Yvan Loubier

[Goods And Services Tax, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since low-income earners, the sick and the elderly will be the first victims if the GST is extended to basic foodstuffs, health care and medicine, can the finance minister explain to us, in the light of the recent unemployment insurance cutbacks for which he is primarily responsible, why his government persists in hounding the most disadvantaged members of society?

[Goods And Services Tax, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party was elected on a promise to abolish the GST. In fact, this was one of the main commitments in the red book. Moreover, on May 2, the Prime Minister told this House, in

reference to the GST, and I quote: "We hate it and we will kill it". According to today's media reports, however, not only is the GST here to stay but it will be hidden in order to better extend it to basic goods and services.

After making a formal commitment to abolish the GST, how can the Minister of Finance justify the fact that his government is considering maintaining this tax in a hidden form while extending it to food, medicine and health care?

[Interprovincial Trade, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given, one, that the forum on health has been postponed indefinitely; two, that the Minister of Human Resources Development is going it alone by trying high-handedly to impose a reform of social programs on the provinces; and three, that the so-called agreement on the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers may worsen interprovincial relations instead of improving them, does the Prime Minister not realize that, after three months, his government's record on federal-provincial relations is a dismal failure?

[Interprovincial Trade, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not realize that, given the serious reservations expressed by several provinces and by Quebec, the agreement announced by the federal government may be timid and full of major exemptions and amount in essence to an empty shell?

[Interprovincial Trade, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The latest information on the status of intergovernmental negotiations to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers points to mediocre results. Yet, on May 6, Canadian Press reported that an agreement was imminent and even that a nearly complete draft agreement would be given to the provincial trade ministers at their meeting in Winnipeg on May 9 and 10.

My question to the Prime Minister is this: Can he tell us if the June 30 deadline set by his government to reach an agreement is still valid and if the agreement, if there is one, will really eliminate interprovincial trade barriers?

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the few remaining seconds which my colleague wanted to take up.

No one here has ever doubted Mr. Nixon's integrity-far from it. Mr. Nixon fulfilled the mandate given to him by the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister had stated that he would shed light specifically on the twists and turns surrounding the Pearson Airport privatization process. So why stop halfway, after getting a summary evaluation, after even Mr. Nixon-whose integrity was never in doubt-stated that there were very weird things in this matter involving extraordinary influence by former political staff and lobbyists, and that he had never seen anything like it. So why be afraid to shed light on the subject. As I mentioned previously, if there is no truth to the assertion that these are friends of the Liberal Party of Canada, why be afraid to get right down to it? We want the truth, the exact truth.

Mr. Nixon identified certain problems that were sufficient to justify immediately stopping the privatization process. But we do not know everything there is to know about this whole process, the players involved, the fact that unseemly behaviour may have occurred, gross irregularities in the financial transactions, and we cannot know it without an exhaustive public inquiry into the specifics of this matter, in which the people who were closely or remotely connected with the privatization process would be made to appear as witnesses. But the truth about this attempted privatization and the influence wielded by the lobbyists involved will never be entirely known. This is why we are calling for an exhaustive review, and never did I or my colleagues cast any doubt on Mr. Nixon's integrity. I believe that satisfactorily answers my colleague's remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased again to be able to speak on Bill C-22 at third reading. I will not hide from you that the Bloc Quebecois is against this bill, especially the part that allows the government to pay the compensation it sees fit to those who signed the contract for privatizing Pearson Airport, without releasing full information on the circumstances which led from the decision to privatize the airport to the signing of the contract.

The Prime Minister promised us a clear, open, rigorous process to get to the bottom of this failed transaction and to fully elucidate the involvement of political staff or former political staff and lobbyists in this affair. Remember the summary report prepared by Mr. Nixon. He said that political staff and lobbyists had an uncommon role in negotiating this transaction, but it stops there.

Some even say that this could be one of the biggest contracting frauds ever on Canadian territory. The conditions under which this contract was awarded are suspect and we are being kept in the dark about them. Bill C-22 even leaves open the possibility or gives the government complete latitude to compensate those who might have lost when this process of privatization was halted.

Why not get right to the bottom of this question? It could prove useful to deal with similar cases in the future, because we must not lose sight of the fact that in many cases, the political staff and the lobbyists who were involved in this transaction and in the whole Pearson Airport privatization process are the same ones who are now working on other files, whether to promote the interests of the companies they represent or simply as professional lobbyists.

As we have said over and over and will continue to repeat for the next three years if necessary, we from the Bloc Quebecois are under the impression this is one of the worse cases of patronage in the history of this country. I am starting to wonder, and even if I never managed to get an answer since Bill C-22 has been under consideration, I put the question to the Liberal government: Is it because it realized that the interests of friends, former friends or great friends of the party were at stake that, on the strength of a simple report, the Liberal government now refuses, or so it seems, to answer to an extensive and in-depth commission of inquiry into the whole process, a process which according to Mr. Nixon's summary report, was mind-boggling, full of inappropriateness, oddities and things never heard of in this sort of transaction?

This was a contract to privatize one of Canada's most profitable airports. So, all the considerations, the entire process which have led to this contract being drafted should be brought out in the open. The players should also come out in the open. Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, the names of a few of the friends of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party who were involved in this process, this privatization attempt. It is always a pleasure for me to name names because, so far, the government has refused to clarify the involvement of these people, when we know full well that they are very closely tied to the Liberal Party of Canada and perhaps, in fact certainly, to the party fund as well.

As you know, the Liberal Party of Canada, like all major Canadian establishment parties, is not subject to any legislation on political party financing or rather on the financing of political parties by the people, unlike the Bloc Quebecois. So it is quite normal that a contract of this nature or a process leading to the privatization of the biggest Canadian airport would bring up the names of people, organizations or business owners who contribute large amounts of money to political party funds. Something like that could not happen with the Bloc Quebecois because our hands are not tied by corporate, anonymous and impersonal contributions. We are disciplined in this respect and only accept contributions from real Quebec citizens. I think it is good for us and for democracy.

It is probably because they realized that friends of the Liberal Party of Canada were involved in this deal that they refuse to shed light on it. I repeat, as it can never be repeated often enough: the list of the people involved may help us understand not only why the Liberal government refuses to disclose all the facts but why its bill gives it all the latitude needed to bribe those directly or indirectly linked to the failed Pearson Airport privatization process.

You remember Senator Leo Kolber. He was the one who organized the cosy $1,000-a-plate dinner where the guest of honour was the Prime Minister. Guests could shake hands with the Prime Minister in the midst of the election campaign and talk to him about their little problems, perhaps in connection with the Pearson Airport privatization or to the money they would lose if the privatization deal was cancelled. In short, Senator Leo Kolber was a stakeholder in this event and especially in the whole Pearson Airport privatization process.

There was also Mr. Bronfman, who did not hesitate either to attend this $1,000-a-plate dinner to shake hands with the future Prime Minister. Herb Metcalfe was also present. He is a lobbyist and former organizer for Mr. Jean Chrétien before he became Prime Minister. He is close to the Prime Minister and was very involved in the whole process to privatize Pearson Airport.

Ray Hession was also present. He is a former deputy minister of Industry and senior civil servant with Supply and Services, under the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Mr. Hession was also involved in the process to privatize Pearson Airport.

There were others too, including some Conservatives. The current government is Liberal. I think it is worth repeating that we have serious doubts about the purpose of Bill C-22, given the names of the key players, the contributors who finance the Liberal Party of Canada, and also the inclusion of a clause designed to compensate those who may have suffered a prejudice when the Prime Minister decided to cancel the privatization process.

In addition to the fact that this government refuses to shed light on the role of these players, who are known to be very close to the Liberal Party of Canada, there is also the fact that the contract for the privatization of Pearson Airport is full of very unusual clauses.

That document is something else. Let me give you some examples which are still mind-boggling at the conclusion of the review process of Bill C-22.

The contract was for a 37-year period expiring on October 31, 2030, with an option to extend that period for an additional 20 years. Why is that? It is because the Ontario legislation provides that, on leases longer than 50 years, a provincial tax applies to any transfer of property.

Normally, if the duration of the lease had not been split, those involved in the transaction would have had to pay around ten million dollars to the Ontario revenue ministry. Just imagine, with the federal government's complicity, individuals were making deals and the terms of their contracts were such that they could avoid paying legitimate taxes to the Ontario government. That is rather amazing.

When in this country's history have we ever seen the federal government paving the way for a party to avoid provincial taxation? This is quite extraordinary.

Rent is calculated on the basis of gross revenue. According to the contract, Pearson Development Corporation was to turn over 30.5 per cent of its gross revenues for the previous year to the government, up to a maximum of $125 million in gross revenues. For any amount in excess of $125 million in gross revenues, Pearson Development Corporation was required to pay the government 45.5 per cent of its gross revenues from the leasing operations.

Calculating gross revenue is an extremely technical process, but very important nonetheless because this type of clause is rarely found in contracts, even in those far less important than the one to privatize Pearson. For the purposes of this calculation, gross revenue includes all revenues generated through the operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson, excluding ten significant deductions, which reduce the buyer's rental, accommodation and contracting costs.

The deductions amount to the taxes collected from consumers and passengers which are pocketed by Pearson Development Corporation on the government's behalf. Extraordinary sources of revenues are discounted for the purposes of calculating gross revenue. This is unusual when determining basic rent in a transaction such as this.

When we look at revenues which, although not unusual, are infrequent and are not generated through the normal operation of the terminals, including access sales, we see that these too were not included in the calculation of gross revenue on which rent will be based.

The same holds true for investment revenue. The contract contains a number of bizarre provisions. Unless these are closely scrutinized and unless those individuals associated with the privatization process, the principal players in this deal, are called upon to testify -I named a few of these players a moment ago, but there are many others -until such time as we can ask them questions, we will not know the whole story as far as this deal is concerned. There are many incongruous aspects to the Pearson privatization contract.

Many questions also arise about the rebates and refunds awarded by Pearson Development Corporation in the case of airport equipment. Here again, we find some strange provisions. There is also something odd about the way the government will recover the costs associated with the occupation of airport space.

I will not give you a complete list of all the incongruities since time will not allow it. During the course of this debate, we have been able to bring to light a number of the contract's incongruous provisions which make this deal unparalleled in Canadian financial history.

We could have also talked about severance pay for Transport Canada employees. That situation is also disgusting. If you look at the facts, even dispassionately -passionately it is worse- if you think that the government of Canada had offered separation allowances to 160 of its own employees despite the fact they were guaranteed employment for two years with Pearson Development Corporation-

Separation allowances totalling $5.5 million would have been paid to 160 federal employees while allowed to keep their jobs. That is revolting! It is totally unacceptable, particularly in view of the unemployment levels and the housing situation, when people are asking for social housing and getting none. I am bringing up social housing because I just attended a meeting on the subject and once again, the government has refused to at least consider alternatives so that the neediest -some 1.2 million households nationwide- can find decent housing and not have to spend in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent of their income on rent.

You can imagine how I feel about a government that does not want to listen to the complaints or the cries of despair of the most ill-favoured members of our society, that does not want to pay any attention whatsoever to the social housing situation in Canada and is pursuing the very policy it had been denouncing in no uncertain terms since 1992. I am speaking on behalf of all their spokespersons when I contrast this with the government allowing employees guaranteed to keep their jobs for the next years at least to be paid $5.5 million in compensation. I am at a loss to know how social justice works in this government.

The latitude the government is giving itself as well as the almost impudent fashion it presents the capacity the government has to compensate friends of the system without specifying any amounts -it could be in the millions- can also be contrasted with the brick wall we are facing when we want to raise issues like social housing and unemployment insurance cuts with the government. However hard I try to stay cool in face of such injustice and double standard, my blood boils. Friends of the party -the very rich friends of the Liberal Party of Canada and contributors to the party fund- get to be treated one way while those who have no voice, no power and no lobbyists representing them on the Hill, in ministers' offices or in the office of the Prime Minister are treated differently.

I think there are enough grounds -and I still cannot see why the government is so obstinate- for making an effort to bring to light the whole story regarding the privatization process at Pearson, with all the dealings involved and all the financial inconsistencies. I think this deserves an answer from the government. If it is not true that the friends of the system had their palms greased and stand to benefit even more under Bill C-22, then let us get to the bottom of this business and get all the facts.

We want to believe you but not on the basis of a superficial analysis commissioned by the Prime Minister, which probably has some value-I am referring to the Nixon Report-but not as much as a thorough, serious review of all the elements surrounding this deal and of what it could involve in the future.

I think we will be able to continue this debate beyond Bill C-22 after the lobbyists bill is tabled. We should find out the general provisions tomorrow. Let us not forget, however, that many of the Pearson players, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, are professional lobbyists. These people will continue to haunt the halls of this building and try to persuade the government to go back on its decisions, sometimes perhaps with bad intentions.

I am not saying that all lobbyists have bad intentions. On the contrary. I know lobbyists who express their clients' views in a quiet manner, but I also know other lobbyists whose integrity can sometimes be questioned, especially when they are much too close to this government and when they represent interests contributing to the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-22. We are still demanding a commission of inquiry to uncover all the facts on this deal, and it is not true that such an investigation would cost millions of dollars and take a year and a half. I think that the House of Commons has all it needs to conduct such an investigation and that, if we act in good faith, we should be able to proceed rather quickly by having the principal players in the failed Pearson Airport privatization deal testify.

I also think it is worthwhile for transparency's sake that the people of Quebec and Canada find out how the government deals with such important issues and how much influence lobbyists exert, often in an underhand way. Lobbyists often cast a shadow over government decisions, especially when they may represent the interests of the Liberal Party in some respects.

I hope the government will respond favourably to our request. It would be a good example of what it claims it wants to achieve during this mandate, that is, acting with honesty and transparency and serving the people of Quebec and Canada well. I think it would be a good start. If members on the other side of the House share our sense of democracy, they should agree to the Bloc Quebecois's request.

[Excise Act, June 13th, 1994]

moved:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 30, on page 6, the following:

"(3) Sections 7.1 and 7.2 shall come into force six months after the day this Act is assented to."

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the next few minutes to explain the thrust of the Bloc Quebecois' proposed amendment to Bill C-11.

Let me begin by saying that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill which is aimed, among other things, at amending the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act to prohibit tobacco manufacturers from packaging cigarettes in packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes.

The provisions of Bill C-11 make it illegal to sell the packages containing 15 or 5 cigarettes which are currently on the market, or to sell single cigarettes. We support this bill because we care about people's health and in particular about the health of young people who are encouraged to smoke because of the availability of kiddie packs and single cigarettes.

Once again, my party believes that it is not enough to prevent young people from taking up smoking. A broad-based awareness campaign is needed to discourage young people from consuming products which are harmful to their health.

Despite the best legislation or the most stringent regulations, we will always have to contend with unscrupulous retailers, just as I did in my youth, who encourage young people to start smoking by selling them single cigarettes. I started smoking when I was just 11 or 12 years old because of an unscrupulous store owner in the neighbourhood. He would hand out free cigarettes to young people to get them hooked, and after that he would charge them 10 cents, 15 cents and then 20 cents. There is a profiteer, there is an unscrupulous store owner. You all know cases like that. I have known a few myself in my time.

We have nothing against the bill per se, but rather against the demand put on businesses, retailers, wholesalers and distributors to adapt quickly to the new provisions contained in Bill C-11 that provide that they take off the market almost overnight small size packs of cigarettes or tobacco. They stand to suffer substantial losses because of this, based on the representations made by The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, among others, which has testified before the finance committee to point out this deficiency while supporting government efforts to discourage smoking or tobacco use from an early age among young people. The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers asked whether it would not be possible to defer the coming into force of that part of the regulations for a while.

The intent of the motion the Bloc is tabling this evening is to give distributors, retailers, anyone who is holding stocks of packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes time to clear their stocks without incurring excessive losses.

As you know, since 1990, retailers as well as wholesalers and distributors have sustained substantial losses because of the recession. And say what we may, we are still experiencing a slack in the economy although some level of growth can be expected in a near future.

I would call upon the leniency of the government and the Reform Party to pass such an amendment. Without adulterating or weakening in any way this bill, which we support, to discourage young people from starting to smoke early, our amendment nonetheless gives businesses a chance to adjust to the new context. Let us bear in mind also that we have been asking a lot from the tobacco industry and allied industries over the past seven or eight years in terms of adjustment.

So, six short months to turn around would be welcome and that is the motion I am putting to you on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Lumber, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister agree that if he were prepared to technically treat Quebec as a country-in the meaning of U.S. trade legislation, not in the political sense-he would have saved Quebec lumber producers tens of millions of dollars in countervail duty?

[English]

[Lumber, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in Le Devoir on Saturday, Quebec's former legal adviser in Washington, Mr. Elliott Feldman, said that trade interests were not well defended in the softwood lumber question and that federal negotiators were more concerned about presenting a pan-Canadian position than about defending provinces whose trade practices are above reproach.

My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Would the minister agree that in the softwood lumber question, the federal government should insist that Quebec producers not be subject to countervail measures applied in Canada, since Quebec does not subsidize its exports?