Mr. Speaker, the point I was developing in the first part of my presentation on Bill C-22 was the fact that what we were doing here actually flies in the face of what we should be doing to help restore the trust and confidence that have been lost between the politician and the voter. I had just completed dealing with the fact that the 30 day review of the Pearson contract was done by a well identified Liberal. Without getting into the question of how competent that individual is, the fact that it was done by somebody so well connected with the party just flew in the face of what needed to be an open and honest evaluation of that contract.
The next step in Bill C-22 was that there was a well identified Liberal appointed to review the compensation package. Again this flies in the face of what the public told us during the election campaign, that it wanted something done differently here and it did not want a continuation of the old politics. This again flew in the face of that.
If it was going to be done it had to be done by a non-partisan, somebody completely removed from the political arena in order to restore the confidence that in fact what was happening here was in the best interests of the taxpayers.
The bill is unprecedented in that it denies the right of companies involved to the due process of law. Again in the minds of the public this raises questions. Why is that in there? Are we trying to hide something? It comes back to the question of trust in the system.
We tried during the committee stage to open up and give these people an opportunity to come in and defend their position, the people whose names and reputations had been called into question, but this was denied.
To my thinking there is no other option available now than to go through the courts in order to clear the air so that taxpayers will indeed know the truth about the original deal but, more important, will know the justification for the spending of any tax dollars.
In all fairness those whose names and reputations have been brought into question must be given their day in court. There is a saying that those who steal my money steal nothing, but those who steal my good name steal all.
Do not let this happen. Put yourself in their position and ask if this is fair. As upset as we all were at the apparent deceit and abuse of the process in the original deal, two wrongs will not make it right. The minister said in introducing this bill that he wanted to be fair and reasonable to all concerned. Let us do that. Let us be fair and reasonable to the taxpayers as well as the accused.
It is ironic that all this debate and delay is holding up an infrastructure project that is a major part of Toronto and Ontario if indeed not Canada. Here we have this major piece of infrastructure continuing to deteriorate while this debate goes on.
This project alone was worth almost a billion dollars, representing about one-half of the total federal commitment to infrastructure with the potential for thousands of jobs immediately and yet to this day it is still not happening.
With so much support on the other side, who is speaking out for Toronto and Ontario? Not only are we talking about jobs now, we are talking about jobs that are indirectly tied to Pearson. The first impression created by a fast, efficient, safe airport plays a major role in decisions affecting where to locate and expand new industry.
Pearson operations generate some $2 billion in personal income, $4 billion in business revenues and $700 million dollars in tax revenues and we are allowing this gem to deteriorate daily. It makes no sense.
There is no reason why negotiations should not proceed as quickly as possible. Pearson Development Corporation has said in writing that it will do nothing to block expansion. Local airport authority discussion need not have been delayed.
We cannot delay any further. Far too much is at stake. If this government is serious about job creation now and in the future, there is no better way to demonstrate that commitment than immediate action on Pearson.
This government's lack of confidence in our courts to be fair and reasonable is as frightening as the cynicism I spoke of earlier between the voters and the politicians.
There will never be a better time for this government to show its commitment to more open and honest government as was promised in the red book than to turn this whole situation over to the courts.