moved that Bill C-22, an Act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, today I have the pleasure of proposing the second reading of this very important piece of legislation and I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, the Minister of Industry, who was kind enough to table this bill on my behalf.
Bill C-22 is a measure to cancel agreements between Her Majesty and T1 T2 Limited Partnership.
The arrangements I refer to were entered into by the previous government. They would have turned over the development and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Canada's largest and most important transportation facility, Lester B. Pearson International Airport, for 60 years to a group of private developers.
Our government after careful examination of the agreements has determined they are not in the public interest. Our examination included a report by Mr. Robert Nixon who described a flawed process clouded by the possibility of political manipulation.
This government rejects the previous government's way of doing business on behalf of Canadians. A reliance on lobbyists, the backroom dealings, the manipulation of bona fide private sector interests and the lack of respect for the impartiality of public servants are absolutely unacceptable.
It should be noted the request for proposals for the project was released in March 1992 after a ministerial announcement in October 1990. The claim for compensation from the partnership however shows that as early as August 1989 one of the partners was working on a proposal to develop and operate terminals at Pearson International. This would lead one to believe that someone other than the government was in charge of the privatization project at Pearson.
The government intends to be in charge of the public agenda. We will make the decisions that affect the national interest. We believe matters that could significantly affect our economy and our competitive position as a nation should be decided in an open and accessible process, not by lobbyists and certainly not by five-year old governments in the dying days of their mandate. Decisions made by our government will reflect Canadians' traditional sense of fairness and fair play.
In deciding to legislate an end to this quagmire, the government took account of several factors: the need to come to an early decision on the future needs of Pearson unencumbered by these agreements; the government's intention to put the national interest ahead of private sector profit; and the fact that the private sector would have taken control of one of the country's most important transportation assets, an asset that if not managed in the public interest could jeopardize the country's economy and its international competitiveness.
These concerns and the government's response to them are reflected in the legislation before us today. The legislation contains several provisions. It declares that the agreements have not come into force and have no legal effect.
Further, no court action of any kind may be taken against Her Majesty, her servants or agents owing to these agreements, the process that was followed to enter into the agreements or to terminate them.
No one will be entitled to compensation from Her Majesty as a result of this legislation. However, the Minister of Transport may with governor in council approval provide for appropriate payments to the partnership for its out of pocket expenses, but nothing will be paid for lost profits or lobbyist fees.
The bill will allow the Government of Canada to retain control over the future of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson. It will provide a framework to allow for a fair and equitable disposition of the matter.
The legislation reflects public statements made by members of the government that predate the signing of the agreement. Those statements included a clear warning to the developer not to sign an agreement and to risk cancellation of the agreement if it was found not to be in the public interest.
As well, there have been the subsequent statements by government that it would consider paying out of pocket expenses but that nothing would be paid for lost profits or lobbyist fees. The government decided on no lost profits because we believe to pay such compensation is simply not appropriate in these circumstances.
The warnings not to sign these agreements and the subsequent action taken to cancel them are absolutely consistent. Uncontrolled lobbying conducted behind closed doors that leads to a contract detrimental to the public good cannot and will not be condoned. The government's decision not to pay lobbyist fees recognizes that individuals and companies involved in the process did not take the public interest into account.
The government wants to make it as clear as we can that we wish to deal with the private sector in an open, fair and responsible manner, but we will always take the taxpayers' interests into account. This decision should signal to all parties that abuses in the political process and practices we consider to be unacceptable will not be tolerated.
The government has decided it may pay out of pocket expenses in recognition that this particular privatization process no matter how flawed was an accepted practice by the previous government. The parties were playing in a game that in this particular case was heavily influenced by the actions of lobbyists.
It is recognized that the cancellation of the arrangement will have an impact on the developers. Several of the companies spent large amounts of money to plan, design and negotiate this deal. I am well aware some will say that expenses such as these should not be paid because of the manipulation that occurred. However we believe as a government that we must make every attempt to be reasonable and equitable.
I want to emphasize another point. This legislation does not lessen the government's desire to reach a negotiated settlement with the developer on these out of pocket expenses. These negotiations are under way.
The legislation clearly sets out certain parameters for these negotiations, including a time limit. A time limit is necessary to ensure that negotiations are not unduly protracted, thus allowing the government to proceed with planning the future of Canada's largest and most important transportation facility.
The matter must be finalized so that we can plan the future of Pearson International Airport. It is our objective to provide clear direction on the future of Pearson before the end of this year. I have stated that on many occasions. This will include decisions on a future management regime for Pearson and its development needs.
These arrangements cannot be finalized while these contracts are not cancelled because they could very well hamper the ability of a new management system to respond to the essential needs of Pearson. Lengthy delays could have significant economic consequences not only in the metropolitan Toronto area but across the country because Pearson is the hub on which Canada's aviation system turns.
In summary the legislation is designed to formally put an end to those agreements relating to the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson that were arrived at as the result of a flawed process.
I reiterate that in cancelling the deals the government will attempt to negotiate fair and reasonable out of pocket expenses compensation, but it will not pay for lost profits and it will not reimburse anything for lobbyist fees.
The government will not be held hostage to any lengthy negotiating process that could impact on the future of Pearson, our economy, the international competitiveness of that facility and in the final analysis the public good.
If an acceptable settlement cannot be arrived at and arrived at soon, the legislation provides that no compensation shall be paid.
It is time to get on with the business of providing Canada with an efficient, safe and affordable national airport system. It is time to get on with the future of Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
