Michel Daviault

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

No, but it does not matter.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

That is a lot, thank you. Listen, we are caught in a confrontation dynamic. The time for negotiation is over. The federal government as well as the sovereigntists want to settle the question once and for all, they want to put the question to Quebecers. I believe that it is fundamental that they do it. I was among those Quebec nationalists who believed in the "beau risque", the risk worth taking, who where criticized by people like the parliamentary secretary-I know, I cannot say who has now returned-but who were also criticized for their stand on the Meech Lake Accord. An agreement was possible, as if it was always-

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have wasted a great deal of time talking about big national issues this morning when we should be concentrating on regional development. It is not in our best interests, in dealing with such an issue, to provoke one another. I am not suggesting that the hon. member is doing that, but we have heard this morning some remarks that were not particularly edifying.

However, on that point, I do not think that we are a cause, but rather a consequence. Imagine, after eight or nine years of Conservative rule, after the GST, after the scandals, after all the Conservative government inflicted upon us, Quebecers still remembered 1982 and the Trudeau government and they did not trust the Liberal Party. The Liberals keep talking about the red book. Quebecers rejected the red book in the last election. During the campaign, every single analyst in English Canada seemed to take pleasure in saying that there would not even be ten members of the Bloc in this House after the October election.

The people from Quebec have a very good memory and, in that respect, some great measures have to be taken. In committee, I had an opportunity to talk with the clerk of the Privy Council, who told me about the need to strike a balance after Charlottetown. There is no proposal on the table. Where is that balance between the regions and the federal government? The parliamentary secretary who got all worked up about Quebec's independence a few moments ago-I do not want to mention his name-has a vision of a united Canada. He is entitled to his vision, which I respect, but that vision has been rejected and continues to be rejected. How are we going to strike a balance between English Canada, which thought that the Charlottetown Accord gave Quebec too much power, and Quebec, which thought that the offers on the table were nothing but crumbs?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this Bloc Quebecois motion respecting regional development. It condemns the federal government's ineffective regional development interventions.

In fact, according to the April 13, 1994, newsletter of the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, or FORD, in Quebec, the employment level was still 73,000 jobs short of its pre-recession level. Major disparities have been reported in documents from the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.

For the 1980-1992 time frame, Montreal ranked 19th out of 25 metropolitan areas in Canada in terms of job creation. Montreal has the fifth highest unemployment rate of all these metropolitan areas.

As far as poverty is concerned, there were 674,000 people living in poverty in Montreal, that is to say 370,000 more than in all of Atlantic Canada. And when I say this, I am by no means minimizing the impact of poverty on Atlantic provinces. In fact, I will take this opportunity to say that regional development programs are not hand-outs but a responsibility that all of us must share.

In a speech delivered on March 8, 1994, the Minister of Industry stated: "Our party and our government are clearly committed to economic development and job creation in the Montreal area".

How many specific measures and clear commitments regarding regional development in Montreal were included in the Minister of Finance's budget? None, not one.

The people of Montreal will have to make do with whatever will trickle down to them from the $150 million fund, the Montreal development fund, announced in 1992 by the Conservative government. I did not know the Liberals were this happy with what the Conservatives had done.

Not only will the FORD-Quebec be affected by departmental operating budget reductions, but its own transfers to business will be cut by $70 million, or 25 per cent of its total budget, over the next three years.

Let us take a brief look at the problem in Montreal. According to the Federal Office, Montreal's growth is curbed by its many slow growth sunset industries, with few high technology industries which still depend mainly on military contracts.

The Lachine Canal region, the cradle of Canadian industrialization, and east-end Montreal are two areas of chronic underemployment.

The Island of Montreal was also left a heritage that seriously hampers its development: contaminated soils. According to experts in this field, over 5,000 hectares show environmental damage. In addition, the unchecked suburban development of Montreal has led to an urban sprawl out of proportion to its population.

This urban sprawl has increased the burden on Montreal's road system and shrunk its municipal tax base.

The City of Montreal has estimated it needs $2 billion to modernize its basic infrastructure. The scant $200 million promised under the tripartite infrastructure program will not go very far in resolving a problem of this magnitude. The Liberal government could have focused its infrastructure program on renovating the basic infrastructure, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities initially proposed.

The federal Liberals thus abandoned an important initiative in the City of Montreal, the engine of Quebec, in favour of the shortsighted election requirements of a provincial Liberal government in distress.

The regional transportation network still shows obvious deficiencies: chronic congestion of several road segments, advanced deterioration of the road infrastructure, which compromises the network's efficiency and safety, as well as discontinuity of the road network.

Let me also mention the underutilization of the aging rail infrastructure. This situation seriously complicates the transportation of passengers and freight throughout the territory, thus affecting people's quality of life and the economic competitiveness of local businesses.

The major transportation infrastructures, namely the two airports, the port and the railways, which confirm the economic vitality of the Montreal region on the global markets, are faced with a quickly and deeply changing environment.

Practically all of these major facilities come under federal jurisdiction. Most of the measures that could help are the responsibility of this government; this is no doubt its most dismal record.

But Montreal also has strengths. The first and the most important one by far is its people. Indeed, as the bad news kept hitting our people, they became more resilient. A spirit of solidarity developed in the neighbourhoods, and local political and socio-economic elites joined forces.

In fact, a number of regional exercises were undertaken, including the Pichette report, as well as the 1992 conference of Greater Montreal mayors, whose theme referred to the Greater Montreal as a strong entity asserting itself. Moreover, the need for interregional solidarity is being recognized in every regional discussion and meeting in Quebec.

In that regard, the FTQ stated this, during its 1992 congress: "To revitalize Quebec's economy, the development of Montreal must not be opposed to that of the regions. Regional development in Quebec will have to take into account the regions' complementarity and promote interregional development".

The task force chaired by Mr. Claude Pichette held a vast consultation exercise with Montreal stakeholders, and a clear wish for autonomy emerged. We must particularly point out regional development initiatives in urban districts by CDECs, which are the Corporations de développement économique communautaire. In this regard, it is more than desirable to extend agreements between the different levels of government, the City of Montreal, and CDECs.

The Pichette report also pointed out that Greater Montreal's strategic plan had recognized the importance of the role played by CDECs, and in fact proposed to strengthen their means of action to promote job development. Indeed, the stimulation of employment is the primary goal of CDECs. However, these corporations were painfully trying to find their way around through the current duplicating and mess in the occupational training programs of the federal and the provincial governments. New corporations are being created in Ahuntsic and Côte-des-Neiges, or are in the development stage, as is the case in Montréal-Nord.

Business assistance is the second sector of activity of CDECs. It seems however that such partnerships between the various levels of government, the city of Montreal and community organizations must be based on longer-term agreements, because they deal with structural problems, social as well as economic issues that are linked to the de-industrialization of the Montreal area, as was mentioned in the Pichette Report. Provincial and federal civil servants still have some serious reservations about this kind of partnership.

In the areas of local control, development, decentralization and priority planning, our communities have done their share. The city of Montreal has actively supported them and has often acted on their behalf with the higher authorities. At best, resource allocation to the CDECs is more like a redistribution of old money. That means less money for everyone when resources are scarce. There is no will to act. Consultations with the people and the community organizations, interregional initiatives and local control must all be supported. The people in Montreal have learned to rely only on themselves and have shown how dynamic they can be.

It is also important that the regions be in charge of their economic development. The federal government should yield to this evidence. What the regions really want is some support from other levels of government, and not more government intervention and so-called national standards. By definition, regions have their very own identity, they are not merely a part of the country. They have special features and special needs.

Therefore, it is important that we recognize, for example, that the Montreal census metropolitan area is a region in its own right. This metropolitan area has a core city, that is Montreal, whose regional and international characteristics must be recognized and supported by its regional partners as well as by the higher levels of government. It is important also that the federal

government be committed to respecting the development of this greater area.

In fact, the federal government must recognize Greater Montreal as the "representative of the metropolitan area" in economic matters and it must coordinate its economic development action at the regional level. The lack of efficiency of the Liberal government in matters of regional development results in an administrative chaos and sterile overlappings which are harmful to the economic growth of all regions.

I would indeed like to quote the recent figures of the Economic and Regional Development Agreement, or ERDA. In the last stages of the agreement and only a few months before it expired, on March 31, 1993, the two governments had spent only $281 million, that is just 34 per cent of the planned $820 million. Quebec and Ottawa are equally bad in this case. The first has spent only $126 million out of $380 million, that is 33 per cent and the other, which is the federal government, has spent only $155 million out of the planned $440 million, that is 35 per cent.

Montreal has so far paid dearly for the federal government's lack of efficiency in matters of regional development.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.

The provisions of Bill C-17 respecting unemployment insurance are unacceptable, as a whole and individually, particularly as far as benefit rates are concerned.

In my speech on the budget, I reminded the House at the time that Montreal has become the capital of poverty. In March 1994, according to Statistics Canada, there were 151,270 UI recipients in Montreal. In the greater Montreal area, 18.5 per cent of families are living under the poverty line.

I have asked a question about the effects the increase in unemployment will have. The unemployment rate has grown from 9.1 per cent in December 1989 to 13.8 per cent in December 1993, exceeding the growth of the unemployment rate in Saint John's, Newfoundland, for the same period, while in Toronto it had gone from 4.1 per cent in December 1989 to 11.5 per cent in December 1993. I also pointed out that, even before consultations on the needs of the population start, the UI reform would have an absolutely catastrophic effect on the provinces' finances.

The budget measures will result in an increased need for social assistance at the expense of the provinces which will then have to cut, as usual, in their social programs and services because transfer payments are frozen.

Last Thursday, Statistics Canada announced that long-term unemployment had increased in 1990, 1991 and 1992, which means that fewer people received or qualified for unemployment insurance. It is estimated that more than 10 per cent of unemployed workers have turned to provincial social assistance programs.

The Bloc Quebecois has proposed that this Bill, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 11, with the following: "(ii) the greater of 57 per cent of the".

The purpose of this amendment is simple. At present, the rate of weekly benefit payable to a claimant is equal to 57 per cent of his average weekly insurable earnings; the government plans to reduce this rate to 55 per cent. The Bloc is merely asking to leave it at 57 per cent.

As we know, insurable earnings are based on average insurable weekly earnings over the reference period. For example, a person whose average insurable weekly earnings amount to $620 would see his or her benefits decrease from $353 to $341 if the bill is passed without amendments.

The government tackles its deficit by gradually eroding the benefits of the poorest.

Let us also keep in mind that the benefit rate will be reduced from 57 per cent to 55 per cent for about 85 per cent of recipients.

Once again, government savings are achieved on the backs of the unemployed. I would like to remind you that businesses whose annual UI contributions are less than $60,000 qualify for a tax credit to cover the increase in their contributions up to $30,000.

What a funny UI program: the government does not have money to pay benefits to the unemployed but finds the necessary resources to pay some employers' contributions to that same plan. Another double standard, not to say anything about social equity.

The changes to the benefit structure are simply designed to erode income replacement programs and introduce the principle of justification based on means. The double benefit rate structure is outrageous. Like the Canadian Labour Congress, we must recognize that workers' income is not based on their family status any more than their premiums, hiring or dismissal.

For a government to conceive such a program strongly contradicts the principle of income replacement and other aspects of the labour market; it is a disgrace. This government is destroying the basic principle of income replacement that was the hallmark of the Canadian UI program for many years.

The formula described in clause 22 whereby a higher benefit rate would be given to low-income claimants with dependants hides the fact that other planned changes in this bill will decrease the benefits paid to these same people.

In fact, the advantage of a higher benefit rate will be cancelled by the stricter eligibility standard, a reduction of 12 to 10 weeks of work and a reduced benefits period. The real reason for this bill is to reduce benefit levels. I remind this House that the benefit level has already been reduced twice: from 66 to 60 per cent of salary under Bill C-21 in 1990 and from 60 to 57 per cent

of insurable earnings through the amendments made in Bill C-113 in 1993.

How can the public not be cynical towards governments when it sees this Liberal government pursue the very policies it denounced when it was in opposition barely a year ago? I will take this opportunity to quote the present Prime Minister in a letter dated March 26, 1993 to opponents of Bill C-113: "The Liberals are dismayed by these measures. By reducing benefits and further penalizing those who voluntarily leave their jobs, clearly the Conservative government cares very little for the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of attacking the real problem, it is attacking the unemployed-" That was barely a year ago.

Conservative or Liberal, it is the same thing. The poorest people, who are the victims of this system, are attacked. The proposed changes in Bill C-17 will lower the benefit rate for the great majority of claimants to 55 per cent. The lower benefit rate was adopted for just one reason: to reduce spending on unemployment insurance.

Like others, including the Public Service Alliance, I reject the two-rate benefit structure described in this bill, as well as the lower general benefit rate. In fact, it is important for benefits to be paid to all claimants on the basis of their former employment income.

The government points out that the 60 per cent benefit rate will apply to only 15 per cent of claimants. However, I will add that the reduction of the benefit rate from 57 to 55 per cent will apply to 85 per cent of claimants. The Canadian Labour Congress points out that the higher benefit rate, even the 60 per cent rate for recipients with dependents and a low income, is not designed to increase the protection afforded to the unemployed.

The $12 per week involved is cancelled out by more stringent eligibility standards or the duration of benefits, or both. In the case of workers deemed ineligible because they cannot even get 12 weeks of work, this means a total loss. The government did not tell us how many of those recipients who earn less than $390 per week and who have dependents will lose everything.

With this measure, the Liberal government is getting closer to the American pattern regarding weekly insurable earnings. Indeed, Canada reduces its rate from 57 to 55 per cent, while in most American States that rate is 50 per cent.

Taken together, the new unemployment insurance measures will translate into savings of $725 million for the government in the first year, and $2.4 billion in the two subsequent years. This decision however causes a serious prejudice to the unemployed, who will see their purchasing power diminish and will thereby make less of a contribution to the economy of their region and community. The government is only creating a greater gap between the rich and the poor.

Eighty-five per cent of the claimants of unemployment insurance will lose money in order that the government may avoid the painful exercise of cutting costs of government operations. Only claimants who have both dependants and a dismally underpaid job will be able to receive 60 per cent of insured earnings.

Like Quebec with the "boubous macoutes" of the Quebec Liberal government, the rest of Canada will see the emergence of its own flock of overzealous federal civil servants trying to track down their quota of bad abusers the system. The witch hunt is on.

For the most part, it is divorced workers responsible for single parent families who will have to prove that they have dependents. What an incredible mess! The government is adding yet another administrative level, "jobs, jobs, jobs", at the expense of taxpayers, to harass the unemployed.

Some used to say "poor Canada"; now, thanks to the Liberal government, this country will be even poorer.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during my last intervention in this House on Bill C-22, I had the opportunity to deal somewhat with the work done by some lobbyists and some friends of the government.

I will remind you particularly of the following names: Léo Kolber, Herb Metcalfe, Ramsey Withers, Ray Hession, Don Matthews, Fred Doucet, without mentioning the names of the companies and consortiums on behalf of which they interceded in this contract on the Pearson Airport privatization.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. I will spare you the list of the generous direct and indirect financial contributions made by all those people and firms to electoral funds of the Conservative and Liberal Parties.

So, what are we going to do about this tangle of ties woven over the years between those firms, their lobbyists and governments that follow one another and look strangely similar? One really has to bury his or head in the sand to ignore the real political weight of all those people crawling around the government and within organizations of traditional political parties.

Lobbyists have learned how to influence governments. You will better understand why we demand not only a real act on lobbyists but also an act on the financing of political parties. An act that would prohibit any financial support from corporations and that would limit individual contributions, because by contributing judiciously to the electoral funds of the two main political parties, corporations are able to negotiate iron-clad contracts through their lobbyists. That way, each new government does not really have any choice but must honour those contracts or offer compensation, as it seems to be the case with the bill we are discussing today.

Bill C-22, with clause 10, brings into question the so-called openness of this government in this matter. What is the difference between the Liberal government and the previous Conservative government? There is very little difference.

With regard to lobbyists and Bill C-22, I would like to refer to some aspects of Bill C-44, an act respecting registration of lobbyists, which was sanctioned on September 13, 1988 and which came into effect on September 30, 1989. It was the first act of that type ever to come into effect. The act was amended by Bill C-76, wich was passed on February 22, 1993, but it never came into effect. Rather strange, is it not?

Regulations were adopted under power given by Bill C-44, but they only deal with procedural issues, undoubtedly important but raising few substantive questions.

What is the purpose of the act on lobbyists? It is based on several fundamental principles, among which are:

The public has the right to make its views known and to have free access to the government. That is the principle of accessibility. Activities with the government should be clear and open, and the system should be easy to manage.

A standing committee has been struck to study, in particular, this whole issue of lobbyists and released, in 1993, a ninth report on the registration of lobbyists.

I would like to discuss a few points of this report, because there is an obvious link with Bill C-22, and this link is the lack of openness. For example, it is reported that many witnesses acknowledged that lobbyists were playing a role in effective policy development and improving communications with government decision makers. They are said to be an essential part of a modern decision making process. Nevertheless, lobbying is as old as the hills.

However, and according to me, that is the heart of the problem. It is reported too that when lobbying is conducted without the public knowing anything about it, there is greater opportunity for decisions to undermine the public interest.

The purpose of the act respecting the registration of lobbyists, Bill C-44, was to create a system for paid lobbyists to register with a public office holder. Lobbyists were to be divided into two categories, tier I, or "professional" lobbyists, and tier II, or "other" lobbyists.

Each category was to have its own set of reporting rules. However, let us simply say that those rules are not the same for each category. There are two sets of rules.

I do not intend to explain to this House all the elements of this complex act. We will have an opportunity to come back to those if the government fulfils its commitment to implement the report of the standing committee which reviews the Lobbyists Registration Act. For now, I will just raise a few problems related to this act and establish a link with Bill C-22.

As regards registration and subject matter disclosure requirements, Bill C-44 provides that tier II lobbyists, the other lobbyists, only have to give their name and the name of their employer. The standing committee argues that by doing so, one cannot discern all the matters of interest to an organization. It recommends that the disclosure requirements for all lobbyists be made uniform.

Thus, let us try to know why lobbyists got involved in the privatization of Pearson airport. That cannot be done without a thorough and independent inquiry.

Furthermore, the committee feels that the current method of facilitating subject-matter disclosure is clearly unsatisfactory and fails to meet the needs of office holders, lobbyists, and, most importantly, the Canadian public.

Finally, the report on the lobbying industry recommends that the Act contain a general anti-avoidance provision to encompass abusive or artificial schemes designed to circumvent the registration provisions. The committee also recommends that a professional association with an industry-wide code of ethics be established.

Should not this government nominate an independent adviser whose mission would be to write a code of ethics for lobbyists? What is this government waiting for? Is it waiting for Bill C-22 to be passed?

In his report on the Pearson review deal, Mr. Nixon himself, notes that the role of the lobbyists exceeded the permissible norms. That's where the shoe pinches. The whole issue of the transparency of lobbyists' work and power is again questioned.

Like my colleagues from the Bloc, I subscribe to the recommendations contained in the standing committee's report on the Review of the Lobbyists Registration Act because I feel that a number of lobbyists exceed the permissible norms and do not abide by the law. Only an independent inquiry commission will be able to prove it.

Regarding the funding of the political parties, I would like to quote some numbers. My colleagues mentioned the generous contributions of our friends from the banks. But more generally, if one considers the contributions made to the federal political parties in 1992, at the corporate level, the Progressive Conservative Party received $6.7 million and the Liberal Party $3.5 million. At the individual level, the Progressive Conservative Party received $4.7 million and the Liberal Party $4 million. Which means that 58.9 per cent of the $11.5 million contributed to the Progressive Conservative Party and 46.7 per cent of the $7.5 million contributed to the Liberal Party came from the corporate sector.

Surely, one can assume there will be an increase in the contributions made by businesses to the Liberal Party, now that they are in office.

In 1993, the Bloc Quebecois, abiding by the Quebec law on the financing of political parties, was able to obtain $3.3 million from its 113 000 donors, compared to approximately 30 000 donors to the so-called national parties. That means 113,000 individual donors whose donations were limited to $5,000 each a year.

Our hands are free. With such numbers, how can the government claim to be completely free in its decision making process when it is tied to our country's financial establishment?

This Liberal government also received direct and indirect financial donations from friends of the party who are more or less associated with this contract. That is why we are requesting a public commission of inquiry.

As Mr. Nixon himself said in his private inquiry report: "Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in this agreement"-once again the lobbyists bill-"and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion. Where the Government of Canada proposes to privatize a public asset, in my opinion, transparency should be the order of the day".

Mr. Nixon goes on: "My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable".

Could it be any clearer? In view of such comments, to compensate people or companies who tried to take advantage of these irregularities would be unacceptable. What about all the wonderful promises of transparency in the Liberal Party's red bible?

That is why we insist that there be a public and independent inquiry, so that the government can get to the bottom of those sad events.

[Futuropolis, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems somewhat caught off guard by this project; he should make inquiries on Futuropolis, a project which could certainly allow Montreal and Quebec companies to take advantage of potential spin-offs and could even become a major element of the information highway development.

[Futuropolis, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

The city of Montreal is planning a project named Futuropolis, which would be located in the technopark. The first phase of this project could require investments of up to $225 million within the next three years and attract some 200 companies involved with information highway technologies. The SODIM, the agency responsible for industrial development in Montreal, is committed to investing $200,000 in a feasibility study, provided the federal and Quebec do the same.

Does the Minister of Industry, responsible for the information highway, intend to give a favourable answer to the city of Montreal regarding the financing of a feasibility study on the Futuropolis project?

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-22.

I wanted to go over the sequence of key events surrounding the drafting of the privatization contract, but since there are so many details, manoeuvres and shady dealings in this transaction, and since some colleagues have already looked at these events, I will instead put the emphasis on a few aspects of this project which involve the alleged transparency of this government in this whole issue.

This government paints a glowing picture of the consulting process to get Canadians' opinion, but in fact all these so-called consultation exercises are nothing but a mirage, because when this pretence of transparency puts the government on the defensive, it quickly states that it was elected to make decisions and that it is doing just that. However, by acting like a bunch of know-it-alls, as Liberal Premier Daniel Johnson said, this government will lead us directly to social chaos. Canadians will not be fooled.

What distinguishes this government from the previous Conservative government? Nothing, except maybe the colour of its program. It is a centralizing government, a government which does not hesitate to maintain duplication and overlappings; a government which continues to violate areas of provincial jurisdictions by unilaterally occupying the whole field. Where is the transparency? Can you not see a pattern between the recent squabbles between Ottawa and Quebec City regarding manpower training, the youth corps program, federal subsidies for education, social programs reform, drug patents, the telephone industry and cable TV? All these issues demonstrate the centralizing actions of Ottawa. Where is the transparency?

As regards Bill C-22, again I will refer to what Greg Weston, a journalist with the Ottawa Citizen , wrote in his column on March 9. Mr. Weston wrote:

The Grits have managed the remarkable feat of turning a highly suspicious and secretive Tory deal into a highly suspicious and secretive Liberal cancellation process-a secret inquiry, followed by the current secret compensation negotiations, which may ultimately lead to a huge government cheque with a secret invoice.

This sums it up quite well. It seems obvious to me that section 10(1) opens the door to arbitrary measures and that the power given to the minister to decide on the payment of a compensation is a discretionary power which this government should not use if it really wants to govern with a degree of transparency and credibility. Indeed, this Liberal government is not immune to patronage, as you can see when you take a quick look at those closely or remotely involved in this scandal. This is why we ask that a commission of public inquiry be set up.

The circumstances around the hasty signing of the contract for the redevelopment of Pearson Airport are very disturbing, but what is even more disturbing is the attitude of this government, which was also in a hurry to designate a former Liberal minister, Mr. Bob Nixon, to conduct a private investigation.

In the awarding of this contract, what was the role of Senator Leo Kolber, former member of the board of directors of Claridge Properties Inc., a group that has close links with the Liberal Party of Canada, and of Herb Metcalfe, a Liberal lobbyist with the Capital Hill group, who represented Claridge Properties and was a former organizer for the present Prime Minister? What was the role of Ramsey Withers, a Liberal lobbyist whose ties with the present Prime Minister are known and who was Deputy Minister of Transport during the bidding process on Terminal 3 at Pearson Airport?

What was the role of Ray Hession, former Deputy Minister of Industry and senior official with Supply and Services, the department awarding the contracts? Mr. Hession was president of Paxport Inc. and hired a battery of lobbyists, including Bill Neville, closely linked to Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Clark and Mrs. Campbell; Mr. Hugh Riopelle, former PR man and representative for Air Canada, who had access to Mr. Don Mazankowski, a leading figure in the Mulroney cabinet; Mr. John Legate, a friend of Michael Wilson, and so forth. What a mess.

Was an agreement reached by the present Prime Minister and Mr. Charles Bronfman, owner of Claridge Properties and principal partner in the Pearson Development Corporation, at that notorious $1,000 a plate dinner among friends during the election campaign? Only investigators without links to current and past governments would be able to force the people involved come clean, not a timid in-house inquiry, held privately, without any judicial powers.

Mr. Nixon himself observed that the role of lobbyists in this deal went beyond permissible norms. A time frame of 90 days for bidding proposals is unusually short. I may recall that this was a very long term contract-57 years-and a very complex one, which was to prevent several groups from submitting a valid proposal. Of course, Claridge and Paxport, already involved in the management of the airport, were able to submit tenders which, by the way, were the only ones accepted. A single corporation was to control all three terminals, despite the fact that the government of the time claimed that one of the criteria

in the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 was competition. We can see now that a monopoly was in the cards.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the list of irregularities is very long, and this is why we are requesting a public inquiry, an inquiry that the Liberals stubbornly refuse. The present Liberal government, claiming openness, wants to cancel the deal. But it keeps a discretionary power, in section 10, to compensate, «if the Minister considers it appropriate», certain friends of the party or contributors who may have been implicated in this scandal. As the leader of the opposition was saying, "this particular case is overrun by lobbyists. It is full of people wheeling and dealing in the corridors of power with the two big parties-"

At the present time, Mr. Bob Wright, a good friend of our Prime Minister, is negotiating strenuously and in private too, in order to determine the amount of compensation to be given to strangers.

In fact, we are shown only the tip of the iceberg and we are asked, a bit too lightly, to forget the rest in order to save money.

The Liberal member for York South-Weston was saying in this House, on Tuesday, that compensations to the Pearson Development Corporation could reach almost $200 million.

Mr. Bronfman and the conglomerate he heads, friends of the Liberal Party, have already submitted claims for $30 to $35 million for non-refundable expenses. That's on top of tax deductions they will be able to claim from Revenue Canada, thus hitting the taxpayer once again.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay was saying in this House:

To be exclusive in looking at compensation for out-of-pocket expenses for Pearson Development Corporation alone is not the right thing to do. We should take in the whole gamut of all those who spent considerable time and expense in developing proposals.

And this, in spite of the fact that these people knew exactly what they were doing since the present Prime Minister had announced that he would cancel the contract.

The facts revealed by a royal commission would allow the government to pass laws to prevent such blatant patronage to happen again. I am asking you: What would be cheaper, holding a public inquiry, not a review and private negotiations, or paying financial compensation to individuals who finance Canadian political parties?

We could talk about political party financing now, but we will do that later. The member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon claims that a royal commission would be too expensive and a waste of time to learn something we already know. Our colleagues opposite may know more about this contract than we do.

As Mr. Nixon himself said in his report:

Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in this agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion. Where the Government of Canada proposes to privatize a public asset, in my opinion, transparency should be the order of the day.

And Mr. Nixon added:

My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable.

After such a statement, it cannot be justified to compensate people or companies who tried to take advantage of such flaws.

Can we put a price on government's transparency and credibility? Is it a waste of time to try to maintain such democratic values?

With this in mind, we call for a public inquiry and for the government to get right to the bottom of these sad events.

We vigorously denounce this attempt and this bill.

[The Armenian People, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 24, Armenians will commemorate the 79th anniversary of the Armenian genocide in which 1.5 million people lost their lives. This is a people that, despite its ordeals, has always shown its determination to survive. Tragedy struck again in 1988, when nearly 25,000 Armenians died in an earthquake.

I wish to salute the Armenian community in North Montreal which is working to provide humanitarian support in Armenia.

The Quebec National Assembly recognized the Armenian genocide in 1980, but the Government of Canada has yet to do so. I therefore wish to ask the Canadian government to recognize the historic truth of this tragedy.

We wish to extend our sympathy to our fellow citizens of Armenian origin and wish them every hope for a better future.