TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, May 9, 1994
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 4025
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4025
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4047
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4049
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 4050
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4051
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4052
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4053
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4053
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4054
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4054
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4054
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4055
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4056
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4056
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4056
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4057
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4058
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4059
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4060
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4060
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4060
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4060
Bill C-28. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 4061
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4061
Bill C-22. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and of amendment. 4062
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4062
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4063
Division on amendment deferred 4080
Bill C-25. Motion for second reading 4080
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 4082
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 4086
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.04 p.m.) 4086
(The House resumed at 6.13 p.m.) 4087
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4087
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 4088
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4090
4025
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 9, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion
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; and of the amendment.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Mr.
Speaker, today is the sixth day of debate on this bill. More than
40 speeches on this subject have been made by members of the
Official Opposition. No doubt our colleagues opposite think we
have talked long enough but as we are expressing ourselves with
elegance, I am sure they are delighted.
My career as a teacher has taught me one thing: even the
clearest message is never understood by everyone, and we think
that if we repeat this message often enough, the Canadian people
will require this government to enforce, in the name of
transparency, a law on political party financing.
The decision made by this House must reflect the concerns of
Canadians and Quebecers regarding the transparency of
political power. Supporting Bill C-22 is a vote for
non-transparency. The Prime Minister, who calls himself a
champion of transparency, would never forgive us.
Much has happened in Canada since October 25, 1993,
including the arrival of a group of members for whom the
transparency of political power is an illusion without strict
legislative regulations regarding political party financing in
particular. The shock of our mass arrival in Parliament
traumatized Canada but, like some pills that are hard to swallow,
I think this shock can only be beneficial.
The current debate on Bill C-22 conducted with competence
and determination by the Official Opposition is instructive as its
purpose is to demonstrate clearly that the lax federal regulations
in effect concerning political party financing goes against our
society's fundamental interests.
The traditional Oppositions of the 34 previous Parliaments
were justifiably reluctant to point the finger at the friends of the
government in office since the stronger the accusations the more
likely they were to turn against them. The Official Opposition of
the 35th Parliament, of whom I am a member, has demonstrated
that the lack of legislation on democratic party financing can
only create a vicious circle with a simple, obvious logic.
This logic is as follows: no one has the right to bite the hand
that feeds him, the government least of all. The contributions
made by large corporations to the election funds of the
traditional federal parties, far from being an open secret, are
considered as essential as bread and butter by this government.
But there is so much butter that it threatens the most efficient
liver. Otherwise, how can we explain Clause 10 of this bill,
whose purpose is to compensate Limited Partnership if the
Minister considers it appropriate to do so.
Who in this House can justify a responsible government
giving itself the right to offer reasonable financial compensation
when, according to Robert Nixon, this whole contract was
nothing less than unreasonable. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to
decide for yourself as Mr. Nixon says this in his report:
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. I recommend to you that the
contract be cancelled.
(1110)
Which the Prime Minister of Canada has done. The
investigator he chose was the former Ontario Treasurer in the
David Peterson government and leading figure of the Liberal
Party of Ontario. His analysis could only be fair.
Let me ask the question again: Is it reasonable to provide
reasonable compensation following the reasonable cancellation
of an unreasonable contract? Any sensible citizen would tell you
without hesitation: no. Why then would this government be
tempted to say yes?
4026
I will venture two answers. First, you do not bite the hand that
feeds you, when that hand is called Charles Bronfman, Léo
Kolber, Herb Metcalfe, Ramsay Withers-I have five fingers.
Second, you do not bite the hand that feeds others. What others?
Let me give you the list, Mr. Speaker.
Don Matthews, who presided over Brian Mulroney's
nomination campaign in 1983 and former president of the
Conservative Party; Bill Neville, Conservative lobbyist, former
chief of staff of Joe Clark and leader of Prime Minister Kim
Campbell transition team; Hugh Riopelle, another lobbyist with
easy access to Don Mazankowsky's Cabinet, strong-man of the
Mulroney Cabinet; Fred Doucet, yet another Conservative
lobbyist and former chief of staff of Brian Mulroney.
We have come full circle. The Pearson Airport affair is a
dubious affair. Through its leader, the Official Opposition
indicated it refused to proceed with the second reading of Bill
C-22, the very principle of which is flawed because the bill
contains no provision to ensure the transparency of the
lobbyists' work. This government has been harping about
transparency for too long. We urge it to finally take actions that
are in line with its commitments. The Leader of the Official
Opposition said: ``The Bloc will oppose Bill C-22 first and
foremost because a royal commission of inquiry must be
appointed to clarify this dark episode in which the ethical
behaviour of the government and some related players was not
up to par''.
Since October 25, this government has made a number of
decisions in keeping with its election promises. In Quebec, the
helicopter contract was cancelled. But what compensation was
provided for the jobs lost, all those high-tech jobs so essential to
Quebec? Are there prospects of industrial reconversion? No sign
of a program so far. It is true that Quebec workers are not the
biggest contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada fund.
In Toronto, the airport contract is cancelled. In that case, we
know who will be compensated. The people of Canada know,
and so do the people of Quebec. There will be no jobs lost and
the friends of the Pearson Development Corporation will be
recompensed, I mean compensated!
On the one hand, signed contracts are being cancelled, while
on the other hand, incredibly enough, verbal ones are being kept.
I am referring, of course, to the Ginn Publishing affair. We
demand that the government be consistent with itself. If it is
seeking transparency, then it must put before this House a bill on
the democratic financing of political parties. Quebec is a North
American leader in that regard. I would therefore urge the
government to follow Quebec's lead. There is no shame in
trailing behind Quebec in that area, for this is one of many areas
where Quebec, perhaps owing to its inherent difference, sees
and does things differently.
(1115)
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that whenever Quebec will
decide to stop towing the Canadian trailer, my country will
gladly continue to co-operate with its neighbour for the sake of
contributing to build a fairer and more equitable world.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, virtually everyone
applauded the government when it cancelled the Pearson deal
last December. With Bill C-22, the Liberals have watered down
their position, so to speak. They would like to hand the minister
a blank cheque with which to compensate the contracting
parties, mainly, one would assume, their Liberal friends.
[English]
The Minister of Transport has said that the government will
try to be reasonable and equitable with the would-be developers
while negotiating their out of pocket expenses. I submit that in
the interests of being reasonable and equitable with the
taxpayers of Canada, not one red cent should be paid out. A
group of businessmen, all of legal age and presumably of sound
mind, played a risky game of political chicken and they lost.
That should be the end of the matter.
Let us not forget that prior to the execution of the agreement
with the T1 T2 Limited Partnership on October 7, 1993 the then
Leader of the Opposition who is now the Prime Minister clearly
warned the parties proceeding to conclude the privatization
transaction they would do so at their own risk and that a new
government would not hesitate to pass legislation to block the
deal.
Going ahead under those circumstances was a dumb business
decision. We should have no sympathy and the minister should
keep a firm grip on our pocketbook.
I find it fascinating that while the government stands ready to
pay who knows how many millions of dollars to pacify its
friends, the Ministry of Transport is declining to honour
commitments made by the previous government to upgrade
small airports.
Last year the Hon. John Corbeil approved an expenditure of
$230,000 to resurface a runway and improve lighting at the
Assiniboia, Saskatchewan airport under the local commercial
airport's financial assistance program.
The final agreement had not been executed when the
government was defeated. On November 17, 1993 officials of
Transport Canada attended a meeting in Assiniboia and
presented the town council with an agreement for signature. The
agreement was signed and returned to Ottawa for execution and
there the matter rests. In February a functionary in the minister's
office informed the mayor by telephone that the agreement was
on hold and the minister's office is not returning calls on this
matter.
4027
We in the Reform Party are not asking for a costly and time
consuming royal commission to deliver a report long after the
cause for inquiry has been forgotten.
What we do ask is that the Standing Committee on Transport
be allowed to exercise its power to subpoena witnesses from the
government and private sector. The Liberals promised both open
government and greater power for committees. Let us have a few
weeks of hearings, find out why the government is determined
under section 10(1) of its bill to hand out compensation. Let us
turn over a few rocks and see if there is anything underneath
them.
(1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on Bill C-22 which provides for the
cancellation of a contract. The Bloc Quebecois is, I believe,
putting the lobbying process on trial. Several of my colleagues
raised this matter during their presentations. The government
side is beginning to label us as wafflers or quibblers, but what
we are doing in fact is seizing the opportunity to discuss
thoroughly a matter which the government only seemed to want
to deal with superficially.
I think the government was in for quite a surprise because
even though ultimately we would like a royal commission of
inquiry to be appointed, this serious debate has allowed us to
discuss some very important issues in the House, issues which
the government may have preferred to keep under wraps. I want
to take the opportunity today to recall the argument I presented
last week and take it a little further. Among other things, I drew
an analogy between the different airports as far as airport
authorities are concerned and I would like to touch on this
matter a little further today.
Basically, there have been three types of airport management
since 1987. The then minister, Mr. Mazankowski, introduced
deregulation and opened the door to the possibility of
communities taking over the management of their local airport.
Mr. Mazankowski indicated at the time that the administration
of 200 airports in Canada could be retroceded to various
communities. Thus, interested communities could take over in a
reasonable way the administration of their airport.
Of course, prior to 1987, Transport Canada was responsible
for all airport administration, with all of the inconveniences this
entailed. I recall that when I began sitting on the Montreal
Airports Advisory Board, a position which I held for five years,
preparations were being made to negotiate with Transport
Canada. The history of airport management in Montreal was
already being reviewed, along with the cumbersome nature of
Transport Canada's administration and its way of handling all
changes. We had to contend with a great deal of bureaucracy and
it took months to make any headway at all on specific issues.
Naturally, the Montreal region opted for a local airport
authority to administer its airport facilities. At that time, we had
already gone beyond the great dream of making Montreal the
hub for air traffic, which the Liberals had promised when
Mirabel was built. The promise then was that Montreal would
become the hub for America and Canada.
Unfortunately, with the changes in technology, airplanes
perform much better now than they did then, so they no longer
have to land in Montreal. We saw that planes went directly to
Toronto and the private sector in Toronto realized that pretty
well too. That is why Ottawa has always favoured Toronto,
Transport Canada favoured Toronto, and we soon lost our
position as a hub. We saw that for all major activity slots in
Toronto, if we tried to land in Toronto from Montreal-I am
talking to you about Michel Leblanc with Inter-Inter, which
had broken away from InterCanadian, was offered landing slots
that made the survival of a well-managed company impossible.
The expected happened: Inter went bankrupt.
We see that when power was left with Transport Canada, it
was abused and Toronto benefited compared to Montreal. So
when the policy took effect in 1987 and we had the chance to
manage our own airports for the future, the greater Montreal
area seized this opportunity. They formed a board of directors
with an executive that was very representative of the region. The
north shore, the south shore and the island of Montreal took
charge and decided that they would negotiate the transfer of this
airport with the federal government. Remember that the
question of having two airports also arose then. The government
was pondering whether to close Mirabel or Dorval. Here again is
another case where we had very little say in the matter when
power was centralized in Ottawa.
(1125)
In other words, overnight, the federal government could have
decided to close Mirabel because it was no longer used enough
and to concentrate all the traffic in Dorval, or vice versa. That
was extremely dangerous for us.
One of the first things that the Montreal airports authority did
was to thoroughly examine this issue of having two airports in
the Montreal region. An international panel helped us to see the
very great potential of two airports; it is like having one airport
with two terminals. The international panel told us that it was
wonderful and that we should take advantage of it. Of course,
since the Montreal airports authority now holds the cards, it has
developed an action plan and a business plan to promote the
airports. Finally, we also have our say on landing rights and we
4028
can act much more vigorously and effectively to attract potential
clients from all over the world.
While negotiating that transfer, we realized some things. Of
course, Ottawa wanted to negotiate a long-term lease and we
wanted to look at the purchase options because for companies
that come to the industrial park surrounding the airport, it is not
easy, never knowing whether in 20, 30 or 40 years the airports
will still be there or not, because the government might take
them back.
So we raised some interesting issues in the negotiation. From
a financial point of view, $30 million in annual revenue is
generated and is to be reinvested in the community through
infrastructure projects. However, we had to negotiate hard to
convince the federal government to give us a $12 million share
out of those $30 million. The government told us: We are willing
to give that money back to you. However, according to our
financial projection, we had $30 million in revenue in the past,
but only $18 million was reinvested in Montreal.
It was very important to us that the revenue generated in
Montreal would stay in Montreal. We clearly demonstrated that
by investing $150 million, that is $30 million annually over a
period of five years, in airport infrastructure projects in
Montreal, something which would not have happened before.
Of course, the fact that Toronto was favoured made the private
sector smell the opportunity. Indeed, the private sector saw an
opportunity there and we know what happened during the
election campaign. The previous government said: We will give
this to the private sector; we have many friends involved. This,
of course, brings the whole issue of political party financing. In
the end, I think that the Conservative Party bowed to the
pressure of friends eager to take advantage of a good
opportunity.
What happened then is that the new government realized that
it also had many friends involved in the dealings. This situation
led to this infamous Bill C-22, which is now before us and which
seeks to allow the government to compensate its friends, who
also happened to be friends of the previous government. It does
not matter which camp lobbyists belong to! I have nothing
against them; they look after their own best interests. However, I
think that when you spend taxpayers' money, you have to do it in
an appropriate manner.
This is why I wanted to take this opportunity to tell once again
to this House that local airport authorities are the best protection
against this problem with lobbyists.
Of course, if a royal commission of inquiry was set up, the
private sector might think twice in the future before asking a
minister to table bills such a this one to compensate friends of
the regime with taxpayers' money.
In conclusion, I will gladly oppose Bill C-22, but I also think
that our amendment asking for the setting up of a royal
commission of inquiry should be implemented. I urge hon.
members to support that amendment. And while we are at it, this
commission could also look at the possibility of letting the
Greater Toronto Area manage the airport through a local airport
authority. This would provide maximum protection against
lobbies, while also ensuring that taxpayers money is well
managed in Canada.
(1130)
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker,
killing the Pearson airport deal was a very good thing indeed.
The Prime Minister and his government should take some credit
for having done that.
The enabling legislation, Bill C-22, contains compensation
provisions for the developers. Why is that? As reported in the
Ottawa Sun on October 6, 1993 during the election campaign,
the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister
said: ``I challenge the Prime Minister to stop that deal right now.
People have a right to know what is in the deal''. The Prime
Minister was entirely correct in saying that.
To go further on the side of the government, to quote the
Minister of Transport, speaking in the House on April 26, he
said: ``Our government after careful examination of the
agreements has determined that 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''.
The Minister of Transport went on to say: ``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''. I applaud the minister's words.
Therefore if we take the government at face value, it decries
the backroom deals and would have everything brought out into
the open. However, the fine print of Bill C-22 will allow the
Minister of Transport to provide for appropriate payments to the
partnership for its out of pocket expenses. There is the problem.
On the one hand the government said: ``Get things out into the
open'' and on the other it says in effect: ``Trust us, we will
provide whatever compensation we think fit and there will be no
need to publicize it''.
Only three weeks elapsed between the signing of the contract
on October 7 and the order to put it on hold. If there is any
compensation payable for work done in that short period, then
let it be spelled out in complete detail and let it be made public.
4029
Why would the government now want to keep all the facts
from the public? Is it that it discovered that many of its own
friends were involved in the deal? It was not just Tories in the
Paxport consortium but apparently Liberal supporters in
Claridge Properties Limited and in Paxport.
That gives us a possible motivation for the government
wanting to pay compensation but not make it public. The Leader
of the Opposition spelled it out very clearly in his discourse in
the Chamber on April 26. I completely agree with his analysis of
the situation but in the end he recommends that a royal
commission be established to get at the truth.
(1135)
We agree that the facts must be made public. How is that best
done? A royal commission would cost millions of dollars and
would drag on for months or even for years if we go by previous
royal commissions. Why not use the existing apparatus of
government, specifically the Standing Committee on Transport?
If the House chooses we could strike a select special committee
of the House to investigate what has happened and bring forward
sufficient witnesses to fully expose this Pearson airport deal.
Here is an opportunity to give to the citizens of Canada some
renewed faith in the institution of Parliament. They have lost a
lot of faith in the political system and perhaps even in this
House. They ask: ``Why do we have Parliament if you cannot
debate things fully and bring this out into the open?'' Here is our
opportunity. Address this to the people of Canada. Show them
that we can have witnesses here and that we can expose every
angle of what may be a dirty deal.
Whether it is a select special committee or the existing
Standing Committee on Transport, such action of bringing in
witnesses and exposing it all could accomplish the following
four things for the country and for the House.
First, it would fully disclose to the public all of the facts of the
case. Second, it could decide whether or not there are any
legitimate cases warranting compensation and, if so, bring these
out into the open. Third, such action could save the money that
would be spent on a royal commission and that could be a lot of
money. Finally, it could, perhaps would, restore some public
faith in their Parliament.
In conclusion, I advocate that the House seriously consider
completing the investigation into the Pearson airport deal
through the existing Standing Committee on Transport or
through a select special committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal government thought that, by introducing
Bill C-22 as a token of the political openness with which it
wanted to deal with the controversial Pearson deal in Toronto,
the opposition would approve of the legislation. Who does the
government think we are? The fact is that this piece of
legislation covers up a straight case of partisanship and the
complicity between the old federal political parties. To help our
good friends to a few bucks, everything is possible.
I am probably not the first one to mention that this bill adds to
the doubts and the questions we have and stresses the need to
have a royal inquiry to get to the bottom of this whole deal once
and for all.
On April 26, 1994, the Minister of Transport, not a Bloc
member or a Reform member, but a member of the Liberal
government, stated in this House and I quote:
Our government after careful examination of the agreements and the report
by Mr. Robert Nixon-
Again, the government shows how open it is by appointing a
good old Liberal friend and a former minister to conduct this
review. That is the person
-who described a flawed process clouded by the possibility of political
manipulation.
As if that was not enough, Mr. Speaker, the minister added:
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.
(1140)
And if we add the millions or rather the hundreds of millions
of dollars at stake, we have all the ingredients needed for a real
political scandal.
I think we ought to call this Pearson contract the now famous
Pearson deal. We must have a royal inquiry to shed some light on
this issue and to bring to heel the lobbyists and politicians who
do not seem to care about public funds. However, the Liberal
government, after careful examination of the ins and outs of this
deal, is now realizing that the old chums of the Liberal Party as
well as the long-time followers of the Conservative Party were
all involved in this thing. And now it has a problem.
What do the Liberals do? They introduce this piece of
legislation in this House, hoping that it will pass surreptitiously
or that the Opposition will be completely hoodwinked.
However, it is thanks to the vigilance of the Bloc Quebecois that
were brought to light these dubious actions, which we have been
discussing for a few days.
The voters are sick and tired of the political scheming, which
allows the rich to fill their pockets while, by osmosis, the
taxpayers or the middle class are going broke. At the federal
level, everything is bigger, larger, more complex. Budgets,
spending, partisanship, scandals, everything is ten times bigger,
undoubtedly in the name of the Canadian unity.
Well, yes, handouts must be made to those who will stand up
for our beautiful and great country when the time comes. Money
4030
is the sinews of war. The old parties have known it for a long
time. That is why they use it while they still can.
That is precisely what is trying the patience of Canadians and
Quebecers. Anger is brewing up. Moreover, in this Pearson issue
as in every other issue this government dealt with so far,
Quebecers and Canadians feel they are taken advantage of and
manipulated. This was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to
demonstrate to the voters that he is a man of principle and a true
statesman, as they have a right to expect, and to call for a royal
inquiry before even bringing in this Bill C-22.
But no. It is easy to realize that he is a man of many words who
needs a lot of persuading to keep them and to act on them. Yet, in
the last election, when the Liberal Party was virtuously asking
for the voters' confidence, they had a position on that. In the red
book, this little Bible they are quoting times and times again in
this House, it is said on page 95 and I quote:
-we will develop a Code of Conduct for Public Officials to guide Cabinet
ministers, members of Parliament, senators, political staff, and public servants
in their dealings with lobbyists. We will also take measures to better regulate the
activities of lobbyists, particularly in the awarding of government contracts.
In particular, a Liberal government will appoint an independent Ethics
Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day
application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ethics Counsellor
will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House
of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.
Where is that independent counsellor? When will the
government consult him or her? Why is the government taking
so long to act on that measure? Is there any political will to act?
Where is that desired openness? Nowhere, because today, the
Liberals are in power and when a political party takes power, it
very quickly forgets its commitments.
Openness is the objective of the inquiry that the Bloc
Quebecois desires and demands in the Pearson Airport affair. If
the famous red book that I just quoted were not only election
rhetoric, a royal commission would already be at work and we in
the Bloc would applaud such an inquiry. But no, there is no such
thing.
When everybody talks about lobbyists, patronage, political
jockeying and shady deals and the government remains silent, I
instantly see the image of a man who cannot move or talk
because he put himself in a compromising situation.
To prevent any new agreement of this kind and to prevent
further waste of public money, we must go to the root of the
problem, and that is the financing of political parties.
Why does this government refuse to make the system of
political party financing more democratic as we in the Bloc
Quebecois have been advocating for months? How can the
Liberal government dare say that it is making the system more
open since it depends itself on big corporate donations?
(1145)
How could it explain that the Top One Hundred Club, the
party's donor and benefactor clubs or even the Laurier Club,
with a membership fee of $1,000, are essential to ensure that the
ordinary taxpayer has access to members of Parliament, to the
party or to the back rooms where the decisions are made?
How can a party or the leader of a party tie their hands by
accepting as much as a quarter of a million dollars from the
banks?
For those who do not know, according to the latest figures
available, the six largest Canadian banks contributed close to
half a million dollars to the Liberal Party and the Conservative
Party in 1992. According to the data I have, the Conservative
Party received about $240,000 and the Liberal Party $245,000.
As these contributions show, financial institutions have a great
sense of equity towards political parties.
How much do you think Canada's richest families contributed
to the old parties for the government to refuse categorically to
review the tax treatment of family trusts?
How much do you think Mr. Charles Bronfman and the
consortium he represents contributed to the Liberal Party for the
Liberal government to try and hide millions of dollars in
compensation in a bill without Parliament ever having the
opportunity to consider the matter?
In Quebec, under René Lévesque's government, we cleaned
up our act and raised our moral standards in politics. Today,
thanks to that new image, Quebecers know that democracy is
alive and well in that province, something of which they can be
proud.
We have to change our political system to make it more
receptive to the people, a move which would breathe new life
into it.
Well-known complicity between some political parties and
those who make large contributions to them undermines
people's trust in our political institutions, which is very
unhealthy. Things have to change.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that it is very important
for the government to accept and respond to the Bloc's demands
regarding the appointment of a royal commission of inquiry
which would shed some light on the Pearson deal. It would be a
first step towards the transparency that we want.
Then, the next step would be for the government to accept the
motion proposed by the hon. member for Richelieu, a member of
the Bloc Quebecois, regarding political party financing. The
government must set in motion, as soon as possible, a process
for the democratization of political party financing.
4031
That democratization process, which has already taken place
in Quebec, is undoubtedly the legacy that I would be the most
happy to leave to Canada when Quebec becomes sovereign.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, we are
dealing today with Bill C-22. I have done my homework and
read lots of material on the subject of the Pearson airport
privatization, but all that still does not answer all my questions.
I must admit that the more I read, the more questions crossed
my mind.
With all those unanswered questions, as a taxpayer, I cannot
help but roar with indignation when I see the political scheming
powerful financiers close to the two old Canadian political
formations may have used to achieve their ends, that is the
privatization of the airport, a transaction that is so contrary to
public interest and to the air transport plan.
Whether one is a politician or a public administrator, common
decency requires exemplary integrity and everything to be done
out in the open and without cheating. In the case we are dealing
with today, it seems that the interest of a few people has come
before public interest. The select few with direct access, through
their army of lobbyists, to the office of the then Prime Minister
or to the office of the then Leader of the Opposition would have
got privileged information thanks to that.
I am not the kind of politician who sees scandals everywhere.
I like to analyze, search and reflect. The more I search, the more
I analyze and the more I reflect, the more I have serious
questions about this whole matter.
In this case, everything seems to have gone wrong from the
start. If I can draw a quick conclusion from that, one can say that
lobbyists, some of whom unfortunately are feeding at the
patronage trough, have done their job well, and that the
scheming system does not suffer from excessive openness.
(1150)
Remembering, as a Quebecer, the sad error the Liberals'
grand idea led to more than 20 years ago at Mirabel, I hope that
this government's liberalism will not plunge us back into
expenditures unacceptable for taxpayers. Allow me to relate
some disturbing facts in the Pearson airport case.
What is the ordinary citizen, the taxpayer, to think of
politicians and public administrators when the federal
government, by putting a time limit of 90 days on its call for
tenders, was automatically eliminating any company that had
not previously been associated with the Pearson airport
privatization project? No honest proposal leading to a contract
worth several hundred million dollars and good for 57 years
could be entertained.
In this request for proposals, no prior financial analysis has
been required by the government. It is obscene that for such a
major project, the winning proposal was picked without any
financial viability check. A couple of months after the company
was chosen, it seemed to be in financial trouble and merged with
its only competitor. What a lesson in public administration!
Under a clause in the deal, Transport Canada has to refrain
from all alternative airport development within a 75 km radius
of Pearson that could take traffic away from Pearson. Who can
benefit from that clause? Certainly not the taxpayers in the
Deputy Prime Minister's riding.
What of the interests of passengers, since obviously it would
have been more expensive for airlines to use those terminals?
The fees would have gone up 350 per cent, that is from $2 to $7
per passenger. What of public interest, since the firm to whom
the contract was awarded did not have to modernize the
terminals for 50 years? Do we know what the needs will be in 50
years from now? What a ``sweet heart deal''. What of public
interest, since the government gives control over an airport to a
private firm that could face financial trouble or go bankrupt, or
let airport services deteriorate at the expense of passengers and
regional development? Is it not the policy of the government
that airports be operated by local groups of elected
representatives and business people the way it was so
successfully done in Montreal, Vancouver and Edmonton?
Mr. Robert Nixon wrote in his report: ``It is my opinion that
the process to privatize and redevelop Terminals 1 and 2 at
Pearson fell short of maximizing the public interest''. That
conclusion is in every regard similar to the position of the
official opposition.
That whole Pearson deal is not only a matter of figures and
companies. There are also key men involved I would describe as
professional schemers, including a former political organizer of
the present Prime Minister and well-known lobbyist, a Liberal
lobbyist who was a deputy minister at Transport Canada at the
time the request for proposals was sent out and who apparently
has close ties with the right hon. Prime Minister. Not to mention
this dear Liberal senator who, it appears, was a director of the
lucky company and hosted key political figures at a
$1,000-a-plate dinner at his residence, right in the middle of an
election campaign. Some of these guests maybe had special
interests in the Pearson Airport deal. Allow me not to refer to the
many Liberal as well as Conservative lobbyists, who were
involved in this deal. I have little use for them.
4032
(1155)
In his report, Mr. Nixon emphasizes: ``This, together with the
flawed process I have described, understandably may leave one
with the suspicion that patronage had a role in the selection of
Paxport Inc.''.
The Pearson Airport affair proves once again the need to
review the law on the registration of lobbyists in order to stop
scheming and patronage by certain lobbyists, including those
who have ties to the party in power.
Knowing the Prime Minister, I hope he will order such a
review as soon as possible. Besides, he has already committed
himself to this in the Liberal Party's red book.
The people of Ontario, Quebec and Canada as a whole have a
right to know what happened. You and I, all my colleagues and
all taxpayers entitled to know if they will get their money's
worth. When he says that ``failure to make public the full
identity of the participants in this agreement and other salient
terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion,'' Mr.
Nixon only touches on the problem. We parliamentarians must
go one step further and let the people know what really
happened.
Given the disturbing facts in this whole affair, we, members
of the Bloc Quebecois, ask for a public inquiry to get to the
bottom of the whole situation. Refusing this inquiry, Mr.
Speaker, will be interpreted as wanting to hide things and
prevent taxpayers from knowing the plain truth. It is only by
holding a public inquiry that we will be able to determine if
compensation should be paid. And it is Parliament's duty to set
the amount, if any. The public interest must prevail and guide
our action.
Mr. Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to
make sure that I understood well. I think I heard the hon.
member accuse some members of this House of being in conflict
of interest on the Pearson Airport issue. If I understood well the
scope of the hon. member's words, you will realize, Mr.
Speaker, that one cannot accuse other members of this House of
committing illegal, and possibly, criminal acts and get away
with it.
So, I would ask the hon. member opposite to explain exactly
what he just said to us and, if he accused some members of this
House, he should at least tell their names. Then, Mr. Speaker,
you will take the action that you see fit regarding the people who
make such accusations.
Mr. Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to
reread my speech; I attacked the party, not the members.
Mr. Boudria: There is a fine line.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There seems to be a
conflict of interest here. It depends on the circumstances; if one
says that the other members committed some, let's say, criminal
acts, that is one thing, but if one says that this is a conflict of
interest in general, that is another thing. After hearing the hon.
member's remarks, I think that this is an issue of debate,
because I did not hear an hon. member accuse someone else of a
criminal act.
I will look at the blues. If there is another problem, I will be
able to get back to this. For the time being, I think that the hon.
member has concluded his remarks. Does he want to continue,
because he has still-
An hon. member: He has finished.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Kilger): He has finished.
Resuming the debate. I will then give the floor to the hon.
member for Ahuntsic.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): 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.
(1200)
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.
4033
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.
(1205)
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.
4034
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.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, as you can
well imagine, I too am going to speak on Bill C-22, because
apparently, our colleagues across the floor have not yet
understood how essential and urgent it is to have a royal
commission of inquiry to get right to the bottom of this matter.
(1210)
I am going to go over the arguments presented to help them in
their reflexion. We have to know first if the plan to privatize
terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport in Toronto was in the best
public interest. If not, who benefited from this project?
I remind you, because this was repeated time and again, that at
the end of the request for proposals process which was rather
brief, only two bidders had made a proposal for a 57 year
lease-yes, Mr. Speaker, you heard it right, 57 years-to
administer the two terminals.
In fact, we had a proposal from Paxport and another one from
Claridge. Then, on December 7, 1992-and I am quoting the
Nixon report here-``Paxport Inc. was announced as the best
overall acceptable proposal''. Very interesting: between two
bidders, they chose the best. Well, yes and no.
No, because on February 1, 1993, Paxport and the other
company, Claridge, joined forces to form a joint venture
partnership called T1 T2 Ltd.; T1 was probably for terminal 1
and T2 for terminal 2. These two distinct bidders whose
proposals had certainly been prepared separately decided to join
forces when one of them was awarded the contract. I am sure it
was pure coincidence.
However, on October 7, 1993, the then Prime Minister gave
explicit instructions that this transaction, that is the signature of
the agreement with the new company, be concluded the same
day, even though the current Prime Minister, who was then the
Leader of the Opposition, had indicated clearly during the
election campaign that if ever an agreement was signed, he
would cancel it.
We can ask ourselves this question: Why would a Prime
Minister get up one morning and decide that on this marvellous
day, she was going to act stupid? No, a Prime Minister does not
get up one morning with such a thing in mind. I am convinced
she believed she was doing something intelligent. Well,
according to the Nixon report, that intelligent thing was, and I
quote: ``-the concluding of this transaction at Prime
Ministerial direction in the midst of an election campaign where
this issue was controversial, in my view flies in the face of
normal and honourable democratic practice. It is a well known
and carefully observed tradition that when governments
dissolve Parliament they must accept a restricted power of
decision during the election period. Certainly-and I am still
quoting the Nixon report-the closing of a transaction of
significant financial importance, sealing for 57 years the
privatization of a major public asset should not have been
entered into during an election campaign''. And Mr. Nixon
concludes:
It is my opinion that the process to privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2
at Pearson fell far short of maximizing the public interest.
My question thus brings out a first conclusion: it is not likely
in the best interest of the population that one morning the Prime
Minister decided to have that agreement signed. In whose
interest then? Or for what reason? And why?
(1215)
I would like to be naive, but as you can see I have a hard time
believing, and an even harder time stating, that this decision was
made only for altruistic purposes on the part of the parties
involved.
Therefore, I am quite happy that the Prime Minister of this
35th legislature decided to terminate that agreement through
Bill C-22. However, a second question comes to mind. That bill
gives the minister the authority to pay compensations, which are
for all intents and purposes quite discretionary, to those
involved who might have sustained losses. I repeat: Is that in the
4035
best public interest? There again, I might be a bit naive, but I
must say that anyone with a twisted mind could say that strictly
speaking this section of the bill is tantamount to a blank cheque
to the minister, with taxpayer's money. This is not only
dangerous, it is unacceptable.
Once more, to whom could this benefit? Who are these
altruistic people who were part of this deal for the greater
interest of the public? Let me give you a few names of these
generous people. Who was part of Paxport, the company which
won the contract? A few key figures: Don Matthews, former
chairman of Mulroney's leadership campaign, in 1983; Ray
Hession, former Industry deputy minister and a top civil servant
at Supply and Services during the Trudeau era; Bill Neville,
Conservative lobbyist, hired by Hession when Paxport was
formed; Hugh Riopelle, a lobbyist hired by Hession as soon as
the call for tenders went out. He had access to Mr.
Mazankowski, the Deputy Prime Minister and strong-man of
the Mulroney cabinet. John Llegate, another lobbyist hired by
Hession and who had access to the Conservative cabinet, more
precisely to Michael Wilson. Fred Doucet, another Conservative
lobbyist, former chief of staff of Brian Mulroney, and senior
advisor to Kim Campbell during the election campaign. This is
for Paxport.
Let us look now at Claridge, because we know that the two
companies have merged. Peter Coughlin, a senior officer;
Senator Léo Kolber, member of the board according to the
Financial Post Directory of Directors. He was host to Charles
Bronfman at a $1000 a plate dinner at his residence, where the
present Prime Minister went at the beginning of October during
the election campaign. Herb Metcalfe, lobbyist with the group
Capital Hill, which represented The Claridge Properties, and
former organizer for the present Prime Minister. Pat MacAdam,
Conservative lobbyist and college chum of Brian Mulroney. Bill
Fox, Conservative lobbyist, former press secretary and personal
friend of Mr. Mulroney. Harry Near, Conservative lobbyist and
long-standing Conservative activist. We could also mention
Gary Ouellet, David MacDonald and Scott Proudfoot, all
well-known Conservative lobbyists. Ramsey Withers, Liberal
lobbyist with strong links to the present Prime Minister. Otto
Jelinek, former Conservative minister, now chairman of the
Asian branch of the Matthews group.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced just as you are, because you and I
are, shall we say, somewhat naive that all these people acted in
the best interest of the public. They all deserve to have their
name cleared, their reputation absolved of any wrong-doing,
and for that we have to know what really went on.
(1220)
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we need a royal commission of
inquiry. My colleague from the Reform Party said that it would
be too costly and that a committee would be more appropriate. A
committee does not have the authority to subpoena witnesses
and to have them testify under oath. What we want is the truth
and the only way to get it is a royal commission. Quebecers and
Canadians deserve it.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): 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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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
4036
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.
(1225)
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
Let me only say, for example, that the financial commitments
made by the Canadian government can be duly examined by the
Auditor General.
(1230)
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.
4037
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on this bill and on the motion
tabled by the Leader of the Opposition. I listened carefully to the
hon. member for Saint-Denis and, before her, to the hon.
member for Portneuf.
Before pointing out a few ill-chosen comments made by the
hon. member for Saint-Denis, I will briefly discuss the general
provisions of Bill C-22, and particularly clauses 9 and 10.
Clause 9, which reads as follows:
No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection with
the coming into force of this Act.
It is absolutely clear. No recourse is possible against the
Crown. If Bill C-22 is passed, an individual will not be allowed
to go before the courts, explain how he suffered a prejudice, and
ask to be compensated following a measure taken by the
Parliament of Canada under the powers granted to it by the
Canadian Constitution.
However, the following section has the effect of undoing what
is established in section 9. In fact, section 10 goes even further,
since it provides that the Minister may provide for the payment
of such amounts as he considers appropriate. In other words, the
government is saying: Do not sue us; we will give you
something. There is no need to sue the government. People who
have, or who claim to have suffered a prejudice, will simply
submit their claim informally, without any legal proceedings, by
simply making a phone call, or through a behind-the-scenes
lobbyist, and they will receive a cheque from the government of
Canada. It is much more faster than an open process, either court
proceedings or public hearings, that can be appealed to the
highest courts, so we close that door.
We should be more honest and clear about section 9. Instead
of saying that no one is entitled to any compensation from Her
Majesty, we should say that no one is entitled to compensation
from the courts, because the companies seeking compensation
can always go directly to the minister. To say that no one is
entitled to compensation is not exactly true. No one is entitled to
compensation from a court of law.
I would bet a few dollars that the compensation that will be
awarded by the minister will probably be much more generous
than any that would have been granted by the courts, because it
is so much easier to come to an agreement between friends about
any loss suffered. When we talk about friends, we always come
back to the same basic question: ``Tell me who pays you, and I
will tell you who you work for''. Who is financing the current
government? The current government is being supported,
although to a lesser degree, by the same backers than the
previous Conservative government.
Why do these big companies and corporations give huge
amounts of money to political parties? Because they support the
leader or his or her colleagues, or even the party's platform? Of
course not! They do it in order to have access to the government.
They want a good return on their investment.
(1235)
The Leader of the Opposition gave us, in the Bloc Quebecois,
a meaningful demonstration of that when he demanded that each
and every contribution to our party be made only by people who
can vote in Canada. The Bloc Quebecois is financed only by
individuals; we do not take contributions from legal entities,
which are not always good citizens, especially when it comes to
the funding of political parties. Indeed, one can wonder why
they finance political parties.
We in the Bloc Quebecois can freely discuss this bill, since
our hands are free. Individuals who give $20, $50 or $100 to the
Bloc Quebecois know very well that they will have no influence
on their member of Parliament or that they will not be able to
blackmail him into doing anything. If voters wanted to
blackmail us for their $200 or $300 contribution, we would
simply write them a cheque for $200 or $300 and bid them
goodbye. It is as simple as that in the Bloc Quebecois.
Thus, the motion recently put forward by my friend, the hon.
member for Richelieu, and aimed at limiting the public
financing of political parties to a maximum of $5,000 per person
would allow for great progress in the control of their elected
representatives by voters, giving them reasons to regain
confidence in this institution.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis mentioned earlier in her
speech that the Leader of the Opposition had made remarks
about Paramax, among others, to the effect that people must be
compensated. Quite on the contrary, what the Leader of the
Opposition demanded in the Paramax issue was that the funds
which were not invested in the helicopter contract be reinvested
in the development of a high-speed train. That is quite different.
We asked to reinvest the same amounts, not to pay lobbyists or
to compensate speculators for anticipated losses. We asked the
government to reinvest that money in high-technology
industries so that it is not lost for Quebec. We never ever asked
that money be paid to people who had stood to gain in any form.
For me, the most difficult provision of Bill C-22 to swallow is
that some people who remain anonymous will be compensated
because their speculative scheme failed. The previous
government, the Conservative government, had decided to
privatize the airport. People thought that it was a good
opportunity to make
4038
money but now that their deal failed, they will be compensated
for any lost profit, if the bill is adopted without amendment.
That is not how the Liberal Party said that it would deal with
the Pearson airport privatization contract during the election
campaign. They said it would be terminated but never talked
about compensation. We could compare the situation to some
marriages: it is not the same thing before and after the
ceremony. Once the Liberals were elected, it was the same old
story: they are the servants of those who finance them. So we
have clause 10 allowing compensation.
Yet, the situation was clear. The Prime Minister's position
was clear, at least as I heard it during the election campaign:
Pearson Airport would not be privatized and nobody would
receive compensation. Things like that may be partly true while
other people are given to understand that there is nothing to
worry about, the losses will not be too great. I would almost
wish that clause 9 were not included in the bill:
9. No one is entitled to any compensation from Her Majesty in connection
with the coming into force of this Act.
Let us allow people who feel that they are wronged to appeal
to the courts. Let people plead their case in court according to
the rule of law and the general principles of law, but let us say no
to the payment of administrative compensation, no to
government by decree acting behind closed doors or negotiating
over the phone or in person with party organizers. Let all these
people who feel that their rights were infringed on ask the courts
for redress, as all other citizens do. I submit that justice by order
in council is not justice and it is unacceptable. That is why the
Official Opposition cannot support the provision now before the
House.
(1240)
The Deputy Speaker: I will now give the floor to the hon.
member for Beauharnois-Salaberry. I have the wrong list.
Mr. Brien: For Témiscamingue, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Why not! The Chair now recognizes
the hon. member for Témiscamingue.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, so there is
no confusion, I want to remind everybody that I do represent the
riding of Témiscamingue.
I was in my riding over the weekend and people asked me
some questions. They noticed that we were debating the bill
before us at considerable length and they asked me to explain a
little bit to them what was going on. They said: ``We see a lot of
members of the Bloc Quebecois express some reservations
about this bill, but the government is not saying much. The last
time we heard it speak on that subject was during the election
campaign''.
I tried to explain to them the difference between the contents
of this bill and what they heard during the election campaign.
After listening to what I had to say, they were wondering what
happened to the transparency that the government had been
talking about so much since it came into office and that had been
promised during the election campaign.
I explained to the people of my riding that this bill provides in
principle for the cancellation of a very bad contract, a contract
which was concluded as a result of considerable lobbying that
was not done maybe in the most positive way. I also told them
that it may be necessary to call into question the way lobbying is
being done, something that the government promised to do,
something that it says it will eventually look at.
A party that spent more than eight years, almost nine, in
opposition and that has a long-standing tradition like the
Liberal Party should be able to act quickly to control lobbyists
and to put something on the table immediately if it really wants
to do so. But now that the Liberals form the government, they
want to try to take advantage of the situation a little bit before
doing a clean-up job.
I also explained to my constituents that some compensation
payments will be made following the cancellation of this
contract. Clause 9 states that there will be no compensation, but
clause 10 provides for exceptions with the approval of the
Governor in Council; this amounts to allowing the Minister to
give compensation for costs incurred to whomever he considers
it appropriate to do so. It might not be quite abnormal, but it is
very worrying.
Of course, we are dealing with respectable people, but if their
integrity were above reproach and if we were sure that things
would be done in a more open way, we would be a lot less
worried. However, I am not sure that public opinion is extremely
confident about the process and that it will ultimately provide
for fair compensation.
They might even be able to differentiate between good and
bad friends among those people who incurred costs, since it
would be up to the Cabinet to determine which costs are eligible
for compensation and which are not. Will we even be able to
know the total cost of all that? I do not know, we will see at the
end of the day, but that might be cause for concern. Maybe we
will not even know. Maybe they will not even have to report to
this House the whole cost for that operation.
I would like to refer back to the electoral campaign for a
moment, because this government made many commitments
during the campaign, all the while often making reservations in
a much lower tone of voice, with a lot less strength. What made
the headlines was simply: ``We will cancel the Pearson airport
4039
deal''. They never mentioned compensation. They never talked
about this compensation mechanism. Once in office, of course,
probably under the advice of influential people, they got to that
point.
That leads me to make the connection with what is probably
the real cause of the problem. One of my colleagues, the hon.
member for Richelieu, put forward a motion here in this House.
We discussed the financing of political parties by the people. Of
course, our friends opposite were not very talkative on the
subject, nor, in fact, were members of the Reform Party, who
expressed support for the matter. Yet, this appears to me as
something that would help solve in part a lot of problems, as we
now see with these rather doubtful transactions. I will elaborate
a little further, because people tell us: ``You talk about financing
by the people, but what do you mean exactly?''
(1245)
As a political party not even subject to Quebec's law on
political party financing, we nevertheless complied with this
obligation during the election campaign in order to have a lot
more freedom.
Those who finance a political party, be they individuals or
companies, are not disinterested. But, of course, the person who
donates $5, $10 or $15 does so out of conviction, as a show of
confidence in the local member, the party and the leader. They
donate small amounts. It is ordinary people who come to
political rallies, who are phoned, who register as members, who
are canvassed each year; they are canvassed very often, in fact.
These people contribute according to their means at the time.
Also, political parties are not sheltered from recessions.
Financing campaigns are made. There is truly a direct contact
with grass-roots militants. It is an excellent operation.
Sure, it is not the most interesting thing for a policital party to
do because it is a lot of work. We must ask volunteers in the
entourage of members and local associations to get together, call
people, drive to the far end of the riding to get $5 or a
membership renewal. But we do it. We do not necessarily look at
what it costs to do it; we do it out of principle. Those people,
when we call them or contact them, express their opinion, say
what they like or do not like about the government, about the
party which has the finances; they say what they would like to
have, say what their expectations are. It is a contact with the
grass roots.
I was talking with people whom I will not name on the
government side and they told me: ``I find it much easier to get
donations than new members. I have difficulty recruiting new
members, but for donations, it is not a problem''.
When their party, during the election campaign, asked them to
get a certain number of new members, they simply did not
understand that approach at all. It is the very principle of a party
that is in touch with its grass-roots members. We do not sell
membership cards just to win a leadership race. In major parties,
leadership conventions are about the only occasions when there
is a flurry of recruitment activity. Those parties concentrate
more on lucrative fund-raising. They make a cost-benefit
analysis of the time to be invested and conclude that they should
concentrate on big contributors. Some people, including some
of our members, asked: ``Why not do the same? You would stop
asking us for funds, we would enjoy more freedom, and we
would still believe in you''. I objected.
When business people or representatives of companies or big
private interests give considerable amounts of money, you
should not think they are not hoping for something in return. It is
not true that they dish out big money just for the sake of the
democratic process.
What are their real motives? They frequently hope for favours
and they often get them. That is the root of a real problem. We
never talk of that new way of looking at political party
financing. Nobody ever talked about that before we did. We are
the only ones who raised that question in the House.
But we get no reaction whatsoever. We cry out in the desert.
Somebody asked me: ``Why should you bother? Bloc members
want to leave this Canadian system, anyway''. My answer is that
if there is a heritage we would like to leave before we go, if that
is the will of Quebecers, it would be a law on the financing of
political parties that would introduce a much higher level of
public morality.
Such a law would force parties like the Liberal Party to be
much more in touch with its membership. They would realize
that getting a much greater number of smaller contributions of
only $5, $10, $15, or $20 would bring them much closer to their
grass-roots. They would hear people say they do not like the
budget because of drastic cuts in unemployment insurance.
They would get that message, which they are not getting now.
Liberal members could have an even more direct response
from their grassroots, and even from their own rank and file;
they would notice it and make some pressure on their ministers
and tell them: ``Listen, even our own rank and file say we are
taking unpopular actions. There are things that are not
working''.
Of course, the government cannot be only popular, but it
would be able to know if its actions are appreciated. In that way,
even to a certain point, that would be a major gain for
democracy. That is where real transparency should start, even
before the lobbyists control. Even before that, the government
should deal with political party financing. It should adopt much
more severe legislation.
4040
(1250)
As I said earlier, my colleague from Richelieu had tabled a
motion where he suggested a ceiling and proposed copying the
Quebec model that already exists. There is no need to start all
over again. We are not talking about something that we have to
get from nowhere. There is a model, and Quebec's political
party financing legislation has been recognized all over the
world as a model. But here, and for all kinds of reasons, now that
the Liberal Party is in office, it is tempting to go around those
people who hope to benefit from the financing of a political
party in office, and who will do so. It can wait a couple years, in
order to fill its coffers and, of course, to take advantage of the
fact that the coffers of their former political enemies are empty
and they have a lot more trouble getting financing because they
are very far from power.
For all these reasons, I spoke briefly on Bill C-22. I had talked
about it previously because there are too many things that were
obscure in the old transaction and that the government does not
necessarily want to solve. This government could have shed
much more light on that issue in order to get to the bottom of the
problem, but it is not really interested in doing that. It is then
impossible for the members of the Bloc Quebecois to support
this bill. In concluding, I would even like the government to get
this message well: if it wants to deal with real problems, it has a
golden opportunity to connect this with the Pearson Airport
issue and to put on the table a reform of political party financing
which could very widely be inspired by the Quebec legislation.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in this House to discuss Bill C-22
regarding Pearson airport. The Minister of Transport stated in
this House that the government decided that the agreements
were not in the public interest, that the negotiating process was
questionable and that there even might have been some political
patronage in the Pearson airport issue. In cancelling the
contract, the government is trying to negotiate amounts they
consider to be fair and reasonable to compensate for expenses
incurred in this transaction.
We feel that this gigantic issue is fishy in many respects,
given the millions of dollars involved. It is why the Bloc
Quebecois refuses to support second reading of Bill C-22
because it says the principle of it is flawed since it does not
provide for any measure to make the work of the lobbyists
transparent. In fact, as we all know, the matter of the Pearson
airport contract is closely related to the role played by lobbyists.
It is very disturbing. We all know the influence lobbyists can
have on the government when it comes to legislation. We all
know they can get from the government millions of dollars
which should probably be allocated to more constructive projets
than this one. This is why we would like a royal inquiry
commission to be set up. This particular issue could end up
being one of the most serious cases of political patronage in the
history of Canada. It is therefore an issue which deserves
attention and which could help us clarify the role of lobbyists
and the wasteful spending of the government.
As I said, this very large transaction of $700 million would
have given a private firm control over Pearson airport for 57
years. Several irregularities can be found in the process. The
bidding process took only 90 days, that is three months, a period
of time which is quite unusual. Only two firms participated in
the bidding, one directly linked to the Conservatives, the other
to the Liberals.
(1255)
Of course, the firm which was close to the then Conservative
government was chosen. That firm was not required to give any
guarantee of financial capacity. Sure enough, it got in financial
trouble later on.
Then, there was a merger with a firm which was close to the
Liberal Party. Part of the reason why the government is
attempting, with Bill C-22, to give financial compensation to
lobbyists is because many of them are friends of the Liberals,
who are now in power.
During the electoral campaign, the Prime Minister promised
to bring to light the circumstances under which the agreement
had been reached and to cancel the deal. It is done, the deal was
cancelled, but we are still waiting for an explanation on how it
was reached in the first place. There was only an in camera
inquiry conducted by a former Liberal minister from the Ontario
government who was close to the Liberal Party.
In fact, the only purpose of Bill C-22 is to cover up the whole
thing without getting to the bottom of it. The government wants
to determine, without Parliament having one word to say about
it, the amount of potential compensation to be given to those
thwarted investors.
Imagine! The government wants to have all the powers, to
determine the amounts to be paid and to decide to whom those
amounts will be paid. What a great way to deal with their
friends. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking for a royal
commission of inquiry. That is the only way to know if the
investors who were involved in this deal have to be
compensated, to determine the amount of compensation and to
know the role that lobbyists played with the government.
Bill C-22 is unsatisfactory in several respects, and above all,
it falls short not by what it says but what it does not say.
According to the government, the bill sets no limit on the
amount of potential payments and does not prevent
negotiations. It says what the government is prepared to
consider and what it is not prepared to consider. It says
negotiations may not continue indefinitely. However, the nature
of such payments should be specified. This bill should specify
the kind of payments that may be made and not the kind of
payments that will not be made.
4041
Unfortunately, the decision is restricted to cabinet itself. The
government will use section 9 to discourage all kinds of people
from trying to make a case, and the rest will be up to the decision
of the minister, in the privacy of cabinet. It is unacceptable to
exclude Parliament, as the government is trying to do here, from
such important decisions and to give Cabinet a blank cheque.
And on top of that, to give so much latitude to the Minister of
Transport who has already made a mess of the grain situation in
western Canada. It is unacceptable to authorize payment of
compensation without being sure such compensation should be
paid.
There are several reasons why we would like a royal
commission of inquiry.
(1300)
Why a royal commission? To find out why the government
officially requested proposals for the privatization of Terminals
1 and 2 at Pearson. Why would everything be done in a single
phase? No pre-qualifications, unlike the process for Terminal 3,
which included two phases. Why was the time frame in the
request for proposals so short? Only 90 days. It was impossible
for groups that, unlike Claridge and Paxport, were not already
involved in the airport's management, to submit a valid bid.
Why was the contract signed on October 7, 1993, in the
middle of an election campaign, after some reluctance on the
part of the chief negotiator who demanded written instructions
before signing? What was the exact role of the lobbyists? Whom
did they approach? What was the cost to the taxpayer of this
hasty decision? Who really benefited? Why did the
Conservative government want to privatize Pearson, the most
profitable airport in Canada?
In fact, there are a number of questions that arise, a number of
fundamental questions about lobbying and the government's
role. The government wants to try to cover up this affair. The
Bloc Quebecois, including me, will vote against Bill C-22, and
we will demand a royal commission of inquiry to shed light on
what happened.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, while
interventions are limited to ten minutes, I would like to say a
few words on that horrible and surprising bill. Surprising, yes
and no, since, in this Parliament, when the Liberal Party forms
the government, we are used to hearing two different tunes: one
during the election campaign and another after the election. In
my region, we call that speaking out of both sides of one's
mouth. When they were in the opposition, they sang another
tune.
When we started the debate today, I think that the hon.
member for Bellechasse, who is a notary, did a marvelous job of
outlining the legal aspect and the legal contradictions of that
bill. The hon. member for Québec-Est has just finished his
speech with at least ten questions. Very precise questions calling
for clear answers. Only a commission of inquiry empowered to
call for sworn testimony could find the answer to those
questions.
Yet, the deal was made by the previous government. Why is
this government covering up a deal made by its predecessor?
Previous speakers of the Bloc Quebecois also mentioned that.
The reason is that the same gang is running both parties. This is
why we had a budget similar to Conservative budgets. This is
why the reform of the unemployment system is similar to the
one brought forward by the Conservatives with Bill C-113. This
is why the elderly are now under attack as they were under the
Conservatives.
This is the reason why the salaries of our courageous civil
servants are frozen. The constables that I see up there have their
salaries frozen for six years, but that is not a problem. All this is
done in an official way in order to be transparent. But when time
comes to pay friends that are part of a gimmick like the one at
Pearson airport, then it is left to the discretion of the minister or
of the cabinet. That is the situation and this is why we are asking
for a royal commission of inquiry.
Why should a minister be allowed to reward a chum? And the
list of chums of the party is known. The list is there with the
names of organizers, senators, people who have generously
contributed to this party, as well as to the other, both of which
are maintaining such an unacceptable system.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. I would like a ruling from you. Is it appropriate
that the member from the opposition could say that there was a
payoff involved with the Pearson airport and Liberal Party
funds? That is not really appropriate for this type of debate.
(1305)
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary will
appreciate that the word payoff is a word that means many things
to many different people. I will not find that a point of order in
these circumstances.
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. parliamentary
secretary is afraid of the truth, so he raises points of order to
interrupt me and gain time. They had ample time to say what
they wanted between the four or five Bloc Quebecois members
who just spoke; they did not do so simply because they have
nothing to say. They just want this debate to end because they
are ashamed, they bow their heads so as not to see their own
minister, their own party say today exactly the opposite of what
they said during the election campaign. It is now time for them
to reward friends of the party, those who brought them to power.
They have to return favours.
4042
There is a clear explanation for the 22 committees announced
in the last budget. Why create so many working committees
when they had the red book and said that it contained solutions
to all problems? According to them, there were solutions for all
issues and the government had plans in all areas. But that was
not enough, they had to create 22 advisory committees with the
last budget. Why? Because these committees will need
communication companies, lobbying firms and people to
subpoena witnesses so it will be possible to reward friends of the
party and financial contributors. So they spread favours around
generously, just like the Tories did in 1984. They reward people
and then they will present a bill on lobbying and say: ``We must
change things now that we have taken care of our friends''.
This Pearson operation is typical; let us not call it the bill, but
rather the Pearson operation. This operation rewards friends of
the party. If you are sincere when you say you want to solve the
problem, as you seemed to be during the election campaign, then
throw down your masks, show your face, accept a commission
of inquiry; you will not be smeared if you are really sincere, if
you did nothing wrong. Take off your masks, create the
commission of inquiry and then we will see. We will see if you
are so innocent and if your are sincere when you speak about
lobbying. If the commission of inquiry concludes that changes
are required, we will then invite you to go even further. That will
be the real step, the first real step in the right direction, the
direction of party financing by the people.
I presented a motion on that point. What did the Liberal
members reply?
(1310)
They ridiculed a motion which exemplifies the beauty and the
greatness of Quebec in the area of political transparency. Other
provinces share the same desire since seven of them limit the
amount of donations to political parties. At least, they set a
limit. Here, in the House of Commons, we will not set any limit.
The government knows which side its bread is buttered on. I
understand why the Liberal members remain silent, their heads
bowed low in shame. They were financed by these people.
When I was a senior at l'Académie de Québec, my philosophy
teacher, after a particularly brilliant argument which had left us
speechless or totally unable to counter, used to say: ``Dear
friends, it is not given to swines to appreciate pearls''. Of
course, he said that in jest. I wonder what he would think-he is
long dead now, but I cannot help thinking of him and he might be
doing the same right now-if he saw this scandalous piece of
legislation. Bill C-22 could have heralded a new approach
regarding lobbying firms and transparency. But instead, what
we have is a Conservative document.
This bill is no different from those the Tories used to pass to
protect their buddies, their clique. No wonder we have a deficit.
No wonder no decision is made. It is because the government is
waiting. It just came to office and is giving its financial
supporters a chance to fill their own pockets, under the same
system as we had with the Tories.
That is why we say that it is high time for the government to
make a move, and order a commission of inquiry as requested by
the Bloc Quebecois. It would go a long way, not only to get to the
bottom of this, but also to expose all the secret manoeuvring of
lobbying firms and, eventually, to control their actions through a
well-structured piece of legislation that could remedy this
situation.
I see that my time has expired but I am sure that I will be
granted unanimous consent to continue for another ten minutes
or so. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is
signalling me. I thank him. I will then continue for just 10
minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member asked the
question. Is there unanimous consent for him to go on?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: It does not look like it.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
speech of my colleague, the member for Richelieu, prompts me
to take part in this debate, even though I do not have much
influence in the Toronto Lester B. Pearson airport deal, as
member for Kingston and the Islands.
In any case, this contract poses a problem and I am glad this
government did something to correct the situation.
[English]
What we have been faced with is a filibuster by members of
the party opposite who seem to think that when the government
tries to fix something they had better jump on bandwagon.
I know what happened. Throughout the election campaign
while we were criticizing this deal and indicating that it was
unacceptable to the people of Canada, we heard absolutely
nothing from the hon. member for Richelieu and his colleagues.
They are busy trying to make up for lost time and they are doing
it by making windy speeches in the House, saying how awful
this is. They are trying to find fault with a perfectly reasonable
and sensible government bill that gives the government the
power to abrogate this deal. That is my understanding of it.
4043
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood made an
excellent speech on this subject the other day and so did the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I was impressed
because I was hearing the facts about the bill for the first time
instead of the distortion we have been faced with from hon.
members opposite.
(1315 )
I know the hon. member for Richelieu used to be a
Conservative. He was part of the bunch who cooked up this deal.
I can understand why he left that party; he had some sense of
shame. He knew a bad deal when he saw one. He could smell a
rat. That is what this deal was.
We saw it and we talked about it. The hon. member was not
speaking about it and he should have been. He should have been
denouncing this deal up and down the country. Instead of that, he
was off talking about Quebec independence. He could have been
talking about this deal because he knows a bad government. He
was elected to support that government. That is the shame of it.
An hon. member: That is why he changed.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member now says that is why he
changed. I am glad he saw at least some light. Unfortunately
there was not quite enough light to bring him to the other side of
the House.
Nevertheless, the hon. member realized it was the previous
government that caused this calamity. It made this deal and
made it in a great rush before it got defeated at the polls. Those
members knew that government was going out, so what did they
do? They ran to their friends and said: ``Quick, let's make a deal.
We will sell the airport to you because those Liberals won't sell
it to you, not on these favourable terms. Let's make a quick deal
and we do not care if we hoodwink the Canadian taxpayers on
the way by''. Of course the Tories had been doing that for nine
years anyway. Everybody knows that.
They cooked up this deal to get it through in a hurry while the
hon. member opposite stayed silent. Our party, to its credit,
denounced the deal from the very beginning and announced it
would review the deal. That was the right thing to do.
We announced we would review the deal on taking office and
that was done. It was a promise made and a promise kept. Hon.
Robert Nixon was appointed to review this deal thoroughly and
capably and he prepared a report. He said the deal was no good,
that it was a bad deal for the Canadian taxpayers. Accordingly,
the deal was rescinded by the government.
We have acted entirely properly on this. Now we are faced
with a filibuster in the House by the opposition because it
somehow wants to try to find fault with this thing. That is what it
says.
Mr. Boudria: Johnny-come-latelys.
Mr. Milliken: Johnny-come-latelys is right, as the hon.
member says. Not only are they Johnny-come-latelys, they are
busy trying to pretend it was they who opposed it all along and
that somehow the government has not followed through and
done its bit.
The government has done its bit. It is asking for authority
from this House to make a negotiated deal on very reasonable
terms with the purchasers of the airport. If the deal is not
favourable, then there will be no compensation at all. That is my
understanding of the effect of the bill and I think it is great.
I will not bother expressing my own personal views on how
much these people should get, but I can tell members it is a very
low figure. I will go that far. The argument is that it should not
be done retroactively but I do not think this argument holds
weight.
These people went into this deal with their eyes open. They
knew they were faced with an opposition party at the time, the
Liberal Party of Canada, which announced it was going to
review the deal. The investors knew they were at risk of losing
any money they put into the deal when they went ahead with it,
with the previous government which one could almost describe
as crooked in its dealings in this case.
The deal has been canned by the government. The legislation
is asking the House for authority to correct the situation. It is
good legislation. The opposition should be supporting it
enthusiastically. Instead, what do we get? An amendment has
been moved. Since we are debating the amendment, let me read
the words of the amendment to the House because some hon.
members opposite may have forgotten what it was they moved
many days ago, early in this debate.
I want to point out that no bill has taken anywhere near as long
as this one to get through the House. This is a fairly minor piece
of legislation, yet the opposition has gone berserk on it. It is
amusing to listen, but honestly one would think they would have
had their priorities better placed. They have run out of stuff to
criticize. That is the problem. The government is so good they
do not know what to criticize.
The amendment says that the House declines to give second
reading to Bill C-22 and so on ``because the principle of the bill
is flawed due to the fact that it contains no provisions aimed at
making the work done by lobbyists more transparent''. What
utter nonsense. Of course it does not. This is not a lobbyists bill.
This is not one that seeks to change the law relating to lobbyists.
This corrects one mistake in one contract and gives the
government authority to correct the mistake. That is all it is for.
The bill does not say it is to change the rules relating to
lobbyists. It never purported to do that. The government
announced it is going to bring in such a bill. All we hear is
criticism from the other side because we have not moved
quickly enough on that. The bill will be forthcoming shortly.
4044
Hon. members opposite need only hold their breath for a short
time. I recommend they do so and the bill will appear.
(1320)
When the bill appears they will have ample opportunity to
discuss the law relating to lobbyists. They do not need to do it on
this bill, but I am delighted they have taken the opportunity. At
least we have the advantage of receiving their views on a
lobbyists bill. We know when it finally comes before the House
the debate will be extremely short because they have all made
their speeches on it ad nauseam on this particular amendment.
I am looking forward to a very short debate on the lobbyists
bill and getting it studied in detail in committee. I know hon.
members of the Bloc Quebecois particularly, the Official
Opposition in the House, will participate in the committee
enthusiastically when that bill comes before us.
In the meantime, why are we delaying this very important
piece of legislation? Is it because they want a general discussion
on lobbyists? Maybe. If so, they have not said a lot about that.
They have been busy denouncing this deal, which we all agree is
a bad deal.
I do not think anybody in the House is at variance on that,
except possibly that former cabinet minister who sits in the back
over there now, the hon. member for Sherbrooke. His views may
be shared by the hon. member for Saint John. I would not want to
accuse her of supporting a deal like that because of course she
was not elected to this House in the last Parliament, although she
ran as a candidate for the party that did make the deal.
I think they are the only two in the House who would support
it. Of course we have not heard their views that I recall in this
debate, so I do not know for sure whether they support this bill.
However the opposition does not. The Reform Party does not.
The government does not. The New Democratic Party, to the
best of my knowledge, does not.
So why all the debate? Hon. members opposite are simply, as I
say, trying to jump on a bandwagon to make up for the fact that
they failed to criticize this deal, failed to make their criticisms
known publicly before the election.
Why was that? Is it because so many of the members of the
party opposite were once Conservative and they feel some
kinship with the former government that made this deal? Could
it be that the hon. member for Richelieu and his colleagues who
used to be Tories before they became members of the Bloc feel
they ought not criticize the fellow that got them elected in the
first place, Mr. Mulroney? It was his government of course and
his successor government that made this deal. The deal was
clearly made with the friends of the previous government,
although it was the Kim Campbell government that made the
arrangement.
Is that why there has been this reticence on the part of the
opposition? The Leader of the Opposition of course was a
Mulroney puppet at one time. He owes his whole political career
to Mr. Mulroney.
It cost $143 million, was it not, to get him elected? Is that not
what they paid to get him elected in his riding in a byelection? If
that is what it cost, maybe that was the price of his silence on this
issue until the debate came up here in the House of Commons,
long after the event, instead of a level criticism dumped on this
deal early on, way back during the election campaign. That is the
kind of thing that should have happened.
Here the government is seeking to do the right thing and all we
get is a long debate with criticisms thrown at the government as
though somehow we had made this deal. We unmade the deal;
we cancelled it. We have brought the bill in to correct the
situation. Hon. members opposite instead of criticizing the
government for this should be offering their enthusiastic support
for this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I take the
opportunity given me by this debate on Bill C-22 to draw the
attention of hon. members on the links between several,
apparently unrelated, circumstances.
On May 4, the Globe and Mail reported that federal contracts
to the private sector, which amounted to $2.9 billion in 1984-85,
reached $5.2 billion in 1992-93, and will reach an even higher
level in 1993-94. The largest item, $332 million, is related to
the maintenance of the air fleet.
Strange coincidence when talking about the sale of
Pearsonairport to private interests. The second item, $330
million in 1992-93, is for the management of foreign aid. This
expenditure is important when you realize the problems and the
complexity of managing CIDA, an agency which, following the
Auditor General's report, is trying to prepare a management
plan for its activities scattered, as we know, in 115 countries
around the world. Federal contracts for the department of
defence have gone up from $740 million in 1984-85, to $1.5
billion in 1992-93.
(1325)
The budget for temporary employment has jumped from $52
million to $101 million in the same period, this means that it has
doubled in nine years. What is more disturbing is that, still
according to the Globe and Mail, almost half the 36,166
contracts signed in 1992-93 were awarded without call for
tenders. I would like to quote Mr. Daryl Bean, president of the
4045
Public Service Alliance of Canada who said in this regard: ``Too
often selected firms are friends of the government''.
Mr. Martin's budget of February 22 is revealing on that
subject. According to the minister's statement on that day, it is
giving corporations a series of tax benefits in order to promote
job creation.
Money for these tax benefits comes from the cancellation of
the age credit and cuts in the unemployment insurance program.
We are asking the elderly and the unemployed to make
sacrifices. As the members know, these sacrifices were to no
avail because of the interest rate increase which added further to
the Canadian debt these last few weeks. The government is
robbing the needy with one hand while giving to its friends with
the other. What is it waiting for to cut tax credits and corporate
funding, to impose a minimum tax on corporations and large
fortunes, to go on with the broadening of the tax base that the
minister is boasting about, to broaden it in order to include
family trusts?
In his 1993 report, the Auditor General denounced the federal
government's permissiveness when dealing with
resource-based companies. As we all know a legal dispute that
has been going on for 14 years between the government and
these companies cost the Consolidated Revenue Fund some $1.2
billion.
The whole question of federal contracts and taxation of
corporations and shareholders leads to considerations about
political party financing and transparency in the central
government's management which have not been exactly the
strong points of our new government since election day, last
October 25. While the Bloc Quebecois has adopted the principle
of financing by the public, the Conservative and Liberal parties
always objected to such a financing system and still receive
their funds from both companies and individuals.
We only have to consult the list of big donors of the traditional
political parties, it is in the public domain. We can see that those
two parties are like two peas in a pod as far as election financing
is concerned.
Both Liberals and Conservatives have big donors and
Canadian banks are among the biggest. During a recession, these
institutions always make record profits, pay very little tax in the
end and can only profit from an asset sale to private investors or
the buying of lame ducks from private sector by the government.
The banks know that the federal government cannot in theory,
even if in theory only, go bankrupt, so they will always be eager
to finance the government's buying or selling of assets. Lending
institutions can only benefit from the proliferation of asset
transfers they have helped to bring about.
Mention should be made at this time of one Canadian lending
institution which took the liberty of intervening in the debate
during the Charlottetown referendum. Like other corporations,
it now prefers to operate behind the scenes and avoid public
discussions. Lending institutions are always connected with
federal contracts and with major government transactions such
as the sale of Pearson airport, the only truly profitable airport in
the country.
Obviously, all of the aspects of this deal are interconnected. In
planning to compensate the Conservative and Liberal investors
involved in the aborted deal to purchase Pearson Airport, the
Liberal government is merely returning the favour to those who
contribute to the campaign coffers of the old parties. These
investors took a business risk. If they had made windfall profits,
would a bill have been introduced to tax these too easy or
fantastic profits? Obviously, the answer to that question is no.
Why then pay compensation to investors at the expense of the
average taxpayer? If this agreement had been concluded
between two private parties, one would not have received any
compensation at all. Why then use taxpayers' money to
compensate private investors who took a normal business risk
which ultimately did not pan out?
(1330)
The same phenomenon occurs when a call for tenders goes
out. Bidders often incur administrative charges and professional
fees in preparing their bid. Obviously, the contract can be
awarded to only one bidder. Are all of the other bidders
compensated for the expenses they incurred? No. Why are there
always two standards, one for the private sector and one for the
government? Is it because most of the principal stakeholders in
this deal have ties to the Liberal and Conservative parties?
Consider the $1,000 a plate fundraising dinner held in
Westmount during the last election campaign. A number of
those closely connected with the sale of Pearson Airport were in
attendance. Consider as well the $300 a plate benefit dinner held
last week in Montreal which attracted a crowd of 1,600 people.
We can safely say that a number of those in attendance were very
interested in Bill C-22 and in the compensation to be paid
eventually to investors in the deal.
The Bloc Quebecois objects to any form of compensation
being paid to investors and therefore, I will vote against Bill
C-22. To quote the excellent legislative summary prepared by
the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, ``pursuant to
clause 10 of Bill C-22, the Minister of Transport may, with the
approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements to
provide for the payment of such amounts as considered
appropriate in view of the cancellation''. We are opposed to
clause 10. Why should compensation be paid to some people if
they were able to take advantage of their relations?
We ask the government to legislate as soon as possible to
control the activity of lobbyists as it promised to do in the last
election campaign. Why do the Liberals not change Bill C-44 on
lobbyists that the Conservatives passed in 1988? According to
the report of the inquiry by Mr. Robert Nixon, whom the present
Prime Minister charged with reviewing the Pearson Airport
affair:
4046
The exact amount of money received by the lobbyists is not known.
According to the real estate developers' sources, it would amount to $1.5
million over 18 months.
Mr. Nixon also questions the excessive rate of return granted
to the airport tenant. He also mentions the role of patronage and
pressure groups in this transaction. The role of lobbyists in this
affair went beyond what is usually expected. The investigator
tells us that lobbyists were directly responsible for the
reassignment of several senior officials and the request from
some other officials to be replaced.
We ask the government to get to the bottom of this transaction
and to hold an independent public inquiry which alone can
reassure disillusioned taxpayers. Is this another promise in the
red book that will remain a dead letter or be postponed
indefinitely? When does the government intend to keep the
promise mentioned in the red book during the election campaign
of a code of ethics for ministers, senators and members of
Parliament, political staff and public servants, to provide a
proper framework for their relations with pressure groups? The
openness and accountability of government are at stake.
In conclusion, for us in the Bloc Quebecois, in future, Pearson
Airport in Toronto should be run by a non-profit airport
authority, like the airports in Montreal and Vancouver.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure
that I speak again on the issue of Pearson Airport, a subject close
to our hearts. I would like to start by responding to a point the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands made earlier in his
speech. My friend opposite said the Bloc Quebecois was
criticizing and that we might be criticising for the sake of
criticizing or because we could find nothing else to criticize.
First, the people across the way should not forget they are the
ones responsible for the legislative agenda. Bring in something
else and we will go along. It is just that so far in this Parliament,
the legislative agenda has been rather light. The people of
Canada and Quebec have a right to see things happening here.
(1335)
Many promises were made in the red book. Now, the
government is getting political mileage out of making good so to
speak some of these promises. But we need more than mere
promises to make this country work.
There is an echo in this place, Mr. Speaker. So, I will carry on
with my speech to make sure the Bloc Quebecois' position on
this is perfectly clear. For the information of the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands, I would like to quote, if I may,
from an article published on May 9 in the Ottawa Citizen. I think
it shows pretty clearly why the Bloc Quebecois is questioning
the Liberals' motives for wanting to pass this motion so quickly.
I am not perfectly bilingual, but I will read this article in the
language of Shakespeare, as it was written in English. This will
give the anglophones in my riding an opportunity to hear how I
speak this language I am trying to learn but have not yet
mastered.
Here is what Mr. Greg Weston wrote. I will spare you certain
points of detail, but the part that I found particularly interesting
reads as follows:
[English]
Given the billions in potential profits the developer lost in all this and the
government's apparent bazooka-like approach to compensation, the silence
from the negotiating table seems rather deafening.
Cela veut dire que ça rend sourd un peu.
In that respect one observation from the recent compensation meeting in
Toronto is perhaps worth noting: The firm with the largest stake in the
development consortium and therefore the most to lose is Claridge Properties. It
happens to be controlled by Montreal billionaire Charles Bronfman who
happens to be a friend of the Liberal Party.
L'histoire commence à être intéressante.
As it also happens the Liberal government still wants to develop Pearson
airport in a big way, will be looking for a suitable developer and is eager to get
the work started this fall. One of those at the recent compensation meeting in
Toronto observed a pretty relaxed group of Claridge executives. Interesting,
no?
[
Translation]
That is what our friend Greg Weston wrote in the Ottawa
Citizen on May 9. How can we, from the Bloc Quebecois, give
the Liberals opposite a blank cheque when there is already talk
about games being played behind the scenes?
We want to know what we are dealing with before any
compensation is paid. We want to know what happened, and who
was involved in particular, to see how Pearson airport could be
developed later on.
We sense certain things. We hear that the government wants to
develop Pearson Airport, still. So, it would be very interesting to
start over with a clean slate, instead of using what I might call
the ``humus'' borrowed from the previous government and the
current one as well.
I also wanted to stress the importance of this case. We are not
talking about something minor. Some 57,000 passengers go
through this airport. Twenty million passengers a year. Three
hundred destinations in 60 countries. Plus 56,000 direct and
indirect jobs and some $4 billion in economic spinoffs in
Ontario.
So this is very important; we cannot remain silent and trust
them when they say that there were no lobbyists. The $4 billion
at stake is very important for the economy.
The contract still has not been made public. However, if we
believe what journalists have told us about it, the Nixon report
points out that lobbyists' involvement of this case seems
unusual. Lobbyists were more active in this case than in any
other where the government must make decisions. So it is very
4047
important that Canadians and Quebecers be aware of what goes
on behind the scenes.
(1340)
Another thing that struck me is how fast the contract was
signed in the midst of last year's election campaign. The former
Prime Minister hastened to sign this contract, this agreement,
despite the current Prime Minister's election promise to cancel
it. However, the same bunch of friends seem to be hiding behind
all this. I think that Canadians and Quebecers have the right to
know what is going on.
The other thing that bothers me is that, in the redevelopment
and operation of Pearson Airport, the government had promised
not to finance the modernization of Terminal 1. Nevertheless, it
has apparently granted rent reductions worth several millions of
dollars, which amounts to investing. It seems as though the right
hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
The Nixon report also lists 10 unusual deductions for
calculating gross revenue on which the rent is based. Again, are
friends of the current and former governments pulling the
strings to help themselves? For us, it is very important that all
this be disclosed.
The other point, as there are two kinds of opposition in this
country: Opposition members and the media. The Toronto Star
also tells us that, according to its own research, the transaction
would probably have triggered an increase in the per passenger
cost related to the use of this airport. The increase would have
been passed on to users. If it is a government responsibility to
develop transport networks in Canada, I think that the
government must assume the responsibility of facing Canadians
and telling them that this transaction will result in increased
costs to them, instead of relying on a friend to do that dirty job.
Let us say a word about this government which refuses to shed
light on the issue and refuses to conduct an inquiry into that
transaction. We are dealing with the transport sector. On
Thursday, I must go back to my riding. I will sit on a rural
dignity committee and listen to people who have things to say
about railroad transport in Eastern Quebec, and specifically in
my riding of Gaspé. This is an initiative taken by local people,
because the government refuses to hold such hearings. As a
member of the opposition, I agreed to sit on that committee and
report back to Ottawa the grievances of those people.
But why does the government refuse to assume its
responsibilities? People have things to say. We are talking about
transport. Why do people in the Gaspé Peninsula have to take the
initiative and set up their own committee, without the means
available to a House committee, such as interpreters and a staff
to type transcripts? They will do a very good job, but some
people may feel somewhat prejudiced by the way hearings will
be conducted. Indeed, although I understand English, I cannot
speak it as fast as those people. But I will be there and I wanted
to point that out.
My time is running out. I will conclude by mentioning two
major points which will more or less summarize what I said
earlier. How did the previous government come to approve a
project which goes totally against public interest? Are there
interests other than the public's interest at stake, such as friends
of the former and current governments?
We, Bloc Quebecois members, feel that a public inquiry is
absolutely necessary in this case. The credibility of the
government opposite depends on such an inquiry. If members
opposite continue to hide behind closed doors and let lobbyists
govern the country, you can understand that it will give us strong
arguments for the upcoming referendum. Indeed, it will be very
easy to say: Look, if you want to continue to live in a type of
federation which lets lobbies make decisions, you can have it.
(1345)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to participate again in this debate on
Bill C-22.
First of all, I would like to tell you how surprised I am to see a
government that, just weeks ago, contended it was bound by a
secret verbal agreement-more bounded than that, you
choke-now be able to get out of a written, signed agreement.
I notice also that the government refused categorically to
provide us with any information whatsoever, not one single
document, on the verbal agreement regarding Ginn Publishing.
In the case of the signed agreement between Her Majesty and T1
T2 Limited Partnership however, it produced a schedule
attached to the bill listing 24 agreements and leases, as well as 7
other agreements and 19 other documents, for a total of 46
different documents. But again this was an agreement the Prime
Minister had signed herself with her Minister of Transport.
How the government can so easily break that many
agreements and leases while the Minister of National Heritage is
incapable of getting out of a verbal agreement remains a great
mystery to me, a mystery I hope we will be able to clear up
someday.
That being said, I would like to address two questions: first,
did the government negotiate a secret, possibly verbal,
agreement with regards to compensation that could be paid
under clause 10? Second, does the government intend to favour
unduly, as it has in the past, Pearson Airport at the expense of
other airports in the Toronto region and elsewhere in Canada?
4048
Let us start by looking at a possible secret deal. This bill
makes use of the well-known Liberal technique of concealment.
For example, clause 9 reads, and I quote:
No one is entitled to any compensation-
That sounds clear and simple. Finally, we think, the
government is taking a firm stand.
Wrong. Again, the government is concealing its real
intentions, because paragraph 10(1) of the bill states, and I
quote:
If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so the Minister may, with the
approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements on behalf of Her
Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers
appropriate in connection with the coming into force of the Act, subject to the
terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.
In other words, for my hon. opponents who have not yet
understood, the government is giving itself the authority,
without telling anyone, as is its way, to pay its friends what it
wants, without reporting the amount.
Because remember, several friends of the Conservatives and
also of the Liberals, of course, are in the T1 T2 Limited
Partnership. For the information of some Liberal members who
always made it a duty under the former government to point out
the shadow of a doubt about conflicts of interest, I remind them
that several of their fund-raisers and affiliates took part in the
limited partnership in question, which will benefit from clause
10(1) of the bill which we are discussing.
Since the lunch hour is often a time for game shows on
television, I suggest we play a game of Jeopardy.
Here are the clues for the first question: He owns Claridge
Properties Inc., which controls T1 T2 Limited Partnership; he is
also a great Liberal and contributor to the party's election fund.
You are right, the question is: Who is Charles Bronfman?
Second question: He is a lobbyist for Claridge Properties and
a former organizer for Jean Chrétien. Once again, you are right:
Who is Herb Metcalfe?
Third question: He is a Liberal senator and held a
$1,000-a-plate benefit supper during the election campaign;
coincidentally, he is on the board of Claridge Properties, the
majority shareholder of T1 T2 Limited Partnership. You are
right: Who is Leo Kolber?
And I could go on.
Again I ask: Is there a written or verbal agreement
guaranteeing payments to shareholders of T1 T2 Limited
Partnership that this bill would implement?
(1350)
I want to pay particular attention to the written or verbal
agreement as one of the people involved in the Pearson Airport
case is Fred Doucet, the lobbyist who managed to convince the
Liberal minister of heritage to sell part of the Canadian heritage
to foreign interests by invoking a verbal agreement.
The Minister of Transport must table all the documents kept
secret on this bill, and especially its virtual or potential
agreements to prevent the government from wasting public
funds, as it seems to be doing, to thank its friends and
compensate them for an election promise that cost them a juicy
contract. It must be as transparent as it claims to be and set up a
royal commission of inquiry to shed light on the case and its
history.
Otherwise, Quebecers and Canadians will know that under
their Liberal government, a beer drinker can have his benefits
cut without qualms while a distillery owner gets breaks such as
Clause 10 of this bill.
Bill C-22 does not say anything about the government's
intentions regarding Pearson airport. We already know that the
government intended to favour this airport at the expense of
other Metro Toronto airports by prohibiting Transport Canada
from making, at any airport located within a 75-kilometre
radius of Pearson airport, investments likely to decrease traffic
at Pearson. In Montreal, Transport Canada forced the Montreal
airport society to keep Mirabel and Dorval airports open as a
requirement for privatizing airport operations. Unfortunately
for Montreal, while Jean Chrétien and his then colleagues were
plunging the country into an astronomical deficit-the last of
which, in 1984, has never been matched in constant dollars-,
they did not choose the same path as that taken for Toronto, that
is expanding the existing airport instead of creating two lame
ducks to Toronto's great delight.
I will quote Jean Lapointe, the spokesman for the Reaction
group that includes airline and aircraft industry employees as
well as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Mr. Lapointe
made the following comment regarding the decision of the
Montreal Airports Advisory Board to keep both airports in
operation: ``It is clear that Ottawa has opted in favour of
Toronto. Can Quebec have a competitive airport system? The
answer is no. Quebec will only manage to do that through
sovereignty, because its hands will no longer be tied by the
decisions made in Ottawa''. So, what is that decision made by
Ottawa all about?
Claude Picher, who is a journalist with La Presse, tells us that
entrusting the management of Dorval and Mirabel airports to a
non-profit corporation was conditional upon maintaining two
major airports for the greater Montreal area. This is a case of
double standard.
There is also the issue of investments. Does this government
intend to invest massive amounts of money in Pearson Airport,
to the detriment of other airports which must be self-financing?
Let us not forget that the cancelled contract provided for
investments of some $700 million for terminals 1 and 2 at
Pearson Airport. We still do not know if the government will
make these investments before entrusting the management of
the airport to who-knows-whom. By contrast, the Montreal
Airports Advisory Board, which does not have the financial
means of the government, will invest some $150 million, or $30
4049
million annually over a five-year period, to modernize and
improve the infrastructures and facilities at Dorval and Mirabel.
The previous and current governments chose Toronto, and
Montreal is still paying the price. According to the daily Le
Soleil, in 1990, 20.5 million passengers were processed at
Pearson Airport, compared to 8.9 million for Dorval and
Mirabel combined. In the same editorial, Michel Audet points
out that, in 1952, Montreal had 20 per cent more head offices
and financial institutions than Toronto. But by 1988, it had 60
per cent fewer. Mr. Audet also mentions the fact that between
1975, which is the year Mirabel opened, and 1980, the number of
passengers increased by only 13 per cent in Montreal, compared
to 37 per cent in Toronto. This pattern has persisted and is even
more pronounced now. This bias also led to significant job loss
in the greater Montreal area. For example, an official of the
Public Service Alliance mentioned that he now represents only
900 employees in the Montreal area where he used to speak for
1,200 workers in 1978.
(1355)
I leave you with the conclusion Claude Picher came to while
reviewing the study conducted by Aéroports de Montréal, a
study which concluded that the greater Montreal should keep
both its airports. Mr. Picher said, and I quote: ``Hundreds of
millions of dollars have been thrown in this venture which did
nothing to improve the competitiveness of Montreal. Quite the
opposite in fact, since the Mirabel fiasco is partly responsible
for redirecting traffic to Toronto.''
Since airports in Dorval, Mirabel, Edmonton and Vancouver
were handed to non-profit corporations, why should we have
something different for Toronto? Is it that what is good for the
rest of the country is not good enough for Toronto? The
government does not seem to want to answer to the requests
made by the greater Toronto area, why is that so? Why does the
government not entrust the management of Terminals 1 and 2 to
a non-profit organisation immediately?
The Deputy Speaker: I am very sorry, but I have to inform
the hon. member that her time is up.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, for more
than two weeks, we in the Bloc Quebecois have been constantly
raising what is now usually called the Pearson affair. We do not
have to reinvent the wheel, we only have to use it properly.
In other words, even if what I am about to say is not all new, it
is important to repeat it until concrete action is taken on this
problem. The aspect I wanted to underline concerns the popular
financing of federal political parties. This debate is related to a
motion presented in the House by my friend and colleague, the
member for Richelieu. The reason for popular financing is so
simple that even a child would understand it.
You know, Mr. Speaker, if you are a student and your parents
pay your rent, your dearest wish is to find a job so you can meet
your own needs and do as you please. It is easy to understand,
you are indebted to your provider. In politics, it is exactly the
same. The ultimate goal of any political party should be to be as
independent as possible. The only way to reach this goal is to be
financed by public contributions. We are elected by the people
and are answerable to them. If our hands are tied by
multinationals which finance us, our room to move will be very
limited, particularly if the interests on the one side do not
necessarily go together with those on the other. If financial
reasons did not guide the actions of governments, people would
pay more attention-
The Speaker: Order. As my hon. friend knows, you have a
few minutes left for your speech. You will have the floor again
after Question Period.
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the
House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
4049
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday was Mother's Day. Sons and daughters everywhere
reaffirmed their love for their moms, whose love for their
children knows no bounds-not distance, not time, not even
death.
The bond that exists between mother and child is stronger
than the strongest steel, harder than the hardest wood, and more
enduring than any other bond of love.
Today I speak of those children who, because of war, have lost
their mothers or whose mothers or families can no longer
provide for them. I refer to the children of Bosnia.
I urge each of us in the House to do everything we can and ask
the government to act quickly to provide a safe haven for these
orphans of war.
Let Parliament lead in easing their pain, their hunger, their
illness, their injury and their imminent death, even as we
intensity our efforts to search for peace in that part of the world.
Let Canada be a mother to the children of Bosnia orphaned by
war.
4050
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, today is the first day of the convention of the CNTU,
one of the major labour confederations in Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois would like to stress the importance of
that event, because the CNTU has contributed over the years to
fostering co-operation between all economic agents, and to
consolidating collective values in Quebec.
Since co-operation and joint action are required if we are to
succeed in an economy where competition gets stronger by the
day, the Bloc Quebecois praises the CNTU for its efforts in that
direction and reminds the Minister of Human Resources
Development that social contracts are not negotiated
unilaterally, but collectively.
Mr. Speaker, the impasse the Liberal government has reached
in its co-operation with the Quebec government shows that
Ottawa has much to learn from the CNTU.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, acts of
violence across Canada have sparked further calls for a
complete review of our justice system, in particular the Young
Offenders Act. The slap on the wrist punishments handed down
to young offenders are ineffective and far too lenient. Justice
reform is needed desperately but Canadians have yet to see
action from the government.
As a result of the federal government's inaction the province
of Alberta has taken the unusual step of reviewing federal
legislation. Five MLAs will gather the opinions and suggestions
of Albertans on how to make the Young Offenders Act more
effective and present their findings in a final report in
September.
Justice rallies were held last weekend in Calgary and
Edmonton with a turnout of approximately 5,000 people. It is
frustrating to see what lengths honest law-abiding citizens and
the Alberta government must go to in order to bring the
government's attention to the fact that Canadians are deeply
concerned about their safety.
For the sake of all Canadians I sincerely hope the government
is listening to Albertans.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, the
United Nations General Assembly has proclaimed 1994 as the
International Year of the Family. However this is not as much a
celebration as it is a warning.
Over the last 20 years the percentage of families with both
spouses working has increased from 34 per cent to 62 per cent,
thereby reducing the amount of direct parental care. In addition
each year over 20,000 unmarried women aged 12 to 19 give birth
with the majority choosing to raise the children themselves. As a
result most do not finish their education and are likely to
become dependent on subsidized housing and welfare. Their
offspring are at a higher risk of being premature or a low birth
weight, more likely to experience difficulty in school, and more
likely to become single parents themselves.
Accordingly policies and legislation for strengthening the
traditional family should be a primary concern to our
government. As well employers and parents must also realize
they have increased responsibilities to ensure that the family
remains the basic unit of society.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, last week's events should make all Canadians think.
There was the signing of an historic agreement between
Palestinians and Israel. Also, democracy has emerged in South
Africa. Nelson Mandela invited all his fellow citizens to forget
about the past and he called for their unity. He said and I quote:
``We can have our differences, but we form one single people,
with a common destiny within our rich variety of cultures, races
and traditions.''
In contrast with such remarkable developments and this
lucidity, in Canada the Opposition Leader has told a radio
audience that our differences were irreconcilable.
It is surprising that the former Canadian ambassador in
France cannot see the link between what is going on elsewhere
in the world and the situation here in Canada. Talk about being
blind!
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to offer my congratulations to
4051
two students representing Saskatoon at the Rotary model United
Nations in Winnipeg on May 5, 6 and 7.
The model United Nations, as the name suggests, permits
secondary students to simulate the debate and negotiation skills
that are the hallmark of the actual United Nations. Over 200
students from across Canada and the United States participated
in this year's event.
Miss Nancy Lees of Saskatoon and my son, Paul, currently in
Ottawa for the week, were Saskatoon delegates representing the
country of Iraq. I am pleased to announce they received the
award for best prepared delegation at the closing ceremonies
last Saturday night. Well done, Saskatoon.
One of the best ways to encourage our young people to be full
participants in our democratic system is to provide them with
opportunities to take part in these simulations: model
parliaments, model legislatures and so on.
Hats off to the Winnipeg Rotary Club for hosting this
worthwhile event.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, National
Day Care Week started today. For all members of this House,
this week should be the appropriate time to reflect on our
daycare system.
We cannot ignore the clearly unacceptable working
conditions of daycare educators, whose responsibilities are
fundamental to children's motor and intellectual development.
When we know that Newfoundland educators earn $12,500 a
year while the Canadian yearly average is $18,500, we can
wonder about our governments' order of priorities in the social
field.
The year 1994 is the International Year of the Family. What
are governments waiting for to appreciate the true worth of these
people's work, which value is incalculable for parents and for
society as a whole?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, last weekend
on Saturday I, along with about 350 other people in my
constituency, attended the funeral of eight-year old Stephanie
Graves who was attacked and shot in the Kimberley area.
I would like to state my support for her parents and family. I
was encouraged to see the way in which the residents of
Kootenay East have banded together and circled the wagons to
help them through the tough days ahead.
I would like to read the words of a song sung by members of
Stephanie's class at her funeral:
I like your eyes
I like your nose
I like your mouth, your ears, your hands, your toes.
I like your face
It's really you
I like the things, you say and do.
There's not a single soul
who sees the skies
The way you see them, through your eyes
And aren't you glad?
You should be glad
There's no one, no one exactly like you.
Stephanie was unique and will be missed.
I am sure other members of the House would also offer their
support to her parents, her family and her community.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour of rising in the House today to extend
congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister on the
outstanding accomplishments our government has made in its
first six months.
With the beginning of the infrastructure program, youth
programs and a revival of confidence within the small business
sector, we are rebuilding a strong Canada once again. As a result
there is a new era of confidence across the nation.
A lot of work has been done in the first six months, and there
is a lot more work to do. The Prime Minister has returned
leadership and dedication to the House and indeed to Canada.
We are on our way to a better tomorrow for all Canadians. I
congratulate and thank the Prime Minister for his leadership
role in making this possibility a reality.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, as we meet
here today the massacre in Rwanda continues while waves of
people cross the border into Tanzania's refugee camps.
It is impossible for the international community to remain
unmoved at the sight of such human tragedy in Rwanda. The
International Red Cross has just asked for United Nations
intervention to secure and protect sources of water for the
refugees. At the same time the Security Council needs to support
the Secretary-General and provide the troops necessary to
protect innocent civilians.
The Government of Canada could play a leading role in
coming to the rescue of so many, relieving their misery and
preventing further human suffering.
4052
(1410)
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Canada won the world hockey championships in Italy on the
strength of a 2 to 1 victory over Finland.
It had been 33 years since Canada last won the gold medal in
its national winter sport with the 1961 Trail Smoke Eaters.
[Translation]
Canada's team won the gold medal at the World Hockey
Championships by winning 2 to 1 in the final game against
Finland.
[English]
This completes an outstanding year for Canadian hockey with
the Canadian team also winning the silver medal at the
Olympics, while Canadian women and junior teams won gold
medals at their respective world championships.
Our world championship teams should be congratulated for
making Canada the first star in the world of hockey.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, as a member
of the Canadian mission to monitor the election in South Africa,
I found that the first democratic election was generally free and
fair.
It is my pleasure to inform the House that all members of the
monitoring mission felt that the results reflected the will of the
people of South Africa, and I would like to congratulate South
Africans on an extraordinary achievement which they were able
to bring to fruition in such a short time. The opening today of the
first session of the new multiracial parliament marks the
beginning of a long process of rebuilding and national
reconciliation.
In spite of the poverty in the black townships and the lack of
elementary infrastructures, I remain convinced that South
Africans of all races will be able to meet the challenge of
rebuilding and giving hope to the people.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is with a
great deal of pride that I rise today to pay tribute to a Canadian
team for winning the world hockey championship. Thirty-three
years is a long time to wait. However the excitement of
yesterday's win made it all worth while.
In addition to the players there are many others who worked
behind the benches over the years to achieve this goal. To them
and on behalf of all Canadians I say how grateful we are for their
contribution.
This victory proves what can be achieved by working
together. Let us hope that the example of team spirit displayed
by these outstanding young men will be an inspiration to all who
sit in the House.
Today Canadians in every province and territory are sharing
in the honour this outstanding victory has brought to Canada. It
is my hope that this win will be a reminder to all our citizens
what can be accomplished in a united Canada.
* * *
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker,
Environment Canada and the Ontario ministry of the
environment and energy announced on April 26 the expansion of
the Ontario air quality advisory program.
This summer Ontarians will get advance notice of high smog
levels for centres ranging from Barrie and Goderich in the south
to North Bay and Sudbury in the north.
The federal-provincial program informs people when high
levels of ground level ozone, commonly known as summer
smog, are forecast. Smog is a powerful and irritating pollutant
which can affect the health of people and vegetation and can
corrode various materials.
Short term exposure to smog can irritate the nose and throat
and can produce symptoms such as coughing and difficult or
painful breathing. The advisory program is therefore very
important for the well-being of all citizens.
Smog advisories are issued the same way as weather forecasts
through the media, Environment Canada, weather offices and
weather radio. They focus on pollution prevention and
recommend individual action to spare the air such as using
public transit or car pooling and using fewer chemicals and
solvents.
Ground level ozone is a serious problem in Canada. The
federal government is taking serious measures to control it.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, to continue
today's theme, we are world hockey champions once again. We
are the best in the world. We are tops.
After 33 years Canada is number one when it comes to world
hockey championships, having defeated Finland in a sudden
death shootout.
4053
Hockey is our sport and at the world championships we
proved it. As silver medalists at the Olympics after a shootout
we won the world junior crown in the Czech Republic and the
women's world at Lake Placid, New York.
Playing and watching hockey is a Canadian cultural pastime.
Who watching the Canadian flag being raised at the world
hockey championships and watching our players belting out ``O
Canada'' did not have tears in their eyes?
Names like Robitaille, Ranford, Sakic, Blake, Sydor,
Thomas, Emerson, Sanderson, Brind'Amour and others will be
remembered for once again placing hocking on the world
hockey map.
The players said they were proud to represent Canada and we
are proud of them. I thank the players for bringing the gold
medal home where there is pride in hockey and where the gold
medal belongs.
* * *
(1415)
[Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw the attention of all members of this House to the
human rights abuses suffered regularly by the Greek minority of
southern Albania.
[English]
The persecution and oppressive policies of the past still
continue despite the new government in Albania. Leaders of the
Greek minority continue to be harassed, intimidated and
charged unjustly. Freedom of religion, right to security of the
person and the freedom of movement are effectively being
denied to them.
I call on the foreign minister to conduct an inquiry of the
human rights climate in Albania with particular focus on the
status of the ethnic Greek minority. This inquiry should be
viewed as a preventive measure against further destabilization
in the Balkans.
[Translation]
Canada has always favoured peaceful and diplomatic
solutions to resolve international conflicts. This government
has an opportunity to play a major role by encouraging Albania
to meet its international commitments and obligations.
_____________________________________________
4053
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday,
Statistics Canada reported that the national unemployment rate
rose to 11 per cent in April, while the rate in Quebec increased
from 11.7 per cent to 12.6 per cent. According to this latest
report, 65,000 more people have joined the ranks of the
unemployed. These figures which are, to say the least,
disconcerting, contradict the optimistic news that we have been
hearing from the Prime Minister for the past month about lower
unemployment and job creation.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that six months into his
mandate, the unemployment rate continues to increase and his
government has reneged on its promises, given that 65,000 more
people have joined the 1.5 million who are already out of work?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
since our government was elected, unemployment has not
decreased as much as we would have liked. Just last month the
situation had markedly improved, statistically speaking, but it
has now changed. According to the reports, 60,000 people who
had all but given up looking for work re-entered the job market.
These were not people who had lost their jobs, but rather
people who started looking again, believing they could find
employment. It is a positive sign when people regain some
confidence and get back into the labour force. We will continue
to do our best. Our policies reflect this government's priority,
which is job creation.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, there is nothing encouraging about this response in that
it does not reflect any willingness on the government's part to
change the situation. The government seems to find these
statistics positive, whereas the fact of the matter is-and these
are not merely statistics but the reality of the situation-that if
we compare the unemployment rate in November when this
government came to power with the rate today, we see that there
are 15,000 more people out of work.
On the other hand, the government's only initiative, the
infrastructure program, is clearly inadequate in terms of
creating lasting jobs. Instead of taking it out on the unemployed,
is the Prime Minister prepared to commit this time to
implementing a real job creation strategy for the high-tech
sector based on concrete initiatives?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
115,000 new jobs have been created in Canada since February.
That is a fact. I have just explained to the Leader of the
Opposition that some people who had likely given up looking
for work quite some time ago had re-entered the job market.
This is a positive sign that the job situation is rebounding. This
morning's Toronto Star reported that the number of people on
welfare in Toronto had declined considerably, while a
significant number of persons had found jobs.
This is an indication that our strategy, which is to focus on
jobs, is working. There are those in Canada who believe that the
economy is recovering. Economic indicators nationwide show
that the growth rate will be greater than that forecast by the
Minister of Finance. We must therefore stay the course set out in
the budget.
4054
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister would have us believe that
economic indicators are positive. He claims it is a positive sign
that people are returning to the job market, that they are
regaining some confidence.
However, there are those who are able to work and cannot find
a job. They are called the unemployed, and their numbers are
increasing because of the policies of this government.
(1420)
How can the Prime Minister, who says he is concerned, justify
his government's decision to renege on its red book commitment
to put forward a strategy for converting defence industries from
military to civilian purposes when it is a known fact that this is
the only strategy that would give dignity and hope back to
people, as the Prime Minister said during the election
campaign?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): This policy of
helping some of the defence industry to work in new fields has
been a policy of this government. We are looking at all the
proposals. When there is a good one, we are happy to help.
I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that a lot of
housing units were created last month and that the confidence of
the people of Canada has increased by 13 per cent. It is a sign
that we are on the right track. This development is not as fast as
everyone in this House would like to see, but everybody
recognizes that for 1994 Canada will outperform virtually every
nation of the western world.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, last Saturday, the daily
Le Devoir was reporting that
Bell Helicopter had decided not to go ahead with its $40 million
investment plan to develop a new helicopter. You probably
realize that this decision follows the about-turn of the federal
government which now reneges on its commitment to set up a
conversion program for defence industries.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the cancellation of this
expansion program at Bell Helicopter, which would have
created 100 new jobs, is the direct result of the decision of his
government not to participate in conversion activities through
DIPP? Is the Prime Minister aware of the catastrophic
consequences of that decision?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): I would like to say to the hon. member, through
you, Mr. Speaker, that even though the province of Quebec has
given partial approval on the Bell Helicopter project there has
not been a final and formal position taken by the board of Bell
Helicopter right now. There will be no decision forthcoming
until we hear that formal presentation.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister not recognize that the decision not to
proceed with a conversion strategy for defence industries will,
in effect, threaten and jeopardize the activities in this important
industrial sector which has already lost 10,000 jobs in Quebec
since 1988? Will the Prime Minister tell the Minister of Industry
to review his policy while it is still possible?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I again repeat to the hon. member
that we did discuss this issue in debate last week and in fact we
do have a strategy.
Mind you, because of the very tight fiscal framework that we
are involved with here it is not the old strategy where we just
sort of write cheques. Right now we are using very creative
approaches. We are giving advice and counsel and marketing
assistance. In fact many companies under the previous DIPP
program are now converting with assistance and guidance in
new marketing techniques. There are many success stories. That
will be the way that we will approach it.
* * *
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will know that on the weekend thousands
of Albertans held a massive Mother's Day rally to draw
attention to deficiencies in our criminal justice system.
The Prime Minister may remember being in this House on
October 7, 1971 when his colleague, Jean-Pierre Goyer, the
Liberal Solicitor General of the day, uttered these infamous
words, and I quote: ``We have decided from now on to stress the
rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of
society''.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. McClelland: Is Canada a safer place today as a result of
that Liberal government policy?
4055
(1425)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I watched with interest the
reports of the rallies both in Calgary and in Edmonton on the
weekend. Those rallies were attended by people who have
genuine concerns that I respect. I read the reports of some of the
things they were concerned about, including the Young
Offenders Act.
As I have said to the House before, within weeks I am going to
have a bill before this House to make changes to the Young
Offenders Act that I think will fulfil commitments we made
during the campaign and that I think will improve the statute.
In so far as the safety of Canada is concerned we ran for
election on a platform that I think is a balanced one which was
intended very much to secure the safety of our communities
across the country, in Alberta and everywhere else in this
country.
Mr. Benoit: Do you agree with the '71 change?
Mr. Rock: In terms of the '71 change, I do not think that
statement can fairly be applied to all legislation that has been
through this House over the last 23 years.
I think the answer to achieve safer communities in this
country is to follow through on our election commitments which
we intend to do, a balance between making the laws more
effective and coming to grips with the root causes of crime and
that is exactly what we intend to do.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
what we are endeavouring to try to do is find out when our
government policy fell off the rails and we started to put the
rights of the criminal ahead of the rights of the victim. When
was that particular moment?
Today, 23 years after that infamous decision, what comes first
to this Liberal government? I again ask the Prime Minister, is it
the protection of society or the rehabilitation of individuals?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the Young Offenders Act
contains in its statement of principles the primacy of the
protection of society as an objective of that act.
We in government believe that the protection of society is best
achieved by a combination of laws that are effective and
effectively enforced and social programs and government
policies that are intended to get at not just harsher penalties and
longer jail terms but the underlying causes of crime in society.
Those are the objectives of this government in its mandate.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
again to the Prime Minister. Across this nation from one coast to
the other Canadians are sick and tired of this mollycoddling of
criminals at the expense of law-abiding citizens through this
Cappuccino Liberalism.
On October 7, 1971 the Government of Canada approached a
fork in the road and took the wrong turn. The government chose
to stress the rights of the criminal rather than the rights of the
victim.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. What specific
steps will the government take to ensure that the rights of
victims are paramount to the rights of criminals? What specific
steps?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear, if I have
not already, that I reject absolutely the characterization the hon.
member has given to the policies of this government about
preferring the rights of criminals to the rights of victims.
This government is not interested in that kind of rhetorical
exchange. The fact is we have an agenda of proposals in our
platform which we are going to follow through with legislation
in this House that is intended to achieve both an improved
justice system and legitimate efforts toward crime prevention.
I do not think it advances the discussion to characterize a
statement from 1971 as what has been going on in the justice
system in the last 23 years. The fact is we have made our agenda
for legislation clear and we intend to follow through on it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. When they were
in opposition, Liberal members were dead set against Bill C-91,
an act regarding drug patent protection. As a matter of fact, they
all voted against it, except for the Minister of Finance, who was
then the member for LaSalle-Émard.
The Prime Minister said recently that he would not reopen this
act. However, there is considerable pressure within his party to
review Bill C-91 before 1997, and to give less protection to
patent drugs.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that, in spite of the intense
pressure within his party, his government will not review Bill
C-91 before February 1997, as planned?
(1430)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said clearly that we intend to abide by the legislation which was
passed, but we must do our job, and make sure that the
companies that promised to invest are doing so and, secondly,
that they are honouring their commitment not to increase drug
prices. It is also our duty to check that they are discharging the
obligations they have towards the government.
I must say that I am very happy to see that the member is
concerned about the stability of industries in Quebec because we
too want stability in this country. If he wants to be of assistance,
4056
he should stop talking about separating, that would help
Canadian legislation stay stable.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): I have a
supplementary for the Prime Minister who would maintain
greater stability if he gave concrete answers to concrete
questions.
I will ask him a concrete question. Does the Prime Minister
recognize that, according to the Patented Medicine Prices
Review Board, since Bill C-91 was enacted, the Canadian
pharmaceutical industry has invested nearly 10 per cent of its
revenues in R & D and that drug prices have more or less
followed the consumer price index since 1987?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said in this House that if the industry upholds its commitments,
it can sleep soundly.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Last Friday the Solicitor General accepted the resignation of
Mr. Dagenais as chairman of the National Parole Board. The
Solicitor General said that the board needs a new direction, a
direction that would choose its members based on confidence,
merit and wide consultation.
My question is on the topic of consultation. Will the Solicitor
General agree to allow the standing committee on justice to
review the nominee for chairman before any final appointment
is made?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
we will be advertising the position in the Canada Gazette. The
applications will be considered carefully on the basis of merit
and competence. We will certainly be consulting widely before
any final decision is taken.
I will certainly take the hon. member's suggestion under
consideration. I thank him for making it.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I applaud the minister's willingness to open up the
process. As the minister knows, Standing Order 110 provides for
any nominee to be scrutinized.
From this point onward will the minister forward all
nominations to the National Parole Board to the standing
committee on justice for review before any final decision is
made?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. speaker,
the hon. member has made an interesting suggestion. I have to
point out that the final decision under the law is in the hands of
the cabinet, which unlike the committee, has to be accountable
to the Canadian public for its decisions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
On Monday, May 2, speaking of the GST, the Prime Minister
stated in this place, and I quote: ``We hate it and we will kill it''.
In a report tabled in this House in November 1989, the
Liberals, who were in opposition at the time, wrote, and I quote:
``The Liberal members of the Finance Committee cannot
tolerate the idea that groceries would be taxed.'' Furthermore, in
the same report, the Liberals denounced all forms of hidden
taxes.
Now that he is in government, can the Minister of Finance
finally tell us if he intends to abide by the stands his own party
had taken when in opposition and show some consistency by
refusing to allow any tax, whether hidden or not, to be applied to
food?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member
knows full well, during the election campaign, we said the
whole issue of the GST would be referred to the Finance
Committee, which was done, and the committee is now
preparing its report.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, seeing
that the reasons supporting the Liberal Party's position in 1989
are still valid, does the Minister of Finance's failure to answer
the question mean that he has changed his mind and wants to
replace the GST with a hidden tax that would also apply to food?
(1435)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): What my answer means, Mr. Speaker,
is that we intend to make good on our promise. We have kept our
word by referring the issue to the finance committee on which
opposition members sit. As you know, the committee will be
presenting its report before long.
4057
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
I too had the opportunity to attend the rallies that were held in
Calgary and Edmonton this weekend. There were thousands of
voices crying out: ``If you do the crime, do the time''. I know
that does not make sense to the group across the way but it does
represent the voice of millions of Canadians.
What I would like to know is will the Solicitor General
declare a moratorium on paroling violent offenders until
Parliament completes its review of this crucial issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
reviewed the legislation and I do not find anything in it which
gives the Solicitor General the authority to declare a
moratorium on any kind of work done by the parole board in
deciding who may be entitled to a release.
In fact, I ask the hon. member to consider whether he and his
party really want the members of the parole board in their
decisions to be subject to political direction or interference. I do
not think they would really want that on reflection. I do not think
the House would want that. I do not think the public would want
that. In any event, the law does not give the Solicitor General
permission to give the kind of order that he is seeking.
I also want to add that the legislation talks about the
protection of the public as a principle the parole board has to
follow, and protection of the public is certainly the priority of
the government.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose): Mr. Speaker, the first
comment with regard to the fact we cannot do anything is a cop
out. Second, I am really pleased to hear the Solicitor General say
the safety of the people is of utmost importance.
Therefore I urge the Solicitor General to consider this request
carefully. With the parole moratorium for violent offenders
future tragedies will more than likely be prevented. If a
moratorium is not introduced is the Solicitor General prepared
to be held accountable by the people of Canada for needless
tragedies that will certainly occur?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
have already pointed out that the legislation adopted by
Parliament does not give the Solicitor General the authority to
order such a moratorium. It is not a matter of a cop out. It is a
matter of stating what the law says.
However, I have said in the House and outside that it is the
intention of the government to present legislation which will
update and improve the parole and correction system. I look
forward to the support of the hon. member and his party in
expediting that legislation when it comes before the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Many times in this House, the Minister of Human Resources
Development has championed consultation on the fisheries
industry adjustment strategy, especially on the issue of
individual contracts. However, on Saturday, his press secretary
confirmed that the government would no longer require
individual contracts:
[English]
There is really no need for a separate contract.
[Translation]
My question is this: Did the minister not consult with the
unions on the obligation to sign individual contracts, which in
the words of the union president added unnecessary stress and
pressure to the people and that as a result, he had to retreat?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the
hon. member is simply trying to stir a pot in which there is no
tempest. Why try to create a problem when one does not exist?
We are introducing a program of $1.9 billion to assist 30,000
people to get a chance to go back to work and to find new
careers.
(1440 )
Each of those individuals, as part of the process, will sign an
agreement that will commit the Government of Canada to
provide all available resources to help them to be retrained, to
start their own businesses, to develop projects in the
environment, to enhance the fisheries. In return, each of those
individuals commence becoming involved, being an active
participant.
That was a discussion that we started last February with the
provinces. That is a discussion that we had with the unions. That
is the same discussion we had on Friday when an official from
my office met with members of the union and they agreed to the
process.
I do not understand for the life of me why the hon. member is
getting so exercised about something that is clearly agreed to by
all the parties and that will be to the benefit of all those in the
fishing industry of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
4058
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, the Gazette
article to which I referred says that the department dropped the
requirement for individual contracts.
Does the minister admit that his about-face shows that until
the provinces and workers' representatives are really involved
in the decision-making process, he cannot go on claiming that
the social contract is really being renewed?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member I do not
rely on an article in the newspaper for my information. I deal
directly with the people involved.
As a result we get the information right. The right information
is, as I have said previously, that every individual in the fishing
industry in all the provinces involved will be signing an
agreement as part of the overall plan in which they agree to put
their own time and energy to helping themselves develop an
active involvement in the labour market.
In return we provide the resources to help them make those
choices. It is an opportunity of mutual responsibility. It is an
opportunity to develop a way that individuals can work together
with government, with unions and with business in a collective,
co-operative fashion.
Frankly, I do not know the point of the member's question.
When something is working so well, why is she trying to
downgrade it and undermine it?
* * *
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
With the tragic communal strife in Rwanda now transcending
national boundaries, will the minister ask the United Nations
Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali to request the security
council for emergency action under chapter six of the United
Nations charter?
[Translation]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue today with
the US ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, who was
passing through Ottawa. I reminded her that Canada finds it
regrettable that the UN security council did not decide to send a
bigger contingent than that currently in Rwanda to assist
General Dallaire, who is trying to get the parties to agree to a
ceasefire.
I remind the hon. member that on Friday Canada asked the UN
Human Rights Commission to look into the situation in Rwanda
with the utmost urgency and make a series of recommendations
in this regard. Finally, I remind him that Canada made available
to the United Nations and humanitarian organizations two
military planes now in Nairobi that can at any time bring food
and medicine to the afflicted people of Kigali and the
surrounding area.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday the Ontario Association of Police Services Board
said the one-year minimum sentence for using a firearm during
the commission of an offence was no deterrent, describing the
penalty as laughable.
Is the minister prepared to increase the minimum penalty
under section 85 of the Criminal Code or will he continue to deal
with the illegal use of firearms by going after the legitimate gun
owners who have never broken the law in their lives?
(1445 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I have said on many
occasions that in my view the answer must be in both controlling
more strictly those guns that are purchased in Canada and
getting at the problem of weapons in the hands of criminals.
In fact, we have under consideration now in the Department of
Justice the question of whether the penalty under section 85(1)
of the Criminal Code should be increased so that it is a greater
deterrent and more effective.
I have written to my counterparts in the provinces and
territories. I have asked them to urge the crown attorneys in the
courtrooms where these charges are prosecuted to ensure they
are pressed with vigour, that they result in the appropriate
sentences, and that the charges are not dropped as part of plea
bargains or any such arrangements.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the minister appreciates
the problem. If he is going in this direction and if they are
looking at increasing the sentences for the illegal use of guns in
the commission of crimes, when does the minister plan on
introducing legislation that would provide a real deterrent?
When can we expect it to be introduced into this House?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I should think probably in
the autumn of this year, but my letter to the attorneys general of
the provinces should be in their hands shortly.
4059
Not only is this a question of looking at the prospect of
increasing the penalty but as I said, it is also a question of
vigorously enforcing the law that is on the books right now. That
is an important part of the equation as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday, the Minister of
Transport said he delayed his decision concerning MIL Davie
because he wanted to act in the best interest of Magdalen
islanders and he needed MIL Davie's business plan. Yet,
Magdalen islanders did say they wanted a new ferry and the
federal government has had MIL Davie's business plan for a few
weeks.
Now that MIL Davie has met all the conditions set by the
federal government, does the Prime Minister intend to act and
award the contract for building the ferry to MIL Davie, rather
than consider buying a used ship as the daily Le Soleil reported
this morning?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
I am convinced that when the hon. member reads last Friday's
Hansard, he will realize that I never said that the Department of
Transport delayed its decision because it was waiting for MIL
Davie's business plan.
Having said that, however, I must point out that two very
important things are involved here: we must provide an
adequate and safe service between Prince Edward Island and the
Magdalen Islands, and we must solve the problems that MIL
Davie will face at the end of the current contract for the frigates.
We are very aware of what is at stake in both cases, and I want to
assure the hon. member that the business plan submitted is being
scrutinized by the appropriate departments and that we, in the
Department of Transport, have always been prepared to
participate in a solution which would meet both needs, as long as
it is fiscally sound.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime
Minister recognize, as his chief of staff who ran unsuccessfully
for the Liberals in Quebec City did, that the sustainable recovery
of MIL Davie depends on the development and construction of
the multipurpose smart ship? What does his government intend
to do about this high-technology project which would be
suitable for exportation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
as I said, the recovery of MIL Davie depends on a lot of things.
Last week, when I met the Quebec Minister of Industry, along
with my colleague, the federal Minister of Industry, it was
obvious that the situation would be very difficult if the survival
of MIL Davie were to depend solely on the construction of a
ferry and maybe a smart ship sometime in the future. That is one
of the reasons why representatives of both the Quebec and the
federal governments are doing their best to find a logical and
responsible solution which would help to protect jobs at MIL
Davie and provide a ferry service. This is a very complex issue.
(1450)
The matter is under study, but I want the hon. member to
understand that no final decision has been made yet about the
financial contribution of both levels of government, the ferry
operator, and the contracts needed to make the smart ship
construction project a viable initiative.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week the Minister of National Defence told Michel
Cormier, on the public affairs program ``Le Point'': ``Some
ministers are now renting private planes at huge costs to the
departments rather than using the government Challenger jets''.
The minister went on to admit that this practice is not cost
effective and is done simply for appearance.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that his ministers have
chosen the most expensive option imaginable, that is, renting
aircraft while still maintaining the Challenger jets simply to
avoid political pressure?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member cannot have it both ways. She claims that when
a minister gets on board a government plane it costs $20,000 an
hour. She is sticking to that and we are listening to them. If it is
costing that much money, why use it? We are looking into this
issue to make sure the real costs will be known.
When the planes are not being used they still cost money. The
pilots are still there. Reform Party members are so narrow
minded on that and do not want to look at the facts. Now they are
claiming because they are not objective they are causing the
government to spend more money.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, first of all
let us make the Challenger jets for sale. Second, let us all use
commercial airlines.
Since 1985 the government has spent $11 million training 689
technicians to service the Challengers. At the same time
national defence has contracted out $12 million of maintenance
to another firm. When Mr. Cormier added up all the costs of the
Challenger program he confirmed the Auditor General's asser-
4060
tion that the Challengers are almost three times more expensive
than the Prime Minister cares to admit.
When will the Prime Minister stop fooling the Canadian
people about the real costs of the Challenger jets? When will he
accept the Auditor General's suggestion to drastically reduce
the Challenger jet fleet?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we are looking into this matter. There is a committee and the
Auditor General. These planes are made in Canada and the
government uses them. Canada is a vast country. Ministers have
to move around the country if they want to do their jobs.
Because of the irresponsibility of Reform Party members they
do not want to look at the real costs. Even when the plane is in
the garage we pay for the pilot, we pay for the plane, for
everything. When the plane is flying the only other cost is the
fuel, but they say it is costing much more money. That is why we
are not using them. We are looking into that. We will make sure
this is managed better than it was with the previous
administration.
However I hope this group of people will stop spreading lies
because it is not costing-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): They do not want to know
the truth.
The Speaker: Order. I think I heard the right hon. Prime
Minister withdraw. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I had nothing
to add. I simply think that we have a problem and it is under
review right now. We want to find a reasonable solution. We ask
the Reform Party to be reasonable and not to be so
sanctimonious.
The Speaker: I only wanted to make sure that the Right Hon.
Prime Minister had withdrawn the word.
[English]
The right hon. Prime Minister withdrew the word.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the
word I used.
* * *
(1455 )
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Exactly two years ago today, in my riding of Central Nova 26
coal miners were killed in the Westray coal mine explosion. Can
the minister advise this honourable House as to what his
position is regarding the recovery of the remains of the deceased
coal miners still entombed in the mine?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians remember with sorrow
the tragic accident that happened in the Westray mine some two
years ago. As the member knows, many volunteers risked their
lives, albeit unsuccessfully, to try and rescue the lives and later
on the bodies of the miners.
Right now the Government of Canada in conjunction with the
Government of Nova Scotia has hired an expert who is working
on this project. Very soon the results of his study in terms of not
only the remaining deposits in Westray but also the access to the
remaining bodies will be made known to us.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. We learned in April that the
federal government had set up an interdepartmental committee
to study the Mohawk issue, a committee made up of the Minister
of Indian Affairs and four of his Cabinet colleagues, namely the
Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Revenue, the
Minister of Industry and the Solicitor General.
Can the Prime Minister confirm the existence of such a
committee and tell us the exact nature of its mandate and
activities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there is no such official committee. Quite often, our ministers
who work together meet to discuss certain problems, but we
have significantly reduced the number of Cabinet committees in
order to increase efficiency. A committee such as the one to
which the hon. member referred does not officially exist.
However, meetings do take place between ministers who
share common interests and I am happy to see that several
ministers are willing to work together to help us solve the
Mohawk issue.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised to learn that there is no such committee because the
Minister of Indian Affairs said that there would be one. But,
assuming there is such a committee, since we are dealing here
with the Mohawk reserves issue, how can the Prime Minister
justify the fact that no federal minister from Quebec was asked
to sit on that committee or to take part in meetings to discuss
matters under Quebec's jurisdiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said that there was no such committee, so why would ministers
be invited to sit on a non-existent committee? Everybody is
interested in this issue, including myself, who was Minister of
4061
Indian Affairs and Northern Development for a long time. I am
following the situation very closely.
I would like to be able to find a solution that would please
everybody. This is a difficult problem and ministers are working
with the people concerned to find a solution that will hopefully
have the support of all parties. However, there is no committee,
and therefore I cannot be accused of not inviting somebody to sit
on a non-existent committee.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last week the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the
government's appeal of the case involving the E and N Railway
stating that the government had no constitutional obligation to
run the line in perpetuity.
Can the minister advise the people of Vancouver Island if he
now intends to follow through with the earlier Tory decision to
scrap VIA passenger service on the E and N?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
my hon. colleague would know that the decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada simply indicated there was not a constitutional
obligation on the part of VIA to maintain that service. It did not
relate to the continuation of the service; it simply stated there
was no constitutional obligation.
The review of services on Vancouver Island, as is the case
across the country, will depend on what VIA can achieve faced
with its budget constraints and the reality of the level of service
across the country for passengers wishing to use VIA services.
The answer to the question is that VIA in its good time will
assess the viability of that line. Also, I am sure my hon.
colleague knows that any abandonment of VIA service is subject
to cabinet approval.
(1500 )
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the minister for his answer but it is precisely that we on the
west coast and Vancouver Island are trying to get at the facts
here.
Unfortunately the minister's department has refused a
personal request for a copy of the contract between the people of
Canada and CP rail and is now stalling again on our access to
information request for this contract which would give us the
information we need.
Can the minister first explain why the people of Canada are
being denied the right to see how their money is spent? Second,
will he promise to enter into negotiations to turn the line over to
local interests?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
it is going to be very important as we continue with this process
of dealing with rail lines, both freight and passenger across the
country, that people such as my hon. colleague understand what
has to happen.
First of all with respect to this particular situation, we will
have to look and see why there has been any refusal to provide
information that should be available to Canadians. I undertake
to look into that.
As far as the decision on whether VIA should continue to
provide services on Vancouver Island, that is a decision that will
be based on business principles, whether there is sufficient
volume to be able to do it and to ensure that there are alternate
means of travel as is the case when we deal with it right across
the country.
I want to point out to my hon. colleague that there are many
parts of Canada already that do not enjoy VIA passenger
services for all kinds of reasons, usually because those
particular services were found to be too much of a drain on the
Canadian taxpayers who, I have been under the impression since
I came into this place for this session of Parliament, were the
major concern of the members of the Reform Party, to try to treat
the taxpayers as fairly as we can.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Hou Jie, Minister of
Construction for the People's Republic of China.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
4061
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, an act
respecting the making of loans and provision of other forms of
financial assistance to students, to amend and provide for the
repeal of the Canada Student Loans Act, and to amend one other
act in consequence thereof.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
4062
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
stand in the House today in support of the efforts of Debbie
Mahaffy in her quest to have the importation of killer cards
seized at the Canada-U.S. border to stop their distribution in
Canada.
(1505)
I applaud the efforts of the Minister of Justice for tabling his
draft legislation in the House of Commons on April 30, 1994
dealing with serial killer cards and board games.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray
and call upon Parliament to amend the laws of Canada to
prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of
killer cards in law and to advise producers of killer cards that
their products if destined for Canada will be seized and
destroyed.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present this afternoon before the House, under
Standing Order 36(6), a petition calling on the government to
maintain the present exemption on the excise portion of ethanol
for a decade.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4062
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion 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; and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. member for Frontenac
resumes his intervention, I want to tell him that he has four
minutes left.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, I would
not want to sound like a discontented child, but it seems to me
that I had more than four minutes left. I hope you will show
some indulgence if I ever need a few seconds more.
As I was saying earlier, a government is responsible to its
electors first and foremost. Since we are elected by Canadians,
we are responsible to them. If, in addition, we were to be bound
hand and foot by the multinational corporations that are
financing political parties, we would not have much room to
maneuver, especially when the people's interests do not
necessarily go hand in hand with those of the corporations.
If financial considerations did not motivate those who govern,
people would listen with greater attention to explanations of
nebulous situations, as is the case here. Since they know
perfectly well that corporations contribute to the electoral
coffers of political parties, people put their fingers in their ears
and do not want to hear anything. And rightly so, Mr. Speaker,
rightly so.
It is obvious that situations like that would not happen if
people financing political parties were ordinary people, the
electors, not the corporations investing where it is profitable for
them.
At this point, I would like to talk to you about the executive of
the Bloc Quebecois for my riding, under the direction of Éric
Labonté, Vincent Carrier, Raynald Paré and myself. We have
visited or called most of our 2,049 members. Those are the
people financing the Bloc Quebecois in the riding of Frontenac.
As the member for Frontenac, I am accountable to my
constituents who with their donation of $5, $10, $20 and,
exceptionally, $100, will help us collect between $15,000 and
$20,000 for the Bloc Quebecois. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,
that as the member for Frontenac, I owe absolutely nothing to
the multinationals or to our big corporations. I am proud of my
constituents, and I am proud of the members of my party who
help us finance our election expenses.
During the last election campaign, all Bloc Quebecois
members in this House accepted contributions only from
registered voters, not from interest groups or companies.
(1510)
We cannot blame the companies, because their purpose is to
make a profit. However, we have a different situation when we
look at the Liberal government and the groups to whom the
political parties are accountable which are no longer the average
citizen but the big multinationals.
Since this government came to power, it has blamed the
Conservatives for every peccadillo that might hurt the party.
Now it has a chance to shed some light on a number of
questionable procedures and to remedy the situation. Why has
the Liberal government opposite, in the six months it has been in
power, not done that?
Is there more than meets the eye? Is it afraid of a commission
of inquiry that would find out the real reasons behind the
privatization of Pearson airport, the only airport that was
profitable and self-financing? Why did it not privatize the other
airports?
4063
No, they privatized the only one that was making money. As
the farmers in my riding would say, they privatized the best milk
cow. It was easy, you see. They sold the best milk cow to friends
of the government. So they stuffed their pockets at the expense
of the taxpayer.
On the weekend I went to a meeting. There were 47 people
there. The meeting was organized by the regional committee for
the Thetford Mines region and was chaired by Nicole Jacques.
Monsignor Couture, the archbishop of the diocese of Quebec
City, was there, together with local authorities. These included
the industrial commissioner, several mayors and the presidents
of various interest groups in the riding of Frontenac.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how to get Quebec
out of the poverty cycle, and Saturday morning, several speakers
blamed poor management. And we heard the same comment this
afternoon.
There was a question on the trips taken by ministers on
government jets. My constituents wonder how the government
can raise taxes and try to cut assistance to people who,
unfortunately, have to go on welfare or on employment
insurance, while the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, spent
nearly $170,000 of taxpayers money just so he could make a
short ten-minute speech on good management in the public
sector.
People in my riding who live on the poverty line have trouble
understanding this kind of poor management. It does not make
sense that taxpayers have to pay for the government's mistakes.
When the investors signed the contract, the Conservatives were
on their way out. The investors were taking a calculated risk.
Of course, there were Liberals as well as Conservatives
among these investors. As you know, when there a buck to be
made, people often set aside their political allegiance and, just
to make sure they are not on the wrong side, they give to both.
They gave as much to the Liberals as they did to the
Conservatives.
That way, they were guaranteed a place at the public trough.
And you know perfectly well that when an investor gives $1 to a
political party, it is in the hope of getting back not $5, but $100,
$200 or even $1,000. It always sounds strange to me to hear
about the Minister of Justice attending a $1,000 a plate dinner
for 23 guests. Those people do not really pay $1,000. Besides,
none of them earn $25,000 or $30,000.
(1515)
My time is already up, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank you for
giving me a few minutes more since I had been interrupted
before Question Period.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my
colleagues are saying: ``We are in for it''. Indeed, because it is
an amazing not to say an ugly issue.
This is a perfect example of an issue in which government
officials involved have acted in such a way that doubt remains
and will do so forever unless a public inquiry takes place. Doubt
as to the way this whole issue was dealt with. Doubt as to the
dealings which may have occurred behind the curtains, behind
the scenes, under the tables, in places where, unfortunately, the
general public, our constituents, those who elect us are not
allowed.
We would like to be able to speak about government integrity,
about transparency, honesty, justice, fairness of commercial
transactions well conducted, about people who justly and rightly
claim a profit, a transaction. Unfortunately, this transaction
was, I dare say, thrown together in the twilight, in places where
one does not know exactly who had what to gain. One does not
exactly know what was the goal pursued by the previous
government, even less so by the present government.
What is astonishing with that deal-and I will not repeat the
long list of friends of the Conservative government that has
unfortunately grown longer with the list of friends of the Liberal
government-is that the Prime Minister had announced firmly
and clearly during the election campaign his intention to cancel
that contract because, as he put it, it had been reached in an
incorrect fashion and was benefitting friends of the government
of the time. What a noble way to campaign by denouncing a
government that unfortunately had its hands partly tied with
regard to the signature of a contract as important as the
privatization contract of Pearson Airport terminals 1 and 2.
Despite the fact that the Prime Minister had virtuously
announced during the election campaign his intention to review
the whole deal, slowly and gradually friends of this government,
people in the Liberal financial comunity, friends of the Prime
Minister, friends of former colleagues, acquaintances,
``sponsors'' are in direct contact not only with the Prime
Minister but also with ministers of this government. This issue,
which was dominated by Conservative ``sponsors'' who finance
the Conservative Party, is now in the hands of Liberal
``sponsors''.
(1520)
Mr. Speaker, the reasons the Prime Minister gave at one point
for saying that the whole issue of Pearson Airport would be
reviewed and the privatization of the airport would be cancelled
because what had happened in this whole deal was ugly are still
valid today. Nevertheless,-
Mr. Robichaud: Yes, that is what we are doing.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): The member from New
Brunswick says: ``Yes, that is what we are doing.''
Mr. Robichaud: That is what we are doing.
4064
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): Yes. That is what they are doing,
Mr. Speaker, except that a small, a very small clause in this bill
gives the minister in charge all discretionary powers to pay
financial compensation according to his own evaluation of the
harm done to the one losing the contract.
They propose a bill seemingly with the best of intentions, but
if by chance you examine that bill further, if you analyze the
situation thoroughly, you discover some hidden truths that are
not very edifying.
Friends of the Liberals, Liberal lobbyists, friends of the
people in place have taken over that issue and now, beyond
political parties, one can see in the Canadian financial world
that some politically diverging financial interests are
coincidentally linked to the same group of companies, the same
group of persons.
Now the government is asking us to terminate the contract for
Pearson Airport and we want to be part of that, but the way this
cancellation is being done is totally unacceptable. Here we have
an unhoped-for opportunity to pass a law on lobbyists, to clarify
the relationship that should exist between the government and
professional lobbyists who intervene in that kind of case, but the
Prime Minister will not seize it. He had promised a law on that
question, he had promised to clarify the lobbyist issue, but all of
the sudden it is out of the question.
The second thing is that the ministers are giving themselves
an unacceptable discretionary power, which will allow them to
give, from time to time, compensation that they consider
appropriate. We can see that in many different ways. The
minister responsible will be able to decide who deserves
compensation, how much and for what prejudice. This is a much
too general discretionary power, when one considers that the
compensation is going to go to people who are, I remind you,
financing the activities of the party across the floor.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the kind of conflict of interest
situation that minister is going to be in, considering that, for the
survival of his party he must also raise money? He will have to
negotiate on his own-that is without guidelines-and
determine by himself the amount of compensation.
This is unacceptable. I still have a minute, Mr. Speaker. If it is
true that these people are full of good intentions, why is the
government steadfastly refusing a public inquiry on the
circumstances surrounding the Pearson Airport deal? If its
hands are clean, which I am willing to believe, Mr. Speaker,
since I do not assume it is ill-intentioned, if it has good
intentions and did note enough irregularities or faults in that
deal to warrant a bill cancelling the transaction, considering
what it implies, if it is ready to give ministers the discretionary
power to compensate those affected by the cancellation, if the
question of the Pearson Airport is really that serious, there is
only one question remaining: Why does it object to a public
inquiry which would shed light on the whole deal? The question
begs an answer and it is up to the government to give it.
(1525)
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois refuses to support second reading of Bill C-22,
an Act respecting certain agreements concerning the
redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B.
Pearson International Airport, in Toronto. The principle behind
the bill is flawed, because it does not include whatever measures
need to be taken to make the work done by lobbyists more
transparent.
What we have to expose here is the questionable ways some of
the political parties are financed. Except for the Bloc Quebecois
and the Parti Quebecois in Quebec, all individuals and
corporations can currently support political parties.
We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are proud, because we are the only
ones who can claim that all of our financial supporters are
individuals. By relying on $5, $10, $20 or sometimes higher
donations, when we got lucky, we collected the money we
needed to be elected to this House. You have to understand that it
is not illegal to get financial support from big corporations and
even mega-corporations, it is just dangerous. It is so dangerous
in fact that, since April 26, this is all we have been dealing with,
this contract for the privatization of the Pearson Airport in
Toronto. This is a fine example of the secret power lobbyists
have. Thanks to what? Mainly the financing of old political
parties. As the old saying, which still holds true after all these
years, goes: ``Never bite the hand that feeds you''.
That saying applies to all members of this House, including
members of the Bloc. However, with a funding arrangement like
the one our party has, we could never propose transactions such
as the Pearson deal. Why? Because the hand that feeds us is not
the hand of businesses seeking ever higher financial summits,
fearing neither clouds nor turbulence. The hand that feeds us is
that of people who work hard to earn their salary, of unemployed
people who are constantly looking for jobs, of senior citizens
who want to be sure that their old age pension will not be cut and
also of people who stay at home to take care of their children.
The Toronto Pearson airport privatization project puts the
government in what I would call a dangerous position. When I
talk about political party financing, I relate that to Pearson
Airport and also to the Moisie military base in my riding. Six
years ago, in the riding I represent, we experienced a similar
situation which caused quite a stir in this normally quiet area. Of
course, it was on a smaller scale, but we can see that nothing has
changed.
To give you a brief history of what happened then, I will take
you back to 1985, when the government of the day had to close
the military base in Moisie. That closure was very hard on the
4065
local economy because it meant the loss of over 200 military
jobs and of over 40 civilian jobs.
(1530)
The town of Moisie, a small community near Sept-Îles, with
about 1,200 residents at the time, saw its budget cut by 30 per
cent, which is enormous for a small community. That
represented a loss of several millions of dollars for the regional
economy.
In early 1986, the Department of Public Works called for
tenders to dispose of the CFB Moisie as well as seven or eight
other bases at the same time. So representatives of the town of
Moisie and of Public Works Canada sat down together to set
certain criteria. I will list a few of them that had priority, in the
opinion of the town of Moisie.
Job creation was important for us. It was also important to
make sure that the company was financially sound, since a
military base is more or less like a small town. It has absolutely
everything that one could find in any town: bowling alleys,
swimming pools, streets, water and sewer systems, churches,
schools, everything. So it takes a lot of money to buy it and a lot
of money for maintenance. For us, it was important to have a
local developer. And it was important that the project help offset
a long-term loss of earnings for the regional economy.
In the winter of 1987, we finally got down to two developers
who were bidding more or less the same amounts of money, but
it was important for us that the spin-offs in the region be as
interesting as possible. So, the town of Moisie was naturally in
favour of a local developer, whereas the government was in
favour of a developer from elsewhere, described by the office of
the then Prime Minister, who happened to be the member of
Parliament for the riding, as a good friend of the party.
Therefore there was a small struggle about that.
Of course, the town of Moisie did not wield as much power as
the office of the Prime Minister. In the spring of 1987,
negotiations came to a standstill. In the summer of 1987, the
good friend of the party was forced upon the town of Moisie.
That developer promised 35 permanent jobs and 15 seasonal
jobs. What is the situation today, six years later? No permanent
jobs and no seasonal jobs. However, 50 houses were sold for a
net profit of more than one million dollars.
When we go through the data to find out why, at the time, the
Prime Minister's Office and the government insisted so much
for that person to acquire the military base site, we realize that,
during the 1984 election, the developer had provided to the
party's fund $1,500 directly and heaven knows how much
indirectly. That is awful. That has to stop.
Quebec and Canada's taxpayers can no longer afford to favour
to excess good friends of the party at the expense of regional
economic development. With examples such as the Pearson
contract in Toronto and the Moisie military base, it is easy to
imagine how many such dubious transactions there must be,
transactions which, instead of serving those who pay their taxes,
shamefully favour those who, on the contrary, constantly try to
avoid paying them.
Yes, the Pearson transaction must be denounced, but it is not
enough for the government to pass a bill such as Bill C-22 to
pretend that it is doing its job. Pontius Pilate also washed his
hands of the matter. Mature and responsible people will see to it
that a mechanism is put in place to ensure that the real leaders of
the country are those who are democratically elected by the
population, and not those who pull the strings of some elected
officials that are too well placed.
The Bloc Quebecois says no. We want a royal commission to
get to the bottom of this obscure matter. The Canadian people
have the right to know all about the hidden side of that affair and
the role that lobbyists played and continue to play with the
government.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne): Mr. Speaker, several
questions remain unanswered regarding Bill C-22, an act
respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment
and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson
International Airport. The thorough study of this bill and the
privatization agreement entered into at Pearson airport are very
important to us, since it has become such a controversial matter.
(1535)
This bill contains blatant contradictions with the
commitments made by the Liberals during the campaign. They
seem to have forgotten their commitment about restoring the
confidence of citizens in the political institutions, even though
they wrote an entire chapter on the subject in the red book. We
are confused by their attitude. Therefore, we believe it is
relevant to remind them of the promise they made to Canadians
during the last campaign, which is, and I quote: ``A Liberal
government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence
in the institutions of government''. And further, they wrote, and
I quote: ``We will follow the basic principle that government
decisions must be made on the merits of a case rather than
according to the political influence of those making the case. We
will take an approach of openness in decision making''. To win
public confidence, you need to take some concrete measures but
unfortunately the population is still waiting.
Clause 10 of Bill C-22 gives the minister in charge the
discretionary power to sign agreements in order to pay
compensation pursuant to the legislation. Furthermore, we are
told no compensation will be paid for paper profits that never
materialize or for lobbying. How can the public be certain such
compensation payments will be made according to the
legislation and be entirely free of any favouritism? Just from
looking at it, and without investigating any further, one can see
that this case reeks of political manipulation; we are not the ones
to say
4066
so, it is the opinion of the Nixon report author who had neither
the resources nor the time to complete a comprehensive inquiry.
That is why we maintain that the only way to ensure
transparency in this case is to form a royal commission of
inquiry which would shed light on the whole issue. The Minister
of Transport himself said, as quoted in La Presse of last
November 29, that the federal government intended to form a
royal commission of inquiry on the privatization of the Pearson
airport. Unfortunately, the government did not follow up on that
project which, need I remind you, would be essential to the
demonstration of proper public funds management. What do
Liberals want to hide? We cannot remain idle in front of such an
attitude. Where is the promised transparency? What happened to
the noble Liberal promise?
A royal commission of inquiry remains the only efficient way
to bring things up to date in this case which has all the makings
of a scandal. Illegal acts must be brought out in the open. Why
are the Liberals not taking any action? Whom do they want to
protect? Why not follow up on their project to establish an
inquiry commission? Such a commission could bring out in the
open illegal or unacceptable actions. In such cases, it would not
be necessary for the minister to pay compensation. In other
words, section 10 of Bill C-22 would be irrelevant. One must
also keep in mind paragraph 8.6.3 of the contract.
We are speaking now about public funds, about the taxpayers'
money. We cannot stand idle while the government refuses to
act. As the Minister of Transport said so eloquently in his speech
of April 26 about the Pearson Airport privatization, and I quote:
``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''. Which process could be more
open and accessible than a royal commission of inquiry? How do
the Liberals plan to shed light on this deal?
Regarding compensation, Bill C-22 seems to make an
exception of lobbying. If I may, I want to remind the House that
lobbying services are already tax deductible.
(1540)
Therefore, taxpayers already paid part of the expenses
supported by the companies which used such services. Nobody
should be conned into believing that the shell games, all too
common in this case, will not cost a penny to taxpayers. On the
contrary, all the political connections that came to the fore lead
us to predict that there will be much waste of public funds.
There are more than Conservative lobbyists and key figures
involved in this. There are also lobbyists and money-men for
the other big party, as it likes to be called. Clearly, this deal was
put together by people from the two rival parties. If the minister
exercises his discretionary power it will cast a dark shadow on
the government and this House. Without a royal commission of
inquiry Quebecers and Canadians will never be certain of the
integrity of their government. This is a far cry from the openness
the Liberal Party promised the people.
Moreover, without a commission, it is quite possible that
innocent people could be painted with the same brush as the
others. The fact that the government refuses to shed light on this
affair will tarnish the reputation of all the people involved. The
government cannot act like nothing happened, like it did not
have any suspicion regarding the integrity of some of the
stakeholders. A public inquiry would restore, among ordinary
citizens, confidence in the honesty of the system.
To conclude, I wish to underline the controversy which
surrounds this whole affair. True, friends of the previous
government are involved, but some people very close to the
present government have also a hand in this sordid mess.
Quebecers and Canadians have the right to get to the bottom of
this saga. That would be transparency, not the kind we talk about
but the kind we live everyday of our lives; the kind people
expect of their elected representatives and that would help
restore people's confidence in their government.
Quebecers and Canadians are tired of playing games with
their governments. It is their money which is at stake. Let us put
an end to political manoeuvring and dirty tricks, whether real or
apparent. People have the right to know. It is fundamental. A
democratic country, which takes pride in its Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, cannot afford to put a lid on this whole thing. The
only way to get to the bottom of the Pearson Airport
privatisation deal is to order a royal commission without further
delay. In view of the fact that voter confidence for their elected
representatives is the cornerstone of democracy, it is
unacceptable to allow the minister in charge to pay any
compensation as long as all the ins and outs of this deal have not
been made public through an independent and impartial process.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, on May
3, the House of Commons rejected the amendment of the Reform
member for Simcoe Centre.
Although my colleagues in this House made this decision, I
will now try to convince them to pass the amendment proposed
by the Leader of the Official Opposition, whereby a royal
commission of inquiry would shed light on the circumstances
surrounding the signing of the contract between the government
and T1 T2 Limited Partnership.
As I pointed out in my last speech, Bill C-22 contains 12
clauses. We find it impossible to agree with one in particular,
namely Clause 10(1) authorizing the Governor in Council to pay
T1 T2 Limited Partnership such amounts as considered
appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this act,
subject to the terms and conditions considered appropriate.
4067
When I say I cannot agree with clause 10(1), I am also
confident that the people I represent would not agree with a
party refusing to shed light on disturbing facts, when the Liberal
Party of Canada claims to be transparent and to protect the
interests of taxpayers.
(1545)
The Liberal Party of Canada now in office made the decision
to cancel the privatization of Pearson Airport because it knew
the facts that led the former Conservative government to sign
this agreement.
Most of these facts have been confirmed by the Nixon report.
This government is also aware that it did not give the Nixon
commission enough time to uncover all the facts behind this
peculiar decision by the Conservative government.
They still uncovered enough to allow the current government
to end the scandal and give back to the Canadian people an asset
that belonged to them.
Why would the Liberal government now spoil things by
granting an organization compensation for losses and damages
that are not clearly identified? Why would it refuse the public
the right to know how lobbyists acted, people who we rightly
thought we were getting rid of along with the Conservative
government? Why would it assume the right to distribute our tax
money to an organization that may have no legal right to it?
Although the Prime Minister thinks that he is still popular, he
can be sure that he will lose his popularity, what remains of it, if
he takes this action that is fraught with consequences. We will
not be shy about reminding the people that this government
refused to allow a royal commission of inquiry in order to hide
from the people the doings of the former Conservative
government and perhaps of some lobbyists close to the Liberals
now in power.
This is in order to protect the friends of the Conservative
regime, which could lead people to believe that the two
traditional parties have the same friends. We will not be shy
either about letting the people know the reasons for which the
Leader of the Official Opposition called for such an inquiry.
They are numerous and I will give some:
First, the present government itself administers the Toronto
airport through the Department of Transport, instead of
entrusting it to a non-profit organization, as in Montreal,
Calgary, Vancouver and Edmonton, where the managing
authorities are made up of community representatives who are
therefore able to defend their interests.
I give the Montreal airports authority as an example. It
administers Montreal's two airports and its board is made up of
seven representatives of the business community, who are also
on the board of the corporation that promotes Montreal's
airports, SOPRAM.
The eighth member is the chairman and chief executive
officer of Montreal airport authorities. It is also interesting to
note that SOPRAM is a non-profit organization, whose 21
members are appointed by the following: the City of Montreal,
the City of Laval, the conference of suburban mayors, the
Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain, the Board of
Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the corporation for promoting
Mirabel airport (COPAM), the Société montérégienne de
développement (SMD), and the City of Longueuil. This
representation ensures that the Montreal airport authorities have
an approach which is sensitive to local interests, and which is
deep-rooted in business.
Second, we are asking for a commission of inquiry because,
on reviewing the Nixon report, we noted that the time frame for
the call for tenders was surprisingly short, namely 90 days,
which made it impossible for groups not already involved in the
management of the airport, as Claridge and Paxport were, to
come up with a competitive bid. That explains why only two
bids were received. Indeed, Paxport had already submitted a
privatization proposal in 1989, which it had had to withdraw,
and Claridge was operating terminal 3.
Third, why was the contract signed on October 3, 1993, in the
midst of the election campaign, and after the chief negotiator
expressed reservations and demanded written instructions
before signing?
Fourth, what was the precise role played by lobbyists, and
whom did they approach? Fifth, how much did Canadians have
to pay for this hasty decision, and who benefited from it? Sixth,
why did the Conservative government want to privatize Pearson
Airport considering that it is the most profitable airport in
Canada?
(1550)
Seventh, why did the government allocate T1 T2 Limited
Partnership a rate of return of 24 per cent before taxes, and 14
per cent after taxes?
Eighth, why does the Nixon Report recommend no
compensation for lost opportunities and lobbyists' fees? Did
Mr. Nixon uncover even more irregularities than we know of?
Ninth, what was the role of some stakeholders with close ties
either to the Conservative Party or to the Liberal Party of
Canada?
4068
Tenth and last reason-but more could be found-why this
Liberal government did not include in Bill C-22 a clause
authorizing the transfer of the Pearson Airport management to a
non-profit corporation?
These are a few of the reasons why a royal commission of
inquiry is required, to make an informed decision. It is essential
that this commission show clearly the impact lobbyists have had
in this matter. It will look into the costs to the public purse,
employment implications in the greater Toronto area and impact
on transportation in Canada in particular.
These are but a few of the reasons we will clearly set out to the
people to make them realize this government should have
allowed a royal commission of inquiry to be held if it was
rejecting the amendment put forward by the Official Opposition.
The House will notice, based on the evidence provided, what a
far-reaching decision the federal government has made in
cancelling the privatization contract and putting back in the
hands of the people of Canada the control of one of the means of
transport essential to Canadian industry and economic
development.
As I said earlier, and I am saying it again, let us not spoil the
whole business by paying compensation to friends of the
regime. Instead, let us invest that money in the transport
industry, whether air, rail or water transport. And I am quoting
examples of which the Minister of Transport will approve, I am
sure.
The Jean Lesage International airport is in dire need of
financial support to be international in more than name only.
Over the last few months, our party has asked several times in
this House that the radar control facility at the Quebec City
airport remain in operation and serve as a back up for Montreal's
system, in case of a breakdown. Moreover, Quebec City airport
needs investments to improve its infrastructure and adequately
serve our provincial capital which, we hope, will host the Winter
Olympic Games in 2002.
The marine transport sector would also be pleased to receive
the compensation which the government is about to pay to T1 T2
Partnerships and use it to have a safe ferry built by the best
people in the trade, MIL Davie's employees, in Lauzon, for the
proud Magdalen islanders. This compensation could also be
used to build the so-called ``smart ship'', which would do so
much for MIL Davie's recovery, while also helping Canada to
fulfill its role in international peacekeeping missions.
Also, I cannot help but mention again what would be the
greatest achievement, namely the construction of a high speed
train line. Given the statement made by VIA Rail's president, I
am convinced that he would gladly accept that compensation to
launch this prestigious project. The Minister of Transport is
delaying his answer by arguing that he is consulting with the
provinces and that a report will be tabled in June. Does the
minister intend to wait until the House recesses for the summer?
It would be unacceptable if the elected representatives of this
House did not make a decision on a project of that magnitude.
We do hope that we misread the minister's intentions and that a
bill will be tabled in early June.
I will conclude by discussing the amendment proposed by the
Leader of the Opposition to Bill C-22, and by reminding hon.
members of the importance of the vote which will be taken in a
few hours. If we are to keep some level of credibility-and I do
say ``some'' level of credibility, since Canadians are more and
more losing confidence in their politicians, as I am told during
the week-ends, while I am working in my riding, by my
constituents who say that, from what they can see on television,
the House of Commons proceedings are turning into a real circus
and politicians are no longer credible-we must show that we
are not afraid of transparency and do everything we can to make
our work more transparent. What better than an unbiased royal
commission of inquiry to do so? This is the kind of initiatives
that will allow us to govern with the support of the people when
we have tough choices to make.
(1555)
Even with a majority in the House, the government cannot
afford to dismiss the fair demands made by the Official
Opposition, because its popularity rating outside Quebec could
melt away like snow and turn into an angry outcry the Liberal
government will remember for a long time.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): You can be sure, Mr.
Speaker, that I am pleased to speak for the second time on Bill
C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the
redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B.
Pearson International Airport, in Toronto.
The Pearson Airport is the biggest airport in Canada, with 20
million passengers yearly, that is some 57,000 daily. It occupies
1,792 hectares, includes three terminals and employs 15,000
people. Some 800 aircraft land every day at Pearson and take off
for 300 destinations in 60 foreign countries. This is the only
Canadian airport that can be considered a true crossroads.
According to a 1987 Transport Canada study, Pearson has a $4
billion direct economic impact on the economy of the province
of Ontario and was directly and indirectly responsible for over
56,000 Ontario jobs. It is by any estimation more than the sum of
its parts or the total of its assets and liabilities. It is a critical
national gateway and a hub service to travellers, families and
shippers. It cannot be duplicated by any other facility in the
area, indeed the province or the country, although Vancouver is
getting there and Montreal has the potential. This combination
of its economic and social importance to the region, the
province and the country, and the fact that it is a unique service
for which there is no alternative, transforms the airport, in my
opinion, from a simple transportation facility into one of the
most important public assets in the southern Ontario and
Canadian economy.
4069
After all the speeches we in the Official Opposition made on
the subject, you surely know that our biggest reservation about
the bill, indeed our strong protest, relates to clause 10, which
reads as follows:
10.(1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Minister may, with
the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements on behalf of Her
Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers
appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this Act, subject to the
terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.
That is the problem. You also know by now that the opposition
supports the cancellation of this shocking contract because there
are many reasons to do so. What convinced me, I must say in all
humility, is the Nixon report that I read in full several times. I
understood why Mr. Nixon, Liberal as he is-and an honourable
man, close to the circles we are talking about, including the
Prime Minister's friends-because of his fairness and his sense
of responsibility, had no choice but to talk about ``manoeuver''.
A careful reading of his report shows why he used such strong
language. In Webster's New World Dictionary, ``manoeuver'' is
defined thus:
To manipulate or scheme.
So this is indeed strong language.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House some
excerpts from the report that are very informative and illustrate
the cloudy, obscure and shocking nature of this affair.
As we in the Official Opposition have repeated on many
occasions, we need a royal commission of inquiry to determine
whether or not there were shady dealings involved.
For example, on page 5, there is a short paragraph that gives
us a hint on the scheming. Scheming is the common thread that
runs through the entire Nixon Report. Let me quote the
following paragraph:
In the calculation of gross revenue (on which rent will be based), there are 10
deductions which I am advised are unusual in commercial transactions.
(1600)
Mr. Nixon also goes on to say that T1 T2 Limited Partnership,
which would oversee the airport's administration, is a multiple
rather than a sole purpose corporation.
According to Mr. Nixon:
The lease does not restrict the freedom of T1 T2 Limited Partnership to carry
out an undertaking other than the management, operation and maintenance of
Terminals 1 and 2. Therefore, the financial health of T1 T2 Limited Partnership
could be adversely affected by the financial failure of a venture which has
nothing to do with the management, operation and maintenance of Terminals 1
and 2.
With respect to passenger traffic, the report states the
following:
The Government of Canada undertakes not to permit development of any
airport facility within 75 km of the T1 T2 complex that would reduce passenger
traffic at Pearson by more than 1.5 million persons per year, until the volume of
passenger traffic at Pearson reaches 33 million people per year. Present
projections predict this number to be reached by approximately the year 2005. If
the Government of Canada chooses to engage in such proscribed development-
The scheming is clear, as is the understanding between those
who are close to and exert undue influence on the government.
Another interesting and revealing point is worth citing:
About the end of September 1993, T1 T2 Limited Partnership represented to
the Government that it had entered into 10 contracts with non-arms length
parties-
therefore parties with ties to the project, Mr. Speaker-
-prior to October 7, 1993. One of these was said to be a construction
management agreement with Matthews Construction. This information was not
publicly disclosed.
We must know that Matthews is directly involved. It is a party
to the whole deal and closely linked to Paxport's operations. It
goes on to say:
After permitting the privatization of Terminal 3 at Pearson, the process to
privatize Terminals 1 and 2, the remainder of the largest airport in Canada, is
inconsistent with the major thrust of the policy of the Government of Canada
announced in 1987.
It is under this policy that the government rejected the offer
made in 1989-90 by the same players. Time and undue influence
having done their job, the government showed a great deal of
interest in 1993, and we know what happened.
Another very important finding of the Nixon report concerns
the proposal submission time frame:
The RFP having as it did only a single stage and requiring proponents to
engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90
day time frame-
As we know, even with a $700 million investment, people
have only 90 days to decide. I now continue with the quote:
-created, in my view, an enormous advantage to a proponent-
namely Paxport. That is what I call scheming, Mr. Speaker. Mr.
Nixon goes on to say:
-that had previously submitted a proposal for privatizing and developing
T1 and T2.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, given everything surrounding this
deal, we are surprised, first, that the report itself does not make
that suggestion and, second, that the Prime Minister and the
Liberal Party, despite all its claims to transparency in the red
book, did not do it. A royal commission of inquiry must be set up
to shed light on this shocking event that, in my opinion, brings
shame to Canada and its institutions.
4070
I remind my friends opposite that the Liberal red book
emphasizes in several places the need to restore people's trust in
their government by making it more transparent. Disturbing
facts in this case lead us to question the transparency of the
Liberal government and the previous government as well as the
legitimacy of any decision to compensate the businesses
involved. The Lobbyists Act is a key element of this
transparency. I will close by quoting an excerpt from chapter 6
of the red book dealing with the question of transparency and
lobbying:
The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the
citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in
society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be
restored.
(1605)
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, during the
last election campaign which led to the formation of this
Parliament, our government colleagues travelled across the
country waving their philosophy manual, better known as the
red book. Making all kinds of promises in their speeches, our
colleagues were particularly keen on promising all Quebecers
and Canadians that a Liberal government would restore integrity
to our political institutions-red book, chapter 6.
The essence of that promise was a formal commitment to
giving our country a government that would be more
transparent, a government that would not play cat and mouse
with taxpayers, a government made up of people who would
preach by example and give back to Canadians the confidence
they had lost in their elected representatives. I heard the Prime
Minister make that kind of statement in a formal tone that would
leave absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind. I heard him say
very convincingly that his government would clean up the way
politics are played in our country and would stay away from all
the questionable practices that we had grown accustomed to
under the Conservative government.
Now, it seems to me that the Pearson airport privatization deal
is a golden opportunity for the government to follow up on its
election promises. The influence exerted by friends of the
government in this deal gives the present government the chance
to fulfil its commitments. If it does not seize this opportunity
right now, does that mean that it will not keep the promises of
integrity and transparency made during the election campaign?
Why is the government refusing to get to the bottom of this
matter? If we have any respect for taxpayers, we have to tell
them how their money is spent, who makes the decisions and in
whose interest. If we do not agree, and rightly so, on a matter
such as the Pearson Airport deal, we have to say why we do not.
If we fear that there have been some shady dealings, we should
not avoid the subject.
On the contrary, we have to face up to it so that leniency does
not resurface in the future and we do not fall into the same traps.
Quebecers and Canadians have the right to know about this, not
just a small part of it, from a government that refuses to talk
about it and is quick to evade its responsibilities by trying to ram
through Bill C-22. We have to get right to the bottom of this
matter through a genuine commission of inquiry and leave it to
the House to determine, after the inquiry, whether compensation
is appropriate or not.
I am rising in this House to tell you so because, as members of
Parliament, we have to denounce the actions of some members
of the political class of this country. More particularly, we have
to denounce the quasi-incestuous practices that are part of the
culture of persons who daily try to influence government
decisions.
Using every lever at their disposal, from childhood
friendships to favours done, right through electoral organizing
and political party financing, these persons contribute to trade
public interest for private good and, sadly, contribute to relegate
the role of duly elected Parliamentarians to a position of
secondary importance. I rise therefore in this House with this
bitter aftertaste left by Bill C-22, by the nebulous aspect of the
Pearson Airport privatization matter that seems to involve
lobbyists, politicians, former officials and friends of the
government.
The investigation into the Pearson airport issue should not be
restricted to the debate on Bill C-22. The government is making
a mistake by refusing to go to the bottom of this issue. By simply
repressing the whole matter and granting under clause 10
generous compensation payments that it wants to set as it
pleases behind closed doors and without consultation with
parliamentarians, is the government revealing the real truth to
the Canadian people and the Quebec people, a truth which is
quite different from what we read in the red book about a code of
ethics and lobbyists? Have the powerful lobbyists that hound the
government already managed to change its mind? I hope not.
The government is faced here with a perfect situation where it
can demonstrate its good will, propose a new way of dealing
with government business, and restore in the population a
minimum of trust for the political class.
(1610)
At a time when all surveys and opinion polls indicate that
people mistrust and have little respect for their political leaders,
should we not face the old demons that dwell in the back rooms
of government and give the people what it wants, that is
openness and the simple, plain truth? The Pearson airport issue
is the perfect opportunity for that exercise, and I am sure that
with a free vote, all members would act acording to their
4071
conscience and lean towards openness, parliamentary
legitimacy and restriction of ambitions.
It is the government's duty to launch a public inquiry into the
privatization of the Pearson airport. If it refuses to do so, it will
be remiss in its duty, it will break its electoral commitments and
pardon the ways of the Conservatives in order to better follow
them. Quite clearly, the only thing that will have changed is a
few of the people at the trough.
I would like to give you a little bit of background, Mr.
Speaker. Mr. Nixon wrote in his report that the Pearson airport
privatization is an obvious example of political manipulating,
improprieties and manoeuvering. Whence the importance, if we
have nothing to hide or to protect, of fully examining this matter
so that it can serve as an example and ensure that such a situation
does not happen again.
In 1987, when the federal government announced a new
management policy for Canadian airports, it did so mainly to
involve local authorities in airport affairs and sites
development. Such was the case for Vancouver and Montreal,
among others, where non-profit organizations manage airport
installations. In Toronto, however, things were quite different.
Is it because Pearson Airport was Canada's most profitable
airport? In this era of sacro-sanct economic liberalism, why let
the government manage a profitable facility when there are so
many that are not profitable within its reach?
Far from protecting the public interest, the transaction
occurred right in the middle of an election campaign to the
benefit of the only two bidders, two former competitors now
united to make a profit. Paxport Inc., whose bid was selected by
the government without any financial analysis, could not get
enough money to complete the transaction for terminals 1 and 2.
Paxport Inc. joined with Claridge Inc., which already controlled
terminal 3, through the Pearson Development Corporation. This
alliance was sealed in the T1 T2 Limited Partnership. And there
you have it. Pearson Airport, a very profitable airport, was
completely privatized in the hands of the same group.
We in the Official Opposition are not attempting to launch a
witch hunt or to bring back the rules of the Grand Inquisition.
We simply want to get right to the bottom of the issue and
regulate certain types of questionable practices that have no
place in our parliamentary system.
When we analyse the disturbing facts referred to in the Nixon
Report, we cannot just forget about this issue, as the government
is doing with Bill C-22.
In his report, Mr. Nixon refers to political manipulation,
which is a serious observation. Are we going to keep moving in
that direction and give the minister, under section 10, a blank
cheque for the payment of compensations as he sees fit to do?
The Nixon report shows that lobbyists in the financial
community really tried to take us all for a ride, taxpayers of
Quebec and Canada, in that project. Are we going to help them
do it again?
(1615)
No, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers have already paid too much
and moreover, they must know why. Therefore, we must reject
Bill C-22 and quickly set up a royal commission of inquiry.
[English]
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, finally I am rising after many
months on a point of order that has to do with references made
by hon. members in the Bloc Quebecois to Canada and to
Quebec as separate entities.
In fairness, I do understand the wish of the Bloc to separate
from Canada. However it is also not permitted in the House for
members to indicate any information which they know is not
true or is somehow misleading.
I would therefore simply ask the Chair if it would please rule
on whether Canada in fact includes Quebec today and whether
the language the member has used is in fact inappropriate in the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if you
intend to rule on this matter, I would appreciate it if you would
also give us some indication of how we should behave and what
words we should use in the House, because I would like to know
whether it is wrong to mention the words Canada and Quebec.
Does this mean, Mr. Speaker, that in this House, we can no
longer use the word Quebec? If that is the case, let us be frank
and forthright about it. If the hon. member wants us to stop
talking about Quebec in this House, he should say so. I am not
saying we will change, but at least we will know what he thinks.
The Deputy Speaker: I see I will have to watch what I say in
both languages.
[English]
It is very evident that one can get up and refer to Alberta and
Canada or Quebec and Canada and certainly the Speaker will
never rule that a member cannot use whichever language he or
she chooses to use.
[Translation]
So this is a matter for debate, and I respect the hon. member's
sincerity in making his point, but I think it is quite clear that in
this House we have the right to use the term that was used.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, Bill C-22 is part of the pendulum process which has
become a tradition with successive governments. The
Conservatives privatize, and the Liberals deprivatize. Each step
costs the Treasury money and provides goodies for a few
friends. The bill before the House today says that the Minister of
Transport will play Santa Claus, but it does not offer any
information on the
4072
kind of management the government is planning for Pearson
airport. Will it be a local authority? A crown corporation? The
Department of Transport? Who knows!
Without wishing to take sides, I can say that the management
of Montreal Airport by a local authority has proved satisfactory.
Aéroports de Montréal is the name of the corporation which has
been responsible for the management of Dorval and Mirabel
since 1989.
Originally, we had the Société de promotion des aéroports de
Montréal, also known as SOPRAM. This advisory body, created
in 1987, consists of 21 members belonging to seven
organizations in the community, including municipalities and
chambers of commerce. Each organization delegates one elected
representative, one permanent member and one person from the
business community. The seven members of the business
community constitute the Board of Directors.
For instance, among the seven organizations that are
represented, we find the Corporation de promotion à Mirabelle,
also known as COPAM, which represents the interests of the
region north of the Rivière des Milles-Îles, where my riding is
located. COPAM consists of representatives of development
corporations, chambers of commerce, municipal counsellors,
and so forth. Thus, the ``Aéroports de Montréal'' corporation,
the ADM, is the leader, at the top of a pyramid where the base is
largely made up of all decision-makers and development
officers of the sector. That original structure ensures perfect
representativeness of the board of directors and the integration
of regional development issues into the organisation's
objectives.
(1620)
There is also a local airport authority in Vancouver and
Calgary. Some good minds think that the same formula could
apply to ports, the port of Montreal among others.
ADM must however deal with the major problem of the two
Montreal airports, Dorval and Mirabel. There is no rapid link
between the two that would ensure quick transit for passengers
and freight. Quebec freeway 13 which was supposed to be the
main link was never completed; it is still 13 kilometres short.
In March 1988, Quebec and Ottawa had agreed to share the
costs of completing the freeway, which came to a total of $78
million at that time. With a bit of nostalgia I read yesterday an
article which appeared during those days in the Voix des
Mille-Îles, a regional paper.
It said:
All the members of Parliament of our region were thrilled at things moving
again on that project because the completion of the freeway will no doubt have
positive impacts on the regional economy.
I stop here the reference to that 1988 article. In any case, since
then, nothing has happened, Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. It
still takes 40 minutes to go from Dorval to Mirabel on four
different highways and freeways. This is what humorists call
cost-effective federalism.
In spite of this handicap, last year, ADM made an estimated
net profit of around $25 million. The company accounts for
43,000 direct and indirect jobs. The economic spin-offs are
$2.73 billion.
Spurred on by this example, and in spite of the recession,
regional dynamism has led to the creation of new industries and
new jobs. Given the present sad state of the economy, this is
nothing short of remarkable. One of these new industries is a
fencing company, Bolar Inc.; its president, Mr. Lazare, listed
Mirabel International Airport as one of the factors which
weighed in favour of locating in the Blainville industrial park,
just a few minutes from Mirabel.
Of course, industries involved with air transportation are well
advised to locate near a major airport. Cases in point are
Aerospace Welding, a specialist in the production of engine
parts and exhaust systems, and the well-known Air Transat,
which are both situated in my riding, near Mirabel.
Light industries, such as high-tech firms, which are the
leading edge of the economy, also seek to locate near
well-managed airports. For instance, Dowty Aerospace
manufactures electronic equipment in Mirabel. DLGL, which
recently moved to Blainville, specializes in human resource
management software. Teknor manufactures computer
components in Boisbriand. Multimeg, also in Boisbriand,
produces electronic controls. In Saint-Eustache, Électromed
manufactures X-ray generators for hospitals in Paris and
Strasbourg. Triton, a firm which produces electronic equipment,
is also located in Saint-Eustache.
Other industries, which export most of their production, have
moved there recently. For example, Lumec from Boisbriand
which assembles lighting systems sells abroad most of its
production. We could go on and on naming the companies
which, with the help of development corporations, industry
commissions and municipalities, have chosen to locate in our
area because of its exceptional qualities, most notably the
airports of Mirabel and Dorval.
However, an international airport is also dependent on other
things, and its development, and the development of the
surrounding area, is tied to the air route policy of the
government. In this regard we are not much favoured.
4073
Can we expect that once the government has dealt with the
Conservative legacy, it will move to give the country an air
transport policy?
(1625)
The other countries did not stay idle. Well aware of the
growing importance of the quality of the airline network for the
competitiveness of a country, the United States began to build
super-airports. In Europe, just to give you an example, the
Dutch airport of Schipol is going to undergo a remarkable
structure development project which will enable it to become
one of the most important transportation hubs in the world.
Meanwhile, we are quietly debating deprivatization.
That incredible lack of vision of the government, its stubborn
determination to remain down-to-earth in the development of
policies can be felt in the railroad sector. These days, England
and France are celebrating, in euphoria, the opening of the
railway tunnel linking them together. England and Belgium are
starting to build the high-speed trains that will link them to that
tunnel. In the United States, Amtrak is getting new equipment
and four HSTs are under review or under construction. And what
are we doing meanwhile?
Our government is reviewing with solicitude the umpteenth
study on the implementation of a HST in the Quebec-Windsor
corridor that might create 120 000 jobs for many years. One can
measure its high level of creativity by looking at its
infrastructure program which is necessary, of course, but which
is not likely to make Canada one of the most outstanding and
innovative countries in the world at the end of this century.
Bill C-22 is perfectly in line with the wheeling and dealing
policy which lacks grandeur and vision and which is the earmark
of this government. I will vote against this bill.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I had started to give the chronology of events
surrounding the Pearson affair during the debate on the
amendment to the amendment. As I did not have time to finish, I
will take the opportunity that is offered by this debate on the
amendment to continue with that analysis.
We are asking for a royal commission of inquiry, and I think
that no one can explain better than Robert Nixon why we must
ask for such a commission. Mr. Nixon tells us, and I quote:
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.
One cannot speak more clearly, particularly when one sees
that the political manipulation does not come from supporters of
only one party. There were two colours in that manipulation,
blue and red.
With such words, those of Mr. Nixon, the government cannot
justify compensating people who tried to take advantage of
these irregularities without first shedding some real light on the
whole matter, and the way to do that is to have a commission of
inquiry look into it.
And I still quote Mr. Nixon, because he held an inquiry,
without however giving himself the means to ultimately
intervene. He says to us:
Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in this agreement
and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion.
Not with our friends opposite, but in general. And Mr. Nixon
goes on:
Where the Government of Canada proposes to privatize a public asset, in my
opinion, transparency should be the order of the day. The public should have the
right to know the full details of the agreement.
That is on page 11 of the Nixon report. That is why we are
asking for a commission to allow us to know the full details.
At the beginning of his mandate, when he had just been
appointed, in November 1993, the Minister of Transport told us
that he was considering the establishment of a royal commission
of inquiry into the Pearson Airport privatization. But he only
considered it. He did not make a decision. He was won over, on
the advice of his party and following discussions, I guess, with
more experienced colleagues of his, who had been ministers
longer than him in their days and no doubt told him that, as a
minister, one must not think too much. And when it comes to
acting, one has to act correctly, meaning not to make decisions
that could reveal facts which could prove incriminating for
some secret contributors to the party's campaign coffers.
If we go back to 1986, Mr. Don Mazankowski, who was
Minister of Transport at the time, had appointed a task force to
examine alternatives for the management of Pearson Airport.
The report tabled in 1986 stated, and I quote:
(1630)
[English]
``The prime objective of enhancing the airport's relationship
with the local economy could not sufficiently be ensured under
private sector management. The task force does not consider the
private sector option a viable alternative''.
[Translation]
The task force rejected the private sector option for the
management of the airport. Why then did the Conservative
government of the day, just before an election, in the midst of an
election campaign, say an agreement had been reached and
Pearson Airport would be privatized?
4074
Now we are stuck with that irresponsible decision, denounced
by the Liberals, who were in opposition back then and wanted to
get right to the bottom of the matter. It sounds like they are not
prepared to dig as deep now, not right to the bottom. We are
asking that they keep the commitments they made during the
election campaign. After all, that was not so long ago.
The year after the 1986 task force report was tabled, the
Conservative government proceeded with the first call for
tenders concerning Terminal 3 at Pearson Airport. Internal
documents submitted last August to former Prime Minister
Campbell described the risks associated with this transaction, in
particular the increase in the fees to be paid by carriers and the
fact this could result in substantial loss of income to the
taxpayers.
In these documents, legal advisors indicated the exact
make-up of the partnership in question was not known. It is
disquieting to think the federal government would go ahead with
a privatization plan without having all the facts at hand. It is
even more disquieting to see the government which denounced
the situation back in the days it was in opposition now refuse to
get right to the bottom of the matter.
In September 1990, the federal government announced that it
would privatize terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson Airport, while the
civil service was negotiating the establishment of public bodies
to manage airports in many parts of Canada, like Montreal.
After terminal 3 opened, the bureaucrats realized that the airport
was half empty and concluded that not only was privatizing
terminals 1 and 2 questionable, but that the whole expansion
project was anything but urgent.
What is not necessarily pressing in normal times can become
urgent just before an election when people have contributed to
the election fund. I suppose that it became very urgent when the
Conservatives realized that they would no longer be on the
government side of the House, although they did not think that
they would not be on this side of the House either.
So senior officials used their contacts then to promote an
option. That is what specialists on lobbying call the revolving
door: officials leave the public service to sell their connections
and contacts. I am thinking of Ramsay Withers. A code of ethics
should be issued; it was promised in the red book. They have
learned very little since then. That is why we want a more
thorough inquiry than Robert Nixon's.
Remember that Mr. Nixon had no authority to order the
production of documents. Documents are important. In the Ginn
Publishing case, we were told that there were documents related
to oral agreements that had left traces, as the heritage minister
said, and that this contract would reveal discussions from the
Cabinet of that time. It is very surprising that a contract would
contain Cabinet discussions, but that is what we were told.
Mr. Nixon did not have the power to compel some witnesses
to appear before him, so the irregularities he mentioned could
be much more serious than those he suspects did occur. That is
why we think a royal commission of inquiry should be appointed
without delay. Moreover, why all the secrecy surrounding Bob
Wright's negotiations, given the Prime Minister's commitment
to shed some light on this deal? Do the Liberals have something
to hide? If not, there is a very simple way to avoid such an
accusation and that is to disclose all the facts. A royal
commission of inquiry must be appointed. Then, we will know if
the government was really determined to get to the bottom of
this matter, to settle the lobbying issue, not do away with all
lobbyists, but with the unscrupulous ones involved with
companies that finance both parties' election campaigns.
(1635)
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have only two minutes
left, so I will skip a few lines and talk about the Prime Minister
who promised, during the election campaign, to order an
independent review of the Pearson transaction. In spite of all
Mr. Nixon's qualities, on the one hand, he had no authority and,
on the other, he was a known Liberal supporter with close ties to
the current government. Some Liberals are involved,
undoubtedly. We know their names, we have seen them. No
contractor gets involved with operations like these without
having friends on both sides. That is precisely what happened in
the Pearson Airport deal.
When Mr. Chern Heed, who had been Pearson International's
chief executive officer since 1987, tells us that his departure is
not unrelated to Pearson's privatization, this is troubling news
indeed. I also remember reading in the Ottawa Citizen that
people wondered why Prime Minister Chrétien remained silent
on the privatization of Pearson Airport early in the election
campaign, while three weeks later, once the details of the
transaction were known, he said that he would intervene. Is it a
coincidence that the Prime Minister waited until the agreement
was signed before intervening?
Is it also a coincidence that the then Minister of Transport,
Jean Corbeil, waited until early October, when the leaders
debate took place, to conclude the agreement? Is it yet another
coincidence that the government now refuses to shed light on
this issue? That is a lot of coincidences for a single case! I might
add that several issues have been characterized by such
coincidences.
Such coincidences will occur as long as we will have a
permissive law regarding the activities of lobbyists, and as long
as we will not have an elections act that ensures democratic
financing of political parties. Indeed, until we have here a law
4075
such as the one in Quebec, we will be subject to all kinds of
transactions of this sort, to all kinds of suspicious dealings.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
lobbying really became part of the decision-making process in
the early 1980s. In Canada, lobbyists have mostly influenced the
public service and the government. Prior to that date, Canada
had no legislation concerning the registration of lobbyists, and
the public interest went unprotected.
In 1986, the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and
Procedure was set up to review the lobbying issue. Some of the
witnesses before the committee argued that Parliament had no
reason to study this matter. They thought the duty to disclose
information would interfere with the right to privacy.
Under the Conservative government, a bill stating the guiding
principles behind a lobbyists registration system was drafted. It
was based on Bill C-82, known today as the Lobbyists
Registration Act, hereinafter called Bill C-44, which was
approved on September 13, 1988, and came into force on
September 30, 1989. This Act was amended by Bill C-76 passed
on February 22, 1993.
The definition of a true lobbyist varies in every country.
However, the fundamental principle is always the same,
transparency. The public must be kept informed in order for
democracy to develop. In Australia, lobbyists are cursorily
defined. The word means any individual or corporation that
receives benefits, financial or otherwise, from a client during
negotiations with ministers or representatives of the
Commonwealth government. In Canada, lobbyists are defined
as corporations or individuals who will, for a fee or any other
benefit, make representations for a client to ministers or public
servants.
(1640)
Before addressing the issue of this outrageous Pearson deal, I
want to briefly review the events that surrounded the
expropriation process in Mirabel, in the province of Quebec.
This gorgeous area is in my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau.
On March 27, 1969, the federal government officially
announced its intent to build a new Montreal International
Airport, subsequently known as the Mirabel Airport. That
airport was to be built in the village of Ste-Scholastique.
Sixteen years later, on March 27, 1985, the bells of the
Ste-Scholastique church rang to tell the people that an
agreement had been signed between the Mirabel people whose
land had been expropriated and the Canadian government.
Under this agreement, farmers and homeowners were given
back a large part of the land they had been unfairly stripped of.
Some 80,000 acres out of the 97,000 acres that had been
expropriated were retroceded. I was among the citizens who
were unfairly stripped of their property.
His Eminence Charles Valois, bishop of St-Jerôme, stated in
1988: ``The inhabitants of 11 small towns affected by the
Mirabel expropriation order also went into exile. Many left
under unfair and short-sighted pressure; others became
strangers on the very land their forefathers had cleared. Those
who expropriated their land thought they would take it lying
down. They underestimated how deeply attached these men and
women were to their land''.
Their ancestral houses and farm buildings were
unscrupulously burnt to the ground, sometimes under their very
own eyes, before they were relocated in an urban area. Some of
these farmers suddenly found themselves without work or a
future.
That decision taken under the government of Pierre Elliott
Trudeau reminds us of the role then played by the lobbyists.
Farmers did not get rich nor happy following the expropriation.
Only sponsors and friends of the government really benefited
from this expropriation as is the case in the Pearson deal, which
is now before the House.
At that time, the Conseil régional de développement des
Laurentides chose to direct long-distance flights to Mirabel and
short-distance ones to Dorval. They maintained they had
adopted this position to promote the economic interest of the
Greater Montreal area rather than individual local interests.
Moreover, the Sommet socio-économique des Laurentides,
held around the same time, had already favoured Mirabel as the
main Montreal Airport, arguing that this would allow Mirabel to
fully play its role as an international airport and to have the
necessary interconnections on the domestic and transborder
networks.
If Mirabel Airport was one of the worst planning mistakes of
the Trudeau administration, we will not correct it by making
another mistake.
The entire region of the Lower Laurentians benefits from the
economic impact of the airport. Closing down Mirabel Airport
to help Dorval would slow the economic development of the
Lachute and Mirabel area where unemployment rate is already
high. One of the options to stimulate the development of
Mirabel would be the completion of highways 13 and 50 but it
seems that the two levels of government do not yet see the need
for it.
Today, the Montreal airports authority, also called the ADM,
is launching a development strategy including reorganized
public and shopping space on the mezzanine floor, preventive
maintenance of the facilities, enhanced access and a review of
the mode of operation. Indeed, large billboards on the airport
grounds announce works totalling some $150 million. It is clear
Mirabel airport was not the result of an open process nor was the
Pearson airport transaction.
(1645)
The idea of openness brings me to the financing of political
parties. In this respect, I would like to remind you of the motion
presented in this House by my colleague from Richelieu on
March 18, which called for the imposition of an annual
maximum of $5,000 on political donations by individuals. That
motion reminds us of who we really work for. It is the people
who elected us. The member said in his speech: ``Some may
believe that present measures are sufficient to limit undue
influence and that it is in no way necessary to cap donations. Yet,
4076
during the last ten years, charges of influence-peddling made
against Senate and House members tend to prove the contrary.''
The voters have to regain control of our electoral system.
Quebec's legislation on this matter should serve as a model in
every respect. The sources and amounts of contributions have to
be disclosed. Moreover, the recommendation of a code of ethics
for elected and other officials is essential if we want
transparency.
There were many players in the scandalous Pearson Airport
transaction and I need not name them again since they all made
the headlines. As a matter of fact, the person appointed by Prime
Minister Chrétien to examine this issue, Robert Nixon,
recommended that the contract be cancelled.
In light of all the troubling facts surrounding the Pearson deal,
we must ask the Prime Minister to appoint a royal commission
of inquiry to look into the activities of these lobbyists.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Quebec-Pay equity; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing-Social programs; the hon. member for
Mercier-Unemployment insurance; the hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden-Bill C-91; the hon. member for
Richelieu-Indian Affairs.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, my colleagues
of the Bloc Quebecois have tried to demonstrate with the only
tool at their disposal, the Nixon Report, that what could be
referred to as the ``Lester B. Pearson Airport affair'' was in fact
a financial venture cooked up by the closest friends of both this
government and the previous one. ``Money has no smell''. We
have all heard that proverb as old as the Liberal and the
Progressive Conservative Parties. I would even add that it has no
colour either.
Things happen without anybody or almost anybody opposite
raising any question, because this is part of political tradition. If
you wander through a foul-smelling swamp, after a while, you
can no longer smell a thing.
When I say that money has no colour, I am pointing to the fact
that some of the wealthiest Canadian businessmen were caught
backing both horses in the federal political raceway, the blue
and the red, to the great displeasure of the Liberals who believed
in the exclusivity of their audience with these partisan patrons.
The names of top-ranking civil servants and politicians have
been mentioned as important if not pivotal players in the
monumental blunder that was the Pearson Airport deal. It is
needless to twist the knife in the Liberal wounds by mentioning
names like those of the Metcalfes, the Withers, the Hessions and
the Kolbers, all well-placed and well-known people who used
for their own purposes the experience they acquired while
holding very well paid functions.
(1650)
The values of our society have been quite disrupted in the last
few decades; people are valued more for their money than for
their moral values.
Canadian political practices are such that people maintain
their reputation in spite of the most scandalous attempts to rob
the government, with the most brazen impunity. Has the election
process become a game of musical chairs where, without further
ado, one party replaces another but keeps the same spirit,
proceeds the same way to the benefit of the same mentors?
Is there an unwritten rule according to which preceding and
new governments pass on power to one another without
attacking each other? Does nothing offend the party in power or
make it shudder when its own investigator, Mr. Nixon, reveals
strange facts, secret dealings, people operating in secrecy and
anonymity? By itself, Mr. Nixon's report should have given rise
to the worst apprehensions.
Millions of dollars disappear and fall by chance into the
pockets of the regime's best friends. Still, no one is shocked, no
one is concerned, it is part of the game, that is all.
How much of our national debt has found itself by chance in
the bank accounts of the regime's friends? Sleep soundly,
Liberals, because Statistics Canada, the Conference Board,
Quebec's Conseil du patronat, among others, are not interested
in compiling such statistics; our society has not reached that
point yet.
Our society and political parties are not even aware that top
civil servants or former ministers profit from an expertise
acquired at taxpayers' expense, after, in most cases, having
received substantial severance bonuses as well as the traditional
gold watch and farewell party.
A farewell that is rather short. As soon as they get down
Parliament Hill, these people who have been members of
political caucuses, know the tendencies of some, the weaknesses
of others, the legal loopholes, the traps to avoid or to set off;
these people sell their knowledge, which should belong to the
Canadian people.
The surest way to prevent these back-room games is to forbid
all tax deductions for lobbyist or canvassing expenses, as the
Minister of Transport himself said.
If society sees nothing wrong in that, can we blame our
leaders for not being offended by it? The opposition will not
neglect its mandate. The heart has its reasons of which reason
knows nothing. Liberals too, have reasons of which the people
know nothing, reasons that no government should have. Things
then get very complicated. That is what the Liberals want: they
4077
want to thwart all our efforts to discover the truth and they want
to leave the House in the dark.
Nearly half the members in this House did what they could in
good faith with a piece of legislation that can almost be
described as a political obscenity or even legislative
pornography. In this seemingly odious approach to
peace-buying, they tried, in keeping with their mandate, to
understand the reasons behind this bill, the remedy it sought,
and the reason for that remedy.
It is hard to understand the stubbornness of the government in
view of what seems to be the boldest attempt to misappropriate
public funds in decades.
Neither the Official Opposition nor the Reform Party are
trying to bring disrepute to any people,and they do not want to
engage in witch-hunting or blame people who acted in good
faith. Most of the suspicion here stems from the reluctance of
the government to answer legitimate questions.
The relentlessness with which the government tries to avoid
anything that could irritate any of the players in this miserable
affair can only generate confusion and fear. The official
opposition and the Reform Party also, undoubtedly, would be
pleased to make amends if it turned out that our suspicions,
which the Liberal Party seeks so eagerly to dispel, could not and
should not touch our most respectable citizens who are involved
in this unfortunate deal.
(1655)
Our Parliament has certain powers that are sometimes similar
to judicial powers in the sense that, when a court makes a
decision, it must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair. It is
the same thing for our laws; the ones that are voted here must not
only be fair but also be seen to be fair. The perennial character of
laws makes them offensive when they are compromising in
nature and their observance is somewhat uncertain.
History will soon judge their authors, often while they are still
alive. A book recently published in Quebec did not wait out the
thirty-year prescription to attach to a politician who is alive and
well the attribute of ``cheater''.
Why these hesitations, why so much reluctance on the part of
the party in office? Does it not agree, as it is stating, that any
inquiry would only dispel any suspicion? But precisely there is
suspicion; so let us treat it as we should and everyone's
conscience will be eased.
Jean de La Fontaine (1621-1695), a renown writer of fables,
undoubtedly a Liberal lobbyist, was hated by Louis XIV but, as
any good lobbyist having managed to get around the problem,
became a protégé of Fouquet and of the duchess of Orléans.
His easy access was guaranteed, which allowed him to
describe so well the lobbies of his time in the famous tale
entitled Les Animaux malades de la peste.
They were not all dying from it, but all were stricken, so that
in caucus, it was decided that the biggest sinner would be
sacrificed to expiate the sins of all the others.
The lion admitted to have eaten some sheep on a few
occasions, even the shepherd sometimes; the donkey, whose
only sin was to have grazed in the neighbour's meadow, was
immediately found guilty and sacrificed.
Does that anecdote not remind you of a story that happened
here recently? A little effort, Liberal gentlemen.
In a modest flight of oratory, the Prime Minister showed the
door to one of his MPs, who had committed the big blunder of
being imprecise in writing his resume. On that occasion, the
Prime Minister's sensitive scruples suggested that he would
change things. But it seems that will not happen.
For his unforgivable, reprehensible sin, the culprit was
executed without further ado.
Does the party have two value systems? One for its intimate
funders and other close relatives, the other one for plebeians, the
unemployed and welfare recipients?
I think we can assume that La Fontaine knew what he was
talking about when he said: ``la raison du plus fort est encore la
meilleure''.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition has tabled an amendment
to have a royal commission of inquiry instead of adopting the
bill before the House today. I have said before in this House that
there was a taint of manoeuvring around the contracts, of which
there are a quite a few, which were concluded when Terminals 1
and 2 were privatized. This taint could only be removed by a
commission of inquiry that would investigate this matter. My
colleagues have said so repeatedly, but apparently that has fallen
on deaf ears, not yours, Mr. Speaker but those of our colleagues
opposite.
It should be clear to them since the Liberals are involved
through the people who contribute to the party's coffers, that if
compensation payments are not made in full public view, the
suspicion will linger that money changed hands under the table.
There will always be some suspicion that ties between the
traditional parties and governments and the contributors to party
coffers remain intact and that this is a case of you scratch my
back and I scratch yours. People will wonder: How much will
the government secretly agree to pay to a certain investor and
why? How much, to whom and why? These questions should be
considered, or at least the answers to those questions should be
given publicly, and the underlying reasons should also be made
known.
4078
(1700)
Why will the government not let a third party evaluate this
deal, a third party with an obligation to answer to the citizens of
Canada? Otherwise, consider the opportunities for collusion
among individuals who are in a position to benefit from such
deals, at the expense of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada? Of
course this may not happen, but people will never be sure.
My colleagues have said that not only must justice be done, it
must be seen to be done. In this case, we will never be sure there
was no collusion.
Who does the government want to protect and why? That is
the question. Why does not the government want to know all the
facts? Is the strong taint around these transactions not
convincing enough? Does the government think that by cleaning
up mess, it may be contaminated in the process? How much is
this going to cost taxpayers? Can we accept the risk that several
hundred or several thousand or even several million dollars will
be misspent?
In this connection, I feel I must recall what was said in the
course of another debate we had in this House, which will be
resumed after the committee has done its work, and I am
referring to the cuts in the unemployment insurance program.
When an unemployment insurance applicant signs his form and
makes a mistake, be it of a week, a day or an hour, not only can
the government claim back the money paid in excess, but it can
also brand the person a cheater. Even if the Act were not
amended, that is what would happen. The government which
wants a free hand to give compensation it calls just to investors,
some of whom, as we know, contribute to the party's coffers,
that same government introduced Bill C-17 which seeks to
increase the number of weeks necessary to qualify for
unemployment insurance.
That same government wants to limit the number of weeks of
entitlement and in that case we are not talking about thousands
or hundreds of thousands of dollars, we are talking of a few
dollars that the workers really need. Yet, in many cases, these
workers are going to be deprived of sums of money very
important to them. Of course, the sums involved would not be a
suitable compensation for an investor, but to unemployed
workers they would help pay the rent and feed the family.
(1705)
I wish to stress that too often there are two categories of
people in this country. The ordinary citizens who have a hard
time earning a living, because jobs are scarce, and must respect
the law to a tee or be faced with costly penalties. And there are
the others, who belong to an ill-defined circle, but can easily
take advantage of the gravy train.
At a time when it is so hard for ordinary citizens to make ends
meet, when jobs are hard to get, when it is very difficult to raise
children and give them an education, we cannot in any way let
the government apply a double standard and compensate
investors, who certainly spent time and energy, but have
probably been compensated already. We cannot let the
government yield to undue pressure. Justice is not enough, there
must also be appearance of justice.
I should say that Torontonians and Canadians who rely on
Pearson Airport should be glad to be spared this deal. The
contract provisions which were brought to light in the Nixon
report-it was not a royal commission but it makes you want
one-reveal that Toronto's economic development would bear
little resemblance to the projections based on 30 years and even
on 57 years. Without a doubt Torontonians have had a narrow
escape.
I can say that because in Quebec, the Liberal Government of
the time ordered the construction of a new airport based on
projections that said it would lead to the area's prosperity. In
fact, it was all the contrary for Montreal. So Torontonians are
lucky, but the price to pay must not be too expensive for ordinary
Canadians. Even if they are investors who contribute generously
to political parties, that does not mean we should give them
special consideration. The government, in particular, should not
be allowed to do so.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, I speak today
on Bill C-22 because I believe in democracy, in the ideal that
demands that governments legislate while taking into account
the interests of the population and the common good. The
decisions taken in this House allow us to reflect and promote the
democratic values.
I am among those who believe it is still possible to send
people to Parliament so that they can work hard to defend the
interests of their fellow citizens. I believe that political
representation is based on a confidence relationship between
voters and elected representatives.
(1710)
Democracy is also the process underlying all of our
institutions. It is through them that all the great values of
transparency, ethics, justice and fairness are conveyed. It is on
them that rests the confidence relationship between a
government and its citizens. When politicians break that special
relationship, the society is faced with individualism,
profiteering, cynicism and disillusionment to name but a few.
The Liberal government likes to repeat, in this House, its
intentions to make sure that Canadians regain confidence in
their political institutions through a better transparency. I do not
believe that Bill C-22, as worded, could do it.
4079
All the ploys and the jiggery-pokery surrounding the
privatization of Pearson airport under the previous Conservative
government are a sad example of incidents which diminish the
people's respect and confidence vis-à-vis their government.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the House of some
elements of this deal we should now call the Pearson saga. The
Canadian government announced its political intention to
privatize Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International
Airport in March 1992. Less than three months after this
announcement, the Request for Proposals process was over.
They had received only two bids from Paxport and Claridge.
Given the importance of this transaction, everybody agrees that
the time limits were too short.
In December 1992, the Paxport proposal was accepted. Later
on, Paxport was unable to respect the government's conditions
concerning its financial viability. In February 1993, Paxport
merged its activities with those of its competitor, Claridge; that
merger put them in a monopoly situation which was contrary to
the government's guidelines. But this is not the first incongruity
in this deal nor is it the last. Be that as it may, a few months later,
in the middle of the election campaign, on October 7, 1993, the
government and the corporation resulting from the merger of
Paxport and Claridge hurriedly signed a legal agreement for the
privatization of Terminals 1 and 2 of Lester B. Pearson
International Airport.
When returned to office, the Liberal government ordered an in
camera review of the situation. That review was completed by
Mr. Robert Nixon, a former Liberal minister at Queen's Park.
The conclusion of the Nixon report is, and I quote:
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.
On December 3, 1993, the Prime Minister announced the
cancellation of the airport privatization contract and on April 13
last, the Minister of Transport presented Bill C-22 which
reflects the government's will.
The secret maneuvering and shameless favouritism
surrounding this deal hide a reality which is even less edifying.
On the one hand the Liberal government claims to be asking for
the cancellation of that contract in the public interest but, on the
other, it does not worry about public interest when it gives
discretionary powers to the cabinet allowing it to pay
compensation according to its own judgment. This may well
cancel out the positive effects the government says it wanted in
the first place. As a matter of fact, the government is asking us
today to sign a blank cheque to compensate the companies
involved in this transaction. Quite a few political personalities
and lobbyists, of Conservative and Liberal allegiance, are
closely connected with this whole sorry affair.
(1715)
In spite of the fact that the Liberal Party promised to get to the
bottom of the Pearson saga and to introduce an in-depth reform
to better control lobbyists'actions in the backrooms of
Parliament, we are forced to notice that the same old
manoeuvring is still taking place.
The people's cynicism for politicians is the fruit of
misappropriations similar to the Pearson saga. Let us not forget
that Quebec and Canadian taxpayers pay for lobbying expenses
and political party contributions through corporate tax
deductions. When patronage occurs, they pay again for the cost
overruns of lucrative contracts, or the sale of public property to
friends of the government at bargain prices. Taxpayers have
every right to say enough is enough.
And yet, there are solutions such as those proposed by the
Bloc Quebecois to put an end to this cover-up. They go from the
public financing of political parties to a stricter control of
lobbying activities and the adoption of a code of conduct for
elected representatives and high officials. By amending Bill
C-22 and by calling for a royal commission of inquiry, as
requested by the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal government could
show that transparency is more than wishful thinking, more than
an abstract idea.
Georges Burdeau said: ``The overriding concern of a
democracy is to ensure that the power that the people hold is not
corrupted by the demands of the masses. What is important is to
ensure that freedom is not subjugated by passions, by factional
tyranny or by special interest groups''.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question!
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I am told I am not supposed to call it a
tie so I will say that the nays have it.
4080
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a),
the opposition whip has asked that a recorded division on the
amendment stand deferred until tomorrow at 3 p.m., at which
time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not
more than 15 minutes.
* * *
(1720)
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved that Bill C-25, an act to amend the
Canada Petroleum Resources Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on Bill C-25,
an act to amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.
As parliamentarians we are required to absorb vast amounts
of information. Pages and pages of documentation can
accompany even the simplest request for a decision. It is
remarkable that such a brief piece of legislation as Bill C-25 can
be so important.
Bill C-25 proposes only a minor administrative change to the
Canada Petroleum Resources Act in order to exempt the Norman
Wells oil field which will now include additional lands. This
change and, more important, the reasons behind it will have
major ramifications for northern communities, for northern
aboriginal people and for Canadians.
The amendment is important because it will allow production
from the Norman Wells oil field in the central Mackenzie valley
to continue under existing arrangements for as long as the field
is commercially producible. This is now estimated to be at least
to the year 2020, a full 12 years longer than originally
anticipated.
Without this extension the community of Norman Wells will
lose an important economic stimulus. Jobs will be lost both in
Norman Wells and in other northern communities. Governments
and taxpayers will also lose as millions of dollars of potential
corporate and personal tax revenues, royalties and other income
will disappear. In the process a vital resource will be needlessly
and negligently left in the ground.
Extending the production agreement for Norman Wells, on
the other hand, will rekindle investor interest in the Canadian
north. As hon. members know, the economic well-being of both
territories will very much benefit from healthy resource
industries.
With the recent settlement of a number of aboriginal
comprehensive land claims in the north, we are now in the
process of opening lands to private enterprise. Establishing
certainty of land and resource ownerships is one of the principle
objectives of a comprehensive claims settlement.
From this standpoint, the extension of the Norman Wells
project could not be more opportune. It will focus attention on
the great resource potential of these northern areas at a time
when lands are becoming available for exploration and
development.
This in turn will result in additional drilling and service
contracts for northern firms. There will also be new business
opportunities for other service industries. The economic
benefits of Norman Wells will continue and broaden. In order to
put Bill C-25 into perspective I would like to briefly explain
some of the history behind the Norman Wells development.
Although the Norman Wells field was discovered around the
turn of the century, it was not significantly developed until the
second world war when northern inland oil supplies became
strategically important. In 1944 at the height of the war effort
the Government of Canada entered into an agreement with
Imperial Oil Limited to develop the Norman Wells field, the
so-called proven area, set out in that agreement as based on the
technology that was available at the time.
Today we know that a small proportion of the field extends
beyond the current proven area boundaries. As well, the 1944
agreement had an expiry date of 2008, which was considered to
be more than enough time to extract all the oil.
Based on new exploration and production technology,
Imperial Oil now believes the field will be productive well
beyond this date, an assessment backed by the National Energy
Board.
Hon. members may be aware that the governor in council has
the authority to extend the duration of the 1944 agreement with
Imperial Oil and to expand the proven area. However, a minor
amendment is required to the Canada Petroleum Resources Act
to ensure that the act which specifically excludes the 1944
agreement refers to the 1994 agreement.
(1725)
Bill C-25 accomplishes this with an amendment that is
inconsequential to the application of the act in any other region
of Canada.
Proclamation of this legislation will have an immediate and
very positive economic impact in the north and other parts of
Canada. Bill C-25 will pave the way for a $30 million drilling
program that will be undertaken by Imperial Oil this year,
assuming Parliament acts quickly enough to allow the company
to take advantage of a short window of opportunity this summer
for drilling work in the north.
This drilling program will be undertaken mostly in the
expanded proven area. About one-third of the money, $10
million, will be spent directly in the north. Most of the
remaining $20 million will be spent in Alberta.
As a result of the drilling program and the extension of the
field's producing life, short term employment in the Norman
Wells area will increase and long term employment will be
stabilized.
4081
This government is committed to working with Imperial Oil,
other companies, the community of Norman Wells and the Sahtu
Dene and Metis to ensure that local people benefit from the
employment. At least one-third of the on site jobs generated by
the drilling program will be guaranteed to local residents.
Indirect employment is estimated at an additional 25 person
years in the north.
Aboriginal people in particular stand to benefit from this
extension. Under their land claim agreements the Gwich'in, the
Sahtu Dene and Metis are entitled to a share of the royalties from
Norman Wells. The extension will give them a guaranteed
revenue flow beyond 2008 and perhaps to the year 2020.
As well, Shehtah Drilling which is jointly owned by the Dene
Metis and Imperial Oil holds a $6 million drilling contract that
is conditional on this project moving forward.
The Government of Canada's financial position will also
benefit from the continued production of oil from Norman
Wells. In addition to receiving millions in additional royalty
payments from Imperial Oil, I remind hon. members that
Canada is a one-third owner in Norman Wells development. The
extension of production is expected to bring the government
millions of dollars in return on this investment. We will also
increase revenues from federal, territorial and municipal
corporate taxes and from personal income taxes.
Bill C-25 provides clear evidence of this government's
commitment to economic renewal in all regions of Canada. The
Norman Wells extension project will not only keep some
Canadians working, it will contribute directly and indirectly to
the creation of many new jobs both in the north and in Alberta.
This is a positive initiative that has the support of all the key
players: aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in the Northwest
Territories, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers,
the petroleum industry and of course the Government of Canada.
It deserves the support of this House so that the planned drilling
program can proceed this year and the affected northern
communities, families and workers can be assured of a stable
economic future.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, the bill
before us today is a piece of legislation which, in our opinion,
must reconcile several aspects.
First, there is a concrete reality, namely the natural resource
that oil is. But there is also the notion of environmental
protection, as well as the close relation to Bill C-16, which was
referred in second reading to the Standing Committee on
Aboriginal Affairs.
The Bloc Quebecois looked at the issue in that whole context
and will support Bill C-25. In fact, this bill is somewhat similar
to previous pieces of legislation, including one tabled in 1944,
and another one tabled in 1983, when amendments were made to
the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, precisely to allow for the
inclusion of provisions to the effect that this bill is not covered
by the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.
I would like to go back to some historical details. I did that in
the case of Bill C-16, but then I did not go over the whole
historical aspect. I think it is important to put Norman Wells in
its proper context. This was the first Northwest Territories
community set up exclusively for the development of
non-renewable resources. At the time, there was a lot of
prospection in that area and it was discovered that the region
was rich in oil, even almost at ground surface. Starting in 1918
and 1919, oil was discovered in commercial quantities.
(1730)
Imperial Oil Limited and Canada jointly own these producing
fields. Canada owns the equivalent of one third of these fields,
while Imperial was always very active with about a two-thirds
interest.
The Can-Oil patch was created during World War II to allow
Norman Wells' light oil, which was then a strategic resource, to
be shipped in large quantities to Alaska and to southern centres.
Roads were already being built so that this very high-quality oil
could be transported to the South. Norman Wells is also the
northern end of the oil pipeline which goes from the Northwest
Territories to Zama, in Alberta.
I think it is really important to put things in context to see why
Norman Wells was always at the heart of oil exploration. What is
also important, as I said earlier, is that we just looked at the issue
of land claims by the Dene and the Metis. We just told these
people that they would be allowed to occupy a certain territory,
over which there are major oil sites.
I think that we cannot disregard the link between the two bills.
It would be dangerous to vote on Bill C-25 without taking into
consideration Bill C-16 which was before the House last week
and which recognized the settlement agreement reached with the
Dene and Metis. Under this agreement, the federal government
has settled a land claim and retroceded, if you recall, over
230,000 square kilometres of land, 1,800 square kilometres of
which include royalties for underground resources. I think it is
important to link those two bills.
Ever since 1944, the government of Canada and Imperial Oil
have had an agreement about these fields and the projected
recovery we are talking about, because that is the real issue.
Imperial has found a new way to market and develop petroleum
resources. In fact, it has developed a water-injection system that
extends the area it can work on.
4082
Since the company can, with this new process, extend the
territory it wants to develop, we are being asked here, in the
House of Commons, to stretch the rules and use Bill C-25 to
amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.
According to 1983 estimates, oil exploration was supposed to
come to an end around the year 2008. Of course, this new
technology is not environmentally unsound, since, and I will
come back to this issue in a little while, even the National
Energy Board has examined and approved it.
So, this new process could extend the development activities
to the year 2020, which would mean millions and millions of
dollars in benefits for Imperial, as well as for the government of
Canada and the Dene and Metis living on this territory.
As I said, the National Energy Board has approved the
company's project. That is very important because, of course,
when an oil company wants to intensively exploit a field and
take that exploitation further, very seldom will it come with a
study where, on the environmental impact side, it will say:
``This has terrible environmental impacts, but we want to
exploit it anyway''. So, it is important that we have an
independent organization from Imperial that would come and
say: ``Indeed, your new way of doing things on the field
exploitation side is interesting and, most of all, it has no impact
on the environment.'' That environment issue is very important
in the present context, not only for Canadians, but also for
Canadian Metis and Dene, who are on those territories because
they always had a very privileged relationship with the
environment. We know that their culture was focused on hunting
and fishing at the time, and it is still the case today.
And the project is a beneficial combination that allows Dene
and Metis to develop the new resources, that is oil resources, by
giving them, through Bill C-16, their say on the matter, and also
protects their old culture which, incidently, they are very proud
of.
(1735)
The National Energy Board did an independent review that
supported the Imperial study and that company decided to get
into a drilling program worth about $30 million. That program
will deal with 12 already drilled wells and others that will be
drilled along the field limits. The new technologies will allow to
exploit it without any cost to the environment.
I think that this Bill C-25 provides us with the good oilfield
conservation and management methods.
I was saying earlier that all indicates that the project will go
until 2020. I have myself contacted the Sahtu council this week.
People say they agree. They were consulted. It is true that the
Northwest Territories and the Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers were consulted. Everyone agrees.
However, I feel-and so does the Bloc Quebecois-that it would
be a shame for this House to adopt Bill-25 immediately and then
tell the Sahtu Tribal Council who represents the Dene and Metis:
``Now that we have decided on your behalf how the Norman
Wells Development should be done, we are ready to settle your
land claims.''
We feel it is extremely important that Bill C-16, which is now
before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, be
examined first. One way or another, Bill C-25 is also going to be
referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We
intend to see that Bill-16 is adopted before Bill-25.
If we make comparisons between the guarantees given by the
James Bay Agreement, we find that the government is on the
right track, as far as land claims are concerned. We talked a lot
about that. I talked about that when Bill C-16 was introduced in
the House. I talked about the James Bay Agreement which was
passed as an act of the Quebec National Assembly and called the
Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, and the federal government did
that too.
It is a bit for the same reasons that we thought important to
hold this debate and tell you that we agree with that bill. It will
be very important for Bill C-16 to be passed by the standing
committee and to come back to this House before Bill C-25 is
passed.
For all those reasons, I am pleased to announce that the Bloc
Quebecois will support Bill C-25 provided that Bill C-16 is
adopted.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on the bill before us today. Some consider
Bill C-25 a minor amendment to the Canadian Petroleum
Resources Act, but I would like to think it can be viewed as an
important message to industry.
Thousands of jobs in my riding are directly or indirectly
dependent on the current boom in the petroleum sector. But if
industry's confidence in government intentions were to be
eroded many of those jobs could be lost.
Although this amendment only directly affects one oil
company and community, I hope it is an indication this
government realizes the importance of providing our resource
based industries with predictability and stability in the policy
environment. If this government starts sending signals to the
private sector that it is safe to make long term investment plans,
it will lead to economic growth and the creation of far more
permanent jobs than government can hope to achieve through
any temporary make work projects.
There is a long history leading up to this current amendment.
The first oil well was drilled at Norman Wells in 1920. Since
then it has grown to be the fourth largest producing field in the
country. In 1944 Imperial Oil and Canada signed the Norman
Wells proven area agreement which included just under 3,300
hectares within its boundaries. When the Canadian Petroleum
Resources Act came into force the Norman Wells proven area
was exempted from the new act. Just as the bill before us does
4083
today, subsequent renewals and agreements have been similarly
exempted.
This amendment does two things. It extends the timeframe
past the current expiration date of 2008 which allows Imperial to
plan for long term recovery. The amendment also changes the
1944 boundaries to incorporate the entire field. Changing the
boundaries to exclude non-productive portions and include new
fringe areas results in an addition of 350 hectares to the old
proven area.
(1740)
Canada and Imperial will not have to determine whether oil
comes from pockets inside or outside the former boundaries.
This will solve potential administrative problems for royalty
and share calculations.
The government undertook numerous consultations when
arriving at this agreement. Pursuant to the spirit and intent of the
land claim agreement under negotiation with the Sahtu Dene and
Metis during the same period, the government initiated
discussions with them to ensure that the views of the long term
stakeholders would be taken into consideration when
contemplating any prospective changes to the proven area
agreement.
Most other people living in Norman Wells are in some way
directly dependent on the oil and gas extractive industries.
Many will leave once oil production ceases, however the vast
majority of the Sahtu peoples will remain.
The Sahtu agreed to this amendment at the end of March. It
became apparent that Imperial's planned investment of $30
million for this fiscal year might be jeopardized if concurrence
from the Sahtu was not forthcoming. Although it is probably not
binding, the Sahtu made their acceptance contingent upon the
enactment of Bill C-16, the Sahtu Dene and Metis Land Claims
Settlement Act.
I am not generally a cynic, but I cannot help wondering about
the timing of these two respective bills in the House. What
would happen if Bill C-16 were held up indefinitely or even
defeated? Would the government also have to repeal this bill?
I fully appreciate that this represents a significant opportunity
for the Sahtu peoples to apply some indirect pressure on the
government to proclaim an agreement they have anticipated for
decades. But is it responsible of the government to enter into
verbal agreements of this nature linking any two pieces of
legislation?
The government also consulted with the Canadian
Association of Petroleum Producers to seek its views on the
principles of the amendment. The government assured CAPP
this agreement would not set a precedent for the issuance of
rights anywhere else in Canada.
Again the government gave assurances it cannot guarantee,
this time promising this agreement would not be linked to
decisions in the future. As we all know it is the job of lawyers to
find precedents they can use to the advantage of their clients.
Governments have also been known to fall. How can this
government give a guarantee to other petroleum producers that
this agreement does not set a precedent down the road?
Over the past decades the resource based industries have
struggled against global recession, depressed prices,
unpredictable policy and investment climates and increasing
taxation from all levels of government.
Although the Ministry of Natural Resources has just released
a report stating that Canada falls somewhere in the middle of the
international competitive range with respect to taxation rates in
mining, that is not the perception of the industry. The mining
industry looks at the high marginal tax rates. Those have driven
Canadian exploration and investment dollars overseas to South
America. This government has the opportunity to reverse that
trend by developing policies to encourage domestic investment.
In the petroleum sector depressed oil prices have resulted in
massive layoffs and extensive restructuring of the industry. In
the last couple of years we have seen a surge in natural gas prices
leading to the current boom, but oil prices remain low and the
future uncertain.
The cost overruns at Hibernia would not have been debated so
strenuously if oil prices were stable at $50 U.S. a barrel, but they
are not. Oil prices have just barely hit $17 on the heels of a five
year low, dipping below $14.
In this erratic global market, oil companies must make
significant investment decisions based on many factors, not just
the price of oil. Confidence in government policy is a critical
component in those decisions.
This amendment in giving force to the Norman Wells
amending agreement signed in April provides Imperial Oil with
the security of tenure it needs for long term planning. It has been
assured there is time to realize a return on major investments in
new technology. These investments are essential to maximizing
production from this field.
This amendment is good for Imperial because it provides a
stable planning environment. It is good for the Sahtu Dene and
other local residents because they can rely on employment
opportunities and a cash infusion into the local economy for
4084
several more years. It is good for the Canadian people because it
will generate additional oil revenues and royalties.
(1745 )
I hope this amendment means that the government now
recognizes it cannot cripple our natural resource industries
through unfair taxation or short-sighted policy initiatives.
Canada is very dependent on revenues generated by the
petroleum sector. The imposition of additional taxes such as the
rumoured carbon tax could dramatically curtail growth in this
sector, throwing many thousands of people out of work. There
must be a balance between environmental concerns and jobs for
young Canadians.
According to the Ministry of Natural Resources, Canada is
expected to remain a net oil exporter until 2008. Within 25 years
we will still export 75 per cent of our heavy oil production but
we will import almost twice as much light oil. To offset these
effects government must encourage domestic exploration for
more reserves.
The decline in northern exploration has been so dramatic that
even the National Energy Board was scheduled to permanently
close its office in Yellowknife in March.
To date, aside from Bent Horn in the eastern Arctic offshore,
no new major oil or gas prospects have been found in the
Northwest Territories, indicating there are not enough reserves
to warrant field development or pipeline construction.
With exploration levels falling off, industry must invest in
technology to improve recovery from known reserves.
Since 1981 new technology has increased the yield from the
Norman Wells field from 17 per cent to 40 per cent. This is
attributable to horizontal drilling, water injection and other
improvements in recovery techniques.
More recently, in February approval was granted for a
propane injection pilot project in the proven area. It will assess
the technical merits of a propane miscible flood for achieving
increased levels of recovery over a three year period. At the end
of that time Imperial should have a pretty good idea how much
more oil is recoverable from the field.
As of December 1992 a little over half of the recoverable
reserves remained in the ground, approximately 125 million
barrels, but this may improve substantially if the propane
injection proves feasible. It could ensure that the field produces
far more oil than previously thought possible thus ensuring
stability in the regional economy for another 20 to 25 years.
Major investment in this technology is practical in light of the
security that this amendment offers.
In summary, I would like to voice my support for this bill
because it provides predictability for Imperial's planning
horizon and is profitable for the regional economy. It will give
Imperial the confidence and security of tenure necessary for it to
invest in new technology to maximize recovery from this field.
This amendment will also provide economic stability and long
term employment opportunities in the Norman Wells region.
Finally, it is my hope that the royalties and revenues which
accrue to Canada from maximizing the productive capacity of
this field will contribute to the reduction of our national deficit.
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address the House on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada
Petroleum Resources Act.
I want to join my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, in urging hon. members to support this
minor administrative change to the act.
Bill C-25 will permit extending the duration of production
from Norman Wells oil field probably to the year 2020 thereby
continuing an important source of income from which northern
families have benefited for the past five decades. This will
provide a tremendous boost to the local economy. The economic
activity and new investments associated with Norman Wells will
possibly provide an additional 90 jobs in the north.
I would also point out to hon. members that the Norman Wells
project is directly responsible for creating jobs elsewhere in
Canada. For instance about 70 jobs have been created in Alberta.
It is no exaggeration to say that the community of Norman
Wells depends on its oil industry. For many Canadians the words
Norman Wells are inextricably linked with oil. Take away the
right to produce every available drop of oil and you take away
the right of economic well-being from this community.
However, by agreeing to extend the field's production life we
will accomplish just the opposite. We will be making a decision
that will lead to additional and longer term employment,
ensuring the survival of Norman Wells for the next 25 years.
(1750)
Bill C-25 will help create continued prosperity to the
community which is already the transportation hub for the
region and is fast becoming a regional centre for government
services and tourism. Norman Wells has a promising future but a
future that needs a healthy northern petroleum industry.
I would like to briefly outline for hon. members just how
important the Norman Wells project is to the economy of the
Northwest Territories.
In 1993 expenditures in Norman Wells production activities
totalled $36 million, about half of which was spent in the north
and all of which was spent in Canada. The oil field provides
4085
some $3.7 million in wages to northern workers each year. More
than 30 companies in Norman Wells and over 20 companies in
other northern communities owe at least part of their annual
business to the project.
By revising the proven area agreement of 1994 the
government will extend the life of the field by 12 years or more
and ensure that these annual expenditures continue well into the
next century.
Hon. members can appreciate that Imperial Oil's plan to
undertake a $30 million drilling program is extremely good
news for northern businesses and communities. Northern
businesses will supply about 37 per cent of the goods and
services used in the drilling program. They will also benefit
from the opportunity to learn up to date horizontal drilling
techniques. This capability will enhance future business and
employment opportunities for northern firms not only in the
Territories but also in northern Alberta and British Columbia
where there is currently a shortage of such expertise.
As the minister has already stated, some $20 million of the
proposed $30 million drilling program will be spent in the south,
mostly in Alberta. Even without the drilling program Norman
Wells is responsible for annual wages of $2.8 million in the
south.
Looking at this issue from a different perspective, it is clear
that Canada cannot afford to abandon a project such as Norman
Wells until the field has produced to its fullest potential. This,
too, would be an irresponsible course of action. We have
significant oil reserves in this country but that is no excuse to be
wasteful.
Norman Wells is currently the fourth largest producing field
in Canada. It yields about 33,000 barrels of oil a day and
generated more than $50 million in revenues to the government
in 1992. The Norman Wells field has made an important
contribution to Canada's energy supply over the past 40 years.
With this amendment it can continue to play an important role
for at least the next 25 years.
In 1994 the agreement was thought to capture the entire field
and the anticipated termination of the agreement in 2008 was
believed to be the full productive life of the field. Today,
however, information gathered from prolonged production and
advance technology demonstrates that the extent of the field
should be redefined and expanded and the expiration date should
be extended to capture the full productive capability of the field.
The National Energy Board has conducted an independent
review of Imperial's assessments and has corroborated the
conclusion that the oil field extends beyond the 1944 boundaries
as well as the corporation's projections on the remaining
production life beyond 2002.
The National Energy Board's technical assessment supported
Imperial's view that effective reservoir management is best
accomplished by expanding the existing proven area to include
the fringe areas.
The current practice under the Canada Petroleum Resources
Act to issue production rights involves a competitive bidding
process, but the fringe areas of the field lying outside the proven
area agreement are unlikely to be developed if removed from
the context of the entire field. There is a risk, therefore, that if
the current policy is adhered to sound management of the field
would be compromised since the outlying reserves would be left
in the ground and maximum recovery of the field would never be
achieved.
The proposal to extend the agreement to ensure that full
commercial production of the reserves is achieved is consistent
with all the federal and provincial oil and gas legislation.
(1755)
Given the special circumstances, the proposal to expand and
extend the Norman Wells proven area agreement has been
supported by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
The proposed Norman Wells amending agreement of 1944 has
two components.
First, it marginally adjusts the boundaries of the proven area
to capture the fringe areas so that the field is developed as a
single entity and, second, it extends the term for as long as there
is commercial production.
Production from this field is governed under the Norman
Wells proven area agreement and therefore this unique
agreement has always been excluded from the Canada
Petroleum Resources Act. For this reason revisions to the
agreement must also be referenced in the act.
Hon. members should be aware that the proposed changes to
the proven area agreement have been reviewed according to the
government's environmental assessment process for policy and
program proposals. No significant environmental impacts were
identified. Nevertheless further reviews will be carried out prior
to the approval of the drilling program.
Following a period of restructuring and downsizing, Canada's
oil patch is showing signs of a strong and sustained recovery.
Exploration and drilling activity has increased significantly.
Investor interest is also up. Last year, approximately $6 billion
was invested in the Canadian petroleum industry.
In this time of resurgence, Bill C-25 will draw attention to the
vast resources and the new opportunities for opening up in the
north. Junior oil firms may find the north particularly appealing
since these smaller firms can often develop projects that would
not be profitable for the more major firms.
With the ongoing development of northern land claims, the
affected aboriginal people have indicated a strong desire to
participate in resource development projects. The territorial
governments also welcome new resource development activity
4086
because of the employment, tax revenues and new business
opportunities generated.
With the right signal from Ottawa, northern Canada could
become the focus of significant investor attention, exploration
and development activity over the next two or three years. This
House can send that signal by giving prompt approval to Bill
C-25.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus and as natural
resources critic for the New Democratic Party in this House, I
am pleased to participate in the debate regarding Bill C-25.
Our party throughout the last number of years has taken a very
active interest in the natural resources sector in Canada. In
Saskatchewan we have been involved at least in terms of the
provincial government in encouraging oil companies to pursue
enhanced oil recovery techniques.
I am happy to say that in Saskatchewan we have seen Morgan
Hydrocarbons, Sceptre Resources, North Canadian Oils and a
number of other companies pioneer the technology of horizontal
well drilling. It has been very successful.
Before I get into that, I want to say that on behalf of our
caucus I give our commitment that on condition we will support
this bill. We believe the bill is important in terms of economic
activity in the north. We believe it is extremely important with
respect to creating jobs in the north and other parts of the
country.
We particularly support the aspect where the country receives
one-third of the profits from this project. One of the conditions
in terms of our support is that the agreement continues to give
Canadians one-third of the profits from this project in its
expanded mode.
The reason I say that is with enhanced oil recovery and
particularly horizontal oil well drilling, that increases
production of wells in the Saskatchewan experience up to 500
and 600 per cent. That means when the production increases so
dramatically, it shortens the life of the resource in the ground in
terms of how long one can do this.
The other reason I am concerned about this bill, and I will be
asking these questions in committee, is this. We in the House are
not quite sure whether there will be any reduction in royalties as
a result of the increased production that horizontal oil well
drilling will provide.
If we continue to get our 5 per cent royalty and we continue to
receive one-third of the profits and the spinoff from the
expenditures by Imperial Oil with respect to jobs, that will be
suitable in terms of our requirements with respect to supporting
the bill.
We are very pleased to hear that the bill will only be passed on
the condition that there is some commitment to provide the
Sahtu nation with the bill it is interested in seeing put through
the House of Commons as well.
As a member of the House and as a Canadian I am concerned
that we monitor the impact on the environment as this project
proceeds, in particular with horizontal oil well drilling. We
have found in Saskatchewan's experience that the EOR which
takes place is not dramatically problematic for the environment,
but there are some concerns in very environmentally fragile
areas. I would hope the government would certainly ensure the
monitoring process involve the government when these things
are watched from time to time.
I am not sure whether the other questions I have are for the
House or for the committee. The New Democrats will be
monitoring the length of time Imperial Oil will recapture its
capital costs. We believe there is an opportunity because of the
longevity of the resource project for the oil company to
recapture its capital costs over a more moderate period of time
as opposed to an accelerated period of time.
Imperial Oil is telling the government that the resource is very
solid, that there is a lot of it in the ground, and that it is a long
term project. I have every reason to believe that to be the case. I
think as an assurance our government should say if that is the
case it will allow it to write off its capital cost allowance and
other capital costs over a moderate period of time as opposed to
a very short period of time. This would be a responsible
approach to the project. The other upside to doing so is that
when it is done Canadians can share, as can the Sahtu, in the
profits those wells will provide over the short term.
I thank members of the House for allowing me to raise our
questions on the matter. In summary, we will support the bill as
long as the concerns we have raised are addressed in a
reasonable fashion.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to seek unanimous consent of the House to
suspend the sitting until 6.30 p.m. or to the call of the Chair, if
we have agreement of members on both sides for the
adjournment debate. We could approach the Chair informally to
reconvene earlier than 6.30 p.m. but in any case no later than
6.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this
proposal?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.04 p.m.)
4087
(The House resumed at 6.13 p.m.)
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the issue
of pay equity affects a large number of women in Canada and
Quebec. The issue is one of equity and equality between men
and women. Through pay equity, an employer, which includes
governments, recognizes the equal value of work done by men
and women and, in so doing, enables female employees to reach
a standing of living comparable to that of male employees.
However, this government apparently does not want to move
on this issue. I have risen in my seat several times to condemn
the government's failure to act in this respect. Twice, I asked the
president of Treasury Board how he intended to correct the pay
inequity existing in Canada's public service. I also asked when
the government intended to pay its female workforce the
amounts it was granted under a judgment by the Human Rights
Tribunal. I was given reassurances but no firm commitment.
(1815)
On January 20, at the beginning of this Parliament, I was told
that this government was most committed to the matter of pay
equity and had made a formal commitment to public service
employees that it would set an example in this respect. I may
recall this was back in mid-January.
On March 8, International Women's Day, I twice condemned
the government's failure to act on the issue of pay equity. In
reply, the Secretary of State responsible for the Status of Women
said: ``Women must have a place in the job world, receive equal
pay for work of equal value and contribute their fair share to our
collective wealth''.
She went on to say: ``I feel privileged to be part of a
government which is determined to accelerate the advancement
of economic opportunities for women''.
With all her eloquence, the Secretary of State was carefully
avoiding mentioning any concrete projects aimed at achieving
this goal.
Finally, on April 19, I again tried to get a real answer from the
government. At the time, the media had announced that an
agreement had been reached by the Government of Quebec with
its employees, under which the employer was committed to pay
$115 million in various forms of salary adjustments for certain
employment categories. I took this opportunity to encourage
the Liberal government to follow Quebec's example but to no
avail.
The President of the Treasury Board gave me a very brief
answer: he used the fact that legal procedures were in process
not to answer.
I rise this evening to remind the government how important
pay equity is for women. I want to remind the government of its
campaign promises. I want to ask this government why it
relentlessly carries on legal proceedings which cost $2 million a
year according to the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian
Human Rights Commission.
I want to ask the government when it will stop this shameless
squandering of money in the courts and when it will give these
amounts to those who need it the most, that is the female
employees of the Public Service of Canada.
I want to ask this government when it plans to respect the
court orders and to pay back the salaries it owes its employees.
I ask this government to let us know what schedule it has
established for honouring its moral and legal obligations
towards its employees.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to be able to answer the question of the hon. member, a
question I asked in the House often from a seat very near to
where she is sitting at this moment to the previous government.
[English]
I want to point out to her and to others who may be listening
that pay equity is not simply a matter that affects women, but
women and men working in groups that are dominated by
females in any employment situation.
Since the proclamation of the Canadian Human Rights Act in
1978 by a Liberal government and the enshrinement of the
principle of equal pay for work of equal value within section 11
of the act, the government, the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, unions and employees have all worked in different
ways to try to make it a reality.
Between 1985 and 1990, for instance, the government of the
day sponsored a joint union-management study to actively seek
out sex based disparities in salary. When this process collapsed
the previous government unilaterally determined to pay over
70,000 employees retroactive payments of approximately $317
million and ongoing annual salary adjustments of roughly $81
million. As of March 1994 the government had paid over $700
million to affected employees.
4088
The unions, however, believed that these payments were
inadequate and submitted five new or revised equal pay
complaints covering nine predominantly female occupational
groups and asked for the appointment of a human rights tribunal.
Notwithstanding the assumption of the member's question,
this tribunal has not yet rendered a decision. Another human
rights tribunal did render a decision three years ago. This
decision applied only to employees in the hospital services
group. This decision has been implemented at a cost of
approximately $32 million.
(1820)
This government is interested in results and wants to achieve
the important goal of economic equality for women in the public
service. We have, therefore, already invited a dialogue with the
unions. There has been one meeting and there are others planned
with the purpose of reaching a mutually agreed upon negotiated
settlement of the pay equity issue that is now before the human
rights tribunal.
[Translation]
In fact, the government wishes to build ties of co-operation
and confidence with the unions representing federal public
servants. As for the agreements at the provincial level, the
Quebec Government and the unions representing its workers are
continuing their negotiations. There is no agreement yet.
In Ontario, the law requires specific measures according to a
predetermined schedule. We fully intend to continue the
implementation of pay equity as provided for by federal law.
The Canadian Human Rights Act was passed by a Liberal
government and the present government is committed to this
act, including the section dealing with pay equity.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, on March 7, I raised with the Minister of Human
Resources Development the concern that Canadians have at the
breakneck speed with which social security reform is taking
place in Canada.
I am pleased to see that the provincial governments have put a
break on that breakneck speed and have slowed the process
down to give people in Canada more of an opportunity to look at
the implications.
I also raised with him the concern that one in three Canadians
have that the main aim of his social policy reform is to in fact cut
social program expenditures. He responded that the objective of
reform was to get programs to meet needs. This is a noble goal
but one which the government is falling far short on because we
have in Canada 1.3 million children living in poverty. We have
1.6 million Canadians on unemployment insurance, 2.4 million
Canadians on social assistance and who knows how many
Canadians underemployed, working part time when they want
to work full time, not making full use of their qualifications.
We have a crisis in unemployment in this country which the
government is sitting back and watching, preferring instead to
focus on social policy reform and not dealing with the matter at
its core which is to make this economy function effectively for,
as I say, those over four million Canadians who are without work
and who want work.
It is clear, as everyone in this House will know, that the best
social policy is a job. Yet we are still seeing unemployment rates
hovering over 11 per cent. Recent studies show that if half a
million more Canadians were working full time, provincial and
federal governments between them would collect approximately
$12 billion in additional revenue on top of savings to
unemployment insurance. Clearly if we get Canada working
again the problems about social programs become much less
significant.
Even dealing with some of the government's successes in
terms of providing 80,000 young Canadians with job
opportunities, that still leaves over 320,000 unable to find work;
320,000 of our future, our young people in Canada not able to
find work.
There are other ways the government seems to refuse to
pursue. For example, there are opportunities to raise tax dollars
from the richest in our country and from corporations. Indeed,
over $140 billion in corporate profits have gone untaxed in the
last nine years. If Exxon in Canada had paid its 1992-93
deferred taxes $600,000 child care spaces would have been
created. Imagine what we could have done about getting
Canadians back to work through that process.
We know that half the government's debt is due to tax breaks
and loopholes for wealthy Canadians. Statistics Canada has told
us that. We know that 44 per cent is due to high interest rates.
Only 6 per cent is due to program spending and only half of that
from social program spending.
However, the government attacks just 3 per cent social
program spending rather than attacking the core problem which
is that Canada does not work for 4.5 million Canadians.
(1825)
Also we could look at a wealth taxes, we could look at more
effective tax auditing and we could even look at lowering the
limits for RRSPs if we were looking to balance some of the
problems that Canadians face and if we were looking to respond
with adequate social programs.
4089
We now have confusion within the government. Once the
Prime Minister said that there would be no more need for budget
cuts, now he has agreed with his finance minister that there will
be need for budget cuts. They look to be severe budget cuts in
order to respond to the way this government is looking at dealing
with the deficit which is the same way all Conservative and
Liberal governments across the country have dealt with it,
which is to attack the most vulnerable in society.
I think what we should do is slow down the speed. We should
give those who support the least well off in society the
opportunity to develop adequate-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, the time is up. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians know that programs introduced in the fifties and the
sixties are no longer adequate. They simply do not meet the
challenges that we as individual Canadians face in our society.
It is for this reason that the Liberal government under the
leadership of the Minister of Human Resources Development on
January 31 this year outlined a three stage process to bring about
positive change in the lives of Canadians.
We are looking at the whole issue of child care,
unemployment insurance, support for families, social services,
social assistance and other forms of income support. This
initiative is comprehensive in nature. It will through the
redesigning of the programs give Canadians the type of social
security system that they have been certainly calling for for
decades.
This government has seen the need and certainly has the
political will and courage to address those concerns. We will in
the coming weeks be releasing an action plan which will provide
direction and options for reform for Canadians.
This process will be extensive, open and will engage
Canadians from coast to coast so that when we are speaking
about modernizing, when we are speaking about restructuring
Canada's social security system, when we are speaking about
giving our young people, our older workers and the working
population the types of skills required to face the challenges of
the 21st century, Canadians will be given that by this
government.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On March 25, I asked the Minister of Finance the following
question, after reminding him that we had just learned that for
the next two years, unemployment insurance cuts would amount
to $630 million a year in the maritimes, and $535 million in
Quebec. We do not know what they will be this year, and it
appears that Employment and Immigration does not know
either.
My question was: Is the Minister of Finance prepared to defer
cutbacks in the unemployment insurance system at least long
enough to put in place a real job creation strategy to help the
jobless find work instead of forcing them onto welfare? Six
hundred and thirty million dollars a year in Atlantic Canada and
$535 million in Quebec, and I am not mentioning cuts in Ontario
and western Canada because cuts in Quebec and the maritimes
represent 60 per cent of the total whereas they only have 33 per
cent of the Canadian population.
Such cuts will have a devastating impact on the economy and
yet, the government went ahead and announced these cuts
without further consideration. That is why I am asking today if it
is prepared to defer its decision at least long enough for these
cuts to be preceded by a real job creation program. I will keep on
asking the same question as long as Bill C-17 has not been
passed, hoping that the minister will change his mind.
(1830)
In the words of Alain Dubuc, a La Presse columnist with
whom the Official Opposition does not always agree, ``Finance
Minister Axworthy is mistaken, because the cuts can be found in
the budget. He is cutting before helping people''. Not only is he
going ahead with the cuts, he is targeting the regions which will
be deprived of substantial sums of money. This money, when
awarded, usually goes to pay rent, buy food and pay for goods
which are not only essential to people's survival but also help
keep the local economy humming.
Therefore, before depriving these regions whose industries
have already been hard hit from a structural standpoint, why
does the minister not postpone his decision so that a true
program can be implemented, one that will restore hope. Hope is
what the people want, but instead, the government has fostered a
climate of despair.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
measures in the February 22 budget affecting the unemployment
insurance program are intended first and foremost to protect the
jobs of workers across Canada.
These changes will result in lower costs for Canadian
employers, contributing to an increase in exports and helping
Canadian products to offer stiffer competition to imports. In
fact, the UI premium reduction will lead to the preservation or
creation of some 40,000 jobs.
In addition and to clarify some of the statistics mentioned by
the hon. member for Mercier, the impact of these changes will
be distributed fairly across all regions of the country. Even after
all budget measures are implemented, workers in Quebec will
continue to receive more than 31 per cent of all UI benefits paid
4090
out in spite of the fact that Quebec only has one quarter of
Canada's population.
In fact, last year Quebec received approximately $1.5 billion
more in UI benefits than it paid in UI premiums.
The member for Mercier implied that changes will have a
significant impact on welfare numbers. In fact, most UI
recipients go from UI to a job. Three quarters of all people on UI
do not use all of the weeks of benefits to which they are legally
entitled. Not many of the people who use up the UI end up on
welfare. It has been estimated to be about 10 per cent of those
who run out of UI or about 2 per cent of 3 per cent of all UI
recipients.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden): Mr. Speaker, on
May 3 last I asked the Minister of Industry if he would be
waiting until after the Quebec election to repeal Bill C-91, the
Drug Patent Act, or if he would act in the best interests of all
Canadians who use prescription drugs and repeal Bill C-91 now.
This bill costs Canadians between $1 billion and $2 billion a
year in extra drug costs.
In question period today the member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie asked the Prime Minister again if he
would be reviewing the legislation. He claimed that any review
of this legislation brought instability to Quebec. This accusation
is of course outrageous in the context of his party's goal to break
up Canada.
My sense is that the government will not do anything until
after the Quebec election or even until after the referendum in
1995. Why is this government caving in to this pressure from the
official opposition?
I was particularly shocked by the Prime Minister's response
today when he said that the Minister of Industry would not
review the legislation if he was satisfied that the pharmaceutical
manufacturers were spending money on research. This is
contradictory to comments made by the Minister of Industry in
April. The minister stated at that time that a review was
imminent. Why is this government now stalling? Why is there
this disagreement?
I have a quote here from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of
Saturday, April 30, 1994 and I quote: ``Foreign Affairs Minister
Andre Ouellet admitted that this Bill C-91 will cost the country
billions in higher pharmaceutical prices by granting 20 years of
patent protection to brand name drugs''. He is now saying: ``We
are not going to review it because we don't want to rock the
boat''.
(1835)
Bill C-91 has caused grief to Canadian consumers. There
should be no further delays in repealing this legislation. We
have some prescription drugs which have increased by up to 120
per cent since Bill C-91 was passed. Bloc members have made a
great deal of noise about how upset they would be if the
government made any changes to that bill. They voted in favour
of the bill when it was passed in the House in the last session
when they were Tories.
It is strange that Bloc members, who take pride about
representing Quebecers, could be so out of touch with their
constituents. In a recent survey conducted by the Canadian Drug
Manufacturers Association, 79 per cent of drug consumers said
that the costs of prescription drugs were too high. This is 16 per
cent higher than the national average outside Quebec.
Many Liberal candidates including the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister campaigned on repealing Bill C-91.
They knew that Canadians were angry at how expensive their
drugs had become. They spoke about repealing the bill with
respect to prescription drugs. They knew what Canadians
wanted and now is the time to follow through on their promise.
By delaying to make changes in this legislation is to say to
Canadians that this is no longer a priority. It is a betrayal to
Canadians. It is a flip-flop.
The Liberals are saying they are not serious about the issue.
They are having second thoughts about making changes to Bill
C-91. That would truly be dishonourable, if that were to be the
case. However it is not much different from the former Tories:
Liberal, Tory, same old story.
The Minister of Industry mentioned in his response to me that
he was looking into the implications of changes to this bill under
GATT. I remind the government there was a clause in GATT for
``reasonable exceptions'' under which the old system of
compulsory licensing could be introduced. Canadians should
not be surprised that the Liberals have a change of heart. After
all, it is not the first time we have seen Liberals campaign on one
side of an issue only to change their position later on after the
campaign. For some people who have forgotten, NAFTA is an
example, as is cruise missile testing.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt but the
member's four minutes are up.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying to the
member for Regina-Lumsden that we are not running away
from our election commitment. We are committed to reviewing
this legislation. We are not having second thoughts.
I want to talk about the challenge we are facing to ensure the
development of a strong pharmaceutical industry and to make
patented drugs available to consumers at reasonable prices in a
4091
manner consistent with our international obligations under
GATT and NAFTA.
Multinational pharmaceutical companies have committed to
reaching an R and D sales ratio of 10 per cent by 1996. They
have also made investment announcements now exceeding $680
million for the 1992 to 1996 period. We want to ensure these
commitments are realized.
On the price side, pharmaceutical companies cannot charge
any price they want for patented medicines. Prices are regulated
by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. The increase in
prices of existing patented medicines from 1987 to 1992 average
2.9 per cent versus 4.2 per cent for the CPI.
Let me close by saying that the government is committed to
both a strong economy and the needs of consumers. We are not
running away from our election commitment.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, last week,
on Wednesday, to be exact, I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs
two questions about the forgotten people of Oka. Of course, the
questions were based on a letter from the Kanesatake Chamber
of Commerce written on April 26 to the Right Hon. Jean
Chrétien, with copies to Lucien Bouchard, Claude Bachand and
Ron Irwin.
In this letter, the president of the Chamber of Commerce
mentions several irregularities, including the diversion of funds
from the band council; that is, economic development funds
were used for other purposes.
(1840)
In answer to the question I asked him, the minister said that he
did not have the letter, which as I just told you was dated April
26. I would really like to have an answer concerning the
allegations of diversion of funds.
The second question concerned the decline in economic
development in the Kanesatake community. The Chamber of
Commerce represents 80 per cent of the native businesses in
Kanesatake and of course all the violence, insecurity and
instability in Kanesatake have led to huge economic losses.
Naturally, all businesses are facing economic decline. On that
subject, the minister reminded me that it was the previous
government that had brought the army out, while this
government was prepared to negotiate and was bringing natives
from Kanesatake to Ottawa to deal with them. In that respect, I
think the hon. minister is mistaken; economic development
problems in Kanesatake are due to a greater extent to
mismanagement on the part of the government.
Examples abound where it has become almost indecent to see
how the federal government is washing its hands of an economic
situation created mainly by a small group of offenders known to
everyone out there. The government must know who they are as
well. So, what does the government do to solve the problem?
Nothing at all.
Theft, vandalism and violence continue. It is no small task to
go shopping in Kanesatake when you are greeted with machine
gun fire and wonder if you are not in a western movie.
Unfortunately, reality in this case goes beyond fiction. Audio
material show that night after night, there is non-stop shooting
in Kanesatake. You do not have to think too long to figure out
why businesses are on the decline.
People wonder what the government intends to do to curb this
decline and why it does not take seriously the whole issue of
public safety in Kanesatake.
Just yesterday two gas tanks blew up in Kanesatake; one in
``la Pinède'' in Oka, and the other one in Les Terrasses
Raymond, with the result that the entire community had no sleep
all night.
Every day violence breaks out. Even the children in the
Kanesatake school have written the Chief to tell him this has to
stop. This must be stopped because I think the children even said
in their letter that they were afraid to ride their bikes and walk in
the village.
People are unable to insure their homes and businesses.
Mortgages are not being renewed because of the unstable
climate, and nobody is doing anything. The government is
acting with carelessness in this matter.
My question is this: Regarding the alleged misappropriation
of funds, what is the government doing to correct the situation
and, regarding economic development, what concrete measures
does the government intend to take to restore public safety in
Kanesatake and give businesses the help they expect from their
government to overcome this crisis once and for all?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to respond to the question raised on May 4 by the
hon. member for Saint-Jean regarding the letter sent by Roger
Simon, chairman of the Kanesatake chamber of commerce,
dated April 26.
Mr. Simon is blaming the carelessness of the federal
government particularly for the collapse of native businesses
and for the alleged misappropriation of federal subsidies by the
band council in an unstable situation where public security is
concerned.
Public security in the Oka-Kanesatake area is the
responsibility of le ministère de la sécurité publique du Québec.
It is la sûreté du Québec that provides security services to all
residents of this area.
4092
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
met on several occasions with Grand Chief Peltier to discuss
properties bought by the federal government since the Oka crisis
of 1990. These discussions were conducted in order to establish
a unified land base.
The minister has proposed various solutions in order to settle
the transfer of properties to the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake.
This is a very complex file. It remains a priority and requires a
mutually acceptable solution to all parties involved.
Regarding the alleged misappropriation of economic
development funds, the band has flexibility to manage the funds
according to the agreement signed with the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not interfere
with the day to day business of a band's operations. Such
interference would be paternalistic. Band councils and chiefs
are accountable to the band members who elect them.
Those economic development funds are included in the
recovery plans signed between the Department of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development and the Mohawk Council of
Kanesatake last January.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.45 p.m. pursuant to the order
made earlier this day the House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)