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.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation Motion

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Transport.

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

Madam Speaker, may I remind the member for Elmwood—Transcona that during the debate on Monday, he suggested that it may be worthwhile to hear from Air Canada on this file, and not just the government. I could not agree more. That opportunity is going to occur when this bill goes to committee.

However, last Friday the NDP wanted to kill this bill, depriving Air Canada of the opportunity to speak. I do not understand how this NDP thinks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Housing; the hon. member for Hochelaga, Housing; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, International Trade.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is another sad day for our parliamentary democracy. For months, the minister rose in the House and in response to our questions told us that he was happy to support a lawbreaker, a company that does not obey the law. How can we expect the thousands of families of Aveos workers to now trust our institutions? Prior to and during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that he was fed up with politicians who said one thing before being elected and then did the opposite after being elected. We are appalled that this government is ignoring families that believed in the Prime Minister's promises. Now, it is over. The minister should stand up and apologize because he is one of the 40 Quebec caucus MPs and he is ignoring Aveos's Quebec workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague that it was the Province of Quebec that decided, after discussions with Air Canada, to drop the lawsuit. Why? Because Air Canada decided to make a serious commitment to Quebec by purchasing Bombardier aircraft and also to open a centre of excellence for the maintenance of Air Canada's new aircraft for at least the next 20 years. That is good news. That will create good jobs. I do not understand why my colleague is not pleased that good jobs will be created in Quebec.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if only I could have leave to articulate all of the issues, there are many things that I could comment on with respect to this matter. That said, my question is in regard to the fact that the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Quebec have been very candid over the last number of years in trying to challenge Air Canada to provide the jobs that were in the legislation framework for the Air Canada act.

In working with the provinces and the different stakeholders, it has come to the surface that indeed there is an obligation for the federal government to work with the different stakeholders, including the provinces, to try to resolve this issue going forward.

My question is for the minister. Would he not agree that there is an onus of responsibility on the Government of Canada to work with the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Quebec, along with other stakeholders, to protect Canada's aerospace industry in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba?

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

Madam Speaker, certainly the Government of Canada wants to promote one of the technical areas where Canada really plays in the big leagues. I am talking about the aerospace industry. I know Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg and the other companies there. In fact, when I was president of the Canadian Space Agency, we went to Bristol Aerospace to have one of our spacecraft built. I am very cognizant of the fact that Manitoba has a critical mass of expertise. I am also aware of the fact that my own province also has some impressive capabilities, as does Ontario. These are provinces that are excellent in the aerospace industry. We want to help these provinces so that Canada continues to be the fifth largest in the world in the aerospace—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly nice to hear the member for Winnipeg North speaking during this time allocation motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport noted that the government is in a rush to get this legislation to committee because the government to date has not held a single consultation on this legislation.

The question I have is this. If the government proposing closure on this debate, will it at least admit that this legislation is being proposed and rushed to benefit Bombardier?

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

Madam Speaker, the answer is no. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba have decided they will not pursue Air Canada. This allows us the opportunity not only to clarify this bill but also to allow Air Canada to be more competitive. Not only has Air Canada been restricted to specific cities for its maintenance, but it has had other restrictions imposed upon it, such as official languages, where it has its headquarters, and foreign ownership. These are things that were imposed upon Air Canada 28 years ago. We have decided that, at this time, it deserves more latitude with respect to the maintenance of its aircraft.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we have here is a situation of regulatory capture. We have been holding hearings on rail safety, and it is becoming absolutely evident that we have a situation of regulatory capture with the rail industry. We now have a situation where Air Canada is required by law to provide these jobs in these three Canadian communities. It has cut a deal with the government saying it does not want that law anymore because it has some contracts it can enter into and it might cause problems in its business dealings. This is of deep concern. If we cannot have a full debate here, will the minister ensure that every one of his members of the committee will allow that every single witness who wants to be heard on this issue is heard at committee?

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

Madam Speaker, needless to say, I do not agree with my hon. colleague on her analysis with respect to regulatory capture.

Let me ask this. If the NDP really wanted more debate on this bill, why did it disrupt the debate last Friday with its obstructive amendment at second reading?

I understand the government made many offers to the NDP to allow its MPs to speak, but apparently it just could not take yes for an answer.

As an officially recognized party, the NDP has a seat on the transport committee. I look forward to that member's positive contribution at committee on this important bill.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I found an interesting quote from a couple of years ago by the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood. This is a Liberal fundraising email. He stated:

By keeping Air Canada’s maintenance in Canada, we ensured a superior level of safety with tight regulations and a highly skilled aerospace workforce. By shuttering Canadian overhaul centres, Canada is losing its ability to ensure that our aircraft meet safety regulations.

Therefore, I have a couple of questions.

The first one is this. Will the government allow debate to continue so that the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood can address his safety concerns to his own government?

Also, I noticed that the Minister of Justice seconded this closure motion today. I am wondering if there were any staff members from Air Canada at a recent fundraiser in Toronto.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to the quality of the maintenance that is done in this country—and I have a responsibility from a safety point of view at transport—I have no concerns at this point that we are not providing the highest levels of maintenance quality in places like Winnipeg, Montreal and Mirabel, and places in Ontario, in Toronto. These are world-class capabilities that we will continue to use, and the modifications that we are bringing to the Air Canada Public Participation Act would in no way have any effect on that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, mark this date. Wednesday, April 20, 2016, is when sunny ways became dark days in the House of Commons.

What we see now is a mimic of the same actions we saw over a decade of Conservative rule, where debate was simply shut down, and every time there was an opportunity to bring up important issues, like 2,600 jobs that are being killed, the Conservatives would bring in closure, as the Liberals are doing now, and then they would blame the opposition parties, just as the Liberals are doing now.

The Minister of Transport did not used to feel that way. In fact, if we quote him from 2013, he actually called closure undemocratic. He actually said back in 2012 that Canadians do not like closure and that they were waking up to the way that government was doing things. He was referring to the Conservatives then; he is obviously referring to the Liberals now.

Why is he using closure to kill the jobs of 2,600 Canadian families?