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

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague went on at quite a bit of length about cutting off debate, so I have to ask him this again. Why did his party, and I am talking about the member for Beloeil—Chambly, seconded by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, move last Friday, “That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-10...”.

That is one way to kill the debate as well, and I would like to understand why the NDP is proceeding this way when we have the opportunity to do debate, to go to second reading, to go to third reading, to take it to the Senate. There is plenty of opportunity for debate.

Could the hon. member please explain to me why the NDP wants to kill the bill?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, our government is still flying VFR in these sunny ways, I am happy to note.

Can the minister confirm that the changes proposed in the bill would indeed increase Air Canada's ability to compete in the international aviation industry on a more even playing field, would modernize the act to remove obsolete references to things like the defunct Montreal Urban Community, and would benefit the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, and my home province of Quebec by loosening the restrictions on where within those provinces maintenance work must take place?

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

Madam Speaker, I would just echo what my hon. colleague said. What we have continued to say in the amendment to this act says it very clearly, that Air Canada still has an obligation to provide maintenance in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario. It would give Air Canada a little more latitude with respect to where it does its maintenance. I think that is a good thing.

As he mentioned, the Montreal Urban Community does not exist anymore. We have expanded it to give more latitude to Air Canada in Quebec with respect to where it wants to do its maintenance.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, on March 27, 2012, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the current minister, stated:

Respecting the law means protecting the Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg centres. That is clear.

Will the government let this debate continue long enough to give our minister time to tell the Montreal workers why he has flip-flopped on this issue? While he is at it, maybe he could ask the member for Winnipeg North to explain why he has flip-flopped on process.

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

May I repeat, Madam Speaker, that 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. They are obviously satisfied that there will be the creation and the maintenance of jobs in their respective provinces.

It is no more complicated than that, and we want to make sure that this law is clarified to prevent further litigation in the future and also to allow Air Canada to perform better in a very competitive field, both domestically and internationally.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very troubled by the coincidence. We know that when the announcement was made, the government was under pressure to help Bombardier because it was having difficulty with the C Series. In the end, the announcement was made the same day that the governments of Quebec and Manitoba announced that they were dropping their lawsuit. At the same time, Air Canada announced that it planned to purchase some planes and open a hypothetical maintenance centre.

I would be curious to know how that coincidence occurred. Can the minister confirm that he and his department had nothing to do with any of these decisions and that they were made independently, or was the government involved in these decisions? Did the government attempt to use its power of persuasion on the two provincial governments and Air Canada in order to get itself out of a difficult political situation, sacrificing the jobs of 2,600 workers in the process?

[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.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just would like to say that it did not take long for the new government to swallow itself whole on the issue of closure, did it? Not only that, on the issue of this bill, we had the Minister of Transport himself saying that these jobs must be protected, these centres must be protected.

When he was in opposition, sitting on this side of the House, we had the member for Winnipeg North, every single time the previous government was trying to get its legislative agenda passed through the House, saying that it was the end of Canadian democracy, that we just could not believe how this was padlocking Parliament, shutting down debate, denying the people of Canada their rightful place in this House; and today, he is the one asking the questions of the same Minister of Transport.

It is funny that, when they change sides of the House, their principles go out the window.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transport how it feels to have exposed himself to allegations of hypocrisy so soon into this mandate.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to admit it feels pretty good being on this side of the House.

We have been very clear.

I have to ask the question. If everybody was so interested in the debate, why did the NDP, last Friday, propose that we amend everything. Its amendment proposed that we actually kill the bill. That, to me, is not encouraging a proper debate through the normal processes that occur in Parliament.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that this is a dark day for our parliamentary democracy. Today, the minister is introducing a time allocation motion to limit debate to one day. Meanwhile, when he was a member of the opposition, he was ready to tear his hair out every time the Conservative government introduced a time allocation motion.

What changed overnight between October 19 and 20? Why is the minister now prepared to introduce a time allocation motion, shut down debate in the House, and turn his back on parliamentary democracy?

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

Madam Speaker, in fact, there have been two days of debate: Friday and Monday. There will still be a little more debate after the next vote. Then this bill will go to committee. Witnesses will have the opportunity to appear. After that, the bill will be read a third time and it will go to the Senate.

The process is intact. We are going to follow it. Democracy will be respected.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.