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.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy Industry

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my esteemed colleague from North Island—Powell River.

Perhaps I could begin my speech by responding to the member from the Conservative Party who asked us what we in the NDP are doing for this debate. Let me tell the member that we are the ones who brought this debate today. It is we, and it is my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who are asking the government to come up with a solution.

Unfortunately, the Conservative members did not put forward an opposition day motion on the issue, and they are asking very few, if any, questions about it. Their new awakening to the issue, which just began with the debate today, is quite sudden.

Still, this does not let the Liberal government off the hook. The Liberals were quite happy to listen to our questions, and they applauded us when we criticized the Conservative government.

Now they are the ones in power, they are now the ones with the ball, and it is up to them to take up the responsibilities of governing. On this I agree with my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, because ultimately, the Liberals have been here for six months. They can certainly quote what the industry said in December, but that took place almost five months ago.

All we are asking for with regard to diafiltered milk is a regulatory change. It does not require a large bill or any studies, as the parliamentary secretary tried to tell us. This is not a complex issue; it is a very simple one.

Some American companies are producing diafiltered milk and are taking advantage of a loophole in the regulations to flout the spirit of the law and export products that are putting our farmers at a disadvantage. It is as simple as that.

All the minister has to do is enforce the law and, if necessary, make a small change to the regulations. That is it, problem solved. It is not very complicated, but it appears to be too much for the Liberal government.

Maybe the government should open not only its eyes, but also its ears, because Canadian producers are protesting today on Parliament Hill and outside some offices.

For example, some producers are protesting outside the offices of the member for Shefford, the riding next to mine, because he will not even answer their calls, and they are wondering why the member is not standing up for them.

The good news for these producers is that the NDP will continue to stand up on this issue, as the member for Berthier—Maskinongé not only has done in this Parliament, but also did in the previous Parliament.

This is nothing new. The problem goes beyond diafiltered milk and extends to supply management and to the lack of respect for our producers. Loopholes are now being created in this system, which ensures the survival of our local economy and our agricultural producers.

I will give a few examples.

The first example involves my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, who stood up for producers when the Liberals and Conservatives refused to do so.

The Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which was introduced during the previous Parliament and which the Liberals were prepared to support before even reading it, was negotiated by the Conservative government of the time. The Conservatives told us not to worry, that they were committed to supply management, and that they would defend this system. What happened? They got to the bargaining table and put everything on the table, despite all of their rhetoric in the House in response to our questions.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé therefore moved a motion calling on members of the House to support a compensation package.

The Conservative government promised financial compensation to the producers who would suffer losses as a result of the agreement negotiated, which created loopholes in the supply management system.

During the last election campaign, the Liberal Party promised to respect this agreement, since all members had voted in favour of the motion moved by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. This motion, which would allow for financial compensation to producers, was unanimously passed by the House. I was flabbergasted to hear one of my Conservative colleagues defend supply management a few days ago, when the Conservatives did everything they did to undermine this system for 10 years.

This compensation is yet another betrayal by the Liberal Party. This is about more than supply management and diafiltered milk. This is about all of the commitments made by the Liberals.

With regard to compensation, the Liberals said during the election campaign that they would honour commitments made by the former government. At the time, we extracted answers, with great difficulty, from the Conservative Party. It said that it would provide compensation, but that it could not tell us when or how much. When the Liberals came to power, there was nothing about this in their budget. The Liberals were unable to tell us whether they would honour that commitment. They are unable to tell us anything.

This creates not only a continuity problem for farmers, but also uncertainty. That uncertainty would be eased simply with a few words. We are only asking the government to tell us, one way or the other, whether it will honour the commitment regarding financial compensation, regarding the cracks that have appeared in the supply management system.

These are not the only nice promises we have heard from the Liberals. We have also had promises about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That was another issue on which the Liberals said one thing in the election campaign and, now that they are in power, they are saying something else. Once again, that agreement undermines the supply management system. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised to study the issue and to listen to the stakeholders and farmers who would be negatively affected by the negotiations, which, it should be noted, were conducted by the Conservative Party. Once again, we see that the Liberal Party is content to complete the Conservative Party’s work, to the detriment of our farmers.

Now, despite the promises made by the two ministers concerned, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade, when all is said and done, we are simply told that we have to sign anyway and we will see afterward. That does nothing to reassure farmers who are in an increasingly difficult position. Moreover, the farmers feel that the government is not standing up for them. It is very disappointing. It is really a betrayal.

During the entire election campaign, and even before, I heard nice words and fine promises from the Liberals. We were told not to worry, because a Liberal government would have a plan and would stand up for those people. What is happening today? The government is not even capable of making a simple regulatory change to enforce the law and prohibit the importation of diafiltered milk. Those imports are causing losses of millions of dollars for dairy farmers throughout Quebec and Canada.

The government is incapable of living up to its commitments and holding real public consultations on the trans-Pacific partnership. It is also incapable of keeping its word concerning the financial compensation to be provided to our farmers.

I keep up with the news, and I asked myself some serious questions when I heard the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. He tells us that the matter needs to be studied, that it is a very complex issue. Yesterday we voted on a time allocation motion for Bill C-10, and the government told us that it was not complicated, that we should move forward and debate was over. It is so comical to see how little time it has taken for the Liberal government to resemble the old Conservative government. Liberal, Tory, same old story, that's the phrase that comes to mind, because the Conservatives pulled the same stunts.

Indeed, the Conservatives brought us their own time allocation motions. They would tell us that it was urgent, that we had to move quickly, that debate was over, that we were going in circles and repeating ourselves. They would gag us and ram bills down the throats of parliamentarians, without offering them the chance to speak and without listening to stakeholders. On other issues, however, they would tell us to allow them the chance to study and fully grasp the matter, because it was very complicated. This is exactly what the Liberal government is doing today: time allocations and gag orders, when it suits them to do so. They tell us that the issue is very complex, not having the gumption to simply rise and admit that they have not been equal to the task and have not met their commitments.

All that we are asking of the Liberals today is precisely that: to rise in the House, to say that the matter is very simple and they are going to enforce the law and the regulations to prevent the importing of the diafiltered milk that is harming our dairy producers. We are also asking them to say that they will meet their other commitments and will offer this financial compensation to the dairy producers. They should also add that, when they negotiate agreements, or rather when they wind up some negotiation carried out by the Conservatives behind closed doors, they will at least have the political courage to consult the people who will be affected, namely the farmers. Clearly, the Liberals have been unable to listen to them and to keep their promises. That amounts to a betrayal of those producers.

However, I am happy to rise today in support of my hon. colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé.

We will continue to stand up for them. We shall not relent until this government honours its commitments toward farmers, our communities, our producers, and, ultimately, our economy. That is what is at stake.

Second reading

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for bringing the House to order. After all, jobs are at stake.

In Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, the aerospace sector is made up of companies like MCS-Servo, which makes electrohydraulic control systems, and Héroux-Devtek, which specializes in landing gear. The first leg of the LEM, or lunar module, that landed on the moon was created back home. MAX Technologies is in software and simulators. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention one of the biggest employers in my riding, Pratt & Whitney, a leader in the field of aircraft engine manufacturing, whose achievements include the famous quiet C Series engine. Beal Technology specializes in variable speed drives and load controllers. TechNOW Automation specializes in ultrasound inspection devices. We also have MSB Design and Usinage Netur for components, and Automation Machine Design RC, which specializes in automated equipment. I would not want to forget Amrikart, which is a master in the field of 3D digitization. The list is long, and I could name many more.

¼The point I want to make here is that the aerospace industry cannot be described in monolithic terms. As I said earlier in my presentation, it is an industrial ecosystem, and the vitality of the industry stems from more than just the large corporations, like Bombardier.

I really like using the example of Aéro Montréal and its MACH initiative. Here is how the organization itself describes the initiative:

...the MACH initiative aims to strengthen the supply chain structure and companies involved in it by creating special collaboration links among customers and suppliers....By doing so, it aspires to help develop a world-class supply chain...[and] optimize its performance...in an effort to increase its global competitiveness....The initiative will progressively make available to participating companies services, tools and methodologies to evaluate and improve their performance and market position and further develop business opportunities.

Aéro Montréal should be really proud of this initiative, which will help the supply chain become more competitive. However, the ecosystem comparison does not stop there, and two crucial aspects need to be explained.

There is the contribution of the education system, especially the École nationale d'aérotechnique, which I mentioned earlier, but there is also considerable support from the university sector, especially the École de technologie supérieure, which helps promote new blood, new ideas, and the next generation of workers in this important economic sector. The same can be said for a program like the master's in aerospace engineering, offered jointly by the École polytechnique de Montréal, the École de technologie supérieure, Université Laval, McGill University, Concordia University, and the Université de Sherbrooke.

Above all, there is political will. Take, for example, the Government of Quebec, which decided to take the bull by the horns and invest in innovation in the aerospace sector, recognizing the positive economic impact it can have on Quebec.

I want to quote Suzanne Benoît, the president of Aéro Montréal, talking about the Government of Quebec's strategy:

This strategy will contribute actively to the development of the high value-added aerospace sector which is generating increasing revenues every year. In 2015, they totalled $15.5 billion, an increase of more than 12% compared to 2014.

These impressive figures illustrate the Government of Quebec's political will. For its part, the federal government seems to be headed in the completely opposite direction. Bill C-10 sends some particularly worrisome signals.

The Liberal government is completely destabilizing the ecosystem of the aerospace sector, as I said earlier. We have to think of the aircraft maintenance services as a supply chain of integrated firms. If Air Canada is released from its legal obligations to have its maintenance work done in Canada, not just the company that provides those services will suffer, but also all the companies that supply the parts, the machinery, and the technology. The supply ecosystem is being attacked, and that is serious.

What message are we sending to the current workers and those who want a career in the aerospace sector in the future? We are saying it is no big deal to send jobs overseas, as long as Air Canada remains competitive. The other reason it is no big deal is that we are keeping jobs at Bombardier to build the C Series. That is not how it works.

I think what the government is trying to say is that aerospace production is good, but maintenance is less important. That does not work. We have the legislative means to outsource even more of the manufacturing base. If I were the Liberal government, there would be nothing stopping me from making the big players and Air Canada happy. The employees are being shortchanged.

Shipping jobs abroad, where they likely will not pay as well and come with unknown working conditions, will create uncertainty for many families here at home. This is increasing social inequality. Everyone sees where this is going. We are starting to get quite far away from the sunny ways that the leader of the Liberal Party promised us during the election campaign. Is this his plan for jobs in Canada?

We have two Liberal governments, one in Quebec and the other in Ottawa. They are making decisions that are inconsistent, go every which way, and threaten to undermine an industrial ecosystem that is the envy of the entire world. They are creating utter uncertainty for hundreds if not thousands of workers.

Indeed, Bombardier is important. However, Bombardier is not the only company in Canada that works in the aerospace sector.

Today, I am standing up for the small players, the small businesses, and, of course, students, such as those at the ÉNA. These companies and these people play by the rules. They dedicate themselves to development programs, such as Aéro Montréal's MACH Initiative. To them, this bill sanctions Liberal hypocrisy.

Aerospace workers in Longueuil, Saint-Hubert, and the rest of Quebec will always be able to count on my NDP colleagues and me to condemn this bill, which poses a real threat to good-quality, high value-added jobs in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert. That is unacceptable, so I will be voting against Bill C-10 at second reading.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to feel the support of my dear friends, but that is certainly not what Aveos workers are feeling today.

Normally, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Longueuil and Saint-Hubert to talk about bills that matter to them. Since I was elected in 2011, I have been saying that I am my constituents' ears at home in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert and their voice here in Ottawa.

Today, however, I am rising to express their dissatisfaction, disgust, and concern with regard to Bill C-10. God knows that I share those feelings. I cannot believe that things have gotten to this point. When I think of all the things that this Liberal government and previous Liberal governments have done, this takes the cake. The government is signalling left and turning right.

The Liberal government recently boasted about its love and support for the aerospace sector, a leading-edge sector that we can all be proud of, particularly in Quebec. However, when it came time to take real action to support this sector, the government got off track and made a shocking 180-degree turn. It does not make any sense. It is shameful.

Not only will Bill C-10 dilute the guarantees for the City of Mississauga, the City of Winnipeg and the Montreal Urban Community that are in the law, but it will also allow Air Canada to determine the acceptable number of jobs that will remain in Canada instead of complying with the previous provisions of the law.

This will open the door to international outsourcing that Air Canada will consider necessary in order to remain competitive. In short, the government could not care less about the hundreds of good jobs across the country.

It would seem that with the knowledge that Air Canada is committed to buying Bombardier's C Series aircraft, which is an excellent business decision in itself, the Liberal government is passing the buck by easing the legal rules around aircraft maintenance. It is as though production and maintenance are being pitted against one another and the government is not thinking of the Canadian aerospace sector as an industrial ecosystem. I will come back to this later in my speech.

In short, Bill C-10 sends a very ominous message to aerospace workers. It is very worrisome, and I am expressing these concerns on behalf of thousands of people in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert who work in the aerospace sector.

Not all MPs may know this, but the aerospace sector is of particular importance to the people in my riding. Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is home to the Canadian Space Agency, which is located very close to the École nationale d'aérotechnique, a specialized school affiliated with the CEGEP Édouard-Monpetit that trains new workers for high value-added jobs in this sector.

I have had the honour of representing this riding since 2011, and the vitality of the industrial sectors is especially important to me. The industrial cluster employs thousands of people in our region's SMEs.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, the hypothesis that was presented is false. The only reason we decided to introduce Bill C-10 to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act is that the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba indicated that they were going to drop their lawsuit. The amendment allows us to clarify the act and ensure that there will not be any litigation in the future.

Opposition Motion — Political Fundraising

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard a notice of closure motion. That is timely because I was going to start my speech by saying that this is a fine debate that reminds us of the old saying, “Liberal, Tory, same old story”. That is what we have here.

Today's debate is on political fundraising issues, which often come up in the news and never for good reasons, unfortunately. We are in a situation where the Conservative Party opposition motion calls on the Minister of Justice to apologize and return the money.

She is being asked to follow the example of a Conservative Party minister, Shelly Glover, who, in a similar situation, returned all the money she collected. If we are setting the bar to meet a standard created by the Conservatives, then that bar is not very high and easy to jump over. I would hope that the Minister of Justice will be able to do so.

I want to talk about a number of points raised in this debate. First, with regard to political fundraising, I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons answer questions in question period by saying that every member participates in political fundraising, that there is nothing unusual about doing so, and that we should not worry about it. We are talking here about ministers, and their responsibilities and requirements differ from those of ordinary members.

I am not trying to minimize the responsibilities of individual members. However, there is a big difference between a minister responsible for justice sitting down with lawyers and me being given $20 by a woman in my riding because she thinks that I do a good job and she wants me to have the resources I need to get re-elected. It seems likely that, in the case of the minister, she and the lawyers will be talking almost exclusively about subjects related to her portfolio and her department. There is a very big difference there. That is where we get into the matter of appearances.

The code of conduct that the Prime Minister himself imposed on his ministers, for lack of a better way to say it, indicates that they cannot engage in partisan or fundraising activities that give the appearance of preferential access, the appearance of conflict of interest, or the impression that one can pay to obtain access to a minister. That is the problem. Perhaps it is the eternal optimist in me who is talking, but I would like to believe that the minister does not just lend an attentive ear to people who are prepared to pay to attend fundraisers. Once again, the problem is the way it is perceived. People see that and wonder whether someone has to be able to pay $500 or $600 to meet with the minister.

I almost forgot. Before I continue, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I was so outraged to hear the government House leader move a motion to invoke closure after only six months in office that I completely forgot. I hope I will be forgiven.

I will come back to the matter before us. We now find ourselves in a situation where Canadians have doubts and questions. There is already too much cynicism about politics and the political system. The problem is now being exacerbated by this type of fundraising, which gives the impression that one can pay to obtain preferential access. I find that absolutely unacceptable.

When going door-to-door during and even before the election campaign, we inevitably meet people who say they could not care less about politics. I dare say this is the experience of all MPs from all parties. When you ask these people to explain why they feel that way and you try to talk about the files you are working on, the good work that MPs can do, the difference one can make as an MP, and the difference one can make in the community, quite often they will say that politicians are all dishonest and that only people with power and money have access to elected officials. It seems that the average person cannot get this type of access, nor make a difference and communicate with an elected official, an MP or even a minister, as in the situation we find ourselves in today.

This is what happens in situations like this. Although I make no assumptions about what the minister will do and what access she will provide, she has nevertheless created the impression that she will give her attention and her time more readily to those who are prepared to donate to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is unacceptable and it creates a problem for all of us. It is a big black cloud that will settle over Parliament and the political system, and it will follow us everywhere.

I am not a member of the Liberal Party, but when I knock on doors in my riding, citizens inevitably talk to me about this situation or that situation. I reply that it is the good old Liberal Party that we all know, and I personally promise to do politics differently. However, that does not change anything, because people say that it does not matter, since politicians are all alike. As elected representatives, we have a responsibility to do better, and ministers have 10 times as much responsibility. After all, they are not just representatives of their constituencies, because they also represent institutions. Ministerial responsibility is even greater for the Minister of Justice.

What is happening is, unfortunately, the current trend. That is not limited to the Minister of Justice. We are dealing with another case involving privileged access; just consider the case of the Minister of National Revenue. We are right in the middle of income tax season. Some people are quite happy, because they will be getting a tax refund. Others will have to write a cheque to the government. It is a happy or unhappy time of year, depending on whom you ask. Ultimately, it does not matter how those people feel; they pay their fair share, with the exception, of course, of the millionaires and the people who do business with KPMG, because they can have nice agreements with the government and benefit from tax evasion. That would not be a problem if we had not learned this week that there are cocktail buffets for senior public servants and managers who oversee investigations to combat tax evasion. Here we are again in a situation that feeds public cynicism. We are creating the perception that preferential access is possible.

The Minister of National Revenue, much like the leader of the government when he was defending the Minister of Justice, stood in the House and said that the people who work in the department are members of the same professional association as the people facilitating tax evasion. Therefore this was not about tax evasion; it was an opportunity to attend an event with fellow accountants.

The problem is still one of perception. Who knows what happens at those meetings? Who knows what is discussed? Essentially, the members of the public who pay their fair share of taxes think that we have enough money to attend a little cocktail party or pay the big fee of an accountant at KPMG, which has a nice network that includes a manager or maybe even an elected representative. We hope not, but this type of situation creates a very problematic perception, because it undermines people’s confidence in their public institutions and their elected representatives. It is a completely unacceptable situation.

In the end, this is why we will support the Conservative Party’s motion.

In conclusion, I would like to say that although we support the motion, I would hope that we will find more urgent situations to discuss. Yes, what happened is scandalous and appalling on the part of a minister. However, when I think about the people who are losing their jobs, the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, and the hypocrisy of the Liberals on this issue, and when I think of the people who do not have access to employment insurance, despite the government’s lovely words about changing the system, and of the issue of tax evasion, I firmly believe that despite the ethical problems that are eating away at both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, which have succeeded one another in power, when all is said and done, there are real people who need us to stand up in the House. People need us to hold debates on the issues that affect them personally. That is what we should be doing. We will support the motion, but we have to get back to real business and tackle those issues. It is very important to do so.

I would like to tell everyone listening not to throw up their hands at such behaviour. They must not let cynicism control their relationship with politics. If they consider it a deplorable act, that is one more reason for them to get involved in changing the attitudes of elected representatives.

In 2019, a government that does not keep its promises of transparency and openness, not to mention all the other broken promises, may well be replaced. That is what we are hoping and aiming for.

Bill C-10—Notice of time allocation motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting day a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to start debating Bill C-10, or at least have my turn at it.

I come from the riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, all the way out on the west coast on beautiful Vancouver Island, so I do not really have much of a relationship with aircraft maintenance jobs. I guess it was from my time spent as a constituency assistant for seven years that I really developed a keen passion for the plight of working men and working women. For seven years, I did the casework in the office of the former member of Parliament for Nanaimo--Cowichan, Jean Crowder. During the course of that seven years, I had the honour of meeting with many working men and women who were going through tough times, and I guess, coming to this honourable House as a member of Parliament, I have always identified with them. I thought my job was to come here to try to pass good laws, to implement good policy, and to make sure that the government was actually on the side of the people who give value to companies. When we talk about corporations, we often talk about the president, the board of directors, or the CEO, but the people who truly give value to a company are the men and women who go out every single day and do their job. That is what the bill is about. This is what , in a sense, we are talking about.

I want to give thanks to my colleagues, particularly the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I listened to both their speeches today and I think they both gave very passionate speeches on what is really at stake with the bill.

I have also had the time, both during Friday's debate and during this particularly long Monday session, to listen to a few comments from Liberal members of Parliament. We have heard, notably, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who has stated that in today's world, it is common for global air carriers to outsource aircraft maintenance. Those comments tell me that there is not even a pretence anymore from the Liberals for saving jobs. They just admitted, “Sorry, folks. It's a tough world out there. If Air Canada decides it's going to have a cheaper job elsewhere, well, sorry. There it goes.”

I also heard an interesting comment from the member for Parliament for Laurentides—Labelle. He said that the bill is about supporting Canadian jobs, Canadian ownership, Canadian principles, and Canadian competitiveness, that it is a Canadian bill for a Canadian company. Well, we know he is very patriotic in those comments. I do not know if he is actually reading the same bill, because the fine print is not really doing well for Canadian workers, and I would say that is not a very strong Canadian value when we are actually legalizing outsourcing, because that is precisely what the bill would do.

Of course, there is the favourite member of Parliament for members on this side of the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. We like to quote him a lot because he has been an amazing standard-bearer for his riding in years past, but not now. Principles seem to change when members occupy that side of the House, and I think his comments really do bring that to light.

When talking about this bill, he said that this would continue to reinforce the government's expectation that Air Canada would undertake aircraft maintenance in Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario. A government's expectation is different from an actual piece of law that stipulates it has to be done. I could expect Air Canada to give me free tickets for the rest of my life, but it is not going to do it.

It is the same with this particular situation that we have with aircraft maintenance. We would be giving away the legal framework that stipulates aircraft maintenance jobs must be done in Canada. If Air Canada decides at some future point to ship those jobs overseas, we simply would not have any recourse.

I mentioned previously that I had spent seven years working as a constituency assistant. I have always had a great appreciation for law, particularly federal law. The way it is worded, sometimes it can be very direct; sometimes it can leave nothing to the imagination, and other times it is very much open for interpretation. We have a job as legislators to create the law, and the courts interpret it.

I have heard Liberal members of Parliament say that jobs, in a sense, will be protected because we have this deal with Bombardier. By the very fact of extending jobs with the deal with Bombardier, the subtext is that these maintenance jobs do not matter. It is sort of comparing apples with oranges. We are taking away with one hand, but we are giving with another.

For the benefit of all hon. members in the House, it is important to read the main clause. It states:

...the Corporation may, while not eliminating those activities in any of those provinces, change the type or volume of any or all of those activities in each of those provinces, as well as the level of employment in any or all of those activities.

Yes, Air Canada is not allowed to eliminate jobs in those three provinces, but it could maintain one job there and still satisfy the bill. That is basically the wording. That is how I read the bill. I hope the Liberal members of Parliament are reading the same bill. When Air Canada is given the freedom to change the type, volume, or level of employment, it means a person can go from those well-paying aircraft maintenance jobs to someone who is earning only $15 an hour. It would be nice if the government would institute a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. Unfortunately, we probably are going to be looking at something in the neighbourhood of $12. Those good-paying jobs that pay $60,000 a year are going to be shipped overseas. It is only a matter of time. We have seen this story play out many a time.

There are many examples of the Liberals saying one thing and then doing another. That is an unfortunate statistic that we have had to deal with. The current Prime Minister, when he was just the member of Parliament for the riding Papineau, stood with Avios employees. He said that the law was very clear, that Air Canada had to maintain the maintenance in those cities. The fact the government is not enforcing that law is something to which we have drawn attention.

Now that he is the Prime Minister, the member is singing from a different songbook. He has forgotten the fact that he used to stand in solidarity with workers and proclaimed that the Liberal Party was there for their jobs and it would always stand by them. Now we see he has taken the side of Air Canada. He has forgotten his solemn promise to those workers. I certainly hope people will remember that as we continue on through the years. When we reach the year 2019, I know we in the NDP will certainly be reminding people of that. The progressive paint job the Liberals have applied to themselves is just that. They have become something other than what they promised.

The NDP opposes Bill C-10 because we want Air Canada to maintain jobs here. We oppose it because Air Canada is going to outsource maintenance jobs. The bill legalizes layoffs. Air Canada has been seeking carte blanche from the government. If Bill C-10 receives royal assent, it certainly will have that carte blanche.

We want to keep those good-paying jobs. I mentioned earlier that aviation maintenance engineer jobs start at a salary of around $60,000 salary and can go up to $90,000. That in my books is a very good-paying job. I used to earn less than that as a constituency assistant, and I have helped many people who have raised good families on that. They manage to keep their payments at bay. However, if we get rid of those jobs, there will be thousands of people who will be unable to pay their bills. Conversely, the government is going to lose an important tax base. Once we start losing those jobs, the spinoff effects start compounding. People will require more social assistance and so on.

The other thing I have been most interested in during the course of the debate is the deal we have seen with Bombardier, Air Canada, the federal government, and the Quebec government. We know the deal was announced in February. The subsequent tabling of this legislation and the timing of that is a little strange.

Earlier today the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill used an interesting phrase. She said that the bill basically would do everything. She complimented the Liberals because the bill would do everything about Bombardier without even mentioning its name. That was a great phrase to use. She said that the bill should be called the “quid pro quo bill”, and it is easy to see why.

I wish the House and all hon. members could have been privy to the conversations that went on among the Minister of Transport, the CEO of Air Canada, the upper echelons of the Quebec government, and Bombardier. We would find an interesting link. On the one hand Air Canada has promised that we will get these Bombardier aircraft and that it will do a 20-year maintenance contract in Canada. On the other hand, the deal that Air Canada gets out of the Liberal government is that it changes the act so Air Canada is free to ship maintenance jobs overseas. It is pretty easy to connect the dots. It is there right in front of us, and that has been identified by many MPs in the House.

I have flown with Air Canada a lot. It is our national air carrier. I have heard a lot of talk from Liberal members of Parliament who have said that in a competitive world, Air Canada needs to be able to compete, that it needs to have all the tools at its disposal that other air carriers have.

One Liberal MP even referred to the act as a set of handcuffs. I really have to shake my head at some of the terminology being used by the government side of the House. That member might have some explaining to do to his constituents when they hear him referring to guaranteeing good paying jobs in Canada as a set of handcuffs. Guaranteeing good jobs in Canada is something we were sent here to do. It is probably one of the most noble and honourable things we can do as members of Parliament.

As I mentioned, Air Canada is a unique company because of the privatization it went through in 1988 and 1989. I am not really going on memory as I was about nine or ten years old at the time. The fact is that Air Canada inherited a sizable chunk of assets from the federal government. Those assets were paid by taxpayers. I do acknowledge that times have changed, but the fact is that Air Canada received its start as a private company with a large number of assets that any other aviation company would have to had built up from scratch. It received a good head start in the game.

The government of the day decided to put this particular clause in the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Time and time again we have seen governments negotiate deals with companies. If a company can promise the government that it will keep jobs in a region of Canada, the government will do something for that company. It will give the company a slight tax break, an incentive to offset capital costs, and so on. However, none of those agreements were enforced by law. They were basically done on a handshake. The government took the company's word that it would honour its commitment.

The government of the day felt it was necessary to put this agreement in law because so many of those agreements had been broken. There is a huge culture of bad faith. Companies would promise one thing only to do the exact opposite a year later.

The fact that this was enshrined in law gave those workers and the government of the day the peace of mind that there would be well-paying jobs in three major centres. People could raise their families on that income. These people would be a good source of revenue for the government. Ultimately a government's finances depend on a healthy tax base. It can be no other way. We need those good paying jobs to keep our economy going, and that is one way a government keeps on going.

I realize that times have changed and that the aviation world is quite different. It is a very competitive world out there and there are a lot of unknown factors, but I think it is quite disingenuous to pin all of the troubles that Air Canada is facing these days on maintenance workers in three centres in Canada. I think that should be a source of strength for the company, not something that we identify as a weakness.

In a sense, all of the Liberal arguments I have heard on the bill amount to a vote of non-confidence in our workers. The Liberals are saying that Air Canada is shackled, that it is handcuffed to these workers, and we have to give it the freedom to take its jobs overseas or the company is going to fold. That is just nonsensical.

Air Canada is not going anywhere. It is our national air carrier. Pretty much everyone I know in the House flies Air Canada. It has many guaranteed landing spots in so many airports, a virtual monopoly on prime landing spots in all the major airports in Canada. It is not going anywhere, so to pin all of its woes on maintenance workers in these three centres does not make sense. I challenge the government to bring forth some arguments that do, but I do not think it will.

The other thing I want to cover is the concept of due process. We know that the union that represents the workers from Aveos is going through a court battle right now under the terms of the act. We know that the Supreme Court is probably going to hear those arguments later this year, probably in June. However, the major trouble the union is going to face is that if the government changes this law and the bill gets royal assent before that court case, then the legal case for the union is going to be gone. The law will have been changed.

Due process is about making sure the state respects all legal rights that are owed to a person. Yes, it is well within this legislature's body to change the law, and I am not disputing that, but it is ultimately an act of incredibly bad faith to reverse the law after the union has been basically fighting a court battle since 2012.

The union has gone through the local courts and the superior court, and now the end is in sight with the Supreme Court. It is like getting a sprained ankle right when the finish line is in sight, except the person who gave the sprained ankle is the government, which is supposed to be on the runner's side. That is what is happening here. I think it is incredibly bad form not to respect the due process of the court system and to change the law before we have a chance to get a ruling.

By the way, all the courts have upheld the union's point of view: the law was broken.

As I wrap up, I would like to take a few examples from my home turf. I am so pleased to be sitting in the House today with my incredible Vancouver Island crew, the hon. members for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Courtenay—Alberni, and North Island—Powell River. Collectively, as Vancouver Island MPs, we have seen what happens when good jobs leave our communities. Right now we have a lot of fish processing plants that are closed down, and those activities are now taking place overseas in China, in Asia, and so on.

The other big one is the export of raw logs. Every single one of us here from coastal British Columbia is very familiar with the loss of good, well-paying manufacturing jobs. Do members know why those good-paying manufacturing jobs have gone? It is because we have not had a provincial or federal government that was willing to stand up for good manufacturing jobs. Instead, we are allowing raw logs to be shipped out of this country. It is just another pattern that we see time and time again.

I just wish we would see a government come to light that would stand on the side of the workers this time—not just use them as a backdrop for their election, but actually stand and do something concrete in this noble House for them.

I believe I have made my points very clear. We in the NDP absolutely and fundamentally oppose the legislation before us, and I hope that some Liberal members of Parliament will develop a conscience and vote with us against it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, a certain question I have, which underlies the debate and is yet to be made clear by the Liberals themselves, is that they seem to have established this quid pro quo with Bombardier and Air Canada, and we are wondering who actually benefits from this.

For the cost of these 45 planes, which everybody familiar with the file agrees are excellent jets that fit the needs of Air Canada, one has to wonder why the Liberals would so strongly backtrack on a commitment to all those workers, all those maintenance jobs, which as he rightly says and many speakers have pointed out, will be moved overseas. All the bill deals with is just that aspect, getting Air Canada off the hook for the commitments it made in law. The law is being changed to make it fit the reality that the Liberals now want because Air Canada asked for it.

However, the quid pro quo with Bombardier, when perhaps the Quebec government was unsure, is to say that these 45 planes would somehow compensate for this and that there are now these centres of excellence that, if they were thought to be important, would also be enshrined in law. If the Liberals were absolutely committed to these and could name the number of jobs, how long they would last, and what they were for, it would certainly merit a pen being put to paper. Then somewhere in Bill C-10, of which there are many pages, they would find the heart and the gumption to actually commit to Canadians that aspect as well; but instead, those are just promises.

The Liberal member for Winnipeg North long railed against this; and we all know he can talk. He chose many of those moments, when he rose in this place when in opposition, to lay down petitions from his constituents, because he said he was doing the work of an MP, the good work of a member of Parliament; and he was right, because his constituents were worried that well-paying jobs were about to be shipped overseas because the government was not enforcing the law, a Conservative government at the time.

What was the member for Winnipeg North's solution to this now that he is in government? It was to change the law so that government would not have to abide by that nasty little thing called the rule of law, and Air Canada could do as it will.

The question is this. Is this somehow a quid pro quo that works out for anyone, either the taxpayer or the 2,600 workers who are losing their jobs? It is not just those workers. As we well know, in all of our constituencies, well-paying jobs like this do not just affect the people when they lose that job, but also their entire family and the spinoff industries that surround that job.

Is this somehow a good cost benefit for Canada? Is this somehow not just the most cynical form of politics, to which we have become too accustomed from this party?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's very difficult. It's just a question of how many meetings we plan to have on Bill C-10.

I was just looking for a possible way for all of us to try to expedite it and to get back to the rail study and get it finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No. This is on Bill C-10.

The third point would be that if we have a lot of witnesses, should we look at having late meetings—if necessary—in order to be able to accommodate Bill C-10?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Knowing that we'll have Bill C-10 coming to us very quickly, and in order to continue to be as efficient as we have been with our time so far, can I suggest that committee members submit their witness lists by this coming Friday?

I'm sorry, Mr. Fraser. I will get to you.

Second, I suggest that we direct the clerk to invite the minister and departmental officials to come before committee at the first meeting on Bill C-10. This way, if it comes on Thursday, we'll still have a motion that we can get all of this started as soon we come back on May 2. Is everybody in agreement?

We'll give direction to the clerk to notify the minister that we'd like to see him at our first opportunity when we're dealing with Bill C-10 and that the committee members will submit by this coming Friday a list of any witnesses that they would like to have come before committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

What actually might be helpful is if we shift to Bill C-10 and then go back to the railways. I will have had a chance to receive more written submissions by the time we get to doing our actual draft report.

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

Okay. Then I would suggest we finish hearing from our witnesses on the rail safety study, and then could move into reviewing Bill C-10. It's a very short amendment to the act, and so I'm not sure how many meetings we want to take to discuss that—one or two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The transportation reports that the committee had asked for were just been sent to us a half an hour ago. All of the documents that we have been asking for have finally arrived, so they'll all be in there. It's interesting; we finally got them. That's that part done.

I was going to move to discuss what we know is coming down the pipeline probably fairly quickly, Bill C-10. Here I would just make a couple of suggestions on how we might deal with that, given that I think all of us want to complete the railway study—but legislation takes priority every time. I'd like to get some suggestions or direction from the committee on how you'd like to deal with that, and how many meetings we plan to have on it, and so on and so forth.

Ms. Block, you had your hand up, then Ms. Duncan.