Bill C-10 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures

This enactment amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act to provide that Air Canada’s articles of continuance contain a requirement that it carry out aircraft maintenance activities in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba and to provide for certain other measures related to that obligation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I am happy to hear it; I just wanted that to be clarified.

In fact, my next question was whether there is an agreement with Air Canada concerning Bill C-10, to have the legislation withdrawn.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I didn't speak with Ms. Anglade. My chief of staff spoke with her after those comments were made. My understanding is that Ms. Anglade will be submitting something to the committee and will therefore have the opportunity to share her views on the subject.

Ms. Anglade and I are on the same page. We understand the situation. Bill C-10 is making its way through the parliamentary process, which has a number of stages. The bill will not become law after second reading, and today is proof of that. The committee is holding meetings to study the bill and hear from witnesses, after which, the bill will be referred back to the House of Commons for third reading.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to start by thanking you, Mr. Garneau, for visiting Lac-Mégantic last week. Most of the community really appreciated your visit.

Since we don't have much time, I'm going to get right to the subject at hand, Bill C-10.

I'm going to pick up on what you just said about the Quebec government. At a press conference, the Quebec minister for the economy, science, and innovation was forced to say that the easing of the requirements on Air Canada to keep its maintenance activities in Quebec could hurt the creation of a centre that the air carrier is supposed to establish.

Did you discuss that with Ms. Anglade?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to say how eager I am to discuss the NDP motion seeking to extend the committee's consideration of Bill C-10. The motion also seeks to allow the committee to travel and meet with people who were affected by the decision in communities across the country.

Minister, thank you for being here today.

Unfortunately, Bill C-10 will only fuel the anger and cynicism of a large segment of the population. It wasn't that long ago that the current prime minister was protesting on Parliament Hill alongside Aveos workers and chanting in solidarity with them. Today, we see that he has changed his tune.

What's more, at the time, a Liberal MP criticized the federal government at a press conference for failing to live up to its obligation to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which stated very clearly that the airline had to keep maintenance operations in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg.

Mr. Garneau, you were the one who made those comments in 2012. The workers were right. The Superior Court of Québec sided with them, the Appeal Court of Québec sided with them, and the Supreme Court would have sided with them. I'd like to know what you have to say to the 2,600 families who were counting on you to stand up for their jobs.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister.

We were all disappointed when Aveos declared bankruptcy in 2012. Many workers lost their jobs.

Could you explain to us how Bill C-10 will help create new jobs, especially in Quebec and Manitoba?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I'll follow up on my first question.

Would you be willing to provide this committee with any recommendations that would have come from the department in terms of modernizing Bill C-10, or modernizing the act?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the members of the committee for organizing today and for allowing me to provide testimony in relation to Bill C-10.

I am very pleased to appear before you today, as part of your study on Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Bill C-10 will grant Air Canada the flexibility to be competitive in the face of a constantly evolving air transport sector. At the same time, this bill continues to support Canada's aerospace sector by reinforcing the government's expectation that Air Canada will undertake aircraft maintenance in certain parts of the country.

The bill seeks to amend paragraph 6(1)(d) of the act, which currently imposes on Air Canada the obligation to include, in its articles of continuance, provisions to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community, and the City of Mississauga. The proposed amendments would replace the reference to the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community, and the City of Mississauga with a reference to the provinces of Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario

The bill also seeks to amend the reference to the operational and overhaul centres, and replace it with a reference to aircraft maintenance activities, which would include maintenance relating to airframes, engines, components, equipment, or parts.

The bill also specifies that Air Canada is not under any obligation when it comes to the type or volume of the aircraft maintenance activities it undertakes, either directly or indirectly, in Manitoba, Ontario, or Quebec. Nor is it under any obligation as to the level of employment it must maintain.

This change ensures that Air Canada's aircraft maintenance work will continue to be performed in these provinces, while giving the airline the flexibility to keep up with the changing aviation sector and to organize its activities accordingly.

This is important because it allows the company to compete in an aggressive global marketplace. If Air Canada were not able to derive the best possible value for money, the result would be higher costs for the company, and ultimately, for the travelling public and shippers.

On February 17, 2016, Air Canada announced that, following the acquisition of up to 75 Bombardier C Series aircraft, it will partner with the Government of Quebec to establish a centre of excellence in aircraft maintenance. According to the Quebec government, the centre of excellence could generate as many as 1,000 jobs for Quebec's aerospace sector, in addition to the resulting manufacturing jobs.

In light of this development, the Government of Quebec and Air Canada announced an agreement to discontinue the litigation over Air Canada's compliance with the Air Canada Public Participation Act, once the purchase of the Bombardier aircraft was finalized.

On March 14, 2016, Air Canada announced an agreement with Manitoba to create a western Canada centre of excellence in that province. This centre will result in the creation of 150 new jobs in the aircraft maintenance sector as of 2017, with the potential for additional jobs in the future.

Given all these positive developments, we believe this is the perfect time to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act to give the airline the flexibility to better respond to changing market conditions.

For Air Canada to be competitive into the future, it must be able to adapt its supply chain to manage its costs and remain competitive, as all of its competitors are doing. Bill C-10 will allow the carrier to do this while ensuring that it remains committed to undertaking aircraft maintenance activities in three communities. This is consistent with Canada's policy to maintain a robust and competitive air transport sector well into the future while also supporting the employment of highly skilled workers in the aerospace sector.

Members of the committee, I now welcome your questions.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Boulerice, I'm sorry, but we don't have you signed in yet and so you're not part of the quorum. You'll have to wait until you're signed in. We will get the meeting started, and when your whip comes in and files the appropriate papers, then we'll continue on.

We'll start again. Welcome, everybody, to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities of the 42nd Parliament, first session. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, April 20, 2016, we are studying Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

We're joined by the parliamentary secretary, Ms. Kate Young, and of course, by our Honourable Minister of Transport, Marc Garneau, and his two staff, Catherine Higgens, associate assistant deputy minister, policy; and Daniel Blasioli, senior counsel.

Welcome. We appreciate very much having you here today, and I will turn the floor over to you, Minister Garneau.

Aerospace Industry

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was not a clear or specific answer.

This government shows no interest in supporting aerospace workers and their families. It would rather give Air Canada carte blanche with Bill C-10, which sacrifices the jobs and quality of life of 2,600 families. The government does not even have the courage to let us have an in-depth debate on this issue in Parliament.

Is the Prime Minister not ashamed of abandoning the workers like this, especially after he joined them in their protest?

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question of privilege in the House of Commons with respect to misleading information that the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport gave to the House about the litigation involving Quebec and Air Canada and arising from the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Here are the facts. On Wednesday, the House made two decisions with respect to the Liberal government's argument justifying the rush vote at second reading on Bill C-10, the Air Canada bill. It was the same argument the government has been making for months, but the facts on which it based its argument are inaccurate. The Government of Quebec refuted them yesterday morning.

In question period yesterday, the Minister of Transport continued to supply the same false information that the Government of Quebec had refuted just that morning.

On Wednesday, the House made two major decisions, decisions that could lead to the permanent demise of 2,600 jobs in the aerospace sector, including 1,800 in the Montreal area, most of them in the riding represented by the member for Saint-Laurent.

First, we voted on a time allocation motion to end debate on Bill C-10. As a result, Quebeckers represented by Bloc Québécois members were silenced at second reading in the House, which is why I have chosen to speak up now.

Then, the House voted on the bill at second reading. The government claims that rushing the vote was essential because the NDP had moved an amendment to withdraw the bill.

We understand that the NDP tabled its amendment to demonstrate its opposition to Bill C-10. Government bills rarely receive unanimous support in the House of Commons. Does the fact that some members oppose a bill justify time allocation?

To answer that question in the affirmative would be to deny parliamentary democracy. We understand very well that fallacious arguments are part of the debate and that disagreements between members are to be expected and are fodder for debate. The House made those two decisions in good faith, and I have no doubt about that.

This brings me to the vote on Bill C-10 at second reading. The House voted based on two pieces of false information that had been presented by the Minister of Transport.

On Wednesday, at 4:25 p.m., he said, and I quote, “Air Canada, the Government of Quebec, and the Government of Manitoba have stopped their litigation”. At 4:30 p.m., he added, “the Province of Quebec...decided, after discussions with Air Canada, to drop the lawsuit”. At 4:35 p.m., he said, “the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba have decided they will not pursue Air Canada”.

Then, at 4:42 p.m., during his very last intervention, the minister closed the debate saying, “the reason we have proceeded with the bill is very simple. It is because the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba have come to an agreement with Air Canada, and they are dropping their litigation.”

I want to emphasize the word “reason”. The minister gave the House false information. Quebec did not drop its litigation. Quebec never decided to withdraw from the lawsuit. Litigation between the Government of Quebec and Air Canada is ongoing.

That is essentially what Quebec's minister of the economy said during her status update on the issue, which contradicted the information presented by the minister and the parliamentary secretary.

In response to our question yesterday, the Minister of Transport decided to stay the course and keep contradicting what the Government of Quebec said, and I quote:

“We decided to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act precisely because the governments of Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuits against Air Canada.”

These are repeat offences of making false statements over the course of several weeks. In reoffending, it seems clear to me that the government deliberately misled and continues to mislead the House by providing false information.

The request that the Government of Quebec filed with the Supreme Court on February 23, is further proof of this, and I quote, “An agreement has been reached between the parties to postpone the decision on the application for leave to appeal until July 15”.

I am almost finished. I was told I should present the facts and that is what I am doing. I imagine that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, will be more informed if I complete my argument, even if you find that one of the arguments may not be the best.

Since the decision on the application for leave to appeal will not be rendered until July 15, 2016, the lawsuit is still ongoing. The Government of Quebec simply asked the court not to rule on the issue before mid-July, and with good reason. It wants to retain some bargaining power in order to negotiate Air Canada's purchase of Bombardier planes and its establishment of maintenance centres in Quebec.

That brings me to the second piece of false information. On April 15, at the beginning of the debate at second reading of Bill C-10, the government, or more specifically the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, explained to the House that it was a good time to pass Bill C-10:

In light of Air Canada's investments in aerospace in Canada, including aircraft maintenance...

However, we learned yesterday morning that Air Canada still has not decided to invest in aerospace and aircraft maintenance. That is why the Government of Quebec still has not dropped its lawsuit and why this matter is still before the Supreme Court.

The government misled the House by providing it with false information. As a result, it is possible that, acting in good faith, the House was led to commit an error when it adopted the time allocation motion and supported the principle of Bill C-10. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to find that the government violated the Standing Orders of the House, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of Wednesday's votes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: “That the House acknowledge that the government deliberately misled the House and that it reconsider the vote on the NDP amendment and the vote at second reading on Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.”

Mr. Speaker, I rely on your good judgment to propose the best way to proceed.

Air Canada

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always nice to hear someone on the government side talking about Paul Martin, who, unlike the current government, hated deficits.

Moving on to another issue, the Minister of Transport has been doing a lot of improvising with regard to Bill C-10, and that is putting it mildly. Yesterday morning, he was accusing the NDP. In the afternoon, he was saying that the Quebec minister did not understand, and in the evening, he had another answer.

Will the minister at least give us a clear and solid explanation today? Why is he imposing a gag order on Bill C-10? Is he going to rattle off yet another answer?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, even the Government of Quebec asked the Minister of Transport to settle down with his unacceptable Bill C-10.

This minister, who has been bragging for weeks about the agreement between Quebec and Bombardier and the creation of centres of excellence, is about to sabotage that agreement and cause more job losses in the riding of his own colleague from Saint-Laurent.

Does the minister realize that his closure motion is not only awful but also dangerous for the future of Quebec's aerospace industry?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance to repeat what I said.

The reason we imposed closure yesterday was very clear. Last Friday, the NDP tried to kill this bill. In our fine democracy, we know full well that there are still many stages for Bill C-10 to go through before it reaches the end of the process. We are going to move to committee stage where we will listen to witnesses. Then there will be report stage, followed by third reading. The bill will then follow the same process in the Senate. There is still a lot of time for everyone to be heard.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport said that we must move quickly, and he moved a time allocation motion for Bill C-10. One of his arguments was that the Government of Quebec decided not to sue Air Canada. However, things are not going the minister's way because, this morning, Quebec's economy minister said that the federal government must not hinder her negotiations with Air Canada.

He is saying one thing, but Quebec's minister is saying the opposite today. That is not good. I am sorry to bring the minister back to earth, but why did he really impose closure? Why is he hindering the discussions? What are the Liberals trying to hide?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a solution to suggest to the government to help the dairy industry: enforce the law.

Dominique Anglade, the Quebec minister for economy, science and innovation, has been asking the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount not to hurt the Quebec economy with his bill, Bill C-10.

Would the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount be kind enough to listen to the Quebec government and give up on his ridiculous plan to let Air Canada off the hook retroactively? Will he show some respect for the Quebec economy?