Gilles Duceppe

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the member for Sherbrooke and Ms. Campbell-I must name her because she no longer has a riding-did not suspect that their party would be reduced to two seats.

So these people said to themselves, "Before we leave Parliament and our access to government funds, we will ensure that our friends have not invested for nothing," because the names involved in the Pearson affair did not invest only in Pearson. These people invest at least every four years, even every year, with the Grits and with the Tories, with the Tories and with the Grits. Depending on who will be in power, they invest more in one side than the other. I suppose they invested more in the Liberals, who have 177 seats, than in the Conservatives, although each of the two remaining Tories must have got more than the 177 Liberals, on a per capita basis.

So Mr. Nixon says a little farther in his report, and I will close with that-my ten minutes are almost up-that his examination had led him to only one conclusion: to leave in place an inadequate contract, arrived at through such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation, is unacceptable.

That is what we say: it is unacceptable. We must get to the bottom of it and have the resources to do so, have the power to compel people to testify, to present documents and to get a good idea of what people opposite would like to keep in semi-obscurity.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, now that the future of Quebec and of Canada is being debated, we still find ourselves talking about lobbyists. Need we remind members that lobbying is not a new activity? This country, Canada, is the end result of lobbying efforts. Consider the Grand Trunk railroad! The many lobbyists who were involved in the building of the railroad were in fact responsible for building Canada. There more things change, the more they remain the same.

The question is even raised in our history books. I pointed this out to one member, a friend who sits across from me in this House. Lobbyists were the great Canadian promoters and we are still contending with them today, albeit not the same people. However, the spirit of lobbying continues to burn brightly.

Yet, in its red book, the government promised transparency. On looking at the whole Pearson Airport deal, it becomes clear that the one thing lacking is transparency, at the very least. Let me recall a few facts for you.

On December 7, 1992, the federal government decided to go with the bid submitted by Paxport Inc.

Two months later, this company was forced to join forces with its only competitor to form a consortium, T1 T2 Limited Partnership. It is somewhat troubling to realize that the government was planning to award a 57-year contract worth several hundred million dollars to a company in financial difficulty, a company which besides had close ties with the governing party, which at the time, was the Conservative party.

While we could say that T1 T2 was once a Tory entreprise, over time it has become a Grit entreprise. Basically, that is what the red book is all about, Mr. Speaker. It is saying: Count on us, we will put you in the red. And we currently seem to be heading in that direction.

The policy put forward by the Conservative government as early as 1987 regarding airport administration was based first and foremost on local airport authorities of the public type-I am thinking of the Montreal ADM-or else the administration was contracted to certain firms, as was the case in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. Privatizing Pearson Airport ran directly counter Transport Canada's policies.

Take also the bidding period, which was only 90 days long. This time limit seems somewhat unusual, in that we cannot talk about standard tendering. This is a 57-year contract, a long-term and very complex contract.

So, why limit the bidding period that much, if not to favour companies that had already expressed an interest in that area? Companies like Paxport, which had already submitted a privatization plan in 1989 or one which was already managing another airport, like Claridge, responsible of Terminal 3 at Pearson Airport.

Wrongdoing on the part of lobbyists was mentioned in the Nixon Report, but without quoting any specific case. Why then compensate people for their expenses if they misused their connections?

As Robert Nixon points out: "It is clear that the lobbyists played a prominent part in attempting to affect the decisions that were reached, going far beyond the acceptable concept of "consulting". That is on page 9 of the report, Mr. Speaker.

Disturbing conduct is also reported on the part of political staff members who have shown too much interest in the transaction, an interest disproportionate to reality as we know it today. That is also on page 9, Mr. Speaker.

In spite of the controversy, in spite of the fact that it has already announced the cancellation of the contract, the government persists in refusing to release the contract in question.

One can wonder why. Does the government have something to hide? Is this a case of the Ginn Publishing syndrome? Because in that case too, they refuse to show us the contract. Are we dealing, for example, with advertising contracts awarded by the minister responsible for government operations with no real tendering process, no clear criteria, basically at the discretion of the minister?

Contracts which, as we find out, are more often than not granted to friends of the system, the kind of people who carry a membership card in the Laurier Club. It is strange that things are not more open, and that there are even no parameters.

In the Quebec legislature, if contracts were awarded in this way, there would be a general outcry. We are a long way from "Vautrin's pants" in the days of Duplessis. We are not talking about a pair of pants but about an airport, Mr. Speaker.

Why was this 57-year contract, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, awarded without financial pre-qualification? On page 8 of his report, Robert Nixon concludes that such a process is highly unusual. At least we hope so. If it were usual to award 57-year contracts worth hundreds of millions without financial pre-qualification, we would be worried and with good reason.

We can however ask, not necessarily for the first time either, why Hibernia project we are now considering was not subjected to a thorough financial review either. We are set to invest another $1 billion in the biggest contract, private or public, in Canada's history, and no serious study was done. We are now being asked to invest another $1 billion with our eyes closed. So no prior financial study was made for Pearson Airport.

As you may recall, the Conservative government signed the contract in the last days of an election campaign. This undemocratic gesture was denounced by our friends opposite. Mr. Chrétien jumped on this opportunity to denounce these undemocratic measures flying in the face of Parliament's supremacy because the government, of course, must honour its predecessors' commitments. But there is a way to get out of it to accommodate current realities, as was the case with the helicopters. They acted, but more openly that time. That was in Quebec, and the government may have fewer friends in Quebec, but it is different in Toronto.

Private developers could not help but know that the Liberals were likely to form the next government. That is why the T1 T2 Partnership is friends with the Liberals and with the Conservatives. As everyone knows, the ranks of lobbyists do not only include Conservatives. They also need Liberals in case a new government is elected. They know how to prepare for change. These people are used to power. The party in power may change, but the ideas remain the same.

The lobbyists knew then that the Liberals would take power; they knew that there was a risk in signing such a contract. They decided to take it. That is the law of the market. They are business people, serious people who are always telling us that we have to take the risk of free competition, we must not be afraid, we must know how to take risks, and they are asking the government to compensate them for the risks they took. They made a mistake, poor things! They must be compensated. These are the same people who usually denounce the unemployed and welfare recipients. Pearson is luxury-class welfare, Mr. Speaker.

When the Conservatives awarded the contract, they knew one thing. Ms. Campbell and Mr. Charest did not seriously think that they would keep power. They knew that, but they did not know that they would be left with only two members.

[Election Act, April 26th, 1994]

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he can promise not to launch large scale government advertising campaigns that could serve the interests of his federalist ally in Quebec. Can he promise not to waste public money for purely partisan purposes?

[Election Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we hope the Prime Minister will come and discuss the real issues in Quebec. But we do not want have to pay out of the tax dollars we send to Ottawa for the Brinks' trick he pulled off with Trudeau and his friends in the old days.

[Election Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Quebec director general of elections, Mr. Pierre-F. Côté, has recognized yesterday that the Prime Minister and his ministers are not bound by the provisions of the Quebec Election Act, and those governing election expenses in particular. This means that the Prime Minister and his ministers can spend as much as they want during the election campaign without having to account for it, while other federal members of Parliament, including the Bloc Quebecois members, have to comply with the legislation.

My question is as follows: Does the Prime Minister undertake, on behalf of all the members of his government, to abide by the spirit of the Quebec Election Act during the next election campaign, as requested by the Quebec director general of elections, for the sake of democratic fairness?

[Social Program Reform, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has not really answered the question. Will she confirm whether or not the figure of some $300 million quoted by the Quebec government is true, especially considering that the strategy regarding the youth program will create more duplication and overlap?

Will the Deputy Prime Minister and her government pledge to release the studies to which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs referred, precisely to downplay duplication and overlap between Ottawa and the provinces, so that all members of this House are able to put a figure on the cost of Canadian federalism, and so that, as the Liberals promised in their red book, the whole negotiating process involving the provinces and the federal government can be more transparent?

Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to release those studies, as did the Quebec government in the case of the Bélanger-Campeau commission, as did the Liberal Party of Quebec, which is of course pro- federalist, and as did the Parti Quebecois in that province? Will you release these studies?

[Social Program Reform, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

I would like to know if she agrees with her colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who said earlier this week that the duplications in the main power sector are costing $300 million to the Quebec taxpayers.

I would like to know if she maintains the assertion made by her colleague.

[Social Program Reform, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Just two weeks from the date initially scheduled by the Minister of Human Resources Development to table his action plan concerning social program reform, the minister says that he "is not ready".

Also, yesterday a newspaper quoted the Minister of Finance who said: "Federal ministers, as well as Quebec's Minister of Finance, have agreed on a moratorium regarding social security reform".

Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of Human Resources Development is improvising his reform and that, at the Minister of Finance's request, the government has decided to impose a moratorium?

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by stressing how important it is for us to have this debate this evening. It is an opportunity for members of all parties to express their indignation about the intolerable situation that exists today in Bosnia, and it is also an opportunity for parliamentarians to show the minister and the government that we are all united in a cause that goes beyond partisan interests and our differences on other issues, because I believe that all parliamentarians here today share a desire to see all parts of the world at peace and to put an end to the slaughter in Bosnia.

There are certain facts we should remember. There have been many ceasefires in that region. Ceasefires that were never observed by the Bosnian Serbs who, today, continue to attack civilian targets. Ceasefires which in some ways have allowed the Bosnian Serbs to continue their offensive before the ink was dry on the documents they had signed, in a hypocritical fashion.

Today, we must do better than ceasefires where one party is acting in bad faith and the other has been disarmed. We must send a clear message. In this respect, the Sarajevo strategy which apparently will be proposed by President Clinton is the only strategy we feel is realistic as a means to put an end to this conflict. The strategy is to send a clear ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs, with the shortest possible grace period, after which we, that is NATO and the UN must intervene and target the heavy artillery of the Serbs, an ultimatum, as we were saying, that would mean all cities and enclaves recognized as safe areas would have to be respected as such.

We would also have to demand guarantees for the peacekeepers. It is true that so far, Canada has intervened more frequently than other countries. I think we must remind other countries that although air strikes are necessary-in fact, we will support them-the fact remains that Canadian and Quebec soldiers are in position at the present time. If these air strikes are to be accompanied by additional ground troops, the other countries will have to participate, because Canada has already done more than its share in this respect.

It is also true that air strikes may put our soldiers at risk, which is a real possibility, although the present situation is not any better, since our soldiers are in danger at the present time. Last week's hostage taking is a case in point. Besides, we cannot remain silent and powerless in the face of this situation.

We have even more reason to be concerned about the tragic events in Bosnia given that this region of the world has historically been the site of war. Ethnic conflicts between different countries have today moved into another realm, namely that of religious wars. We must not lose sight of the rise of Islamic extremism, not only in Bosnia, of course, but also in the former Soviet republics of Tadzhikistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The zone in question extends to China, stretching from Europe all the way to Asia and including the Middle East.

When I refer to the rise of extremism, I am not talking only about Islamic extremism. Right-wing extremists are also making their presence felt in France, Germany, Italy and Russia. I mention Russia because we all realize that Russia has a unique role to play in this conflict, since the Serbs and the Russians share Slavic roots and throughout history, alliances have been forged and in turn broken in this region. The situation is all the more serious given that right-wing fascist forces in Russia are now challenging President Yeltsin.

Nor should we forget that World War I began in this region, only to spread to the entire world. We should also remember the mistakes that were made by western democracies in the 1930s, mistakes which led to the rise of nazism and fascism. These democracies remained silent, at times motivated by pacifism, albeit blind pacifism. We made the mistake of letting Hitler invade parts of the world, triggering off a world war. We cannot afford to let the Serbs start a world war today.

While the cold war may be over, there are regional conflicts in some parts of the world that have the potential to start a worldwide conflict and this conflict in particular appears to be more serious and dangerous than any other around the world right now. That is why the UN and NATO must define their roles further. Of course, they must be discussion forums to instill a spirit of peace worldwide. But they could go further, especially when it is obvious that negotiations are going nowhere, that some of the parties are talking for the sake of talking and hypocritically failing to act on their promises and commitments.

It must also be noted that Russia has a major role to play in this conflict. Of course NATO can send out a unit, but this unit will be made stronger by the support of Russia, and vice versa. If Russia does not take a clear stand, get involved and play its role with the Bosnian Serbs, it is obvious that NATO's position and that of the UN will not be as strong as they could be.

We must-and it may sound paradoxical-impose peace. But we must also plan ahead and look toward the reconstruction effort that will be needed in that part of the world. For me, imposing peace means ensuring it of course, but more importantly, once that is done, democracy will have to be brought to that part of the world because these people have not known democracy, never have or at least not for a very long time. They used to live in dictatorial regimes, particularly in the U.S.S.R. and in Yugoslavia as well.

We must also be aware that peace can only be maintained through coherent economic development and, to that end, our international organizations will have to become more than mere discussion and diplomacy forums in the future, their role will have to expand beyond that of policing the world, to include making sure we do not have to maintain forces wherever military intervention is requested.

We have not reached that point yet, but any military intervention, even short-lived or immediate, cannot be carried out without thinking of its long term effects.

The fact remains that for the time being, no plan can be made for the future if a country such as Canada, as a western democracy, does not impose peace. Such is the situation, peace cannot be achieved without us imposing it.

[Human Rights, April 19th, 1994]

Since the Tiananmen Square massacre, human rights in China have been repeatedly violated.

Yesterday, representatives of agencies defending Chinese refugees in Montreal expressed their outrage at the government's decision to review the status of 4,500 Chinese nationals living in Canada under the threat of deportation to their native country.

It has been announced that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will make a final resolution on these cases this summer.

According to information gathered by the newspaper Voir , of the 827 cases reviewed by the Immigration and Refugee Board since the Tiananmen Square massacre, 663 applications, or a full 80 per cent, have been rejected.

Under the circumstances, the minister's stalling tactics are unacceptable.

Once again, the government is making a mockery of human rights and giving in to this simplistic approach whereby if one wants to do business, one turns a blind eye to fundamental rights.