Debates of Dec. 5th, 2012

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the motion.

First Nations

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 386 under private members' business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #575

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from December 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-420, An Act to establish the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-420 under private members' business.

The question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #576

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

It being 6:45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 31 consideration of the motion.

Blue Sky Policy

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my support for private member's Motion No. 387, which calls upon the government to continue implementing the 2006 blue sky policy, Canada's international air policy.

As the motion indicates, the 2006 blue sky policy has led to great results for Canadian consumers, with more destinations and lower prices available as a result of the strong competition. This success has been made possible through the great collaboration between Transport Canada and its federal partners, as well as industry stakeholders. This good work should continue.

There is a legal framework in place to govern international schedules and air services called the Chicago convention. Canada is a signatory to this convention and has to abide by the rules set forth by this international legal instrument. Within this framework, we have ensured that Canadians enjoy good connectivity to the rest of the world.

In 2012, the vast majority of the Canadian population can travel to the most important cities around the world on either a direct or a one-stop internationally scheduled service. This means that Canadians can conveniently travel to the most important business and leisure centres abroad.

The impressive results of the blue sky policy have already been mentioned. Canada's 20 largest bilateral air travel markets cover about 85% of all our international passenger traffic. These are the most popular places Canadians want to fly. They are also the most important sources for inbound tourists.

Under the blue sky policy, special attention has been paid to address the needs of consumers. We now have open air transport agreements with most of our top 20 partners. In some instances, we have to remember that some of our partners are not prepared to expand their agreements with us to that extent at this point in time.

Let me illustrate the benefits with a concrete example. Some of our most popular destinations are the Caribbean, Mexican and South American regions. In the past six years, we have seen these markets increase in competition. With more airlines competing on the same routes, prices have decreased over time. Consequently, the number of passengers has increased. In 2006, the Caribbean, Mexican and Central American regions have accounted for the largest increases of Canadians travelling overseas.

In absolute numbers, the Caribbean saw the largest increase in passengers. Close to 1.5 million more Canadians travelled to that region in 2010 compared to 2006. Over half a million more Canadians travelled to Mexico in 2010 when compared to 2006.

Incidentally, our efforts to expand air transport agreements in the Caribbean region, Mexico and Central America have also created an increase in inbound tourists from these countries. In the 2006 to 2010 period, the number of tourists arriving in Canada from that region has also increased, thus creating further business opportunities for Canada's tourist industry.

The further expansion of air transport agreements also had an impact on the number of destinations available to Canadians. For example, in the 2006 to 2010 period the number of international destination access routes for Canadians increased by 9%.

Canadian consumers have also benefited from the more direct international flights. In the 2006 to 2010 period, the annual number of direct international flights increased by 43% overall. Here it must be noted that several foreign airlines have either entered or expanded their services to Canada as a result of our liberalization efforts. For their part, Canadian carriers have increased their total number of outbound international flights by 56% and the number of direct international destinations by 11%.

Another example demonstrating that the government has taken to heart the welfare of Canadian travellers is the fact that 72% of international passenger traffic is now covered by an open agreement. Here I am talking about the open agreements that we have covering 43 countries around the globe. With the exception of our open sky agreements with the United States and the United Kingdom, all of these agreements have been negotiated under the blue sky policy.

We might ask ourselves whether or not all of the non-open sky agreements are automatically restrictive. The answer is no.

It has been mentioned that many of our most important partners are not prepared to negotiate an open skies agreement with Canada at this time. This does not mean that we cannot expand our existing agreements with them for the benefit of consumers. We have, in fact, done exactly that. What matters is that sufficient traffic rights be available for carriers to implement their business strategies with respect to certain markets.

Many of our agreements provide more rights than Canadians or foreign carriers actually use. It was not surprising that the “Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011”, from the World Economic Forum, ranked Canada number 10 out of 139 countries for the openness of its air access. This is perhaps the best kept secret in the world of aviation and tourism.

The point to remember is that considerable effort has been spent under the blue sky policy to create business opportunities for carriers and airports for the benefit of Canadians. It is important to understand the nature of what the government can do to foster the welfare of consumers in this sector of our economy. The government can only negotiate a framework under the Chicago Convention, within which first, Canadian and foreign airlines can make decisions, based on commercial considerations, as to how to serve the bilateral market, and second, Canadian airports can market their services to air carriers.

The blue sky policy objective is to promote long-term, sustainable competition. The government would like to see more and more international scheduled air services added over time. As long as we pursue this objective, Canadians benefit, not only through the choice of flights and cheaper fares but also through the broad economic impact the Canadian aviation sector generates in our economy.

The blue sky policy is not a cookie-cutter approach to expansion of the air transport agreements, and it calls for prudence in some cases. Its track record is clear. It has created benefit for average Canadians, and it is pro-consumer in its outlook. It is the right policy for Canada.

For these reasons, I support Motion No. 387, because it is consistent with the federal government's current approach to the implementation of the blue sky policy.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is simply not going to work for the air transport and aerospace industries or for air transport and aerospace workers.

These industries are important to Canada's economy and to my riding's economy. They create high-quality jobs and offer plenty of opportunities to innovate.

People in Mirabel and the Lower Laurentians are happy that a number of aerospace companies have set up shop near the Mirabel airport and are creating thousands of jobs in our area.

Unfortunately, the member who moved this motion does not seem to know this industry as well as he should. That is likely because he does not have an airport, a major aeronautics industry or a significant population of aviation workers in his riding. I have all of those things in my riding.

I believe that this explains why he is on the wrong track with this motion, which adheres to the gospel of deregulation, dismantling protections and chasing lower prices without considering the consequences of such policies.

I want to make it clear that I am not against competition, but I do want competition to produce positive outcomes for Canadians and for my constituents.

This motion seems to want to push the blue sky policy much farther than it should go. It is like saying that we can always adopt a blue sky policy. This motion is based on the supposed advantages of open sky agreements. However, as is the case with many other Conservative policies, the Conservatives' position is not based on solid facts. No full analysis or truly independent and objective assessment has been conducted since the blue sky policy was implemented.

We often see this with the Conservatives. They seem to show contempt for consultations, facts, analyses and science. They do not consider the possibility that these are the things on which our policies could be and should be based. What is the point of merely repeating the directives of the Prime Minister's Office without considering the impact on Canadians?

This policy is already in place. The motion is nothing revolutionary. Open sky agreements have already been signed with countries that account for 87% of international air traffic. This motion serves only to push the deregulation policy even farther—too far.

Let us look at one agreement in particular, the agreement with the European Union. Here is what CAW Local 2002 had to say about this agreement:

It reduces our ability to protect Canadian air carriers,...safety standards, and the employment and working conditions of air transport workers....

Our concerns are reinforced by the way in which the Canadian government negotiated the Agreement. In contrast to the EU, where the full spectrum of industry workers and their unions were consulted and given representation as observers, the Canadian government refused to consult with any worker representatives other than pilots’ unions.

In short, no reasonable consultations were held and there was a complete lack of transparency. We recognize the Conservatives' approach.

Of the two pilots' unions that were consulted with regard to this agreement, the Air Line Pilots Association, International, was consulted only through a letter containing five questions. This was therefore not a very extensive consultation. This pilots' association was in favour of an agreement with the European Union. It supports the balanced objectives of the blue sky policy. However, it warns the government of the possible risks associated with a badly negotiated agreement such as this. That is what I want to tell the House today.

Here is what the Air Line Pilots Association, International, had to say:

“The ATA must ensure a level playing field so that Canadian airlines and their employees can compete effectively and are not disadvantaged by pressures to achieve the lowest common denominator, be it safety, security, labour or environmental standards”.

What the industry really needs before getting involved in any more “open skies” type agreements is a critical, comprehensive and objective review of what currently exists. The motion before us today is merely a distraction.

Why are the Conservatives not trying to solve the real problems facing the industry? Here is something they should be looking into: Canadian airlines are losing five million passengers to the U.S. every year. That is a problem.

Uncontrolled deregulation and throwing out measures to protect the interests of all Canadians are not the answer. I could also talk about various regulatory problems. These problems will not be solved by reducing the amount of regulation, but rather by improving our regulations. A good example is the hiring of foreign pilots, even though Canadian pilots are well trained, competent and ready to fill those positions.

Regarding this motion, two main groups need to be protected in this debate on open sky agreements: Canadian air passengers and employees in the airline and aerospace sectors. I think it is safe to say that the Conservatives are not protecting either of those groups.

The NDP is working hard to protect and create Canadian jobs and to defend Canada's airline industry. As I said earlier, our aerospace industry is a real gem, one that creates high-quality jobs and innovation in Canada. It must be supported with serious, thoughtful policies, and not with motions based on ideology that are haphazardly proposed in this House.

Of course, we are also standing up for air passengers. Greater access to flights and lower costs for Canadians would enhance the general vitality of the industy. We want to strike a balance that will benefit Canadian consumers not only today, but also in the long term, rather than encourage a race to the cheapest price, which would only be temporary. For all of these reasons, I believe this motion is a step in the wrong direction.

The essential problem with the motion is that although we are hearing that a blue sky policy is always the best way to go, we need to look on a case-by-case basis where the benefit is for Canadians. If an individual case is not beneficial for Canadians, then we should not pursue a policy that is not good for our workers, because at the end of the line, our workers are Canadian. We need good jobs in Canada, and airline pilots and airline workers are part of that market.

We need to ask ourselves when we are talking about blue sky policy, at what cost are we doing this? Are we doing it as a race to the bottom? Are we trying to compete with countries that do not have unionized workers, who do not pay as much for fuel, et cetera, or are we doing what is best for Canadians?

For all these reasons, I oppose this motion. I want us to work together in this House to come up with real solutions that are good for all Canadians, including those working in the airline industry.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak in support of private member's Motion No. 387, which calls on the government to continue the implementation of Canada's international air policy, the blue sky policy.

Since its inception in 2006, the blue sky policy has received wide support from air industry stakeholders. It has also produced tangible results for all regions in Canada: travellers, shippers as well as the business and tourism sectors. During the first hour of debate, some members of the opposition expressed some concerns about the blue sky policy, particularly regarding the benefits of air transport agreements negotiated under the policy.

I would like to comment on this point. I would also like to stress that cabotage is explicitly excluded under the policy. As was mentioned previously, the policy calls for a proactive approach to the expansion of Canada's air transport agreements, and in particular the negotiation of reciprocal open skies type of agreements when in the overall interest of the country. These negotiations are handled on a case-by-case basis, and the commercial interests of Canadian airlines and airports are a primary driver when we decide with which country to negotiate.

The government also attempts to negotiate agreements that will result in new or expanded air services in the short term while trying to preserve existing services valued by Canadian communities. In this context, it is fair to say that the search for real benefits for Canadians is at the core of the decision to negotiate new or expanded agreements; otherwise, the government simply does not proceed.

The principle of real Canadian benefits is embedded in the policy. This is why the government takes issues related to a level playing field and the displacement of current air services very seriously. For instance, when we identify risk factors related to direct or indirect support by foreign states, or when a foreign carrier would reasonably be expected to offer a level of service that could reduce or eliminate competition on some routes, we would take a more prudent position. To do otherwise could result in net losses for Canada.

I would like to stress to members of the opposition that level playing issues are important for the government, given that our air industry is deregulated and run by the private sector. It largely functions without financial government support, contrary to what we see in the vast majority of countries around the world, including our most important trading partners. In this context, it is important that our air carriers be able to compete on fair terms under air transport agreements. Again, this is one reason why the blue sky policy is not a one-size-fits-all approach to air transport negotiations.

In recent years, some people have argued that Canada's approach to air transport liberalization should be the same as that of the United States. Let me address this point. The United States has a substantially bigger air travel market than Canada, which is very attractive to foreign carriers. This larger market can sustain more competition. Not surprisingly, the United States has more air carriers, large and small, that are active in international markets. It also has more low-cost carriers. The American approach to air transport negotiations is therefore suited to a different air industry, economic size and geographic characteristics.

It is also important to recognize that the outcome of each negotiation always depends on the willingness of other countries to conclude an agreement on terms that are beneficial to Canada. There have been many instances in the past where our negotiating partners were not ready to expand the agreement as much as we had hoped. In such cases, we have had to manage our negotiating leverage carefully in order to achieve our objective in the long run.

The blue sky policy takes into consideration the unique characteristics of the Canadian aviation system: population density, economic size and geography. It is a balanced policy that is made in Canada, for Canada. Since 2006, it has produced positive results for all regions of the country. Looking forward, we will continue to be strategic and seek net gains for Canadians.

Since 2006, the government has concluded new or expanded air transport agreements with close to 70 countries. For example, we have concluded a comprehensive agreement covering all the 27 member states of the European Union, and open sky type agreements with Ireland, Iceland, New Zealand, Barbados, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, South Korea, El Salvador, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua, St. Martin and Curaçao. We have expanded agreements with Mexico, Japan, Jordan, Singapore, the Philippines, Morocco, Cuba, Egypt, Algeria, China and India.

Finally, we have new first time agreements with Kuwait, Serbia, Croatia, Panama, Turkey, South Africa, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Qatar, Colombia and Senegal. We hope to announce more new and expanded agreements in the future.

It must be noted that the vast majority of our air transport agreements have more rights than Canadian or foreign carriers actually use. Consequently, the storyline of the blue sky policy is not one of constraints, but one of valuable available opportunities. Looking at the future, we will continue to provide business opportunities for Canadian carriers and airports to expand their commercial activities.

Let us also not forget that it is up to the carriers to make business decisions and to offer new air services based on actual demand and market viability. We use every opportunity to engage our international partners to conclude new or expanded air transport agreements. On top of conventional face-to-face meetings, Canadian officials are also proactive in setting up meetings on the margins of major events at the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal, such as the General Assembly or during negotiation conferences organized by that organization.

These engagement efforts have led to the expansion of many agreements and the conclusion of several open sky type agreements such as the Canada-Brazil open sky agreement. They are also cost effective.

I mentioned earlier that an important driver of the blue sky policy is the commercial interests of Canadian airlines and airports. There is in some quarters a perception that the policy has disproportionately benefited our carriers. This is a misperception. Canadian airports have also benefited from the conclusion of expanded air transport agreements.

For example, in recent years the Vancouver International Airport has experienced a net increase in the number of flights to and from the Asia-Pacific region, in particular, from the Philippines, New Zealand, China and South Korea.

The Calgary International Airport has also increased its connectivity to Japan, a direct result of the 2011 air transport negotiations with that country.

Toronto's Pearson International Airport has seen an increase in the number of flights to Latin America, Africa and Asia.

The Montreal-Trudeau Airport has benefited from additional services to sunny destinations and Europe.

The interests of Canadian airports will continue to be considered in view of the broad economic interests of the communities they serve.

It is worth repeating that the blue sky policy also supports tourism development. For instance, all key priority markets of the Canadian Tourism Commission have been the focus of significant liberalization efforts, which have resulted in open agreements with France, Germany, Brazil and South Korea. Expanded agreements were also concluded with Mexico, China, India and Japan.

The United Kingdom and the United States are covered by open skies agreements concluded before the policy was adopted in 2006. Finally, there are unused traffic rights in our agreement with Australia, which could allow new services to take place in the short term.

Under the federal tourism strategy, Transport Canada regularly consults the tourism industry for the development of Canada's proposed calendar of air transport negotiations. In addition, Transport Canada has conducted outreach activities for the purpose of increasing industry awareness about the opportunities available under current bilateral air transport agreements.

The blue sky policy has also supported our international trade objectives. For instance, since November 2006, Canada has concluded an open agreement, or has offered such an agreement to a large majority of countries targeted by the global commerce strategy.

While it is true that aviation considerations remain the primary driver of air transport negotiations, the broader economic benefits of an ever-increasing number of international services over time is fully recognized. This growing network of flights improves our connectivity to our key trade and tourism markets as well as consumer choice and convenience.

The blue sky policy is the right policy for Canada. I am confident that the continued implementation of the blue sky policy will provide net benefits for Canada and will help us build a viable air industry as well as a stronger economy.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since I was elected, I have had the opportunity to speak in the House about bills and motions several times. Sometimes I have been strongly in favour of certain bills and sometimes I have been strongly opposed. This is a first for me this evening. I will be attempting to prove that this motion is futile because it seems to pretty much go nowhere and the work has already been done.

I have been listening for quite a few minutes to statements of policy and principle, especially in the speeches by my colleagues opposite. However, I see very little proof. I will attempt to back up my statement.

I am rising today to speak to Motion No. 387 in an attempt to bring my humble view to bear on the issue of the possible expansion of the blue sky policy on air transportation. We must recognize that the sky in question has a palette of all possible shades of blue, which often leads to more questions than answers.

Let us start with a sky blue or blue sky, as the case may be. The motion states “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should further the success of its 2006 Blue Sky Policy...”. It seems to me that before we further the so-called success, the member moving the motion, the government or all MPs who speak and support this motion should provide proof of this so-called success.

Surprise, surprise. No assessment of the various agreements signed has been released. And it also seems that there has been no in-depth analysis of these agreements to determine if there has been a net benefit.

To digress for a moment, I would remind the House that all our friends opposite are experts in rhetoric. I even think that they believe that repeating something often enough will make it meaningful. For example, we had long debates about the notion of suitable employment for employment insurance purposes. We heard all sorts of things, including the fact that the only job that would not be suitable is not having a job. That does not define the notion of suitable employment.

Whether we are talking about international trade treaties or the case before us today, we keep hearing about a net benefit to Canadians, but the government has not dared to define this term so that we can decide where we stand.

If I am being asked, as a parliamentarian, to show blind faith, I would say that the sky is a rather dark blue. What would be the benefits to Canadians of this open sky? Would there be lower plane ticket prices, more flights, greater long-term job creation or higher GDP?

Those possibilities seem attractive. If they were defined and proven, I might be inclined to change my position. I would at least be open to thinking about it. It all seems great, but as we speak, we already have open sky agreements with over 50 countries. My hon. colleague listed them a few minutes ago. There could even be a royal blue sky agreement with Great Britain, but I am just kidding.

These existing agreements account for 85% of total passenger traffic in Canada and 87% of travel abroad. That is not far off 100%. We are discussing a motion on something that already exists and that accounts for 85% of passenger traffic in Canada. We could perhaps do a bit more, but we must acknowledge that a large number of agreements have already been signed.

However, since I have been travelling at my own expense—I must point out—I admit that I have not experienced the benefits these different agreements have for Canadians. Furthermore, there are no studies to show that my perception does not reflect reality.

According to my observations, many of the objectives of this blue sky policy, as promising as it is, are out of touch with reality. In fact, I think that the Conservative government's various fees and budget cuts are constantly undermining the ability of Canadian airports and airlines to compete with their counterparts, and that is driving my purchasing power down.

Open competition has also had adverse effects on Canadian consumers. Airlines compete on ticket pricing by sometimes hiding the real cost of tickets. Surcharges differ so dramatically from one ticket to the next that it is impossible to calculate the actual cost based on the advertised price.

This common practice prompted the Union des consommateurs to file a class action suit against Air Canada on the grounds that fees charged were significantly higher than the prices advertised on the company's website. I will not comment on the case here, but it seems to me that this illustrates how out of control a deregulated open market policy can get.

With about 50 agreements already signed, the fact is that the primary partners are already involved in this type of agreement. So once again, why this motion?

China might be one country with which we do not yet have an agreement that could be a major partner.

However, we should consider whether it is a good idea to sign this type of agreement with a country whose carriers are administered and financed by the government.

Could their ability to influence the market through long-term offers made possible by government subsidies result in unfair competition? We may have to examine this issue more thoroughly before moving forward.

However, it seems that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is not letting such issues slow him down. During his recent trip to China, the Conservative minister clearly opened our airspace a little bit more to Chinese companies. I would like to quote the press release from his own office:

During the meeting, the Minister and Vice-Administrator Xia also signed amendments to the existing bilateral air transport agreement to facilitate the movement of goods and people between the two countries. The expanded air transport agreement, negotiated under Canada's Blue Sky policy, will help deepen Canada's important air transport, trade and investment relationships with China.

The 85% I was talking about earlier could go as high as 90%, 92% or 94%. Once again, I have to wonder whether this motion is relevant.

It is clear that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has all the latitude he needs to go ahead with the blue sky policy, as he appears to be doing with authorities from the People's Republic of China. However, in this case, we would like to hear a little more about what is in that agreement. Has the minister concluded an agreement with China under the blue sky policy or are these merely discussions?

If that is the case, what is the point of the motion before us here today for this second hour?

Does the Conservative member realize that his motion has absolutely no point? Coming from a party that is always bragging about how it likes to reduce paperwork, it is a bit hypocritical.

What a strange way to govern the country. That member is not aware of what is happening within the Conservative Party. He is not aware of the policies in place and the announcements made by his own minister.

What a strange way to keep us members busy here in the House, with motions that are of no consequence and have no impact on government policy, since everything seems to be working just fine.

Clearly, the Conservative Party does not have what it takes to set this country's policy agenda.

Since the positive impacts for consumers have yet to be proven, this could have long-term adverse effects on Canada's already precarious situation.

As we know, Canada is a country of vast open spaces with a small population, which, in the eyes of many international airlines, makes it a second level market. Players entering the market with the advantage of political and financial support from their government could considerably hurt Canadian airlines.

I can already hear the Conservatives' comeback—and I will conclude on this point—that is, that we are against trade, against businesses, against consumers and against everything else. Personally, I would call our position pragmatic. We do not reject that approach, but we refuse to blindly believe the Conservative dogma.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone who did some research and took some interest in this motion, and I thank all those who spoke to the motion. Government members have explained in detail what the blue sky policy is about, why it is the right policy for Canada, and what benefits have resulted from its implementation.

I am a little alarmed to hear some of the responses from the opposition that seem to suggest that more competition and more choice for consumers would not be a positive thing. Certainly in my experience working with different tourism industry leaders, and even with constituents, having more competition and more choice has always been encouraged. I was also somewhat alarmed to hear one opposition member wonder why I would bring this forward, since I do not have an airport in my riding. I am quite pleased and proud to actually have two airports quite close to my riding. I do not think that is a litmus test for any of us in this House. We do not have to have an airport in our constituencies to speak on issues relevant to air travel.

Just as a quick reminder, the blue sky policy was adopted by our government in 2006 with a view to liberalizing more proactively, but responsibly, our air transport relations with the world.

It has been noted that the blue sky policy is a balanced policy that is consistent with the particular characteristics of our economy, our geography and our air industry. It is not, as has been suggested by others, a one-size-fits-all approach to air transportation negotiations. Each negotiation is primarily driven by the commercial interests of our air industry but also aims to produce long-term and sustainable economic benefits beyond that sector.

Through this approach, we take a long-term view of the competition. It is when more flights are offered that consumer choice and consumer convenience increase. I do not meet many consumers who are not in favour of choice and convenience.

Let me summarize the tangible benefits this policy has produced for consumers and the business and tourism sectors since its inception. This policy has provided Canadian consumers with more choices in terms of both destinations and number of direct flights. As a matter of fact, we have concluded open air transport agreements with most of Canada's top 20 bilateral air travel markets, which together represent about 85% of all of our international passenger traffic.

Over the 2006 to 2011 period, Canadian air carriers increased the number of outbound international flights by 56% and the number of direct destinations by 11%. Concretely, this has led to, for example, new or expanded services to the Asia-Pacific region from Vancouver, a direct service between Calgary and Tokyo, more flights to Latin America from Toronto, and more flights to Europe from Montreal.

The implementation of the blue sky policy has also supported Canada's international trade objectives. As of December 2012, Canada has either concluded, or offered to conclude, an open agreement with countries that collectively represent about 91% of our international two-way merchandise trade.

Canada's tourism industry has also benefited. Under the policy, special efforts have been expanded to promote access from all key, priority inbound markets identified by the Canadian Tourism Commission. That is why Canadian airports and airlines, as well as the tourism sector, under our federal tourism strategy, are regularly consulted on negotiation priorities. Our government's efforts have resulted in open or expanded agreements with France, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, China, India, Japan and South Korea. We have invested in these efforts, because we understand the importance of direct flights to make it easier for tourists to come to Canada.

It is important to remember that 72% of our international passenger traffic is now covered by an open agreement. Before the blue sky policy, we had an open agreement with two countries. Today 43 countries are covered by such agreements. Looking to the future, Asia and Latin America will continue to be areas of focus for the implementation of the blue sky policy.

I strongly believe that the blue sky policy is the right policy for Canada. It is balanced. It is responsible. It takes into account the unique nature of our country, our geography, and the interests of Canadian consumers and businesses. It supports our national air industry as well as our international trade, tourism, and economic development objectives.

I am confident that Canada will continue to benefit from the results of the blue sky policy for many years to come. For all those reasons, I call on all members of this House to support Motion No. 387, which calls on our government to continue the implementation of the blue sky policy for the benefit of all Canadians.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The time provided for debate has expired. The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the recorded division stands deferred until next Wednesday, December 12, just before the time provided for private member's business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak again about important Coast Guard radio service for our Great Lakes. As we know, in May of this year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced cuts to the Coast Guard. It was a reckless move that would close nearly half of Canada's marine communications and traffic services centres, as well as the Kitsilano search and rescue centre just a year after the closure of the Quebec City and St. John's search and rescue centres.

One of the communications centres set to be mothballed is in Thunder Bay. The government claims it is a move to modernize marine communications, but boaters are concerned for their safety under the new system. The union that serves the Coast Guard employees also has misgivings about safety based on the increased workload that will fall on the shoulders of operators at the already busy Sarnia station.

As the cuts were announced, social media campaigns began and messages started coming in. One of those was from Paul Morralee of Thunder Bay. He shared the story of his 2,000 kilometre journey this past summer on the waters of Ontario. He wrote the following:

People shake in fear when I tell them about crossing Lake Superior, moving along the North Channel or venturing around Georgian Bay, single handedly in my old wooden boat, but, I have an ace up my sleeve. I have Thunder Bay Coast Guard Radio ready to respond to my needs in an urgent situation. They know the area, they know the waters, and they know how to respond. How do I know? Because, they have helped me out on three occasions.

He brings perspective and experience to the debate and further stated:

Save Thunder Bay Coast Guard Radio, by doing what is right and continue the service that is currently being provided.

At the same time, there was a letter to the editor signed by Peter Fraser, regional representative of CAW local 2182 that was published in The Algoma News. It lays out the facts fairly well. Mr. Fraser explained the station in Thunder Bay covered Lake Winnipeg, Lake Superior, the St. Mary's River, the North Channel and all of Georgian Bay and northern Lake Huron to about Port Elgin. It has operators on duty monitoring the maritime VHF emergency channels. During the summer months, two and sometimes three operators are on duty 24 hours a day, every day.

In 2011-12, the Thunder Bay station alone responded to 391 incidents, with 274 occurring during the summer months of June, July and August. These ranged from calls for assistance from a vessel in trouble to events that required search and rescue assistance from Trenton.

That sounds like a system that is working for boaters, but after July 2014 Thunder Bay Coast Guard Radio will be gone and its duties will be transferred to Sarnia with no additional staff being added to help with the extra work. This will all be done on new communication consoles that have yet to be constructed and certainly have not been tested. It is a theoretical solution to something that was not a problem. It places the lives of boaters in jeopardy for a cost-cutting measure. That is what this really is, make no mistake.

The move will replace the old consoles that use time-tested manual switches and untested computerized touch screens. It is important that everyone understands we are walking away from a good system that saves lives to an untested one just to save a few bucks. New Democrats know that is wrong. The savings are not worth the risk.

Two people can do only so much. Will the government reconsider the closure of the Thunder Bay Marine Communications and Traffic Services Centre?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the issue raised by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, regarding the changes within the Canadian Coast Guard, specifically those involving the consolidation of 10 marine communications and traffic services centres.

First, I would like to correct the unfounded suggestion that our government does not value the safety of mariners on the Great Lakes and in northern Ontario. We have not forgotten the tragedy of the Edmund Fitzgerald, and that is why the safety of all mariners is and will always be the number one priority of the Government of Canada.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is becoming a more modern, streamlined and responsive department. The department is committed to examining the way its services are delivered, and this includes making positive changes in the use of its resources with the intention of saving Canadian taxpayers money without affecting the safety of Canadians.

The Canadian Coast Guard will be further consolidating and modernizing its marine communications and traffic services while maintaining the same high level of safety and traffic services. The Canadian Coast Guard is investing in its infrastructure to take advantage of today's technology. With these updates, the same level of service will be delivered from strategically located centres across the country.

On more than one occasion in the last few decades, the Canadian Coast Guard has implemented various technological improvements while ensuring the safety of mariners. New tools and processes are being introduced that will increase the efficiency of operators by diminishing administrative tasks while enabling increased attention to ship traffic safety. The use of advanced communication technologies will ensure that communications services will remain high quality, that resources are tasked efficiently and that the response to mariners in distress is timely.

Consolidation also allows the Canadian Coast Guard to better manage the fluctuating workload at its marine communications and traffic services centres. Better connected centres equipped with modern technology will ensure improved backup capabilities.

Consolidation of marine communications and traffic services centres will be done in two phases. In the spring of 2014, the Tofino, Thunder Bay, Montreal, Saint John and St. John's centres will close. The services provided by the Thunder Bay centre will be consolidated in Sarnia. Vancouver, Comox and Riviere-au-Renard will be part of phase 2. In the spring of 2015, operations are expected to be delivered from the following 12 centres: Prince Rupert, Victoria, Sarnia, Prescott, Quebec, Les Escoumins, Halifax, Sydney, Placentia, Port aux Basque, Goose Bay and Iqaluit.

I would like to assure Canadians and my hon. colleague that the implementation of this initiative will have absolutely no impact on service to mariners. In fact, there will be improved reliability of services due to increased interconnectivity between centres, and larger centres will have a better ability to address service spikes in service demands by having an increased complement of staff.

The Coast Guard has clear workload standards for its marine communications and traffic services officers and these standards will not be increased as a result of this initiative. The workload will be distributed more proportionally between officers on watch at the new consolidated centres. Mariners' safety will not be jeopardized. The Coast Guard has a rigorous and structured certification process to ensure that its front-line officers are fully capable of delivering services in accordance with domestic and international regulations.

Finally, I would like to reaffirm the dedication of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to ensuring the safety of the maritime community.