Ed Harper

[Petitions, September 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the third petition deals with sexual orientation.

I wish to present a petition requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married people.

[Petitions, September 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with abortion. The petitioners request that Parliament reconsider amendments to the Criminal Code.

[Petitions, September 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have three petitions I would like to present today on behalf of my constituents in Simcoe Centre.

The first deals with euthanasia. The petitioners request that the current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.

[Petitions, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase sexual orientation.

The petitioners fear that such an inclusion would indicate societal approval of homosexual behaviour. The petitioners believe that the government should not legitimize this behaviour against the clear wishes of the majority.

[Government Expenditures, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Reform Party applaud the statement by the President of the Treasury Board regarding the completed review of the operation of the administrative flight services. The saving of some $24 million of taxpayers' dollars is indeed good news to all Canadians.

While we acknowledge that some use by the royal family, the Governor General and the Prime Minister may be required, the important change in direction is the directive to ministers to use commercial air service as a first priority. With the Auditor General's being involved in this review, we trust an agreement has been reached on the cost per flying hour.

I would further request that this government keep Parliament informed by providing it with complete and accurate information about the flight services, as the Auditor General recommended in his 1993 report. In this way Parliament would be better able to monitor any wasteful spending and perhaps locate new areas of savings as they relate to this service.

I would also request that the minister table the review it conducted of the flight service. The government is finally doing what the private sector started doing three and four years ago, cutting costs in order to survive in these difficult times.

While we in Reform recognize this reduction in government spending, we suggest it is only the tip of the iceberg. There are millions more taxpayers' dollars to be saved by further cuts in government spending.

We encourage the government to keep looking. It is on the right track.

[The Family, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this week's family poll indicated that, although the majority of Canadians are happy with their own family life, they fear for the future of their families. They see warning signs that indicate the family is seriously threatened.

I am disappointed at the apathetic attitude of the government toward these fears and concerns. Throughout this past week my colleagues and I have presented in the House the issues of concern to families.

The government has not responded with a single constructive word. The Liberals have ignored the wishes of Canadians by maintaining and pursuing legislation that is harmful to the family. It is a betrayal of the trust of those who elected them.

If the Ministers of Justice, Finance, and Human Resources Development would dare to get close to the grassroots of Canada they would discover how deeply troubled the families feel. But the Liberals are not paying attention.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues and I are here to defend the interest of Canadian families but we will not allow the family to die a slow death at the hands of the government.

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

Some years more. Governments do not have that reputation for making money. In fact the reverse is true. There have been cases where they have taken over money making propositions and soon run them into the red. Here is an unbelievable opportunity, a government run venture about to be turned over to the private sector.

Under normal circumstances there should have been a stampede to bid on this project. The term, a licence to print money, is very appropriate here; a sure winner, you cannot lose. Making money with this deal is as sure as death and taxes.

The original Tory group made a big issue in its proposal that there must be competition in terminal 3. That was a key part of its proposal. This was the only way to ensure protection for the public using this facility. When it was discovered that the group did not have the financing or financial ability to proceed, it went looking for a white knight.

Again, when you remember the fact that this was a guaranteed money maker, you would have thought that there would be no problem finding a suitable backer for such an airtight money making project. We do not know how many people sought to become a part of the plum, but what we do know is that the operators of terminal 3, the Liberal connection, turned out to be the white knight. Out the window goes competition. Any possible challenge to future profits was removed and the taxpayers and the travelling public are now in the hands of a monopoly.

Canada's most important piece of infrastructure is now shared by both Tory and Liberal supporters. A suspicious mind might consider this to have been a very smart move to insulate the deal from political interference.

What is interesting about the Nixon report is that it did not deal with the Liberal connection with the same intensity to which the Tory group was subject. They might have been successful had the public not reacted so strenuously to this deal. A shady deal by the Tories is no different than a shady deal by the Liberals. The Canadian taxpayer does not know the difference in shades of dirt.

Let us go back to the deal for a moment and see if we can find any reason for paying taxpayers' dollars to anyone. No evidence exists of any work being done between October 7 and the cancellation date; not one load of gravel, not one shovel in the ground. In my opinion, nothing happened during that period because of the uncertainty.

The original Tory group had presented an unsolicited bid for this project back in September 1989 and no compensation was requested or paid when it was rejected at that time. No doubt a great deal of work went into this proposal and it placed the group at a very distinct advantage when the government in March 1992 decided to request proposals for privatization.

The fact that 90 days only had been allowed to produce these proposals gave the original group of 1989 a tremendous advantage, a point not missed in the Nixon report.

Our problem is that no compensation as opposed to something in the order of $25 million to $30 million for out of pocket expenses or $180 million if we buy the ridiculous argument of lost profits. Why not let the principals prove in an open forum what money was spent on this project between October 7, the signing date and December 2, 1993, the cancellation date. If any costs were to be justified, this is the only timeframe that should be considered.

Today's Toronto Star reports that this review could cost taxpayers as much as $98,000, a further expense in salaries and expenses to Bob Wright, the lawyer appointed by the government to handle this wrap-up. Mr. Wright is a former fundraiser and law partner of the Prime Minister. I would suggest without questioning Mr. Wright's integrity or ability, the public perception is not the one we wanted them to have. Here we are trying to restore this level of trust and confidence and with an appointment like this one the public perception is that it appears to be more of the same.

One has to ask why the Liberal government is going out of its way to protect the previous Tory government. If the deal is half as bad as the Nixon report speculates, the taxpayers of Canada deserve a full explanation. If more time were required to accumulate witnesses who were prepared to attend, why not allow for it? For reluctant witnesses, why not use the subpoena process available to committees to force their appearance?

In closing, while many voters supported the government's decision to cancel the project, those same taxpayers are sure to be offended at the way the compensation package is being negotiated. The fear we share with so many Canadians is that there is the potential for possibly millions of hard earned tax dollars to be paid to people who are more deserving of criticism than compensation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today on third reading of Bill C-22.

I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for London East about the process that we are going through. I am sure he, like many other members when they were campaigning in the last election, was absolutely distraught at the level of cynicism that we found among the voters as we went door to door. I must admit the mistrust they had of politicians put me at an all time low.

Bill C-22 really focuses on the mistrust and the cynicism that people have toward politicians. I believe that mistrust was reflected in the fact that we had such a huge turnover in members in the 35th Parliament. When we start talking about the Bloc looking for blame, or the Reform Party looking for transparency, really what we are talking about is trying to establish the credibility of politicians and returning the trust that has been lost in this place.

I am sure the Canadian people applauded the decision to cancel the Pearson contract because during the campaign it was obvious it was under a cloud. I would suggest that those same people would not be very happy with the fact that the negotiations for any possible compensation are proceeding under what appears to be a cloud.

It was suggested that the Nixon report did not say that there was anything illegal. While that is true, a lot of questions were raised in that report. Indeed, beneath the questions that were raised there may be something illegal. We will never know how things are proceeding because of this reluctance to open up the process to public scrutiny and working toward restoring trust in ourselves and in the system.

I see two contradictions with the red book in Bill C-22. First, the government was elected on the premise of jobs through infrastructure development. Here we are talking about what arguably could be the biggest piece of infrastructure in Canada. Much needed development is being held up because of negotiations regarding compensation which are going on behind closed doors. Six months have passed since the contract was cancelled and nothing has happened toward construction or job creation.

Mr. Nixon stated in his report that construction should proceed. I would like to quote from his words on page 13, para-graph 4:

I further recommend that Transport Canada continue for the time being to administer Terminals 1 and 2, and proceed with necessary construction. Thereafter, I recommend that Transport Canada recognize the airport authority. Once operational, the airport authority would receive from Transport Canada, the responsibility of the day to day operations of the airport complex. It would also deal with the planning, financing and construction of airport infrastructure. In particular, this would include Terminals 1 and 2 and the runways, taxiways and aprons at Pearson.

To this point, nothing is happening as far as construction goes.

The other contradiction is the reluctance to open up the process to the light of day. This again flies in the face of the red book promise of governing with integrity. I would like to quote from chapter six of the red book, which deals with this particular issue. I think it fits very well with what we are talking about tonight:

This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership. The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business behind closed doors.

That is very significant in what we are doing here in Bill C-22.

We in the Bloc have attempted to open up the process. The Canadian people should be aware of what is going on. They are the ones who will be paying whatever compensation may or may not be agreed on.

As I mentioned earlier, the Nixon report raised a lot of questions and yet provided few answers. We owe it to the taxpayers to answer those questions. We owe it to the people who were identified in the report. They should have an opportunity to clear their names and reputations.

However, transparency is not to prevail. The cloud over the initial deal under the Tories is now covering the compensation that may or may not be paid.

Why are we even considering one nickel of taxpayers' money to a group that does not deserve a penny of hard earned dollars? Let me review. The deal was signed on October 7, 1993, just 18 days before the election was called, knowing full well that the deal likely would not survive a change of government.

We were not dealing with people who were political novices, unfamiliar with the system. We are dealing with both Tory and Liberal supporters, politically well connected people who apparently were about to line their pockets at the Canadian taxpayers' expense. When you consider the challenge, you have a government run operation generating some $70 million of profit each year.

[Privilege, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that someone agrees with the point we raised since on Monday, June 6, just three days after I raised the issue, the B.C. ministry received a notice removing both the father and father-in-law as directors of the company.

Rather than demanding a retraction, the member should be offering answers to questions raised about arm's length relationships.

[Privilege, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on June 2 and again on June 3 I raised the issue of a possible conflict of interest with regard to an arm's length blind trust set up by the member for Vancouver South for his company Dynamic Maintenance Limited of which he is a 50 per cent owner. The company was doing business with the government.

The issue was brought to the attention of the government because of public information on file with the B.C. Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations regarding the officers and directors of this company.

The public record from the last annual statement with an accuracy date of May 24 showed the member as an officer of the company and listed both his father and father-in-law as directors.

The home address-