Joe Fontana

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that is the question we are supposed to be debating tonight. I will try in my short two minutes to respond to the member's addendum to his question.

First, the Liberal government's position is pretty clear. We cancelled the deal. Canadians obviously thought we made the right decision because they elected us in majority numbers; in fact 98 out of 99 Ontario seats, for the member's recollection.

The current Prime Minister had given ample notice during the election that he wanted to review the deal to see where the public interest was. Once we were elected we put the public interest first and that was to cancel the deal as we had promised to do before the election. There is no question where the Liberal government stands. We think the deal was a bad deal for Canadians. We cancelled the deal.

I find it incredible that the Reform Party is actually supporting the deal. The member knows because he is the transport critic that the standing committee held hearings on Bill C-22 and brought forth witnesses to discuss the pros and cons of the bill and the deal.

It is unquestionable that the highest court in the land, Parliament, which is to determine public interest, has determined this was a bad deal. Courts may decide on the value of a contract cancelled or not; but the highest court in the land, Parliament of which the Reform Party speaks so highly each and every day, has the right to determine pubic interest.

We are not standing still. We are moving through our national airports policy to make sure that Pearson is the flagship of our Canadian Airport Authority. The municipalities have named their representatives. The minister has announced the completion of the north-south runway to be used for safety reasons in inclement weather, not on a daily basis. We have been waiting for the appointments of the other members of the CAA so we can get on with building Pearson, spending the $740 million, creating jobs and making sure that Pearson remains the world class facility it was supposed to be.

We are committed not to waiting until 1998 as the member suggested in his original question but to getting on with building Pearson in the public interest as a non-profit organization called the Canadian Airport Authority. We would welcome the Reform Party's support of Bill C-22 and not it being allies with Conservative senators, which is also incredible.

We hope to get on with building Pearson and have the support of the Reform Party in that regard.

[Pearson International Airport, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I even find it more incredible that the Reform Party would be supporting the position of a previous government of Brian Mulroney with respect to the Pearson deal.

The Reform Party seems to forget that there have been public hearings on the bill. The public has been heard, the facts have come out and we have reports that indicated the deal was not in the public interest.

We believe we are on the right side of this. The people of Canada believe that we need to cancel the deal. We have and we intend to get on with building Pearson the way it should be, in the public interest.

[Pearson International Airport, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the critic for the Reform Party and the Reform Party, the so-called defender of the public purse, would stand here today and support paying the developers $445 million for the Pearson deal.

Before the election this Prime Minister gave notice that we were going to review the bill and if it was not in the public interest, we would cancel the bill. Everyone involved in that deal decided to sign it. We and all Canadians believe that the deal was bad. We cancelled it. The Reform Party is wrong.

[Transport, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this is not a laughing matter.

I join with my colleague who has just expressed our deep sorrow and regret at the tragedy of the Estonia and therefore the question is quite appropriate.

I want to take this opportunity to convey to Canadians that our passenger ferries are absolutely safe. Since 1987 Canadian passenger ferries have been subjected to independent audits to ensure that safe operating procedures are followed.

I must also add that Canadian standards for inspection of ferries exceed those of international communities so that the Canadian public and this House can be assured that our ferries are safe.

[Immigration Act, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say nothing could be further from the truth that our agenda is that of the previous government. There is a lot of difference between commercialization and privatization, but that is for another day. This government does not intend to attack workers or force on anyone a loss of income or lower standard of living. It is about building a national, integrated, efficient, affordable transportation system taking all modes into account. As I said, that is for another day.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona raised the issue of transportation subsidies. He expressed some concerns that the rail industry would be unfairly affected by a review of subsidies. I am glad to have the opportunity to address his concerns and assure him and the House of Commons that any review of transportation subsidies will be balanced and will ensure that all modes are treated fairly.

Transportation subsidies currently affect every mode. As an example of subsidies received by modes other than rail, almost 80 per cent of freight subsidies in Atlantic Canada are received by motor carriers. Further, as mentioned by the Minister of Transport in his speech in Thunder Bay on June 3, the federal government subsidizes ferry services by approximately $160 million and ports and harbours by $100 million each and every year.

I understand the hon. member's concerns about hidden subsidies. Indirect subsidies account for almost $700 million spent by the Department of Transport. One example of such a service is the provision of navigational aids provided by the coast guard.

In the coming months the government intends to review all options for dealing with inefficient subsidies. Transport Canada is in the midst of exploring possibilities for commercialization of many activities that could be better achieved by other means. The exercise will not be targeted at specific modes but rather will attempt to eliminate existing distortions.

I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Transport is clearly aware of the situation in the rail industry and that the rail sector will not be singled out. The objective is to provide Canadians with an efficient, integrated, affordable transportation system where the costs now imposed on taxpayers are borne as equitably as possible by the users.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak at the third and final reading stage of this most important bill. This bill is an act respecting certain agreements for the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport. In layman's terms that means it is the bill to formally cancel the agreement which was entered into by the former government. This issue has been debated at length in this House and in committee.

This bill reflects another election commitment made by this government. During the course of the election, our leader who was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, gave notice that after the election the agreement would be reviewed by the incoming new government.

True to his and this government's word, upon election of the Liberal government we had Mr. Nixon review the agreement to ensure that the public interest was being served. His conclusions and recommendations which formed part and parcel of the Minister of Transport's recommendation has resulted in this bill.

To make it clear to everyone, including the opposition parties, the bill effectively and formally cancels the agreement. Both opposition parties agree with the government that the agreement should be cancelled. There is unanimity in this House with regard to its cancellation. There seems to be no dispute whatsoever as to whether or not this agreement needed to be cancelled. I am happy to thank both opposition parties for supporting this legislation.

Having said that, the opposition parties have given their qualified approval but have voted against the bill at report stage. They will probably also vote against it tonight because in their opinion they have serious reservations with regard to the bill. Therefore, it is only appropriate for me to take the opportunity to try to answer the questions put by both opposition parties and the improvements which in their minds need to be done to this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois throughout the course of debate on this bill seems to be fixated with putting blame, or finding out where the blame lies. The government side understands that is important and essentially that is why we introduced the bill to cancel the agreement. We knew the agreement was flawed in its process and its substance. The process was questionable not in legal terms but in terms of the role of the lobbyists in putting together such an agreement.

Bloc Quebecois members have insisted that a public inquiry by a royal commission was needed to find out who was to blame for putting this agreement together in the first place. We could go on a wild goose chase to find out who was to blame. At the end of the day however even after a public inquiry by a royal commission, legislation would still have to be put in place to effectively and formally cancel the agreement, not to mention the millions of dollars and the time that would be wasted in such an exercise.

The Canadian people themselves gave a verdict to the people involved in that deal, namely the former Conservative government. The agreement was signed two weeks before the election, after being given notice by the present right hon. Prime Minister not to do so but to wait for the new government to review it. Despite that warning, the former Conservative government signed the deal. We know what happened to that government. Public opinion was that what had occurred was not in keeping with what was perceived as good government practices. Hence, that government was defeated. There were many other reasons for that but I suggest this agreement was part and parcel of it too.

With respect to the other parties that signed this agreement, the testimony at committee hearings and Mr. Nixon's report makes it clear that while we may not have liked the process and we might question the roles of the government, the partnerships and the lobbyists, the fact remains that an agreement was signed legally and formally by another government and another party.

During the hearings this government and its members did not stand in the way of asking for witnesses to come before the Standing Committee of Transport to question the people who were directly involved. I heard someone mention yesterday that perhaps all the parties did not avail themselves of that opportunity. That is perfectly true.

The solicitor from the Pearson Development Corporation was there. The Paxport people were there, including Mr. Don Matthews. The former president of Paxport was there, Mr. Hession, and a number of other witnesses. However, a number of witnesses, including former government members and lobbyists, indicated they could not or would not appear before the committee. That is regrettable because the government and the people of Canada deserve to know all the facts. We would have wanted that, but that did not occur.

There was some mention of putting subpoenas before witnesses as suggested by the Bloc. As worthy as that might seem however, that process was fraught with peril in terms of time and of whether or not we would ever get to the bottom of the story.

One fact is clear: The government, the opposition parties and the Canadian people agree that this deal should be cancelled. So what would be accomplished by going on a so-called witch hunt to look for that person who may or may not have done something right or wrong? Mr. Nixon said that nothing illegal occurred, that in fact, as we have all agreed, the process and the substance was flawed.

This bill has essentially tried to do a number of things. First and foremost however it was necessary to cancel the deal formally because there was no cancellation provision in the contract. The government needed to do that formally.

Second, the bill outlines what can or should be paid to the parties to this agreement. The bill does provide guidance and restrictions to the Minister of Transport.

This government has said it does not believe that the process was as it should be and that lobbyists played a very big part, perhaps too big. In the next day or two the Minister of Industry and the parliamentary secretary will introduce changes to the lobbyists act to ensure that the rules are clear to everyone as to what lobbyists can and cannot do with government or members of Parliament. It will put in place a code of ethics among other things.

However, the purpose of Bill C-22 is not to debate or discuss the role of lobbyists. That is a bigger issue which will come later. The bill does say the government will not pay one cent in lobbyists' fees. We will not pay one penny toward lobbyists' costs.

The bill also says we will not pay for the lost profits or lost opportunities that Pearson Development Corporation or the limited partnership might think that in cancelling the agreement they are entitled to.

This government has said clearly no lost opportunity, no lost profit. The only thing that we think this government will pay and should pay is legitimate out of pocket expenses that can be justified, that in fact show value for work received because there are a number of third party claimants that are part of the whole apparatus. They are to a certain extent innocent parties to an agreement, parties which might have done some architectural work, engineering work or other legitimate work which was invoiced to the partnership. The government is prepared to consider those invoices and to meticulously look at them to ensure that in fact they are legitimate, that they were for the purposes of Pearson airport and not for something else.

We have a negotiator presently looking at each and every one of those invoices. Some 60 volumes of paper need to be gone through to ensure that, as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport said, the government does not pay a penny more than what needs to be paid. We want to ensure that our process can withstand the scrutiny of the public, the opposition and the Auditor General.

We want to make sure that the cabinet by order in council only pays those invoices that are in fact legitimate. That is the process. There is a negotiator and that is what is happening now.

The Reform Party has had some problems with respect to the question of transparency. What is it that we are paying? Who should decide what should be paid? It was suggested that the parliamentary committee on transport look at those invoices and make recommendations to the minister and in fact have a hearing on what invoices should be paid. Those are legitimate questions.

The minister and I and others have stated that the system, the bill, the process within this House of Commons and government operations are transparent. Before even one cent is paid the Auditor General will obviously be very interested in this.

There is a public accounts committee of this House of Commons, chaired by the opposition that can ask for all the documents to be brought forward. There is the accountability of government. The cabinet is accountable to the people of Canada for making those kinds of decisions. There is an apparatus in place to ensure that the process is transparent, that accountability is clearly to the government.

The minister indicated, and I think we passed an amendment by the Bloc at committee, that he will table with this House all the documents that he can table respecting freedom of access to information and guidelines and rules as to what can and cannot be made public. There was a commitment made to this House that would take place.

The bill says, yes, we might pay something, but you will have to prove to us that each and every invoice is legitimate. One must take this bill in its context. This is a very unique bill, unheard of really in terms of Canadian history, where a government would move so boldly as to cancel an agreement and say no loss of profit and no lobbyist fees. It says something much more important.

It says that we need to get on with managing the future of Pearson because it is an important transportation hub in this country. It is a nationally significant airport that impacts the west, the east, Quebec and Ontario. We need to get on with planning the future of Pearson. This bill is absolutely necessary for us to do that. We cannot plan its future unless we formally cancel the agreement and deal with this matter once and for all.

The bill also says that if there is no successful completion to negotiations, 30 days after proclamation of the bill there shall be no payments at all. That is a pretty strong stick for this government to use to try and bring all the parties at the table to a reasonable completion to the negotiations. That is an important aspect to this bill because we cannot and I am sure the opposition parties would not want us to continue to carry on fruitless negotiations. This bill does put in place a sunset provision that says 30 days after proclamation, if there is not a negotiated settlement there shall not be one penny paid.

It also protects the government against lawsuits. We cannot take it to the courts because we believe we need to get moving on it.

I know that the debate will continue somewhat today and that both opposition parties will try to make their case again for more transparency, more accountability. The Bloc will suggest that we cannot deal with this bill because we do not really know the true facts about what happened behind those closed doors. That is true and it is regrettable but we have to deal with reality. The reality is that we need to get on with planning Pearson's future, dealing with the bill. There will be other opportunities to discuss the influence of lobbyists and so on and that will come in a subsequent bill.

I want to touch base on a couple of points that I think are absolutely necessary. Talking about expediency, when the bill moves to the Senate where it will go through a similar process, we hope that the Senate will respect and move expeditiously in passing this bill. It is in the best interests of the country to do so in order that the government can get on with planning for the future of Pearson and assisting the travelling public as much as possible.

We believe that this is a very unique bill in Canadian history because of some very unique circumstances. Hopefully they will never occur again.

I believe we all will have learned from this process what governments can and should do prior to an election, especially on nationally significant issues. Perhaps decisions do not have to be made in the last minutes before the end of a government's mandate, especially on an issue that captured the attention of this House some one and a half years before the election. Our party spoke very often and very forcefully to the government, raising concerns about the process and as to whether we ought to divest ourselves of a nationally significant piece of property which serves millions of travelling Canadians as well as people visiting this country.

I know how frustrated we were. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry will tell you that we were very frustrated because we had no opportunity to discuss whether or not the concept of privatization of Pearson should even proceed. We were not given the opportunity. It was done in a very heavy-handed way by a former government. It paid the price for those kinds of actions that Canadians saw as being very cynical and having caused an awful lot of problems for politicians in general as well as the House of Commons with regard to its credibility and integrity.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to accuse us of essentially doing the same thing as the former government. Heaven forbid. The fact is that we are cancelling this contract. We will not pay compensation to lobbyists for profit. We will only pay invoices that are legitimate. They will perhaps say there are some Liberals somewhere in there that we are trying to protect.

This government before, during and after the election and up until now has made one commitment to the Canadian people. It did not fudge, hedge, or anything else.

This bill does cancel the agreement totally. The only thing left is to decide if there is any compensation to be given to the other party that signed that agreement.

I would hope that the opposition parties, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, support the government in cancelling this agreement and also recognize that no bill is ever perfect.

We agree that amendments sometimes are made. In fact the committee did report an amendment and the government side supported it. We agree. Yes, there were amendments put yesterday by both opposition parties. I tried to tell the opposition parties that transparency and accountability are built into the bill as well as built into the system.

Yes, we are all mistrusting of the system. We have been here only seven or eight months on the government side. We will have to show members and restore everyone's faith in the system. There are checks and balances in the system to ensure that only those invoices that need to be paid shall be paid and we will, as a government, be subject to the court of public opinion.

I am not sure that the public wants us to write a cheque to rid ourselves of this problem. Of course not. The minister and the Prime Minister have said that we will not pay a penny more than we have to. It was a legally signed agreement. As repugnant as it was that a former government should even do it two weeks before an election, it did it. That government did it.

Therefore we have obligations. When a government does what it is doing today by this bill, it has to consider its impact on future contracts, on the international reputation that we have as to whether or not a government can be trusted that once it enters into an agreement, it will in fact fulfil its contractual obligations. That is a worry and members should understand that.

That is why it allows the discretion in the bill to pay for the legitimate expenses. I hope as we wrap up debate on this issue that the opposition parties will understand that this government wants to get on with planning the future of Pearson airport and the aviation industry in this country.

The only way we can do that is to finally put this agreement behind us and get on with completing the negotiations. In fact, if the negotiations are not completed and this bill is proclaimed 30 days thereafter there shall be no compensation.

We hope that our friends in the other place, the Senate, do not play any games with this bill and the public interest is best served. We hope it expedites this bill as quickly as possible so that we can get on with again planning the future of Pearson.

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of VIA nothing could be further from the truth than what the member has just said. This government has not announced any service cutbacks to VIA nor will it until the negotiations are finalized.

I want to deal with the specific question of May 12, 1994 regarding the possible requirement for an amendment to the National Transportation Act to allow for the continuation of VIA passenger operations over the lines of a provincial shortline railway.

CP has narrowed down its list of potential new operators for its Canadian Atlantic railway lines to two: Cantrak and Guilford. Although I am not privy to CP's plans, we have all heard that CP may be announcing the successful finalist sometime in June.

Details about a conveyance agreement between CP and the new operator are unknown to this government at this time. If an agreement is reached and filed with the National Transportation Agency before the end of 1994 when the abandonment order

takes effect, then the agreement information becomes public and will shed light on the issue of federal-provincial jurisdiction.

With an agreement being filed, the agency as required under the National Transportation Act would have up to six months to approve the conveyance agreement, if it is in the public interest and if the purchaser is authorized to operate a railway.

If no agreement is filed before January 1995, then the Canadian rail line segments which have been approved for abandonment would no longer come under federal jurisdiction. In this case the contents of the conveyance agreement would become known if CP Limited chose to reveal any of this information. Hence we may not know until then whether or not the new operator will come under the legislative authority of Parliament or under provincial jurisdiction.

At the present time VIA operates over CP lines under a train service agreement. The NTA provides protection of existing VIA passenger service in the event that the conveyance by vesting any obligations related to VIA services with the new owner of the conveyed line. Under these circumstances accommodation for VIA would have to be built into an agreement between CP and the rail company to which the lines are conveyed.

The National Transportation Act would not prevent VIA from operating over the lines of a rail company that is not within the legislative authority of Parliament. After all, VIA currently operates over trackage through Maine which is under U.S. federal jurisdiction.

In closing, owing to the speculative nature of the question and lack of a clear demonstration that legislative amendments or other changes will be required at this time, I can only reiterate the minister's assurance to the hon. member for Saint John. The government will expedite legislative changes or other regulatory modifications if and when they are required to accommodate good passenger and freight railway service in New Brunswick and the rest of Atlantic Canada.

[Marine Transportation Security Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of introducing into this House a bill to provide for the security of marine transportation known as the Marine Transportation Security Act.

The introduction of this bill marks the first occasion on which the government is proposing to use the streamlined process agreed to by Parliament on February 7 of this year in order to expedite the consideration of bills while at the same time improving the parliamentary ability to scrutinize legislative proposals.

Let me take this opportunity to thank all members of this House and all parties for allowing this bill to be the first under the new parliamentary reform package.

The motion before us will send this bill directly to the Standing Committee on Transport before second reading. I trust members of all parties will support this proposal, as they have, and I am looking forward to the process as a good test of the new approach and the resolve of House members to make it work well.

I would now like to turn to the rationale for the proposals before this House today. The Marine Transportation Security Act is intended to address a long standing omission in federal regulatory powers and in so doing better equip the government and the marine transportation industry to respond to any threat to the security of people, goods, vessels, ports and facilities in the Canadian maritime marine environment.

The Minister of Transport has had the legal power to address security issues in civil aviation and rail transportation for some time. Conspicuous by its absence, however, is a similar power for the minister with respect to marine transportation in Canada.

We must not be seduced into thinking that Canada or Canadian marine transportation is immune from terrorist threats. As members of the House know, the evidence available with respect to an Air India disaster, while not conclusive, indicates that the most likely cause of the tragedy was a bomb aboard the aircraft. While we have not had any similar incidents in the marine field, the experiences of other countries such as Greece have not been so fortunate.

Apart from the tragic loss of life that occurred in two separate and totally unanticipated incidents, the effect on the Greek cruise shipping trade and tourism in general was to cause losses measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

As a result of these incidents, the International Maritime Organization, IMO, the United Nations agency that deals with maritime matters, passed a recommendation that cruise ships on international voyages carry out security screening of passengers, analogous to that at airports, together with a variety of other complementary measures.

Canada was a strong supporter of that recommendation but has lacked the legislative authority to require the considerable cruise ship trade in Canada to comply. Attempts to achieve broad compliance with these measures on a voluntary basis have also been unsuccessful. These same IMO recommendations called on governments to review their national legislation to determine its adequacy.

Having raised the issue of economic advantage, I would like at this point to turn briefly to the concerns that might arise with respect to how this initiative could affect our relationship with our trading partners and competitors, in particular the United States, with whom we have so much maritime exchange.

Members of the House should be aware that the U.S. government already possesses the legislative authority that this bill seeks for our government. Furthermore, the United States has signalled its intention to bring in a regulatory regime for cruise vessels and ports based on existing voluntary IMO standards.

The U.S. is not the only western nation which has decided to respond in a vigorous manner. Greece has had a security regime for cruise vessels and ports in place for a number of years. The United Kingdom has enacted broad based legislation and many western European nations are actively pursuing a variety of initiatives to improve the security of their maritime transportation systems.

The international standards are intended to be the basis for the major element of a Canadian regulatory regime. Even apart from the primary concern of protecting the travelling public, if we were to fail to provide for a level of security equivalent to that offered by the American industry, Canada could find itself in danger of losing traffic to American ports. That is big tourist business for Canada.

More than 80 per cent of passengers in Canadian cruise trade are U.S. citizens. The value of this trade, which is expected to grow by more than 11 per cent on the west coast alone, already exceeds $500 million each and every year. The government has good reason to believe therefore that this legislation will in its long term effects be a positive enhancement to trade rather than an inhibitor.

I am not suggesting that there is currently a threat against Canadian marine transportation. There is not, but this could change at any time. I am suggesting that it would be imprudent, even derelict, to fail to take basic, simple precautions on the grounds that we have no evidence of a direct threat today. If and when that threat does change, it is too late to start the long, deliberate process of developing legislation.

In the immediate past one only has to recall the bombing of New York's World Trade Centre and the mortar attacks on Heathrow airport to understand how the dynamics of terrorist action can shift without warning.

As I have pointed out, the ability to respond effectively to any possible acts of unlawful interference with marine transportation must start with the capability of the government to organize a response. It is thus the view of the government that the creation of a legal framework to provide for effective marine security is the initial priority in ensuring that Canada is well equipped to deal with security in the marine environment.

I would like to remind the House that this bill, the Marine Transportation Security Act, provides the government only with enabling authority to create an appropriate regulatory regime, together with a compliance monitoring and enforcement scheme backed by suitable sanctions.

As such the bill, if and when enacted into law, will of itself impose no obligations on industry. Those will await the subsequent regulatory regimes. The bill is designed to apply to vessels, ports and marine facilities in Canada and to Canadian registered vessels anywhere, as well as to marine installations and structures, primarily drilling rigs and platforms on the continental shelf.

As in the case of aviation, vessels and facilities under the authority of the Minister of National Defence are exempt from the legislation.

Within this structure the government will have the authority to implement the necessary features of a security regime, many of which will be familiar to members of the House from air travel.

These include the ability to screen passengers, their possessions and goods going aboard a ship, the ability to segregate passengers and goods which have been screened from those that have not, the capability to control entry to a ship, the authority to require identified staff to be trained with respect to security matters, and the ability to require contingency plans for such matters as the response to bomb threats to be developed and exercised.

It is not the intent, however, that these powers be applied to their fullest extent under normal conditions. The situation does not warrant such action and the industry, understandably, given the current threat conditions, would oppose such action. The premium will be put on bringing in a framework which responds to Canadian requirements as they currently exist but with the flexibility to enhance them in the future should the threat change.

These requirements are simply put and I anticipate that they will find strong support within the industry affected. They are three in number: first, making mandatory the existing international standards for passenger vessels and associated port facilities; second, ensuring that major cargo vessels and associated ports have in place basic security consistent with industry's best practices; and third, the implementation of a system of measures capable of being used by all regulated segments of the industry in the event of an increased threat situation.

My colleagues and I are well aware that these are difficult financial times for the maritime industry in this country. We are confident that, except for some particular segments of the cruise vessel industry that fall significantly short of the existing international standards, the above objectives can be realized with little or no additional financial burden on the industry.

The result will be a more secure marine transportation system that is appropriately protected from potential security incidents and with the ability to adjust to changing scenarios in an unstable global environment.

On the requirement for such legislation, industry has endorsed the principle that the Minister of Transport requires adequate legal authority to address legitimate security concerns.

That being said, it is recognized that industry remains concerned given the current absence of an identifiable threat in Canadian waters about the requirement for regulations at this time and about the financial and operational implications of any regulatory framework.

For this reason, any regulatory scheme which is developed must take into account three important factors. There must be full and active industry involvement in the development of these regulations to ensure that both government and industry are in agreement and that the resulting approach represents the least cost approach to achieving what is absolutely necessary.

Second, the requirements must be based to the extent practical on performance standards as opposed to detailed technical specifications to provide the maximum flexibility to industry in meeting them, thus keeping costs again at a minimum.

Third, requirements with respect to basic security must be predicated on the existing best practices of the industry, thereby ensuring that the degree of adjustment necessary to achieve compliance is again minimal.

With these three precepts as the basis for regulatory development I am confident that we can arrive at a framework that stands the test of security while not inhibiting competitiveness or operational efficiency.

In closing, I would like to summarize for members the proposals contained in Bill C-38, the Marine Transportation Security Act. The act is designed to provide enabling authority to the government, consistent with that already available for aviation and rail transportation, governing security in the marine transportation sector.

This enabling authority would be used to create a regulatory regime providing for the security of cruise ship industry commensurate with that of the international community at large, and the United States in particular, thus ensuring the continual economic viability of the Canadian market.

Regulatory requirements with respect to cargo vessels and ports would focus on codifying existing security practices and ensuring that planning is done to respond to possible changes in threat. In implementing this regime the Department of Transport will carry out detailed consultation with maritime interests in Canada on the need and the approach that should be taken hopefully during the summer.

I urge members to consider the additional security that this act will provide in Canadian marine transportation, security that is necessary for the protection of Canadians and those who travel on the Canadian system as well as for the long term economic advantage of our industry.

I ask members of all parties to consider this legislation carefully, both in the committee and in the House, with a view to offering any improvements they deem necessary to this important initiative and to support the final package which emerges from the parliamentary process.

Finally, I return to my point of departure, to ask the members to join with me in making this an historic occasion in employing the new procedures which the House laboured long and hard to produce and supporting the motion to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Transport before second reading.

I look forward to working with all parties to ensure that this bill becomes reality some time in the fall.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I do not believe we on this side of the House attacked the truthfulness of any of the statements. If you want to review what the member just said, he is questioning the truth of our statements. I think that is unparliamentary. I seek your guidance whether it is a point of privilege and if the member should be required to withdraw those sad comments.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, June 14th, 1994]

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.