliament to instruct the judicial system to implement current laws more strictly.

I believe we should all focus our attention on the real root causes of crime which are embedded in discrimination, poverty, familial dysfunction, inadequate parental responsibility and a myriad of other socioeconomic problems rather than focus on firearm control, the effectiveness of which is very questionable at best.

While the safety of our communities concerns us all, I think that the problem is put out of proportion. The fact remains that Canada is no more violent as a society than before and that criminal acts against people are not increasing uncontrollably. To instill fear in people's mind without any regard for the facts is despicable.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from more than 400 persons from all over Ontario collected by people in Peterborough riding which concerns the extradition of Leonard Peltier from Canada to the United States.

These petitioners point out that the information provided at the time in the mid-seventies with respect to Mr. Peltier's case was fabricated by the U.S. authorities and that since that time new information has emerged that indicates that Leonard Peltier was not guilty of the crime for which he has spent the last 18 years in prison.

Therefore these petitioners request that Parliament hold an external review of the 1976 extradition hearings and that Mr. Peltier be brought back to Canada for asylum.

I am pleased that in response to this and previous petitions the Minister of Justice is conducting a review.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place pursuant to Standing Order 36 to deliver two more petitions on the subject of gun control.

The petitioners are seriously concerned about the lack of respect the government is showing for the integrity of law-abiding responsible gun owners. They are opposing further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and call for strict guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use or possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.

I concur with my petitioners.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, question No. 61 will be answered today.

Question No. 61-

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Does the government plan to spend money through public and private agencies, on communications relating to initiatives undertaken by the Department of Human Resources Development from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994, and if so, how much?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification

Yes; $13.95 million.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers stand.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Shall all notices of motions stand?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

moved:

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proposing that the House of Commons respond to the Senate's message, which proposed amendments to Bill C-22, by indicating the complete rejection by this House of its amendments to a bill which seeks to cancel the contracts entered into by the previous government concerning the redevelopment and ownership of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport.

Bill C-22 was designed to cancel the agreements between Her Majesty and the T1 T2 Limited partnership. These arrangements were entered into, as everyone knows, during the dying days of the last government now nearly a year ago. The agreements turned over the development and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson international for 57 years to a group of private developers.

The agreements were examined and were found not to be in the public interest. The facts in arriving at this determination can be stated very succinctly. The agreements as I indicated were signed just weeks before an election. They did not contain a cancellation clause when the government of the day had to know it was going to lose the election and the deal was being widely questioned. The agreement was for 57 years, 20 years more than the normal amortization period for buildings and the time normally associated with the recovery of this kind of an investment.

The after tax rate of return has been estimated by some at 14.2 per cent. However, this figure does not take into account profits the individual partners would have realized on contracts they held with the partnership. The actual rate of return for the partners in this deal would be more in the order of 28 per cent.

The original tender period was for 90 days, then it was extended to 120 days. The submissions that were received covered thousands of pages of technical and financial information because the process in effect had granted an enormous advantage to those companies that had lobbied the government for the project. They had made their preparations and they were ready when the tender call was issued.

One of the proponents had commenced lobbying to achieve the privatization of these terminals in mid-1989, had submitted an unsolicited proposal, offered policy advice to then ministers of the crown. Surely this is not a normal tendering process or acceptable practice.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, now the Prime Minister, indicated clearly before the election and while this deal was being consummated that the deal would be reviewed.

I could go on with the list of unusual elements in this process that Mr. Nixon described in his report as flawed. I do not really think it is of much use at this stage. We have gone through it over and over again.

I want to point out today that Canadians generally and voters in the metro Toronto area particularly understood the flaws in the deal were enough to reject it, and they did so massively. That is one on the major and principal reasons why the Liberals took every seat in metro in that election last fall. If no one else understood it, the voters knew a tender process is generally designed to provide a winner and some losers. The previous government cooked up a process which produced a winning loser and losing winner. Rather than permitting the merger of a financially strapped winner with a wealthy loser, as it turned out, a new tender call obviously would have been what was appropriate.

One of the hired guns for the consortium has described Bill C-22 as an act worthy only of a banana republic. I contend quite the contrary because Bill C-22 provides for the correction of actions that are characteristic of what goes on in so-called banana republics.

The government is firmly committed to reject the ways of the former government. This transaction is riddled with interference by lobbyists, favouritism, behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing, manipulation of legitimate private interests and disregard for public service impartiality. As a whole, it is unacceptable.

The government intends to protect the country's interests and the tqaxpayers' dollars. We believe that matters that can jeopardize our economy and our competitiveness as a country should be negotiated under a transparent and accessible process.

In legislating an end to these agreements, the government took several factors into account: the need for a quick decision on future requirements at Pearson, once these agreements were set aside; the government's commitment to put public interest before favouritism and the quest for excessive profits; and the fact athat the private sector would have gained control of one of the most important assets in the field of transportation by means of an arrangement that would have generated unreasonable profits for a favoured few.

On July 13 I announced a national airport policy that would ensure the existence of a safe, efficient, competitive network of airports across the country and would be managed in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers and the travelling public.

However the opportunity to benefit from the advice and competence of dedicated people representing regional and local interest is being denied to Lester B. International Airport, owing to the cloud that these agreements cast.

There are some in this place who would have us believe that if the matter is before the courts for years somehow we could do what would be done in the other airports across the country through Canadian airport authorities. One would have to be very naive to think that any group of citizens would take on the operation of terminal 1 and terminal 2 while all the threat of litigation and all that could imply hung out there for months and in fact years, knowing the size and the magnitude of the problem.

Terminals 1 and 2 at Toronto Pearson airport need upgrading. I agree with my hon. friend opposite on that. The parking garages are in a deplorable state. Safety and security are being put in question. The list is long of what has to be done at Pearson. The opportunity to provide travellers with newer, safer and more modern services is being denied to users of Pearson.

We have stated time and time again that it is our intention to treat the T1 T2 Limited Partnership in a fair and equitable manner considering the circumstances. We have recognized that not all the partners were involved to the same extent in this flawed process and that private sector companies not part of the consortium should not be unduly penalized.

We have asked that the partnership submit their out of pocket expenses as well as those of third parties. We wish and we undertake to see to it that all parties are repaid funds they have spent consistent with good business practice, but we will not compensate for lobbyist fees and charges.

I am aware of the need for public accountability on the matter. I know members of the House of Commons, the Auditor General, the public accounts committee and the interested parties, the people who have the taxpayers' interest at heart, will review whatever decision is made by the government to pay those legitimate out of pocket expenses. I welcome that thorough review because I understand my responsibilities in the matter.

Members of the House of Commons must understand that the out of pocket expenses were for financiers, planners, engineers, managers and designers. Not a single dime was spent on steel, concrete, lumber, escalators or other services normally associated with airport operations. Clearly the out of pocket expenses did not enhance the value of the property or provide any benefits to the taxpayer or the traveller.

Responsibility to the taxpayer and fairness toward T 1 T 2 Limited Partnership and third parties is what Bill C-22 is about.

Let us take a look at the amount of the bill the Tory majority of members in the other place want to foist on Canadian taxpayers. The consortium has replied to our request for its appropriate out of pocket expenses by submitting claims to the Canadian people for approximately $445 million. Of this amount, $415 million represent loss of profits to the consortium or its partners in various third party capacities. The consortium is not interested

in fair compensation; it wants to sting the Canadian public for over $400 million.

I have to ask all colleagues in the House and Canadians if they think the Conservative majority in the other place is being responsible when it says it is not concerned about the consequences of its action as far as money goes. It claims that all it is interested in is the principle of the bill. How can anyone be so irresponsible with taxpayers' dollars?

I thank my Liberal colleagues in the other place. We have been through a lot on the bill; a lot has been said. I have the greatest respect for those members in the other place, including independent members who mounted a stout defence of the legislation and have spoken eloquently to protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers. I know those people with their hearts and their heads in the right place will rise to the occasion again.

As for those who presently hold the majority they cling to in the other place, their method of dealing with the issue does not improve my opinion of them, which should not come as a surprise to anyone.

I sincerely believe Canadians in every part of the country who support every political party represented in the House will be outraged when they understand the size and the amount of the bill the Tory majority in the other place is planning to drop on them. The bill for their defeat of Bill C-22 will be $445 million.

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

An hon. member

What is the Reform Party going to do?

Pearson International Airport Agreements ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Douglas Young Liberal Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Since my colleague refers to it, are my friends in the Reform Party prepared to go along? I have listened carefully in the months we have spent in the House together. Time and time again we disagree on some issues, but on one issue I think we have a lot in common. I have tried to do some things at Transport Canada that will improve services to the Canadian public but reduce the burden on the Canadian taxpayer. I think we understand what we are trying to achieve together.

It is not just a question of principle or of letting people go to the courts or of trying to have due process and all the rest of the things we hear talked about. We are talking about Canadian taxpayers faced with cuts being levelled at them by every government in the country, no matter what their political stripe. Cuts are being requested of us by members of the official opposition and the Reform Party. We understand that.

I cannot believe anyone would agree with those in the other place who say they do not care that their amendments would put at risk hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Do they believe or does anyone believe Canadian taxpayers should be asked to compensate developers for 57 years worth of lost profits because they cooked up a deal with the Conservative government that days later lost every seat in the greater Toronto area and only held on to two of them in the whole country? Tory senators do not want us to settle for out of pocket and reasonable expenses. They want $445 million on this last trip to the trough for their friends.

I cannot believe that at least some of the Conservative senators in the other place will not understand that Parliament cannot condone this outrageous raid on Canadian taxpayers.

The leader of the Liberal Party, now Prime Minister of Canada, warned all the parties not to sign the agreement. If the promoters were so sure that this was a good deal for Canada, why did they not wait and try to convince a new government and the public? Was it because they knew their friends were going to lose if there was no cancellation clause in the contract?

Our government is pledged to dealing with the private sector in an open, fair and responsible manner; but we will always take the taxpayers' interest into account. Our decision to cancel this contract came after a clear and absolutely unequivocal signal to all parties that abuses of the political process and practices we consider to be unacceptable would not be tolerated. Last minute deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars rammed through the system in many instances against the will of members of the public service will not be rubber stamped.

The facts I have outlined today and the details we have learned in our negotiations to compensate out of pocket expenses have all contributed to my resolve to see the bill passed into law unamended.

The House passed Bill C-22 to ensure the future of Pearson International Airport. The government is willing to consider paying an amount up to $30 million. It is a lot of money. We understand our commercial obligations and the need for the crown to respect appropriate undertakings.

We have looked at the claims and we think a fair analysis of reasonable business practices will allow us to compensate up to $30 million to both the developers and third parties for the reasonable out of pocket expenses that are at the core of the bill.

The majority in the other place wants the Canadian taxpayer put in the position of having to fork over maybe $445 million. The distinction is simple. The House recognized the need to right a blatant wrong. The House recognized the need to formally make the odious contract null and void. The House recognized the need to return the parties to their pre-contract status and to cover their legitimate out of pocket expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business.

The other place, I regret to say, in its majority decision to bring in these amendments has ignored the interest of Canadians. It has amended the bill so as, if we accepted those amendments, to force the dispute into the courts where no one in the House or in the other place would then have anything to say about them. Then it would be a matter for the courts to decide on legal interpretation and on argument how much the bill would be for Canadian taxpayers.

I am not prepared to run that risk. I hope a majority of my colleagues in the House and a majority of senators in the other place will not run that risk either.

One has to ask whether the Tory scheme all along was to ignore what was patently obvious in October 1993 and to set the scene to make one last snatch at the public purse. Quite a money grab it would be. If the majority of the other place perseveres and wins this case, this scheme could result in the biggest rip-off in Canadian history, $445 million of taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friends through you that the government is not going to play Russian roulette with the Tory majority in the other place with half a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money on the table. That is simply not an option.

This deal resembles what might have been done in a banana republic by a dying government during its last gasps. There is no doubt and I readily admit it that this bill is an extraordinary measure to bring before Parliament but I do not believe that anyone in their right mind would deny that this was an extraordinary deal and it has to be undone.

It is time to get on with the business of providing the country with a safe, efficient and affordable national airport system with Lester B. Pearson International Airport at Toronto at the centre of this hub.

It is time to get on with the future of Canada's largest and most important transportation facility and it is time that the Conservative majority in the other place recognized that Canadians understood that this was a bad deal and agreed that it has to be dealt with resolutely.

We intend to ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not going to get a $445 million bill from the consortium and their friends in the other place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues in the House of Commons from all parties to join with us in sending a clear message to the Senate that Parliament will protect the interests of Canadians and that Bill C-22 must be passed without amendments.