Mr. Speaker, once again I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill before the House today. A number of opposition members apparently do not understand that this bill is necessary in order to close a gaping hole left by the previous federal administration.
I say necessary, because we must establish certain parameters, which is not at all what the opposition has tried to do in this debate today. The motion of the Bloc Quebecois is aimed at shooting down the bill because it allegedly contains no provisions aimed at making the work done by lobbyists more transparent.
Let me start by explaining what to me seemed quite obvious: the purpose of the bill before the House today is to cancel a particularly unsatisfactory agreement. Granted, this agreement has shown that the process left much to be desired. We will learn from the mistakes of the previous government.
This bill will fix a leak in the roof and we intend at the appropriate time to fix the way roofs are built so that they all get built the right way. The hon. Minister of Industry has made it quite clear that he will bring forward the legislation to do just that.
This motion is a rather pitiful attempt to combine the two issues and frankly it is a smokescreen to delay a necessary task.
I must say I look forward to the debate on future amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, and I am sure the Leader of the Official Opposition will be able to give us all the details on the system that caused all this, a system that turned out to be a disaster. If it were not for the abuses to a system he helped put in place, he would not be here today to criticize one of the most flagrant abuses of that system.
One wonders why the Bloc Quebecois insists on delaying the passage of a bill whose purpose is to establish the parameters for an agreement. We do not claim this bill deals with all the problems of excessive lobbying. The bill is clear, however: the government will pay no compensation to lobbyists for this agreement. There is nothing to add.
And how does the Bloc Quebecois react? It wants another study. Why? Everything has been said. In his report, Mr. Nixon stated that there was no evidence of any illegal action. He observed that relations between political staff and lobbyists were tainted by excessive influence, but there was nothing
illegal. If there had been, we would need a police investigation, not legislation.
As so often happens, there comes a time we must concede that enough has been said and it is time for action. And why is it time for action? So that a major transportation facility can become operational, and so we can decide how this utility will be managed in the future. Why can't we do that now? Because there are some very tough obstacles to be overcome before we can make decisions concerning the future of Pearson International Airport.
What does the opposition propose? That we sit back and conduct another study, another inquiry, and probably another one after that if it does not like the outcome any better than it seems to like the one from Mr. Nixon?
Have opposition members thought through what they would need to do after their inquiry was finished? Maybe then they would realize that they have to draft legislation to put an end to this deal. Maybe then they would realize that they would have to draft legislation to set the parameters for negotiating a settlement with the developers. Maybe they would even realize that the legislation should contain a provision to ensure that negotiations do not drag on interminably; that when enough is enough tell the developers that they will not get anything.
That sounds like pretty good legislation. I wonder what words they would use. I suggest they have to look no further than the legislation before us today.
We never spoke of compensating developers and I want to stress this point. The only possibly negotiable item is the amount of compensation for any expense qualifying under a signed agreement with the state.
Lost opportunities and profits are excluded. Fees paid to lobbyists will not be refunded, and we must remember that last October, members opposite wanted us to pay some compensation after the contract with Paramax was cancelled. The Leader of the Opposition even said that we should pay one billion dollars in compensation to Paramax, after its contract with the government was cancelled. Just think, on the one hand they tell us not to compensate and on the other to do it.
I have to say that I have been surprised by the attitude of the Reform Party on this also. It supports the motion from the Bloc with its own particular brand of subamendment. I am truly surprised to know that it wants to delay a resolution to the situation facing Pearson airport, that it too wants to conduct an inquiry at taxpayers' expense. We on this side of the House always thought it was against any frivolous expenses on inquiries.
Sure, it is redefining its position to say that the standing committee could do it. It does not need to be a royal commission. I hate to point out the obvious, but the standing committee does not need any special direction from the House to conduct a study; it already has all kinds of authority to choose what kind of business it will conduct. Does it need to conduct a huge and expensive inquiry? I submit the answer is no, at least in part because I am sure the members of the committee have all read the Nixon report and recognize that no further information is required to reach the conclusion that this deal needs to be ended.
I have let myself get carried away here a little.
I simply wanted to take this opportunity to set the record straight. First, under clause 10, the Minister of Transport must obtain the approval of the governor in council to enter into any negotiated agreement.
Besides, the criteria governing such an agreement could not be more specific: no compensation is to be paid for any loss of profit or any fee paid to lobbyists. Out-of-pocket expenses, evidence of which must be provided, are really what developers have spent on any fully-justified activity related to the transaction concluded with the previous government.
The government must ensure that there is no roundabout way for developers to claim that profits totalling such and such amount could have been made had they received the green light. As well, the approval of the Governor in Council ensures that the decision is up to the government, and not strictly up to one minister.
Fourth and finally, I wish to remind the House that there is an incredibly wide range of opportunities for further and continuing scrutiny of any potential settlement by members of the House, by the media and by the public at large.
Let me only say, for example, that the financial commitments made by the Canadian government can be duly examined by the Auditor General.
They can also be discussed and called into question here daily, or be included in budgetary review process in the House and in committee. Detailed questions can be asked about them. Under the Access to Information Act, the public and, of course, the media can follow the matter closely. These commitments can also be the focus of letters and petitions sent to the minister and to the government.
I truly hope my remarks have gone some way to dispel the confusion the amendment has attempted to cast over a perfectly straightforward piece of legislation.
All that needs to be done is to fix the plumbing, so let us get to work. You can rest assured, however, that I will speak again about our treatment of the plumbers. For that, I will certainly rely on the help of the opposition.
