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.

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I just want to start off by setting a bit of context about how the Liberals treat Parliament in general.

We all remember the 2015 election campaign when the Prime Minister pretended that he cared about things like accountability, transparency and the supremacy of Parliament, and the fact that we come to this place from all corners of this country to hold the government to account. That is not just a phrase that one might hear in a political science class or a high school civics class. Holding it to account is not just some kind of bookkeeping exercise where we make sure the numbers add up. Yes, that is part of it, but it is really about litigating the decisions of the government to ensure that Canadians get only the best. It is through the rigour of parliamentary debate, committee investigations and the daily questioning of the Prime Minister and cabinet that the facts emerge and Canadians are able to make informed decisions when it is time to vote.

I was House leader back in 2015 right after that election, right after the Prime Minister said he would respect the role of Parliament, that he would always defer to the important role that the House of Commons plays in our democracy. Something happened in that first few months after the 2015 election that totally showed what a phony comms exercises all of that rhetoric was. There was a bill before the House back then; I believe was Bill C-10. The Liberals had trouble counting their caucus members one Monday morning. There was a vote that the Liberals were not expecting on that day and they almost lost it because they did not have enough members in town. They still had members back in their ridings perhaps or on international junkets, or on any number of other things. There was a tie-vote in the chamber. A piece of government legislation was almost defeated and the Speaker had to break the tie at that time and, as was the convention of the Speaker, broke the tie in favour of continuing debate and allowed the bill to pass at report stage, so the bill continued on.

They were so rattled by that episode that just a few days later the government House leader came into this chamber and proposed Motion No. 6. Motion No. 6 was a complete defanging of the opposition, a removal of most of the tools that opposition parties use to hold the government to account, to draw out those details, and to litigate the government's course of actions and its legislation. It gave the government unprecedented power to move legislation along quickly and to prevent the opposition from using its very legitimate tools to hold up debate, not just for the sake of filibustering or delay for the sake of delay. It is in that delay that members of Parliament find those details, find the mistakes that the government makes or hear the stories from witnesses about how those unintended consequences might do more harm than good.

The government's reaction at that time to a tie-vote on a piece of legislation was what might be called a parliamentary hissy fit where it just completely lost its temper and tried to take away all of the things that the opposition party could ever hope to use to hold the government to account. Thankfully, the opposition parties understood what was going on.

It is always amazing when parties with as wide a variety of views as the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP can find common ground, but the Liberals are good at doing that. When the Bloc, the Conservatives and the NDP can find something to be such an affront to parliamentary democracy and everything that we are supposed to do here that we join forces together, and put our differences aside to protect this institution, it is actually a terrible indictment on the Liberal Party, and so often we have had to do that. For the sake of our institution, for the sake of future generations of Canadians, for the sake of future Parliaments and future members of Parliament to be able to have those very important tools to do the job on behalf of their constituents, we have had to join forces. I remember being there when the House leaders from all the recognized parties, along with the Bloc Québécois, told the story. We all told the story to Canadians about the motives and the consequences of what the government was doing. We were able to push back on that, whether due to the effective communications of all the opposition parties or due to the fact that in those moments, the Prime Minister lost his temper.

The Prime Minister actually injured an NDP member of Parliament, when he elbowed an NDP member and forcefully grabbed the Conservative whip at the time. He completely lost his temper and physically manhandled a member of Parliament. Maybe that is why he finally backed down, but I like to think that it was at least in part because of the important points we were making as opposition parties to defend our institutions.

We see this time and time again. Every time the Liberals do not get their way, they try to change the rules of the game. It is important to note that the tools that are available to the opposition to delay, to propose amendments and to physically have members of the cabinet and the government in the chamber, are an important part of the process. We have a system whereby the executive branch sits in the chamber, and the opposition parties have to have some tools at their disposal to be able to highlight the shortcomings, failures and mistakes in the government's agenda.

It does not just happen in this House. The other place also plays an important role in that. I should point out that the other place has completely put aside its hybrid Parliament mechanisms. They have been back under normal operating standards for a long time now. For months, they have been able to continue doing their job. It is really just this chamber.

In fact, it is just this chamber in all of Canada that is continuing on with a full host of measures that were originally put in place, as the government House leader acknowledged, when there was consensus about how best to do two things. One of these things was to respect the public health orders that were in place at the time, about people travelling from different parts of the country to come together, and the other was respecting the orders and regulations at the time to have people who were from different households being certain distances apart.

We agreed at that time to respect those two things, because we could not have a period of time when Parliament was not doing its job. Thank goodness, we insisted on that. I remember those days, when the government was trying to arrange for unanimous passage of its legislation in response to the pandemic, without any debate at all. The Liberals wanted to just email the text of the legislation to members of Parliament, have them come in here for just a few moments, pass it all and then go home again.

Thankfully, the official opposition, the Conservative Party, said no to that. It was through that parliamentary scrutiny that we learned many terrible things about the government's response to the COVID pandemic. We found out that the Prime Minister attempted to use the pandemic to try to enrich his friends. We found out because Parliament was sitting, because we had the tools at our disposal, in terms of committees and debates in the chamber. He did this with the massive disruption in people's lives; loss of life; people having to say goodbye to loved ones over Zoom; people having to miss birthday parties, anniversaries and funerals; businesses going bankrupt; and children missing out on activities and important parts of their childhood.

The Prime Minister tried to give his friends at the WE Foundation, an organization that had paid members of his family hundreds of thousands of dollars, an untendered sole source contract worth half a billion dollars. However, he got caught, because we did not give up those tools in our tool kit to hold the government to account.

We found out through parliamentary scrutiny that the government used the pandemic, as well, to reward Liberal insiders and defeated Liberal MPs, such as Frank Baylis. He got a sole source contract for providing medical supplies that he had no history of ever providing. The arrive scam app is another example of waste and mismanagement. Thank goodness we still had those parliamentary tools at our disposal.

I want to address a few points that the government House leader brought up in his speech. He talked about unanimity consensus. My colleague in the Bloc Québécois just made a very important point. As a former speaker, I have learned a little about the history, about the importance of the Standing Orders and their evolution over time, as well as why things are the way they are.

The McGrath committee was one of those great examples where Parliament had not been updated for a long period of time; society had implemented a whole bunch of innovations, and parliamentary life had changed. In response to those changing times in the 1980s, the government of the day decided that it would have a fulsome analysis of the Standing Orders, the parliamentary cycle and the daily routine of business. It was essential that all the opposition parties were brought in and a true effort was made to find consensus and common ground; where there was no consensus, the government did not proceed.

It was out of that committee that we had major changes, for example, in the election of the Speaker. For generations before the 1980s, the Prime Minister chose the Speaker. It was a motion that the Prime Minister moved, and it was basically a fait accompli; whomever the Prime Minister wanted to become Speaker became Speaker. In the 1980s, the House decided, in its wisdom, that it would be better to preserve the impartiality of the Chair if the Speaker did not have to worry about pleasing or displeasing the Prime Minister. Therefore, the House instituted the secret ballot election, and former speaker John Fraser was the first to be elected by secret ballot. Ever since then, speakers have been chosen that way. That was a very important development in our parliamentary democratic underpinnings. It was a great development. It was a fantastic idea; it has served the House well, and it has served the Speaker as well.

The point that I am making to my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party is that it was achieved through consensus, because if all parties from all different corners of the country and from different political perspectives cannot be convinced that it is a good idea that will serve the institution as an institution, and not one party over another, then maybe it is not such a good idea. Maybe we should at least go back and try to build that consensus. However, that is not what they are doing here. They would be creating a precedent, whereby future governments and future Parliaments would look and say that it has been done before where a government, perhaps backed by a junior coalition partner in a minority context, could say that at the end of the day, it is just going to ram it through anyway.

We offered a good-faith effort to preserve the idea of consensus, to prevent what is about to happen when the government ultimately rams this motion through. We said that, in order to preserve the importance of overhauling the Standing Orders only after a government has achieved that consensus, we would agree to things on a time-limited basis that we might not normally agree to. We were willing to allow aspects of this hybrid package to continue, with the one caveat that the package of changes would sunset after the next election. This is a very simple and, I believe, common-sense proposal.

What would that do, and why is it important? After every election, it is part of our normal routine of business that the Standing Orders are studied by the procedure and House affairs committee. There is supposed to be a debate in the House about the Standing Orders and whether anything needs to be changed or how the Standing Orders are serving the House at the time. It has never really resulted in anything substantially major, because the government of the day always wants to use government time to implement business. That is reasonable; the members get elected on a platform, and every day that they spend debating the Standing Orders, as they are today, is a day that they do not have to debate the legislation they would like to put out.

Our proposal would have required a government of the day to, proactively and in a positive way, actually take some action to extend these changes. I submit that we are still only about a year or so out of the complete lifting of COVID restrictions. In some parts of Canada, it has literally just been 12 to 14 months since those restrictions have been fully lifted, so it is hard to say for sure what the long-term consequences of these changes will be on our parliamentary life. It is not just life in terms of our personal lives or how we conduct our business but also in terms of the institution itself.

My hon. colleague, the House leader, has lots of examples of how it is tough to be here. Yes, it is difficult, but I do not think that members of Parliament should ask for considerations that hard-working Canadians from across the country in other industries do not have. Yes, it is difficult to be here. I have five children, and there are lots of things I wish I could have stayed home for. There are lots of important milestones I missed. I knew that when I ran for office.

I knew when I put my name on the ballot that it would be a trade-off in my life. Yes, I would get the incredible reward of fighting for the things I believe in and serving my community and my constituents, but the counterpoint to that is that I would be away from home an awful lot. I made the decision to do it anyway, because I so value the important work that my party does and that my team does.

I believe that the things I believe in are important enough that I am willing to sacrifice those special moments at home to help make Canada a better place. I want to help undo the damage that big government intervention has caused in our lives, with the liberty and individual freedoms that we have lost over the past few years under the Liberal government.

It is worth it. I might miss one of my children's birthdays, but hopefully, I will help to roll back some of the misery that big government intervention in their lives causes for them. They will be better off for it throughout their life. That is one of my motivating factors when I have to miss those important moments.

For Canadians in lots of different industries, they might have an important milestone in their family that they would like to get back for. Maybe they have to go to a trades conference, or maybe they are in the legal profession and have an important court date. They cannot just phone it in because they have something going on at home. I do not think members of Parliament should grant to ourselves a privilege and a comfort that so many Canadians across the country do not have in their lives. I do not believe that this is sufficient in and of itself to justify the changes that the government is making today.

In terms of the important precedent that it is creating here today, it will likely not be singing from the same song sheet in future Parliaments if a future government does something it does not like with the Standing Orders. However, I would submit to the government that it is not too late. In a few moments, I will be proposing an amendment that will more closely resemble the consensus that we are trying to achieve in negotiating these packages of Standing Order changes.

We have long held that major, enduring procedural reforms must be implemented with the support of a consensus of the recognized parties in the House. Making permanent such a sweeping change to parliamentary life is absolutely the sort of thing that should first be embraced by all sides of the aisle.

In the interest of consensus, the official opposition would have agreed to renew the current hybrid procedures with some important limitations, subject to that sunset a year into the next Parliament, when a further renewal could have been considered with proper deliberations. It is the flip side of what the government House leader is saying. He was saying that a future Parliament could undo it. We are asking why we do not do it the opposite way. The onus is on the government to justify and to answer for all the potential and unforeseen consequences of its changes. It would have been far better for the House and for future Parliaments if it had been done in reverse, and if the onus were on the government for continuing them.

I want to focus on hybrid participation in the chamber. There really is something to the physicality of the place. Holding ministers to account in person really adds a dynamic that we lose when we have hybrid Parliament. It is not just me saying that. There are parliamentary experts from all around the world in Commonwealth parliaments and even former Liberal MPs who have said the very same thing. Being in the chamber, with that thrust and that back and forth, is as much a part of the debate as the words themselves are.

When the House sits in a hybrid fashion, it takes a tremendous amount of resources, particularly with translation services. Members of Parliament and Canadians have the right to read and watch the debates in either official language, in French or English. It is difficult for the House administration. I sit on the Board of Internal Economy; for Canadians who might not be familiar with the term, this is the management committee that oversees the House of Commons and its administration. It is generally non-partisan. It is literally designed to help make sure that the precinct is secure and that members of Parliament have the services they need to do their jobs.

The strain placed on our translation services by hybrid sittings has been brought up multiple times at that committee. The translators have a very difficult job. They have to listen at a very specific sound level. They have to be able to hear what is being said and speak out the translation in real time. It is not as if translators get copies of speeches and can transcribe them into the other language and then just read them out. They have to simultaneously listen and speak at the same time.

Our interpreters have had a surprising number of workplace injuries. Members of Parliament get up to speak, but maybe they are too close to the microphone, maybe they start off too loudly or maybe their headset is not calibrated properly. Our translators then get that initial blast of sound, and over time we have had an unfortunate number of interpreters who have had to go on leave or have been put on medical leave because of those injuries. As a result, our pool of available translators has shrunk, and it is now incredibly difficult for the House to find adequate levels of human resources for a hybrid Parliament while at the same time providing the same for committees.

The reason I bring this up is that because of the nature of the importance of the deliberations in the chamber, the House of Commons itself is always given the first right of refusal on human resources. That means that we will always have translation services available to the House. Where does the House get those services when human resources are stretched thin? It gets them from committees.

I know we have lots of colleagues in the chamber right now who sit on committees. How many of them have had a committee cancelled at the last moment over the last few months because of a lack of resources? I am sure every single member has experienced that. Often when the government extends the hours of the House by six or seven hours in the evening, suddenly the House administration has to scramble and reallocate those translators. As a result, committees get cancelled.

Why would the Liberals want committees to be cancelled?

The Prime Minister hates parliamentary committees, and it is not hard to understand why. It is at committees that we have exposed the most egregious examples of waste, corruption and mismanagement. We are able to really pore through the spending, the contracts and the hypocrisies in government programs in terms of economic mismanagement.

We have had incredible breaking news and bombshell reports that have come out at committee. We catch one minister saying something that has been denied by another minister or we get a look at those contracts that have been awarded to Liberal insiders or we hear expert testimony that—

Industry and Technology

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the real shameful stuff is going to come up, I can assure the member, in regard to the Conservative Party, but the Bloc is sitting a little too close. I was just wondering if the member wants to shoo over a little bit more. I agree. I would do that too.

They are starting to have a negative influence on the Bloc. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-27, and we know how important it is to our constituencies that we provide security in the privacy of information on the Internet. We all recognize how important that issue is. The Bloc do not want to discuss that today, even though we have attempted to have it passed through the House. I understand it supports the legislation, which is a good thing. However, it wants to talk about the aerospace industry by bringing through concurrence of a report to use up government time. This is not the first time. We are used to the Conservative Party doing it.

Having said that, I am happy to talk about the aerospace industry. When I think of the aerospace industry, I think of John Diefenbaker. Do members remember John Diefenbaker? John Diefenbaker was a prime minister of Canada.

Canada, at the time, was leading the world, virtually, in the development of a first-class interceptor, a plane that was incredibly fast. We have to remember that this was after the world war, when there was a need for development and an enrichment of our aerospace industry. The prime minister at the time, John Diefenbaker, destroyed Canada's aerospace industry by cancelling the Avro Arrow.

That was a high-altitude plane. It was ahead of its time. I want members to imagine that plane program not having been cancelled. Avro employed hundreds of people at the time, possibly over 1,000, but I will say hundreds for now. They all worked in the province of Ontario.

I think of the technology and the research that was done. They actually rolled one of the Avro planes out. It was recognized around the world as likely the leading candidate for the development of a plane that was like a rocket, going to altitudes of 40,000 and above.

John Diefenbaker cancelled the program. Back in the late fifties, he cancelled the program. It is the truth. As a result, Avro actually went broke and closed its doors. All of the equipment and, more important, all of the brains and skills were dispersed. Many of the individuals who developed the Avro ended up leaving Canada so they could get into and expand that particular industry. Canada lost out big time, and it is something which even today, 70 years later, we reflect on. What would our industry look like today?

Well, earlier today, I was asking questions of members of the Bloc. I am happy to say that it is the province of Quebec that leads our aerospace industry. I pointed out, in the question I posed earlier, that in the province of Quebec, one can build a plane from the very beginning, from the bolts to the polishing of the aircraft, the final product. That is fairly rare.

When we think of the aerospace industry in Canada, one is talking about tens of thousands of jobs, well over 100,000 jobs. Do members know the average salary of someone working in the aerospace industry in Manitoba? It is estimated, I believe, to be over $60,000 a year. These are good middle-class types of jobs with incredible skill sets. In Canada today, it is Quebec that leads.

With respect to jobs, I suspect that the province of Ontario lost the opportunity to play that leadership role as a direct result of a federal government's decision not to invest in the aerospace industry.

Let us fast forward a few decades. Today, we have a national government that does support our aerospace industry in a clear and tangible way, and we have done this from day one. We talked about Bill C-10 and how important it was that we ensure future contracts. We talked about how we could support the industry even though, at times, it meant there would be some give and take. That give and take is important to recognize. The world has changed.

I had a tour of Magellan in my home city of Winnipeg. I felt a sense of pride when I walked around the floor and saw an F-35 wing being manufactured. We have an absolutely incredible aerospace industry in Winnipeg, which contributes to the industry not only in Canada, but worldwide.

Those workers show their love and passion for the construction of very important components of the F-35. Imagine being a worker at Magellan who sees an F-35 on a news broadcast. He or she might reflect on whether that wing was manufactured in Winnipeg. Even in crating the wing, someone would need an engineering background to build the crate that houses the wing prior to its shipping.

The member before me talked about the importance of schools. Magellan has a classroom in which Red River College contributes to the education. It is very important to recognize that it is not only Ottawa that has the responsibility of supporting these industries, even though it feels we are alone in doing that at times. Many stakeholders have a role in ensuring that Canada continues to lead an industry that is so vitally important to the world. The best way to do that is to work with our partners and stakeholders.

When I was an MLA a number of years ago, and I hope the Manitoba legislature Hansard would show this, I spoke about the aerospace industry in the province of Manitoba. I said that the province needed to step up and support the industry. If the local entities and provincial governments are not at the table, it hurts the industry. It also hurts it if the industry itself is not at the table.

As much as I would love to talk about the province of Quebec, I think the similarities are striking between Manitoba and Quebec. We have aerospace industry umbrella organizations and those organizations are there for the health and the well-being of that industry.

This comes from Winnipeg's aerospace industry's umbrella agency. I will quote from its website so people can get a sense of what I am referring to when I talk about Manitoba's aerospace industry. It states:

Canada is a global leader in aerospace and Manitoba is home to Canada’s third largest aerospace industry. Our highly competitive aerospace sector produces world-class products for customers on six continents.

From modest roots in small bush plane repair in the 1930′s, the Manitoba aerospace industry has grown to include sophisticated design, manufacturing, servicing, testing, certification and research and development capabilities. We are home to Canada’s largest aerospace composite manufacturing centre, as well as the world’s largest independent gas turbine engine repair and overhaul company. Also located in Manitoba are the internationally acclaimed Composites Innovation Centre and two of the world’s most advanced aircraft engine testing and certification centres developed by Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney and GE Aviation. Along with these global aerospace leaders, Manitoba has a network of SMBs that compete and supply into the global marketplace. This growing cluster is strengthened through the Competitive Edge Supplier Development initiative, an internationally recognized learner to world class supplier and supply chain development program.

This gives us a sense of the impact the aerospace industry in Manitoba has on the world. We could come up with even a stronger statement, in a different perspective coming from the province of Quebec.

I remember another occasion when I was in the Phillippines. I talked to some military representatives, who talked about the Bell helicopter. They thought that the province of Quebec had a wonderful product in the Bell helicopter, that Quebec was a place they could look at. I asked a representative why he was looking at the province of Quebec in particular and what he thought about the manufactured helicopter. I did not expect, and the member commented on this, him to say that it was the fact that politicians in Quebec were so impressed with the makeup of the workforce in the construction of the helicopter, referring to the fact that people of Filipino heritage were in that industry.

With respect to our aerospace industry, one of the nice things is the diversity we see when we tour these plants, whether they are in Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario or British Columbia, “the big four”, as I would like to say. Hopefully Manitoba will even become higher and more prominent, but that is a personal bias. It is that diversification of the workforce and the skills they have.

That is why it is so critically important that Ottawa not only continues to support the aerospace industry, as it has prepandemic, during the pandemic and today, but that we also ensure, as much as possible, that those stakeholders are at the table as well. We want Red River College and the University of Manitoba at the table. We want those post-secondary facilities, whether they are in Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, B.C., or any other jurisdiction, to be at the table to ensure we continue to invest in research and technology.

When we think of manufacturing in Canada, many would argue, especially many of my Ontario colleagues, that we lead in the automobile industry. After all, we can take a look at the hybrids, at the plants that are being announced, the thousands of jobs, the clean energy, and all these things. In a good part, it is coming out of Ontario, but when we take a look at the overall picture of the manufacturing industry, Canada's aerospace industry is recognized, within our bigger picture of the manufacturing industry, as one of the best, if not the best, in investing in research, technology and advancement. We are seeing that in the types of demands that are there for Canada.

Ottawa should continue to support the industry. As the Minister of Industry indicated in a question about something he recently announced in the province of Quebec, I can make reference to things that recently have been announced in Manitoba. Whether it is through procurements and how the federal government supports the industry, or direct investments in the industry, or indirect things that are done through things such as trades and skills, my appeal would be that we look at what other stakeholders and jurisdictions can do that would complement the types of initiatives that the federal government is taking to advance a very important industry.

This industry employs thousands of people, with well-paying jobs. It contributes billions of dollars every year to our GDP, thereby enhancing our lifestyle. We can all take a sense of pride in how our aerospace industry has been able to do relatively well even during the pandemic. As we get through the pandemic and look at the potential to increase its demand in the years ahead, it is critically important we continue to look at ways to support our aerospace industry.

As much as I enjoy talking about the aerospace industry, I hope the Bloc and Conservatives will come onside and support Bill C-27 when it comes up for debate later today. It would be wonderful to see that legislation pass, which would make this debate that much better.

Procedure for Votes in Chamber

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, of which I have given notice to the table, regarding the vote that happened on the Speech from the Throne earlier this week. I understand the member for Vimy has indicated she does not want her vote to be counted. You said that would be done. Obviously, we accept that.

However, this is much more serious than that. This raises many more questions, which I will get into here and which I believe you need to give us some direction on, Mr. Speaker. This affects the privileges of every member of the House.

The privileges of all members are affected when there is a question about the conduct of one member. In this case we are in a minority Parliament where every single vote that is a confidence vote will matter.

In this case, while there was a significant spread between the yeas and the nays, one can easily imagine a scenario in which the vote of one member could determine whether the government maintained the confidence of the House. We have a situation where a member was given not one, not two, but three opportunities to talk about what happened.

I say with respect, and I do not wish to overstate this, that it is so important that the voting rights of members are protected here. Maybe when the Standing Orders were written it was simply enough, without cameras in this place, to trust the word of a member.

Mr. Speaker, if you review the tape, which we all have access to, and which is the official recorded record of what happens in the House, you will see that the member in question was not in her seat for five minutes after the vote commenced.

Every time the camera pans past her seat, it is empty. This is not a matter of seconds and a member saying, “I heard it and I rushed in and sat down.” I am sorry. I want to take all members at their word in this place, but the video evidence is crystal clear.

For the hon. member to say today, “I now know that I needed to be in the chamber in order to vote”, you told us that on Monday night. You told the House, “To be clear, you must be in the chamber in order to vote”, and she stood and said, “I was here. I heard the question.” That is absolutely false.

Now what do we do? What do we do when there is a situation where it could absolutely have been the difference between the government surviving and the government falling? Do we have a situation where a member can stand in this place and mislead the House and there are no consequences for it? The government survives, the legislation passes, the motion passes and the next day, or two or three days later, they say, “Oh, sorry, what could we do? I made a mistake.”

Mr. Speaker, we need you to protect the rights of all members of Parliament. If some members of Parliament are given the right to vote when they are not in this place, that takes away the rights of every member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, a misleading statement by a member is listed as an offence against the House. That is on page 82 of Bosc and Gagnon. It is an offence against the House. It is not an offence against a particular party. I would say it is offensive to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian and custodian of our privileges, but this is something that could have made all the difference.

In the last Parliament, on Bill C-10, the transport bill, it was a tied vote that the previous Speaker had to break the tie on. We had three members in the lobby. We had three members who knew better than to come in and take their place and vote because to do so would have been dishonourable. It would have broken the rules of the House. What if we had just sent them in? The legislation would have been defeated at second reading. What would the remedy then have been?

Mr. Speaker, we are in this situation now where it is more imperative than ever that you protect the rights of all members and not just the governing party, and I know you would never do that. You are here. You were elected by all of us. You protect the rights of all of us.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I think you need to review the tape to see if you find the same as we have, time after time. I wanted that member to get up and unequivocally apologize. Instead what she did was to say, “I was here”, three times. The tape does not lie. The tape shows exactly what happened.

I believe that we need this to be found a prime facie question of privilege and that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, because we need to know what the path forward is.

What if this is just an instruction that is given to any side of the House where they say, “You know what, things happen. Just run in and say you heard it. There is nothing the Speaker can do, and the House has no powers. Just be close to the House, come in, and if it comes up before your empty seat is called, just stand up and say that you were here. We'll sort it out in the wash”. That is unacceptable.

Again, I implore you to watch the tape, Mr. Speaker. This is not a matter of that single vote. That single vote has been withdrawn, but when the camera pans across the first row, second row, third row and fourth row before the member is in her seat, I am sorry, but she did not hear the question. She knows she did not hear the question.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule in favour of moving this to the procedure and House affairs committee so that we can settle this once and for all.

Opposition Motion—Government Policies

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member for Winnipeg North's speech, I would just like to remind my colleagues that this is only day one of the remaining seven weeks, so we should all pace ourselves.

As always, in these dying days of the 42nd Parliament, it is a great honour to stand in this place. It is a real privilege to be the voice of the amazing constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I appreciated, as I am sure all members did, the previous two weeks, when I got to go to my riding on beautiful Vancouver Island, where spring actually arrived when it was supposed to. I enjoyed the sunshine, speaking with constituents and going to many community events.

I was really excited when I saw the notice of the motion we had picked to debate today. I think it goes to the heart of the kind of message that we, as a party, want to put out there to differentiate ourselves from the other parties in this place.

Before I got into politics as an elected member, I used to work for a former member of Parliament, Jean Crowder. I can remember going to an event at someone's house and seeing an old poster by the CCF. The tag of the poster was “People Before Profits”. That is one of the principles that has always guided me personally, that the people of our great country are key.

We can look at the staggering amount of wealth that corporations have. Some people may see a corporation's wealth by how big its bank account is, how well its executives are paid and how well its shareholders do with dividends. However, in this corner of the House, we prefer to see the wealth of a company in the workers, the services they provide and the things they build. It is ultimately the workers of the company who are on the front line, providing those services to people and giving the company its reputation. In all of our efforts, by all parties, it would serve us well to remember that.

The main thrust of this motion today is that given the experiences over the last three and a half years of this Parliament, we feel there have been some demonstrations quite clearly that corporate executives and their lobbyists have had far too much access to and influence on the Government of Canada.

The most recent example of this, which I think many Canadians still quite clearly remember, is the SNC-Lavalin affair. When that news story broke in the The Globe and Mail on February 7, it very much altered the political landscape. I remember the Liberals first reaction to that story was to deny it, to say that it was not true, that there was no pressure. However, their narrative kept on changing as more facts kept coming out. Ultimately, what it resulted in was the loss of two of their most capable ministers, the member for Vancouver Granville and the member for Markham—Stouffville, the loss of the Prime Minister's principal secretary and the loss of the former clerk of the Privy Council.

Why is that whole affair relevant to the motion today? Last year, unbeknown to parliamentarians and even the Canadian public, a small section was hidden in one of the budget omnibus bills, which even the Liberal backbenchers found out about, with surprise, when they were studying the bill at the standing committee on finance. Of course that was the provision in the budget bill to bring in an amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow for deferred prosecution agreements. I am not against deferred prosecution agreements per se. They can in some cases be a very legitimate tool. The important thing, though, is that it is not up to me to decide that. It is not up to anyone in this chamber to decide that. That role falls squarely on the shoulders of the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.

That brings me to the next step in this whole sordid affair. We found out that it was SNC-Lavalin that lobbied hard to get such an amendment into the Criminal Code and it succeeded with that. Then it started this coordinated orchestrated campaign with the Prime Minister's Office to get the former attorney general, the member for Vancouver Granville, to basically overrule the director of public prosecutions.

When I sat on the justice committee, I was at Ms. Kathleen Roussel's confirmation hearing. She is a very accomplished lady who has immense qualifications for the job. However, when she was looking at the request for a deferred prosecution agreement, she had all the relevant facts of the case before her, she knew what the provisions of the law were and in her capacity, she made the decision that the company was not eligible for a DPA. Of course, she referenced this to the former attorney general of Canada who agreed with that assessment.

The lobbying of the Prime Minister's Office to get the independence of that decision overturned is very worrying. Yes, no laws were broken, but the irony is that no laws were broken because of the efforts of the former attorney general of Canada, who very much stood on her principles and decided she would stand against that pressure and not overrule the director of public prosecutions. Ultimately, she was shuffled out of her cabinet post and then had to resign, followed by her colleague, the member for Markham—Stouffville. The two of them could no longer in good conscience sit in the cabinet and defend the government day to day when they knew the truth of what had really happened behind the scene.

That is item number one of the most clear and recent examples of the awesome power of corporate lobbying and what it was able to achieve with the current government.

I will take members back to 2016 to another example. The government introduced Bill C-10, an amendment to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This was in spite of the fact that many Liberal MPs represented ridings where aircraft maintenance workers lived and worked and in spite of the fact that in the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister was right there with Avios workers, saying that he was there in solidarity with them and that he supported them. However, what did that government bill do? It basically amended the act so that Air Canada, which had done extensive lobbying of the government, would now be free to move its aircraft maintenance work offshore. It would no longer be constrained by the provisions in the act where it had to have maintenance facilities in places like Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Again, this goes to the heart of where corporate lobbying led to a change in the law, which ultimately will and has hurt workers.

Of course, we have the Minister of Finance who brought in Bill C-27, which I am very happy to see remains in purgatory, stuck at first reading. The government has been far too timid to bring it forward for debate, because it knows the uproar that would happen. The Minister of Finance own company, Morneau Shepell, used to specialize in this kind of work of changing pension plans. The Liberals finally became aware of the uproar that would happen, and that bill has not proceeded any further, which I am glad to see. However, it did not stop the Minister of Finance who, in a clear conflict of interest, introduced that bill in the first place, showing what the Liberals' intent was all along.

Then, of course, I move to pharmacare. I was listening to the member for Winnipeg North as his volume got steadily higher and higher. We have short memories in this place. It was back in 1997, 22 years ago, when the old Liberal empire of the 1990s was at the height of its power. Members will remember that the Liberals won a majority in 1993, again in 1997 and again in 2000. This was a clear promise they made in 1997. They did not follow through with it then, they did not follow through with it in the 2000 government and here we are, three and a half years into the term of the current majority government, and what do we have? We have a paragraph in the budget, which is an intention to do more consultation. However, we can look at the lobbying records and the coordinated campaign that was brought about by the pharmaceutical industry. On average, pharmaceutical companies and their associations lobbied the government approximately 49 times, which is about the average over 11 years. However, in 2018 alone, it was 104 times.

The report by the Standing Committee on Health recommended a universal pharmacare plan, one that all Canadians can get behind, one that would save Canadian families $4.5 billion. On average, Canadian families would save about $550 and some families would save far more.

The proof is in the pudding, because instead of us being at a point where we could implement a national universal pharmacare plan, the lobbying has had its desired effect. What we are probably going to get from the Liberals, these masters of the long promise, the ones who like to tell people to re-elect them and they might get what they want, is that the lion's share of the national housing strategy is going to come after 2019, and the pharmacare plan is probably going to be some kind of a patchwork system. In other words, the pharmaceutical industry was able, through its lobbying efforts, to get what it wanted all along. It wanted to have a patchwork system where it still had that key role to play.

Finally, there is the Loblaws example. My friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke had it perfectly in his intervention earlier when he asked why a company as wealthy as Loblaws is able to access $12 million, when it commands so much wealth and would have been able to do that itself, headed by a man who is worth more than $13 billion. For Mr. Weston, $12 million is pocket change. That is something he could lose in the blink of an eye, a rounding error for a billionaire.

The question is legitimate. Why is this money not being made available to the corner stores, to small businesses, which would use that $12 million to make significant upgrades to their bottom line to be energy-efficient. No one is arguing the fact that we need to take these steps. What we are trying to underline is the power of big corporations, the lobbying efforts they can employ with the government to get those kinds of corporate handouts, when small businesses, the ones that really need them, are being left behind far too often.

I appreciate this time to speak on behalf of the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

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

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the legislation that was put in the 2018 budget bill that helped out SNC-Lavalin or whether it is Bill C-27 that the Minister of Finance introduced but did not advance any further, we see concrete examples of legislation being changed to suit corporate interests.

One bill that passed three years ago now was Bill C-10, direct lobbying from Air Canada, to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act so it had the freedom to move its maintenance facilities offshore. Lo and behold, Liberal MPs from ridings where those maintenance workers lived supported that legislation.

I would like my colleague to comment on that bill. Memories are short in this place and it would serve us all well to remind Canadians of that particularly egregious example back in 2016 and what the Liberal government was prepared to do for its corporate friends in Air Canada to the detriment of the maintenance workers.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the purpose of today's motion is to zero in on some specific examples, so let us go through the legislative history of the 42nd Parliament.

This is a government that has serviced Air Canada by bringing in Bill C-10, which basically allowed Air Canada the freedom to ship maintenance jobs overseas. The government amended the Air Canada Public Participation Act to allow Air Canada that freedom. Part of Air Canada's privatization deal was that they would keep jobs in Canada.

The government has not done anything legislatively for pensioners. My colleague from Hamilton Mountain has brought in legislation that would amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Again, there was nothing on this from the government.

With respect to the national pharmacare plan, the lobbying that the pharmaceutical industry associations have done with the government has gone up to almost double the average. They are telling Canadians that if the government proceeds with a publicly funded national pharmacare plan, certain prescriptions will not be covered and costs will go up. This is total misinformation when compared to the evidence.

Given these specific examples, does my colleague not think that corporations and industry insiders have in fact had improper influence on the government's policies?

Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I said that the union is going to be taking this legislation to court, and I suspect that it may well find that the government does not respect people's right to bargain collectively, because it should be at the table.

If we heard it from the Conservatives it would be one thing. We are hearing it from a government that swears up and down that it believes in the collective bargaining process.

I talked about all the things the government has done in terms of failing to act on the injury rate and other things. This crisis did not just come because the workers, as a last resort, decided to go out on rotating strikes. These are not new issues. They did not come out of nowhere. Instead of trying to put this on Canada Post workers, who are using their tool of last resort to get action, the government needs to own up and say that it should have been doing something about this a long time ago. It needs to recognize the fact that a number of actions the government took in this process over the last four weeks or five weeks poisoned the well. That is not what good-faith collective bargaining looks like, and it is certainly not what a government that supports collective bargaining looks like.

As long as governments that profess to be supportive of collective bargaining are the ones to undercut it and effectively take it away, then, legal point notwithstanding, we are not going to find ourselves in a position in Canada where workers are able to exercise their rights meaningfully. Companies are going to know that when they come asking, as long as they are big enough, as long as they are an eBay, a Netflix, a Facebook or an Air Canada, and I am thinking about what the Liberals did to aircraft maintenance workers with Bill C-10, which allowed Air Canada to offshore a bunch of maintenance work, contrary to what the government was saying before the election, the government is going to see to it that they get their way. Workers are not going to have meaningful rights in Canada, whatever their legal status is.

Transportation Modernization Act

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I wish to notify you that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Windsor West.

When I look at this bill and examine some of the debate surrounding it, I think about some of the Liberals' key messaging over the last two years, specifically how they like to talk a lot about helping the middle class and those working hard to join it. However, when we look at some of the measures contained within Bill C-49, I believe that some of them are indeed designed to help the corporate class and not the middle class.

I want to concentrate my speech, because to give a 10-minute speech on such an expansive bill makes is nearly impossible to do in the detail it deserves, but there are a few key areas I wish to touch on that I believe have incredible significance for the constituents I represent and, indeed, many Canadians across this great country.

We have opposed some of the principal amendments proposed in this bill. I have to give great credit to my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his incredible work on the transport committee, and the way he has informed our caucus of the work he is doing. He did a lot of great work on this bill. He attempted to shift it, to amend it, to change it, and to make it more amenable. We can see that those efforts came to naught when the Liberal-dominated committee chose to reject them.

The first measure in the bill that we oppose is with respect to the arrangements between airlines. This bill amends the Transportation Act to give the Minister of Transport the power to approve joint venture arrangements between airlines even if the Commissioner of Competition finds an arrangement to be anti-competitive and one that could increase the price of airline tickets. Again, this measure is not really designed to help middle-class Canadians, who will have to suffer through this if prices are increased.

Next, the Transportation Act is amended to increase the limit on foreign ownership of Canadian airlines from 25% to 49%. I believe there was even a study cited on Transport Canada's website showing that this would have absolutely zero effect on increasing the competitiveness of Canadian airlines. Therefore, we have to wonder why that measure is in here.

Another point is with respect to the amendments to the Railway Safety Act that would will force railway companies to use video and voice recorders.

Of course, there is also the attempt to create some sort of passengers' bill of rights, wherein the Canadian Transportation Agency is ordered to propose and make regulations to establish a new passengers' rights regime. Indeed, this last issue is one that is very near and dear to our caucus. In previous parliaments, several members have fought long and hard to codify a passengers' bill of rights through private members' bills. Therefore, although we are glad to at least see the attempt made here, we are certainly unhappy with the end result.

This bill primarily protects the interests of foreign investors and violates the right to privacy and workers' rights. That is specifically with respect to railway workers.

We are certainly in favour of improving the rights of air travellers and protections for grain shippers, but we want to call upon the government, and indeed we have called upon the government, to separate those specific measures out of this omnibus bill so they could be studied as separate pieces of legislation and passed into law. I think the government side would have found a lot of co-operation from the Conservatives and NDP if those measures had been left to standalone bills so they could be examined in the detail they deserved.

We opposed Bill C-49 at second reading, and certainly made attempts to amend the bill at committee. Many amendments were put forward by both the Conservatives and the NDP, but ultimately many of them did not make it. We moved amendments specifically to establish far more concrete air passenger protection and compensation measures, to make the interswitching routes more accessible to grain farmers, and to protect the labour rights of train conductors, which were all rejected by Liberal members of Parliament.

Now I would like to talk about the joint venture agreements between airlines. Currently, the Commissioner of Competition has the power to determine whether these joint venture arrangements are anti-competitive and whether to apply to the Competition Tribunal. It gives me great pause to now know that the minister is in fact going to have final power over these measures.

The bureaucracy is supposed to be non-partisan and not influenced by outside events. However, cabinet is lobbied extensively by many different companies and private interest groups. In the current government and in previous governments, once corporations try to bend the ear of government, legislation sometimes is changed in their favour. To give the minister this kind of power, a person who can be lobbied by industry, and who perhaps gets a greater voice than the average Canadian citizen does, gives me cause for concern.

If Air Canada proposed an arrangement to merge its operations with those of an American company, even if the commissioner were to find that agreement would lessen competition among airlines and would increase ticket prices for passengers, the minister could still approve that arrangement. We are quite concerned with this.

With the amendments to the Railway Safety Act, Bill C-49 would force railway companies to fit their locomotives with video and voice recorders. The government wants us to believe this measure will improve rail safety, but we are worried that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific could use the information to discipline their employees and measure their productivity.

We believe the bill is far too vague and does not specify how the private information of train conductors would be accessed, collected, and used by the minister and the railway companies. Therefore, we proposed amendments to limit the use of these video and voice recorders to the Transportation Safety Board. Of course, that was rejected by the Liberals. We have concerns this may violate those workers' charter protections, specifically under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The vice president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference stated:

We think the bill in its present form is contrary to our rights as Canadians. To exempt 16,000 railroaders from PIPEDA, we believe is not appropriate, and this legislation would call for a specific exemption for the purpose of our employers, the people who have been found to foster a culture of fear, to watch. We have a problem with that.

I would like to move on to the part that has the most significance for people all across Canada, the venture to try to establish some sort of rights regime for passengers.

In the previous Parliament, the NDP introduced Bill C-459, which would have codified many of these measures and put them explicitly into an act. It was a far stronger effort than what we see in Bill C-49. The measures in Bill C-49 give the minister the power to make regulations.

Regulations can be well and good for certain measures. For certain legislation, we want the minister to have that leeway to change rights and so on. However, we again have to raise our concerns that if airline companies start lobbying the minister really hard on these, how are the regulations eventually going to turn out? Are the regulations going to start benefiting airline companies, or are they honestly going to be on the side of passengers? That is why we feel codifying these in the actual bill rather than leaving them to regulations would have been a far stronger measure.

My concerns are not unjustified with respect to Air Canada. I would like to remind members of when we were busy debating Bill C-10, which was the government's attempt to legislate outsourcing for Air Canada. It was an amendment to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Air Canada definitely had the ear of the government during that time. It brought forward a bill that specifically benefited that company and left many workers out in the cold. It gave Air Canada the ability to outsource jobs if it so wished.

Half measures are not what we were expecting after this length of time. Two years have passed. We would have liked to have seen some greater efforts in many of these areas. We are disappointed that this bill is the final result.

Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues. I can confirm that I will be splitting my time with my extraordinary colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

I stand today as a New Democrat to speak in favour of Bill C-10, even if there is much to criticize about what the government has done in terms of governance, business management, indigenous relations and environmental management.

I would like to take this opportunity to have a bit of fun. As the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I decided to crunch some numbers in an effort to compare my situation in Montreal to that of my hon. colleague from Yukon. The territory in question has a population of around 38,000 spread over 483,443 square kilometres, for a population density of 0.08 persons per square kilometre. My riding has a population of 110,000 in an area 11 square kilometres, for a population density of 10,000 persons per square kilometre. That is far more people than in the territory my colleague has the honour of representing.

I had the honour of visiting Yukon during the tour of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. I had the opportunity to see Whitehorse for the first time in my life and to visit the surrounding area. My colleague represents a magnificent territory that must be protected by the proper environmental assessments, but I will get back to that.

I will digress for a moment. Since I was there with the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, I cannot help but think that we are in a system where one government does things and the next government undoes them. From our perspective, if we had a more consensual system of policy development, this defect in our system would be less apparent. We would stop wasting so much time, money effort, and energy. There ends my digression about electoral systems.

There are three things I would like to address concerning Bill C-17. First, I would like to point out why it is important for men and women to become involved in politics. The values and principles of the party I belong to lead me to believe that the main reasons to do so revolve around fairness, social justice and human dignity. That is why, as a progressive party, we will fight inequality and insist on a fairer distribution of wealth and greater equality of opportunity.

Secondly, why are we in politics? I think that all political parties can agree on that. We do it to ensure the safety and protection of the public. That is the fundamental role of all governments, a role we believe must involve setting up sound environmental and socioeconomic assessment processes. Indeed, such processes not only help preserve our environment and ecosystems, but also ensure public health and protect the public from abuse by certain companies or from actions that would create pollution, illness and, indirectly, problems for Canadians living near certain industrial activities.

That might have been a roundabout way of putting things, but it just goes to show why we need to pass legislation that ensures that the public and public health are protected. We are taking a step in the right direction today.

This bill is also important and useful in terms of respect for first nations. The Liberal government likes to talk about its nation-to-nation approach with regard to the relationship between the federal government and every first nation on the ground.

What is really unfortunate, however, and I noted it in my question to my Conservative colleague, is the frontal attack that was launched at the time by the Harper government against the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act in relation to mining projects, without having first consulted first nations.

I think that the bill before us corrects things in that regard. It also respects a desire that clearly appears to be shared by all major stakeholders regarding this issue in the Yukon. It is a sign of respect toward first nations and that shows openness and dialogue. That has been hailed by people who were critical of the somewhat cavalier attitude of the previous Conservative government. In that way, it is a good thing.

Regarding our ability to maintain respectful and equal relations with first nations, I would be remiss if I did not add that, although Bill C-17 is a step in the right direction, or rather a return to a better direction, the Liberal government's actions do not always reflect their words, sadly. I will give two quick examples, starting with the Liberal government’s refusal to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which says a lot about the government’s posturing. It is unwilling to apply changes that would benefit all first nations communities across the country.

Therefore, I want to remind everyone listening to the debate in the House that we have a Liberal government that is refusing to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The minister told us that all of a sudden it could not be implemented even though several countries have done so. That is unfortunate. I am asking the government to revisit its position on the matter.

I am also asking the government to revisit its position on all court challenges involving indigenous rights and treaty adherence, and especially involving health care for children. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay reminded us today that the government has already spent $6 million of taxpayers' money to challenge indigenous rights in court, especially the right to children's health care. It is disappointing to hear the same old rhetoric from the Prime Minister and the entire Liberal cabinet while the government uses taxpayers' money to challenge the legitimate claims of indigenous peoples.

What else is missing from Bill C-17? Earlier, the minister seemed open to changes, and I hope that is the case. Some of the environmental assessment issues have been resolved, but many first nations chiefs and representatives also said that, when the previous government did this, it unilaterally imposed a new fiscal approach on them. The new fiscal approach is extremely restrictive and, in their opinion, it contradicts the treaties the federal government signed with first nations. Once again, many people are telling the government that there is still work to do, there are still things that need changing. That is very important.

I would like to quote Eric Fairclough, chief of the Little Salmon Carmacks First Nation. In February 2016, he appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and had this to say about the new fiscal approach, which Bill C-17 does not change:

The fiscal approach contradicts and violates our final agreements. In several fundamental ways Canada cannot implement its fiscal approach and meet the modern treaty agreement commitments under self-governing Yukon first nations.

It's a step backwards for self-governing Yukon first nations. Its implementation will violate the commitments of the Yukon first nations final agreements rather than promote reconciliation. It's not what the Prime Minister said, and it's not what the INAC minister said either, according to their own words.

Although we are pleased that the measures Yukoners called for are back, the job is not done. There is still a lot of work to do to change this new fiscal approach.

I would like to quote one more witness. Ruth Massie was the grand chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations. Speaking before that same committee in February 2016, she said:

This fiscal policy is being imposed. We have not accepted it because of the language in our agreement. How is it going to affect us if it goes forward? We will have no choice but to defend our agreements. That means going back to court, because that's not what the provisions in our agreements say.

I am calling on the Liberal government to finish the job. I understand that a discussion is currently taking place, but if we want to be consistent, we need to be able to change this fiscal approach, which was imposed on the indigenous peoples of Yukon.

Motions in amendment

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Bill C-49 today. I am opposed to this bill because of a number of issues with it, but in particular I want to speak to section 14 of the bill.

Section 14 concerns the review of arrangements involving two or more transportation undertakings providing air services. In other words, section 14 involves joint ventures between two airlines, joint ventures that allow airlines to co-operate in terms of sharing routes, frequent flier programs, and revenue-sharing and cost-sharing.

This is not an insignificant section of the bill. This is a major change to competition law. Section 14 of Bill C-49 makes major changes to the Competition Act.

I want to take a step back and explain why I think this is so concerning. The Competition Bureau is a very important organization. It ensures fair competition in Canada. It ensures that Canadian consumers and Canadian companies operate in a marketplace where they can prosper, a marketplace where there is sufficient competition, and a marketplace that delivers lower prices and more choices for consumers and companies.

Canada has long had a strong legal tradition and strong framework legislation in the area of competition law. We introduced competition law before the United States did in the 19th century, and throughout the last 150 years we have continually strengthened that competition law in order to ensure that we do not see anti-competitive behaviours in the marketplace.

I remember in 2004 when the then-minority government of prime minister Paul Martin was in place. It introduced a bill that would modernize competition law with the introduction of administrative monetary penalties that would work in place of, and alongside of, Criminal Code penalties that have a much higher threshold of proof.

While that legislation did not pass, the subsequent Harper government introduced similar legislation that was eventually adopted, and administrative monetary penalties are now part of our competition law. Canada has long had a strong tradition of ensuring competitive marketplaces. We are also seen around the world as leaders in competition law enforcement and ensuring that companies cannot abuse their marketplace position.

It is with great concern that I read section 14 of this bill that is in front of us, because it would weaken the bureau. The bureau is an independent law enforcement agency. This bill would actually take power away from the Competition Bureau and the commissioner of competition, and give it to the Minister of Transport. Not only that, it would allow the Minister of Transport to ignore competition concerns and to approve airline joint ventures.

The reason why this is so very concerning is that we know that more competition and a more competitive marketplace leads to lower prices and more choice for Canadian consumers. If we look at the history of airline policy in this country, we have come a long way over the last 30 years.

Privatization and increased competition have given Canadians more choice and lower prices in the airline industry. We started with deregulation in the 1980s, we privatized Air Canada in 1988, we spun out of Transport Canada the airports across this country in 1992, we established independent airport authorities in the 1990s, and because of that, there have been literally tens of billions of dollars of investment in airports and in airlines in this country.

For example, in the early 1990s, some $50 million a year was being spent on airport improvements. Since airports were spun out of the Department of Transport in 1992, over $14 billion has been invested in Canadian airports. The same is true of Air Canada. It is a much better airline today than it was in the 1980s when it was heavily regulated and not subject to competition, and owned by the Government of Canada. Today it is a much better airline, and it is a better airline because it has been subject to competition.

However, the job is not yet done. It is clear through numerous studies that the Canadian travelling public is still paying far too high a price to get from A to B in this country. That is why section 14 of the bill is so very concerning. It is going to lead to less competition, increased prices, and less choice for the travelling public, which runs counter to the effort that we made over the last number of decades to increase competition and lower prices for Canadians.

I want to give an example to illustrate this point. In 2011, Air Canada wanted to enter into a joint venture with United Continental that would allow them to share many transborder routes between Canada and the United States, and Canada and other destinations. That joint venture was fully reviewed by the Competition Bureau and the bureau demanded that certain conditions be put on that joint venture. The bureau in its review concluded that 10 cross-border routes between Canada and the United States would be less competitive for Canadian consumers because Air Canada and United Continental would be subject a monopoly and nine other routes would be subject to less competition than currently is the case.

The bureau refused to approve the joint venture unless certain routes were exempted, so the consent agreement that was entered into between the parties and the Competition Bureau exempted 14 cross-border routes from this joint venture, ensuring that on those 14 cross-border routes there was sufficient competition for Canadian consumers. The bill in front of us today would allow the minister to override the bureau and to approve these joint ventures without any conditions to ensure sufficient competition.

If we take a step back from this and we ask ourselves why the government is doing this, it seems to me that one of the reasons is that it has become a bit of a political “scratch my back and I will scratch yours” game. The government pressured Air Canada to buy 75 C Series jets from Bombardier in order to help the government politically with the problem it had with Bombardier. Fearing that the company was entering a dangerous period of insolvency, the government put a lot of pressure on a private sector company to purchase these 75 C Series jets.

I suspect that in return two bills were introduced in Parliament. I think the government needs to come clean on whether or not there was a quid pro quo in this arrangement. Air Canada buys these jets and in return the government introduces two bills, Bill C-10, which lifted the requirement for Air Canada to have maintenance facilities in certain cities in this country, and Bill C-49, which has section 14 that would allow the Minister of Transport to approve joint ventures without any conditions to ensure sufficient competition.

This would be a real step back for competition law. It would weaken competition particularly when it comes to future joint ventures that airlines in this country may enter into. It would lead to higher prices for Canadian consumers and less choice. It is for that reason that I strongly believe that this section of the bill should be deleted and why I am opposed to the bill. I look forward to members' questions and comments.

Resuming debate

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the debate concerning motion No. 14 is not about having a problem with working until midnight each evening—except, obviously, on topics raised by the opposition. I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said in the House yesterday, that most of us are already working every day on a similar schedule.

In my previous career, I was already used to long hours. When I ran a global business, my European colleagues began calling me at 4 a.m., and my days would often stretch until midnight. This was necessary so I could meet with my employees and people in the plants and businesses in the Pacific region I was responsible for.

As the head of a North American refining and petrochemical company, I realized that maintaining customer relations and meeting deadlines to submit applications made for very long days.

The Liberal government said it wanted to make Parliament more family friendly in order to encourage women to get into politics. I support encouraging more women to get into politics, but I do not believe that many women would choose to work until midnight each evening, away from their kids.

Now, why did this government introduce such a motion, when theoretically it should oppose it?

As I have said, I am not opposed to working long hours. I said earlier today, and will say it again, Einstein was quoted as saying that the definition of insanity was repeating the same action hoping for a different result. The government has not accomplished a lot in the way of legislation. If we think about the 19 bills that have passed versus 52 in the same time frame when the Conservatives were in power, really not much has been accomplished. There is no prioritization of what is coming forward.

I want to take a moment to talk about what has already passed because it shows something important.

So far in Parliament the transparency for first nations has been removed with Bill C-1. Bill C-2 gave back to the middle class $932 a year in taxes and then Bill C-26 increased their CPP payments by $1,100 a year, with no benefit. Bill C-10 gave Air Canada a deal to get maintenance jobs out of Canada and escape a lawsuit. Bill C-14, medically assisted dying, was passed without protecting the rights of conscience. Bill C-17 addressed environmental items for Yukon. Bill C-18 was environmental change for Rouge Park in Toronto. Bill C-30 was a CETA deal that now has to be renegotiated with Brexit happening. Bill C-31 was the trade deal with Ukraine. The rest were all maintenance budget items that needed to be done. That is all we have accomplished in 18 months of the Liberal government's agenda. Everything else is lost in process, being amended in the Senate, and not coming forward.

What is the government going to achieve by making us sit every night until midnight, which, as I said, I am fully willing to do? I really do not think it is getting anywhere. Why is it not getting anywhere? Because it does not listen to the opposition's points of view.

The job of the opposition is to bring reasoned and intelligent arguments on why a government proposal is not good for Canada and to make helpful suggestions about what would make it better.

When bills are sent to committee, the committee's job is to make helpful suggestions and amendments that would make them something all Canadians could embrace. That is really what is happening. The government is not accepting amendments, not listening when the opposition talks, and again and again, when things go to the Senate, the Senate comes up with the same amendments and spends more time studying them, doing exactly the same thing that committees of the House are supposed to do. That is one problem.

Another problem is that there has to be trust when parties work together.

I am going to compare the antics that I see happening here with what I see in the business world. In the business world, people work together. People have to be able to trust one another when they make deals. They have to be able to follow up on things as they said they would.

From what I have seen, the opposition House leaders are trying to work with the government House leader but she is not keeping up her end of what she has agreed to. Every day I watch her stand in the House and misrepresent to Canadians that she just has a discussion paper, when really a motion has been rammed through PROC. I have seen her avoid answering questions that she is accountable to answer.

I would suggest that there has been a huge erosion of trust in the government House leader and sometimes that cannot be fixed in order to restore the ability to work together. The government should really consider changing up that position and coming back to a place where we can work together and trust that agreements that are made, amendments that are suggested, and motions that are brought forward are as agreed. That is really important.

There is another point that I would like to make that has not been discussed much here. I have listened to the debate on Motion No. 14 and I have heard a lot about the blame game. I hear from the Liberals that when Stephen Harper's government was in place, it did this bad thing or that bad thing, or whatever. Honestly, two-thirds of the Parliament are new. Some of us were not here in the previous Parliament. We have an opportunity to do things differently now. If we think something was previously done wrong, we have the opportunity to do it differently in the future.

When items come up in the business climate, not everything needs the same amount of time to be talked about. I have sat in the House and heard Liberal members stand up and say they support such and such a bill and I have heard Conservative members and NDP members stand up and say they do too, and then we talk about it for days.

This is not the way we should be spending our time. If the government had not squandered all of the time in that way, we would have more time and we would not have to sit late. In the same way, there are things that need to be discussed longer that cannot be rammed through, things such as the budget bill that has been combined with the infrastructure bank. When comments come forward, the government needs to lead. It needs to separate those things out so that the things that can be quickly passed get passed on. When I say passed on, I am saying that if we all agree on a bill at first reading and we do not need to change anything, then the legislation should be sent right away to the Senate. Why are we spending time doing second and third reading and committee and everything else? We need to be able to update some of the processes here.

I am not about just criticizing without providing recommendations for how I think we could make this better. Here are my recommendations, which I think the government could use to change some of the things that it is doing and which would result in getting legislation passed through in a better way.

When it comes to the rules of the House, I see an opportunity to modernize those rules but a change would need to honour the tradition of Parliament and have all-party consensus or at least the consensus of a majority of members to change things, because those things influence our democracy and they are important. Doing some of those things would, as the suggestions I have made about passing things we all agree on and everything else, clear the legislative agenda in a way that would move things forward more positively.

I also would reiterate that you have to have someone working with the opposition leaders who can be trusted, and I think that trust is broken.

The other point I would make is about amendments that are brought forward and are agreed to by the opposition members. It is not often that the NDP and the Conservatives play on the same team and sing from the same song sheet. That does not usually happen but lately it has happened a lot. When that happens, it should be a signal to government that this is an amendment that Canadians want to see.

The government needs to say what it is going to do and then it needs to own up to it. Some of the credibility loss that has happened has happened because the government said it was going to do something and then it did not. The government maintained it was going to be open and transparent and then facts have been hidden or things have not been well represented. The government said it was going to be accountable but then every day when we stand up and ask questions we get the shell game. It does not answer our questions, and this would not be acceptable in the business world.

These are some of the things that would help to get the legislative agenda flowing through. As a member of the opposition, I want to see the right things happen for Canada and I am willing to work with the government to see that happen.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

moved:

That the question of privilege regarding the free movement of Members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct raised on Wednesday, March 22, 2017, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that your ruling today is truly a testament to your position as Speaker, and to the Speakers who have gone before you. Truly, the role of the Speaker is one of the utmost principles in our parliamentary democracy, and I think today, in the long line of Speakers who have gone before, you have found the appropriate ruling.

After all, often the role of the Speaker is determined to be one of a referee, and we often hear that referred to in tour groups and among university lecturers. However, the role of the Speaker is so much more than that. The Speaker is truly the defender of the rights and privileges of this place.

I am reminded from time to time of the words of a great English Speaker, William Lenthall, who said with great conviction to the King in his place in his time, when met with King Charles I, the executive of the day:

...I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am....

Today the Speaker made such a ruling and stood up to the face of opposition from the government ministers.

Let me begin my remarks by saying that I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

It is in a way unfortunate that we have to have a redo of this debate. This debate was properly started last week when the Speaker did rightly find a prima facie case of privilege, and it is troubling in two manners: first, the nature of the incident itself, that two members of Parliament were prevented from undertaking their duties of voting in this House; and second, by the unfortunate actions that were undertaken by the government in preventing this matter from coming to a vote.

As the Speaker rightly found in his ruling, this is unprecedented. Never before in the history of this place has a matter of privilege been dealt with in such a way. Never before in this place has the government shut down and prevented all 338 members of this House from voting on a matter of the privileges of us as parliamentarians. Every other case of privilege has been dealt with one way or another through a vote, either in the affirmative or in the negative, but not in this case.

This is most unfortunate. It is unfortunate for so many reasons. If, as members in this House noted before, the government is allowed to proceed in this manner on this case, how many times going forward will votes on questions of privilege be prevented from coming to a vote in this House by the duly elected members of this House?

I want to state the great respect I have for this institution and for those who serve this institution. I want to state as well the respect I have, specifically, for the parliamentary protective service, in whom I have the utmost of confidence for defending us and keeping us safe as parliamentarians.

In my short time as a parliamentarian—I have only been elected for about a year and a half—I have always felt safe in the exercising of my duties here in this place, and indeed, another speaker in last week's debate, quoted from the back of our ID badges, and I think it is worthwhile to reread that into the record:

Under the law of parliamentary privilege, the bearer has free and open access at all times, without obstruction or interference to the precincts of the House of Parliament of which the bearer is a member.

In fact, the law of parliamentary privilege is enshrined constitutionally in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, also more commonly known to us in its original title, the British North America Act, 1867.

Let us remember exactly what took place on budget day. Two members of Parliament, at least, were affected. We know of at least two. There could have been others as well. There was indication from the Speaker's original ruling that there were others potentially on the buses who were also denied access. However, at least two members, the members from Milton and Beauce, were unable to attend a vote in this House, in this place.

The outcome of that particular vote is not relevant. The fact is that they were prevented from doing their duty, the duty that they as elected members of this place are entrusted to do on behalf of their constituents. All of us have that duty to the constituents we are honoured and privileged to represent.

Let us imagine for just a moment how this could have played out differently. Imagine there had been a vote of confidence and members were prevented by one way or another from attending this place to vote. Certainly in this case there is a majority government and one or two members not exercising their vote may not seem like a significant matter. Let us think back into the not-so-distant past to May 2005. There was a budget vote, a confidence vote in this very House. The Paul Martin Liberals were on the ropes. It looked as if they could be defeated. A couple of lucky floor crossings and the support of an independent member of Parliament meant that it ended up in a tie vote. Mr. Speaker Milliken at the time was forced into the position of breaking that tie vote in the affirmative. One vote would have made the difference, in that case, of an election, the dissolution of Parliament, or the continuation of that government. It would have been one vote.

In fact, in this Parliament not too long ago on Bill C-10, on a Monday morning, or afternoon by the time we voted, we had a tie vote in this House on a piece of government legislation. One vote would have made the difference between that piece of legislation moving on to third reading and that piece of legislation being defeated in this place. The Speaker at the time was forced to once again break a tie. Interestingly, in a majority government, that does not happen very often, but it happened in that case. I would point out that it is somewhat ironic that the government is currently proposing changes, and one of the changes it has mentioned is perhaps sitting earlier in the morning, but if we use the example of Bill C-10, that vote was in the early afternoon, so I would be surprised how many members might be in this House at that time.

We are faced with the question now of where we go from here, where we move forward in the appropriate manner. As my motion clearly states, it is appropriate at this point that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as it is the appropriate location. I know there have been flimsy procedural efforts for the committee to self-direct to undertake its own study of privilege, but as we know, the Standing Orders clearly state that matters of privilege do not fall under the mandate of the procedure and House affairs committee, and it falls on the House to direct the appropriate committee to undertake a study of the privilege. After all, the rights and privileges of this House are a matter for this House to undertake.

I do feel a bit like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day; we are redoing the same battle again and again, the same debate that has been undertaken. I have been told I am better looking than Bill Murray. I am not so sure about that, but I will say this. On a matter as important as the privileges of this House, a procedurally flimsy effort by the government to shut down the debate is truly unfortunate. Two members were denied the right to vote and now, by the Liberals' efforts, the attempt was to deny 338 members the right to vote. That is truly unfortunate.

It is unfortunate that it is being done at the same time that the procedure and House affairs committee is undertaking a Standing Order change, a change that would be done unilaterally without the support of opposition parties. The government states that it wants to have a discussion on the matter. A discussion can only happen if both sides are listening and discussing. The privileges of this House are of the utmost importance to each and every member of this House. It is not a matter for the government to decide. Rather, it is a matter for this House to decide by way of a vote.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to an issue that concerns one of the most important rights of members of the House of Commons, which is to have unfettered access to this place at any time, and particularly when there are votes happening.

A question of privilege has been raised. Members have said they were not able to make it to a vote because they were obstructed. The Speaker has said he does think there is a prima facie case. The appropriate thing to do, and what is typically done, is that it goes to the procedures and House affairs committee. My understanding is that, typically, the committee takes that matter up forthwith and makes a determination.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is quite right to say that it is at committee that this matter should be properly studied, because the committee has the ability to call witnesses and to delve deeper into the details of the issue.

There is some contention as to whether or not it was the media bus that was responsible for the shuttle buses being delayed and therefore members not being able to make it to the House on time for a vote, or whether it was the Prime Minister's motorcade. The Speaker's ruling does not say one way or the other which one it was. That is why it would be good to find out.

The way to find out is to call on the people who were involved, in order to get an accurate representation of what happened. That way we would know. If it is something to do with the Prime Minister's motorcade, then maybe the procedures around what happens with respect to the Prime Minister's motorcade, and other vehicles on the Hill when the motorcade is present, could be modified to ensure it does not fetter members' access to the House of Commons. That is fully possible.

I have been on a bus that was sitting behind the Prime Minister's motorcade by Centre Block. I was only going back to my office at the Confederation building, but I was told by the driver that the rules are they are not allowed to pass the Prime Minister's motorcade. Maybe some bus drivers decide to do that anyway because they are trying to please members of the House, and we appreciate all their good work, but in that particular instance, I was told by that driver that he would not pass the Prime Minister's motorcade because he was under instructions not to do so.

Therefore, in my experience, there is an issue about how the Prime Minister's motorcade interacts with other vehicles on the Hill. If protocols around that are not handled correctly, there is the potential to fetter or obstruct the access of members to the Hill. I am sure all members, including government members, do not want that to be the case, so what we need to do is a detailed examination to make sure that the protocols around that are appropriate and do not get in the way of members getting to the House. The motion before us simply refers this to PROC to get that more detailed answer.

We have heard from members on the government side; well, one member actually. We always know when members of the government are not really comfortable with their own position because it is only the member for Winnipeg North who gets up on his feet. No one else is willing to speak to those issues. We kind of know when the government feels that perhaps it is not on the right side of the issue, because the only one with the gall to get up and speak to it is the member for Winnipeg North. That has been in evidence today.

He said a few things, and I just want to zero in on some of them, because I find them troubling in a couple of different ways. One thing he said was that the amendment to this motion, which simply says that PROC will treat this issue with priority, is not a very good amendment because PROC does that anyway. That is what he said in his speech. I find that passing strange because the Liberals' contention at PROC on another issue right now is that they want certain changes, including a prime minister's question period. They have said these are good reforms and we need to get them through so we can do these things. The funny thing is that we do not need to change the Standing Orders to do that. In fact, we saw that yesterday when the Prime Minister undertook to answer almost every question in question period, although not every question. There were no changes to the Standing Orders required in order to do that, and yet they say they want to change the Standing Orders. If changes to motions and rules are redundant simply because one can do it anyway, then they should not be asking for a change to the Standing Orders in order to do prime minister's questions.

I fear that the member, perhaps unintentionally, and I am being generous because we are in the House of Commons, is being inconsistent, and I would not deign to say disingenuous, when he makes that particular argument.

He also said that he had reservations about sending it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs because of the quality of the debate so far in the House and he was concerned the debate in the PROC committee would be a waste of time. It is completely wrong for members in this place to prejudge the deliberations and decisions at committees.

If he wants to be an advocate in this place, as he sometimes says he is, for the independence of committees, then he has some nerve to suggest that we might consider not referring a matter that is totally appropriate to refer to a particular committee because he already has some prejudicial notions about what members at the committee might say or do during those deliberations, or what the committee might decide. That line of argument shows a serious disrespect for committees and it is important to not let that go unanswered.

I wanted to take some time in my remarks to address those comments made by the member for Winnipeg North. He often makes reference to his long parliamentary career, over 25 years, but if he had spent more time listening over those 25 years as opposed to talking, he would not have made the arguments he made earlier in this place. I really do think it is just wrong to make decisions about whether to refer something to committee based on speculation about what some members may or may not say at committee. When we spell it out like that, it is obvious that it is ridiculous and disrespectful to make decisions based on that kind of speculation.

That is what we want to do. We want to do what is the usual thing to do with a serious matter of privilege. I do not think one has to be a long-time parliamentarian to appreciate the problem with the idea of interfering with members' access to the chamber, particularly when there are votes. I am not saying that has been abused in this case. It was likely not intentional. One of the reasons for sending it to committee for a detailed analysis is for the committee to be able to speak to those involved and clear the air so that there are no worries or concerns that the blocking of members' access to the House was intentional.

That is what we want to do. We want to take this matter to committee, because if it does start that blocking members' access to the House of Commons is allowed, it is clear to see how a government that may not have the best of intentions—and I am not saying that is the case with the current government or governments of the past, but some hypothetical future government.

We cannot allow it to be acceptable that potentially, and we don't know, protocols around the Prime Minister's motorcade are allowed to interfere with members' access to the House, or whether it is protocols around the media bus, or whatever it is that got in the way of these particular members reporting on time for the vote, because let us face it. We have seen procedural shenanigans around here. If we allow shenanigans to interfere with members' right of access to the House of Commons, an unscrupulous government may start to see it as a legitimate procedural tactic as to where to put media buses or a prime minister's motorcade, because it is a close vote.

I will remind members on the other side of the House, as they may not know or have forgotten, that not all parliaments are majority parliaments. It is also not in all cases, even in majority governments, that the government wins the vote. In fact, I recall a vote held last spring on Bill C-10 that was a tie vote and the Speaker had to break the tie. It is only because the vote was on the report stage of that bill that it proceeded. That is how the Speaker is traditionally required to vote in order to continue debate. Had the vote been on third reading stage, that bill would have been defeated.

Imagine if we were debating this question of privilege with respect to that vote and not what we are discussing. We can imagine that tensions would be a lot higher. It is no less an offence to block members from one vote, even though it may be known that a majority is likely going to win the vote, than it is on a tie vote, but it is harder to have the conversation around a close vote, because tensions are that much higher.

Therefore, it is important that we have the discussion now and we not wait for it to be a monumental vote, because at that point the issues of substance and procedure will become so entangled that we will not be able to make an appropriate decision.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Just quickly, I did take note, Mr. Histon, of the comment you made about how work is done versus how work should be done. That's a great point. The only way we can move forward with recommendations is to work with folks like you and those who are in the business getting their hands dirty and greasy, who have wrenches in their hands, and so on.

I'm thinking out loud here a bit to try to get some input from you folks. Protocols need to be established. Obviously it's one thing to have regulations and things on paper but it's more important to have those protocols in place that we can apply to our daily jobs. Strategic measures followed by ongoing performance measures are critical. Again, it's the folks on the floor, working on the planes with their hands, who can best establish that.

It's somewhat déjà vu because we discussed this during the Bill C-10 deliberations as well with respect to creating performance areas, clusters, centres of excellence to ensure that this work gets done in a proper manner vis-à-vis protocols being put in place.

What are your thoughts on that process? I'm trying to be pragmatic. As I said earlier, our intent is to come forward with recommendations and implement those recommendations or ask the minister to implement those recommendations, so what are your thoughts on the comments made?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I just want to say, in response to Mr. Waugh, that I think his story about Saskatchewan and the filibuster that occurred when the government undertook to sell PotashCorp, jointly with the story about MTS in Manitoba, just shows the extent to which filibusters are brought on by issues where the stakes are high. Selling off a major crown corporation like that, whether you're for it or against it—I'm sure we wouldn't find consensus around this table on whether to be for or against those decisions—nevertheless is a significant decision in terms of the future of the economy. Whether those assets are held publicly or privately can make a substantial difference for people in the province. I won't get into substantive debate on the virtue of publicly held assets or privately held assets, but I do think it illustrates that it's when the stakes are high that issues tend to trigger those kinds of filibusters. That's why we're here today, because the stakes are high.

Whatever you think about some of the substantive proposals in the government discussion paper, what's at stake and where the stakes are high is the setting of a precedent, where a majority government uses that majority to rewrite the rules of Parliament. That, for me, is really at the bottom of what we're here for. It's why we're happy to talk at length and provide such a detailed analysis of the issue for the benefit of ourselves and other members, and ultimately for the government, because it's a bad precedent. You can have a government made up of the most friendly, well-meaning people. If they go ahead and establish precedents that future governments can use, governments that may be less scrupulous, then they will have done an incredible disservice to the country, whether they intended to or not. It's just a good reminder of how it is....

I think some people look at the kind of detailed conversation we've been having and ask what we are doing and why we are doing that. It's important to know that it gets done when you're on the cusp of making a really significant decision, and one that can potentially have very negative consequences. When that happens, it is perfectly appropriate for legislators to respond by trying to put that decision off, in the hopes that, while doing that, first of all, they'll be able to perhaps persuade the government that they're on the wrong track.

There's a lot of room here, given the strength of the tradition of all-party agreement, for government to change its mind and simply say that it's come to see the value of reaching out to colleagues, if nothing else, because it wants to get something done; and as much as it may think it can go ahead on its own, it realizes it's not going to get it done if it doesn't reach out to other parties.

That's not the government members saying they were wrong. That would be nice to hear from the other side, but I don't think they even have to go there. I think they can say their priority is to get it done, and they had an idea about how they would get it done. Whether they think it's right or not, that strategy's not working. They're pragmatic, and they're going to adopt a strategy that actually gets results. That strategy is going to be one that's more collaborative with the opposition parties. So there's that, convincing government. We're hearing persuasive arguments tonight.

The second point is to give time. This is one thing. I'll try to not conflate that point about procedure, and majority governments unilaterally making changes, with substantive issues. I think one role of Parliament, and one virtuous aspect of some of the dilatory strategies that opposition parties adopt from time to time, is to give civil society the time it needs to digest what government is proposing and to mobilize, either in favour or against.

Maybe civil society has time to digest that, Canadians come to appreciate what it is the government is doing and say, hey, actually, we really like it. They mobilize against the opposition because they think the opposition is making an error. Or they come to know better what the government is doing, and they say, hey, we really don't like this. They're thankful for that time to impress upon government members that they need to change tack.

Part of the problem with making legislative processes so quote-unquote efficient is that legislation passes before Canadians have time to even really know what's going on here. It is a bit of a bubble in Ottawa, and it takes time for things to seep out. The media have to be covering it. MPs need time to put a householder together or line up their ten percenters and get them out to the riding. They need time to get some of that feedback, to see what's going on. Groups in civil society need time to organize meetings, to organize rallies, and to organize letter-writing campaigns. This all takes time.

One of the virtues of the legislators here taking time and stretching out the decision-making process on an important issue is that it's actually the way in for civil society. If we didn't do that here, if within the course of two or three days we just went ahead and made some of those major decisions, we would be shutting Canadians out of the decision-making process.

When a government says that it wants to consult, have discussions, and stuff like that, part of that is not rushing your legislation through. I think Bill C-10 was a very good example, with changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. That bill, through time allocation, passed through Parliament very quickly. When I was out talking to people about the consequences of that bill and what it meant, people were shocked, frankly, that the government they thought they had elected was doing that in the first place. As they learned about it, they really didn't like it.

Partly, they just assumed that this government would never do that. It wasn't part of the election platform. It wasn't part of what they had talked about. People didn't feel that allowing good aerospace maintenance jobs to leave the country was part of sticking up for the Canadian middle class, so they were surprised to hear that. Had we been able to extend that process further, Canadians who came to know of that may have been able to change the government's tack and make the government feel that they were in the wrong.

I think that's an important element of legislative processes and an important part of why we're here tonight.

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

Madam Chair, I would suggest that I'm not totally clear yet on what consumer groups we might want to invite to bring us their testimony. I think the Auditor General would be another individual we would put on our list. Again, perhaps we need the time to take a look at the list of witnesses that's going to be put forward and then determine the number of meetings, but I'm in favour of scheduling at least four meetings for the study on this legislation.

How many meetings did we set aside for the review of Bill C-10?

Okay. We set aside four meetings for that, and there was one clause. That was a change to one clause, and we used up the time to do that.

CANADA LABOUR CODE

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton Mountain.

I am very pleased to be speaking at third reading of Bill C-4. I wish I had had the opportunity to do it sooner, because this is a good example of legislation that ought to have passed through the House far more quickly than it has. It was a clear commitment of the government during the election campaign. There is multi-party support within the House to get it done. It has been reported recently, and it is quite true, that it has been a relatively light legislative agenda from the government. Here we have a piece of legislation that is not competing for time with other government bills, because there are not that many. It is almost a year into the government's mandate and we are still talking about repealing Bill C-377 and Bill C-525. With the exception of those members who belong to the party that brought those bills in, there is virtually a consensus here in the House. If there was a bill that was going to move quickly through Parliament this would have been the bill. It is a bit of a mystery why it is we are still debating it almost a year out from the election when we should be passing it.

I know all the members in the chamber by now are quite familiar with what Bill C-4 does. It repeals two acts from the previous Parliament. One is Bill C-377, which was a kind of red tape bill for unions. It was based on the pretense that simply because union members get some money back on their taxes for the dues they claim, the government has the right to mandate that they make all of their expenses public to everyone. It was not being asked of non-profit groups, whose donors also receive money back. The government was not saying that because corporations get to write off expenses, which is money back from the government, their books should be made open. It was discriminatory in the sense that it really did just focus on unions, who happened to be, it is fair to say, an opponent of the previous government. Therefore, there was a sense that it was a politically motivated targeting.

There were many parties in the House that agreed the bill simply had to go. I am glad to see we are moving forward with that, although I believe we could move forward more quickly.

Bill C-525 from the last Parliament made it easier to decertify unions, and therefore, made it harder to have a higher rate of unionization within the federal workforce. We know from many studies that in the lead-up to secret ballot voting it did that in two ways. It raised the threshold of members in a workplace who would have to consent to have a secret ballot vote in order to certify and it took away the option to certify through a card check. Card check means members in a workplace sign a card affirming they would like to be represented by a union and which union they would like to represent them. If a certain threshold of workers sign cards, that obviates the need to go to a secret ballot vote because a majority, whatever that majority happens to be, in this case it was 50% plus 1%, have indicated their support for the idea of having a union in the workplace.

We know through a number of studies and research into this that in the lead-up to secret ballot votes there are often instances of intimidation by employers of their employees. That can lead to a change in the outcome of the vote. In fact, success with those secret ballot votes is often inversely correlated with the length of time between announcing the intention to vote and the vote itself. The longer the period between the stated intention of having a vote to certify and the vote itself, the less likely that vote is to be successful. We know that is often because it gives the employer more time to use certain kinds of intimidation tactics on their employees to make them afraid of certifying.

That is the package we are talking about getting rid of.

I have already spoken a bit about how I think it would have been better if we had been able to pass Bill C-4 earlier in the term. I am thinking of a few other related labour-type issues and legislation that we have been dealing with in the House. I am trying to learn a lesson about the new government and what it means for something to be a priority of the government, because if anything was a priority, if we look at election commitments, this was a very clear commitment. It was shouted from the rooftops by the Liberals during the election. A major part of their strategy for doing outreach within the labour world was that they were going to get this done.

This should be a priority. Why it is not done I cannot fathom. Some may say on the other side of the House that it is because Conservatives want to talk out the bill, but Conservatives were not in favour of Bill C-10. We were not in favour of Bill C-10. I believe my colleagues from the Bloc and the Green Party were not in favour of Bill C-10. Nobody else in the House except members of the government were in favour of Bill C-10, an act that has made it easier to export aerospace maintenance jobs out of Canada to other shores, even though that was not an election commitment, even though that came out of left field, and in an important sense was not therefore a priority of government, certainly not one of stated ones. I have not seen that on the list of any priorities of the Liberals, to make it harder to employ Canadian aerospace maintenance workers. That does not appear on any document that I have seen. If it does appear somewhere I would sure like to see it. Maybe we could have that tabled.

That was not a priority of government and that is signed, sealed, and delivered for the executives of Air Canada. That is done. This was a priority for Canadian workers, for labour activists, and a stated priority of the Liberal government, and here we are still talking about it when the ship for Bill C-10, which may be mixing metaphors, has long since sailed. I find that one hard to wrap my head around.

I think about another labour issue that has been before the House, Bill C-7, which sets a framework for RCMP members to bargain collectively. That had a Supreme Court imposed deadline. In fact, I think it is fair to say with hindsight that the deadline was used as an excuse to get that legislation through. We were told that maybe there were things that were not great about the bill, but it had to get passed by May 16 or the sky was going to fall and we were not going to be able to proceed in an orderly fashion with the certification of the union for RCMP members. That is what we were told. May 16 has long since gone by and that bill went to the Senate where amendments were made, but we have been back now for two weeks and I do not see when we are going to start talking about Bill C-7. If the government has a plan to bring that forward, I would sure like to know and I know there are RCMP members across the country who would like to know it is going to be brought forward.

There we have it again. Another priority of the government and it is sitting on the books, when legislative favours for Air Canada executives are what is really being rammed through and that is where the real priority of the Liberals has been. It is to get those things done that they never talked about, while things that have been on the books for a while and stated priorities of the government continue to languish. If there is a lesson in all of this, it is that it is not very good to be on the priority list of the government because it will launch consultations. They are not doing consultations on Bill C-4. They do not need to. That issue has been debated plenty in Canada and part of the decision that was made on October 19, 2015, was to reject that approach to labour legislation, but here we are. The same laws are on the books.

Part of what some people wanted and certainly RCMP members imagined was that when we had a government that thought about labour issues differently, it would be good for them because they would get an appropriate bargaining framework that they did not trust the Conservatives to deliver on. Yet the legislation that the Liberals decided to move forward with was almost a carbon copy of some of the worst aspects of the previous Conservative bill. Here we are. It is sitting on the books. I will say one last time in case anyone missed it, Bill C-10, which was not a promise of the government, which it did not consult thoroughly on, has passed. Government members talk about not moving forward with anti-scab because we do not have a robust consultation process. There was no robust consultation process for Bill C-10 and the sell-out of Canadian aerospace workers, so where was the ethos of consultation on that one?

The lesson learned is, God forbid something is named a government priority. It is far better to simply be a friend. Then the Liberals will get it done. If it is a stated priority for election purposes, the sooner the bill passes the sooner they have to stop talking about it, which means the sooner they have to stop reaping whatever political benefits caused them to make the commitment in the first place. That is disappointing. I hope we can end this debate, get this passed, and move on to some of the other things they said are priorities. Some of them are good priorities. It would be nice to do something about them rather than nothing.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk today about this important issue. Bill C-5 is one step on a long road to recovery for Canadian public service workers, and more generally, for the rights of all Canadian workers.

The previous government's concerted assault on the rights of Canada's public service workers, on the value of the important services they provided, and by extension, on the rights of every hard-working Canadian have really negatively impacted our ability to attract new talent to the public sector and has seriously deteriorated the services the Canadian government is able to deliver to all Canadians. The result is costly. It is costly to the economy, to the Canadian way of life, and to the well-being of public servants, plus it creates gaping holes in our social fabric, which sadly means that particular segments of the Canadian population are left behind or are underserved.

The previous government's Bill C-4 showed little regard for basic business principles, willful ignorance of common and elementary knowledge about sickness in workplaces, and zero concern for the well-being of other people. In this day and age, there is no good reason to demand that a person go to work sick.

The previous government's trampling of workers' rights was shortsighted and unwarranted and has left a negative impact on the public sector and the Canadian way of life. Repealing the bill is obviously the right thing to do, but we can do better.

My NDP colleagues and I ask the current government to continue to stand up for workers' rights and to immediately repeal the previous government's Bill C-4, which interferes with free collective bargaining, infringes upon workers' rights to a safe work environment, and restricts the right to strike. The government should move immediately to repeal each section of this bill that undermines the constitutional rights of public service employees.

Under the previous government, we witnessed a major dismantling of important public sector departments. This made many Canadians uncomfortable, so uncomfortable, in fact, that some even wrote songs about it, which is partly why we have a new party in power today.

Many of these public sector departments provide the information, research, and analysis necessary for a government to make informed decisions. Being informed when making any decision is a key factor in making good decisions, whether that decision conforms to preconceived ideas or not.

Dr. Peter Wells, a former public servant and environmental scientist, said in an interview with the National Observer that the previous government was quite “simply anti-science, anti-evidence, and anti-informed policy and decision-making.... More than 2,000 positions and people were lost, many in my field [of environmental science], resulting in a loss of a generation of skills, knowledge, and capacity that were there to serve the public”.

“There to serve the public” is the important part here. It is there to serve the public good, not the good of a single political party or the agenda of a small group of ideologues. The public service is essential to a functioning democracy. They ensure that we live under the best conditions with the best resources and the best information available anywhere in the world. The health of our public sector plays a crucial role in whether we lead the world or fall behind. The public sector is essential to every Canadian's well-being and safety. In short, the public sector deserves respect, and public sector employees should be treated with respect.

Canadians want a Canada that trusts its public servants, because frankly, our public service workers are not the enemy. Canadians trust their public servants to show up to work every day and to diligently serve Canadians in what are often highly challenging and demanding situations. Canadians also understand that these same public servants should not show up to work sick. Passing on illnesses to co-workers and taking longer to get better only reduces productivity.

Trust is key in any healthy relationship. The Government of Canada is not a babysitter and should not babysit the people it is elected to serve. That is not the role of government. A government should trust the people who elected them, because unless we have forgotten, many of these people are our neighbours. Despite our many differences, we must respect our neighbours' right to freedom of speech, to health and well-being, and to a safe workplace. We must respect our neighbours' right to make their own decisions, to learn, and to have the space and resources to grow, because every single Canadian benefits when each of us has the opportunity to prove our potential.

Governments should provide leadership and vision, not micromanage public servants and certainly not abolish rights that will endanger the safety and well-being of public servants and ultimately the people they serve.

Moreover, our government should be working to build, not destroy. A government should protect and not harm. A government should not steal rights but respect them and provide opportunities for exercising those rights. That same government should also trust public sector workers to carry out the important work necessary to maintain the daily operations of the Canadian government.

Every day, thousands of our neighbours go to work to ensure that our food and borders are safe, that our pension cheques are delivered, and that the best of Canada is represented abroad. All of these workers make us proud, and our government should reflect that.

With any system, there is potential for abuse of that system by its users. There is always someone who will try to manipulate situations to their own perceived advantage, often at a cost to everyone else. That can be said of many systems. It can be said of governments, government services, and even representatives of governments themselves. However, like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the previous Bill C-4 of the previous government declares everyone guilty until proven innocent, and, in the process, smashes the entire structure to pieces so that little usable remains.

Moreover, a parliamentary budget officer report from July 2014, requested by the former member for Ottawa Centre, shows that the previous president of the Treasury Board and the justification for this poorly though-out bill misrepresented the level of sick leave taken by civil servants. It clearly shows that the use of sick leave in the federal civil service imposes no significant cost on the government or taxpayers.

The PBO report states:

the incremental cost of paid sick leave was not fiscally material and did not represent material costs for departments in the [core public administration].

That means that most employees who call in sick are not replaced, resulting in no incremental cost for departments.

Likewise, and this is important, the PBO also confirmed that the use of sick leave by public servants is in line with the public sector. However, creating a problem where none exists to advance an ideology was the previous government's MO.

The previous government's Bill C-4 does absolutely nothing positive for Canada or Canadians and has paved the way for unenlightened ways of forcing Canadian public servants to go to work sick. Likewise, it sets a precedent that negatively impacts the whole of the Canadian working population.

Organized labour, like any professional association, is designed to look out for the well-being of its members. That is a simple fact. Every similar organization, whether it is a professional association, a chamber of commerce, or a taxpayers federation, does the same. Even pro athletes have their unions. In fact, that is the reason they organize. It to present strength through co-operation, to protect one another's rights, and to fight for more rights.

Organized labour, like other professional organizations, has provided leadership in our society. Its members have endured hardship and even ridicule while standing up for better working conditions. Their hard-won gains have benefited all Canadians, and many of these gains are taken for granted by many of us today: weekends, overtime pay, vacation pay, parental leave, health and safety regulations, and even sick days.

Creating a standard for all Canadian workers, unionized or not, to be treated with respect has led to all of us having the basic rights of association and freedom of speech and the right to a workplace that is safe. As small as it might seem, organized labour also helped set a precedent that if one is sick, one can stay home and not lose a day's pay or one's job. Despite what the previous government thought, this makes great business sense, and it has become a standard across the country and across sectors.

Today, these benefits are what helps an organization, private or public, attract top talent. It is also what helps keep that talent because measures such as sick leave ensure a modicum of decency between employer and employee, positively influence staffing efficiencies and stability, and express a confident statement regarding the well-being and health of an organization's or business's workforce. Given all the benefits that a happy, healthy workforce brings, it did seem strange that the federal government as an employer chose not to, or did not want to be a leader.

For example, Shift Development, a forward-thinking development company in my riding, pays a living wage to all its workers. Its CEO, Curtis Olson, says he pays all his employees a living wage rather than the minimum wage because he cannot afford not to. He said, “For me, as a business owner, the cost of employee turnover is a huge cost”. Mr. Olson knows the value of and relationship between high employee morale, health and stability, and increased returns from productivity, efficiency, and success. He said, “If I take care of my employees and help meet their financial and lifestyle needs, they’ll take care of the company and the growth of the company”. The Canadian government should learn from our business leaders' successes and start valuing and trusting their employees because without them the government cannot deliver a single service to Canadians.

The previous government's Bill C-4 was unenlightened and primitive. It pushed labour relations and standards back decades and set precedents that were regressive and reached far beyond the confines of the public service sector. It is incomprehensible to many Canadians why the previous government would want to erase rights that took decades and in some cases many generations to earn, rights the Conservatives wiped out in massive undemocratic omnibus swaths and a sweeping ideological mugging of Canadian rights and freedoms. These transgressions were made without consideration for the consequences for the Canadian working person, the economy, or the future Canadian workforce, our children.

Today, we are debating a return of only one of those rights. In the coming days, months, and years no doubt a great deal of time and energy will be lost to rebuilding what was destroyed by the previous government. Thanks to that government, we must move backward in order to move forward. Instead of debating a national living wage, which would increase the health and well-being of our local communities and economies, the previous government left us in the sorry state of debating the reinstatement of sick leave to public servants. If news reports about the current negotiations are accurate, the Liberal government has not lived up to all of its election promises about respecting the public service. It is all very good to promise to negotiate fairly and to bring a renewed respect to its dealings with public service workers, but if they are serving up some of the same offers as the previous government, it is not real change.

I urge the government to keep its promises and not break faith with the public service. It is my hope that the new boss is not the same as the old boss. Let us work to fix what is broken, including a pay system that has left thousands of workers unpaid or underpaid, the full effects of which are not yet to be seen. Let us get this bill passed now and move on to creating and implementing things such as a national housing strategy, which would save Canadians billions of dollars in health care and correctional services costs. Let us work on pressing issues such as quality affordable childcare, improving access to health care, and tackling climate change. Let us focus on improving the lives of families and seniors, and creating brighter futures for our young people. I know for a fact my riding would benefit from discussion on all of these issues, and I am sure my riding is not the only one in the country.

As such, while I support Bill C-5, more needs to be done to restore the numerous and hard-earned rights of Canadian workers, especially those in the public sector.

I urge the government to commit to repealing all the regressive changes made to labour law in the former government's Bill C-4. The previous government's Bill C-4 undermined the constitutional rights of federal public service employees to collective bargaining, including the right to strike. It also offered government negotiators an unfair advantage at the bargaining table. Unions, of course, fought against the changes throughout those legislative processes.

Happily, with collective bargaining about to resume in a new process for several tables of large unions, the government has the opportunity to make a gesture of good faith by committing to repeal provisions of the previous government's Bill C-4 affecting collective bargaining. That would be a start, because there are some seriously questionable aspects of that bill.

In fact, the Public Service Alliance of Canada asked the court to immediately declare that division 20 of Bill C-59, which is part of Bill C-4 of the previous government, is in violation of its members' charter rights because it denied the right of employees to good-faith bargaining by giving the employer the unilateral authority to establish all terms and conditions relating to sick leave, including establishing a short-term disability program, and modifying the existing long-term disability program; it allowed the Treasury Board to unilaterally nullify the terms and conditions in existing collective agreements; and it gave the employer the authority to override many of the provisions of the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

In short, the previous government's Bill C-4 gave the government unbridled authority to designate essential positions. It eliminated the public sector compensation analysis and research functions that had previously allowed the parties at the bargaining table to base wage offers and demands on sound evidence and facts.

The previous Bill C-4 also changed the economic factors that could be considered by a public interest commission or an arbitration board, which placed the employer's interests ahead of its employees and tipped the scales, shamelessly, in the employer's favour.

The NDP has stood with the public service workers and the public sector unions every step of the way, while right after right was stolen from them by the previous government. During and after the last campaign, the NDP proposed a comprehensive suite of reforms that would help ensure that the relationship between public service employees and government is responsible, reliable, and respectful, now and into the future. These measures include protecting whistleblowers, empowering the integrity commissioner, introducing a code of conduct for ministerial staff, and reining in the growing use of temporary work agencies at the expense of permanent jobs. We remain committed to taking these important steps forward.

However, beyond changing specific policies, what is really needed is a change of attitude. Our public service workers have been neglected, undermined, and abused by brutal cuts and restrictive legislation, under both Liberal and Conservative governments and administrations. It is time we revisit our thinking.

What do any of us know about what is possible until we change the way we have been thinking and try a new road, a road that respects the independence of public servants, that respects the important work they do, and that shows that respect by honestly and fairly coming to the bargaining table? The current government must commit to restoring capacity in the public service so that essential services for Canadians can be delivered.

The Liberal government has said it is a friend of labour, both during the election and in government, but sometimes its words and actions do not line up. Its exclusion of such important issues as staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline from the collective bargaining process for the RCMP staff is one such disappointment.

Another is Bill C-10, which made the layoffs of 2,600 Air Canada and Aveos workers permanent by allowing Air Canada to ship aircraft maintenance jobs out of the country. The Air Canada Public Participation Act required the air carrier to keep heavy maintenance jobs in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg. In a unanimous ruling, the Quebec Court of Appeal recognized these obligations. However, instead of respecting the court's ruling, the present government decided to side with Air Canada, at the expense of workers.

I hope the government will stop saying one thing and doing another. I believe it is time it makes good on many election promises. I urge the government to make a commitment to repeal the previous government's Bill C-4.

Aerospace Industry

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-10 is a complete sellout of the aerospace industry in Manitoba. However, the Liberals just seem to be shrugging off the damage it is doing. They are even ignoring the new Premier of Manitoba, and all of those people in Manitoba whose jobs are going to be lost.

My question is: Will even one Liberal member of Parliament, there are seven of them, stand up and speak on behalf of the aerospace industry and those important jobs in our province?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Fine, let’s get to the report. I thought that you were in contact with the Minister of Transport about Bill C-10. We are opposed to that bill because it is going to displace a lot of jobs. I also thought that the Liberals would have intervened more quickly to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act.

You mentioned all the efforts you are making. I know that that is the case. However, in an audit done in 2014-2015, the Commissioner of Official Languages noted that only one of the 12 recommendations in the 2011 report had been implemented.

How do you explain that?

Opposition Motion—Internal trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. This motion has been affectionately dubbed “free the beer”.

As a new member of Parliament, I must say that it is truly motivating to listen to an experienced parliamentarian like the member for Abbotsford.

This member just shared his vast experience as a minister in the previous government. His words were very inspiring, as was his belief in the importance of eliminating trade barriers.

He is an inspiration to us, and he should also serve as an inspiration to the new government, which should be taking advantage of the experience this member gained by negotiating numerous free trade agreements with other countries. These negotiations were successfully carried out by our colleague from Abbotsford, and I applaud him for that. By way of tribute, I would say:

He was fast and efficient.

I will admit that using beer as the foundation of a motion on the liberalization of internal trade is a little unexpected.

However, for the benefit of those who have been tuning in since the start of the day and who have heard about the Comeau case, but who do not really know what we are talking about right now in the House, I would like to recap because I think it can be useful to look at why the motion came to be and explain how we got to where we are.

This is about a citizen of New Brunswick, Gérard Comeau, and his fight for justice, which highlighted how difficult it is for Canadians to trade freely within our country's borders. Mr. Comeau singlehandedly broke down the barriers to internal trade.

I found a good summary of Mr. Comeau's story in an editorial. The title of the publication made me smile: it is called “Bières et plaisirs”, or “Beer and other pleasures”.

Even so, it is a very serious editorial. It recounts Mr. Comeau's story, which I will now share with the House of Commons and all of the Canadians who are tuned in.

Gérard Comeau was arrested in October 2012 in possession of 14 cases of beer and three bottles of liquor. He had just done some shopping on the Quebec side of the border. In October 2012, Gérard Comeau committed an illegal act: purchasing a quantity of alcohol over the authorized limit in another province, not in a licensed establishment.

According to the Government of New Brunswick and other Canadian governments, alcohol is under provincial jurisdiction.

Here is more from the editorial in “Bières et plaisirs”:

All residents of New Brunswick buy their alcohol in provincially owned licensed establishments: outlets of the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation, also known as the liquor commission.

That is the law as enacted in 1928, a year after the commission was created. Laws governing the sale of alcohol were enacted around that time across Canada. The goal was to protect each province's market....Many New Brunswickers prefer to buy their alcohol in Quebec, where prices are much lower. The Province of New Brunswick sometimes applies high mark-ups to wine, beer, and spirits sold in its stores.

The article goes on to say:

After receiving a guilty verdict, Gérard Comeau decided to take his case to the New Brunswick provincial court. His argument was simple: the Fathers of Confederation passed a law that stipulates that the provinces of Canada must allow interprovincial free trade, a law that was written long before all of Canada's post-prohibition laws, and one that remains in effect all across Canada....The court found in favour of Gérard Comeau. The judge ruled that the provincial law was unconstitutional. Gérard Comeau was found not guilty.

Our motion today is very clear. It recognizes one of the key elements of the vision of Canada's founding fathers:

That the House: (a) recognize that it is a constitutional right for Canadians to trade with Canadians; (b) re-affirm that the Fathers of Confederation expressed this constitutional right in Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which reads: “All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces”...

The wording is very clear.

I think that the article in Bières et plaisirs is a good summary of the Comeau case, but also many other cases involving countless Canadians who travel across our country and would like to take advantage of a free market here at home. It took a New Brunswick man standing up for his rights to remind us, the elected representatives of this great country, that we have an important role to play to preserve the spirit of our Constitution.

We are talking about beer here, but the Fathers of Confederation were clear:

121. All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

It is simple. I am sure that most Canadians did not even know that some provinces put up so many barriers that hinder interprovincial trade. I can understand them, because we form a single great country made up of extremely dynamic provinces and territories. We all want to improve the economy of our regions, and it is rather amazing to realize here that Canadians do not always have the right to do business with one another as they would like.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development said this morning in the House that he prefers that any disputes be settled by negotiations between the provinces. Despite years of negotiations, it seems that the agreement the minister would like to negotiate is not possible. On this side of the House, we believe that this government does not have the leadership required to arrive at such an agreement. It is all well and good to say that the government wants to promote trade and reach an agreement with the provinces. However, at the first opportunity this government does the opposite.

Take the example of Bill C-10, which was supposed to meet Quebec's and Manitoba's expectations. By invoking closure, the government rammed through a bill that forces the legal action against Air Canada to be dropped. Lo and behold, two provinces asked us not to act too quickly because they cannot conclude their agreement as negotiated if the threat of court action, which is on their side, disappears. The government ignored the provinces' requests.

Another example is Bill C-14. The Quebec Minister of Health said that Bill C-14 was inadequate. Even so, the Liberals went ahead and imposed a gag order so that parliamentarians could not express their views.

That does not bode well for the federal-provincial negotiations under this government. Since it took office, the Liberal government has shown leadership and interest in only two things: running an ever-growing deficit and increasing the tax burden on small businesses. The Liberals have done a good job on those things.

Today, the Liberal government has a unique opportunity to do something tangible to help small businesses and, once again, it is turning its back on them by relying on a negotiation process with an unknown timeline. We are skeptical about the results of that. The second part of my colleague's motion is clear. It states:

[That the House:] (c) recognize that the recent Comeau decision in New Brunswick creates a unique opportunity to seek constitutional clarity on Section 121 from the Supreme Court of Canada; and that therefore, the House call on the government to refer the Comeau decision and its evidence to the Supreme Court for constitutional clarification of Section 121.

That would finally make it possible to set clear guidelines for trade between the provinces.

Creating more free trade in Canada is not a partisan issue. The issue here is what is fair. Canadian businesses do not want their government to tell them with whom they can and cannot do business. Businesses should be able to sell their products across Canada, and consumers should have more choices on the market.

In my member's statement today, I spoke about young entrepreneurs in Quebec. Three thousand young entrepreneurs in Quebec will make deals and work hard to sell their products and share their passions. Three thousand of them will open their own small business. Imagine telling them that they cannot do business with their neighbour because they are not on the same street. They are in the same city, same province, and even same country. These are the kinds of barriers we want to eliminate. We want to eliminate them to enable small and medium-sized businesses to do business, create wealth, and drive our economy.

I will wrap up quickly and say that this was the will of the Fathers of Confederation. The government has a unique opportunity to take action. I hope it will seize this opportunity to do away with empty rhetoric and to finally take real action for small businesses in Canada. For all these reasons, I urge the government to join me in supporting this motion to free the beer.

Aerospace Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the agreement has not been signed. Bill C-10 was introduced this week at second reading in the Senate on behalf of the Liberal government by independent senator André Pratte, who was just appointed by the Prime Minister.

The government deliberately misled the senator. The senator said in the red chamber that the Government of Manitoba had an agreement with Air Canada, which justified the quick passage of Bill C-10. The Minister of Transport's stubbornness is jeopardizing hundreds of jobs in Manitoba and Quebec.

Out of respect for all parliamentarians and all senators, when will the Minister of Transport open his eyes, do the right thing, and acknowledge that he was wrong with Bill C-10?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is not only with first nations in Manitoba, but the aerospace industry in Manitoba is also being ignored.

The provincial legislature has passed a motion opposing the Liberals' Bill C-10, including Liberals from the province. Premier Pallister has raised their concerns about losing jobs in this important industry directly with the Prime Minister. These concerns have been completely ignored.

Why has not even one of the seven Liberal MPs from Manitoba stood up for the aerospace industry in our province?

Air Canada

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today Manitoba is joining Quebec and indeed thousands of Canadians in condemning the government's Bill C-10, which is a get out of jail free card for Air Canada not obeying the law.

It is interesting that the recent Liberal nominee to the Senate, André Pratte, said something yesterday that is of a great deal of concern to us. It would appear that there is a deal that Air Canada is threatening if it does not get what it wants.

We want to know, on behalf of those workers, what is in the secret deal with Air Canada, why is Senator Pratte saying that if we do not remove the threat of lawsuits, the deal will fall—

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. I had plenty of opportunities to cross swords with him during the election campaign, and I have a great deal of respect for him. He is the dean of the House of Commons, so obviously, we always pay close attention when he speaks.

To answer his question, I must say that I am proud to be here on this side of the House and working with my Liberal caucus colleagues to advance issues affecting Quebec and promote the province's economic interests.

The member is well aware that in the last budget, we invested $30 million to help the pyrrhotite victims in Trois-Rivières, which is adjacent to his riding. That is a regional issue that also affects him. He knows that.

We also invested $500 million in high-speed Internet, which will help regions of Quebec like mine and his, which really need that service.

On the more substantive part of his question, I am proud to support the bill because we made important choices both in the budget and with regard to Bill C-10 on deregulation. This legislation affecting Air Canada will also create jobs in Quebec.

In closing, with regard to employment insurance and the fact that wait times have been reduced from two weeks to one week, I can say that from the discussions I have had with my constituents and his, people are happy that for once, they have a government that is thinking about middle-class workers and working for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my learned colleague how he feels, as a member of Parliament from Quebec, about remaining silent on certain economic files that are very important to Quebec, such as Bill C-10. The government is about to tell Aveos employees, 1,800 of whom are in Quebec, that they will be losing their jobs, even though the Prime Minister guaranteed that this law would require that all work done on Air Canada aircraft be carried out in Quebec, Ontario, and Winnipeg.

How does he feel, as a member from Quebec, about employment insurance, for example, given that all Quebec regions were excluded from the special program? How does he feel about the fact that the automotive industry received $1 billion and Bombardier is not getting a penny?

Is their only duty to serve the party and not to serve the interests of Quebec?

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Durham and I share a common first name, but unfortunately we do not share a common understanding of Bill C-10. He suggested that it was no big deal to loosen the geographic requirements from Winnipeg to all of Manitoba, or from Mississauga to southern Ontario. Of course, the real concern with respect to Bill C-10 is the clause that gives Air Canada complete free rein to define the nature of those maintenance and employment requirements. At the extreme, Air Canada could comply with this legislation by maintaining one job in each of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

I think it is also very important to recognize the origin of these maintenance and employment requirements. When a former Conservative government was privatizing Air Canada, it made a trade-off. It decided to place this restriction, giving up maybe some of the proceeds that could have been obtained by selling the government's equity in the airline, in exchange for a guarantee of jobs. Given that the trade-off has been made, even if the member for Durham does not think it is the right trade-off, what is the point in giving up the employment requirements now? Is that not just a windfall to existing shareholders of Air Canada?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today for the second time in debate on Bill C-10. I will share with members my thoughts on the bill, which stem more from my concern about the government's reckless handling of the airline and aerospace industry in Canada, in particular its handling and circumstances that gave rise to Bill C-10.

In an era of openness, transparency, and sunny ways, Bill C-10 has arrived in Parliament under the most cloudy, or perhaps murky ways. The government, and in particular the Minister of Transport, who is an honourable member of the House and a great Canadian, need to be more forthright on the bill. Some of the concerns we have heard from my friends in the New Democratic Party stem as much from this uncertainty on how Bill C-10 came to the House.

I say concern about process because the House should have process that is transparent, and we should know how bills have come to the House. I agree in some ways with the substance of Bill C-10 on a specific level, and I will explain why. However, I would prefer the government to be open and transparent with the House and manage this industry, our airlines and transportation in a way that reflects the modern realities of this global sector where Canada is currently extremely competitive, and in fact a world leader. However, due to the inaction and poor vision we have seen in six months already, the industry could indeed suffer.

Bill C-10 is really the completion of something that started in the 1980s under the Mulroney government, when Air Canada was privatized. It was a crown corporation. My first few flights on Air Canada would have been when it was a crown company and a crown carrier. Like many countries in the world, in the early days of aviation, to keep their business and society competitive and modern, a lot of governments owned their national airlines. However, starting in the 1960s through to the 1980s, most of the developed world devolved ownership.

We are not elected, and we do not have a government in Ottawa to run businesses on behalf of Canadians, but often in a sector, particularly like aerospace, the trail blazing front edge of an industry, like passenger and cargo transport, can be assisted by government.

By the time the Mulroney government came in, Canada was joining most modern nations and allowing the private sector and marketplace to run and operate airlines, with the appropriate degree of regulation. It is a very heavily regulated industry on a federal level. All airlines do their best to maintain high standards alongside those regulations.

At the time of the Mulroney government, when Air Canada was privatized, there was concern about some of the major servicing sectors in many of the job centres that were part of the crown corporation, part of the government's operation in important markets. They were in Winnipeg, Montreal, and Mississauga. It is quite easy to understand why those markets were so important at the time in those cities. The servicing and claims element was in Manitoba. There was the hub of Pearson airport in Mississauga. The head office of Air Canada was in Montreal. Montreal also has the world renown international headquarters for ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, which governs air travel and recognizes its global footprint. Therefore, Montreal was very much an appropriate home for Air Canada, and continues to be today.

Therefore, there were specific job provisions put in at the time because of concern about the change. This was almost 30 years ago. I have not heard any of my friends in the NDP look for these statistics, but I would bet 90% of Canadians would agree that governments should not own an airline in this modern age. However, they probably understood why 40 or 50 years ago they started out by helping Canadians gain access to air travel. We would not suggest turning the page and going back to Canada running an airline serving Canadians.

The jobs related to those jurisdictions were a critical part of the transition. Prime Minister Mulroney and his government at the time wanted to assure the House and, of course, all Canadians that there would not be radical disruption of the important hubs in Winnipeg, Mississauga, and Montreal by the change, so they had the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

What is the government doing here? It is not destroying this concept, but it is allowing it to evolve, as it should. Rather than specifically naming a geographic coordinate, the changes to section 6(1)(d) of the act allow for a more geographic balancing to Manitoba, to southern Ontario, and to the greater Montreal area, recognizing there still will remain hubs, but giving the company some ability to modernize and to have competitive servicing and operational support for their operations.

As a free market person and somebody from the private sector, I do not think we should be shackling a business to an operational approach that was in practice 30 years ago. The last shackle, in many ways, of the privatization of Air Canada is the modernization of the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

As can be seen from my remarks, in principle, this makes sense. In many ways, it also recognizes what provincial governments have already understood. Litigation launched in Manitoba and in Quebec by provincial governments alongside the labour movement in those jurisdictions was settled in two of the provinces as a result of agreements. There were agreements for job security and some contracting to world-class service providers in Manitoba, and similar commercial agreements were made with Quebec, and litigation pulled away.

What has really happened here, and the minister has not informed the House fully on the circumstances, is Bill C-10 has appeared out of the blue. Was this an effort by the federal government to try to resolve all litigation related to this act? Probably. Was Bill C-10 the result of discussions between the federal government, Bombardier, and Air Canada? Probably. However, we have not heard the minister speak to that. We do know that senior executives from Air Canada met with the minister a few days before Bill C-10 was tabled in Parliament.

Coincidentally, Air Canada committed to buying C Series, Bombardier aircraft. Now it should buy that aircraft because it is among the best in the world, and we are very proud of Bombardier. I will speak about that company in a moment.

However, when we look at this chain of reality, the litigation between the provinces, the difficulties Bombardier has faced, the restrictions in regulations and the restrictions imposed on Air Canada from legislation dating back in 1988, all of this leads up to Bill C-10. The urgency of it and the urgency of the financial assistance the province of Quebec has already given to Bombardier, all of this leads to Bill C-10.

I would prefer if the minister would just say that to the House. I think my NDP colleagues would prefer that as well. Any industry analyst knows why Bill C-10 is before this place.

In my remarks, members can see that, in principle, the full privatization and the unshackling of some of the rules from 1988 should take place. My concern with Bill C-10 is the secret deals, and the very fact that we are asking, in the House, whether the federal government is going to provide assistance to Bombardier, like the province of Quebec has. Have there been any assurances with respect to dual class shares with that company?

Have there been any assurances in terms of whether it will be a loan, whether we will use EDC to backstop other countries buying the C Series aircraft? Indeed, did they work with Air Canada to remedy some of these labour challenges alongside a purchase? I do not think that one needs to be an investigator to see that there is more to Bill C-10 than a few words on the pages of the bill.

The government came to Ottawa saying openness, transparency, that it enjoys consulting in a lot of ways on things. This is one area that we have not received a full background on, and we have not really heard from the minister on what led to Bill C-10 and the backroom deals. That is why I have serious concerns and why I am speaking again on this bill.

I urge the minister, who is an hon. member of the House, and someone who is respected across our aerospace industry as our first astronaut, to level with us. That is what we are supposed to have when we are modernizing this industry. The concerns from organized labour and some of my friends in the NDP would be addressed by more transparency and more direct discussion on amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. There is still time for the minister to be forthright on this.

I have a deep affinity for the Bombardier company. I think all members of the House, particularly the strong Quebec caucus on the Conservative side, have strong passions for Bombardier. I received my wings in the Royal Canadian Air Force after training on the CT-142 aircraft, a militarized version of the Dash-8, for air navigation training that was run out of Winnipeg, Manitoba.

I am very familiar with the aerospace jobs in Winnipeg because they are proximate to where the air base is located on the far side of the international airport. The Royal Canadian Air Force, which I was a proud member of, has its headquarters in Winnipeg. Winnipeg, being at the geographic centre of North America and Canada, will remain an important hub for the aerospace industry, and I think we can be very proud of those jobs.

In many ways, the Conservatives and the Conservative family were in the wilderness for many years because of an ill-timed decision by the Mulroney government to push forward on a servicing contract for CF-18s that impacted Bristol Aerospace in Manitoba. Therefore, no one knows about the aerospace industry probably as much as Conservatives, because it gave rise in many ways to the Reform Party and the split between the PCs for many years. That is not lost on me in this debate.

Conservatives want Bombardier to succeed. We want a modernized corporate structure, an effective governance, and effective leadership within that organization. We want the C Series, which is a best-in-class aircraft. It really will be transformative in terms of fuel efficiency and reducing aircraft noise. It will be transformative for the sector and for that company. It should have orders from across the globe, and they are coming in. However, if orders are related to bills before the House, related to the assistance that governments might offer that company and the flagship carrier of Canada, we should know about that and this should be part of the debate.

I have to raise the fact that why I am concerned is that the murkiness with respect to Bill C-10 also relates to decisions around Billy Bishop airport. I just heard a guffaw from my friend from Spadina—Fort York. That is another case where we did not get the full briefing and discussion by the minister on decisions related to the long-term operations of that important hub. In fact, we were quite disappointed when he tweeted the cancellation of the project, looking in to an expansion of that airport. That is an airport that has now become critical to the transportation needs, not just of a few hundred people living on the lakeshore, but of the five million people in the most populous part of our country.

I know the member for Spadina—Fort York does not like the fact that many of his colleagues come to Ottawa each week using Porter, but he has to admit that its location near the financial centre of our country makes it a critical asset that should at least have proper regulatory review and not more insider deals.

Here we have deals being cooked inside the office of the Minister of Transport when he meets with corporate officials. We also have deals being cooked inside the Liberal caucus and in the PMO that actually impact far more than just one riding. It impacts southern Ontario, and the flow of goods and services and people. Whether or not there should be an expansion, those decisions, in a fulsome discussion, should be open and transparent, particularly in the era of sunny ways.

Why is that germane to this debate? It is because Porter was planning to purchase up to 30 C Series aircraft. I know my friend who is enjoying my remarks across the way will likely be out of town when his government announces financial assistance for Bombardier, which it will, and we will look at it very carefully in the opposition. However, the interesting thing is that the Liberals' insider deals prevented a private sector sale of these very aircraft that would help Bombardier thrive.

On the Hill this week, and I was speaking to its representatives, we also have a new ultra low-cost carrier in Canada looking to start, which is Jetlines airline. It also plans to purchase between 20 and 40 C Series aircraft from Bombardier, provided the government starts setting an open and even playing field within Canada for our airline and aerospace industry.

My friend from Prince George, with his remarkable experience in aviation and the airline and airport industry, knows that a lot of our secondary markets are underserved because we have a restrictive set of rules around airline ownership and the capitalization of our aerospace industry.

Why is that important? In the last government, we were looking at changing that. We had the Emerson report that said because of our small capital markets here in Canada, because the airline industry is indeed global, we should be allowing up to 49% ownership, or capital to come from outside of Canada. It is the same challenge that we face constantly in the resource industry. We have tremendous opportunity, but not necessarily the size of our capital markets to service it. Therefore, we need to draw capital in from around the world.

We also have to recognize that this industry is a global industry. A lot of veterans and friends who I served with in the RCAF fly for Air Canada. I have a friend, Kevin McNaughton, a former CF-18 pilot, who flies for WestJet at the moment. There are also Canadians flying for Cathay Pacific and Qantas. This is a global industry. In fact, my friend from British Columbia consulted around the world: Canadian expertise in terms of aerospace, airlines, and Nav Canada, which is a world leader. This is a global marketplace, and for our airlines to succeed, we need to have an even playing field.

Therefore, I was proud that the last government started evening that playing field somewhat. We allowed more standardized crew days and manning levels for air crews, and for service personnel on the aircraft, such as flight attendants, so that there was the same level of requirement in Canada as for airlines flying into Canada.

We need to also do that in terms of access to capital. We need to allow these small upstart airlines, like Jetlines and others, to have access to foreign capital so that they can acquire aircraft built in Canada. Therefore, I urge the minister to look at the Emerson report; look at unshackling this industry so that Canadians can compete.

There are 76,000 jobs in Canada, and almost $30 billion in GDP from the aerospace industry alone. The aircraft built by Viking Air now that are classic de Havilland, like the Beaver and Twin Otter, are world-renowned aircraft. The C Series will be joining that sort of world-renowned Canadian expertise that has always kept us as the third or fourth most important aerospace country in the world.

Let us have less backroom deals, more transparency, and let us not have another bill that comes to the House like Bill C-10, under the murkiness and indecision that we have seen from the government.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, had the question been put to me here is how I would have answered.

That is the problem with the bill. We hear that the work is going to stay in Canada. We hear that it is going to stay in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec but the government has failed to mention that it is giving complete discretion to Air Canada to define the level of employment, the type of work, and the volume of work. Whether that work is going to stay here in Canada is an open question. If we believe the arguments by the Liberals about the competitiveness of the industry, it sure sounds to me like they are going to be moving those jobs out of the country.

Canadians can do that work competitively. Canadians who actually do that work have told us that they will do that work competitively. They have asked for more time to work with both the government and Air Canada to create a business plan to keep that work in Canada according to the existing terms of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Liberals at transport committee would not put that motion through. Bill C-10 does not provide any kind of guarantee for that kind of work in Canada. It is simply not the case.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question allows me to set something straight. It is true that the previous Manitoba government said that it was pleased with that arrangement in the new circumstances. The member failed to mention that when the federal government changed and insinuated that it was prepared to change the Air Canada act, and there were rumours to that effect going around for a long time before Bill C-10 was tabled, that fundamentally changed the negotiating position of the provinces with respect to Air Canada. Knowing that they no longer had a federal government that would continue the act in its current form, and that there would be no legal basis for a challenge, fundamentally changes the negotiating position of the provincial government.

In the new circumstances with a federal Liberal government that was selling out aerospace workers, the NDP got the best deal it could for Manitobans.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will start by informing you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor West.

I want to thank the member for Newmarket—Aurora for demonstrating the kind of fundamental incoherence of the Liberal argument when it comes to the bill.

We just heard a speech about how Bill C-10 is really about the competitiveness of the aerospace industry and the airline industry, and how it is unfair that competitors of Air Canada are able to move their maintenance work outside of the country. Then on the other hand, the member got up and said that Bill C-10 is really about jobs in Canada.

Well, if Bill C-10 were really about keeping jobs in Canada, and the argument the Liberals are making is that Air Canada cannot be competitive by keeping its jobs in Canada, it is an argument that we in the NDP do not agree with. However, this is the argument when the Liberals talk about competitiveness.

To get up and say that somehow Bill C-10 is not really about Air Canada moving those jobs out of the country is incoherent. They want the freedom to move those jobs out of the country so that they can move them out of the country, which is the essence of the Liberals' argument when they talk about how Air Canada is apparently getting beaten, although there is no news that I have heard that says Air Canada is on the verge of bankruptcy. Therefore, I thank the member for that.

I hope Canadians are listening, because if they were, they would see just how at loggerheads the two sides of the Liberal argument really are. They do not go together. They do not dovetail. Actually, they are in contradiction. This has been the story of the bill before us.

Another contradiction that has to do with the bill is on the timeline of it. We hear insistence from the minister that there is no deal, that Bill C-10 is not connected in any way to a purchase of jets from Bombardier by Air Canada. Yet, it has been a priority of the government to rush the bill through the House. If there is no deal, how can it be that there is a timeline for getting the bill through? There is no demonstrated need that Air Canada needs this to happen right away. The only way it could need it to happen right away is if it already had plans to move the jobs out of the country; the ones they have not already moved out of the country.

Incidentally, the member for Newmarket—Aurora was wrong to say that Air Canada had not moved any of its maintenance jobs out of the country. In fact, it did in 2012. The member for Winnipeg North understood that well when he was in opposition. The Prime Minister understood that well when he was in opposition. The people who are taking Air Canada to court to get those jobs back understood it well.

What is wrong with the bill is that it would eliminate any legal basis for challenging Air Canada now and into the future. It may well be that the Quebec government dropped its suit, but there are others who are prepared to take Air Canada to court in order to win those jobs back to Canada. However, after Bill C-10 passes, they will not be able to do that. They will not be able to do the very thing that the member for Winnipeg North and the Prime Minister were calling on the last government to do, which was enforce the act.

Now that the Liberals are in government, not only are they not enforcing the act, but they are changing the act. It is reprehensible, because it means that citizens in Canada who want to take Air Canada to court to enforce that very same act would not be able to, because the act would be changed, which is the shame of Bill C-10.

What we have learned from this whole process are a few things about the character of the government. There are a number of reasons why I think Bill C-10 is so telling in terms of the character of the government. It is kind of unique in that it was the first bill that the government brought that was not a routine motion or a direct consequence of an election commitment. Bill C-10 was really a preview of the current Liberal government's mind and what the Liberals do when they are not handcuffed by election commitments.

The first thing the Liberals did was something that goes totally against what they were campaigning for in opposition, which was enforcement of the act. They decided to change the act to take out the provisions that they said needed to be enforced. I do not see how anyone can think that is consistent from one moment to another. I think there is a bit of hypocrisy, frankly, which is interesting to note about the government.

It is interesting to note that western Canada in all of this was an afterthought, because, despite the protestations of the minister, it is hard not to believe that part of this was really about finding a deal for Bombardier. Instead of saying that we need to do that in a responsible way, in a way that does not play the maintenance sector off the production sector, instead of doing that in a way that does not play regions of the country off against each other, we would just go and cut a deal with our big corporate friends and sort the rest out later.

If it just so happens that we cannot get back a major part of the Winnipeg aerospace industry because the law has changed, so be it, because Winnipeg is not really on our mind and western Canada is not really on our mind. I found that very interesting.

From that I think we learned that it is not just about regions, or a lack of strategy when it comes to the aerospace industry, or the government's willingness to engage in hypocrisy, but it is also about big corporate friends getting one set of rules and everyone else getting another set of rules. Therefore, if individuals used to work for Air Canada and they were counting on that lawsuit to go through and looking forward to someone else taking up the charge after the Quebec government let that lawsuit go, then it is too bad for them. The Liberals are actually getting rid of those rules. The rules that protect those individuals, they are getting rid of and they are bringing in a new set of rules, a set of rules that are going to be good for Air Canada executives and shareholders. If that means Liberals are selling out Canadian workers, now that they are in government, that is just too bad. They cared about them in opposition because they wanted their votes, but now that they are in government they have better friends. That is the message of Bill C-10. Shame on them for that. Canadians ought to remember that at the next election, far away though it may be.

I think we learned a lot about the government in this whole process, and it is important to articulate those lessons.

Incidentally, just in terms of getting a bit of insight or a premonition, there is now an established pattern of not having a lot of respect for Parliament when it comes to the Liberal government. We first saw it with Bill C-10. The first time allocation was moved on Bill C-10. At the time, I could not figure it out because I was listening to the Liberal government saying that it had a lot of respect for Parliament, that Parliament is a great place, and that they wanted to hear from parliamentarians. We still hear some rhetoric to that effect, although it is harder to believe because, as the Liberals say, we too are interested in evidence and evidence-based decision-making. If we are going to make a decision about what to believe about the Liberals, and we look at the evidence in terms of what they have done, it is very hard indeed to believe their claims about respect for Parliament. That started with Bill C-10. It was a mystery then, because I wanted to take them at their word. I really did. Also, there was no deal. There was no deal for the purchase of Bombardier jets, no deal at all with respect to this legislation. There was really no need to push it forward, so it was genuinely mystifying.

As time has gone on and we have seen this lack of respect the government has for Parliament, we have heard from witnesses on Bill C-10 who also skated around the issue of whether or not there was a deal among perhaps the government, Air Canada, and Bombardier. We are not quite sure because no one from the government will enlighten us. It is hard to believe there is no deal at all. Moving time allocation on C-10 at every stage begins to make a bit more sense.

In question period today, and other days, we heard the Minister of Democratic Institutions say that one of the great things about the Liberals' process for a new voting system is that every member would have a say, every member would have a vote. We are all going to get up, and after the Liberal majority committee makes a recommendation to the Liberal cabinet, which comes back with legislation that is being dealt with by a Liberal majority, everyone would have their say on a new voting system, as if the Liberals' majority did not make a difference or as if they were comfortable with the idea that, if their majority did not make a difference, that would be okay.

Again, Bill C-10 is instructive, because it was only the last Monday we sat before the break that Bill C-10 came to a vote at report stage. Because the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley changed his vote, we had a tie vote. He had voted against it at second reading and then voted for it at report stage and that came down to a tie. Because of that tie vote on Bill C-10, we got to see what the government is really like with respect to every member having his or her say. Not all of its members showed up because perhaps they did not think it was important. I will not presume to say why they were not there. However, the result of the tie was clear. The government did not say that was great, Parliament had spoken, and had it had one vote less, that would be fine. Instead, it lost its temper. It brought forward a motion that was completely draconian, that would have handcuffed Parliament, and created a climate where people were prone to losing their temper. Therefore, I think we saw another insight into the real mind of the Liberal government through Bill C-10.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his intervention today. I was expecting to hear from him. He enjoys intervening in this place and I enjoy addressing his questions.

His question is a valid one, of course. I support wholeheartedly the position of the minister on that, but this has nothing to do with Bill C-10. I was speaking to the competitive nature of the airline industry and Porter remains a competitive player in that marketplace. In fact, I often fly to Ottawa on Porter from the island airport, because it is a little easier to get to from my house than it is to get all the way out to Pearson.

As I mentioned in my speech, what these amendments to the act would do is help maintain a competitive airline marketplace in Canada, which I think everyone in the House agrees is a service to Canadians that is needed in this marketplace, and I am happy to support anything that supports competition in the Canadian marketplace.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise to debate Bill C-10, proposing amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

I would like to take a few minutes to explain why the Government of Canada believes this is an appropriate moment to modify the almost 30-year-old act.

Let us first recall that the Air Canada Public Participation Act's primary purpose was to convert a crown corporation into a thriving and competitive private corporation in an industry that is characterized by aggressive competition, strong cyclical business patterns, and sensitivity to external shock.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act was brought into force in 1989 to provide the federal government with the legal framework to privatize Air Canada. It also required the airline to have provisions regarding where it carried out its maintenance, the use of official languages, and where its headquarters would be located. Other airlines, Air Canada's competitors from Canada and abroad, are not subject to such conditions. The market conditions in which Air Canada operates are now greatly different from those of 1989.

The 1980s was characterized by deregulation. Since that time, the world has seen a proliferation of new air carriers as well as new airline business models. In June 1980, the then president of the International Air Transport Association reported that its membership was composed of 100 airlines from 85 nations. Today, its membership is composed of 260 airlines.

In short, the air carrier marketplace is now much more competitive. This is a good thing. It benefits travellers and it pushes the airlines to be as efficient as possible. However, we must ensure that our carriers are able to compete themselves, or we risk limiting Canadians connectivity and we threaten the economic viability of these carriers in Canada.

The Canadian marketplace has also evolved. By the end of the 1990s, Canadian Airlines International ceased operations, reducing the extent of competition. Other carriers, like Canada 3000, also came and went. However, since then there has been a flourishing of growth among Canadian companies. WestJet, Porter, Transat, Sunwing, and others provide important travel options for Canadians. I should also note the important role played by foreign carriers in offering other travel options to and from Canada. Choice is good for the consumers.

Air Canada continues to provide vital connectivity, both within our vast country and also to the outside world. It is also an important source of employment and opportunity. Our air sector has weathered some difficult times, including the tragic events of 9/11, global pandemic, and the recent economic crisis, yet it continues to robustly offer service options to Canadians. In short, we have come a long way since the 1980s when the government of the day created this law.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act has clearly achieved its primary objective of successfully privatizing Air Canada. Furthermore, many other aspects of the act remain relevant. However, given that times have changed and the air transport sector has evolved, it is also important to ensure that this statute remains up to date.

In particular, the provisions of the act that deal with aircraft maintenance risk hampering Air Canada's competitiveness by limiting its ability to organize its activities in a way that responds to the evolution in the air sector. Furthermore, given Air Canada's role in providing Canadians with connectivity, this could also impact on the overall competitiveness and cost of air transport throughout the country.

This leads me to my second point, which is about economic opportunity for Canada's aerospace sector. Air Canada and Quebec have indicated their intentions to end their litigation regarding the carrier's compliance with the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This announcement came on the heels of Air Canada's declared intention to purchase up to 75 Bombardier C Series aircraft, to ensure that these planes will be maintained in Canada for at least 20 years, as well as to collaborate in the establishment of a world-class centre of excellence in Montreal.

Furthermore, Air Canada will also be facilitating the creation of a centre of excellence on aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, and we understand that this has led the government of that province to agree to discontinue litigation.

The Air Canada-Quebec agreement will allow the carrier to benefit from cutting-edge aircraft technology produced here in Canada. It will also result in significant benefits for the aerospace industry, including aircraft maintenance right across the country. This is the sort of investment that the aerospace sector needs.

Quebec and Manitoba have accepted that these conditions create a context in which they no longer feel the need to pursue litigation against Air Canada. These developments provide us with an ideal opportunity to rethink our approach and look for opportunities for improvement.

Federal officials have identified specific concerns around the maintenance provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act because they create challenges for Air Canada's ability to be competitive. Specifically, they prevent Air Canada from doing what other carriers do, which is to organize its supply chain to optimize efficiency.

The intention of Air Canada, Quebec, and Manitoba to discontinue the litigation creates an appropriate context to modernize the act and indicates that the parties are working together toward a similar objective: the growth of Canadian prosperity. However, let me be clear, we continue to believe that Air Canada should commit to undertaking aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and we intend for this to be stipulated in the law. However, we need to provide Air Canada with the flexibility to meet the requirements to compete in an evolving global marketplace.

We cannot predict how the airline industry will evolve in the future. Whatever happens, our carriers will need to adjust to meet the challenges and remain competitive. Air Canada needs the flexibility to enable it to adapt to changing market conditions. Bill C-10 allows us to target the right balance between such flexibility and the continued expectation that the carrier will undertake aircraft maintenance in Canada.

The time is now to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to achieve this balance. With Bill C-10, the government is taking a necessary step to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act to ensure it will continue to be relevant as the sector evolves in the future.

I would now like to take a minute to review how the air carrier sector has evolved since Air Canada was privatized in 1989.

There have been some fundamental shifts in the last 30 years. For example, there has been an important rise in the market share of new global carriers, like those of the Gulf States, that are now playing a major role in global competition.

In the United States, there has been significant rationalization of air carriers, where most major airlines have been through chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, resulting in a major reduction of their costs.

Europe has also seen a series of major air carrier alliances. The low-cost model has come to be a predominant paradigm for certain types of travel within some markets, like Europe, Southeast Asia, and the U.S.

All of these points speak to a highly competitive environment that creates a need for air carriers to seek constant cost reductions to meet travellers' and shippers' expectations.

Canada is no exception where major shifts in the air sector are concerned. Our air transport sector is now fundamentally different from how it looked in 1989. Following years of financial difficulties, Canadian Airlines International ceased to operate in the 1990s and was ultimately acquired by and merged with Air Canada. WestJet has since become a major player, resulting in robust and sustainable competition between two Canadian carriers. Other newer carriers have also been added to the Canadian market, such as Porter Airlines and Sunwing. Canada's charter market is particularly active with many carriers, such as Air Transat, offering services to Canadians. Air Canada itself underwent a major restructuring in 2003-04, under the provisions of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA, which allowed the carrier to emerge as a healthy and viable global competitor.

Where aircraft maintenance is concerned, Air Canada's restructuring under the CCAA included making some previously in-house operations independent, including its maintenance operations, repair and overall service provider, which ultimately became Aveos. Air Canada's decision at the time was in keeping with the practices of many global carriers.

The 2012 aerospace review noted the increasing importance of low-cost maintenance, repair and overhaul service provided in developing countries, many of which are closer to the growing markets in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. While Air Canada is not outsourcing its aircraft maintenance to suppliers in developing countries, many of its competitors are.

From these examples, it is clear that for a carrier to be viable in today's industry, it must be able to adapt the elements of its supply chain to manage its costs and remain competitive. For carriers, this covers all aspects of its business, including being able to determine how and where it conducts its aircraft maintenance activities.

Currently, Air Canada is limited in being able to deal with market forces the way other carriers can. I am referring, of course, to the provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, specifically the obligation in paragraph 6(1)(d) that requires Air Canada to include in its articles of continuance provisions requiring the corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the city of Winnipeg, the Montreal urban community, and the city of Mississauga.

What we need to remember is that the original intent of the Air Canada Public Participation Act was to function as a framework for the privatization of Air Canada almost 30 years ago. It also contained a number of provisions, including the requirement for aircraft maintenance, which we are talking about today. The intent was to turn a crown corporation into a viable and competitive private company while also ensuring that it was committed to undertaking aircraft maintenance activities in those three communities. We believe that the proposed amendments maintain the spirit of this intent by requiring Air Canada to undertake aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, while allowing it to choose the nature of this work in each location to remain competitive.

As we know, these provisions have been the subject of ongoing litigation between Air Canada and the Province of Quebec, with intervening support from the Province of Manitoba. However, on February 17 of this year, the Province of Quebec and Air Canada mutually agreed to pursue an end to this litigation. The decision of the Province of Quebec and Air Canada to reach an agreement has opened up an opportunity for our government to finally modernize the act and relieve Air Canada of prescriptive obligations where its operational and overhaul centres are concerned, while maintaining the spirit of the intent behind them.

We are not proposing to repeal paragraph 6(1)(d). Rather, we are proposing amendments that would allow Air Canada to undertake aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and choose the nature of this work in each location to help it remain competitive. These amendments, which I am urging hon. members to support today, are consistent with the government's approach to the air sector as an industry that is deregulated and responsive to market forces. It is these guiding principles that we believe induce companies to continue to innovate their business and seek out better ways to work and be cost competitive in the face of a changing and ultra-competitive market.

The amendments the government has put forward would allow Air Canada the same flexibility that other carriers have to seek out the best aircraft maintenance services it can find and the ability to actively manage its costs. Modernization of the act is the right decision. We know that the Province of Quebec, the Province of Manitoba, and Air Canada have agreed among themselves to collaborate on the establishment of two centres of excellence for aircraft maintenance, one in Montreal and the other in Winnipeg.

In Winnipeg alone, this new western centre of excellence is expected to bring 150 jobs to the area by 2017. In Quebec, Air Canada has committed to maintaining all of its newly acquired CS300 aircraft in the province for at least 20 years and to the establishment of a centre of excellence for aircraft maintenance which will boost Montreal's role as a world-class aeronautical hub.

These developments are a clear indication that there is a willingness among the parties to foster an ongoing relationship, one that I hope will bring economic benefits to Canada and job opportunities for Canadians long into the future.

I urge hon. members to support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, the member more or less answered my question, but I will nevertheless ask it again.

Does she feel, as I do, that there are no guarantees in Bill C-10 concerning the percentage or the volume of maintenance activities to be kept in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the previous speakers and heard a great deal of criticism coming from the Conservative Party in regard to Bill C-10. I need to remind members that when Air Canada was in violation of the act, that was over five years ago. The then Conservative government chose to do absolutely nothing. It was actually the Provinces of Manitoba and Quebec that pushed the issue and brought it to court.

The Government of Canada has worked with the many different stakeholders, including the provinces. There was the potential to have this whole issue put in front of us to hopefully see jobs being guaranteed in certain areas, including my home province of Manitoba.

The provincial government of the NDP thought it was a positive thing. Why does the member believe that the Conservative Party has all of a sudden taken this active interest, as when it was in government and actions were being taken, members sat on their hands and did nothing?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today for report stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

Governments, and especially new governments, have to set priorities and decide what they want to achieve during the length of their mandate.

Each party campaigns on a platform that is expected to serve as a road map for its early days as a government. Over the course of the campaign, parties make dozens of commitments. Upon taking office, a government must decide which commitments it wants to prioritize. A government must make decisions on what it wants to do right away, what it will do in six months, in two years, and what it will never do. On occasion, the Supreme Court will force the government to introduce legislation, as has been the case with Bill C-7 and Bill C-14.

Other pieces of legislation, like the budget, are presented each year. Because new governments like to check items off of the list of fulfilled campaign commitments during the first year, we often see legislation that reflects their campaign commitments. However, Liberal campaign commitments, like restoring mail delivery, have been pushed back on the priority list with the promise of consultations. Additional funding for the CBC has been pushed down the list of priorities because of a lengthy consultation process. A response to VIA Rail's proposal to build a dedicated track between Toronto and Montreal will take three years due to consultations.

It took the Liberals seven months to create a committee to enact consultations on electoral reform that is effectively identical to every House of Commons committee, and whose recommendations will be both non-binding and, like the preferred option of the Prime Minister, a ranked ballot.

The Minister of Transport has decided to spend an entire year consulting on the recommendations of the Emerson report, which was itself the product of 18 months of consultations with the entire transportation industry.

On so many issues, the Liberal government has pushed back making a decision to a later date.

However, with Bill C-10, we have none of that. What we have is a bill that came out of nowhere and was not the product of any consultations. Why is the government being so inconsistent?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport confirmed, during its second reading debate, that she was rushing this bill through so that the stakeholders could provide input during the committee stage. She was outsourcing her government's consultative responsibilities to committee. A parliamentary committee studying a bill is not a consultative body. Its purpose is to probe the bill for weaknesses and address these weaknesses through amendments if the majority of the members agree.

Witnesses at committee, including the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, highlighted a number of obvious weaknesses in the legislation. The opposition proposed amendments to address some of these problems. In the case of Bill C-10, the Liberal majority did not accept any of these amendments to the legislation.

If the purpose of sending the bill to committee so quickly was so that the stakeholders could provide input on the legislation, then why did the Liberal members ignore the recommendations? This illustrates more inconsistency on behalf of the government.

While all of us support a regulatory environment that allows for a viable legacy carrier in Canada and affordable air travel, I do not think a single Liberal candidate campaigned on reducing Air Canada's maintenance obligations as they are described in the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Considering the government appears to be in no rush to do anything else, its incredible haste to get this legislation that came out of nowhere passed before the summer has opened up a pandora's box of questions. By now most members are aware that in 2013 the Government of Quebec, with the Government of Manitoba as an intervenor, brought Air Canada to court to challenge the carrier's assertion that it was fulfilling its maintenance obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Quebec Superior Court, presided over by Justice Castonguay, ruled on the side of the Attorney General of Quebec. Consequently, Air Canada appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and that court upheld the lower court's ruling in November 2015. On January 5, 2016, Air Canada announced that it would challenge that ruling in front of the Supreme Court. Less than two months later, Air Canada began negotiating with Quebec and Manitoba to end litigation, starting with the signing of a letter of intent to purchase 45 C Series aircraft. Whether Air Canada decided it would lose its appeal in front of the Supreme Court or the Government of Canada prodded it to make a purchase of the at the time troubled C Series aircraft, the carrier started to propose real commitments to keep some of its overhaul maintenance work in Quebec and Manitoba.

As the Government of Quebec has recently placed over $1 billion U.S. into the C Series program, it was obviously pleased to see Air Canada make the first major purchase of the aircraft.

This point cannot be made clear enough. Air Canada was forced to negotiate a settlement with Quebec and Manitoba because the carrier lost in court.

What Air Canada has proposed to settle its lawsuit in the case of Quebec is the purchase of the C Series and a commitment to undertaking maintenance of these aircraft for 20 years in the province. Air Canada also proposed to create a centre of excellence in aircraft maintenance in Quebec. In the case of Manitoba, Air Canada announced a willingness to transfer about 150 jobs from other parts of the country to Winnipeg. It is worth noting that these are not new jobs, merely work that is being shuffled from one part of Canada to another.

These Air Canada commitments to do maintenance work on narrow body aircraft in Canada are good, but these are not listed in the act we are debating today. Air Canada is making these commitments because it lost in court on the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba understand that if the law is repealed, as is being proposed by the Liberals, then their negotiating position with Air Canada will be swept out from under them. That is why both provinces explicitly asked the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities during the study of the bill to only allow this legislation to pass upon conclusion of their litigation against Air Canada. These calls came on deaf ears.

None of the Liberal members at the committee questioned the statements by Manitoba's deputy premier or Quebec's minister of the economy asking for more time, or attempted to justify the prompt passage of this legislation. The Minister of Transport's own officials also confirmed at committee that there was no legal or technical reason why speedy passage of the legislation was necessary.

Therefore, here we are. We have a bill in front of us that two provincial governments have asked for its coming into force to be delayed, and there are huge questions concerning why it is being rushed through Parliament so quickly ahead of the rest of the Liberal agenda.

We also have the problem that the Liberals are missing an important opportunity to make Air Canada and the entire aerospace sector annually more competitive. The Emerson report, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, made a number of good suggestions that would stimulate the aerospace sector while maintaining jobs in Canada. For example, the government could tie all airport improvement fees to specific projects, explicit sunset provisions, which would ensure that these fees are to fund a specific project and not the airport's overall operations. They could look at overhauling the airport security model to mirror those used at major international airports, like London's Heathrow or Amsterdam's Schiphol, which have clear customer service standards and much lower delivery costs.

However, the bill does not do any of that, and we have not heard any indications from the Minister of Transport that measures to improve the competitiveness of the entire airline industry are forthcoming.

I look forward to questions from the government and opposition members.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I found the first part of the question more interesting than the second.

The important thing today is just to tell the government to delay passing Bill C-10. Regardless of the measures or the past, passage of Bill C-10 must be delayed to ensure that the jobs at risk are guaranteed.

Until the provinces have the assurance that Bill C-10 will help them, I believe we should not pass the bill, as it will interfere in negotiations between the provinces and Air Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, in my speech I had many opportunities to explain why I cannot believe the rhetoric from across the way because they said one thing and did another. It has been like that since the beginning of the session. It is hard to believe this rhetoric. They get caught up in this rhetoric all the time. They use words, slogans, messages drafted by communications firms to convey a message, but when it comes time to take action, there is none.

The entire aerospace industry is waiting for the government to do something tangible, and it will keep waiting. The government could have done so much more with Bill C-10, but it decided to do nothing but end the lawsuits between the provinces and Air Canada and jeopardize thousands of jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, no offence to my hon. colleague, but now I understand their position on electoral reform and Bill C-10 a little better.

What we just heard is a federal minister who does not respect the results of a provincial election. It is the new provincial government's prerogative to make whatever decisions it likes, and it is asking the federal government to delay the passing of Bill C-10, because this bill does not guarantee any jobs in Manitoba. That is what the deputy premier herself told us in committee.

Who are we, in this House, to question the word of the new deputy premier of the Province of Manitoba? That is not my intent.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has lost some focus on the importance of the aerospace industry in Canada, in all regions. I found it interesting when he referenced the province of Manitoba. He needs to recognize, or at least put an asterisk on it, that there was a change in government in the province of Manitoba. I am very proud of the fact that my daughter was part of it. She was elected.

Having said that, we need to recognize that the former government worked with the current Government of Canada. It was part of the negotiations that took place and it was felt that it was in Manitoba's and Winnipeg's best interest to move ahead with Bill C-10. The current government has taken a slightly different position on it, but there is still an obligation, would he not acknowledge, that there was an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba prior to that provincial election and is that not something we should be looking at and respecting?

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

Mr. Speaker, I tried to fix my error, but it was not indeed an error. Thank you for letting me try again.

What the minister told us was not true. The deputy premier of Manitoba said:

There are significant implications to moving forward with Bill C-10. It is not appropriate to rush through without substantial dialogue and consideration.

The deputy premier of Manitoba came here to tell us not to rush through Bill C-10.

That is not all. The Government of Quebec sent a brief to the committee. It said:

Pending the conclusion of final agreements, the Government of Quebec has agreed to drop its lawsuit in relation to Air Canada's obligations to have an overhaul and maintenance centre.

Yes, it says, “pending the conclusion of final agreements”. It goes on to say:

...in order to provide for all the aspects of the agreements reached, the Government of Quebec is asking that, once Bill C-10 receives royal assent, the legislation come into force after the final agreements described above have been concluded.

What happened to those good old days of federal-provincial relations? I just read three requests from governments for the federal government not to intervene hastily for no reason with a bill. Nevertheless, the government is pressing on, and we are now at third reading of Bill C-10. This bill is completely unjustified because there is no need to act so hastily.

The government says that this is what the provinces asked it to do, but that is not true at all. In committee, the two provinces that are directly involved in this matter clearly told the government not to act too hastily. This is unbelievable.

We get it, though, because this is in the Liberal Party's DNA. I remember what the Prime Minister said right here on Parliament Hill when there was a decision to appeal and they marched with the Aveos workers here. The Prime Minister gave a mighty fine speech.

He said that our greatest resource is not somewhere in the ground, that it is our people, skilled workers like them who build our country every day with their hands, their arms, their brains, and their creativity. The Prime Minister gave that mighty fine speech about how he supported the workers, but today, he is abandoning them. That is why 3,000 jobs are in danger.

It is incredible to watch the Liberals say one thing and then turn around and do the opposite, as they have done from the beginning. I implore the government to agree to the requests made by Quebec and Manitoba and delay the passing of Bill C-10.

This is important, because they still need to conclude some agreements. Their case is currently before the Supreme Court as a means of applying pressure to ensure that the jobs that are supposed to be preserved will in fact be preserved. Why is the government interfering and jeopardizing the provinces' agreements with Air Canada?

That is what people need to remember. There was absolutely no reason to rush Bill C-10 through. No one, apart from the Minister of Transport, wanted this bill to go through quickly. I certainly hope that this message will finally be heard and that Bill C-10 will not pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak, perhaps for the last time, to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures. There are very few other measures, as this is a small bill.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I am sure that her speech will be very good and that she will have a lot to say about Bill C-10.

We have had many opportunities to speak to Bill C-10 over the past few weeks. We had the opportunity to hear the government say all sorts of things about the importance of Bill C-10 and the need to act swiftly. However, when we asked for the real reasons behind the urgency, which led the government to adopt a time allocation motion for Bill C-10, we got no response. The government says one thing and does another or, in many cases, does nothing.

From the beginning our only question has remained unanswered. We really wanted a justification for the time allocation motion. Why the need to pass Bill C-10 now, when at the beginning of this Parliament there was no urgency?

We asked the question in the House during question period and also in committee. We never received a single sensible answer explaining why Bill C-10 had to be passed so quickly.

I searched books, history, and everywhere in order to understand how the government could justify adopting a time allocation motion for a bill like C-10. I finally found the answer. It is in the Liberal Party of Canada's DNA that I found the reason for the urgent need to take action on Bill C-10.

The government says that it is open and transparent. That can be found in the Speech from the Throne, which states:

...the Government is committed to open and transparent government. ...[the Government] will promote more open debate...it will not resort to devices like prorogation and omnibus bills to avoid scrutiny.

A time allocation motion is a device. We have had the opportunity to look at the budget bill, which is also an omnibus bill. The government says one thing and does another, or does nothing at all. That is what I discovered when I analyzed the process for Bill C-10, , which has brought us here today.

The government has adopted a number of time allocation motions. I am thinking of Bill C-10, Bill C-14, Motion No. 6, and the electoral reform that the government wants to unilaterally impose using its majority. So much for openness and transparency.

With regard to Bill C-10, in just a few months, we have seen the government, for no real reason at all, decide to lose some of its credibility with the provinces. How? The government announced on a number of occasions that it wanted to usher in a new era of improved relations with the provinces.

In the throne speech, the government also said the following three times regarding three files:

To give Canadians a more secure retirement, the Government will work with the provinces and territories.... To create more opportunities for young Canadians...the Government will work with the provinces and territories.... And to support the health and well-being of all Canadians, the Government will begin work with the provinces and territories...

Those three excerpts from the throne speech show the government's willingness to work with the provinces and territories and its interest in doing so. However, the government says one thing and does another, or does nothing at all. We are seeing it again. We saw it yesterday. The government has said a number of times that it is listening to the provinces and wants to work with them.

Yesterday, the Quebec minister of health and social services spoke about another bill, Bill C-14. What did Mr. Barrette have to say about Bill C-14? He said that it was unenforceable and that, given the current context, he would be very careful about going forward with Bill C-14. He added that, personally, for professional and governmental reasons, he does not think it is a good idea to go forward with Bill C-14. Mr. Barrette is a minister in a province with which the government wants to build good relations. However, the government moved a time allocation motion on Bill C-14. The government is not letting members of Parliament speak about it.

I have other examples, but I do not have the time to share them all in four minutes. When Bill C-10 was first debated in committee, Minister Garneau talked about good relationships with the provinces in his speech:

In light of this development [Air Canada's commitment to creating centres of excellence], the Government of Quebec and Air Canada announced an agreement to discontinue the litigation...

Given all these positive developments, we believe this is the perfect time to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act...

Minister Garneau said that this was what the provinces wanted, but that is not true. I do not want to say that it is not true, but it is misleading. This may appear to be the case, but that is my interpretation.

The House resumed from May 17, 2016, 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 third time and passed.

Criminal Code

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, back in 2015, when this came out, a panel was set up by the former justice minister. However, I look at the work we have done today, and we can talk about these timelines. Let us be honest, this week we did Bill C-2, Bill C-6, Bill C-10, and Bill C-11. We had all of these things shifted off of the Order Paper.

What has happened here is this. Although it is a very important bill, unfortunately, when it came to the agenda of what we were supposed to be discussing and what we were discussing, a lot of political games were being played at that time. This took away the rights of the opposition members to debate this. We can talk about that. However, let us be honest about what happened this week. We lost hours of crucial debate because of the actions of the government.

Air Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that in both the debate about Bill C-10 and the decision by the minister to not approve the lengthening of the runway, members have continually referred back to Bombardier. I appreciate the member's affinity for the Bombardier C Series aircraft. Like her, I look forward to the aircraft entering into service with Swiss airlines later in the year and seeing first-hand how the aircraft operates.

If the member truly does believe that overwhelming local opposition exists to the future expansion of this airport, why will she and her government not let the process continue and let Toronto City Council have a vote on it? Is she afraid of Toronto City Council making a decision that the member for Spadina—Fort York will not agree with?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would posit that there is not a single airport in Canada that is more tightly or effectively regulated by its local government than the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

A strict noise limit is in place. A strict number of landing slots is available. A strict morning and evening curfew is in place. Nav Canada ensures that more than 90% of all approaches to the airport are over Lake Ontario. Contrast this to Pearson airport or Montreal airport at Dorval, where many of the final approaches are over densely populated areas, and large aircraft can land 24 hours a day.

Quite frankly, with his tweet ending any possible expansion of the Billy Bishop airport, the minister succumbed to the very worst type of not in my backyard politics. Of course there are always community concerns with any change to an airport's profile, but it is government's role to put in place the conditions for this type of initiative to succeed through stringent regulation or investment, rather than to quash it.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have opted to be the party of no rather than the party of how. I would also like to remind everyone that the federal government is just one of three signatories to the tripartite agreement. While it does have veto power, I would suggest that it has the least skin in the game when it comes to the future of the Billy Bishop airport.

The other two signatories of the agreement, the City of Toronto and the airport's operator, PortsToronto, have far more interest in the future of this airport.

If the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister is so sure that Toronto City Council would never allow the expansion of the airport, why did he have to order the Minister of Transport to pre-empt its process? Unfortunately, this Billy Bishop tweet was merely foreshadowing more of the Liberals' “it is my way or the highway” behaviour.

With Bill C-10, we have once again seen the federal government act with great haste to pass legislation, while the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba are telling Parliament to put the brakes on this legislation.

When it comes to acting in the best interests of their constituents, I am saddened that the entire Liberal GTA caucus has chosen to remain silent and stand behind the will of a vocal few.

We should not be surprised. With the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley voting against Bill C-10 at second reading because he truly believed it was not in the best interests of his constituents, voting in support of it at report stage, and then indicating that he would vote against it at third reading, we know who controls the party behind the scenes.

That member will vote for what he believes is in the best interests of his constituents only when he can be assured that he will be outvoted by a large majority, and his vote has become of negligible consequence. Some good that will do.

My question is very simple. Will the federal government withdraw its veto on the future of the Billy Bishop airport and allow Toronto City Council to have a free vote on the future of its island airport?

Income Tax Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mount Royal, who, like me, spoke in French during Monday's debate on Bill C-10. I wanted to make that correction since the hon. member for Outremont misinformed the House about that on Tuesday. In fact, I speak French more than he does in the House. He would contribute more to the quality of the debates in the House if he checked the facts before making unfounded accusations.

I rise to speak to one of our key election promises: the 7% tax cut for the middle class, whose tax rate will go from 22% to 20.5%; the tax increase for wealthier Canadians from 29% to 33%; and the reduction in the TFSA annual contribution limit from $10,000 to $5,500.

I commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and my riding neighbour, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, on his maiden speech. Our ridings meet along a provincial gravel road, Parent Road, where government signs strongly advise the use of CB radios. This border is located more than 300 kilometres north of Montreal, not far from the community of Parent.

Bill C-2 is important to the growth of the middle class. It includes crucial changes to Canada's tax system. The legislative summary of the bill is quite clear:

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to reduce the second personal income tax rate from 22% to 20.5% and to introduce a new personal marginal tax rate of 33% for taxable income in excess of $200,000. It also amends other provisions of that Act to reflect the new 33% rate. In addition, it amends that Act to reduce the annual contribution limit for tax-free savings accounts from $10,000 to its previous level with indexation ($5,500 for 2016) starting January 1, 2016.

These changes will benefit Canadians, so naturally, they are looking forward to them.

I also want to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Hébert on his speech. I rose to reply to him a couple of times, but better members were recognized before me. The life of an MP is complicated.

I would like to point out that the member for Louis-Hébert alluded to the fact that budget 2016 provides for a deficit. He also said that his government was responsible for all of the good things that came out of the last term of office. He is very happy to take credit for all of the positive results, while saying that his team had nothing to do with anything that went wrong.

Investments in the middle class and economic growth for ordinary Canadians are very important to me, the government, and the millions of Canadians who will benefit.

The member for Louis-Hébert also said that the Conservatives left the House clean. That is not completely true. The Conservatives sold the house to pay off the mortgage. They waved the cheque from the sale in the air for all to see before giving it back to the bank to pay the mortgage. The house was not really clean. It was gone. There are now deficits in the middle class, in infrastructure, and in all levels of government.

My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is a bit more reasonable. He presented fact-based arguments about our policies. I really enjoyed listening to his speech. I do not agree with him when he says that these tax cuts do not help the middle class. I agree with my colleague from Mount Royal, who asked why the New Democrats did not promise to cut taxes in their platform but did promise to balance the budget.

With the exception of the members of the former government, who still think that they left a massive surplus, even though that is not quite true, I think it is clear to all of us that it would only be possible to balance the budget this year if we used extreme measures, such as austerity, which is a very unpopular policy in any country.

I short, I am not worried about these deficits because they are investments. That is the case with Bill C-2. I would like to give my colleague from Louis-Hébert a little bit of background on deficits. Almost 100 years ago—

Reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

I am very troubled, like many today who have stood up to speak. What I would really like to do is perhaps set the table a bit on how we found ourselves in this position. I think more than one incident has created this really unfortunate position we are in today.

I would like to start with the election of October. The Liberals were given a strong majority. In part, their message to Canadians was that they represented change, a new voice, and a change in our democratic process. Canadians listened to that, they watched, and in October provided a strong majority for the Liberals.

I want to quote a part of the Speech from the Throne, which was just five months ago. It states:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.

Parliament shall be no exception.

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

The Speech from the Throne is a very critical document. It is the road map that the government is providing and sharing with Canadians on what its plans are.

The speech also indicated “give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees”.

Those are very important commitments.

In every minister's mandate letter, this is included:

I made a personal commitment to bring new leadership and a new tone to Ottawa. We made a commitment to Canadians to pursue our goals with a renewed sense of collaboration.

Again, every minister has that in their mandate letter. It is in the Speech from the Throne. It is the tone that was committed to by the government to be set in the House.

The government is not very old. It is only six months. Of course, we did not sit until January. We had a small sitting in December and then we had a sitting that started in January after Christmas. Perhaps the first month or two, the Liberals lived up to the commitments they made to Canadians. However, starting in the last few weeks, there has been a significant and noticeable change. The hon. opposition leader, the member for Sturgeon River—Parkland, said it best when she said that the Liberals apparently now wanted to have an audience and not an opposition.

We can look at items like democratic reform, which is fundamental. The Liberals do not want all voices heard; they only want their voices to be heard. If we do not agree with them, they will do things like move opposition days to Fridays, which is a very short time and there is not much opportunity to debate.

Everyone in the House recognizes that Bill C-14 is very important legislation, and we need to look at this because it is very important. We returned on Monday, and the understanding was that we would spend most of the day talking about Bill C-14.

I have been in the House for seven years, and I have one of the furthest ridings, which is usually 12 hours door to door. I always make that trip on Sunday night so I am here ready to be present in the House when it opens on Monday.

It is also important to note that the House only sits 26 weeks of the year. There are 26 weeks where members can be in their ridings or cabinet ministers can do some of the important work they have to do outside the House. We know the government wants to get rid of Friday and does not want to show up to work on Monday.

It is very simple math. The government has 184 members, and they need to have 169 in the House on Monday morning. How many were here? There was 139. Even at 169, it means we can still have a few people who are away, or some ministers off doing some of the work they need to do. However, they need to have their people in the House. They were shy of that 169 by 30 members.

The fact the Liberals almost lost the vote is not the responsibility of the opposition; it is the responsibility of the Liberals and their need to show up to work.

Instead of debating Bill C-14, what did we do? With respect to Bill C-14, we hear from the Minister of Health that it has a critical time frame, that it has to get done. Did we debate Bill C-14 on Monday? No. We debated Bill C-10 all day. Although important legislation, it did not have the criticalness to it that Bill C-14 has.

What did we do Tuesday? We debated Bill C-6, the citizenship act, which is important legislation. All legislation is important, but it was not Bill C-14 with its critical timeline.

Then we went back to the debate on Bill C-10, the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Then we debated Bill C-11, the Copyright Act, again, important legislation.

Essentially, we offered to debate Bill C-14 until midnight for two days, but the Liberals had us debate other legislation instead. More important, not only did they have us debate different pieces of legislation, they failed to even provide a parliamentary calendar. That has never been done in the whole time I have been here. We are given the agenda for the week so we can prepare. The Liberals did not even have the respect to provide a parliamentary calender. All of a sudden we were debating the Copyright Act. That is a profound disrespect to the opposition and it has never been done in Parliament.

Then we hit yesterday, which was Wednesday. We were again ready to debate Bill C-14, which had important amendments from the committee and we needed to debate them. It is important to debate. Debate matters, especially in this instance. At second reading, I had a profound compliment when one of my colleague's said, “Listening to your words in the debate changed my mind in terms of how I'm going to vote”. We are debating life and death. We are debating amendments. What did the Liberals do? They put closure on the debate, maybe one speech at report stage on something so critical. We could have been spending Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday debating the bill.

On top of that, the Liberals introduced Motion No. 6, which was so aptly described this morning as looking at every possible tool the opposition has and taking it away.

The member for Wellington—Halton Hills said:

The fundamental responsibility mechanism in the House is the confidence convention. The 20 or so members of Parliament who are part of the ministry who are the government sit there because they have the confidence of the majority of members of this chamber. It is that confidence convention that is undermined by the motion that the government has put on the paper.

By giving members of the ministry the unilateral right, at any time, to adjourn the House...

We can certainly see a whole host of measures. Certainly we were debating a closure motion. The NDP delayed things for, I understand, less than a minute when the incident happened where the Prime Minister lost control.

As I head toward the end of my time to speak to this important issue, there are a few things that I would like to see.

First, the Prime Minister's apology was appropriate. He also needs to look into his heart to see what created that anger within him and why he responded to it in such an inappropriate way.

More important, I think we all expect him to live up to those standards and commitment he made in the Speech from the Throne to respect all members of the House. This would include removing Motion No. 6.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

We've seen the government bring some legislation to the House already. Some of it has been moving through the House pretty quickly, some on important issues, whether it's Bill C-10 on the aerospace industry in Canada or Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying. Those are issues that I think are quite worthy of study, and yet the legislation has been passing quickly.

We've heard from the President of the Treasury Board that when it comes to access, they need to do more study and they need to have a two-step process whereby they bring in a few changes and see how those go, and then there will be a more robust review process and, ultimately, maybe something looking like a final draft of the legislation in 2018.

In your opinion—I think you started to speak to this but maybe you can just elaborate—if the government wanted to sit down tomorrow and begin drafting legislation, is there sufficient information out there to start in the fall with a comprehensive reform of the Access to Information Act, or is this something that really needs more study? What do you think the government could gain in its two-step process, and how do the reforms they are talking about making in the immediate term really speak to anything that would come later in the more robust reform they are proposing for 2018?

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week when the Speaker was ruling on whether to allow us to consider amendments at report stage, he declared this to be a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation and opportunity for members of Parliament. Rather than embrace that, the government is shutting off debate at every stage for this once-in-a-generation piece of legislation.

There are many different views on all sides of the House. However, earlier this week, out of spite for having almost lost a vote with its huge majority, the government called Bill C-10, Bill C-6, and debate on the Copyright Act. After less than one-third of the members of Parliament in the House had been afforded the opportunity to speak, it cut off debate. It moved it on a Wednesday so there would be even less time for debate than on any other day in the House. There will be less than an hour of debate taking place on this bill, this once-in-a-generation piece of legislation, due to the tactics of the government House leader and the Liberal government.

Is the minister proud of the government using procedural tactics to shut down debate after less than a third of the members of Parliament have had an opportunity to pronounce on behalf of their constituents on a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House I am extremely disappointed with respect to the government's actions. Like all new members in the House, the expectation among my residents in supporting me to come to this great place was that I was going to be able to extend my voice in the debates. As we have seen by the actions of the government, what amounts to effectively a basic dictatorship, debates have been stifled in the House.

I want to remind Canadians and I want to remind the government exactly what it said, what it handed to the Governor General in the throne speech. It is proving not to be worth the paper it was written on now. The throne speech said:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced. Parliament shall be no exception. In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

Further on in the throne speech, it says:

And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.

Four times now, with Bills C-6, C-10, C-15 and now C-14, we are seeing debate thwarted. Why the hypocrisy on the part of the government? All Canadians deserve to know.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, despite an overwhelming majority, the Liberals nearly lost a vote in the House of Commons yesterday. Unfortunately, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley flip-flopped on his promise to represent his constituents and instead supported Bill C-10. The member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley—

Copyright Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this subject. I will be splitting my time with the member for Lethbridge who also serves as our party's critic for disabilities. She is doing a phenomenal job in that role, standing up for vulnerable people.

This is a great bill. It is a bill that all parties as well as unrecognized parties agree on, but it is important to express some disappointment about the reality of the process and how this debate has come up today. We had Bill C-14 on the Notice Paper. Then we had a vote to concur in Bill C-6. Then we had closure on Bill C-10. Now we are on to Bill C-11 without notice.

I say this precisely because of the importance of the bill. It is a bill that we should all be coming together not only on substance but on process. Had we the notice, had we been able to plan this debate at a time when all parties were ready and organized for it, we would have been able to get so much more out of this conversation. There would have been an opportunity to bring in stakeholders perhaps, to listen to and to observe this debate. This would have given all parties the opportunity to ensure that those who really wanted or needed to speak to this were in a position to do so.

Instead, this very important substantive legislation is being used as a procedural weapon, it seems. The government tabled the bill on March 24. As much as the minister has mentioned the urgency of moving this forward, the Liberals could have at least given notice that they were going to do it today. We could have had the bill debated earlier. This is a missed opportunity.

In the previous timeslot, my colleague from the NDP, the member for Windsor West, wanted to split his time and a government member blocked that from happening. We have these missed opportunities of collegiality, missed opportunities to work together to put our best foot forward as a House. It is unfortunate, because we agree with the issue and can work together on it. Yes, there are times for partisanship in this place, but the bill should not have been one of those times.

I do not blame the minister for this. I have spoken to the minister at committee and I know she is committed to working across party lines on important issues. However, this speaks to the House leadership on the government side and how it views absolutely nothing it seems as beyond partisanship.

I want to get that out of the way because it is important to put on the record.

Let us talk about the bill. I am very proud to be speaking in favour of it.

Just to highlight for those who may be just joining the debate, the bill has three substantive different parts to it.

The bill would allow not-for-profit organizations acting on behalf of a person with a disability to convert books and other works into an accessible format without first seeking the permission of the copyright holder. It would instantly allow books that were currently not in accessible format to be converted into those formats. That is an important change, one that would make a positive difference.

Also, as part of the treaty that the bill would operate under, the Marrakesh treaty, which was signed in 2013 and would now through this legislation be ratified, it would allow the sharing of those works between different countries participating in that treaty. There is the domestic element of allowing people to have access to this important information. There is also that international element, encouraging sharing between different countries of this vital material.

Finally, the bill would make important related amendments to digital lock provisions.

Obviously we are going to support the bill. It is getting a lot of consensus. This is the conclusion of a prior process of which the previous government was certainly a part. Budget 2015 set out a plan to implement this treaty. Page 286 of budget 2015, stated:

The Government will propose amendments to the Copyright Act to implement and accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.

The ability to access printed information is essential to prepare for and participate in Canada’s economy, society and job market. According to Statistics Canada, approximately 1 million Canadians live with blindness or partial sight. The Government will propose amendments to the Copyright Act to implement and accede to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (the Marrakesh Treaty).

Aligning Canada’s copyright limitations and exceptions with the international standard established by the Marrakesh Treaty would enable Canada to accede to this international agreement. Once the treaty is in force, as a member country, [Canada] would benefit from greater access to adapted materials.

It is worth nothing that this process has been in place. Certainly, this was the plan laid out in Canada's economic action plan 2015. However, we are very pleased to see the new government continue on with this important work. This work needed to be done.

I would like to specifically motivate the philosophy behind the bill. It is essential that every person has access to books. Books are a major part of all of our lives, and they are an important part of every child's life.

My daughter, Gianna, and I read books all the time. I read books to her on Skype when I am in Ottawa. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a child who has a visual impairment and who is unable to get books which he or she can read. My daughter is a voracious reader. I brought four books with me and we went through them all in one evening. I need to bring more books with me next time I come to Ottawa, clearly. It is great to see how important books are to us all, especially kids. We need to ensure that people of all ages, including children, have access to reading material of all kinds.

As has been discussed in the House, people's reading decisions are not limited by the availability of books.

Again, I cannot imagine what it would be like to really want to read a particular book, whether a novel or a work of non-fiction, and be told that because of a disability, I cannot read that book, that the book is not available to me, that the knowledge is not available to me. I think that would be a very difficult thing for anyone to deal with. That is why this legislation is important for ensuring that everyone has access to books, that there can really be the full sharing of knowledge that takes place.

Everyone in every situation should have access to as much knowledge, as many books as possible. There can be nothing but good that would come from more access to books for more people.

I also want to talk about the international dimension of this. One of the things we know about Canada is that many people maybe have come here from other places or maybe were born here, but who like to read books in other languages. They might be more comfortable in a language other than English or French, or they simply enjoy reading works from a range of different languages. Specifically, the international dimension of this treaty would allow Canadians to have greater access to books in other languages that may be in a better format which they can make more use of.

Some of the countries that have signed the treaty so far are Argentina, El Salvador, India, Mali, Paraguay, Singapore, UAE, and Uruguay. In a multicultural Canada that likely means more access to materials in languages like Hindi, Punjabi, and Spanish. It is important that through those international sharing takes place for all Canadians, not just those who want to access things in English or French, have access to them.

Noting the countries that have signed the treaty so far, it does not look like there are that many Francophone countries. In addition to us ratifying this, there is a lot of value in Canada playing a role, encouraging other countries to ratify and, in particular, seeing if we can use our relationships through the Francophonie to encourage more Francophone countries to ratify this and therefore ensure we have good access to more French-language materials.

We need to get to 20 countries. It is important that we get those 20 countries ratifying. I understand from the minister that we only have three more to go. This is an important leadership role Canada can play and the continuing advocacy we have to do.

I mentioned this during questions and comments, but I have had a constituent raise with me the importance of ensuring those tools people access that allow them, as people with disabilities, to operate in the world, to read, and to do other things, it may be an iPad or a speech app on a phone, are tax deductible. I see measures that address those issues as aligning well with the measures in this legislation.

I look forward to supporting the bill.

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Aviation, which now conducts aircraft maintenance for Air Canada, is in favour of Bill C-10, and the Government of Quebec has written to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to show its support for Bill C-10.

I see why the minister says there is support for Bill C-10, so my question for him is this. Why is the opposition playing procedural stunts with such an important bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, so many things have been said in the debate on Bill C-10 that I am not sure where to begin. I want to try to make the government understand that this is absolutely not an urgent bill. Quite the contrary. I think that, today, the government is playing cheap partisan politics.

Two ministers from two governments are asking our Parliament not to act too quickly on Bill C-10 because the bill may adversely affect the agreements with Air Canada. These are the same agreements that the government is boasting about in the same empty and meaningless answers that it has been giving since the debate on Bill C-10 began. These same agreements, which are supposed to create jobs, are at risk because this government does not want to listen to the request of two provincial governments, two provincial legislatures. First, Quebec's minister of the economy has asked the federal government not to act too quickly because the bill could undermine or put an end to the agreement. Second, the deputy premier of another province appeared before the parliamentary committee to ask the federal government not to pass Bill C-10 because it does not contain any job guarantees.

Since all we are hearing is rhetoric and we have not been given any explanation or justification for this bill, could the government spokesperson stop repeating the same message and explain to us why the government wants to move so quickly on Bill C-10, so much so that it felt the need to impose another gag order? That is unacceptable. Why are the Liberals behaving like this?

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to why we have Bill C-10 before us today. It is because of Conservative government neglect a number of years ago. As a direct result, we had provinces taking Air Canada to court. What we saw in that was a number of stakeholders coming to the table where a consensus was built, where we are seeing, as the minister pointed out, a centre of excellence going to Manitoba and the province of Quebec. We are seeing guarantees of jobs, which is far more than the Conservative government ever got out of Air Canada.

Would the member not agree that Bill C-10 does set a framework that ultimately is part of a larger package that demonstrates that ours is a government that genuinely cares about our aerospace industry in all regions of our country?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a broad sector of our economy and our citizens do support the bill because it is in the broader context in which we want to promote growth and strong jobs for Canadians and for our economy in general. In particular, Air Canada's commitment to retain maintenance of its aircraft in Quebec and in the rest of Canada for 20 years will create important economic opportunities for individuals seeking to or already qualified to work in the sector.

I further commend Air Canada's intention to facilitate the creation of a centre of excellence on aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, as well as in Quebec. That will create additional employment opportunities in this very important sector for our economy. The Government of Canada is pleased with Air Canada's announcement of its intention to purchase up to 75 Bombardier C Series aircraft. As I mentioned earlier, this is good news for all of Canada.

Finally, I would add that the C Series is a major advancement in aviation, and all of the industry is aware of that. All efforts, including those made by Bill C-10, that promote the advancement of the aerospace industry in Canada are most welcome by all members of the House and a large number of people outside the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, what the bill does is kill thousands of aerospace jobs in this country.

The government should not be proud of bringing forward the bill, but I have to comment on the absolute chaos we have seen from the government this morning. In 60 minutes, we have now gone through three pieces of legislation. We were told today was to be reserved for Bill C-14. That was what was placed on the projected order of business. We arrived this morning and the government said no, it would bring in Bill C-6, and then it switched rapidly to Bill C-10.

We know why the Liberals are bringing in Bill C-10. They are trying to provoke closure and bulldoze this through, because yesterday parliamentarians tied in their vote on Bill C-10. The bill is so bad, the legislation is so destructive to aerospace jobs in Canada, as you know, Mr. Speaker, you had to break the tie. It was 139 to 139. That has only happened 11 times in Canadian history, and in fact, it is the first time that a majority government and a government bill has seen a tie vote broken by the Speaker.

Is that not the real reason why sunny ways have turned into dark ways and why the Liberals are trying to bulldoze the bill through? It is because they are embarrassed by the results from yesterday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the minister.

The federal legislation that the Liberal Party was defending only four years ago stipulated that Air Canada had to keep its maintenance and servicing activities in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga.

The workers who lost their jobs four years ago began legal proceedings. They have rights. They took their case before the Quebec Superior Court, and they won. The case then went before the Quebec Court of Appeal, and they won. Their case is currently before the Supreme Court, and if the law does not change, they will win again.

I would like to know whether the minister plans to infringe on our rights as parliamentarians by imposing another gag order in the House to make it easier for the Liberals to trample all over the rights of the Aveos and Air Canada workers, who were going to win before the Supreme Court.

Is the minister in such a hurry because he wants to get Bill C-10 through as quickly as possible given that the Supreme Court is supposed to return to this case on July 15? Is that what he wants?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the right to use both official languages is a a fundamental feature of the House.

Yesterday, during the debate on Bill C-10, the members for Pierrefonds—Dollard, Mount Royal, and Laurentides—Labelle spoke only in English. Today, the member for Québec is speaking only in English.

I would like to know if there is something preventing people from speaking in French.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Third Reading

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was planning on sharing my time with my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. However, today we will not necessarily even get to the end of my own remarks.

Today we are debating an important economic bill in a high-value strategic industry. I was hoping to provide a snapshot of the historical context in which we find ourselves, the role of government in promoting this important industry, and then turn to the specific changes that Bill C-10 will make and the benefits it would have, not only for Air Canada, but for the aerospace sector and for Canadians at large.

An appropriate starting point is that the privatization of Air Canada in the 1980s, which has been canvassed well in the House, created a series of conditions that sought to retain the benefits that this airline presented within our own country's borders.

Fast forwarding to 2012, the conditions led in part to the bankruptcy of a major supplier when Aveos went bankrupt. This had a serious and significant impact for 2,600 workers. One thing I can say, from my experience on the committee and listening to debate in the House, is that every member of the House, from each party, takes seriously the importance of jobs to Canadians and to their families. Where we have a conceptual divide is how we tackle that problem.

When the government had the opportunity to deal with the final condition that was put on Air Canada when the Aveos litigation was suspended, we determined it was important to take action. This requirement put Air Canada in a narrow box and required that it conduct its maintenance operations in three specific urban centres, namely, the Montreal urban community, Winnipeg, and Mississauga.

Before I get too far down that path, it is important that we talk about the role of government in creating economic growth in this sector.

Some members of the House take the view that legislating how many jobs an industry player should have in different locations is a wise economic policy. However, in my view, the role of the government is to create economic conditions that would allow these important engines to create growth and employ Canadians. That is what Bill C-10 seeks to do.

This sector is extraordinarily important to Canada. Over 180,000 individuals are employed in the aerospace sector in Canada. There are 33,000 of them who are employed by Air Canada or its subsidiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are giving me the two-minute warning, so perhaps I will cut to the chase.

Bill C-10 will level the playing field. My friend from Mount Royal indicated that there are no other airlines that are bound by the same conditions as in Canada. In our deliberations on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we asked whether there were any in the world. None of the witnesses, including Transport Canada, who looked into it, could find a single example of an industry player who was hamstrung by the same economic conditions that we have placed on Air Canada. The playing field is not level, and Bill C-10 seeks to correct that issue.

By making Air Canada more competitive, our potentially most important player in this strategic sector will have the flexibility to allocate its resources so it can grow. When it has the freedom to choose its own economic policy, it can make investments into the sector that helped grow the economy for all of us. A perfect example is the recent purchase of the C Series jets. Air Canada has committed to 45 jets, with an option to buy 30 more. This will not only create jobs in the maintenance sector, through the centres of excellence that we referred to, but will also provide a boost to the manufacturing side of the aerospace industry, which represents 73% of the GDP contributed in this industry. Now 73% sounds like a lot, because it is, and in this sector there is $29 billion at stake annually; seventy-three per cent of that is on the manufacturing side.

If we allow Air Canada to be competitive, it will invest in the industry, which will have benefits not just in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga, but in different parts of the country. My own riding has the Halifax International Airport, and we have a small but important aerospace presence. Companies like Pratt and Whitney would love to be part of the manufacturing of these C Series jets. These jets are not only important because Air Canada is purchasing them, but with an anchor client in place, other clients come onboard, as can be evidenced by the recent purchase by Delta.

I see you are prepared to rise, Mr. Speaker. I take it that I am at the end of my time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an odd experience in this place. I have a new friend in the member for Cariboo—Prince George. We have actually found mutual friends. We are friends.

However, he was not here in the 41st Parliament. I do not like Bill C-10, but it is hard to sit and listen to accolades for a previous government that so disrespected Parliament and showed such contempt for democracy, and that in a daily way did violence to the things that I hold dear.

I just needed to stand and make the comment that even as I oppose Bill C-10, I continue to rejoice that the people I see across the way are trying to do better.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, especially to talk again about Bill C-10. I have risen a couple of times on this important legislation.

It is curious that the government is picking to run through this so quickly. It is legislation that the Liberals continue to say is for the best interest of Air Canada, to keep Air Canada competitive. They talk about the official opposition and its war on the aerospace industry, because we oppose the bill being rushed through.

The Liberals talk about their aerospace strategy but, really, the floor on the number of jobs in each province that Bill C-10 would impact is one, or it guarantees is one. It does not specify the nature of work that has to be done, but only that line maintenance could and probably does apply. Therefore, it is interesting that they talk about their aerospace strategy.

It should also be noted that the Liberals talk a lot about the centres of excellence that Air Canada will be building. It is critical for members of the House and for those Canadians who are listening to understand that if the law is changed today, there will be no incentive for Air Canada to remain at the table to negotiate with the Governments of Quebec and Manitoba, whether for this legislation or for the centres of excellence and the jobs associated with those. However, the government rides in on its white horse, saving the day for the aerospace industry.

The deputy premier of Manitoba was equally clear recently when she said:

The federal government's approach to Bill C-10 simply put is jumping the gun. Bill C-10 is being rushed through the process before the necessary specific investments and binding commitments by the federal government and Air Canada have been secured.

It is interesting that the member for Winnipeg North said that the Conservative Party did nothing. Again, the Liberals have ridden in on their white horse and are saving the day for the aerospace industry.

It is interesting again that, if their contention to saving the day is resolving litigation between Air Canada, Quebec, and Manitoba, then is Parliament stepping in and effectively siding with Air Canada in a dispute, with the legislation before us, after Quebec and Manitoba were in the court fighting Air Canada? Is it sound public policy? I guess we know what lengths the Liberal Party will go to help out its friends.

I sat through every debate. Obviously, with my background, I am keenly interested in this. Again, there has been a great healthy debate from all sides, but the language the government side is using is that this would give Air Canada a competitive advantage on an ever-changing global environment.

I think we mentioned this before, and I will go into some detail. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport did her best to talk about airline, airport, and aviation economics. Therefore, I would remind the House again about my background with that and some of the challenges that we face, given everything Air Canada has been granted over time.

I should probably have started off by saying that I am absolutely a fan of Air Canada. We have relatives and friends who are employed by Air Canada. However, this is about keeping and protecting jobs in Canada, and nothing else.

The government would like us and other Canadians to think that this is an attack on the aerospace sector, the 170,000 aerospace jobs throughout Canada, because fundamentally we are against Bill C-10 and what it would open up in shipping jobs overseas.

The proposed amendments to the 1988 Air Canada Public Participation Act means that the jobs of 3,000 Canadians who provide aircraft maintenance would and could be affected. Under the amendment, Canada would still be required to do some maintenance work in each of the three provinces, but as I said earlier, it is one job. It could be one engine overhaul or one oil job, and that is it.

Air Canada is allowed to change the type or volume of any or all of those activities in each of those provinces. As well, it is also allowed to adjust the level of employment in each and all of those areas. It will be free to dictate how many people will be employed by these centres, and what work they will do.

We continue to ask the question, why the rush? Today, for the very first time, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport mentioned Mirabel. We also heard that there will be other legislation in place that guarantees that these jobs will not be lost.

Why the rush? Why can we not have an honest debate? Why can we not have an honest discussion? The government continues to use the excuse that the legislation will make Air Canada more competitive. We all agree that it is time Air Canada becomes a private sector company that is not supported by taxpayers, that is competitive on the global stage, and it is.

We also agree that all of Canada's aviation, aerospace, and airlines should receive the same type of treatment. We should create an environment where Canada, as a whole, can compete, can be competitive, regardless of whether it is Air Canada or Pacific Coastal. We want a level playing field, and it does not have to come at the expense of high-quality, well-paying Canadian jobs.

I spent 20 years in aviation. I am aware, first-hand, of the challenges that our Canadian aviation sector faces, airport, airline, and regulatory impediments.

Air Canada, in 1988, inherited 109 aircraft. It came hat-in-hand to the Government of Canada and asked for some support, some help. It is the largest airline in the country, and it is an important international player in the sector. It has 28,000 employees. It goes to 180 destinations worldwide on five continents: 60 Canadian, 49 U.S., 72 international.

It is because of the government support of Air Canada over the years, and the taxpayer support over the years, that Air Canada is a global, international player, that it is one of the top carriers in the world. Today, Air Canada is the largest tenant at nearly every major airport in this country, with the exception of Calgary and Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, which we have debated before. Air Canada has significant influence over each airport's operations and access to the best landing slots in all of our major airports. It has that competitive advantage.

We welcomed the original intent of the Air Canada Public Participation Act when it was introduced in 1988, but let us remember why that act was put in place. The act put in place clear conditions to ensure that all of the support Air Canada received from the Government of Canada to turn it into a profitable crown corporation was not lost. It was to protect Canadian taxpayers.

There were four conditions. Air Canada would be subject to the Official Languages Act. It would maintain its headquarters in Montreal. Seventy-five per cent of its voting shares had to be held by Canadians, and finally, Air Canada had to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the city of Winnipeg, the Montreal urban community, and the city of Mississauga.

Given all of those recommendations, all of those parts of that legislation, the government picked one to change, to overhaul. Even the Canada transportation review released earlier this year, in February, the Emerson report, cited 60 recommendations, and it picked one.

Again, why the rush? While it is exactly unclear what level of benefit this legislative change will give Air Canada, one thing is clear and that is the intended change will make it possible for the carrier to move thousands of jobs from Canada to other jurisdictions. Today, the government informed the House that it is considering legislation that will protect those jobs.

Why now? Why, at this point, is the government bringing that up? It could have brought it up earlier on.

If we are talking about giving further competitive advantages to one of our national carriers, why do we not look at the industry as a whole? If Air Canada, after being afforded all of these competitive advantages previously and the protection of successive governments, is still having difficulties remaining competitive, it might be a sign that our national aviation industry needs a little overhauling.

Let me talk about some of the challenges that our aviation industry is facing as a whole. Air transport is a critical economic and social infrastructure. It provides access to trade and investment; connects people to jobs, friends, and family; and delivers vital goods and services to remote areas, such as medevac and critical life support. Geography, population size, and the environmental conditions in Canada increase the operational costs of air transport compared to other jurisdictions. While being a distinct advantage for some, it is a disadvantage for other carriers in Canada.

The Canadian passenger market is relatively mature and we have had some significant gains over the years. We are a market of about 122 million to 125 million emplaned and deplaned passengers. It pales in comparison to the emerging and developing markets around the world. In some measure, it is due to the very same policies developed for the industrial and economic environment of the 1990s. Simply put, the very same policies that were designed to protect our industry are now the ones hindering it.

Most of Canada's domestic air services are provided by Air Canada and WestJet nationally. We have a small number of regional and local air carriers that help serve the underserved market. Some of these small tier-three airlines are aligned with our national carriers and they allow for better customer service and connectivity. In the 1990s, Canada saw the Southwest Airlines low-cost model introduced by WestJet. This came at a time when consumers and communities were held hostage by predatory pricing by Canada's two major carriers at the time, Canadian and Air Canada.

Smaller communities throughout Canada and Canada's north are served by regional local carriers. Canada's main charter carriers are Transat and Sunwing, and those are focused primarily on seasonal vacation destinations. WestJet's entrance into the Canadian market in the early 1990s created excitement by offering low-cost travel. Actually, it allowed Canadians to experience air travel, some for the very first time. There was a time when air travel was only for the elite. It was considered glamourous and accessible only to those who could afford it. At one time, the cost of a round-trip ticket into my riding of Cariboo—Prince George from Vancouver was in the thousands of dollars; now it is in the hundreds. With the entrance of low-cost carriers and competition, air travel became easily afforded, and this stimulated market growth.

Both Air Canada and WestJet have now introduced lower costs, low fare, or charter subsidiaries such as Rouge and Encore. This has stimulated the growth in a number of markets. As we speak, there are currently a number of start-up low-cost carriers at various stages of financing that are expected to enter the market in the short term. This will ultimately lead to a price competition with existing carriers. For a time, our national carriers will react with greater seat sales and maybe even a few new routes. However, ultimately as the past will dictate, only new entrants with deep pockets will survive.

All this is to say that maybe it is time to reconsider policies that served us well when the Canadian aviation industry needed protection to flourish, but now impair our competitiveness. Of course, such protectionism comes at a cost that is largely borne by Canadian consumers who pay relatively high airfares and by a Canadian travel and tourism sector, which, also due to higher costs, has been losing market share for over a decade, unable to compete or go head to head with the big boys because the deck is stacked against them. Airline start-ups and failures are frequent, and ultimately the ones that suffer the most are the communities and ultimately the consumer.

I want to talk a bit about airports. The Conference Board of Canada estimates that Canadian airports in 2012 accounted for $4.3 billion in real GDP, but had a total economic footprint of $12 billion. Generating almost 63,000 jobs and contributing over $3 billion in federal and regional taxes, Canada's airports are vital to the success of the Canadian economy. They are key gateways for inbound and outbound tourism, business, and personal travel. Domestic, commerce, and international trade are all predicated on access to our Canadian public.

Canada is blessed with a strategic geographic location. We are at the crossroads of great circle routes between Asia, Europe, and the Americas. We have this competitive advantage that we as a nation have never fully taken advantage of. Our competition has successfully negated this competitive advantage with integrated policies and programs aimed at stimulating inbound tourism and facilitating connecting traffic through its global hubs, essentially overstepping, or to use an aviation term, overflying Canada.

Canada's airports face increasingly aggressive competition, competition from countries that have recognized the importance of air transportation as a driver of economic growth. Our neighbouring U.S. counterparts market directly to and easily access a large portion of Canada's U.S. transborder and international travel market. Our cargoes are shipped to U.S. ports and airports and then trucked across the line.

Canadian airports also compete with each other for the allocation of limited carrier capacity. Our regional airports and communities are oftentimes pitted against one another in competition for airline service. As mentioned during the Billy Bishop debate, Canadian airports also face challenging times, along with changing aircraft capacity, and a continued focus on environmental issues, such as noise and residential encroachment.

With the introduction of the national airports policy, a new framework was defined in relation to the federal government's role in aviation. This happened in the nineties. NAS airports, composed of the 26 airports across Canada that were deemed as critical links for our country, were deemed essential to Canada's air transport system. The airports served 94% of the air traffic in Canada. They were transferred under lease to the airport authorities, and in some cases, the municipalities. The infrastructure at many of these airports, if not all, was antiquated and in need of attention.

Through the transfer negotiations, reinvestment monies were given with the expectation that these airports were to do everything in their power to be self-sufficient. Airports have very few revenue-generation streams. With the transfer of airports and the new-found independence also came the realization that user-pay systems were needed. Airport improvement fees became the norm, and today we have airports that are incredible examples of the NAS transfer. We also have airports that have struggled to remain competitive and viable.

There are a number of things that we should be talking about with respect to our aviation policies and aerospace industry. For example, airport rents can represent up to 30% of airport operating budgets, far more than what would be expected in dividends and income tax from private, for-profit airports, such as those in Europe. Canada collects $300 million from airports across Canada, and they reinvest $50 million. Our NAV and security fees are among the highest in the industry. If we really want to become competitive, we need to fully integrate parts of our local transportation system. We need to look at aligning our foreign trade policy and our free trade policy with our air policy. We need to look at our tourism policies and align them with our trade policies.

As we speak, we have carriers and airports that are struggling. The current government wants to give one carrier a competitive advantage. It continues to stand before us and say that it will give Air Canada a competitive advantage. If it wants to show true leadership, it could align our policies and promotions. It could stimulate air travel to and from Canada. It could look holistically at our tourism, aviation, and trade policies and bring them all into alignment so that carriers, regardless of whether it is Air Canada, WestJet, or Pacific Coastal, to name a few, or the dozens of Canadian air carriers, can remain competitive.

This is low-hanging fruit, and the government is rushing it to look after its Liberal friends when really what it could be doing is taking a step back and re-evaluating Canada's aviation system as a whole. This is not an attack on the aerospace sector, as the government would like Canadians to believe, this is giving one company, one organization, a competitive advantage over others.

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

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague provide a brief comment on what I indicated earlier? We have had different stakeholders, from provinces to union representatives to many other industry representatives, that have ultimately played differing roles in trying to build a consensus. Bill C-10 is just one component of a bigger picture in the importance our aerospace industry. The passage of the bill would be a healthy thing for the long-term best interests of the aerospace industry.

Notice of Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take too much time because I know that my colleagues are looking forward to making comments on the excellent speech by my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

I want to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third 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 a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the people watching might be wondering why the member for Winnipeg North is making comments that are categorically untrue.

Having read and published in the field of legislative drafting and interpretation, I would remind the member that the three basic rules are as follows: read the act, read the act, and read the act. That is what I am about to do for him, so that he can understand what it is all about.

Bill C-10 is the reflection of the fundamental Liberal belief that, if one is rich and well connected, one can break the law. We saw that in the KPMG file: scofflaws and millionaires hiding their money in tax havens. It is not for no reason at all that we seen the Bronfman family being the Liberals' fundraisers. We remember when the Bronfmans went through their lawyers to Quebec City to try to change the law to allow them to bring back from the tax havens without tax. It was put to rest very quickly when they would not answer one simple question: how much would that cost taxpayers? Now, the new Liberal government here in Ottawa, in the KPMG file, has done everything to suppress the names of the scofflaws who hid millions of dollars in tax havens. They did not even charge them anything in terms of penalties when they brought that money back to Canada. What is the message there? It is to go ahead and break the law, because nothing will happen to them.

What are the Liberals doing with Air Canada? They are using all sorts of arguments and excuses, specious as they may be, to say it is really not fair in terms of competition that Air Canada is required to do its maintenance here. I remind members that the bill is called an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Why did we have a bill called the Air Canada Public Participation Act? It was because those brilliant managers, those extraordinary capitalists, those guys who really know that a buck is a buck is a buck came here to Ottawa with their hats held out and said, “Can you fill these with a bunch of taxpayer's dollars?” The government said they would have to do a couple of things in return. They would have to guarantee that they would respect provisions that required them to do their maintenance in Canada, and it specified the cities where that would take place. They are Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg. That is written down in a law.

One of the very foundations of democracy is that the law applies equally to everyone. No one is above the law, no one, that is, unless they are rich, well connected, and a friend of the Liberal government. It is false to claim that this bill is simply an update to modernize the existing legislation. This bill is meant to allow people who broke the law to do so with impunity, both retroactively and retrospectively.

Once again, I want to read something for my colleague from Winnipeg North.

These subsections that require the work to be done here in Canada “are deemed never to have come into force”. It would erase, retroactively, the crimes committed by Air Canada. Also, they are repealed retrospectively, making sure that no such offence exists anymore. That is called being connected to the Liberals. That is what entitlement looks like.

We hear the member of Parliament for Pierrefonds—Dollard, the member of Parliament for Mount Royal, and the member of Parliament for Laurentides—Labelle come into the House and try to justify the unjustifiable, and I can guarantee each and every one of them that we will never let the people of their ridings forget that they betrayed the aerospace workers in Quebec.

How shameful to listen to the members for Pierrefonds—Dollard, Mount Royal, and Laurentides—Labelle.

Everyone knows where the Laurentians are and how much aerospace there is in that region. The member stands up here and tries to justify the loss of 2,600 aerospace jobs in Quebec and Canada. How shameful for a member who calls himself a Quebecker.

I remember that, in Charles M. Schulz' Peanuts comics, every year Lucy would ask Charlie Brown if he would come and kick the football. Every year, Charlie Brown would say that she was going to pull it away and he was going to wind up flat on his back. Every year, he was promised that this time it would not happen.

I really have a feeling that the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North probably had a picture of Charlie Brown on the wall of his room when he was a kid, because he emulates Charlie Brown all the time.

He stood up here in the House of Commons today and said—and I wrote it down; it was quite something to hear—that we should not worry about it because we have “a tangible, solid commitment” from Air Canada, the company that has been breaking the law. If it is written in a law, duly enacted by the Parliament of Canada, nah, who cares, but we have “a tangible, solid commitment” that it will not pull the football away this time.

Guess what? We do not have anything from Air Canada. It has not set any of this down in the deal. This malarky about a centre of excellence, it is not going to happen. How can we trust a company that breaks the law to respect a deal that is not even enforceable?

It is interesting to listen to the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, because he pleads against himself every time he stands up in this House. He said that there are people across the aisle who said this is about legalizing the offshoring of jobs. Yes, that is what this is about. It is about legalizing the offshoring of jobs. That is what he is in favour of.

Then he said that, when he was in opposition, he used to stand out there with the workers. In solidarity, he would stand there. I remember the member for Papineau, today the Prime Minister of Canada, standing there with his fist in the air. By the way, it is a little bit like the Prime Minister's promise to restore door-to-door mail delivery.

The funny thing about people who like selfies and things like that is that they should remember that there are actually recordings of this stuff. We have the recording of him promising to bring door-to-door mail delivery, something he has forgotten in the meantime. However, there is also the recording of him standing there, when he thought it would help him get votes with workers, saying that he was going to stand up for them. Here is what he is doing now; he is standing up to vote against them. Shame on him.

My hon. colleague, the member for Winnipeg North also should read the part of the act that says that Air Canada is allowed to determine the type and volume of any or all of these activities. He is trying to pin some vague hope that he is not going to get slammed in his home province on the fact that there is this clause that says there should be work in Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario. The only problem is that, when it is written into law, it can get rid of any and all of that; if Air Canada does one repair on one motor in one year, then it has met what is now in the bill that the Liberals are putting forward.

We have lost thousands upon thousands of well-paying manufacturing jobs in this country, including thousands of well-paying aerospace jobs, and there is nothing that the Liberals are willing to do, except vote for a bill to let Air Canada retroactively off the hook. It is unprecedented in the history of the Parliament of Canada.

I do remember, a little while back, when another Liberal member of Parliament from Manitoba, the member of Parliament for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley—and for the people who do not know where that is, it is another Winnipeg riding—stood in this House and voted against the Liberal Party. That takes a certain amount of courage. He received accolades, well deserved, for his political courage.

I know a little about that, having been through it myself when I refused to sign an order in council that would have transferred land in a provincial park to developers to put in condos in Mont-Orford provincial park in Quebec. I quit cabinet rather than sign that, so I know that it takes courage.

What is astonishing today is to see the same member of Parliament for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley stand here in the House of Commons and vote against those same workers. Realizing he had created perhaps a bit of a conundrum for himself, he took to Twitter and other social media and started explaining that today's vote, in his view, was not that important because in third reading he could stand again and vote against the bill. The only problem is that, if the member of Parliament for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley had kept his conscience that he claimed to have had just a couple of weeks ago, then he would have managed to defeat the bill that he said was the problem. When he comes back in at third reading and votes against it as he claims he will, nothing is going to happen; the bill is still going to pass.

It is convenient to be a Liberal and to claim to have principles when it does not have any consequence, but when it could mean that a toxic bill from that same Liberal member's government that would be harmful to workers could be defeated, all sorts of rationalizations are found and that individual starts crowing on social media that he had no real intention of doing anything. That sort of hypocrisy deserves to be called out here in the House of Commons.

Let us be clear that the aerospace industry is the backbone of Canada's manufacturing sector. Because of the inertia, incompetence, and mismanagement of the Conservative government, which put all of our eggs in one basket, the oil and gas extraction sector, we lost hundreds of thousands of good jobs in the manufacturing sector.

All we have left is the aerospace sector, and the business geniuses in the front row on the Liberal side are telling us that they are waiting on a business plan from Bombardier. This is unbelievable. People who have never managed so much as the night shift at Burger King are saying they will demand that Bombardier come up with a business plan they agree with. Unbelievable.

I just want to say one thing: if the Liberals cared one iota about protecting and promoting Canada's aerospace industry, they would not be fooling around like they are right now. They would be standing strong and telling Air Canada, loud and clear, that the law was written and duly passed by the Parliament of Canada, that there is no escape clause for anyone, and that Air Canada must obey the law.

We hear the exact same argument from Air Canada in another field.

That is worth reiterating to the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, the hon. member for Mount Royal, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle, and the other members from Quebec who end up giving in and selling out Quebec every time. I am talking about systematic non-compliance with the Official Languages Act. We get exactly the same entitlement argument from Air Canada. The company wonders why it should be required to comply with the Official Languages Act because, after all, it is a matter of, you guessed it, being competitive.

What is the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle going to serve up as an excuse to justify this non-compliance with the Official Languages Act? He is going to say this is about modernization. Members only have to look, as I do every day, at the number of answers given in English to questions asked in French to see the truth in the old saying that in Ottawa there are two official languages: English and French translated into English.

Here on the front benches of the Liberal Party of Canada, the government, French no longer has a place. Instead of requiring Air Canada to comply with the Official Languages Act, the Liberals are going to do exactly the same thing. The Commissioner of Official Languages will soon be releasing his report on Air Canada's non-compliance with the Official Languages Act.

Does anyone think that the people who just gave Air Canada a free pass when it comes to keeping jobs in the aircraft repair and maintenance sector here in Canada are not going to do the same thing? Get real.

I am wondering if they believe their own argument that this is simply a matter of modernization when that is clearly not the case. The Liberals are giving a company that is not complying with the law a loophole, and that attitude is not going to change.

I look forward to seeing how the member for Laurentides—Labelle will attempt to justify the failure to comply with the Official Languages Act. When people ask an Air Canada flight attendant in French where to catch their connecting flight and the flight attendant responds, “I'm sorry, I don't speak French”, will the member tell the House that it is no big deal, that it is modernization, and that Air Canada should have the right to do what it wants?

That is the free pass that the government has just given Air Canada. That is the precedent the government is creating with regard to Air Canada. It is shameful that a rich and well-connected company is being given the right to break a law of Parliament.

Rather than giving Air Canada a free pass, the government should be honouring its obligation to enforce the law. It should be strictly enforcing the law and imposing sanctions on Air Canada, rather than doing the company favours by saying that it is no big deal and acting as though the law never existed.

Tangible, solid commitment—horse hockey, as they used to say on M*A*S*H.

There is nothing on the table from the scofflaw management at Air Canada that we can count on. They do not even think they have to obey the law. They do not think they had to obey the law that they dealt to get the money from Canadian taxpayers. They do not think they have to back up and respect the Official Languages Act because they have all of these Quebec MPs, every one of them, standing up one after the other doing nothing.

We had one person from one of the provinces affected. He was from Winnipeg. He stood up and got accolades for his courage. What did he do today? He folded his tent, he threw in his lot, and gave them the one vote they needed so that the 2,600 workers who lost their jobs at Aveos because of the non-respect of this legislation by Air Canada are now going to lose all hope. It is because of people like the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North that they are losing that hope. There is a large aerospace sector in Manitoba, and it is shameful that the member is letting Air Canada off the hook.

I listened carefully to what the Liberal members had to say. Although there are 40 Liberal members representing Quebec, only one member from Manitoba had the courage to rise and vote against this bill. They should all be ashamed of themselves. Not one Liberal stooge from Quebec had the decency and courage to say, “Enough is enough. The law applies to everyone, including Air Canada.”

The NDP members are going to do the same thing that we did this morning. I am pleased that the official opposition, the Conservative Party, is standing with us on this. I am also pleased that the member of the Green Party, who is still here this afternoon, is voting with us. If any of our Bloc colleagues were here, I would commend them too. However—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a false impression. The member can say what he wants to and provide his interpretation, but there are assurances and guarantees, in particular for Manitoba, as the member wants to make reference to the province of Manitoba. Manitoba will be given jobs. We are going to have jobs as a direct result. It might not fit into the member's speaking notes, but at the end of the day, there are going to be jobs there. There is going to be a centre of excellence. I would hope that our aerospace industry will continue to grow and prosper.

As I alluded to earlier, the NDP wants to say that it is the working-class, working-man party and so forth, as they applaud in the background. However, I sat for many years in opposition, and I witnessed NDP governments first-hand. I can assure members that they are no friend to the workers. I can give endless examples as to why I believe that to be the case. I suspect that we are hearing a lot of rhetoric coming from the New Democratic Party, and it is unfortunate.

Bill C-10 should be about protecting jobs into the future, and working in collaboration with the different stakeholders so that we are able to come together. Ultimately, this is a part of the solution.

We on the government side recognize that Bill C-10 is part of a solution. The NDP seems to be fixated on something that is just not there.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member for Winnipeg North was wondering why members of the opposition are reporting the bill as being a licence to ship jobs overseas. I am happy to illuminate as to why that would be the case, and I will give him three specific examples.

First of all, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley had the courage to stand up for his constituents and break away from the government. He was an hon. member of Parliament on that side who listened to his constituents and stood up for jobs. That is reason number one.

With regard to reason number two, I have been present for the debate for Bill C-10, and Liberal after Liberal has stood up in the House and talked about finding efficiencies. For me, that is a subtext that corporations use to justify shipping jobs overseas.

Third is the most important reason, and maybe I will help the member by actually reading the text of the bill:

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.

That is in the legislation. That is legalizing layoffs. It would allow the corporation the freedom to ship jobs overseas.

My question for the member is this. Is there any wonder as to why we are left with this impression?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments. He has made a voluminous set of comments so far in the House.

I would like to remind the member that when we are speaking about the provinces that will be affected by this, and I am speaking about the province of Manitoba, then I would always defer to the premier of the province to decide what is best for the province, especially on the issue of jobs. They are the ones saying that the bill will have serious impacts on the aerospace industry in Manitoba.

I am looking here at the press release of the current Manitoba government. It is referencing February 2016, and it says, “In February 2016, the previous government wrote the federal government requesting that amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act be limited to expanding the geographical scope of Air Canada’s commitments within Manitoba.”

This is the current government saying that the previous government was basically not onside on Bill C-10. The current government is not onside with Bill C-10. In fact, the minister was saying seven days ago, and it was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, that the bill would affect jobs, that it would lose jobs, and that it is bad for the aerospace industry.

Therefore, my question to the member opposite is, why does he not support Manitoba jobs in the aerospace industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit much, actually somewhat overwhelming, to hear members of the Conservative Party try to pretend that they have an ounce of credibility when it comes to the aerospace industry, whether it is my home province of Manitoba, or Quebec or Ontario.

I have listened to member after member being critical of the government, a government that has done more for the aerospace industry, trying to resolve an outstanding issue that has been there because of Conservative neglect five years ago. They stand in their place today and try to tell us that we are not doing our homework, we are not doing consultation and so forth. It is incredible that they would have the courage to stand in their places and say some of things they are saying.

The previous speaker asked who was interested in this bill. Individuals who are genuinely concerned about the future of Canada's aerospace industry have an interest in the bill.

The Conservatives say that the Manitoba government opposes the bill. We just had an election in Manitoba where there was a change in government, and yes, I am okay with the change in government. I congratulate my daughter who is sitting in the Manitoba legislature for the first time today as a part of that change, and there will be a throne speech from Manitoba today.

We need to recognize that we had two provincial governments taking action many years ago because the Conservative government refused to take action. That is the reason why there was a need for consultation. Had it not been for the provincial governments of Quebec and Manitoba, who knows where we would be today. The Conservative government adamantly refused to get engaged on what I thought was a very important issue.

I will get into that right away, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport said something that I thought was very appropriate. This is about perception. She said, “The opposition members would have us believe that Bill C-10 would legalize the offshoring of aircraft maintenance and that the alternative to this bill would be that the former Aveos employees would be re-employed. Let me be clear. The alternative to Bill C-10 is not the reinstatement of jobs lost as a result of the failure of Aveos.” She went on to say, “Also, Bill C-10 does not legalize the offshoring of aircraft maintenance.”

If we listen to what Conservatives and the New Democrats are talking about in regard to Bill C-10, that is the impression one would get. How could we possibly pass Bill C-10 because thousands of jobs would be permanently lost, that we would see an exodus of jobs leaving Canada because we did not support maintenance being done in Canada, in particular in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario?

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport pointed out so accurately, that is just not the case. When we look at Bill C-10, what I believe we have is part of an equation that would be in the long-term best interests of Canada's aerospace industry. When I say the long-term interest, I am referring to good quality jobs for this industry and ensuring that Canada will continue playing a leading role in the development of an industry that has so much potential worldwide. It is important that the government do what it can to not only save the jobs that are there today, but look at ways in which we can invest in industries.

We recognize that the aerospace industry is worthy of government attention. That is why we have a collective vested interest with respect to Bombardier to ensure we do what we can to protect those jobs. I know that Cromer in my home province of Manitoba is having some issues. I am concerned about those jobs also. There jobs are of great importance. We want the government to give some attention to where it can and play a leading role.

What I like about the budget is it recognizes the importance of research and development. It recognizes the importance of how we shape industries going forward. This is where the previous Conservative government was lacking.

Before I provide more comment with respect to Bill C-10, it is important to go back a number of years when this whole issue began, so members will have a better understanding with respect to where I am coming from, and ultimately the Liberal Party when it was in opposition.

When the decision was made with respect to the reallocation and shifting over of maintenance jobs, the decision was being implemented at a time when I had just recently been elected in a by-election. Therefore, I very much wanted to get a good understanding of it. I virtually went from the Manitoba legislature directly into opposition in Ottawa. I was very aware of the importance of the aerospace industry to the province of Manitoba.

We had many debates inside the Manitoba legislature with respect to just how important that industry was, just as it is today, to our province and the city of Winnipeg. There was a lot of focus on Air Canada and the Air Canada Public Participation Act, whether with respect to pilots, trainers, or individuals who provided all forms of different services. Therefore, I was already somewhat aware of the importance of the issue.

I saw what Air Canada was doing. Therefore, when I came to Ottawa, I took it upon myself to dive into it. Members of the Liberal caucus at the time were very supportive because collectively we recognized the importance not only to the province of Manitoba, but also to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as other provinces, in particular the province of British Columbia. Therefore, on several occasions I was afforded the opportunity to express the feelings and thoughts that were coming out of the caucus.

In fact, going back to 2011-12, the previous government made the decision that it would not intervene. One of the first things I did was challenge the then prime minister directly in question period with respect to what he would do to protect our workers and aerospace industry. The record should show that I attempted to bring an emergency debate on the issue of Air Canada. I can recall participating in rallies and in numerous meetings with workers and industry representatives in my home province. We even started a petition through a postcard campaign in which I received hundreds of cards from many different constituencies.

The concern was there and it was very real. We had petitions. We spent a great deal of time trying to get the government of the day to recognize its responsibilities. However, for whatever reasons, it chose not to. I had written the provincial government at the time and encouraged it to take legal actions against Air Canada, believing that this was in fact what the province of Manitoba needed to do. I was glad when the province of Quebec recognized the importance of taking legal action.

I worked with many of the different union workers in particular. I can recall walking up to our new airport where we had a significant rally in support of the workers, in support of getting Air Canada to do the responsible thing. I focused my attention on the Conservatives when they were in government, but I really do not recall that proactive action coming from today's third party, then the official opposition, and it had far more tools than we had. We are very much aware nowadays, because we see some action being taken and that third party being somewhat exercised, proclaiming it is interested in the worker today. However, the best I can recall, at least at the rallies I attended, I did not see any representation from that third party.

When I look at Bill C-10 today, I see legislation that has ultimately been brought forward because of the efforts of the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, and many different workers and their unions, which played a very important role in keeping the issue alive,. Today we have governments and stakeholders recognizing that there is a window of opportunity for a real, tangible settlement. As my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, has pointed out, that does not mean individuals who were so poorly treated and impacted by what took place years ago will be reinstated. It is most unfortunate, and I feel very passionate about those workers and the manner in which they were treated.

However, where we do see some hope and a silver lining, is that it would appear there could be the opportunity through the different levels of government and the different stakeholders where we will get some guarantees that will help our aerospace industry going forward. I am pleased to see this. For many years when I sat in opposition, I did not see any national leadership or initiative that would have seen our industries protected in any fashion whatsoever. I did not see a proactive Conservative government on the issue.

Here we are, having been in government since October. Months ago we expressed the interest in working with the different stakeholders and listening to what in particular the province of Quebec had indicated with Air Canada, not wanting to continue to seek that legal action because there would appear to be some sort of an agreement in place.

I do not want to say that I know all of the details. I do have a sense of what is taking place. I love the fact that Winnipeg would get a centre of excellence out of this. I love the fact that many jobs would be created in Winnipeg because of this, that there would be a guarantee.

One of the amendments is to recognize that it is being changed to Manitoba, not just Winnipeg. As with the province of Quebec, it is not going to be just Montreal; it is being expanded. We need to be sensitive to our rural communities that are trying to develop their aerospace industry. That is a positive change being seen in the legislation.

At the end of the day, members have a choice. They can say that they support the Conservative approach from the past, which we know did nothing to support the aerospace industry, or they can recognize what the Government of Canada has been able to accomplish. Is it absolutely and totally perfect? I would love to see a much-expanded aerospace industry. Does the bill guarantee it? There is no absolute guarantee that the bill will lead to thousands of jobs. However, it will lead to many jobs.

If we take this legislation, the budget, the party's commitment to research and development, and the idea of trying to get the middle class empowered and working more, we will see a healthier aerospace industry, not only for the short term but for the long term.

We have a government that is taking a more comprehensive approach in terms of dealing with a very important industry to all of Canada, and not just in the three places that have been listed most often during this debate. I recognize that there was a change in government in the province of Manitoba. Greg Selinger, the former premier of Manitoba, was very much in support of what was taking place. The Province of Quebec also sees the opportunity to get some of those job guarantees that are so critically important to the province. We would have a tangible, solid commitment from Air Canada. There would indeed be benefits from the passage of Bill C-10.

If people say they are concerned about the aerospace industry in our country, or they are concerned about the workers and the potential workforce going forward, then they should seriously look at supporting Bill C-10. Members ask who else supports it. There are many direct and indirect opportunities through the aerospace industry that I believe will ultimately materialize in jobs. Given the opportunity to now make a change that is going to allow a stronger sense of security and build on an element of trust going forward, I believe the aerospace industry as a whole will benefit.

I would encourage members to support the bill. This is perhaps a good way for me to conclude. When I reflect on the workers who were shafted four or five years ago by government inaction, my heart and prayers go out to those families who had a great deal of hardship as a direct result. Whether the bill passes or does not pass, there are at least some members who are prepared to fight for the aerospace industry. It is critically important that we have a healthy aerospace industry that includes jobs of maintenance, that appreciates the work that is not only being done within the legislation, but as part of the federal budget. That will make a difference, and more Canadians will be employed in that very important industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would repeat the comments made by my colleague with respect to Bill C-10, which is obviously a very important piece of legislation for the aerospace industry. Something that really needs to be highlighted is that, in a relatively short time span, we have seen the federal government working with the different stakeholders to try to protect our aerospace industry in three provinces in particular. However, it goes beyond just Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, because we believe in Canada's aerospace industry and want to see it excel.

Could the member provide some of her thoughts or comments as to why it is important that, as a national government, we demonstrate leadership in working with the different stakeholders, which in good part is what ultimately has led to seeing this legislation that we have here today? At the end of the day, we will have a healthier aerospace industry, because that is something on which this government is committed to work.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to debate Bill C-10, proposing amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

I would like to take a few minutes to explain why the Government of Canada believes this is an appropriate moment to modify the almost 30-year-old act. This is about promoting Canadian industry at home and giving Canadian companies the best chance to compete in global markets.

By amending the provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act dealing with Air Canada's aircraft maintenance activities, this bill seeks to ensure that the air carrier can compete in keeping with the evolution of the global transport sector.

The amendments to paragraph 6(1)(d) modernize the legislation by increasing the flexibility of Air Canada to make business decisions in response to market forces and competition. The amendments will remove reference to specific cities, recognizing that this work may take place in wider regions. As has already been noted, the Montreal urban community, which is currently referenced in the act, only included Montreal Island and did not even embrace Mirabel.

The bill also clarifies that the act is not prescriptive in terms of particular types or volumes of such maintenance in each location. Through this bill, a new subsection would be added to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. It would be clarified further that Air Canada may change the volume or type of aircraft maintenance that it will carry out or cause to be carried out in each of the aforementioned provinces, or the level of employment in those activities.

Let us first recall that the Air Canada Public Participation Act's primary purpose was to convert a crown corporation into a thriving and competitive private corporation, in an industry that is characterized by aggressive competition, strong cyclical business patterns, minimal profit margins, and sensitivity to external shocks.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act was brought into force in 1989 to provide the federal government with the legal framework to privatize Air Canada. It also requires the airline to have provisions regarding where it will carry out maintenance, the use of official languages, and where its headquarters will be located.

Other airlines, Air Canada's competitors from Canada and abroad, are not subject to such conditions. This dated legislation now runs the risk of inhibiting Air Canada's ability to be competitive, both domestically and internationally.

Other carriers, Air Canada's competitors, are not subject to the same rules, which means that foreign carriers and other Canadian carriers are able to conduct their aircraft maintenance activities in ways that drive efficiencies and enhance their cost competitiveness.

On May 2, 2016, witnesses at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said that costs are one main component that any airline has that must be addressed. Indeed, costs are very much tied up in maintenance. Maintenance costs are around 10% to 15% of any airline's cost structure.

The market conditions in which Air Canada operates are now greatly different from that of 1989. The 1980s were characterized by deregulation, and since that time the world has seen a proliferation of new air carriers as well as new airline business models. In June 1980, the then president of the International Air Transport Association reported that its membership was composed of 100 airlines from 85 nations. Today, its membership is composed of 260 airlines.

In short, the air carrier marketplace is now much more competitive. This is a good thing. It benefits travellers, and it pushes the airlines to be as efficient as possible. However, we must ensure that our carriers are able to compete themselves, or we risk limiting Canadians' connectivity and threatening the economic viability of these carriers.

The Canadian marketplace has also evolved. By the end of the 1990s, Canadian Airlines International ceased operations, reducing the extent of competition. Other carriers, like Canada 3000, also came and went. However, since then, there has been a flourishing of growth among Canadian companies. WestJet, Porter, Transat, Sunwing, and others provide travel options for Canadians. I should also note the important role by foreign carriers in offering travel options to and from Canada.

New carriers have emerged that are changing the global competitive landscape. In key competition markets, such as the United States and the European Union, carriers have restructured or merged.

We heard in committee from key industry experts. As mentioned in committee by one witness:

We no longer see government-owned airlines in any meaningful way as we did 30 years ago, and this is especially important in the maintenance industry. This industry today is very unlike the maintenance industry of 30 years ago. This industry has evolved into huge economies of scale and specialization

Air Canada continues to provide vital connectivity both within our vast country and to the outside world. It is also an important source of employment and opportunities. In 2015, Air Canada, with its Air Canada Express partners, exceeded 40 million passengers and offered direct passenger service to more than 200 destinations on six continents. Air Canada alone employs around 28,000 people, and that number rises to 33,000 when its partner air carriers are included.

Our air sector has also weathered some difficult times, including the tragic events of 9/11, global pandemics, and the recent economic crisis, yet it continues to robustly offer service options to Canadians. In short, we have come a long way since the 1980s when the government of the day created this law and we left behind a highly regulated sector.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act has achieved its primary objective of successfully privatizing Air Canada. Now, given that times have changed and the air transport sector has evolved, it is also important to ensure that this statute remains up to date. In particular, the provisions of the act that deal with aircraft maintenance risk hampering Air Canada's competitiveness by limiting its ability to organize its activities in a way that responds to the evolution of the sector. Furthermore, given Air Canada's role in providing Canadians' connectivity, this could also impact on the overall competitiveness and cost of air transport throughout the country.

It has been suggested that by way of Bill C-10, the government is not supporting workers in Canada's maintenance, repair, and overhaul sector. It has also been suggested that this legislation would allow Air Canada to eliminate its aircraft maintenance work in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. Of course, we expressed great concern about the impact on workers and their families as a result of the bankruptcy of Aveos Fleet Performance in 2012. Furthermore, at that time, we pressed Air Canada and the Conservative government to act in the best interests of workers.

By placing limits on Air Canada's ability to drive efficiencies in its operations, we are increasing its costs. This in turn will be felt by Canadian travellers and shippers. This could also cause Air Canada to lose market share, resulting in reduced employment in Canada. We have heard in testimony that maintenance accounts for about 15% of Air Canada's costs. Therefore, if our legislation pushes up those costs, it could have important implications for the company's competitiveness.

We have also heard that heavy maintenance is increasingly concentrated in locations specializing in particular aircraft. I note that Air Canada is the only Canadian carrier with a significantly varied fleet, involving large numbers of wide and narrow-body aircraft. It is also the only Canadian carrier with a complex global network, covering multiple continents, and thus in competition with the world's major carriers.

In 2015, Air Canada, with its Air Canada Express partners, exceeded 40 million passengers, and offered direct passenger service to more than 200 destinations on six continents. Air Canada alone employs nearly 25,000 people.

This leads me to the second point, which is about economic opportunities for Canada's aerospace sector. Air Canada and Quebec have indicated their intention to end their litigation regarding the carrier's compliance with the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This announcement came on the heels of Air Canada's declared intention to purchase up to 75 Bombardier C Series aircraft and to ensure that these planes will be maintained in Canada for at least 20 years, as well as to collaborate in the establishment of a world-class centre of excellence in Quebec.

This announcement was followed by another significant piece of news. Quebec and Air Canada decided to seek an end to their litigation, which had been based on the Air Canada Public Participation Act. As part of the agreement between Quebec and Air Canada, the carrier committed to supporting the creation of a centre of excellence for aircraft maintenance in Montreal, as well as committing to maintain its fleet of newly acquired Bombardier CS300 aircraft in Quebec for 20 years following delivery. This is an important development for Canada's aerospace sector. It further underscores Montreal's position as an international aerospace cluster with big industry players located there, such as Pratt & Whitney, CAE, Bombardier, and of course, Air Canada itself. This is an excellent opportunity for Air Canada to assist in ensuring that Canada is the global centre specializing in the maintenance of this aircraft.

The Air Canada-Quebec agreement will allow the carrier to benefit from cutting-edge aircraft technology produced here in Canada. It will also result in significant benefits from the aerospace industry, including aircraft maintenance right across the country. This is the sort of investment that the aerospace sector needs. Quebec and Manitoba indicated that these conditions create a context in which they would be willing to discontinue their litigation against Air Canada. These developments provide us with an opportunity to rethink our approach and look for opportunities for improvement.

Beyond business, let us not forget that the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization is headquartered in Montreal, along with the International Air Transport Association and Airports Council International, among others. Federal officials identified specific concerns around the maintenance provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act because they create challenges for Air Canada's ability to be competitive. Specifically, they prevent Air Canada from doing what other carriers do, which is to organize its supply chain to optimize efficiency.

The intention of Air Canada, Quebec, and Manitoba to discontinue their litigation creates an appropriate context to modernize the act, and indicates that the parties are working together toward a similar objective: the growth of Canadian prosperity. However, let me be clear. We continue to believe that Air Canada should commit to undertaking aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. As well, we intend for this to be stipulated in the law.

However, we need to provide Air Canada with the flexibility to meet these requirements to compete in an evolving global marketplace. We cannot predict how the airline industry will evolve in the future. Whatever happens, our carriers will need to adjust to meet the challenges and remain competitive. Air Canada needs the flexibility to enable it to adapt to changing market conditions. Bill C-10 would allow us to target the right balance between such flexibility and the continued expectation that the carrier will undertake aircraft maintenance in Canada.

I believe it is important that Air Canada continue to bring high value-added aircraft maintenance work to Canadian communities. The recent announcements regarding additional work in Montreal and Winnipeg show that the carrier is willing to do that; and Bill C-10 would further reinforce this expectation. The time is now to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act to reflect the reality that, to be able to compete effectively, Air Canada must have the flexibility to take decisions for its business in response to evolving global markets. This is good for the carrier, and it is good for Canadians.

The opposition members would have us believe that Bill C-10 would legalize the offshoring of aircraft maintenance and that the alternative to this bill would be that the former Aveos employees would be re-employed. Let me be clear. The alternative to Bill C-10 is not the reinstatement of jobs lost as a result of the failure of Aveos.

Also, Bill C-10 would not legalize the offshoring of aircraft maintenance. It was the choice of Air Canada and Quebec to announce that they were willing to seek an end to their litigation with respect to Air Canada's compliance with the Air Canada Public Participation Act. However, it is important to underscore that the litigation did not hold out any guarantee that the carrier would recreate the level of employment that existed prior to 2012 or hire back the same workers who lost their jobs.

I repeat, the time is now to update the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to achieve this balance. I encourage all members to vote in favour of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I gather that once again, on the pretext of competitiveness, we are going to sacrifice 2,600 good jobs in Canada even though these jobs were protected by federal law.

The government has not provided any economic or financial proof that Bill C-10 is crucial to Air Canada. On the contrary, it is trying to give the company a present at the expense of the workers who have lost their livelihoods.

Is that surprising, given that the Minister of Transport told us in committee that he met with representatives from the industry and Air Canada 12 times and he never met with the workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

We thought that the Conservatives were the champions of closure motions. However, surprise, surprise, after promising a new way of doing politics and a new approach, the Liberals are going down the same path and imposing closure motions one after the other.

In the case of Bill C-10, first, there is no evidence that Air Canada absolutely needed to be freed from its legal obligations toward the maintenance workers.

Second, why impose closure and rush things? That is a very good question. I think the lawsuit the workers won in Quebec Superior Court and then in the Court of Appeal will soon be heading to the Supreme Court. The Liberal government is in a hurry to help its friends, the bosses at Air Canada, win their case in the Supreme Court. Why is it in such a hurry? The Supreme Court resumes hearing this case on July 15, right after Parliament rises for the summer around Quebec's national holiday.

It is no coincidence. They are trying to get rid of something unpleasant. They do not want to be seen as the ones who killed 2,600 jobs, and they do not want to allow the Aveos workers to win their case in the Supreme Court. They are therefore getting rid of the hot potato as fast as they can.

However, I am sure that people are going to cotton on to the Liberal hypocrisy and the fact that they completely changed their tune in the span of just four years and they are doing nothing to help the aerospace sector when it comes to aircraft maintenance.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Manitoba should be ashamed of his comments and his position.

Under the bill that the Liberals had the nerve to introduce, the only guaranteed work will be one part-time job in Montreal, another in Winnipeg, and yet another in Mississauga. That is all it takes to comply with the act.

When it comes to letting workers down, the Liberals do not need lessons from anyone. On the contrary, they could give lessons in that regard. That is exactly what they are doing with Bill C-10. That is exactly what they are doing with the employment insurance fund. They pilfered $55 billion belonging to unemployed workers from that fund and they are continuing to help themselves now that they are back in office. That was very clear in their last budget. What is more, no pilot projects were extended for workers and unemployed workers in Quebec.

We will take no lessons from the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to carry on with this important debate. This morning, we tried to neutralize the destructive aspect of Bill C-10 and put it on ice in order to continue to guarantee good jobs for the people back home.

However, since we must resume this debate, I will hammer away at some critical points. Today, I talked about the legal aspect of these actions and how the Aveos workers assigned to an Air Canada subsidiary had every right to keep doing what they excel at.

These very skilled people in the Montreal metropolitan area, Winnipeg, and Mississauga did an excellent job maintaining large aircraft such as Boeings and Airbuses. That allowed them to support their families and contribute to the economic development of the cities named in the 1988 Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Naturally, these workers, whose right to be protected by federal law was violated, took action and decided to sue. When they won in the Superior Court, Air Canada appealed, and the workers won in the Court of Appeal as well. Now, Air Canada wants to push these employees all the way to the Supreme Court, where they are likely to win again, which would force Air Canada to recognize the law and its obligations and to keep its heavy maintenance operations in the cities set out in the act.

Now, the Liberal government is reneging on its own promises and is retroactively legalizing an activity or decision that had been deemed illegal by two courts of law.

I have to wonder, and this is an essential question under the rule of law. Since when can a government retroactively make something legal? This is quite worrisome. Where will it end? Is this how a country makes laws? Is this how we show people how to respect legislators' decisions? I do not think so. This sets quite a dangerous precedent. I do not want it to become the norm to change the rules of the game, not just during the game, but after the game is done. The NDP is very worried about this.

The 40 Liberal members from Quebec, those from Manitoba, and those from Mississauga should stand up to protect jobs in Quebec, Winnipeg, and Mississauga. Aside from one MP from Manitoba who stood up a few weeks ago to vote against Bill C-10 at second reading, not a single other Liberal member had the courage to stand up for the Air Canada employees who have been left high and dry by this government.

Earlier today, that same Liberal MP from Manitoba changed his version of the facts and refused to let Bill C-10 die at report stage as the opposition members proposed this morning.

The Liberal MP from Manitoba is trying to pull the wool over our eyes when he says that it is a matter not of conscience but of procedure. He said that he might oppose the bill at third reading even though his vote today ended up extending the debate when we could have just pitched this bill in the trash and saved 2,600 jobs across the country, including hundreds in the Winnipeg area.

I invite all of my Liberal colleagues from Manitoba and Quebec to step up and honour their own word as well as what the Liberal Party leader said in 2012 here on Parliament Hill in defence of the good jobs held by Aveos workers. What happened to those good intentions? Why give Air Canada this gift? Why are they abandoning our economic development in such a high-tech sector? Canada has very few sectors that are thriving quite as much as aerospace and aeronautics. The Liberal government just dealt the industry a very harsh blow. Governments everywhere else in the world support this sector.

They talk vaguely about Air Canada's future investments in future centres of excellence, which may come with future jobs to maintain future planes that have not yet been purchased so are not yet operational and therefore not in need of maintenance. None of this guarantees a thing. It is all hot air. At best, it is a house of cards.

The Liberals are trying to cling to Air Canada's slim promise that it will establish a centre of excellence in Trois-Rivières. However, they know full well that the runway at the regional airport is not even long enough to accommodate the jumbo jets that provided most of the work for Aveos employees in Montreal. We already know that this is not a viable option, that it is a flight of fancy, pun intended.

The Liberal Party fought tooth and nail for the good jobs in Quebec. However, now the Liberals have changed their tune and are passing a bill that will waive any requirement for Air Canada to have its aircraft maintained and repaired here in Canada. We do not understand. Does the Liberal Party think that legalizing the massive export of our good jobs is a job creation plan?

The New Democrats think that people deserve better. In our opinion, Canadians deserve a government that keeps its promises and stays true to its word.

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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not Les cornichons. I apologize to my colleague. I am talking about L'opportuniste. I will not sing today, although I have in the past. Nevertheless, here is what Mr. Dutronc said in this song:

There are those who do contest
Who make demands and who protest
There's just one thing I always do:
I change my tune, I change my tune
Always singing the right song
I don't fear those who take advantage
Or people who are causing damage
I trust in voters, as I should
It's how I make my livelihood
There are those who do contest
Who make demands and who protest
There's just one thing I always do:
I change my tune, I change my tune
Always singing the right song
...
I've changed my tune so many times
No longer are there any rhymes
With the next big thing that comes along
I'll be singing a brand new song

That song describes the Liberal Party's stance from 2012 to 2016 to a T. The Liberals said they stood strong with working men and women. Right here on Parliament Hill, the current Prime Minister, who was then the leader of the Liberal Party, said that we had to keep these good jobs here at home. He had the nerve to chant “so, so, so, solidarity”. Today, barely four years later, they would have us believe the situation has changed completely and all of that is in the past, as though 2012 were a very long time ago.

The Liberals say they sympathize with the 2,600 families that have lost their jobs because of the Aveos debacle and Air Canada's illegal actions. They are crying big old crocodile tears. In 2012, they said they supported those people, but they show no remorse about ditching them now that they are in government. Oddly, we have seen that kind of attitude from the Liberals before.

I hope that those 2,600 families will remember the Liberal government's attitude and how it broke its promises and did the opposite of what the Liberals asked the government to do when they were in opposition. They wanted to keep good jobs here. Now, they are saying it is okay to export huge numbers of jobs abroad to places like Israel, the United States, and Honduras. They could not care less whether our own people work or not.

The Liberals were perfectly happy to chant “solidarity” when they were in opposition, but now that they are in government, they are not walking the talk. They do not have the courage of their convictions, and the current Prime Minister is the biggest hypocrite of all in this abysmal production.

We cannot trust the Liberal Party when it comes to Air Canada workers. In 2012, it told the then Conservative government that it absolutely had to enforce the law to protect these good, well-paying jobs in the aerospace sector across the country. It said that we must stand up for the people in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg. That attitude has gone out the window.

Not only is the Liberal Party not enforcing the law, but it is changing it in order to suddenly make it legal to export these good jobs. Workers who have been fighting to keep their good jobs for the past four years have been brought to their knees.

I think this is pathetic coming from a government that promised real change if elected to power. To the Liberals, change does not mean enforcing a law to keep good jobs here in Canada, but rather changing the law to legalize job losses.

This about-face is not just about changing their tune. It is also about language. I noted that earlier today in the speech by the Minister of Families. He promised a better future and a rosy outlook for people in the aerospace industry when in fact the Liberals are authorizing the loss of 2,600 jobs.

The interesting thing about the Liberal minister's comments was the use of certain words. Earlier, in a question, I referred to his use of Orwellian language, language used by the author George Orwell, who wrote Animal Farm, 1984, and Homage to the Catalonia, among other works.

Since taking office, the Liberals have not just changed their tune; they have also changed their language. Before, they wanted to stand up for high-quality jobs in Canada. Now, they are making vague promises about the future and telling us that everything is going to work out. Earlier, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development used the word “concrete”. That is just great because, in my experience, every time the government is trying to be vague or evasive about something, it uses the word “concrete” more and more. The Liberals are trying to hide the fact that, in reality, there is no concrete possibility of jobs. The jobs they are talking about do not exist. The government is killing 2,600 jobs with Bill C-10, but it has not made any promises or given any guarantees that Air Canada will create any aircraft maintenance jobs in Canada. It is rather fascinating. The government is talking about how Air Canada may one day establish centres of excellence to take care of the C Series planes that the company plans to buy because they may need to be maintained. We will see who is in office then. It certainly sounds good, but for now it is all talk. The government is using words like “concrete” when it has absolutely nothing to put on the table.

Bill C-10 will gut all the provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act that keep jobs in Canada. There is no mention of a minimum number of jobs, volume of activity, or the percentage of the Air Canada fleet that must be maintained in Canada. Ultimately, what the Liberal's Bill C-10 means is that there could be one part-time job in Manitoba, another in Ontario, and another in Quebec, and that everything would be fine because the law will not have been violated. We were previously talking about 2,600 good jobs; that is obviously being scrapped.

I wonder if that is the Liberal Party's job creation plan. Are they authorizing the massive export of our jobs to other countries? All we have heard from the government is that we have to help Air Canada be competitive. What can that really mean? Does it mean that we are going to export all jobs abroad because people elsewhere just happen to be paid miserly wages and that our families will no longer be able to put food on the table? Does it mean that to be competitive we will help companies that make winter coats and boots send their operations to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh because the people there work for one dollar an hour? Is that what will be done routinely? Are we going to let all our companies manufacture and maintain things abroad and not have any good jobs left in Canada? Is that the Liberals' job creation plan?

I am extremely concerned about this because the Liberals keep going on and on about how we have to look forward and be competitive and support Air Canada. The minister said that the government met with people from the industry. Yes, they met with people from Air Canada. Did they meet with any workers? No, they did not. Did they meet with any of the machinists' union representatives? No, they did not meet with them, not once.

The Minister of Transport was patting himself on the back for meeting with Air Canada representatives 12 times, but he did not have a single meeting with any Aveos workers. Is this the kind of balance and new governance we can expect from the Liberal Party? It is extremely disappointing and extremely shocking.

We have seen no evidence over the past few weeks that Air Canada needed to be rescued so badly by the Liberal Party, so that the company could then send jobs out of Canada. Air Canada needs help. The Liberals would have us believe that as an absolute truism. Air Canada made a net profit of $531 million in 2014. Its operating profit that year was $815 million. Air Canada was also profitable in 2013 and 2012. Why the urgency? What is the justification for this? Why break a promise and not keep those good jobs here?

The other thing the current Liberal government keeps saying that does not make sense is that it has a deal with Air Canada that will allow for the manufacture of Bombardier C Series aircraft because Air Canada may or may not buy 30 or 45 of them. That is not clear either. That is what we call mixing apples and oranges. That is what we call pitting one economic sector against another, in other words abandoning aircraft maintenance in favour of the aircraft manufacturing sector. The two can go together, and that is how it should be. Canada's aerospace sector is one of our economic and industrial jewels. We must keep it intact. We had the opportunity to do so.

We had a law that allowed us to do so. Let me be clear: I am thrilled that Air Canada is purchasing Bombardier C Series aircraft. No one here could be happier than I am because I know how much that will benefit the metropolitan area, Quebec's economy, and Canada's economy.

However, Air Canada is not buying the C Series out of charity or to please the federal or provincial government. The C Series are damned good aircraft, and Air Canada needs them for the future. Let us not give in to blackmail that pits one economic sector against another. Air Canada can very well buy the Bombardier C Series aircraft and still keep the jobs we have had here since 1988. Part of the initial agreement on privatizing Air Canada was to keep these good jobs here at home. That is something the Liberals forgot sometime between 2012 and 2016, unfortunately.

The workers at Aveos, the Air Canada affiliate, had the law on their side. The Quebec Superior Court ruled in their favour. The Court of Appeal ruled in their favour on November 3, 2015. The judge, Marie-France Bich, noted that Air Canada was clearly breaking the law by closing the maintenance centres in the municipalities concerned.

The company broke the law. That could not be any clearer. Air Canada appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. What takes the cake is that while these workers would in all likelihood win their case to keep their jobs in Canada, we have a Liberal government that is trying to pull the rug out from under them, imposing closure, and trying to ram Bill C-10 through without giving workers the chance to continue litigating the case they won because they were right.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the work that my colleague did in committee on Bill C-10.

We heard several times from union and management representatives. We also heard at length from the minister, who tried repeatedly to explain why it was urgent that the bill be passed.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. Did the minister manage to convince members of the House of Commons of the urgency of passing Bill C-10?

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

Madam Speaker, when we contemplate the change that has been put forward by the government in Bill C-10, we need to take a step back and look at the benefits Air Canada has received as a legacy carrier over the last number of decades.

We need to look at what Bill C-10 would do and then contemplate a number of measures the Liberal government could have contemplated when it looked at amending the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The government chose to keep it so narrow. Therefore, I would put the question back for the parliamentary secretary and the minister. If the government is determined for Air Canada to become more competitive in a progressive aerospace industry, why would it not have entertained the other 60-some recommendations Air Canada made in the Emerson report? Why did it not look at other measures to ensure Air Canada would be more competitive without costing jobs in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

I can understand the fact that the Conservative Party is focusing on the time frames, the government's haste, the opportunity for the provinces to continue negotiations, and the Supreme Court appeal that must be heard. However, beyond these technical considerations, which have real consequences, there is also the the root problem: Bill C-10 eliminates all the guarantees that were in place to keep jobs in Canada, whether in Winnipeg, Montreal, or Mississauga.

When I moved an amendment at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that would delete this part of Bill C-10 and keep the job guarantees, the Conservative Party voted against the NDP amendment. I would like the member to explain why.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not agree at all with the premise of that question, certainly when the member talks about carving out a bright future for the aerospace industry through Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 does absolutely none of that. It does not stipulate any of the measures that the members across the way continue to talk about when they raise Bombardier and the centres of excellence. None of that is referenced in this bill. We will continue to assert that the federal government could have gone much further if it truly wanted to ensure that all of the aerospace in Canada was more competitive by contemplating other measures that would support all carriers and that would not affect jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, while I welcome this opportunity to speak once again to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, I am disappointed that the bill has come back from committee without amendment, after Liberal members voted unanimously against an amendment that would have respected the requests made by both the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba to delay the bill's coming into force. However, I will speak to this specifically later on in my remarks.

Upon its privatization in 1989, Air Canada was subject to four conditions: the carrier would be subject to the Official Languages Act; the carrier's headquarters would be in Montreal; 75% of the company's voting shares had to be held by Canadians; and overhaul maintenance was to be done in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga. The last condition of the act regarding aircraft maintenance is the subject of the legislation that we are debating here today.

I do not think this point has been made clear enough, so I will repeat it again. The Government of Quebec, with the Government of Manitoba as an intervenor, brought Air Canada to court to challenge the carrier's assertion that it was fulfilling its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act, after Aveos Fleet Performance, its primary maintenance provider, went bankrupt and Air Canada was forced to get its overhaul maintenance work done outside its traditional maintenance centres in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga.

The Superior Court of Quebec ruled on February 4, 2013, that Air Canada had not fulfilled its obligations under the act. The Court of Appeal of Quebec ruled on November 3, 2015, that Air Canada had not fulfilled its obligations under the act, and again, just two months later, on January 5, Air Canada asked the Supreme Court, Canada's top court, to overturn the Quebec court of appeal's decision.

Bill C-10 would, for all intents and purposes, remove Air Canada's obligation to do its overhaul maintenance in these three specific geographic locations that were named in the original act. According to the Minister of Transport, the legislation was introduced, “As a result of the decision by the Quebec government and Manitoba government not to litigate any further against Air Canada, we felt this was an appropriate time to clarify the law and modernize it so that Air Canada can compete with the rest of the world.”

The minister also noted that the legislation would help additional litigation against Air Canada in the future. This statement is fraught with problems. First, it goes without saying that if we change the law that governs Air Canada's privatization, it will become more difficult for anyone to challenge Air Canada in court on whether the carrier is respecting the law as the maintenance provisions will be deemed never to have come into force.

Second, the governments of Quebec and Manitoba do not need to litigate further against Air Canada, because they have already won in court twice. It was Air Canada that opted to continue litigation all the way to the Supreme Court.

The minister's statements lead me to believe that he does not have his facts straight. We have heard the Minister of Transport, and every single member of the Liberal Party in their defence of the legislation, talk about job creation in Manitoba and Quebec, and Bombardier and centres of excellence in aircraft maintenance. However, I do not understand the link these topics have with Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 would replace the paragraph of the original act that described Air Canada's obligations on aircraft maintenance with the following:

(4) For the purpose of carrying out or causing to be carried out the aircraft maintenance activities referred to in paragraph (1)(d) in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, 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.

The floor on the number of jobs in each province is one. Although it does not specify the nature of the work that has to be done, line maintenance would probably apply. However, neither the minister nor his officials were able to provide the committee with the minimum number of maintenance jobs Air Canada will have to keep in the country. His officials stated that they could not speculate on how Air Canada would operationalize the centres of excellence, or the 150 jobs in Winnipeg, yet that seems to be all that the Liberal members can talk about.

We are here discussing the Air Canada Public Participation Act, not Bombardier, not the C Series, not the centres of excellence. I hope that members will keep that in mind and try to keep their comments on the Air Canada Public Participation Act for the rest of this debate.

If members would like to discuss agreements between Air Canada and Quebec, and Air Canada and Manitoba, for the creation of centres of excellence, I would expect that they could table these agreements because, despite my best efforts in requesting them, I have not seen any.

Coming back to the sequence of events that have brought us here today, Air Canada likes the C Series airplane. That has been made clear. It made that clear during its appearance last week. However, as recently as January 5, Air Canada's plan was to appeal the Quebec court of appeal's decision to the Supreme Court. Something changed and Air Canada decided that it was better off settling these lawsuits than pursuing this matter in front of the Supreme Court.

Whether the federal government was somehow involved in this change of heart is unknown, beyond a statement made by Air Canada's representative that it is acting under the assumption that the section of the Air Canada Public Participation Act that we are discussing right now will be repealed, and if it is not repealed, then Air Canada would consider its next steps concerning the creation of centres of excellence and aircraft maintenance.

On February 17, 2016, Air Canada announced that it had signed a letter of intent to purchase the Bombardier C Series aircraft and maintain these in Quebec and that it would undertake the overhaul maintenance of those aircraft in the province. On the same day, the Minister of Transport announced that he would lessen Air Canada's obligations under the act.

Just imagine the coincidence. On the same day that Air Canada throws a lifeline to Bombardier by signing a letter of intent to purchase C Series aircraft, the Minister of Transport announces his intention to introduce legislation that would directly benefit the carrier by allowing it to get its overhaul maintenance done, legally, outside of Canada. The minister did not even wait a day to make this announcement. It leads me to wonder if the minister would have removed Air Canada's official language obligations if the carrier had made a firm order for 75 C Series aircraft, rather than a letter of intent for 45, as is what has happened.

I would also note that in its latest earnings report, Bombardier announced that it would record an onerous contract provision of approximately $500 million as a special item in the second quarter of 2016 because it is believed to have sold the C Series aircraft to Air Canada and Delta at a loss of $4 million to $5 million per aircraft.

However, I digress.

The Minister of Transport has attempted to justify the legislation by stating, repeatedly, that the governments of Quebec and Manitoba have dropped their lawsuits against Air Canada.

This is simply not true. On two occasions, the governments of Quebec and Manitoba won in court against Air Canada. That is what gave them the power to bring Air Canada to the table to negotiate an acceptable settlement. In the case of Quebec, the reasonable settlement appears to be the purchase of the C Series aircraft and the commitment to undertake that C Series maintenance in Quebec and create a centre of excellence in the province. In the case of Manitoba, the reasonable settlement appears to be the transferring of approximately 150 jobs from around Canada to the provincial capital.

We should be under no illusion that these negotiations are concluded. Air Canada has not even converted its letter of intent for the C Series into a firm order yet. There are no centres of excellence in either Quebec or Manitoba.

On February 10, Air Canada and the Government of Quebec informed the Supreme Court of Canada that an agreement was reached to report the decision on the application for leave to appeal until July 15, 2016. That means that the parties have until July 15 to negotiate a settlement.

If Air Canada is unwilling or unable to fulfill the terms of their agreements concerning the centres of excellence to the satisfaction of the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, it can be presumed that Air Canada will continue to challenge the Quebec court of appeal's decision in front of the Supreme Court.

It is critical for members to understand that if this law is changed today, then there will be no incentive for Air Canada to remain at the table and negotiate with the governments of Quebec and Manitoba. Both the minister of the economy of Quebec and the deputy premier of Manitoba, who is also her province's attorney general, understand this basic fact. That is why both have asked the federal government to wait until their negotiations with Air Canada are complete before passing the legislation.

Here is the relevant part of a brief from Quebec's Liberal minister of the economy:

...in order to provide for all the aspects of the agreements reached, the Government of Quebec is asking that, once Bill C-10 receives royal assent, the legislation come into force after the final agreements described above have been concluded.

As it is presently drafted, Bill C-10 would come into force immediately upon receiving royal assent.

The deputy premier of Manitoba was equally clear in her appearance in front of the committee. She said:

The federal government's approach to Bill C-10 simply put is jumping the gun. Bill C-10 is being rushed through the process before the necessary specific investments and binding commitments by the federal government and Air Canada have been secured.

There we have it. Two provincial governments have asked the federal government to respect their process and not immediately pass the bill in its current form. However, these reasonable requests have fallen on deaf ears.

This is not the first time the Liberal government has railroaded processes undertaken by local governments that they do not agree with. We all remember that the Minister of Transport's first act was tweeting that he would unilaterally impose his will on Toronto city council by ending any discussion on the future of the Billy Bishop airport. However, once again, I digress.

I presented an amendment in committee last week, the effect of which would ensure that the bill would not come into force until at least August 1, 2016, or two weeks after Air Canada and the attorney general of Quebec inform the Supreme Court on whether they seek to continue litigation or have settled outside of court. The member for Central Nova was the only Liberal who at least attempted to justify why he was voting against such a minor amendment that would have simply fulfilled the requests made by two provincial governments to give them more time to negotiate with Air Canada. My amendment would not have changed the bill, just when it would come into force.

His justification was as follows, “I believe the legislation is sound. If it will be a good idea in August then I believe it's a good idea today”. I like the member for Central Nova. However, as a lawyer, surely he knows that litigation and settlement negotiations take time, while the pace at which the current government is pushing the legislation through can only be described as lightning speed.

Hearings in the Superior Court of Quebec on this matter began on November 19, 2012, over three and a half years ago. The first time parliamentarians heard that the minister planned to amend this act was February 17, 2016, not even three months ago. If it is the member for Central Nova's contention that Parliament's stepping in and effectively siding with Air Canada in this dispute with the legislation, after Quebec and Manitoba were in court fighting for this act to be enforced for three years, is sound public policy, then I guess we know to what the lengths the Liberal Party will go to help out its friends.

Moving on, during the second reading debate on the legislation, my friend from Winnipeg North, who is a frequent commenter in this chamber, asked the member for Beloeil—Chambly if he would “at the very least acknowledge that provinces do matter and that their discussions and their beliefs should be taken into consideration”.

As I have noted earlier in my remarks, the deputy premier of Manitoba explicitly asked for the legislation to be delayed. That is the will of the government from the member for Winnipeg North's home province. I hope that he will consider Deputy Premier Stefanson's comments when he votes on Bill C-10 or makes his next intervention.

Everybody here wants Air Canada to be a viable company that offers safe, reliable and affordable air service to Canadians, while competing against international giants. If the purpose of the legislation is indeed to make Air Canada more competitive, the government has failed to make this case on how it would do so.

In response to a lob from his own member on how Air Canada's maintenance obligations affected its competitiveness, the minister responded, “It is a big, serious question and I do not have the answer”. If it is the government's priority to make Air Canada more competitive with the expectation that Air Canada will be offer lower fares to consumers, there are a number of better options available to it to reach this objective.

For example, the government could tie all airport improvement fees to specific projects with explicit sunset provisions, which would save many travellers more than 20% on their ticket. It could increase the foreign ownership limit of Air Canada, and all Canadian-based air carriers for that matter, to 49%, which would give the carrier access to cheaper capital to finance improvement.

The government could replace the current one-size-fits-all passenger screening approach which treats all passengers equally with an intelligence-driven risk-based passenger screening process. The airport security charge in Canada is $7.12 for domestic travel, so this adds up for frequent travellers.

All of these measures would stimulate Air Canada while maintaining jobs in Canada and would not cost the taxpayer anything. If anything is clear it is that the government has missed an opportunity to truly allow Air Canada to compete against U.S. and international carriers by only bringing forward such a narrow proposal to Parliament.

In conclusion, I remain extremely disappointed that the government is once again imposing its will on local governments that do not share its views, in this case Quebec and Manitoba, by forcing this legislation through Parliament before Air Canada has even converted its C Series letter of intent into a firm order.

If the federal government is actually committed to improving the competitiveness of Air Canada and the entire aerospace sector, it has come up short with this legislation.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat unique situation. I know enough about this bill to know that it is important and it must be supported.

I rise here today to participate in third reading of Bill C-10, which is about modernizing the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

This bill amends the provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act dealing with Air Canada's operational and overhaul centres. More specifically, the bill amends paragraph 6(1)(d) in the provisions requiring Air Canada to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community, and the City of Mississauga and replacing that with a reference to the following three provinces: Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario.

This bill also removes all references to “operational and overhaul centres” and replaces them with a broader reference, namely, “aircraft maintenance activities”, stipulating that this includes work 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.

These changes seek to modernize the legislation, which is very important, in order to help Air Canada respond more effectively to the changing market conditions, while continuing to maintain jobs for the skilled workers in Canada's important aerospace sector.

First, I would like to say a few words about the privatization of Air Canada.

The House may remember that the main objective of the Air Canada Public Participation Act was to convert a crown corporation into a thriving and competitive private company. The new company would be expected to evolve in an aggressively competitive market that is highly cyclical and sensitive to external shocks.

The act came into force in 1989 to provide the federal government with the legal framework to privatize Air Canada. It also required Air Canada to have provisions concerning, in particular, the maintenance and overhaul of its aircraft, the use of official languages, and the location of its headquarters. Air Canada's competitors from Canada and abroad are not subject to such conditions.

Since privatization, and despite some challenging times, Air Canada has survived as a private company without direct government support.

Today, Air Canada is the only Canadian airline that offers a wide range of regional, national, and international services. Its fleet includes a wide range of aircraft from the world's largest manufacturers such as Bombardier, Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer. We are quite proud of that.

In 2015, Air Canada and its Air Canada Express partners served more than 40 million passengers and provided direct passenger service to more than 200 destinations on six continents. Air Canada alone employs nearly 28,000 people, including 2,400 for its maintenance services.

This bill comes at a very important time for a sector that is booming, but one that is also subject to a great number of fluctuations. We fully realize that this bill gives Air Canada more flexibility when it comes to maintenance, but other restrictions on Air Canada still fully apply, as most of the legislation will remain unchanged.

Other conditions that are important for Canadians, such as the location of the head office and official languages requirements, will continue to exist after the changes we are proposing come into effect.

I would like to remind members that Air Canada is the only Canadian industry stakeholder with such restrictions. None of its competitors are subject to the same restrictions. In a global market and in a sector such as air transportation, which is undergoing major changes, maximum economic flexibility is required to ensure viability in the medium and the long term.

Making this section of the law more flexible will make Air Canada even more viable and, above all, allow it to remain relatively competitive with its national and international competitors.

In this regard, I would like to quote one comment made by Mike Tretheway, chief economist and chief strategy officer at InterVISTAS Consulting Group, who appeared before the standing committee, and stated:

If you choose to have a competitive environment as the basis for your policy, there is a range of competitive issues there, and maintenance is one of the important ones because it's such a large portion of aircraft cost, and you have one airline that has to compete with other airlines that don't have these restrictions.

To give an order of magnitude, in 1980, the International Air Transport Association consisted of 100 airlines from 85 countries. Today, less than 36 years later, its membership consists of 260 airlines, accounting for approximately 83% of total air traffic.

Now more than ever the aviation market is characterized by open skies agreements and the emergence of important new international players. These market conditions offer Air Canada significant global growth opportunities, but also challenges in terms of global competitiveness. Air Canada provides vital connectivity both within our vast country and the outside world. It is also a very important source of jobs.

As Mr. Tretheway said:

...airlines operate with about a 2% profit margin. It's one of the thinnest profit margins of any transport industry, and we can and do see airlines go bankrupt. We've had 60 airline bankruptcies in Canada, and Air Canada itself has gone through one bankruptcy.

Mr. Tretheway further noted:

...[this bill] will have an impact on air travel costs for people flying Air Canada. It will help [Air Canada] get better competitive choices to maintain the high safety standard that Canada requires.... As they become more competitive that I think will get translated, not just for their customers, but customers of the other airlines they compete with, both Canadian airlines like WestJet and Porter as well as foreign carriers that fly in and out of Canada.

The day after Bill C-10 was introduced, some people wondered whether the government was suddenly abandoning skilled workers in the maintenance, overhaul and repair sector in Canada. Some people went so far as to publicly say that Air Canada could limit or even completely stop its maintenance activities that are carried out not only in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, but elsewhere in Canada.

Naturally, we listened and expressed our concerns about the impact that the Aveos Fleet Performance bankruptcy had on the workers and their families. At the time, we put pressure on Air Canada and the previous government to act in the best interests of the workers. However, today's conditions are completely different. Let us ask this question: what concrete gains have former Aveos workers made in the past four years?

There is no guarantee that the existing lawsuit would restore the same number of jobs lost four years ago in 2012. The opposition has implied that Bill C-10 would in some way legalize the outsourcing of aircraft maintenance jobs and that the alternative to this bill would be to rehire all the former Aveos workers. In fact, there is nothing in the existing act or the recent Quebec court decisions to require that Air Canada conduct its maintenance in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg, or to require that the airline go back to doing what it was doing in 2012, with exactly the same employees, before Aveos filed for bankruptcy.

My colleagues are unfortunately creating some unrealistic expectations. That is why we welcome the recent agreements of intent that Air Canada has signed with Quebec and Manitoba. These agreements mention the concrete possibility of jobs, in line with the modern reality of the air transportation sector.

In 2012, the aerospace review noted the growing importance of lower-cost providers of maintenance, repair and overhaul, what we also call MRO, from developing countries, many of which are closer to the growth markets in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. While Air Canada does not outsource its aircraft maintenance suppliers in developing countries, many of its competitors do. We must be aware of the global development of these types of services.

It is interesting to note that despite the closure of Aveos in 2012, the MRO sector has experienced significant growth in recent years. Based on data from the report on the state of the Canadian aerospace industry in 2015, the MRO sector experienced strong economic growth from 2004 to 2014, with a 37% increase in direct GDP.

Data from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada also indicate that MRO accounted for $3.8 billion of the gross domestic product, that 31,298 people were employed in MRO activities, and that the MRO sector generated revenues of $7.6 billion in 2015. This represents 26% growth in revenue compared to 2010.

Our aircraft maintenance sector remains strong, despite Aveos' bankruptcy, and it continues to be a source of jobs for skilled workers. Over the years, the MRO industry has adapted to the realities of the market. This industry is very competitive in certain leading-edge sectors.

The industry has had to adjust and has become specialized over the years. This industry looks nothing like it did some 30 years ago. It has evolved into a sector that now includes major economies of scale and economies of specialization.

In Canada, our strengths lie mainly in MRO work on engines, landing gear, and simulations. We are fortunate to have many companies working on aerostructure, but not all of them can work on all types of aircraft, so it would be difficult to say whether they would be competitive, in light of the big variety of aircraft operated by Air Canada.

Consider companies such as Air France-KLM and Lufthansa, major global players in aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul.

Looking closely at the maintenance structures of these important carriers, it appears that they generally maintain line maintenance within their respective countries for certain types of aircraft. However, their global supply chains are also very important. They are present in major markets, such as Asia and South America, where maintenance centres specialize in certain types of services. Of note, for example, is Air France-KLM, which has an MRO laboratory and innovation centre in Singapore.

The various announcements made by Air Canada, either with regard to the development of centres of excellence in Quebec and Manitoba or its intention to buy C Series aircraft from Bombardier, will result in huge job opportunities in the aerospace industry, and will especially favour continued growth in the MRO sector in Canada for the foreseeable future.

We must stop looking backward and take concrete actions to think about the future in the short, medium, and long term, in light of the very important changes that I have already mentioned.

I see the centres of excellence and the purchase of Bombardier's C Series aircraft as concrete measures that will produce real job opportunities for lots of Canadians.

When Peter Wallis, president and CEO of the Van Horne Institute, appeared before the standing committee, he said that the opportunity to create a centre of excellence in Quebec to maintain Bombardier's new planes is huge for the sector. It would enable that sector of Canada's industry to set itself apart from the global competition.

I strongly believe that in light of various Air Canada announcements, Delta's decision to purchase C Series planes, the creation of centres of excellence, and the decision to drop the lawsuit with Quebec and Manitoba, we will have a much better chance to create jobs and grow our aerospace sector, which is so crucial. Instead of sitting on our hands and waiting for other people to step in and do the work, we will have an opportunity to work and put forward solid proposals.

These promises, which will be fulfilled in the coming years, offer real opportunities for us to distinguish ourselves globally and create a Canadian hub of expertise and innovation. Projects like these will generate better long-term economic growth for Canada and create permanent skilled jobs. I think that is where what we are doing now differs from what was done in the past. Let us stop trying to do things over. Instead, let us look ahead and work for the future.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

moved that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, be read a third time and passed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the Conservative opposition day. Tomorrow will be a further allotted day. Monday, we will begin report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-10 concerning Air Canada until 2 p.m. After question period, we will move on to Bill C-14 concerning medical assistance in dying.

I have had productive and optimistic discussions with my colleague House leaders. I am hopeful and optimistic that we will have an agreement on the handling of the debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-14 next week.

Provided we are able to complete debate on Bill C-14 next Wednesday, the House will debate an NDP opposition motion on Thursday.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Monday, May 16, for consideration in a committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of National Defence.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in relation to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

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

I know that everyone here wants to listen to me for a long time. It's a nice experience. Above all, I have had a chance to present my arguments on Bill C-10. Thank you for listening to me for such a long time.

I have much more to say. In fact, I did not even have time to cover the Government of Manitoba's presentation. I could have probably used the same arguments I used earlier, when talking about the Quebec government.

I can tell by the way she is looking at me that Madam Chair is afraid that I will launch into a long speech. I don't have much more to say.

In closing, on behalf of those who have come to testify before us, especially the representatives of unions and provinces, I ask the government representatives one last time to reconsider a hasty passing of Bill C-10. Yes, I talked for a long time, but there was much to be said. I wanted to put it out there. The time allocation motion has unfortunately limited us during the debates on Bill C-10. So in a short period of time, I have summarized all that we had wanted to say in the House concerning Bill C-10.

With that, Madam Chair, we will not have to order food. I brought a sandwich, not because I was expecting to speak for a long time, but simply to have a little something once my colleague begins her presentation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We are reconvening. I call the meeting back to order.

We are still dealing with Bill C-10. Is there any further debate or discussion on Bill C-10?

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

I have a quick question.

What will be the true effects of the implementation of Bill C-10 on all of Air Canada's activities? Could you quickly tell me what the immediate impact will be on the lawsuits and the entire process once the bill has been passed and receives royal assent?

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Boulerice, you threw me off a bit. I need a moment to get back into my presentation. It's all in writing, but I have to figure out where exactly I left off. Would you rather I start over? It's not a problem. No, I won't do that to you.

Madam Chair, I want to come back to the essence of the Government of Quebec's brief.

Three paragraphs are especially important in that brief. They talk about heavy overhaul and maintenance operations performed on C Series aircraft in Quebec. I will read it word for word:

On February 17, 2016, Air Canada announced that, in addition to having signed a letter of intent with Bombardier Inc. to acquire up to 75 CSeries 300 aircraft from the company, it also agreed to have heavy overhaul and maintenance work done on those aircraft in Quebec by a recognized maintenance service provider, for a period of at least 20 years starting from the first delivery in 2019.

I am interrupting my quote just to point out that this is a very important issue for the Government of Quebec. That's worth noting. What is being requested in the brief is not baseless. There is really something concrete on the table.

I will continue the quote:

Air Canada's commitment is expected to help establish a centre of excellence for the maintenance of CSeries aircraft in the province.

I will now read the important bit of the paragraph. If you have two minutes to hear me out, please do so. This is the best part of my presentation. Here it is:

Pending the conclusion of final agreements, the Government of Quebec has agreed to drop its lawsuit in relation to Air Canada's obligations to have an overhaul and maintenance centre.

It does say, “pending the conclusion of final agreements”. What I understand from this is that, despite what was said here in committee and repeated in the House during oral question period, there is still no final agreement with the Government of Quebec. The Government of Quebec itself told us so. In fact, the Minister of the Economy, Science and Innovation took the time to write a brief to tell us that the agreements had not yet been concluded.

So as not to unduly drag things out, I will skip a paragraph. However, I will still read this passage:

In exchange for a final agreement both on aircraft purchase and the creation of the centre of excellence, the Government of Quebec has agreed to drop its lawsuit against Air Canada with regard to keeping maintenance centres in the Montreal Urban Community. In this context, the Government of Quebec subscribes to the modernization objectives laid out in paragraph 6(1)(d) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act to provide Air Canada with greater flexibility in conducting its operating activities.

This goes back to Mr. Badawey's comments. Unless I am mistaken, that is what he said in the beginning.

However, the next part is different. I will read it to you:

Additionally, in order to provide for all the aspects of the agreements reached, the Government of Quebec is asking that, once Bill C-10 receives royal assent, the legislation come into force after the final agreements described above have been concluded.

Do you want me to repeat that? No, I think you have understood. It does indeed say, “after the final agreements described above have been concluded.”

I want to point out, for the benefit of my honourable NDP colleague, that this is the source of the Conservative Party's willingness to request an extension. It's a matter of allowing the provinces to conclude agreements and to see whether or not the government will eventually listen carefully to the requests of the Manitoba and Quebec governments.

I will not get into the issue of expected investment. In fact, when a government comes here, to Ottawa, it obviously does so to ask for money. That said, there was also a way to do that. We are wondering why the government is dragging its feet in responding to Bombardier's other requests. For example, why is it being stubborn about not wanting to allow Porter's airplanes to land in Toronto? That would make it possible help Bombardier, while avoiding the investment of taxpayers' money in a private company without knowing what that money will be used for. However, that is a whole other debate. We could overlook that.

I don't know how much time I have left out my 10 minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

A lot of things have been said over the last few minutes, and I think it is worth going back over what was said.

I would like to first talk about the comments made by my NDP colleague. Sometimes, it seems that the NDP is forgetting that the Conservatives no longer form the government. The Liberals are now in power and they are the ones making the decisions. By constantly going back over the various stages, it seems that my NDP colleague wants to remember the good times—at any rate, they are good for us. I was not there, but I wish I had been. It seems that the New Democrats are a little nostalgic for those days. I'm not sure whether that is the case, but I just wanted to gently remind my NDP colleague that we are no longer in power.

I would also like to comment on what he said about our amendment and clarify that, from the outset, our party made it clear that it was opposed to Bill C-10 as a whole. The purpose of our amendment is to see whether the federal government is prepared to recognize the jurisdictions of the Quebec and Manitoba provincial governments. Basically, will the government simply meet the deadline of July 15, which was requested in court by those two parties, so that they express their views and come to an agreement with Air Canada on the much-discussed maintenance centres?

The amendment has substance and seeks to find out what the government's intentions are. Honestly, since the beginning, we haven't been told what the government's intentions are regarding Bill C-10. We don't know why it wants to move so quickly on this bill. In short, a lot of questions remain unanswered, and the purpose of this amendment is to find out the government's true intentions and to see if it is at all responsive to the two parties, the two provincial governments.

It seems that the government wants to establish great relationships with the provinces. It wants to get along and do everything hand in hand with the provinces.

One of those two governments took the time to write a brief for the committee. We have not seen that often. I don't think that, in your experience, you have often seen a brief like that being sent to a committee by a provincial government. The provincial government is asking the federal government not to rush and not to pass Bill C-10 right away, because that might harm its negotiations.

The deputy premier of the other province appeared before the committee, saying that the bill made no sense and that it made no sense to pass it so quickly. I did not expect to see something like that so early in my career as an MP in the House of Commons.

The purpose of our amendment is to find out the government's position in relation to the expectations of the two provincial governments that made their views clear.

I also wanted to talk about other comments that have been made.

The Liberal Party is the government now. Mr. Badawey, you gave a great speech on job creation, Air Canada's competitiveness and the benefit for Canada of having a competitive sector in our aerospace industry. We fully share those views, Mr. Badawey. We completely agree on that. The big problem is that it is all an illusion. Bill C-10 provides no guarantees on anything you have said. There has been no confirmation of an agreement or clear commitment on Air Canada's part to create centres of excellence. In all the presentations we have heard, not one described a clear commitment to maintaining the existing jobs.

Sure, hypothetically speaking, it is all well and good, but when we ask Mr. Garneau to send us, in a reasonable amount of time, the documents that might justify our support for Bill C-10, we are told that we are going on a fishing expedition. We are told that we are looking for problems where there are none. If there are no problems, why do we have to move so quickly on Bill C-10? If there is no problem, there is no need to move so quickly.

Bill C-10 is quite short.

The first part deals with the Air Canada Public Participation Act. First, subclause 1(1) of the bill seeks to replace paragraph 6(1)(d) of the act with the following:

(d) provisions requiring the Corporation to carry out or cause to be carried out aircraft maintenance activities, including maintenance of any type relating to airframes, engines, components, equipment or parts, in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba; and

As a result, an important provision has been replaced with that.

Then, subclause 1(2) of the bill seeks to amend section 6 of the same act by adding the following after subsection (3):

Maintenance activities (4) For the purpose of carrying out or causing to be carried out the aircraft maintenance activities referred to in paragraph (1)(d) in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, 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.

Where are the guarantees of jobs? I don't see them. There are none. I would ask our experts the question, but I won't, because they will say that there are none. It is pretty clear and obvious. There is no guarantee of jobs being created or maintained, because it is basically saying that they can basically do whatever they want with the maintenance activities.

A little further in the bill, there is a part on the amendment of articles and one on coordinating amendments. I don't want to take too much time, but I would like to say that this part includes another item that was mentioned by one of the witnesses, when we heard from the unions. I think it is worth repeating it for the members of the committee. I am talking about the maintenance activities. The bill says: “For the purpose of carrying out or causing to be carried out the aircraft maintenance activities referred to in paragraph (1)(d) in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, the Corporation may, while not eliminating those activities in any of those provinces, change the type or volume...”.

You must remember the little semantics lesson that the folks from the unions gave us. Is it “may” or “does”? The bill says “may”. The unions told us that this actually means that the corporation “will”, because they are keeping this open in the collective bargaining process. I remember distinctly hearing that comment during our discussions with the various unions.

There are a number of points I want to make, Madam Chair. There are a lot of things to say about Bill C-10.

Let's quickly go over the history of Bill C-10. I will point out the important dates that have prompted the committee to discuss Bill C-10 today, and I will tell you why we decided to oppose it. We want to see whether the government has listened at all to Ms. Block's motion on the importance of paying attention to the arguments of the provincial governments of Quebec and Manitoba.

On November 3, 2015, the Quebec Court of Appeal, Quebec's highest court, confirmed an earlier ruling by the Quebec Superior Court that Air Canada had failed to fulfill its legal obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act concerning heavy maintenance of aircraft in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga.

On December 11, 2015, Bombardier requested financial support of $1 billion U.S. from the Government of Canada. This was two months after the Government of Quebec had purchased a 49% stake in the C Series program for that same amount.

On February 16, 2016, Republic Airways, which to that point had placed a very large order for the C Series, filed for bankruptcy protection. It streamlined its operations and cancelled its order for the C Series aircraft. What happened the very next day? On February 17, Air Canada announced that it had begun negotiations with Bombardier to purchase 45 CS300 aircraft, with an option for 30 more. That's great. We are happy about it. We hope that Air Canada purchases the C Series aircraft.

On February 15, 2016, a meeting took place between the minister and the people from Air Canada. What happened at that meeting? Are there things that we should know about and that would enable us to support the government in its rush to pass Bill C-10? As I said before, a lot of questions have remained unanswered.

Let me say this again: we are thrilled about Air Canada's decision to purchase Bombardier's aircraft. That's good news. Not only will this decision have a huge impact on our aviation industry, but it also gives credibility to Bombardier's new aircraft. The proof is that Delta has purchased some aircraft not long after that. So, it is good news.

Thanks to Air Canada, therefore Bombardier has managed to become a credible company. We hope that other major international carriers, such as Delta, purchase more and more C Series aircraft.

Now, what is the relationship between the C Series aircraft and Bill C-10? There is none in Bill C-10. Those agreements are not mentioned. Is there a relationship? Does the government need the opposition for Bill C-10 to be passed, so that more jobs are created at Bombardier, so that more jobs are created in the maintenance centres in Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario? Does it need us? If so, provide us with the information. Provide us with everything we need to help us do our jobs as parliamentarians the way we see fit.

Let me remind you that the the member for Papineau, our Prime Minister, made a clear statement right here on Parliament Hill, before the Aveos workers in relation to the lawsuit against Air Canada:

It is such a shame that we have to demonstrate to ask the law and order government to obey [its own] law. It is ridiculous... They had made promises and said [that we should not worry]: “Don't worry about Aveos.” And now they are doing just what we had feared and people are being shown the door. We are losing the types of jobs that we need in this country. It is not true that our best resources are in the ground somewhere. Our best resources are human resources. They are qualified workers like you, who are building this country every day with your hands, arms, intelligence, and creativity. It is not right that the government is refusing to invest in what has made this country strong, and that thousands of Canadians who travel every day are being put at risk with potentially lower-quality maintenance. We are with you. Thank you very much for being here.

The member for Papineau made that fine statement on Parliament Hill before all the Aveos workers gathered to protest, urging the government of the day to do something. However, the government let the court decide. The Conservative government decided that it was up to the court to rule on that issue, because it was the provinces that had taken the issue to court. So, the government said that the courts would do their work.

What is the government doing with Bill C-10 now? It is telling the courts that it no longer wants them to be involved, because it supposedly has agreements with the governments of Quebec and Manitoba. So the matter will be settled once and for all. There will be no need to talk about it again and the provinces will have the tools they need to reach their agreements with Air Canada and obtain their centres of excellence.

Madam Chair, this is not the case. We have heard the views of two important witnesses. Officials from the governments of Quebec and Manitoba were wondering what we were doing. According to them, it did not make sense. They said that the governments were negotiating, they were in court and had a strong case. Air Canada agreed to listen to them precisely because of the risk of them winning their case before the Supreme Court, since they had won everywhere else.

And now the government is in a hurry to pass Bill C-10, although we don't know why because we never received an answer. We believed in the good faith of the minister. We believed the minister when he told us that, since the provincial governments had reached agreements with Air Canada, the government can now move forward with this bill, which would allow them to drop the lawsuits, remove the threat looming over Air Canada and ensure that jobs are maintained. However, we have received no guarantee of that.

I hope you have read the brief from the Quebec government because it is excellent. All parliamentarians should have seen it. Unfortunately, Minister Anglade did not appear before the committee to share her comments with us. But allow me to briefly summarize Quebec's brief, because it contains some fairly important points.

Quebec is proud of its aerospace industry. It is important to say that, because we often get the feeling that people think we are working against Air Canada, against the aviation industry, simply because we are opposed to Bill C-10. It is quite the opposite. The Quebec government strongly believes in its aviation industry. This is in fact why it has helped Bombardier.

As for whether or not this was the right thing to do, the Quebec government should be the judge of that. The fact is that more Bombardier airplanes are now being sold. We should definitely not impede current or future transactions.

The aerospace industry is one of the drivers of Quebec's growth and prosperity. The numbers speak for themselves. In 2015, the aerospace industry employed 40,000 people in Quebec in qualified and well-paid positions. It featured some 190 companies, with sales of $15.5 billion. That's what the aerospace industry in Quebec is. That is nothing to sneeze at. It is easy to understand why provincial governments are so concerned about their aerospace industry.

In 2014, 80% of the sector's output was exported, and that accounted for 13.6% of all of Quebec's manufacturing exports. I don't know what else we could say to make the federal government understand how important this industry is. When 13.6% of a province's manufacturing exports come from such a vital sector of its economy, I think it's worth looking into it. I believe that we should listen to the Government of Quebec and give it an opportunity to complete its negotiations with Air Canada. However, we should keep in mind that no agreement has yet been reached.

There are industry leaders in the aerospace sector of Canada and especially Quebec. Quebec's strength and the large number of industry jobs are due to the presence of four prime contractors. There is Bombardier, which we are familiar with and which manufactures commercial aircraft and business aircraft. There is Bell Helicopter. There is CAE, which specializes in aircraft simulators and flight training. For the benefit of my colleagues from other parts of the country, I want to point out that flight simulators used by pilots for their training are manufactured here, in Canada, but mostly in Quebec. It's quite interesting to see that we have such extensive expertise and skills. There is also Pratt & Whitney, which manufactures aircraft engines. Many of the airplanes we use to commute between Ottawa and our ridings are equipped with engines manufactured in Quebec's metropolis.

Madam Chair, I don't want to spend all my time praising only Quebec's aerospace sector. Manitoba also has a very strong aerospace industry. But I may have an opportunity to come back to this later on.

The reason the Government of Quebec decided to invest in the C Series program is precisely to protect those jobs. That was done specifically to ensure that Quebec can continue to be a leader in the Canadian aerospace industry and, more importantly, a leader in the global aerospace industry. The C Series aircraft are promising. Travellers from around the world will fly in airplanes that are 100% Canadian. So it is normal that the Government of Quebec wants to do its part and contribute to Bombardier's success. That is why it has undertaken discussions with Air Canada. It wants to ensure that the airline will purchase Bombardier's C Series aircraft.

Quebec had a lawsuit against Air Canada. The government has agreed to drop it and undertake discussions on Air Canada's purchase of C Series aircraft. The parties reached an agreement to postpone the decision on the application for leave to appeal until July 15. Unless I am mistaken, as of that date, they will be able to request more time or ask the Supreme Court to continue the proceedings. Is that right? Our experts are nodding to indicate that this is indeed the case.

The Government of Quebec says it has received assurances when it comes to centres of excellence. It now wants to obtain assurances in terms of jobs, and to do so, it must conclude good agreement with Air Canada.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

In light of the timeline, I will aim to keep my remarks very short.

At the outset, I'd like to thank my colleagues. A number of the members of this committee from different parties expressed sympathy to the workers who were affected by the Aveos bankruptcy. That is an emotion I think we all feel. In fact, I think the goal of every member of this committee may be similar or the same: to promote growth and protect jobs in Canada. The question on which we have a conceptual divide is perhaps the best method for doing that, or perhaps the best timeline in which to do it. On this side, I share the view of my colleagues, which Mr. Badawey put very eloquently: it's about creating winning conditions to grow the aerospace sector.

Specific to Ms. Block's amendment, which would have the effect of delaying the implementation of this bill until at least August, I believe the legislation is sound. If it will be a good idea in August then I believe it's a good idea today and we should proceed and take the opportunity that's before us to help drive innovation in this important and strategic industry for Canada and allow the private sector to create jobs, by passing enabling legislation, as Mr. Badawey explained.

In addition to expressing my views of the bill and the amendment, I want to give the department an opportunity to clarify.

Mr. Boulerice, I believe you made a comment earlier to the effect that Bill C-10 codifies an illegal action by Air Canada. I take a different view, but I respect your input.

I would like to have the department provide clarity as to whether they view Bill C-10 as codifying an illegal action.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have made a few observations throughout this process, which has been a lengthy one. We've had many witnesses and asked many questions and received many answers. But I do want to add some perspective to this bill. Bill C-10 is essentially an economic enabler, and I'll repeat that. It's an economic enabler. Frankly, it enables Air Canada to be more competitive.

I'm sure many of us around this table, including me, have been involved in business before, and I can never imagine having imposed upon me a rule that allows me to deal with only one supplier. Therefore, regardless of what that supplier may price their jobs out at, how competitive can we be if that's the only option we have?

This bill allows Air Canada to simply go out and get the best bang for their dollar—for our dollar, quite frankly, and the customer's dollar. Bill C-10 extends to Air Canada a method and ability to put in place a sustainable business model, to be competitive; to then, therefore, add fair ticket prices for the customer; to create future jobs through the centres of excellence that have been mentioned throughout this bill; to create a new niche market for Canada with respect to innovation, research and development, with not only Air Canada but others as well being a customer to these centres of excellence; to therefore add to the overall industry sustainability in terms of Air Canada being more competitive, and being a major player in the world's global market of aviation, but as well, sustainability in terms of jobs that have been a part of the Canadian history.

On training and retraining, we heard that 600-plus students are coming out of the schools per year. They need jobs. Our intent is to place those students in jobs here in Canada at these centres of excellence. The capacities, which right now are limited for the industry, are going to be expanded through competitiveness.

The larger issue with respect to the industry that we have to read into here with Bill C-10, and the responsibility of this government bringing forward Bill C-10, is sustainability for both the industry and jobs. The centres of excellence will in fact create critical mass. They will allow the industry to not only have the heavy maintenance and other jobs that have traditionally been within this industry but also create a cluster of complementary supply-chain businesses, and therefore, once again, more jobs.

We have to keep in mind not only the repair and the maintenance of the airplanes on an ongoing basis through the management of their assets, but also the replacement of those assets through the possible new contracts or, I believe, now beyond possible and therefore probable, contracts with Bombardier.

The ability to compete in the overall industry will also establish more returns on their investments, and more returns on the investments of the aviation industry.

Lastly, Madam Chair, I do want to state this. We listen not only to those from Air Canada but also to the briefs that were submitted to us by the different associations such as that from the association of the former workers of the Air Canada overhaul centres. I don't think we stop here. I don't think we stop simply with passing Bill C-10 to give Air Canada the economic enabler to move forward in a competitive industry. We also continue to work with the employees. I'm sure we all have a copy of the plans they dropped on our desks to also be a part of that supply chain. It behooves us to in fact work with them in the future, in order to enable them, in this economy, to be part of the supply chain, and to then create jobs, and supply to Air Canada and other carriers worldwide.

So this isn't over yet. Yes, we're going to pass the bill today that's going to be a benefit and an economic enabler for Air Canada to allow it to be more competitive and therefore add a better service, but also to move forward and ensure that we continue to work with those who want to make this industry that much better, especially as it relates to research and development and innovation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm happy to present and speak to the amendment for Bill C-10, which is, of course, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and other measures.

My amendment is quite short. Everyone has had a chance to read it, but I will read it into the record. I move that Bill C-10, in clause 1, be amended by adding after line 20 on page 1 the following:

(5) Subsection (4) does not come into force before August 1, 2016.

If I could boil down to a single point the reason for my amendment, it would be the following, and my colleague has already alluded to it. It would be the rush in getting this legislation through Parliament. Too many questions and concerns remain unanswered for my colleagues on this side of the table and me.

First, why is the government so intent on getting this bill passed before the summer break? We've heard from the witnesses that there are no legal or technical reasons for rushing this legislation forward. Why was time allocation used for the very first time in Parliament to send this legislation to committee after two days of debate? Why did the government side stop putting up speakers during second reading shortly after 3 p.m. on the second day of debate, after just a few Liberal members had given speeches and taken questions from opposition members? The day after Bill C-10 was introduced in Parliament, the Minister of Transport responded to a question by saying that, and I quote, “The member...should be delighted for Canada.” It's difficult to see how Canadians could be delighted about this bill considering so few Liberal members could even get enthusiastic enough to defend their minister's legislation in Parliament, on the record, and take direct questions from members opposite.

Is Bill C-10 so important that there was only time to allow a few members to debate this legislation during second reading? Does Air Canada's competitiveness hinge on the prompt passage of this legislation in the House of Commons and the Senate?

In our opinion, the government has not made its case as to why this legislation must receive royal assent before Parliament rises for the summer. This legislation was introduced as a response to the litigation Air Canada was facing, and we heard that many times from the minister, because according to the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Manitoba, the carrier wasn't fulfilling its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The courts sided with the provinces on two occasions. The Minister of Transport confirmed this during the first question period after Bill C-10 was introduced, and I quote:

As a result of the decision by the Quebec government and Manitoba government not to litigate any further against Air Canada, we felt this was an appropriate time to clarify the law and modernize it so that Air Canada can compete with the rest of the world.

I think we've all heard testimony over the past three meetings and understand that there is no agreement between Air Canada or the Government of Quebec, nor between Air Canada and the Government of Manitoba. The minister is either poorly informed or just twisting the facts. The facts are clear. Case 36791 is presently on leave to appeal in front of the Supreme Court until July 15, 2016. Counsel for Air Canada is Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP; counsel for the Attorney General of Quebec is Noël and Associates; and counsel for the Attorney General of Manitoba is Woods LLP.

What is taking place right now is a negotiation between parties, and like all negotiations between parties during litigation, the intention is to settle by finding a mutually agreeable outcome. Parties do not negotiate unless they are willing to settle.

In the case of Quebec, the reasonable settlement appears to be the purchase of the C Series aircraft, and a commitment to undertake that C Series maintenance in Quebec and to create a centre of excellence in the province.

In the case of Manitoba, the reasonable settlement appears to be the transferring of approximately 150 jobs from other places in Canada to the provincial capital. We should be under no illusion that these negotiations are complete. Air Canada hasn't even converted its letter of intent for the C Series into a firm order yet.

There are no new centres of excellence in either Quebec or Manitoba. The Minister of Transport has not provided Parliament with any documentation on when these commitments will be met, or when this lawsuit will be dropped.

I would submit that it's clear from the testimony and from the briefs we have received that neither Quebec nor Manitoba have documentation supporting these settlement discussions. The minister for the economy of Quebec made it quite clear in the brief that she submitted to this committee that the lawsuit was still ongoing, and I'll read the relevant part of her brief into the record: “Pending the conclusion of final agreements, the Government of Quebec has agreed to drop its lawsuit in relation to Air Canada's obligations to have an overhaul and maintenance centre.”

The Deputy Premier of Manitoba also made that quite clear in her testimony, saying that the federal government's approach to Bill C-10, simply put, is “jumping the gun”. Bill C-10 is being rushed through the process before the necessary specific investments and binding commitments by the federal government and Air Canada have been secured.

I don't think this point has been made clear enough, so I'd like to get it on the record. The Government of Quebec, with the Government of Manitoba as an intervener, brought Air Canada to court to challenge the carrier's assertion that it was fulfilling its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Quebec Superior Court ruled in 2013 that Air Canada had not fulfilled its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Quebec Court of Appeals ruled on November 3, 2015, that Air Canada had not fulfilled its obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Two months later, on January 5, 2016, Air Canada asked the Supreme Court, Canada's top court, to overturn the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision. If the clause pertaining to aircraft maintenance of the Air Canada Public Participation Act does not exist, the case of Attorney General of Quebec v. Air Canada would become moot in the eyes of the Supreme Court. If there is no law to which Air Canada can be held in terms of undertaking overhaul maintenance in Canada, the carrier cannot be challenged in court on this matter.

Air Canada likes the C Series airplane. They made that clear during their appearance last week, but as recently as January 5, Air Canada's plan was to appeal the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court.

Something changed, and Air Canada decided that it was better off settling these lawsuits than pursuing this matter in front of the Supreme Court. Whether the federal government was somehow involved in this change of heart is unknown, beyond a statement by Air Canada's representative indicating that it is acting under the assumption that the section of the Air Canada Public Participation Act we are discussing right now would be repealed. If it wasn't repealed, Air Canada would have to consider its next steps.

The maintenance provision of the Air Canada Public Participation Act mentions three parties: the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community, and the City of Mississauga. Air Canada is named in the title of the bill. Obviously, the Montreal Urban Community doesn't exist anymore, but the provincial governments of two of these three areas are presently engaged in a legal challenge on this very act. I think it is very odd that the government is in the process of changing a law in which three-quarters of the parties mentioned in the law are in litigation challenging each other on this very law. This amendment would give these parties more time to negotiate and come to a mutually agreeable compromise.

I want to move on.

On February 17, 2016, Air Canada announced that it had signed a letter of intent to purchase the Bombardier C Series aircraft and maintain these in Quebec. On the same day, the Minister of Transport announced that he would lessen Air Canada's obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Between the time that Air Canada announced it would challenge the Quebec Court of Appeal's ruling in the Supreme Court, and the Minister of Transport's announcement that he would lessen Air Canada's maintenance obligations under the act, the carrier's representatives met with the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister's Office at least five times.

According to the Lobbying Commissioner's database, these meetings took place on January 8, January 22, January 27, February 3, and February 15, 2016. When the minister came to committee last week, I asked him about these meetings and for any briefing notes that were prepared for these meetings, but to date I have not received any. He seemed reasonably willing to provide these during committee, contingent upon receiving the dates that were in question. I have provided the dates, and followed up on this request during question period, but was then told by the minister that I was on a fishing trip.

First, we are told that recommendations from the minister's department made their way into the bill. Then we were told we could have these documents. Then I was told I was on a fishing trip when trying to get the very documents that the minister, himself, told me existed.

This bill is one clause. I cannot imagine that a mountain of paperwork would be sent to the committee on this request, so I am disappointed not to be able to see the original work product that informed Bill C-10.

I do have a number of access to information requests out to Transport Canada, but as you can imagine I haven't received any responses yet. Access to information requests take months to be responded to, and more often than not any advice to ministers is blacked out. Considering this legislation was first introduced on March 22, the government's rush to pass Bill C-10 ensures that any documents from Transport Canada that don't support the minister's decision, or any documents, for that matter, won't see the light of day before this bill receives royal assent.

These documents are important because there are just too many loose ends for anyone to believe that a clear policy development process was undertaken at Transport Canada, with options to make Air Canada more competitive presented to the minister and his team. There are dozens of policy options that the minister could have considered to make Air Canada and the entire aerospace sector more competitive, but without having seen these, we can't scrutinize the decision.

If my amendment is accepted, I'm hopeful the government will be willing to use the extra time before Bill C-10 becomes law to share with parliamentarians the recommendations of the transportation department that informed this bill. The need for this reform was not included in the Liberal campaign platform. Actually, Air Canada, or its competitiveness, was not even mentioned. The Minister of Transport cannot claim that he has a mandate from the Canadian electorate to get this bill passed so quickly. The government has not been asked by the Supreme Court to pass this legislation, as was the case with Bill C-7, an act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act or Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other acts (medical assistance in dying). This bill has nothing to do with the budget. If Air Canada is negotiating in good faith with the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, then this bill doesn't need to pass so quickly because Air Canada won't face further legal challenges. If Air Canada is not negotiating in good faith with the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, then this bill shouldn't pass, because the Air Canada Public Participation Act, in its current form, remains the main tool of those provinces to get Air Canada to the table to negotiate.

If this legislation doesn't pass, there will be no legal vacuum. Employment levels in both provinces will remain the same. Effectively, the status quo will remain. If the legislation doesn't pass right now, but does so in a few months, the new government in Manitoba will be able to work with the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the Minister of Employment and Social Development to ensure that this legislation meets the province's expectations.

This amendment that I am proposing today goes some way to fulfill the very reasonable request from the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Quebec to wait until they settle their lawsuits before passing this bill, by stipulating that this bill not come into effect before August 1, 2016. My preference would have been to propose an amendment that would have stipulated that this legislation would come into effect only when the Attorney General of Quebec and the Attorney General of Manitoba have communicated with the Attorney General of Canada that they have concluded their litigation against Air Canada, but I was informed that according to procedure, and I quote:

An amendment to alter the coming into force clause of a bill by making it conditional, is out of order. This type of amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and is an attempt to introduce a new question into the bill.

Because the process of negotiating a settlement is always conditional on both parties compromising, no amendment on Air Canada meeting its settlement commitments can be admissible, and I am forced to settle on the language I am proposing. This amendment is not perfect, but it does give the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba more time to negotiate and settle their litigation against Air Canada. It gives the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba more time to see progress from Air Canada in terms of fulfilling the terms of their settlements. With Bill C-10 coming into force at a later date, Air Canada will have, at a minimum, turned its letter of intent to purchase the 45 C Series aircraft into a firm order.

Quite frankly, I really can't see why all members wouldn't support this proposed amendment. For a party that loves to repeat, at every opportunity, that it wants to work hand in hand with the provinces and municipalities, this unilateral action on the part of the federal government gives me the impression that Liberal campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on.

As my colleague, the member from Mégantic—L'Érable, has pointed out, and it bears repeating, it's very rare that provincial ministers intervene and comment on federal legislation. Yet in this case provincial ministers from two different parties have both made their concerns known, and have asked that BillC-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and other measures, come into force only upon their concluding their litigation against Air Canada.

The deputy premier of Manitoba, who also serves as Manitoba's attorney general, couldn't have been more clear. I think I already made this point, but I'll make it again, that the federal government's approach to Bill C-10 simply put is jumping the gun. Bill C-10 is being rushed through the process before the necessary specific investments and binding commitments by the federal government and Air Canada have been secured.

Every single member here was able to follow up with Minister Stefanson, and not a single member questioned her statement asserting that litigation had not yet been concluded, or that this bill wasn't being rushed. I expect the Liberal members will tell us that we should just trust the Minister of Transport and the assurances that he has given the committee.

I'll take the opportunity to quote the minister here, because his statement was telling: “My discussions lead me to think that they are very serious, and the commitment is firm.” Without documents to support this statement, I find this statement very problematic.

Just two days after he made that statement, Air Canada came here, and they were also very clear. When asked about whether the purchase of the C Series aircraft and the creation of the centres of aircraft maintenance in Quebec were conditional on this federal legislation getting passed promptly, Air Canada's representative said, “we are operating on the assumption that the act will be amended pursuant to this process. If that doesn't happen, we will assess the decision at the time.” I think it's worth repeating the last sentence: “If that doesn't happen, we will assess the decision at the time.”

My friend from Niagara Centre asked the Attorney General of Manitoba whether she thought a centre of excellence would be beneficial to her province. This question seemed to imply that, should this legislation not get passed as quickly as the government wants, Manitoba would not benefit from Air Canada moving some of its operations to the province, and perhaps creating a smaller western Canadian centre of excellence in aircraft maintenance.

A centre of excellence is a concentration of aircraft maintenance operations, and more broadly, a concentration of aerospace companies. When a major company like Air Canada chooses to get a significant part of its maintenance work done in one specific location, a large number of firms do set up shop there in order to service the airline. That area consequently becomes a centre of excellence. Therefore, anywhere that Air Canada does significant amounts of maintenance can be considered a centre of excellence.

Manitoba has historically been a centre of excellence in aerospace in Canada with over 5,000 jobs in the sector and many companies that drive innovation. The fact is, Madame Chair, that Manitoba would have benefited because Manitoba won in the Quebec Superior Court and won again in the Quebec Court of Appeal.

While I don't want to speculate on how the Supreme Court would have ruled on this matter, precedent would indicate Manitoba had a strong case. Manitoba is not getting these jobs because of this legislation. They would be getting them because they won in court.

To bring this back to my amendment, all legislation should be carefully considered on the basis of its short-, medium-, and long-term impacts.

I think we as a committee have done a good job looking at this proposed legislation over the past three meetings and have heard from many good witnesses. The breadth of the commentary was of the opinion that they don't understand the rush to get this legislation passed, and they have asked explicitly for the passage of the bill to be delayed.

This amendment addresses those concerns.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

You know the position of the New Democratic Party on Bill C-10 as a whole. To our eyes, it is quite appalling. It actually legislates the loss of 2,600 good jobs all across the country, but mainly in greater Montreal, in Mississauga and in Winnipeg.

The NDP's amendment would simply allow those 2,600 jobs to be saved and kept in the country while keeping Air Canada's legal obligation in terms of the maintenance and overhaul of those aircraft in the three cities I mentioned in my introduction.

It is important for us, because it is a sign of our trust in our aerospace sector, in the Air Canada and Aveos workers who have invested their lives, their time, their energy, their efforts, their qualities, their skills. They have done good work and their expertise is recognized as world-class.

Our aerospace sector is flourishing and we are very proud of it. However, it is not just about making aircraft, it is also about cutting-edge expertise in heavy maintenance. This means that we can be assured that the workers are safe, just as we can also be assured that passengers are safe.

The NDP does not understand how the Liberal Party, having on several occasions committed to solidarity with Air Canada and Aveos workers, should switch sides and change an act that is going to legalize the loss of jobs, something that, even yesterday, was illegal.

Let us not forget that the workers' families were successful in their lawsuits. They won in the Superior Court of Québec. That victory was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Québec and the case is now going to the Supreme Court.

Today, the new Liberal government is doing even worse than the previous Conservative government, which let the matter drag on for years. The Liberals loudly clamoured for the previous Conservative government to enforce the law in order to save the jobs.

Today, with incredible cynicism, I would go so far as to say with complete hypocrisy towards the electorate, not only is the act not being enforced, it is being retroactively changed to justify and legalize the loss of 2,600 jobs. Under the pretext of making Air Canada competitive, it is being given complete carte blanche, and 2,600 good jobs, which should be staying here in the country, are being abandoned.

If the Liberal job creation plan is to allow our jobs to be exported overseas, I wonder what the next step will be in terms of making other Canadian businesses competitive. Will there be deregulation and liberalization? Will they be permitted to outsource jobs. Is the new government's plan to legalize the loss of jobs in Canada in order to create jobs in the United States, Central America or Israel, for heaven's sake?

I find Bill C-10 to be illogical and inconsistent. Air Canada has maintained its aircraft in Canada for decades. As a result, good jobs in the industry were kept here. That helps us in aviation and in aerospace. I can hardly believe that, today, a government that declared itself in favour of the manufacturing sector and cutting-edge sectors like aerospace is able to abandon its promises with the stroke of a pen. Those jobs have disappeared; we will never see them again.

A kind of false competition is being set up between the manufacturing sector and the aviation maintenance sector. They can go hand in hand. Why are we giving Air Canada such a gift?

The NDP does not accept the excuse that Air Canada is going to buy C Series aircraft from Bombardier. If Air Canada is buying C Series aircraft from Bombardier, it is not out of the goodness of their hearts or out of Christian charity, nor is it to make up for the loss of the maintenance jobs. It is because the C Series are darned good planes that Air Canada should be buying because it needs them. That is why it is buying them. However, that does not justify abandoning 1,800 families in and around Montreal and hundreds of families in Mississauga and Winnipeg.

We still have the video of the current Prime Minister, who, when he was leader of the opposition in 2012, was on Parliament Hill with the Aveos workers, chanting the word “solidarity” into his megaphone. Today, those workers must feel completely betrayed by the promises of the Liberal Party, which is switching sides today and doing something that a Conservative government would never have dared to do: throwing into the garbage the guarantees that had been negotiated with Air Canada in the Mulroney years to justify privatizing the carrier.

That is why the NDP is appealing to its Liberal colleagues to reverse their decision and change their party's position, to stand up for the people in and around Montreal, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and in Mississauga. We have to do our job and to keep high-quality jobs at home, not pass a retroactive act that agrees to export our aerospace jobs.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, 42nd Parliament, 1st session, meeting number 13. We are here pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, April 20, 2016, BillC-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

We are joined today by members of the department, Daniel Blasioli and Sara Wiebe, who are here to answer questions and offer any assistance to the committee as we proceed with the clause-by-clause.

Given the fact that we have many new members on the committee, I'm going to give you a bit of information so that everybody understands exactly the process we're going to go through this afternoon.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all of the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member who has posed it, who may then explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading. They may also be ruled inadmissible if they offend the financial prerogative of the crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Since this is the first exercise for many new members, I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

If during the process the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee and revisited later on in the process.

As indicated earlier, the committee will go through the package of amendments in the order in which they appear and vote on them one at a time. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent, though, to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title, the bill itself, and order a reprint of the bill, if required, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I hope everybody was able to grasp all of that as we begin this process. This has probably lasted longer than the meeting will if these two amendments are dealt with fairly quickly. I think everyone understands the process.

(On clause 1)

The first amendment we will look at is the amendment by the NDP, by Ms. Duncan.

I turn the floor over to you, Mr. Boulerice, if you'd like to speak to the amendment.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to ask this question of both of you folks.

There is an attempt to strike a balance, ensuring sustainability as well as growth within the industry. I think we all can agree with that. With that said, there exists a reality to allow a more competitive environment for all those, especially the corporate bodies, to do just that. Bill C-10 specifies that Air Canada's articles of continuance include:

maintenance of any type relating to airframes, engines, components, equipment or parts, in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba

However, the bill would also allow Air Canada, while not eliminating those activities in any of the three provinces, to change the type or volume of any or all of those activities.

I have two questions.

What do you think should be the minimum levels, if any, of employment and maintenance activities in the three provinces, below which Air Canada would no longer be in compliance with the proposed amendments to its articles of continuance in Bill C-10? That's question number one.

Question number two is.... I know, Heather, that you sort of answered this question, but I do want to try to dig a bit deeper, because I think there is some participation for all of us to work together for any amendments to be struck. What amendments, if any, would you propose to this provision of the bill?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This has been most instructive. Once again, may I congratulate Mr. Brian Pallister and all of his team for their fine victory in Manitoba's last provincial election. We are very happy to have you here again with us to be able to talk about it.

I will go back to Mr. Rebeck in a few moments, but for now I want to speak to you, Ms. Stefanson.

I would like you to tell us a bit about your program. What does the Manitoba government intend to do to convince the federal government not to move too quickly on Bill C-10? We also believe the Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act needs to be modernized. We also think Air Canada has to become more competitive. However, there is no reason to rush things. The official opposition is in complete agreement with you on that.

What is your game plan to try to convince Mr. Garneau to delay the adoption of Bill C-10 to the fall?

[Heather Stefanson]

Thank you for the question and for your comments.

We have been in discussion with some of the local cabinet ministers to express our concern with respect to Bill C-10 and to express our interest in working collaboratively with the federal government to ensure that jobs are created here in the province of Manitoba in all sectors of the economy, including the aerospace sector. Those discussions have begun.

I think at this stage, for the purposes of today, we're concerned about the bill being moved forward too quickly, before the details are dealt with.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Deputy Premier, I guess you're getting used to that title. It probably looks good on you.

Getting back to the question that one of my colleagues asked, if there is to be true collaboration and partnership between all levels of government to support Manitoba's aerospace industry, has your new government had at least some discussions about what it could do, either in league with Bill C-10 or outside of it, to also work with us to bolster Manitoba's competitiveness and the number of well-paying jobs that are located there?

[Heather Stefanson]

We have had discussions with local cabinet ministers with respect to our concerns regarding Bill C-10.

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

As a new government, have you had discussions with the federal government on Bill C-10 since your election?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate both of you being here.

We have heard over and over again that the Government of Manitoba has come to an agreement. From what I'm hearing right now, there is no agreement in place, and you oppose Bill C-10. I'm glad you clarified that.

Just previously, we had the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada and Premier Aviation here. Both were very supportive of Bill C-10 in terms of the C Series maintenance opportunities in the centre of excellence in Winnipeg.

Can you comment on that?

[Heather Stefanson, Deputy Premier, Government of Manitoba]

Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

I'm pleased to be here today to speak on Bill C-10, the amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Manitoba is home to a world-class aerospace industry. It is the largest in western Canada, with approximately 5,400 individuals employed directly, and many more indirectly in related sectors of our economy. Our firms are diverse and on the cutting edge of technology and innovation. The outlook for the Manitoba aerospace sector is positive.

Nonetheless, the global supply chain is extremely competitive, and Manitoba companies face severe competition from lower-cost jurisdictions. The loss of high-quality skilled jobs that resulted from the closure of Aveos in 2012 is still very much felt in our province. It is healthy for our country to maintain a robust and competitive aerospace industry outside of eastern Canada. As a new government, we need to be sure that Manitoba will be given the consideration it is due if changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act are being sought.

There are significant implications to moving forward with Bill C-10. It is not appropriate to rush through without substantial dialogue and consideration. Actions taken by federal governments can have an enormous impact on the sustainability of Manitoba's aerospace sector. One of the most notorious was the CF-18 contracts. These types of conflicts serve no one's interests, and can be avoided through proactive participation.

Our government has been engaged with our partners in the federal government and Air Canada, as well as local stakeholders, regarding the implications of Bill C-10.

In February 2016 the previous government wrote Minister Garneau to request that amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act be limited to expanding the geographical scope of Air Canada's commitments within Manitoba. The proposed amendments go significantly further than the geographical scope. The spirit and original intent of the legislation was to ensure that skilled heavy maintenance work remained in Manitoba. While some flexibility can be appropriate, the proposed amendments virtually eliminate any obligation for the company to maintain high-quality skilled heavy maintenance jobs in our province. This is contrary to the interests of Manitobans.

The aviation industry has evolved substantially since the privatization of Air Canada and the introduction of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Competitiveness is an integral part of economic growth. We embrace change, but it is the responsibility of our new government to ensure that Manitoba's aerospace industry emerges strengthened, not weakened, as a global competitor.

Manitoba's interests are clear: economic growth, high-quality jobs, and a strong and competitive aerospace industry. The federal government's approach to Bill C-10, simply put, jumps the gun. Bill C-10 is being rushed through the process before the necessary specific investments and binding commitments by the federal government and Air Canada have been secured.

As a direct result, the Government of Manitoba must oppose Bill C-10. Our province will continue to do so until such time as specific commitments have been made to reassure Manitobans that changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act and related accompanying investments in job creation will provide a net benefit to the Manitoba economy.

This concludes my statement to the committee. I thank members for listening today.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

To the Quebec Employers Council, one of the points you raise that I hadn't heard much about before was the potential boost to the tourism industry in Canada.

Could you elaborate a little on how Bill C-10 may give a boost to the tourism sector?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Excellent.

A group like Premier, a Canadian company with operations in some place like Trois-Rivières, would not, without a bill like Bill C-10 passing, be able to bid on certain supply contracts for maintenance work. Is that correct?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I want to ask Mr. Quick, in your opinion as a leader in the industry, is it the case...? We heard a little bit about what the C Series jet could mean for the Canadian aerospace industry. Is it your understanding that there is a connection between Air Canada's purchase of the C Series and the passage of Bill C-10 ?

[Ronnie Di Bartolo]

I agree. It's going to prohibit us from creating new jobs with the centres of excellence. Also, we would be putting at risk the jobs that we presently have in place with all of our facilities. Therefore, I believe that Bill C-10 is very important to Premier Aviation and to all of our facilities throughout the country.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome back, gentlemen.

I have just a simple question. If you could, please be brief, because as the Chair mentioned, I am sharing my time.

If Bill C-10 does not pass, what implications will this have on you?

We could start with Mr. Quick.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank all of the witnesses for their participation today.

I understand from what you have said that the representatives of the three groups of witnesses support Bill C-10 as presented.

Madam Chair, for the information of all the parliamentarians who are here and who need all of the necessary information in order to vote on Bill C-10 in the House, as well for the stakeholders who have just shared their position on the bill, I want to mention that my colleague Ms. Kelly Block has tabled a notice of motion which reads as follows:

That the committee request any documents, research projects, notes, emails and correspondence that contributed to or discussed the deck “Amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act” and that these documents be submitted to the committee by Wednesday, May 11, 2016.

This motion was tabled by Ms. Block within the required timeframe. It is important that our guests have access to this information. From the beginning, all sorts of things have been happening in committee. One day we are told that there were meetings with Air Canada; another day, we are told that there were no meetings with Air Canada. Sometimes we hear that Air Canada met with people; and then we hear that Air Canada did not meet people. In short, it would be important, to support the work of the committee, that members of the committee adopt this motion, and that we be given access to all of the information we need.

There is a reason for this. In fact, the bill itself mentions that, even if Quebec has stated that the term “overhaul” referred to heavy maintenance, the courts recognized that no such maintenance had ever been done in Mississauga. We have also heard that Air Canada concluded an agreement with the Government of Manitoba to create a centre of excellence in western Canada for the maintenance of aircraft in that province. However, we have learned that the agreements have not been concluded yet. The Government of Quebec said the same thing in the brief it sent to members of the committee.

I want to quote two excerpts from that brief. This is the first:

Pending the conclusion of final agreements, the Government of Quebec has agreed to drop its lawsuit in relation to Air Canada's obligations to have an overhaul and maintenance centre.

I repeat that that is “pending the conclusion of final agreements”. And yet today we heard the witnesses tell us that the agreement had been concluded with the Government of Quebec. However that does not seem to be the case; the Government of Quebec itself has said so.

This is another excerpt from the brief:

Additionally, in order to provide for all aspects of the agreements reached, the Government of Quebec is asking that, once Bill C-10 receives royal assent, the legislation come into force after the final agreements described above have been concluded.

Once again, I understand that the agreement with the Government of Quebec has not been concluded.

Later we will be hearing from a representative of the Government of Manitoba who will probably also tell us that the agreement has not yet been signed.

That is why, Madam Chair, it is important that the members of the committee be made aware of this notice of motion, which is quite simple. The purpose of the motion is simply to allow us to have access to all the necessary information. This will help parliamentarians and witnesses taking part in this committee's study of Bill C-10.

Madam Chair, with the authorization of my colleagues, I would like us to adopt this motion immediately so that we may conduct our study with all of the necessary information in hand. This will also help witnesses to form an opinion about the bill.

[Yves-Thomas Dorval, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Employers Council]

Good afternoon.

I will deliver my remarks in French, if you don't mind.

First of all, we would like to thank the committee for allowing us to speak to you today about the importance of modernizing the Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act through Bill C-10.

My name is Yves-Thomas Dorval and I am the chief executive officer of the Quebec Employers' Council or QEC. I am accompanied by Mr. Benjamin Laplatte, principal director, Public Affairs and Corporate Development.

For close to 50 years, the QEC has represented the majority of industry associations, and Quebec's largest employers. Directly or indirectly, it represents the interests of more than 70,000 employers of all sizes, in both the private and parapublic sectors, some of which are Canada-wide, if not international, enterprises.

The mission of our organization is to see to it that in a context of increasing global competition, businesses benefit from the best possible conditions to prosper in a sustainable way, that is to say a stable, predictable and competitive environment.

In keeping with the priorities dictated by the economic situation, the actions of the council are guided by five broad strategic axes set out in its action plan; three of these are more closely related to Bill C-10: competitive labour costs, intelligent regulation, and a sustainable, competition-based economy.

In light of these, the QEC was pleased to see the introduction of Bill C-10, which gives Air Canada the necessary flexibility to optimize its activities and continue to develop.

However, let us take a step back and look at the situation more globally, as others have done before me.

We think it is important to appreciate the value of the bill in the context of the need to strengthen the aviation industry in Canada, which has to be competitive.

The Canadian aviation industry is one of the cornerstones of our national economy. It is comprised of more than 700 companies spread out across the country, supports close to 180,000 direct and indirect jobs, and contributes $29 billion annually to our GDP.

Every year, it invests about $1.8 billion in R and D, which is on average five times more than the manufacturing sector invests.

Finally, the Canadian aviation industry plays a large part in our export market, as close to 80% of overall production is sold on foreign markets. That is enormous.

As it is among the largest world-class international players, Air Canada makes an important contribution to the Canadian economy, and is among the largest employers.

Exporting Canadian ingenuity and inventiveness to the world allows us to develop our competitiveness and continue to grow, and will help us to come out of this period of economic uncertainty. Knowledge- and innovation-based industries make us competitive and contribute to Canada's economy.

However, the players of the aviation industry are not dealing with a level playing field on world markets, as they face competition both from giant multinationals and governments. Since 1980, the contracting out of certain maintenance activities to specialized firms has become standard in this sector throughout the world. Allow me to remind you in this regard that the number of Air Canada's maintenance workers has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Today the carrier hires approximately 2,400 maintenance workers in Canada alone, in addition to the 1,000 workers employed by its regional partners.

However, no airline company in Canada or the world was subjected to maintenance restrictions like the ones that were imposed on Air Canada by the Air Canada Public Participation Act, even though these enterprises compete on the same markets for the same consumers. These airlines make their decisions based on the how their services compete in quality and price, and their lead times.

It is true that the Aveos company unfortunately had to close, and many jobs disappeared, but it is important to point out that as for any private firm, the success of that type of business depends first and foremost on its ability to compete effectively with its competitors through the quality of its services and prices.

It must be acknowledged that over the years Aveos was unable to keep up in this regard. Following its closure, other Quebec suppliers emerged. Through their expertise and competitiveness, they created hundreds of jobs in Quebec. They compete internationally to win airline carriers' heavy maintenance contracts, as was said a few moments ago.

The modernization of the Air Canada Public Participation Act will amend a law that was passed more than a quarter century ago, taking into account the fact that the air transport industry has changed greatly since then.

Bill C-10 will allow the carrier to make decisions based on its business acumen and its commercial discretion, just as private sector enterprises must be able to do. The bill affords it greater flexibility, which Air Canada needs if it is to compete effectively on the world stage. The bill recognizes that the carrier is an enterprise that belongs entirely to private sector interests, and does business in a highly competitive global industry. Indeed, the experts, some of whom appeared before your committee, refer to a very low profit margin of 2% to 4% for this industry.

By creating more equitable conditions, Bill C-10 will allow Air Canada to determine how much and what type of aircraft maintenance to do in Canada and elsewhere in the world. It seems clear that Bill C-10 will allow Air Canada to remain competitive and contribute to job creation in the fields of aviation, tourism and aeronautics in Canada for many years to come.

This bill is in fact in keeping with agreements concluded at the provincial level, in Quebec especially, where Air Canada has committed to contributing to the creation of a centre of excellence and maintenance for its C Series aircraft. The federal government acknowledges the settlement of suits involving provincial governments by amending the act in order to avoid similar litigation in the future.

In conclusion, the time has come to ask ourselves a simple question: do we believe the aviation industry should be a competitive part of our future? Our answer is a resounding yes. That is why we support Bill C-10.

Thank you.

[Ronnie Di Bartolo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Premier Aviation Overhaul Center]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for inviting us to this committee to speak about Premier Aviation and Bill C-10.

My name is Ron Di Bartolo and I am the president and CEO of Premier Aviation. I'm joined by my colleague Jean-Pierre Bastien, vice-president of operations of Premier Aviation in Quebec City.

To start, I would like to provide you with some background on Premier Aviation. We are a wholly owned Canadian business that provides primary airframe maintenance to the aviation industry. In addition to doing airframe maintenance, we also have facilities and capabilities to do paint work and other maintenance on aircraft.

We currently have four facilities, located in Trois-Rivières, Quebec; Quebec City; Windsor, Ontario; and Rome, New York. Our Canadian facilities employ 550 people, while our facility in the U.S. employs 170 individuals.

Our company facilities provide service to a number of airlines and different aircraft types. In Trois Rivières we service Air Canada and its fleet of Embraers and its partner Sky Regional and its fleet of Embraers also. We also provide paintwork for WestJet.

In Windsor we service WestJet's fleet and currently service First Air, Canadian North, and Sunwing. This facility handles Boeing 737s, ATR 42s, Embraer 190s, and other aircraft types.

In Quebec City we service American, Caribbean, and European operators, including Piedmont Airlines, Peninsula Airways, Corvus, LATAM, Air Guyane, LIAT, and several lessors of aircraft.

In Rome, New York, we service a variety of aircraft for Republic Airlines, Atlas Air Cargo, and GECAS.

Our ability to service so many aircraft types for different clients has come from years of investment in our workforce. Clients seek Premier Aviation because of our hard-earned reputation for excellent quality of work, quick turnaround times, and flexibility to schedule maintenance, all while being cost competitive. This is what it takes to be competitive in this industry. Our ability to also do paintwork and other maintenance provides us a significant advantage over our competitors and makes us value-added to our clients.

With respect to our work with Air Canada, we were first contracted to do paint and maintenance in 2009. Following the closure of Aveos in 2012, the scope of our work for the airline expanded to include heavy maintenance of some of its Embraer aircraft. Due to the positive results of this maintenance, Air Canada soon contracted Premier to do all maintenance on its Embraer fleet. Previously this work had been done by Aveos and Embraer facilities in Nashville, Tennessee.

Today, because of the advantage we can provide to Air Canada, all of its work is done in Trois-Rivières and supports the 354 employees presently there. In addition, this growing work has required us to expand our facilities throughout Québec at different times. As a competitive MRO facility in Canada catering to not only Canadian but international companies, we know we have what it takes to compete in this industry. We are competitive. Bill C-10 and its amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act would not restrict the location of the work we do for Air Canada and would provide flexibility for us to keep growing our business with the airline.

Over time we have shown that we can compete for Canadian business as well as for international business, and it is our hope that we will continue to grow and create maintenance jobs in Canada. With our highly skilled workforce and our expertise, flexibility, and low cost structure, we are well positioned to do so.

Thank you.

[Jim Quick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members.

Thank you for the invitation to join you today to discuss Bill C-10 and the Air Canada Public Participation Act. We are pleased to be here to provide you with our perspective on how this legislation will support the growth and the competitiveness of the Canadian aerospace industry.

The AIAC represents Canada's aerospace industry, including major manufacturers and their suppliers. Our members are a diverse group of companies that are world leaders when it comes to the design, manufacture, and delivery of aerospace, space, and defence products, as well as the maintenance, repair, and overhaul, or MRO, of existing aircraft.

Aerospace is a global industry, so for us and for our members it is important to make business, policy, and investment decisions in a global context. Aerospace supply chains are not limited to a single country or even to a single continent. Our members are competing for contracts against other companies from around the world.

Canada's aerospace industry is the fifth largest in the world. For decades, we have punched well above our weight in the global marketplace. This is because we have built globe-leading capacity and capability when it comes to high-value, innovative aerospace products and services. We are home to a world-leading OEM in Bombardier and we have fostered a highly innovative supplier base that is integrated into growing markets all over the globe.

The legislation in question comes in the context of the announcement of two centres of excellence that will drive aerospace innovation and capacity in Montreal and Winnipeg, two of Canada's major aerospace clusters. These centres of excellence will help us maintain our competitive advantage in the global marketplace. They will help us ensure that Canadian aerospace firms continue to expand their capacity and capability to offer innovative solutions, not only to Air Canada but also to other major airlines and operators around the world.

In Montreal, a centre of excellence focused on maintaining the C Series will establish an important competitive advantage for companies seeking to conduct maintenance, repair, and overhaul activities on this new platform.

Bombardier, as I mentioned, is a world-class manufacturer, and they have created a world-class aircraft. As the C Series enters into service, this is also a prime opportunity for Canadian companies to secure a competitive advantage when it comes to contracts for any MRO activity related to the aircraft, not only for Air Canada but also for other major global airlines.

Manitoba is already home to a highly innovative aerospace sector. Winnipeg boasts Canada's largest aerospace composite manufacturing centre, an industry-leading cold weather engine-testing facility, and the world's largest independent gas turbine engine MRO company. The presence of a centre of excellence focused on MRO activity presents a new opportunity to develop additional capacity and capability for the Manitoba aerospace companies that can be exported into the international marketplace.

Bill C-10 is also important because it creates a level playing field for Canadian companies. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, being competitive in a global industry requires an environment in which companies have the ability to make business, policy, and investment decisions in a global context. If our companies are going to survive, they need to be able to compete against the rest of the world, and we know they can.

For AIAC and our members, Bill C-10 is not only about providing services within Canada or to one Canadian company; it is also about the way in which we build an environment for our industry that will make Canadian aerospace companies more innovative and competitive on a global scale, and more able to attract business from airlines and operators all over the world.

Thanks to the strength of our industry and to smart investments in innovation, such as these centres of excellence, we are confident that Canadian companies will continue to win contracts with Air Canada and with other airlines and operators. We believe that Bill C-10 takes an approach that is necessary for Canada's future aerospace growth. It supports innovation, competitiveness, and Canadian growth at home and in the global marketplace.

Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I am calling to order meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the 42nd Parliament, first session.

I would like to welcome our witnesses, both via teleconference and in the room with us. We very much appreciate your taking time out of your schedules to come in and help us with the review of Bill C-10.

In the room right now we have Jim Quick, president and chief executive officer of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, and Ronnie Di Bartolo and Jean-Pierre Bastien from the Premier Aviation Overhaul Centre.

Via video conference we have Yves-Thomas Dorval and Benjamin Laplatte from the Quebec Employers Council.

I would like to welcome all of you.

I will go to Mr. Quick first. Would you like to lead off, please?

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, an aspect of this budget that I think we can really treasure is the fact that the Government of Canada believes in rural Canada. There are a number of initiatives to support rural communities. One of the biggest things is recognizing the importance of the Internet to rural communities, whether for private use or small business use. There are ways we can expand that and look at diversifying rural communities so that they are not as dependent on one or two businesses.

We believe that we need to invest and to be there, and that is one of the reasons the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has spoken so avidly about the importance of supply management. It is one of the reasons for some of the changes in Bill C-10. It is not just the city of Montreal but the entire province that is incorporated in terms of the potential for our aerospace industry, and that same principle applies for Manitoba and Ontario.

It is a different attitude. It is an attitude that shows we understand the importance of rural Canadians and their way of life. We want to be there to support them in a very real and tangible way.

Air Canada Public Participation Act — Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 22, 2016, by the hon. member for Montcalm regarding alleged misleading statements made in the House by the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport with respect to BIll C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Montcalm for having raised this matter, as well as the Minister of Transport for his comments.

In presenting his case, the member for Montcalm alleged that both the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport deliberately misled the House by repeatedly providing inaccurate information with respect to Bill C-10 in response to oral questions and during debate.

In particular, the member claimed that the statements, which pertained to the status of litigation regarding Air Canada’s obligation to keep aircraft maintenance operations in the province of Quebec, had been refuted by the government of that province. The federal government’s assertions, he argued, led members of the House to make decisions in relation to Bill C-10 based on false information.

The Minister of Transport, for his part, stood by his statements, while pointing out that the federal government was not privy to the negotiations between Air Canada and the government of the Province of Quebec. He concluded that, in his opinion, the matter raised did not constitute a question of privilege, but was more a question of debate.

The House of Commons is a debating chamber where opposing views are passionately held and vigorously defended, and where opposition members have a duty to hold the government to account. Consequently, the need for members' access to truthful and accurate information is primordial and goes to the heart of their role and privileges as legislators.

In fact, feisty exchanges during debate and disagreements as to facts are not infrequent; the member for Montcalm acknowledged this when he stated that he understood “that disagreements between members are to be expected and are fodder for debate”.

Not surprisingly then, the allegation that a member deliberately misled the House is a most serious one. In adjudicating such matters, the Speaker has a defined but very limited role, one which prevents the chair from judging the content or accuracy of statements made in the House.

As Speaker, my role is strictly limited to determining whether, in the course of debate, a member has deliberately misled the House.

Successive Speakers have clearly set out the three conditions that must be demonstrated in order for a Speaker to arrive at such a finding. My predecessor outlined them in his ruling of April 29, 2015, when he stated at page 13197 of Debates:

…first, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the member making the statement has to know that the statement was incorrect when it was made. Finally, it needs to be proven that the member intended to mislead the House by making the statement.

As members can appreciate, the threshold is very high, purposely so given the seriousness of the allegation and its potential consequences for members individually and collectively. From this, it stands to reason that a finding of a prima facie case of privilege is an exceedingly rare occurrence in cases with respect to disputed facts.

Speaker Jerome understood that such situations are rarely grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege when he stated on June 4, 1975, on page 6431 of Debates that:

...a dispute as to facts, a dispute as to opinions, and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.

In the present case, no evidence has been brought forward to demonstrate either that the Minister of Transport knew that the statements he made were misleading at the time that they were made or that he intended to mislead the House.

Therefore, while the member for Montcalm has illustrated that there is a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of certain facts, it is clear to the Chair that the threshold for determining that the House was deliberately misled has not been met. As such, the Chair cannot conclude that members have been impeded in the performance of their parliamentary functions. Accordingly, I find that this matter is a dispute as to facts and not a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Air Canada

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I am in no hurry. In fact, I will speak very slowly to explain to my colleague.

We decided to change the legislation through Bill C-10, as I have been saying from the beginning, because the governments of Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada. This gives us the opportunity to clarify the legislation and give Air Canada more flexibility in making decisions regarding the maintenance of its planes.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Not at all, Mr. Speaker.

Because Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada, we were able to make amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, through Bill C-10. That is what we are doing.

However, I remind my colleague that Air Canada is still required to perform maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians are very concerned about the government's position on support for the aerospace industry, which is extremely important to our economy.

When we recently asked the Minister of Transport why he had pushed through Bill C-10 under a gag order, he said that it was to make Air Canada more competitive.

Will the minister finally admit that he is leaving the door wide open for Air Canada to sacrifice good-quality jobs here in Canada?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Okay.

My last question, Madam Chair, if I may, is this: do you think, when you look at the overall sector, that there is a bigger issue attached to this? Is there a bigger issue attached to this, not with respect to just Bill C-10, but to actually being able to sustain the industry in a broader manner?

[Serge Cadieux]

If I may, I am going to say that we can engage in this kind of debate, which is good for the gallery, but the real reason we are here is to say that the legislation guaranteed jobs in Canada, and to sound the alarm because 2,600 of our jobs have been exported outside the country. If Bill C-10 is passed, then a year from now, another 2,400 jobs will disappear. I think you need to be aware of the situation. We are telling you that this is the reality. You can dodge the problem if you like, but you will be accountable for your actions if you do.

We went to court to have the legislation interpreted. Six judges in Quebec have interpreted it the same way. We had got to the stage of enforcing the judgment when the president of Air Canada came before you to make threats, saying that he was not sure he would give Bombardier a contract if you refused to amend the legislation. That is shameless blackmail. As guardians of the public interest, you have to rise above partisan politics and determine whether or not jobs will be lost if Bill C-10 is passed. The answer is yes. I hope my words are being recorded. If you pass this bill, we will repeat what happened, over and over again, when we lose all of our jobs.

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

Mr. Poirier, I have never seen a new business project start up with no money. Honestly, I was a little surprised to hear that.

I am pleased to see you here again. You have been patient, and for that, I thank you. I think it is important. There are things we need to hear.

A little earlier, you said you had heard a number of ministers, who were in opposition at the time, tell you all sorts of things or make all sorts of promises concerning Aveos. This past March, Mr. Garneau said that Bill C-10 was good news for the aerospace industry. From your testimony today, I understand that is not the case.

How many of you and others who are in the room were present when Mr. Trudeau made his speech in the House of Commons, on Parliament Hill. Could you stand up?

[Jean Poirier]

At present, the big maintenance, repair, and overhaul centres are outside Canada. The biggest of those centres in Canada, Aveos, has been closed. It was closed and it no longer exists. Air Canada decided to sign agreements with its friends at Star Alliance and have the maintenance on its planes done outside the country.

Do you think a company like Lufthansa is going to come and open an aircraft hangar here when it can put its employees in Germany to work? Do you think Air France is going to put people to work here? No, those companies are going to put their workers in their countries to work. Air Canada made a business decision when it said it was over.

We have something to propose to you, and you are part of this plan. You could act as arbitrator and tell us to be as competitive as Air France, and give us a list of costs and we would do the work at that cost. We are prepared to present a business case. Give us 12 months, and we will present you with one. In the meantime, shelve Bill C-10.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you guys for your patience today.

When I met with machinists in Winnipeg and asked if they had been consulted by the federal government before Bill C-10 was tabled, it was a clear no. I think what we've heard from you today was a clear no. We had the minister here on Tuesday. He said that he didn't talk to Air Canada about this before presenting the bill. Today we heard Air Canada resist saying that they had meaningful exchanges with the government on Bill C-10. It's a significant decision for the aerospace industry in Canada, yet there seems to have been no consultation.

Can you guys speak to what this means with respect to the government's ability to leverage getting that kind of work here in Canada in the future?

[David Chartrand]

We urge this committee to send Bill C-10 back to the House with the following recommendations:

Remove the new subsection (4) pertaining to maintenance activities. We ask that the jobs and this industry be maintained in Canada and that the government continue to invest in and support the maintenance, repair and overhaul industry in Canada.

In conclusion, we ask this committee to put forward and support these recommendations.

[Fred Hospes]

This bill allows Air Canada to focus on a race to the bottom and not on protecting jobs in the industry for future Canadians. This bill makes us wonder whether the government has given up on the aviation sector in Canada. We wonder if the government has given up on good jobs this sector can provide across the country. We wonder if corporate profits have become more important than good jobs to this government.

We urge this committee to send Bill C-10 back to the House with the following recommendations.

One, we recommend that the proposed new subsection 6(4) on maintenance activities be removed, and two, we ask that the jobs and this industry be maintained in Canada and that the government continue to invest in and support the MRO industry in Canada.

In conclusion, we ask that this committee put forward and support these recommendations.

[Fred Hospes, President and Directing General Chairman, District Lodge 140, Richmond, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada]

We'll both be speaking.

Good evening. My name is Fred Hospes. I'm the president and directing general chairperson of the transportation district 140 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. I am here today with Dave Chartrand. I am the Quebec coordinator.

We thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before you to present our views on Bill C-10.

The IAM is the largest union at Air Canada and represents approximately 8,000 workers. When Air Canada was privatized in 1988 through the Air Canada Public Participation Act, we raised our concerns that Air Canada would move its maintenance and overhaul operations outside of Canada. The Progressive Conservative government of the day responded with legislation requiring Air Canada to maintain operational and overhaul centres in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg. In addition, the government and Air Canada stated publicly that the act guaranteed that aircraft heavy maintenance overhaul employment would be maintained and even grow in those communities.

Following the Aveos bankruptcy in 2012, the majority of Air Canada's aircraft heavy maintenance overhaul work was done outside of Canada. Make no mistake: we also represent the 2,600 Aveos workers who lost their jobs.

We have serious concerns with the introduction of Bill C-10. In particular, proposed subsection 6(4) of the act explicitly allows Air Canada to “change the type or volume of any or all of” its aircraft maintenance work “as well as the level of employment”.

[Serge Cadieux, General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Serge Cadieux and I am the General Secretary of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.

The FTQ is a union with 600,000 members in Quebec, more than 20,000 of whom are aerospace employees. They manufacture and maintain aircraft and aircraft components, work as cabin crew members or pilots, or are employed in airports.

The FTQ recently intervened in this area by filing a motion with the Quebec Superior Court against Air Canada regarding the maintenance and overhaul of its aircraft. Our motion requesting an injunction was the only possible way to force Air Canada to comply with its legal obligations and to respect the unanimous decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Now, unexpectedly, the federal government has tabled Bill C-10. That is why we are here before you today. We are here to ask you to choose the jobs and health of the aerospace industry as a whole over this bad Bill C-10.

All of Quebec understands today why Boeing is supported by the U.S. federal government and Airbus by the European governments. The people understand that Bombardier cannot be an international player without strong government support. They understand that aerospace is not an industry like any other. It is strategic. An industrial sector may be strategic for many valid reasons, such as national security, the impact on the economy, or jobs. Canada got it right by supporting its automobile industry.

Similarly, it must be understood that the gradual disappearance of Canadian expertise in heavy maintenance of aircraft is a step backward for a strategic industry, a step backward that will have a negative impact on thousands of workers, whose jobs will be either exported or made precarious. In fact, that is what the real issue is with Bill C-10. By proposing an amendment to sections 1 and 6 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act and repealing the provision requiring Air Canada to maintain operational and overhaul centres in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga, the government is siding with Air Canada, which has already outsourced the 2,600 heavy maintenance jobs at Aveos.

Worse still, by doing so, it is endangering another 2,500 Canadian jobs in the field of aerospace maintenance. To do their job properly, MPs should ask Air Canada where the 2,600 jobs at Aveos went, why they were exported, and if the expertise needed to maintain its fleet of aircraft is available in Canada. The answers to these questions will reveal that the jobs did not go to China or Honduras, but to the United States and Israel, that they were exported to create added value for Air Canada’s shareholders, and that all the expertise needed is available right here in Canada. This Parliament, which is invested with the mission of defending Canada’s public and national interests, can choose either to create and maintain employment for thousands of workers, thereby benefiting the workers, their families and their communities, or to ratify the plans made by Air Canada’s shareholders for their own interests. The public must also know that aircraft maintenance and overhaul operations help maintain an important pool of expertise for the development of the aerospace industry.

Aircraft development and maintenance are related. No one could imagine building cars without having garages to repair them in. The aerospace sector is as important for Quebec as the automobile industry is for Ontario. Montreal is the third largest world aerospace centre after Toulouse and Seattle. More than 41,000 jobs in 235 companies create 2% of Quebec's GDP. The concentration of expertise, the availability of capital and the existence of complementary companies support an exceptional industry cluster that must be protected by public authorities. By allowing the exportation of maintenance jobs, Bill C-10 is weakening one of the links in the industrial chain. We find this government negligence difficult to understand.

In closing, today, we are urging you to give jobs a chance. We believe that we have what it takes to get Canada's aircraft heavy maintenance jobs back. We have the necessary expertise. The aerospace industry needs to keep that expertise, and we can be as competitive as any other country.

There is therefore no need to change the current legislation. This industrial sector provides a safeguard against the exportation of quality jobs. It is also a deliberate choice made by Canadian legislators to protect jobs rather than to kowtow to shareholders. We cannot fault senior management at Air Canada for doing what they need to do to perform as demanded by their shareholders, but we can certainly reproach the government and Parliament for failing to safeguard the interests of the majority.

The will to keep Air Canada's maintenance and overhaul centres in designated cities meets national geopolitical imperatives and safeguards the Canadianness of the company by firmly anchoring it in certain regions of the country.

By enacting Bill C-10, Parliament will be sending the message that growth and wealth, even at the expense of jobs, are more important than jobs and the national geopolitical imperatives and Canadianness mentioned in the original text.

The FTQ thanks the committee for allowing us to appear today.

[Jean Poirier, Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to appear before you today on behalf of the 2,600 Canadian workers and their families who were affected by the illegal closure of Air Canada’s overhaul centres in March 2012.

My name is Jean Poirier. I am the official spokesperson for the association. My purpose here today is to convince you not to approve Bill C-10, which would confer the stamp of legality upon what is currently an illegal act. In addition, I am here especially to make you understand the vital need to retain a cutting-edge economic sector that is the envy of many countries throughout the world: our aircraft overhaul industry.

In the past four years, 355 of Air Canada’s aircraft have been illegally repaired in foreign countries. Air Canada’s overhaul centres were profit-makers before the company was sold to Aveos in 2007 and before former Nortel Networks managers and the American investment funds KKR and Sageview Capital got hold of it.

The workers who were put out on the street in 2012 are the same workers who were generating profits in 2007. The only things that changed during the Aveos years are: the new management and shareholders demonstrated that they had no knowledge of the industry, and Air Canada proved that it was willing to outsource this work to other countries. They destroyed Canada’s leadership in this sector. The workers stayed the same: workers with acknowledged expertise, a positive attitude and, especially, a passion for aviation work. It is important to understand that people who choose to become aviation technicians are looking for more than just a job: they want the opportunity to work in a field they love. Ask any of the students and they will tell you they are there because they are passionate about aircraft. And if you ask them why they are dropping out, they will undoubtedly tell you it is because of the government’s willingness to outsource those jobs. You are sending quite a message to our young people.

After Aveos closed in 2012, two companies set up shop in the Montreal area and picked up the pieces of some of Aveos’ divisions. Both companies are now turning a profit and have hired Aveos’ former employees despite the fact that they are not receiving any contracts from Air Canada. These companies knew how to draw upon the expertise of our workers to develop a profitable business model with foreign contracts.

Today, 2,600 workers are paying for its illegal action with the disruption of their lives, of the well-being of their families and of their financial security. In addition, the federal and provincial governments have been deprived of tax revenue from those workers. If the federal government considered it important to keep specialized jobs in Canada in 1988, why isn’t that no longer the case today, in light of the fact that economic growth continues to slow in both Canada and Quebec? Air Canada was built on taxpayer money. The income tax collected from Canadian workers contributes to our collective wealth, and today Bill C-10 is giving all of those taxpayers the brush-off. And who will gain from all this? Air Canada shareholders, who lined their pockets when this company was dismantled and who now, despite two firm court decisions, will be absolved of all wrongdoing.

Despite our fight to make ourselves heard, we can acknowledge that we have listened to your arguments. What you say is this: the aeronautics sector is a key part of our economic growth in Canada; we must absolutely find a way to provide complete overhaul services to Air Canada at competitive prices; and Air Canada has no wish to go back to being a maintenance service provider. You now have before you a brief with a job creation plan that meets those three criteria. The solution is in your hands.

Today, members of the committee, we are appearing before you as people who want, more than anything else, to find a win-win relationship for everyone. We want to have our jobs back, we want Air Canada to be competitive, and we want the economy in Canada and Quebec to regain traction in the aeronautics sector, where we have always been world leaders. I would like to see you go back to the basics of your political commitment, that is, to serve the nation and to serve Canadians—not to serve the interests of shareholders for whom our country’s economic development is an afterthought. Their primary interest is making money, while your primary concern should be the well-being and growth of your community.

Imagine a public corporation paid for by tax payers being privatized so it could grow and expand, only to drop 2,600 jobs illegally, with your assistance. Imagine that that corporation was in your riding, and that it was people you knew who lost their jobs: your friends, your family, your volunteers, your neighbours. Now imagine that this is a bad dream, and that a solution is within reach and that this solution will only be achieved if we all work together to ensure it succeeds.

To conclude, I will leave you with a few words by Franklin D. Roosevelt who said that “democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.”

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you.

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

Mr. Rheault, I'm going to stop you there. I don't want to know what happens, but what you discussed. I want to know if, following agreements with the two provinces, you asked the government to speed up the process to pass Bill C-10.

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

Mr. Rheault, could you tell me if the government's intention to pass a bill that would repeal Air Canada's obligation of maintaining the centres as they existed before the introduction of Bill C-10 was addressed during those meetings?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, and I'll be sharing my time.

Was it the amendments to Bill C-10 that allowed you to purchase the C Series?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Those who oppose the bill, unions in particular, expect massive job losses in Canada. Would that be the case if Bill C-10 passes?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

One of the overriding themes of the Bill C-10 issue to date has been a lack of consultation. Certainly I think if you speak to the workers and their families in Winnipeg, they would say that losing the right to overhaul maintenance work is a blow to the aerospace industry in Winnipeg and that they were not consulted sufficiently before moving ahead with that. It's the reason I'm proud that the NDP has tabled a motion at this committee:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities extend its consideration of Bill C-10 in order to hear from all interested individuals and groups, and that it hold hearings in Montreal, Mississauga and Winnipeg as part of its deliberations.

Having read the motion, I now move it, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Rovinescu and Mr. Howlette, thank you for being here today.

Ms. Block just spoke about meetings between Air Canada and the government.

The fact that a bill like Bill C-10 is being put forward certainly corresponds to a request that Air Canada has had in its files for a very long time.

In the past few years, particularly since October 2015, which senior government officials have you spoken to about this situation?

[Calin Rovinescu, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Canada]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today about the importance of modernizing the Air Canada Public Participation Act and, more specifically, about Air Canada's position on Bill C-10.

With me today is Kevin Howlette, our senior vice president of Regional Markets and Government Affairs.

To start, I would like to say that we support this bill, especially because it is designed to allow Air Canada to be more competitive in a global context. The bill recognizes that the airline industry has undergone a dramatic transformation since Air Canada's privatization nearly three decades ago. It acknowledges that Air Canada is a fully private sector company, owned by private sector interests, operating in a highly competitive global industry.

Air Canada is a significant contributor to the Canadian economy and one of its largest employers. Last year, we flew nearly 42 million passengers to more than 200 destinations in Canada, the US and around the world. We employ close to 28,000 people—33,000 if you include our regional partners Jazz, Sky Regional and Air Georgian—and support approximately 30,000 pensioners. Salaries and benefits paid by Air Canada in Canada exceed $2.1 billion, and our total operational expenses in this country are close to $10 billion.

Let me start with a few words on the privatization of Air Canada in 1988-1989.

The company was sold to private investors over two years in two public offerings. The Government of Canada received gross proceeds of about $500 million for its shares, which would be about $2 billion in today's dollars. Air Canada derives no ongoing benefits from its prior crown corporation status that would put us in a privileged position vis–à–vis our competitors or for which the Canadian taxpayer hasn't been appropriately paid, none. We receive no subsidies, we have no protected monopoly routes, we have no privileged access to airports or facilities, we get no tax breaks, etc.

I will say a few words also on the evolution of the industry and the competitive landscape. During the first half of the 1990s, the airline industry experienced a worldwide recession, the Gulf War, 9/11, extreme fuel cost volatility, and other adverse geopolitical and economic events. A number of airlines went bankrupt, ceased operations, merged, or restructured. Air Canada went through its own court-supervised restructuring in 2003-2004, which, among other things, resulted in the sale of its heavy maintenance operations.

Low-cost carriers—virtually all of whom outsource aircraft maintenance—also emerged over the last 20 years. Canada's own WestJet launched in 1996 and today operates with about 40% market share domestically, without any restrictions or obligations whatsoever under its constating documents regarding where it performs maintenance or how many jobs it should directly or indirectly protect.

The competitive landscape intensified in other ways too. Today, we have open skies agreements with close to 50 countries, including the United States and the 28 countries of the European Union. More than 70 foreign airlines fly to Canada, competing for our customers.

Legacy carriers around the world have been forced to radically change to survive and prosper, and despite all this change, profit margins in the industry are razor-thin, ranging since 2008 from negative 5% to 4%-5% profit in a good year. Carriers have had to significantly contain costs and capital investments, including those for maintenance, repair, and overhaul.

Turning to maintenance specifically, until the 1980s, network airlines such as Air Canada generally insourced all aircraft maintenance. The maintenance, repair, and overhaul business—so-called MRO—was not the independent and competitive industry it has now become.

Maintenance typically represents 10%-15% of an airline's costs, and it's one of the largest cost buckets. Outsourcing certain activities to qualified MROs around the world, which actively compete for this work, has become a normal, healthy, and essential development in our capital-intensive, highly competitive, and low-margin business.

A report prepared for the IATA found MRO outsourcing worldwide has grown from approximately 30% in 1990 to 65% in 2013, and the trend is projected to increase. It is estimated that outsourcing could reach 80%.

When Aveos was created out of Air Canada's 2003-04 restructuring, independent institutions invested $975 million to acquire Aveos with the objective of building a platform which could attract other airlines besides Air Canada. However, Aveos repeatedly failed to diversify with other airlines. In the 2012 court filings, the company itself said it never achieved the cost efficiencies or productivity of its global competitors. Fundamentally, this is why it failed.

After this failure, Air Canada relocated its heavy maintenance work to other qualified maintenance companies in Canada and around the world. Our aircraft utilization has since improved significantly, with reduced maintenance turn-around times and lower maintenance costs.

MROs today compete globally for an airline's heavy maintenance business based on centres of excellence, not regional work. To be globally relevant, these businesses must maintain significant capital investment in areas that are non-core for airlines, such as equipment, tooling, licences, R and D, etc. Starting a new MRO business without significant third party business would not be realistic. Our own Air Canada line maintenance labour force has more than doubled over the last 10 years. Today we employ approximately 2,400 maintenance employees in Canada, plus more than 1,000 at our regional partners—Jazz, Air Georgian, and Sky Regional. This is far more than at any other airline in Canada, and we ourselves regularly perform in this fashion many specialized maintenance tasks that would previously have been performed in a heavy maintenance environment.

While we have sent some of our heavy maintenance abroad since Aveos closed, we've also significantly increased the volumes of work outsourced to companies in Canada. Premier Aviation in Trois-Rivières performs airframe maintenance for our Embraer fleet. Avianor in Mirabel undertakes aircraft conversions and other maintenance work on several fleet types. Airbase in Montreal performs cabin equipment and other interior maintenance. Hope Aero in Toronto overhauls wheels, brakes, and batteries. These latter two suppliers will soon establish activities in Winnipeg as well. Jazz maintenance for our regional fleet is performed in Halifax, Calgary, and Prince Edward Island. All this work employs thousands of Canadians and, in an open economy with a private sector employer, competition rather than statutory prescription is the way to create and sustain jobs.

Bill C-10 acknowledges the changes in the industry and provides the greater flexibility and certainty of interpretation Air Canada requires to compete globally. Air Canada will be able to determine, at its commercial discretion, the volume and type of aircraft maintenance it does globally and in Canada, including the work done in Manitoba, Quebec, and Ontario, and who performs this work, based on competitive proposals from suppliers.

No other airline in Canada—and to our knowledge no other airline in the world—is subject to maintenance restrictions such as those imposed on Air Canada by the act—not WestJet, Porter, Air Transat, Sunwing, British Airways, Air France, American, United, Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, etc. These airlines make their decisions based on the competitiveness of the quality and pricing of the services contracted and their turnaround times. We expect the same flexibility to use our business judgment, because at the end of the day we compete in the same markets for the same customers.

We have concluded settlement agreements with the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, which should create more aerospace maintenance jobs in Canada. We have agreed to collaborate to help establish centres of excellence in each of these provinces, which should be capable of attracting work from other airlines if competitive. GE, among others, has created such centres of excellence around the world to bring together people with particular expertise to focus on and improve specific products or processes through research and sharing best practices.

Another very tangible result of Air Canada being internationally competitive is our LOI to purchase the Bombardier C Series aircraft. We are proud to be the first major North American carrier to order the C Series, and we believe it sent an important signal to the market that gave other airlines, notably Delta Air Lines, the confidence to purchase this next generation aircraft.

At list prices, our order is valued at $3.8 billion for the firm order alone. This is a substantial commitment to the C Series, and to Canadian aerospace which will continue to employ thousands of aerospace workers, based on orders such as ours.

The ACPPA was adopted over a quarter century ago, in the context of an air travel industry that was completely different. Hindsight is 20/20, and I mean no disrespect to its framers when I say that it should have accounted for the possibility the industry would change, even if it was not possible to anticipate all eventualities.

Madam Chair, thank you for your attention. Air Canada is committed to the aerospace industry in this country. By creating a more level playing field, Bill C-10 will allow us to remain competitive and support job creation in the aviation, tourism and aerospace industries in Canada well into the future.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm calling to order the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, 42nd Parliament, for meeting number 11.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, April 20, we are dealing with Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures. We have with us from Air Canada Calin Rovinescu, president and chief executive officer; and Kevin Howlette, senior vice-president, regional market and government affairs.

Gentlemen, as you know, there has been a vote called for later on, so we don't have a lot of time. I'd ask that you make your most critical points so that the committee has a chance to also get some questions out there.

I will turn it over to whoever would like to go first.

Please, the floor is yours.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That's great. I'll give you a chance to take a crack at this one first because I put it to Mr. Tretheway in the previous round.

He mentioned Bill C-10 may not go far enough, and he mentioned the foreign ownership restrictions in his answer.

Do you see any opportunities that are not covered by Bill C-10 that we could take advantage of to make Air Canada more competitive?

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

Gentlemen, in your view was privatizing Air Canada the right thing to do? How does Bill C-10 fit into this logically? Might this encourage Air Canada to do more maintenance outside of Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario?

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

Thank you very much.

I do want to follow up on another comment that was made by you, Mr. Wallis, in regard to the Emerson report. You talked about the numerous recommendations that are in the Emerson report. I think there are 66 recommendations for the air sector. I would make the observation that this measure of amending the act was not recommended by Air Canada or any other carrier for that matter. You also suggested that this act, Bill C-10, doesn't go far enough in levelling the playing field for air carriers in Canada in general.

I would like you to have an opportunity to comment on the fact that Air Canada didn't make this recommendation as something that would help them become more competitive, and on what you meant by this amendment not going far enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, the time is up.

Thank you very much for meeting with us today and enlightening the committee on a variety of the challenges facing C-10. Minister Garneau and your officials, we appreciate very much your being here today.

We will suspend for two minutes until we get hooked up for our teleconference.

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

The new law is clearer than the previous one because there was some difference of opinion between the parties that went to court. What we really wanted to do was to make it much clearer. I believe it is clearer now. With respect to the new content of the law, I'm quite confident that there will not be any misinterpretation of what that says. I think it is clear.

Previously, some of the disagreement with respect to what was intended by it had to do with the definition of “maintenance”. I think we've made that clearer in this new version of Bill C-10.

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

The situation is clear to me. There is no confusion between our position and the steps we will be taking with regard to Bill C-10. I think that Ms. Anglade will shed light on these matters. You will see that we are both on the same wavelength.

I would like to go back to the quality of maintenance, which you mentioned in the beginning. As you know, this is regulated in our country. It is a part of our responsibilities.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I have a second question, if I may, Madam Chair.

Minister, in your view, the Mulroney government, back a few decades ago, privatized Air Canada. Was it the right thing to do, and how does this bill, Bill C-10, fit into this logically?

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

There's no question that the airline world is extremely competitive and Air Canada has to compete out there with everybody else. It's a big picture and with Air Canada the maintenance activities are a significant portion of its financial obligations.

It obviously has to maintain the airplanes so that they remain safe and continue to provide all the flights that it advertises. How they do the maintenance and where they do the maintenance is a factor that all airlines consider. Certainly in Canada at the moment Air Canada is the only one that has the constraints of Bill C-10.

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

We observed the discussions that took place between Air Canada and the two provinces. As I already said, our department has for some time wanted to clarify provisions in Bill C-10 in order to minimize the possibility of legal action. The right time came up after decisions were taken regarding the intentions of Quebec and Manitoba.

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

My question is all the more pertinent.

You said in your presentation that the idea had been raised before you took over the department. Who brought back the idea of passing Bill C-10? Who suggested that it be passed so quickly?

[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?

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.

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

Madam Chair, I know I had indicated as soon as the dates were chosen that I wasn't able to attend.

Do we have to take this trip this week? Would there be an opportunity to take the trip at another time?

Given that we have Bill C-10 to address, which is probably going to be referred to this committee, we may not get to the report on this study as soon as we thought.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

Speaking in technical terms, this legislation will remove the articles of the act that stipulate that Air Canada undertakes operational and overhaul maintenance in Mississauga, Montreal, and Winnipeg.

In plain English, the proposed amendments to the 1988 Air Canada Public Participation Act mean that the jobs of 3,000 Canadians who provide aircraft maintenance will be affected. Under the amendment, Air Canada would still be required to do some maintenance work in each of these provinces, but would be allowed to change the type, volume, or scope of any or all of those activities in each of those provinces. As well, the level of employment in any or all these areas could be changed, depending on the scope. Air Canada would be free to dictate how many people would be employed by these centres and what work they will do.

Let me be clear with regard to one particular aspect of this. The Conservative Party believes it is time that Air Canada becomes a private sector company that is not supported by taxpayers. We agree that Air Canada, and all of our carriers, should have the ability to be more competitive, a level playing field, and this does not have to be at the expense of high-quality, well-paying jobs of Canadians. Having spent almost 20 years in aviation, I am aware first-hand of the challenges that Canadian aviation industries face in remaining competitive in an ever-changing global industry.

However, before getting into the weeds of the bill, let me speak about the history of Air Canada in this country for a moment.

Air Canada inherited a fleet of 109 aircraft upon being privatized in 1988. All of Canada's major airports where Air Canada first flew were built with the financial support of the Government of Canada at the time. Air Canada is the largest airline in this country, and an important international player in the aviation sector. However, that is because of, not despite, the support from the Government of Canada and Canadian taxpayers over the years.

Today Air Canada is the largest tenant in nearly every major airport in this country, with the exception of Calgary and the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. This gives Air Canada significant influence over each airport's operations, and access to the best landing slots in all of our major airports. One might be tempted to say it is a bit of a competitive advantage over other carriers, including our other national carriers.

As I said before, we welcomed the original intent of the Air Canada Public Participation Act when it was introduced in 1988. The act put in place clear conditions to ensure that all of the support that Air Canada had received from the government to turn it into a profitable crown corporation was not lost. The government could be seen as perhaps protecting its investment.

The conditions were that Air Canada would be subjected to the Official Languages Act, would maintain its headquarters in Montreal, that 75% of its voting shares had to be held by Canadians and, finally, it had to “maintain operational and overhaul centres in the city of Winnipeg, Montreal urban community, and the city of Mississauga”. Given all this, it is surprising that the government would only make such a narrow change to the act. While it is unclear what level of benefits this legislative change will give Air Canada, it is clear that the intended change will make it possible for the carrier to move thousands of jobs from Canada to other jurisdictions.

If we are talking about giving further competitive advantage to one of our national carriers, perhaps it would be appropriate to look at the industry as a whole. If afforded all of the advantages previously and Air Canada is still having difficulties remaining competitive, it might be a sign that our national aviation industry might need some retooling.

Let me talk about some of the challenges facing the aviation industry as a whole, because to understand the issues, one must first understand the product. Air transport is a critical, economic, and social infrastructure. It provides access to trade and investment; connects people to jobs, friends, and family; and delivers vital goods and services in remote areas, such as air medevac.

Geography, population size, and environmental conditions increase the operating costs of air transport in Canada compared to other jurisdictions. The Canadian passenger travel market is relatively mature, and it has enjoyed small to medium growth over the years. The total Canadian passenger market is estimated at between 122 to 125 million enplaned and deplaned passengers. However, this pales in comparison to the emerging and developing markets around the world.

In some measure, this is due to some of the very same policies developed for the industrial and economic environment in the 1990s. Simply put, the very same policies that were designed to protect our industry are now the ones hindering it.

Most of Canada's domestic air services are provided by Air Canada and WestJet. A small number of regional and local air carriers across the country service some small communities from coast to coast. This allows for better customer service and connectivity.

In the 1990s, Canada saw the Southwest Airline low-cost airline model introduced by WestJet. This came at a time when consumers and communities were held hostage by predatory pricing by Canada's two major airlines of the time, Canadian and Air Canada.

Canada's main charter carriers are Transat and Sunwing. They are focused primarily on seasonal vacation destinations. WestJet's entrance into the Canadian market created excitement by offering low-cost travel. It allowed many Canadians to experience air travel for the very first time. It was an exciting time and it was an exciting project of which to be part.

There was a time that air travel was only for the elite and was considered glamourous and accessible to only those who could afford it. With the entrance of low-cost carriers and competition, air travel is now easily afforded and this has stimulated market growth.

Both Air Canada and WestJet have now introduced lower cost, lower fare vacation or charter subsidiaries, Rouge and Encore. Respectively, this has stimulated some vacation or destination growth in a number of markets and, as we speak, there are a number of start-up low-cost carriers at various stages of financing that are expected to enter the market in the short term.

Ultimately, this will lead to a price competition with existing carriers. For a time, our national carriers will react with even greater seat sales and maybe even new routes, but as past experience suggests, only the new entrants with deep pockets will be able to survive.

Unable to compete or go head to head with the big boys because the deck is stacked against them, airline start-ups and failures are frequent. The ones that suffer the most are the communities and, ultimately, the consumer.

All of this is to say that maybe it is time to reconsider policies that may have served us well when the Canadian aviation industry needed protection to flourish, but now impairs our competitiveness. Of course, such protectionism comes at a cost that is largely borne by consumers, who pay relatively high airfares, and the Canadian travel and tourism sector that also, due to higher costs, has been losing market share for over a decade. Simply put, Canada is sliding backward in its competitiveness.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates that Canadian airports in 2012 accounted for $4.3 billion in real GDP, but had a total economic footprint of $12 billion, generating almost 63,000 jobs, and contributing over $3 billion in federal and regional taxes. Canadian airports are vital to the success of the Canadian economy, key gateways for inbound and outbound tourism, business, and personal travel. Domestic commerce and international trade are dependent on our key gateways, our airports.

Canada is blessed with strategic geographical location. We are at the crossroads of the great circle routes among Asia, Europe, and the Americas, and we have this competitive advantage, but yet our nation has never taken full advantage of it. Competition has successfully negated this competitive advantage with integrated policies and programs aimed at stimulating inbound tourism and facilitating connecting traffic through their global hubs, essentially overstepping or, to use an aviation term, doing a flyby of Canada.

Canada's airports face increasingly aggressive competition from countries that have recognized the importance of air transportation as a driver of economic growth. Our neighbouring U.S. counterpart markets directly to and easily accesses a large portion of Canada's U.S. transborder and international travel market. Finally, Canadian airports also compete with each other for the allocation of limited carrier capacity.

Our regional airports and communities are oftentimes pitted against one another in competition for airline service. As mentioned during the Billy Bishop debate, Canadian airports also face challenging times with changing aircraft capacity and the continued focus on environmental issues such as noise due to residential encroachment.

In the 1990s, with the introduction of the national airports policy, a new framework was defined with relation to the federal government's role in aviation. NAS airports, comprised of the 26 airports across Canada that were deemed as critical links for our country, were deemed essential to Canada's air transport system. They served 94% of the air traffic in Canada. These airports were transferred under lease to airport authorities, and in some cases, municipalities.

The infrastructure in many of these airports was antiquated. Some, if not all, of them were in need of attention. Through the transfer negotiations, reinvestment monies were given, but the expectation for these airports was that they were to do everything in their power to be self-sufficient.

Airports have very few revenue generation streams. With the transfer of airports and the newfound independence also came the realization that user-pay systems were needed. Airport improvement fees have now become the norm, and today we have airports that are incredible examples of the NAS airport of the 1990s. We have also seen airports that continue to struggle to be competitive and to be innovative.

The user-pay approach to financing air infrastructure and services is effective and sustainable, but it further increases costs for the sector and for users. It costs more for airlines to fly into our airports because it costs more for our airports to operate.

Canada is unique among its competitors in charging onerous rents and taxes that undermine competitiveness. Airport rents, for example, can represent up to 30% of airport operating budgets, far more than what would be expected in dividends and income tax from a private for-profit airport, such as what we see in Europe.

The federal government takes in about $300 million annually in rent, but it only invests $50 million back into our airports. Canada cannot become a world leader in terms of cost competitiveness of air transport without heavy public subsidization of the sector, not only to match the subsidies offered by some of our competitors, but also to overcome the naturally high-cost operating conditions and lack of economies of scale.

If Canada wants to remain competitive, we need to fully integrate parts of our local transportation system and recognize essential partners, such as the government, airlines, tourism and business interests, using an overall team Canada approach to align policy and promotion. We need to stimulate air travel to, from, and within Canada. This alone would have a broader, far reaching, positive industry impact than continually giving a single private sector company competitive advantages over others.

Arguably the most important challenge facing Canadian industry today is our air policy. The key to enhancing Canadian connectivity, global competitiveness, and economic prosperity is to realign Canada's air policy. The government can improve Canada's competitiveness and help create opportunity in trade and tourism, which in turn would create more demand for air services, strengthening our national carriers, all of our carriers and not just one, by using their time not to pick off the low-hanging fruit, the easy wins, and looking after friends.

Let us look at our air policy. Let us apply our blue sky policy more progressively and in a manner that is strategically aligned with Canada's international trade and tourism objectives. Let us pursue more aggressive open skies agreements with Canada's free trade partners. Let us pursue progressive and more open agreements with Canada's tourism markets. Open up more markets for tourism and trade: wow, what a novel idea.

Tourism is a large and high growth industry. It has a significant impact on the global economy. In 2013 alone, the tourism industry saw more than one billion international tourists worldwide, generating more than $1.3 trillion in receipts. Canada's tourism industry contributes $84 billion to the economy and employs more than 600,000 people.

Competition for tourism is heating up more and more as more countries are investing in tourism marketing, aligning their aviation and visa policies to attract a greater share of this market. Canada is lagging further and further behind. Aligning our tourism objectives with our aviation policy would only serve to build a stronger Canadian aviation industry and stronger carriers.

I have a quote from Air Canada's president and CEO, Calin Rovinescu:

It is indeed time that the Air Canada Public Participation Act, dating from the company's privatization nearly 30 years ago, be modernized to recognize the reality that Air Canada is a private sector company, owned by private sector interests, which operates in a highly competitive global industry that has undergone dramatic transformation over the past three decades.

I agree, but there needs to be a level playing field, and protecting Canadian jobs should be the number one priority.

The announcement made by Air Canada to undertake and overhaul maintenance comes only after the airline announced that it would be purchasing Bombardier's C Series jets.

Air Canada until very recently had been subject to lawsuits from Quebec and Manitoba as a result of the service centre closures in those provinces.

In the Quebec case, it failed to reopen a factory that went bankrupt in 2012, putting 2,000 skilled workers out of work. The Quebec government filed a lawsuit that accused Air Canada of breaching its legal obligations when it transferred some heavy maintenance work outside the country. The Quebec Court of Appeal sided in a ruling last November. However, Quebec dropped the case when Air Canada agreed to purchase 75 Bombardier C Series jets and service them in the province. Was that convenient timing? I think not.

The Manitoba government also ended legal proceedings after the airline signed a new maintenance agreement that is expected to create at least 150 jobs in the province.

Air Canada already outsources its maintenance work to two suppliers in Quebec, in addition to providers in the U.S., Singapore, Ireland, and Israel.

While the Minister of Transport's proposed legislation should have nothing to do with Bombardier, this bill unfortunately has everything to do with Bombardier. While the government has yet to announce whether it will provide Bombardier with yet another billion-dollar bailout as requested on December 11, 2015, it seems it is finding ways to skirt the public with backroom deals.

In his short justification for introducing Bill C-10, the minister hailed Air Canada's decision to purchase the C Series aircraft combined with the Government of Quebec's and the Government of Manitoba's intention to discontinue litigation against the carrier as the main cause. That is so nice of them. The minister also noted that this would allow Air Canada to be more competitive in an evolving and ever-increasing globalized industry. I think that line alone speaks for itself.

The taxpayers of Canada have done a lot for Air Canada and the company is rewarding them by taking away high-quality, well-paying jobs. The Conservative Party does not support any bill that seeks to eliminate jobs, especially when there are viable alternatives to do so that will not affect the company's bottom line.

The government has an opportunity to look at all of our industry and make some real change. If the government really wanted to take a measure that would stimulate the entire Canadian aerospace sector, and as I said, create real change, including Air Canada, it could choose to tackle any of the issues I have mentioned previously. I would note that all of these measures have near universal support in the aviation sector and would not lead to a single loss of jobs in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

The two opposition parties are both opposed to the bill, but not for exactly the same reasons. I would like my colleague to talk briefly about the Liberals' about-face on this file.

I had an opportunity to read a quote before. I would like to read another one. Let us keep going and digging through the archives of the transport committee.

One member stated:

I do believe in the rule of law. I do believe that whether an individual or a corporation breaks the law, there should be some justice that comes out of it....The workers of Aveos, who were formerly Air Canada employees, feel that there has not been any justice, that their government has let them down.

He then reads the law as it currently exists, before Bill C-10 of course.

He then goes on to accuse Air Canada of wanting to privatize. He states:

...as someone who is concerned about the worker, we read that and interpret it as meaning that Air Canada is obligated to maintain those overhaul centres. Then Air Canada kind of privatizes and pushes that responsibility over to Aveos. A court then makes a decision that because Aveos is now there, Air Canada is indirectly keeping those jobs.

Who said that? Once again, the member for Winnipeg North, who is showing us how the Liberal government opposes one way and governs another.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary could detect from most of my remarks that it is not the actual policy within Bill C-10 that I take issue with, but it is the road getting to Bill C-10 that causes me some difficulty.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, having worked on the restructuring of Air Canada and seeing its growth and success in recent years under the strong leadership of Calin Rovinescu and the team, there is a good debate to be had on whether it should be shackled exactly to the purposes of the 1988 act.

Therefore, I would ask her this. Was she part of the meetings on February 15 that the minister had with that company? Did the minister facilitate this deal, much like the Quebec government facilitated a settlement of litigation, much like the Manitoba government facilitated a deal? It is the facilitation that is an important part of Bill C-10, and that has not been explained to the House.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise to speak to Bill C-10 and to join in the debate today. This is one of those unique circumstances where the opposition, in many ways, is united in part and is in some ways speaking with a unified voice, but for different reasons, perhaps. In many ways, this debate is an interesting one for me, given my background in the Air Force and my background as a lawyer. In my early days, articling as a first-year lawyer, I was involved in the CCAA restructuring of Air Canada. That was a time when Canadians worried about losing our flagship carrier. The company successfully restructured under CCAA, which protected a lot of jobs, a lot of commercial relationships across the country, and the airline.

We all remember years when there were many more serving the country, companies like Canadian and Wardair. It shows how globally competitive this industry is.

I was very proud, as a young lawyer, to be involved with the firm that represented Air Canada in that restructuring many years ago.

Its heritage as a former crown corporation is really why we are here with Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which was a creature of the privatization. Most of the comments from my NDP friends along the way relate to the commitments made back in 1987 and 1988 when this crown corporation was privatized.

I do not think even my Liberal friends would suggest that the industry is the same today as it was in 1988. To suggest even the members of the unions they are talking about are performing the same tasks on the same type of aircraft would be false, because certainly the industry has changed in terms of technology, in terms of the needs of the workforce, and in terms of the globalization of the supply chain. Therefore, we have to have these debates in the House of Commons.

Where I am united with my NDP friends in my concern is really how this debate is coming to the floor. In many ways, the new Liberal government is showing that the old ways—and in fact the ways a lot of Canadians disliked about the Liberal governments in the past—appear to be back, when deals are made to benefit special interests or certain groups and the public policy ramifications of an issue are not actually spoken about.

I am going to raise a few of these points, in relation to the debate of Bill C-10 because I think they are important.

In many ways, the Liberals prove that old adage: why take one position on an issue when one can take two positions on an issue politically and advance both?

Here is one. Most of the Liberal Party at the time, in the 1980s, opposed privatization of Air Canada at the time when the Mulroney government proceeded with that privatization. Yet, here it is sneaking in an amendment to the participation aspects and sort of the job guarantees provided in the 1980s, with limited discussion and no real mention in its election document, which it holds sacrosanct in all other aspects of what it is doing in its early days, and we are here as a result of it.

It is also the result of its bad policy decision with respect to the Toronto island airport and the fact that a private sector operator was looking at buying a Bombardier aircraft at a time that Bombardier was seeking government assistance. However, because of a small lobby group in downtown Toronto, very influential within its caucus, it circumvented the regulatory process looking at the expansion of a regional airport.

That is not just a decision made in isolation, because our transportation networks are integrated. What happens about Billy Bishop airport will impact Hamilton, the airport in Kitchener-Waterloo, Pearson airport, and the Pickering airport and what size that takes in the future.

These decisions cannot be taken in isolation, but they stopped expansion applications and review for the Toronto Island, thereby eliminating a private sector sale for Bombardier at a time when it is teetering. Yet, behind Bill C-10, is really a deal, I believe, that was crafted by the federal government in relation to another purchaser acquiring said aircraft and coming to the rescue, so to speak. I would like the minister to bring to the House whether Bill C-10 was discussed as an element of the private sector sale to Bombardier that we see Air Canada announcing? The announcement came mere days after that company met with the minister, so what someone needs to do is connect the dots on all this and see what led up to Bill C-10. The reason it was not in the Liberals' election platform was that it has come about as a result of the challenges Bombardier is facing. That is my concern.

We need to have a full debate, with discussion of the impact of Bombardier's financial difficulties alongside sales of aircraft and alongside litigation that several other provinces were party to, in relation to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Bill C-10 is a small bill in terms of the number of words, but when the onion is peeled on the issues underlying this, as all members of the opposition have been doing today, we see there is a lot more to the bill than the couple of pages that it appears to represent, and the government has not been transparent on that at all. For a government whose hallmark is transparency and sunny ways, we have seen that jettisoned on most issues within weeks.

In my remarks I am going to explore why I think these underlying public policy decisions relate to what is before us in Bill C-10, and that is why I have serious concerns with the bill. The government has not been transparent on the road that has us here considering this amendment to a longstanding act and a longstanding practice.

I am also very proud, as a former officer of the RCAF, of our aerospace industry, very proud of Bombardier, proud of Air Canada, our carriers, and proud of the suppliers, which are world-class. That is why, when the government made a quick move to scuttle the expansion of the Toronto island airport without proper consultation, that impacts our industry, which is world-class. Many Canadians do not realize that Canada was the third nation in space, with Alouette I. Canada basically trained most of the pilots in the free world that won World War II with the British Commonwealth air training plan.

On the weekend, I played the Hon. George Hees, John Diefenbaker's transport minister, at a dinner that re-created the Avro Arrow dream. We celebrated aerospace and our achievements. Diefenbaker himself was not celebrated at this dinner, because he did cancel the Arrow, but we have a tremendous heritage, and the opportunities in this industry are really not well known by Canadians. We remain the number one producer, from an R and D and a production standpoint, of flight simulators around the world.

When I was in Seoul as the parliamentary secretary for international trade in the previous government, I toured CAE's simulator just outside Seoul, which provides flight training and aircrew training for Asian airlines. We were there as part of the South Korea trade agreement. That is a company with a global reputation as the best in the business, and we should celebrate that.

Canada remains the number three producer in terms of aircraft production, small and medium-size aircraft with a new larger one on the horizon from Bombardier, which will again be best in class. We are third in engine production for civil air purposes. These are incredible numbers. They are all well-paying, all highly skilled and high trade jobs, and they are all trade focused.

At a time when our dollar is lower and we have the ability to trade very competitively, we should be taking advantage of leveraging this industry, not secret deals that hold it back. There are $28 billion in revenue across the companies within this sector, both in the supply chain and in production and manufacturing; and 76,000 jobs across the country, in all provinces, with particularly well-regarded and highly concentrated industries in the Montreal area, Winnipeg, Toronto, and also in Mainland B.C. We should foster these jobs and work with them.

Our previous government did in terms of reforming research and development. In fact, the previous government outlined the Red Wilson report to ensure we constantly looked at our competitiveness. Red Wilson had been a corporate leader at CAE.

It is worth noting some of these companies, and I have a particular passion for them, not just because I am ex-air force, but because I am ex-minister of veterans affairs. A lot of these companies are veteran employers. In some cases, their senior leadership are veterans. They include MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, the famed Canadarm, probably our biggest iconic R and D development; Viking Air, which has recreated some of the old classic de Havilland aircraft that have been flying for generations; Cascade; Avcorp; Bombardier; CAE; and COM DEV. We also have global companies producing in Canada, including Boeing, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin, through our industrial regional benefits programs that provide supply sector jobs as a result of our defence purchases, which at times the government seemed somewhat uncertain. However, if something is acquired, there is money put in to research and development into jobs on the ground here.

That supply chain is critical and is why our industry has to modernize. We need to have a debate on the ground about public participation and about the industry so our manufacturers, including some of the businesses I named, do not take advantage of servicing for Air Canada, or WestJet or Porter. They really need to be involved in the global supply chain for both maintenance and production.

What are we here for on Bill C-10? We have heard a lot of passion on the side of members of the New Democratic Party, but it boils down to three subtle changes to the act, which came in as a result of the privatization of Air Canada in 1988.

The bill would amend section 6(1)(d) of that act, changing the maintain operations and overhaul description of securing jobs as they stood in the 1980s into “...carry out or cause to be carried out...”, which recognizes that a lot of specialized manufacturers, whether landing gear or components, can provide that specialized life cycle maintenance that is important in the airline industry, and that specialization can happen through the carrying out. That makes sense in this environment, but we have not heard that because of the secret deals that have brought us to Bill C-10.

The operation and overhaul would be expanded to show that it would include any type of work related to airframes, engines, and components mainly because we have some expertise on a sub-component basis in Canada in terms of some of the leading producers.

The geographic areas protected back in 1988 with the privatization at that time were described as the city of Winnipeg, the city of Mississauga and the Montreal urban area, because I think they needed to describe that in a wider sense. The new amendments proposed in Bill C-10 will refine that to the provinces, as opposed to those cities proper.

The substance of Bill C-10 in some ways recognizes the fact that the industry is not the same industry it was in 1988. I can certainly understand why Air Canada probably wants to be unshackled from the requirements put on it in 1988 to ensure that the privatization was not too disruptive.

If we look at the airline as it stands today, it is strong and a global leader in many ways, but it is also subject to global competition. It has to be able to take advantage of the same expertise and opportunity. Therefore, if we are carry out, or cause to be carried out in a certain part of Canada, as long as we are getting that best-in-class ability to maintain and modernize fleets, then that is what we want to see.

The other thing I said at the outset, which has us here in this debate today and that the government has not been transparent on, is the fact that Bill C-10 is really the result of litigation in relation to adherence to this act. As I said, Air Canada probably, understandably, feels unfairly shackled by something that was done, not just by the last government or the previous government, but three governments ago, in the 1980s at a time when privatizations were a little newer. However, I think today most Canadians would certainly not expect the federal government to operate its airline in a competitive environment where there is a lot of choice.

Quebec and Manitoba joined the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in litigation related to business changes in those jurisdictions. Certainly, with that union involved, it is why my friends in the NDP are as passionate, and I respect their standing up for workers and items they believe. However, I would suggest that their workers would tell them that this is not the same industry that it was in 1988.

What we saw was the government of Quebec drop its participation in this litigation as a result of an Air Canada decision to purchase aircraft. Obviously, there was some political horse-trading that went on, and the Quebec government removed itself from the litigation in return for Air Canada supporting the industry through the acquisition of Bombardier aircraft.

Manitoba also removed itself from this litigation by carving out a deal whereby Air Canada supported three world-class aerospace services suppliers in Manitoba and leased one of the Air Canada maintenance hangars to an operator in Manitoba on favourable terms. In that case, there was another provincial government coming up with a deal it thought was sound enough to remove itself from a civil action in relation to an act from 1980s.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, I would have much preferred it if the Minister of Transport had come to the House and told us that Bill C-10 was the result of yet another pragmatic deal that was made. However, to do that, he would have had to outline all aspects of that deal, what exactly happened, and if the government approached a private sector player to help it with respect to requests from Bombardier for assistance.

This is where we get into some difficult territory. Should the government be convening these meetings behind closed doors to cobble out a position, particularly when the minister was getting heat for ending the exploration of the expansion of the Toronto Island Billy Bishop Airport, and cancelled that with a tweak after demands from people within his caucus and within a group in Toronto advocated against an expansion? What that cancellation led to was a private sector company that was planning an acquisition of Bombardier aircraft could no longer proceed. All of these events gather, and that is the run-up to why we have Bill C-10.

We can actually have a rational discussion on whether it would be helpful to unshackle a company from requirements that limit its competitiveness from 1988 legislation. We can have that discussion, and I would like to, because the minister and the Liberal government have not come to the House in an open and transparent way, much like the parliamentary budget officer said they approached their recent budget, the least transparent in over 15 years.

I would like the government to outline all aspects that went into Bill C-10: the related litigation, the pressures in relation to the financial stability of Bombardier, and Air Canada's need to be competitive in a global age. I think we could have a proper debate if that was before the House. I am disappointed the information is not here for this debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I will probably not say that for many issues, but on this one he is on target.

I think the Liberals are trying to put forward some job creation fabrication about the C Series to make people forget they are abandoning 2,600 families and not respecting a promise they made and repeated to those workers and those families.

The Liberals should reconsider Bill C-10. Air Canada should continue to keep those good jobs in Canada. It is good for our regions, our cities, and our economy. That would be a good job creation plan from the Liberals. It is really sad they are doing otherwise.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not have the facts right. First, the centre of excellence is not in Montreal. It is supposed to be in Trois-Rivières. She needs to have the right city first.

By the way, Bill C-10 has nothing to do with the fact that Air Canada will buy Bombardier's C Series, and that is a good thing They are good jets. However, we are talking about legislation that will change the law about the maintenance of airplanes. They are two different things. We should not compare bananas with oranges, or apples or whatever fruit.

Regarding the excellency centre in Trois-Rivières, it maybe will do the maintenance for the C Series in 15 or 20 years, but we have absolutely no guarantee about job creation there.

We are talking about real families and real jobs that the Liberals are abandoning right now, and that is bad.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to mention that I will share my time with my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. He will have an opportunity to speak to this very important bill, which will have a real impact on people's lives.

Most days, I am pleased to rise in the House and participate in debates with my parliamentary colleagues. Today is a bit different. Today, I feel bitter and disappointed about a major decision made by the Liberal government that is the culmination of betrayal, deceit, and a lack of trust. This Liberal government is letting down 2,600 families across Canada, including 1,700 in the Montreal area. These families are being completely rejected by this Liberal government and Bill C-10. They are being left high and dry.

I will try to give a little bit of background. The Air Canada Public Participation Act took effect in 1988 and set out the conditions for the privatization of Air Canada, which took place the following year in 1989. Section 6 of the act specifically states that maintenance on Air Canada aircraft must be carried out in three specific cities in Canada: Winnipeg, Mississauga, and Montreal. That worked for years. Air Canada complied with the act, awarding a contract to a subcontractor in the Montreal region named Aveos, which went bankrupt in 2012. That is where things start to get complicated. Aveos went bankrupt and disappeared, but Air Canada did not find a replacement. On the contrary, Air Canada took advantage of the situation and relocated those jobs to various countries around the world, such as the United States and countries in Europe and Asia. These 2,600 workers lost their jobs, even though they were guaranteed by a federal law duly passed by the House of Commons and applied for years.

The Conservative government of the day stood by and did nothing to enforce the law, but the Liberals wanted to demonstrate their support for the workers as well as their camaraderie and solidarity. We even saw the current Prime Minister, the member for Papineau, demonstrate with unionized workers on Parliament Hill chanting “So-so-so-solidarity” and demanding that the Conservative government of the day enforce the law. His argument, a good one, was that the least a law-and-order government could do was enforce the law, particularly when doing so would save good, well-paid jobs in a high-tech sector.

As soon as the Liberals took over, they changed their tune. So long “So-so-so-solidarity”, hello “Relocate; forget about our good jobs; who cares about the aerospace sector?” The government is basically telling these people that their jobs are gone for good.

When they came to power, the Liberals realized they did not have to enforce the law because they could just change it. That makes things much easier, for sure. There is no need to enforce the law when it can be changed so that Air Canada is no longer required to carry out aircraft maintenance in Canada.

We have to wonder whether that is the Liberal plan for job creation, namely eliminating the good jobs we have here in Quebec, in Mississauga, and in Winnipeg and shipping them off to the United States and Europe, because that is what will happen under Bill C-10. This bill means abandoning the workers represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, supported by the FTQ. They took their case to the Quebec Superior Court, which ruled in their favour in 2013. Air Canada appealed that decision, and the case went to the Quebec Court of Appeal. In 2015 the Quebec Court of Appeal also ruled in favour of the workers.

I would like to quote Justice Marie-France Bich, of the Quebec Court of Appeal:

From the moment that Air Canada decided to close this centre [the Aveos centre in Montreal] or reduce its activities in such a way that they were no longer at the same level as they had been in 1988, it broke the law.

This could not be any clearer. Bill C-10 threatens to pull the rug out from under the workers by making it that much harder to take this kind of legal action. When they are arguing their case before the Supreme Court, if section 6 of the act is amended, there will be a whole new legal framework. The changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act set out in Bill C-10 are extremely weak, or virtually non-existent, in terms of Air Canada's obligations.

There is no longer any requirement to keep jobs in this country, let alone a minimum of jobs, a certain volume of work, or a percentage of tasks that must be carried out in Canada.

In short, they are giving Air Canada a blank cheque. The government wants to provide flexibility, but before long Air Canada will be doing contortions to outsource the good jobs that we have in Canada. I am saddened to know that our government is not giving a second thought to the lives of 2,600 families and is prepared to cynically abandon them after publicly supporting them. That is sad.

I am rising in the House of Commons today with a sad story of employees at Air Canada who lost their jobs in 2012. We are talking about 2,600 families around the country. Air Canada had the legal obligation to do the maintenance of its planes in Canada, especially in Winnipeg, Mississauga, and Montreal. Now it can do whatever it wants.

When the Liberals were in the opposition, they stood outside this building with the workers, with the union, singing “solidarity, brothers and sisters”, saying that they would support the union's jobs because they were good jobs. They were asking the Conservative government to apply the 1988 law about Air Canada.

When they gained power, it was like some magic appeared, and the Liberals changed their mind completely. Now they are singing another song. It is no longer “solidarity forever”, but “job creation for United States, Europe, or Asia.” With Bill C-10, there would be no more legal obligation for Air Canada to keep those good jobs in Canada. Air Canada would have a blank cheque; it could do whatever it wants.

It is sad because the workers and their union, the machinists and in Quebec the QFL, went to court and won twice. They won in the Superior Court and in the Court of Appeal of Quebec. The decision of the judges was crystal clear that Air Canada was not respecting its legal obligation about the maintenance of its planes. Now the Liberals want to change the law and that might have a profound and brutal impact on the legal pursuits in the Supreme Court of Canada of those hundreds of workers.

Now the Liberals are saying they do not want to help them anymore, that Air Canada can do whatever it wants, and workers can find another job. However, aerospace is a very important sector in our economy, especially in the Montreal area.

We do not agree with the Minister of Transport's argument that Air Canada will create jobs by buying Bombardier's C Series aircraft. That is comparing apples and oranges. If Air Canada buys the C Series, it will be because it is a good aircraft and they need it.

We refuse to pit the aircraft manufacturing sector against the aircraft maintenance sector. We can and should support both. The Liberals should understand this. They should be ashamed that they are giving up hundreds of good jobs and sending them abroad. We are asking them to finally listen to reason and to withdraw Bill C-10.

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, and of the amendment.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, part of the issue around Bill C-10 is really about the nature of a deal and the worth of a deal.

In 1989, when Air Canada was privatized, there was a deal made with Canadians that we would continue to enjoy the benefits of having a major aerospace company that was Canadian, which meant doing the work in Canada. We have heard a lot from the government about how deals cannot be broken, how the deal is sacrosanct, and asking what the word of the Government of Canada would be worth if we went back on a deal. Well, what kind of responsible conviction is it that allows the government to break a deal with Canadian workers while not being willing to say no to a country with a terrible human rights record and selling that country arms? What kind of responsible conviction is that?

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, on March 24, 2016, our government introduced Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures in the House of Commons. The purpose of the bill, more specifically, is to amend the sections of the act that have to do with Air Canada's operational and overhaul centres. It is important to point out that this bill is being introduced at a time that is quite historic for the Canadian aerospace industry.

In February 2016, Air Canada announced that it planned to purchase up to 75 C Series aircraft from Bombardier, and that it would carry out the maintenance of those planes in Canada for at least 20 years, beginning with the first delivery. Air Canada will also help establish a centre of excellence in Quebec for the C Series aircraft, as well as another centre in western Canada, to be located in Manitoba.

These centres will be able to not only service Air Canada's planes but also to offer those services to other national and international airlines. In other words, we have introduced a bill at a time that is pivotal for Canada's aerospace industry. Not only is Bombardier offering a product that is a game changer for the aerospace industry worldwide, due to its efficiency and environmental performance, but our most important Canadian airline, Air Canada, clearly intends to make massive investments in the renewal of its fleet of aircraft.

Investing in a cutting-edge product that was designed and manufactured mainly in Canada will improve Air Canada's ability to compete globally and to serve Canadians. In this historical context, we propose to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which we find to be outdated in part.

More specifically, the bill amends paragraph 6(1)(d) in the provisions requiring Air Canada to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community, and the City of Mississauga.

The law clearly intended for Air Canada to continue maintaining its aircraft in certain regions of Canada. At the same time, the law was designed with one key public policy objective in mind, which was to privatize a crown corporation and allow it to become a competitive and viable private company. The airline industry has changed quite a bit since the law came into force in 1989.

In 2015, Air Canada carried more than 41 million passengers and provided regular, direct service to 63 Canadian airports, 56 American airports, and 86 other airports worldwide, in Asia, Oceania, Europe, Africa, and South America.

Air Canada cannot escape the highly competitive international market. For example, the other national and international airlines are not subject to the same requirements regarding their maintenance facilities. We must also consider Air Canada in the context of the global marketplace, a market that is dominated by large, multinational companies that operate over vast networks and with extremely expensive equipment.

Given the market's cyclical nature, it is also very sensitive to fluctuations. All it takes is an unfortunate incident, such as a pandemic, an accident, or a terrorist act, for the market to flounder and for an airline's revenue and profit to be significantly affected.

Air transportation provides vital connectivity both within our vast country and with the outside world. It is also a significant source of jobs. For example, Air Canada alone employs nearly 25,000 people.

In light of this economic context, we believe that the Air Canada Public Participation Act may be imposing limits on the company's ability to be competitive and profitable.

We therefore believe that the current law inconsistent with an approach to air transportation based on competitive and market forces as the best way to provide passengers with reasonably priced services. Like any company, Air Canada needs more flexibility in order to operate in a competitive environment and remain viable in the long term. Accordingly, the federal policy on Canada's air transportation industry focuses on competitive and market forces.

We also apply the user-pay principle for infrastructure and services, which is not the case in all of the countries that compete with us. As such, we cannot rest on our laurels because the aviation world is changing rapidly. Naturally, we were all concerned by the closure of Aveos Fleet Performance, which resulted in layoffs across the country.

Although portions of Aveos were purchased during bankruptcy proceedings and continued to operate, some employees did not end up finding work in their field. Of course we were concerned by this closure and by the fact that Air Canada stopped having certain kinds of maintenance done in Canada.

Air Canada's recent announcement about the C Series and its collaboration in developing centres of excellence gave us hope that highly skilled workers would find work in this high-tech sector. Air Canada's plan to purchase C Series aircraft would bring together two sectors that are vital to Canada's economic development: air transport and the aerospace industry. It would enable Air Canada to operate cutting-edge planes, thereby reducing its costs, its fuel consumption, and its greenhouse gas emissions, while minimizing noise.

As we know, the planes will be designed, built, and maintained in Canada. The creation of centres of excellence for the maintenance of C Series planes in Quebec and Manitoba will certainly have a positive impact on the industry and will probably attract other air carriers to use the services available. The Government of Quebec estimated that the centres of excellence could create 1,000 jobs over 15 years. In addition, manufacturing the C Series planes would enable Air Canada to create another 300 jobs. Moreover, the creation of a centre of excellence for western Canada would create an additional 150 jobs in Manitoba.

In closing, changing the language used to describe the activities and where they may be performed will allow us to modernize the legislation and make it more relevant.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the discussion today. I am also pleased to see you sitting in the chair and doing a great job on behalf of all women. It is a delight to see you constantly in that chair.

I am pleased to stand and speak in support of Bill C-10. It is legislation that, while somewhat technical in nature for a lot of people to follow, is incredibly important for Canada's national airline, for the aerospace sector, and for the related jobs and economic activity on which the Canadian economy so importantly relies.

However, before I get to my main points, I want to take a moment to offer my compliments to some of my colleagues who have already spoken on this important topic. We have heard a variety of issues raised. They are issues that the committee will have an opportunity to review and discuss and to look at very thoroughly.

There already has been very good debate on Bill C-10, as we heard on Friday, and of course from my colleagues today. I am eager to add my voice to that. However, inasmuch as debate in the House is important, as chair of the transport committee, I am eager to hear from the stakeholders once the legislation is referred to the committee.

Before we get to that, I would like to specifically compliment the parliamentary secretary, who touched off this debate by clarifying several important points. For example, the parliamentary secretary confirmed that the bill is being submitted for consideration by the House in the context of an historic investment by Air Canada in Canada's aerospace sector. That is very true. As members all know, Air Canada has announced its intention to purchase some 75 C Series aircraft from Bombardier. Adding to that investment, Air Canada has promised to ensure that these planes will be maintained in Canada for at least 20 years. That is a very significant investment, and a huge help for our economy. The importance of these decisions cannot be understated when it comes to jobs and growth of Canada's economy.

Allow me to be even more specific. The facilitation of the creation of centres of excellence will be a boon when it comes to jobs across the aerospace sector. The parliamentary secretary verified that Quebec has estimated that the creation of the centre of excellence in Montreal alone could produce 1,000 jobs in over 15 years, while the manufacturing of Air Canada's C Series aircraft could create an additional 300 jobs. There will also be more jobs in Ontario and Manitoba.

These are not just jobs. These are families who will enjoy a solid income, benefits, and stability for years to come. Those families will support communities, and those communities will fortify our great country. These are the kinds of investments and outcomes that Canada should be pursuing. They are market driven, promise to improve Air Canada's bottom line, and will allow for service improvements by prompting technological investment right here in Canada.

However, of course there have been genuine impediments to this approach in the past. For example, in 2012, Quebec's Attorney General took legal action against Air Canada, accusing the carrier of non-compliance with provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Madam Speaker, I must stop for a moment. I forgot to mention that I am sharing my time today with the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

Quebec has now made the decision to end that litigation, in light of Air Canada's investments in the aerospace sector and the related promise involving maintenance commitments in Quebec. This opens an important window for Canada to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which is what this is all about.

This goodwill, fortuitous timing, and opportunity must not be squandered. We need action now. The purpose of Bill C-10 is to amend the sections of the act that have to do with Air Canada's operational and overhaul centres. With these changes, Air Canada will establish a centre of excellence in Quebec, Ontario, and in Manitoba. These centres will be able to not only service Air Canada's planes, but also to offer those services to other national and international airlines.

Creating this new revenue stream, coupled with increased flexibility for Air Canada management, would mean a more dynamic and modern business structure, and clearly that should be good for everyone—Canadians, Air Canada, and all of our other spin-off industries.

However, let us not forget that the current legislation is nearly 30 years old and this is no longer 1989. The current act was the product of a time when countries around the world were moving away from high regulation and public ownership in sectors such as air transport. Canada was not immune to global trends, and so we followed by deregulating the air-transport sector, commercializing our major airports, and transforming Air Canada from a crown corporation to a private company. This was the right move at that time, but the world has changed, and to be successful in 2016 we must again look to modernize.

However, none of this can happen if we refuse to provide Air Canada and our aerospace sector with the tools needed to prepare for the challenges of modern businesses and the investment environment.

Now, many members across the way have raised questions in the House—justifiable questions, questions that are seeking answers. They ask why we must do this change now, and why this change must occur so quickly.

The truth is that the aerospace and air-transportation sectors exist in very dynamic environments. Other air carriers, Canadian and international, are not subject to the same obligations regarding their maintenance facilities. That means they can seek out efficiencies in ways that are simply not available to Air Canada, a fact that places Air Canada at a competitive disadvantage. Bill C-10 would help to establish a new balance. If we want the economic benefits of high-paying, quality, reliable jobs promised by all of the other sectors, we must arm the players within that sector accordingly. This is why we are here today, and it is why Bill C-10 is so important for all of us in the House and for all Canadians.

In other words, this government has introduced this legislation at a critical time in the history of Canada's aerospace history. Not only is Bombardier offering a game-changing product for the entire global industry, but Canada's most important airline is planning to take advantage of the technological differences and efficiencies and the heightened environmental performance by generously and wisely investing domestically for its aircraft fleet renewal.

Investing in a cutting-edge product that was designed and manufactured mainly in Canada will improve Air Canada's ability to compete globally and to serve all Canadians. Everyone would win, but only if we act now. To be clear, the government wants Air Canada to have the flexibility needed to organize and manage its business operations here and around the world. We understand that the air-transport sector has evolved and will continue to evolve, and Air Canada needs the tools and the regulatory supports to keep pace. However, this must be done while maintaining adequate safeguards for Canadian workers and suppliers.

That is why we are proposing to ensure that the act continue to require Air Canada to carry out aircraft maintenance in certain Canadian regions. I believe that Bill C-10 would do all of these things, and I am eager to hear from stakeholders at the committee so that we can give a thorough hearing to the many people who will want to make their comments, so we can ensure we have a strong, positive piece of legislation going forward that will ensure the jobs are here in Canada but that, if work is done elsewhere, it is also done to Canadian standards.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

Canada has had a long history when it comes to flight. In 1909, the Silver Dart in Baddeck Bay, Nova Scotia was one of the first flights that occurred in the world. In 1913, the first cargo flight was the delivery of the Montreal daily mail to Ottawa. Its return flight was a little iffy.

I have some concerns with the legislation as it stands. One of my biggest concerns is that 3,000 Canadian aircraft maintenance jobs are on the line as a consequence of this legislation. That is a lot of highly skilled, high-paying jobs. It would be a major loss to the communities affected were these jobs to vanish. It would be one of the most negative consequences of the bill.

I am concerned because this could negatively affect the communities of Mississauga, Montreal, and Winnipeg. I find it strange that Air Canada never mentioned aircraft maintenance costs as being prohibitive in its various comments made in the context of the past Canada Transportation Act review.

I am skeptical about the legislation. What does it seek to achieve? Why is it trying to fix a problem that does not seem to be a problem at all? If we really want to do service to Air Canada and other Canadian carriers, let us fix the situation that experts at Air Canada have identified.

Trans-Canada Airlines started in 1937. In 1937, the first stewardesses were hired. They had to be nurses. Why? It was to ease the concern of passengers for the safety of flying. We now have excellent maintenance that we can trust and Canadian flyers on Air Canada can trust this. For the younger members of the House, in 1995 the name was changed to Air Canada.

I have some suggestions for ways Air Canada could be made more competitive both in Canada and at the international level. My suggestions may not put the jobs of 3,000 Canadian workers in jeopardy.

One suggestion is tying airport fees to tangible projects with clear sunset clauses. When sunset clauses are effective and travellers see direct results of the fees in improvements, it may result in reduced ticket prices. That means more passengers on Air Canada flights and a direct benefit to the airline's bottom line. That is one way to help Canada without risking 3,000 jobs in Winnipeg, Mississauga, and Montreal.

A second way to make Air Canada more competitive is by reducing the excise tax on aviation fuel. There are high taxes on aircraft fuel. A variety of federal fees and taxes inflate the cost of air tickets in Canada, making it very expensive to fly within Canada. The air fuel excise tax is one of these examples. Therefore, why would the Minister of Transport not look at this as a possible way to make Air Canada more competitive? As was pointed out in its brief, these excise taxes were supposed to be reinvested in airport infrastructure. If we could fix the excise tax problem, I am sure Air Canada would appreciate such a change.

One of the major issues that ends up affecting Air Canada and all carriers at airports is the issue of security. What we need for security screening is an intelligence-driven, risk-based passenger screening process. This would lead to a smoother, quicker system that would save critical time for airlines like Air Canada and airport staff, and relieve the burden of the one-size-fits-all process we have now. Let us streamline the security process so we make a more simple and yet more robust security screening process at the same time.

Let us try to fix some of the issues Air Canada has stated. One of the issues with respect to security is the air travellers security charge, or ATSC. This is a fee that is charged to passengers to cover the costs of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. It was founded in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to ensure the security of those who flew within Canada.

The issue is, as Air Canada pointed out in a submission, that the amount of fees collected from passengers is too high. Looking at the numbers, the amount taken in surpasses the budgetary needs. In 2013-14, this left a surplus of $123 million. That is a problem. Why are we making such a small change to the act? What kind of support will this give to Air Canada?

We are not quite sure what it will do to help the airline. It has not been made clear to us. What we do know is that the bill would put the jobs of 3,000 airline mechanical staff in jeopardy, in Mississauga, Montreal, and Winnipeg.

The bill is not worth the risk, and an unintended consequence of passing the bill would be that these 3,000 jobs could leave Canada. I am asking the government to take another look at the bill and see that it is not the right course of action.

The Minister of Transport believes that somehow the legislation before us would assist Air Canada in cutting costs. I appreciate that he says this is his goal, but what we would like to see on this side of the House are some actual numbers. I know that our transportation critic, the hard-working member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, has asked for this from the minister. Therefore, I am asking again. Can the minister provide the actual amount that this proposed change would deliver in savings to Air Canada? If not, then I would ask him to give us more detail as to the rationale for the legislation.

As we are very concerned about these 3,000 workers, can the minister confirm that he has consulted with them about any of these changes? Has the minister consulted with their union on this?

Airport rent is another sticking point. Airport rent and fees in Canada are incredibly high, and it makes it very hard for airlines like Air Canada to operate in this business climate. I will quote directly from Air Canada's submission to the Canadian Transportation Act review.

In fact, depending on the type of aircraft, Air Canada landing and terminal fees in major Canadian airports are 35% to 75% higher than in major U.S. airports. When factoring in the difference between the Airport Improvement Fee and its U.S. equivalent (Passenger Facility Charge) that are paid by passengers, airport-related costs are on average 83% higher per departing seat in Canada than in the U.S.

This uncompetitive cost environment is not only causing the leakage of Canadian passengers to the United States, but also the loss of international traffic travelling to or via Canada.

This is from a recent National Post article:

The World Economic Forum ranks Canada No. 16 out of 140 countries for the quality of its airport infrastructure, but No. 130 when it comes to ticket taxes and airport charges.

This loss reduces our ability to position our country as an international gateway and to grow airlines and airports. There is potential to work something out, and I hope the minister is looking at other options to help the airline industry find solutions to these real problems that have been identified.

Air Canada is seeking a regulatory change as to how we manage the aviation industry. This is from its submission:

Our country also needs an efficient process for determining new aviation policy and rules--one that is able to keep pace with the rapidly evolving technology and operations of the industry.

The issues I have outlined in my speech are real issues, many of them raised by Air Canada itself. Why are we looking at such a small change, to the risk of 3,000 workers in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga?

I cannot support the legislation before us. That being said, I am looking forward to seeing what the minister might offer in terms of really supporting the Canadian airline industry, hoping there will be some future pieces of legislation that I can support.

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

Madam Speaker, I too want to acknowledge the excellent work our party's transport critic does in committee. She is on top of what is going on with transport in Canada. She does an excellent job. She and her team prepared very good notes for us on everything that could have been done by Air Canada and in order to improve its competitiveness. I mentioned a few of those things in my speech. I could talk about others. The aviation fuel tax could have been reduced or eliminated. That could have helped Air Canada be more competitive. Nav Canada could have been overhauled. The governance in airport authorities could have been improved. We could have established guiding principles to help Canada's airports set user fees. We could have better aligned our regulations with those of the United States and Europe. None of that was done. Bill C-10 does the bare minimum.

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

Madam Speaker, I think we have to come back to the spirit of the legislation. Bill C-10 is about Air Canada. It is a bill that will allow Air Canada to stop having its aircraft maintained here in Canada. There is no guarantee that aircraft maintenance will continue to be done here. It can be done abroad. Why are we standing up today? We want to ensure that these good jobs to maintain Air Canada's fleet of aircraft are kept here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, the answer to that question is pretty simple. It is because the jobs and the maintenance centres will be created by Bombardier, but the bill is all about Air Canada. Bill C-10 does not even mention Bombardier. We support Bombardier and encourage the company to create maintenance centres and jobs in Canada, but do we need to sacrifice existing jobs and the people who want to keep working and putting their expertise to good use for Canadians as they maintain aircraft here in Canada in a stable and safe environment? That is my answer to my hon. colleague's question.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bow River.

I rise to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, which has me a bit confused.

From the outset, I would say that during her excellent speech last week, our transport critic, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, presented some key dates related to the facts that bring us to talk about Air Canada today.

These dates are important and bear repeating. On November 3, 2015, the Quebec Court of Appeal, Quebec's highest court, confirmed an earlier ruling by the Quebec Superior Court that Air Canada had failed to fulfill its legal obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act concerning heavy maintenance of aircraft in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga.

On December 11, 2015, Bombardier formerly requested financial support of $1 billion U.S. from the Government of Canada. This was two months after the Government of Quebec had purchased a 49% stake in the C Series program for that same amount.

On February 6, 2016, Republic Airways, which to that point had placed a very large order for the C Series, streamlined its operations as it filed for bankruptcy protection and cancelled its order for up to 80 C Series aircraft. The very next day, February 17, Air Canada announced that it had begun negotiations with Bombardier to purchase 45 CS300 aircraft, with an option for 30 more.

Obviously, we are thrilled about Air Canada's decision to purchase Bombardier's superb aircraft. Not only will this decision have a huge impact on our aerospace industry, but it also gives credibility to Bombardier's new aircraft. We have heard some other announcements recently, and let us hope that those announcements turn into real orders, so that Bombardier can achieve its goal of launching a new economical aircraft to compete with large manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus in their own airspace.

Now that everyone is so happy about Air Canada's decision to purchase Bombardier's C Series planes, we have to wonder about the government's decision to introduce Bill C-10 at this point in time. The Minister of Transport never answered our questions about the impact that the bill will have on the Aveos workers. He keeps repeating the same message spun by his communication advisers. Whenever we talk about Aveos and Air Canada, he replies that Bombardier committed to establishing two maintenance centres for the C Series in Montreal and western Canada. There is absolutely no mention of this in Bill C-10, even though this will have a huge impact on nearly 3,000 Aveos workers, who are watching as the new Liberal government is turning its back on them without even having the decency to admit that it sacrificed those workers on the bargaining table between the government, Air Canada, and Bombardier.

Those workers had no reason to expect that the new government would betray them that way. They were right, since they thought they could rely on the support of one very influential member, and I want to stress his influence, in the Prime Minister's Office.

I will share a quote from that very influential cabinet member, who gave a little speech on Parliament Hill. He said, “It is such a shame that we have to demonstrate to ask the law and order government to obey the law”. He said that the government had made promises and said that we should not worry about Aveos.

I remind members that this quote was from a very influential government member.

He continued, “We are losing the types of jobs that we need in this country.” He said that it was not true that our best resources are in the ground somewhere, that our best resources are human resources, qualified workers like them, who are building this country every day with their hands, arms, intelligence, and creativity.

As members have gathered, these comments were made to Aveos workers.

Lastly, he said that it was not right that the government was refusing to invest in what had made this country strong, and that thousands of Canadians who travel every day were being put at risk with potentially lower-quality maintenance. Then he thanked them for being there.

Imagine this emotional little speech given by a very influential member of the Liberal government. Obviously, this must have initially given Aveos workers renewed hope. However, today we have realized that, unfortunately, these words, which were spoken right here in front of our Parliament Buildings, were just rhetoric.

I get the feeling that members have a lot of questions. They want to know whether their colleague is finally going to tell them which very influential government member said those things. Which Liberal member spoke so clearly and eloquently in support of Aveos workers?

Members had better stay seated, otherwise they might fall down. They will be shocked by the answer. The very influential member of the government who said those things just a few years ago is the member for Papineau, the current Prime Minister.

I will quote him again. He concluded his speech to Aveos workers by saying, “It's not right.”

What has happened since the member in question, who went on to become the Liberal Prime Minister, gave that speech on Parliament Hill that would make him change his views so drastically and cause him to forget about all the wonderful promises that he made? The answer is that the promises that the Liberals made before October 2015 are no longer valid. The Liberals' sunny ways are promises that they do not keep once in office.

It is important for me to remind members of this incident because it clearly shows that Bill C-10 is improvised, that it goes contrary to the promises made by the Liberals before the election, and that it is going to cost thousands of Canadian jobs. The Minister of Transport is telling us that he is taking action because the provinces, including Quebec, decided to settle their dispute with Air Canada. Once again, it is important to set the record straight.

This is what the Government of Quebec agreed to. I am quoting from a press release issued by Air Canada.

Subject to concluding final arrangements, the Government of Quebec has agreed to discontinue the litigation related to Air Canada's obligations regarding the maintenance of an overhaul and operational centre...

It does state “subject to concluding final arrangements”, and those are important words. The Government of Quebec has not resolved the dispute; it has temporarily suspended the litigation while the two sides negotiate a settlement deal. Until Air Canada concludes its purchase with Bombardier, takes possession of its first C Series aircraft and begins the work, the deal with the Government of Quebec cannot be final.

Then why is the government in such a hurry to pass Bill C-10? We have to wonder. With Bill C-10, there is no longer a guarantee of any jobs or future maintenance, and by future I am talking about a rather distant future for the C Series. There is also no guarantee of current maintenance work for Air Canada's fleet. Therefore, Bill C-10, is premature, imprudent, and incomplete.

The Conservative Party believes that Air Canada must be a private sector company that is not supported by taxpayers and provides Canadians with reliable access to air travel. That was the original intent of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which put in place conditions to ensure that this was possible and realistic. Could it have been done better? Could we help Air Canada be more competitive? Of course.

There have been a number of proposals for helping Air Canada without affecting a single job in Canada. For example, the government could link airport improvement fees to specific projects with clear end dates. It could completely overhaul airport security funding models. It could increase the number of trusted traveller programs, such as NEXUS and CANPASS. It could increase the ownership limits to at least 49% for commercial passenger carriers. In short, there were other solutions.

In conclusion, we know that Air Canada supports these measures, because that is what the company said in the brief it presented during the review of the Canada Transportation Act. The question is, why did the minister choose to amend this bill without taking the opportunity to include other measures that Air Canada put forward in its brief? Neither the bill nor the minister took any of those measures into account. That is another reason why the Conservative Party cannot support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow along in a similar vein to the questions that my colleague asked.

If in fact the parliamentary secretary is suggesting that the reason for the amendment to Bill C-10 and is about modernizing the Air Canada Public Participation Act, I wonder if the member can then explain why this amendment to the act is so narrowly focused and does not contemplate measures to support Air Canada that would not affect jobs in Canada.

The House resumed from April 15, 2016, 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, and of the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, who will deliver her speech when we come back next week.

On March 24, 2016, our government introduced Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures in the House of Commons. The purpose of the bill, more specifically, is to amend the sections of the act that have to do with Air Canada's operational and overhaul centres.

It is important to point out that this bill is being introduced at a time that is quite historic for the Canadian aerospace industry. As members will recall, in February 2016, Air Canada announced that it planned to purchase up to 75 C Series aircraft from Bombardier, and that it would carry out the maintenance of those planes in Canada for at least 20 years, beginning with the first delivery.

Air Canada will also help establish a centre of excellence in Quebec for the C Series aircraft, as well as another centre in western Canada, to be located in Manitoba. These centres will be able to not only service Air Canada's planes but also to offer those services to other national and international airlines.

In other words, we have introduced a bill at a time that is pivotal for Canada's aerospace industry. Not only is Bombardier offering a product that is a game changer for the aerospace industry worldwide, due to its efficiency and environmental performance, but our most important Canadian airline, Air Canada, clearly intends to make massive investments in the renewal of its fleet of aircraft.

Investing in a cutting-edge product that was designed and manufactured mainly in Canada will improve Air Canada's ability to compete globally and to serve Canadians.

In this historical context, we propose to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which we find to be outdated in part.

More specifically, the bill amends paragraph 6(1)(d) in the provisions requiring Air Canada to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community, and the City of Mississauga.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

So far, we have heard members on the government side and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport go on and on about the quality of the Bombardier C Series aircraft and about how happy they are that Air Canada has ordered so many aircraft.

Bombardier has been promoting its new aircraft for several years now, and what Bombardier needs is to get more orders. The government's platitudes here will unfortunately not help Bombardier sell a single aircraft.

That said, it does not matter that the minister is justifying Bill C-10 by saying that Air Canada's will purchase C Series aircraft and that the maintenance of these aircraft will be done in Quebec. None of this has anything to do with Bombardier or its new aircraft.

The text of the act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures makes no reference to Bombardier or its C Series aircraft. The changes that the government is proposing in this bill make no reference to Bombardier or the C Series aircraft. Even if Air Canada purchases and takes possession of 45 of Bombardier's aircraft, that will represent only a small portion of its total fleet, about 15%.

We all know that most of Air Canada's fleet consists of Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer aircraft. This bill is only concerned with where Air Canada must do its maintenance. Talking about other things only diverts attention away from what is important. What is important is to strike a balance between keeping good jobs here in Canada and making it possible for Air Canada to continue becoming a more flexible and competitive private company.

Let us go back in time in order to understand why the federal government at that time included a provision on aircraft maintenance that read as follows:

The articles of continuance of the Corporation shall contain

...

(d) provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community and the City of Mississauga;

By passing legislation guaranteeing that operational and overhaul centres would be maintained, the then government ensured that Air Canada maintenance jobs would stay in Canada. This condition was deemed necessary because we, the taxpayers, had invested a lot of money and implemented policies that supported Air Canada. Accordingly, in 1988, when Air Canada was privatized, all parties felt that Air Canada's good maintenance jobs had to stay in Canada and, more specifically, near the cities of Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg.

These policies and this financial support still exist today. That is why the government at the time ensured that this condition for privatization was included in the legislation. That way, only a change to that legislation made by the Parliament of Canada would allow Air Canada not to have its maintenance done in the three cities named in the legislation.

We all know that the airline industry has changed a great deal since Bill C-129 was introduced and debated in 1988. We all know that the Montreal Urban Community no longer exists, but we can all see that the law intended for the maintenance to be done in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg.

What has not changed is the need to have aircraft regularly maintained by reliable mechanics with the necessary experience and training to ensure passenger safety.

Canada has one of the best air safety regimes in the world, possibly even the best. We can be proud of that, and it is not something that should be changed overnight. We all recognize that aircraft maintenance is not the same now as it was in 1998. The technology and maintenance practices have changed a lot since then.

However, this bill does not propose modernizing the act to take into account the changes that have occurred in the airline industry with regard to aircraft maintenance. It proposes eliminating Air Canada's obligation to have its aircraft maintained in Canada. That is not modernization. Modernization would be an amendment that describes the type of maintenance that must be done in Canada, for example, with regard to airplane engines or flaps. My government colleagues are arguing that Air Canada is going to maintain the C Series in Quebec, that it is going to move jobs from Mississauga and Montreal to Winnipeg, and that that is enough.

Air Canada has a fleet of nearly 300 planes that need maintenance. Its Airbus and Boeing aircraft and even other planes that were built by Bombardier but are not part of the C Series could be maintained outside Canada. As a result, 85% of the fleet of Air Canada's largest planes, such as the Boeing 787, the Boeing 767, and the Airbus A330, could be maintained abroad.

Given the comments that the parliamentary secretary made in her speech and particularly outside the House, and given the content of the bill, it seems that the government intends to pass this legislative measure before Air Canada has even taken possession of a single C Series aircraft.

That is surprising because there are many measures that the government could introduce that would make Air Canada more competitive without affecting Canadian maintenance workers.

The government could link airport improvement fees to specific projects with clear end dates. It could do a complete overhaul of the airport security funding models. It could increase the number of trusted traveller programs, such as NEXUS and CANPASS. It could increase the ownership limits to at least 49% for commercial passenger carriers. It could also reduce or eliminate the aviation fuel tax, better align the regulations with those of the United States and Europe, and simplify customs and immigration processes.

All of these measures could be introduced quickly, and they would stimulate Air Canada and the country's entire airline industry. All of these measures have Air Canada's support. Unfortunately, the government is ignoring all of these measures in this bill.

I hope that the government will explain why it is ignoring many measures that would support Air Canada without affecting nearly 3,000 maintenance jobs in Canada.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

This bill would amend the articles of the Air Canada Public Participation Act that stipulate that the carrier undertake operational and overhaul maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba. For all intents and purposes, these articles would be removed. This would allow Air Canada to fulfill its maintenance needs outside of Canada and presumably at a lower cost. Consequently, Air Canada would no longer have to employ approximately 3,000 heavy maintenance workers in Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba.

The language that is used in Bill C-10 states:

...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.

I challenge any Liberal member to inform the House what he or she believes are the minimum number of Canadian jobs that article would protect.

Every member knows that all airlines do some maintenance work in every airport out of which they operate. This is called line maintenance, the routine checks that ensure that the planes are in good order and safe for passengers on a day-to-day basis.

Heavy or overhaul maintenance is the work that takes several days. It involves high skill because the mechanics are performing tasks such as replacing an engine or airframe upkeep. These are all high-end jobs, vital to Canada's aviation sector because of how skill-intensive these tasks are. By not specifying the type of maintenance work that needs to be done in Canada, as Bill C-10 proposes, Air Canada would be able to fulfill its legal obligation without having a single heavy maintenance person on staff.

While all Air Canada overall maintenance work would continue to be done in facilities that are certified by Transport Canada, the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood made the following point a few years ago. 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.

While the government should be commended for looking at ways to make Air Canada more competitive, and we agree with that, it cannot be commended for introducing a measure that would lead to job losses in Canada before even considering anything else.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Transport tabled a statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act, and the review looked forward 20 to 30 years to identify priorities and potential actions in transportation that would support Canada's long-term economic well-being. The report makes a number of recommendations concerning the aviation sector that stem from many months of analytical work, significant public consultation, and experience from eminent Canadians, including the Hon. David Emerson, who actually chaired that review.

Some of the examples of these recommendations include establishing a set of principles to guide all airports in Canada when determining fees, tying all airport improvement fees to specific projects with explicit sunset provisions, and overhauling the regulator, financing, and delivery models for security.

None of these initiatives would have cost the taxpayers any dollars, and considering the size of the Liberals' budget deficit, this would be especially important and, for the context of this debate, lead to job losses in Canada.

This legislation can and should be modernized without removing one if its key provisions. Air Canada has important heavy maintenance operations in Richmond, B.C., that should be considered by this act, but it is not even mentioned.

Canadians benefit from the efficient, affordable aviation sector. As Canada's largest carrier, having carried 40 million passengers last year, ensuring that Air Canada can provide affordable service to Canadians is extremely important. However, the government should always exhaust all measures available to it to achieve its objective, before picking the one that could cost Canadian workers their jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I can assure her that there will be no impact on safety regulations. We are just telling the government to start from scratch. We are telling the government that Bill C-10 does not work and will not protect the jobs currently protected by the law. Questions about safety will surely come up when we are talking about air transport and workers. However, all the NDP is saying today with our position and our amendment is that this bill is harmful to the sustainability of the aeronautics and aerospace industry in Quebec and Canada. It is also clearly harmful to the workers we are defending here today.

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

Madam Speaker, I will pick up my speech where I left off. I was saying that this bill is a betrayal of workers since it seeks to amend the law that ensures that their jobs remain in the locations indicated in that law.

However, this is not just about job losses. Although the job losses that will occur as a result of this bill are very worrisome, the instability of the jobs in this sector is also a cause for concern. That is perhaps an unintended consequence, and it makes us wonder how much the government really thought about the consequences of its bill. Let me explain.

According to the bill, it would be deemed appropriate to outsource these jobs if that allowed Air Canada to maintain its competitive advantage. After the bill is passed, jobs may stay in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga. However, we do not know how long that situation will last and we will have to deal with the fact that these jobs will become unstable. Air Canada may justify outsourcing jobs by saying that it wants to avoid raising prices for consumers. That is a problem.

As I said before question period, we have high-quality, well-paying jobs here. It will be counter-productive if those jobs become unstable. We are not just talking about job losses, but about job quality as well.

Since this debate began, Liberal government members have been arguing that Air Canada has to remain competitive in an ever-changing industry. The problem is that we not only have to stand up for the workers affected by this bill, but we also have to think about the precedent that this bill sets.

Imagine a world where every time something like this comes up, the government claims that the company's legal requirements prevent it from remaining competitive and will cause rates to increase and all kinds of problems.

If, every time, the government decides to change the law and make legal something that used to be illegal, namely the loss of good-quality jobs, what will prevent the government from doing the same thing again for another company that has similar legal obligations, under the pretext that the industry is competitive?

How many jobs would be in jeopardy and would become precarious? How many jobs are we prepared to outsource to keep our companies competitive? That is not what a free market is. By intervening to favour a company on a legal level, the government is going against the idea of a free market. This is not the role of a responsible government.

A government, especially this one, which was elected on its claim of wanting to stand up for the middle class, is responsible for standing up for the workers who are protected by law.

I want to reiterate that this is a betrayal. During the last Parliament, in 2012, the Liberal Party was outraged about the Conservative government's refusal to step up and enforce the law. However, the Liberals are now saying that they will absolutely enforce the law, because they are going to change it.

Changing the law makes the Liberals even worse than the Conservatives. The Conservatives did not enforce the law, but the Liberals have simply decided to change the law at the expense of workers.

I am thinking about all those members from Montreal.

The same goes for members from Winnipeg or Mississauga, members who are from cities that have workers who rely on these jobs which are protected by Air Canada's legal obligations. Today we see a betrayal of those workers, those workers who now are now seeing the Liberal government change the law after saying that the previous Conservative government should apply the law. The changes to that law are not only creating a situation where those workers will lose their jobs, but those who manage to hang on to their jobs will no longer be guaranteed the same high-quality long-term jobs and the long-term guarantees which the law affords them today.

Therefore, Canadians should remember this the next time the Liberals tell them how they set bar so much higher than the previous Conservative government. It is rare that I will take the side of the Conservatives in an argument. The Liberals are doing worse than what the Conservatives did. They propose to change the law, and that is a slap in the face for the workers who are protected by the legislation.

We also need to consider the situation at Bombardier. I will have to say more about that later because I did not have enough time to delve into the subject as much as I wanted to during my initial remarks on this subject. We need to consider the fact that Bombardier is going through a tough time across Canada, but especially in Quebec. That has major repercussions on the entire aerospace and aeronautics sector. The problem today is that people are trying to take shortcuts.

I will admit this is speculation, but we have the right to ask certain questions in this debate, and we have to ask them. This bill was introduced before an announcement about the decision on whether to provide, or not provide, assistance to Bombardier.

The answer is clear to the NDP: yes, we should help Bombardier, but there should be strings attached. We should have a solid agreement with provisions to ensure utmost respect for taxpayer dollars throughout the process. We certainly do not want to give Bombardier a blank cheque.

The problem is that there was no mention whatsoever of Bombardier, and no mention of the entire aeronautics and aerospace industry in this budget. Today we are debating Bill C-10, which will have a serious impact on the aeronautics and aerospace industry and on all related decisions, even though we have no idea what direction the government plans to take.

This is quite problematic because, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, it really seems like this is about returning a favour, after Air Canada committed to purchasing the C Series planes from Bombardier. Every time we ask the minister any questions about this file, he simply gets up and says that it does not matter, that we have good news from Air Canada. Of course we have some concerns about this. We will continue to stand up for workers.

That is why we will be voting against this bill and why I am pleased to move, seconded by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the following amendment:

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, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, because it:

(a) threatens the livelihoods of thousands of Canadian workers in the aerospace industry by failing to protect the long-term stability of the Canadian aerospace sector from seeing jobs outsourced to foreign markets;

(b) forces Canadian manufacturers to accept greater risks and to incur greater upfront costs in conducting their business;

(c) provides no guarantee that the terms and conditions of employment in the Canadian aeronautics sector will not deteriorate under increased and unfettered competition; and

(d) does not fulfill the commitments made by the Prime Minister when he attended demonstrations alongside workers in the past.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

As the official opposition critic for transport, I have a number of concerns with both the proposed amendment to this act and the government's timing in introducing this change.

Let us review the facts.

On November 3, 2015, the Quebec Court of Appeal, Quebec's highest court, confirmed an earlier ruling by the Quebec Superior Court that Air Canada had failed to fulfill its legal obligations stemming from the Air Canada Public Participation Act concerning heavy maintenance of aircraft in Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga.

On December 11, 2015, Bombardier formerly requested financial support of $1 billion U.S. from the Government of Canada. This was two months after the Government of Quebec had purchased a 49% stake in the C Series program for that same amount.

On February 16, 2016, Republic Airways, which to that point had placed the largest order for the C Series, streamlined its operations as it filed for bankruptcy protection and cancelled its order for up to 80 C Series aircraft.

The very next day, February 17, Air Canada announced that it had begun negotiations with Bombardier to purchase 45 C Series variant 300 aircraft, with an option for an additional 30.

I will be discussing this announcement further, later on in my remarks.

Considering Air Canada had for years shown no interest in the C Series and had just completed an agreement with Boeing to purchase 61 737 Max aircraft, this announcement surprised virtually the entire airline industry. Prior to Air Canada's announcement, Bombardier had gone nearly 17 months without landing a firm order, so it goes without saying that the timing of this transaction was fortuitous for the aerospace giant.

Furthermore, Airways News, a trade publication, estimates that there is a 40% chance that Bombardier will land another order for its C Series aircraft this year. Therefore, to say that Air Canada has saved the Bombardier C Series program would be an understatement.

Concurrent with this announcement, Air Canada announced that it would undertake the heavy maintenance of the C Series aircraft in Quebec for 20 years and create a centre of excellence in the province.

On the same day that Air Canada made its announcement to purchase these airplanes, the Minister of Transport announced that he would lessen Air Canada's obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

On March 8, the Minister of Transport put the bill we are debating on notice.

On March 14, Air Canada announced that it would move some of the maintenance work presently being done in Mississauga and Montreal to Winnipeg, thereby creating approximately 150 jobs in Manitoba.

On March 24, the Minister of Transport introduced the bill we are debating today.

Given that it is common practice to put a bill on notice and introduce it within a few days, the 16-day delay from when this bill was put on notice to when the minister introduced it has not been explained. In his short justification for introducing Bill C-10, the Minister of Transport hailed Air Canada's decision to purchase the C Series aircraft, combined with the Government of Quebec's and the Government of Manitoba's intention to discontinue litigation against the carrier, as the main cause. He also noted that this would allow Air Canada to be more competitive in an evolving aerospace sector.

While this proposed legislation should have nothing to do with Bombardier, this bill unfortunately appears to have everything to do with Bombardier. If this legislation is part of the government's plan to support Bombardier, then it should just say so.

Let us look at the justification in greater detail, starting with Air Canada's purchase of the C Series airplane.

As was mentioned, Air Canada signed a letter of intent to purchase the C Series aircraft on February 17 this year, with a two-year negotiating window. No money has changed hands, and none will for several years.

Neither Bombardier nor Air Canada has announced the price they have agreed on for the C Series aircraft. However, it is believed to be under $30 million per unit, which is far below the break-even point for Bombardier.

Assuming Air Canada's letter of intent leads to orders at the end of the two-year negotiating window, planes are scheduled to be delivered beginning in early 2020, after deliveries of Boeing 737 Max aircraft are completed, and assuming no delays take place in production.

I would also note that the narrow-body Boeing 737 Max variant 200 and variant 300 airplane that Air Canada is purchasing seats between 160 and 180 persons in a two-cabin configuration, depending on the cabin layout, which is approximately 20 more seats than the C Series.

While I know that all of us here are pleased that Canada's largest airline has made what could be a substantial order for the Bombardier aircraft, none of us should be under any illusion that we will be heading home for the next constituency week on this aircraft.

As is the industry norm, Bombardier will only receive payment from Air Canada once the planes have been delivered, which is many years away. Finally, as with all major orders, due diligence takes time, and either side has the ability to withdraw from the negotiation at any time.

Next is what the Quebec government agreed to, and I will quote Air Canada's press release on this matter:

Subject to concluding final arrangements—

—and those are important words, “concluding final arrangements”—

—the Government of Quebec has agreed to discontinue the litigation related to Air Canada's obligations regarding the maintenance of an overhaul and operational centre following Air Canada's agreement to collaborate with the Province to establish a Centre of Excellence for C Series airframe heavy maintenance work in Quebec.

The Government of Quebec has not abandoned litigation against Air Canada. It has temporarily suspended litigation as both sides negotiate a settlement deal. Until Air Canada takes possession of its first C Series and begins maintenance work on that aircraft, or even concludes its purchase with Bombardier, this deal with the Government of Quebec cannot be final.

The Province of Manitoba, which had originally joined Quebec's lawsuit, has agreed to cease pursuing litigation subject to Air Canada moving approximately 150 jobs to the province. These jobs will be moved to Winnipeg sometime in 2017.

I would note that prior to Aveos filing for bankruptcy, approximately 400 heavy maintenance jobs were in Winnipeg. Air Canada is proposing to bring back 40% of them.

It is clear that with Bill C-10, if something happens and Air Canada does not end up purchasing the C Series aircraft for any reason, whether because of a change in demand for air travel or if the C Series does not fulfill its performance guarantees, the Quebec and Manitoba governments will not have a legal recourse because the law will have changed.

If the governments of Quebec and Manitoba are indeed satisfied with Air Canada's commitments to create and maintain jobs in both respective provinces, there is no need to move as quickly to change the maintenance provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, because no further lawsuits would be forthcoming.

Finally, the minister makes the point that this change would allow Air Canada to be more competitive. The amendment that the minister is proposing in Bill C-10 would indeed allow Air Canada to move some of its maintenance work to jurisdictions where presumably the cost of labour is lower, therefore saving Air Canada money.

In making the point regarding Air Canada's competitiveness, the minister has not provided an estimate of the financial benefit this legislative change will give Air Canada, not even for next year. Perhaps this information will come up in today's debate.

What is even more curious is that in its lengthy and detailed submission to the Canada Transportation Act review, which is available online, Air Canada does not mention aircraft maintenance once as a financial concern.

The location where Air Canada undertakes its overhaul maintenance only became a major concern when the carrier lost in court twice on this matter.

In the same public submission, Air Canada, along with virtually every major aerospace sector stakeholder in Canada, lists the air travellers security charge, the rapid growth in airport improvement fees, taxes on aviation fuel, the need for more streamlined customs processes, and the high airport rent collected by the federal government as major impediments to sustained growth of the aviation sector in Canada, especially relative to American competitors.

If the government wanted to take measures that would stimulate the entire Canadian aerospace sector, including Air Canada, it could have chosen to tackle any of the issues above. I would also note that all of these measures have near universal support in the aviation sector and would not lead to a loss of jobs in Canada, but so far, the minister has been silent on all of these.

The Conservative Party believes that Air Canada should become a private sector company that is not supported by taxpayers while ensuring that Canadians have access to reliable air travel. That was the original intent of the Air Canada Public Participation Act when it was introduced in 1988. The act put in place clear conditions to ensure that all of the support Air Canada had received from government to turn it into a profitable crown corporation would not be lost. These conditions will become well known over the course of this debate, but I will take the time and the opportunity to list them here. Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act. It maintains its corporate headquarters in Montreal. Seventy-five per cent of its voting shares have to be held by Canadians. Finally and most important for the purpose of this debate, Air Canada has to “maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community, and the City of Mississauga”.

Today, Air Canada is the largest airline in this country and an important international player in the sector because of support from taxpayers over the years.

Upon being privatized in 1988, Air Canada inherited a fleet of 109 aircraft.

All of Canada's major airports where Air Canada first flew to were built with the financial support of the Government of Canada and taxpayers. Today, Air Canada is the largest tenant in nearly every major airport in Canada, with the exception of Calgary and Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. This gives Air Canada significant influence over each airport's operations and access to the best landing slots in a slot-controlled airport like Pearson. Air Canada also has intangible assets, like landing slots at some of the most slot-controlled airports in the world, such as London Heathrow, Washington Reagan, and New York La Guardia. Earlier this year, Air France sold a pair of its landing slots at London Heathrow for $75 million. For perspective, Air Canada owns 150 weekly slots at that airport.

Air Canada was also the beneficiary of back-to-work legislation in 2012, which was enacted because of Air Canada's importance to this county's economy. I would note that the Liberal Party and the former member for Westmount—Ville-Marie voted against this legislation.

The Conservative Party supports the concept of making Air Canada more competitive relative to other carriers. But as I noted earlier in my remarks, the minister has failed to demonstrate that this will be achieved while ignoring measures that the government could undertake that would achieve this without leading to job losses in Canada.

We know that Air Canada supports these measures because it said so in its comprehensive submission to the Canada Transportation Act review. Therefore, the question remains: Why would the minister undertake to amend this legislation and not take the opportunity to address any of the other measures that Air Canada identified in its submission? Neither this bill nor the Minister of Transport addresses any of these. This is, to me, Bill C-10's greatest failing and why the Conservative Party cannot support this legislation.

To conclude, while it is not clear what level of benefit this legislative change will give Air Canada, we do know that this change will make it possible for the carrier to move thousands of jobs from Canada to other jurisdictions. We also know that the government is missing an opportunity to allow Air Canada to better compete against U.S. and international carriers.

I hope all members will keep this in mind as we continue to debate Bill C-10.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to commence debate at second reading of Bill C-10, amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. These amendments seek to modernize legislation to allow Air Canada to more effectively respond to the evolution of market conditions while continuing to support jobs for skilled workers in Canada's aerospace sector. This bill would amend the provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act dealing with Air Canada's operational and overhaul centres.

Let me first say that this bill is being submitted for consideration to the House in the context of an historic investment by Air Canada in Canada's aerospace sector. As members are aware, Air Canada has announced its intention to purchase up to 75 Bombardier C Series aircraft and to ensure that these planes will be maintained in Canada for at least 20 years.

Air Canada has also said it plans to support the creation of centres of excellence for aircraft maintenance in Quebec and Manitoba, and the company says it will continue to carry out significant work in other parts of Canada. In other words, this bill comes before this place at an important time for Canada's aerospace sector. Not only is Bombardier producing an aircraft that is a game changer for aviation in terms of its efficiency, environmental performance, and noise, but Air Canada is adding this plane to its fleet, creating significant opportunities for high-value employment.

Quebec has estimated that the creation of the centre of excellence in Montreal alone could produce 1,000 jobs over 15 years, while the manufacturing of Air Canada's C Series aircraft could create an additional 300 jobs. Air Canada also intends to support the creation of 150 jobs in Manitoba, with a possibility to expand beyond that. These are precisely the results that we should be pursuing. They are market-driven investments aimed at improving Air Canada's bottom line and ability to serve Canadians, by investing in world-class technology right here in Canada.

As members are aware, the Attorney General of Quebec took legal action against Air Canada following the closure of Aveos Fleet Performance in 2012, accusing the carrier of non-compliance with these provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. In light of Air Canada's investments in aerospace in Canada, including aircraft maintenance, Quebec has since announced its willingness to discontinue its pursuit of that litigation.

This creates an appropriate context for us to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This legislation is now close to 30 years old. It was created to enable the privatization of Air Canada, which occurred in 1989. Specifically, I am referring to paragraph 6(1)(d), which calls for Air Canada to have in its articles of continuance:

provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community and the City of Mississauga;

Let me begin by providing to the House some of the history of this legislation. The Air Canada Public Participation Act was brought in at a time when countries around the world were moving away from a high degree of regulation and public ownership in certain sectors, notably air transport. Canada was no exception. To support economic growth, deliver new services to Canadians, and significantly reduce the burden on the taxpayers, the government took several actions. We deregulated the air transport sector. We commercialized our major airports. Also, by way of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, we transformed Air Canada from a crown corporation into a viable and competitive private company.

The air transport sector has greatly evolved since 1989. Now it is common for global air carriers to outsource aircraft maintenance and to distribute their supply chain across different geographic areas, with a view to being more efficient. This is the competitive environment within which Air Canada operates. Other air carriers, Canadian and international, are not subject to the same obligations regarding their maintenance facilities. That means that they can seek out efficiencies in ways that Air Canada cannot.

Ultimately, the result of this is that Air Canada could be less competitive. Furthermore, if Air Canada's ability to reduce costs is limited by the act, that could make air travel more expensive for Canadians. In other words, the Air Canada Public Participation Act could place limits on the company's ability to be competitive and cost effective, with implications for the travelling public and the Canadian economy. This does not support an approach to air transport that focuses on competition and market forces as the best means to deliver value to users. Air Canada, like any company, needs flexibility to evolve within its competitive environment to remain viable.

Of course, we were all concerned when Aveos closed it doors in 2012, resulting in layoffs across the country. Some divisions of Aveos were purchased as part of the bankruptcy process and kept in operation, but others were not. The closure of Aveos meant that Air Canada ceased to carry out certain work in Canada. The minister objected to this, as did many of our colleagues. That is why we are so pleased to see that Air Canada is now investing in Canada's aerospace and aircraft maintenance sector, and in doing so creating concrete employment opportunities for Canadians in this sector. That is precisely the type of outcome we wanted to see.

The Air Canada investment in the C Series and support for the creation of the centres of excellence in Quebec and Manitoba offer specific opportunities for highly skilled aerospace workers, both during the manufacturing phase, and later, for maintenance. Our intention in introducing this legislation is to strike the right balance.

First, we want Air Canada to have flexibility to organize its activities, to match how the air transport sector has evolved and will continue to evolve. At the same time, we want to ensure that the act continues to require Air Canada to carry out aircraft maintenance in certain Canadian regions. This proposed legislation maintains that commitment.

The act currently refers to the city of Winnipeg, the city of Mississauga, and the Montreal urban community. I note that the Montreal urban community, which no longer exists as a jurisdiction, did not include all of greater Montreal. For example, it did not include Mirabel. Also, Air Canada's activities extend throughout the greater Toronto area, not just Mississauga.

Given this, we have chosen to expand the reference in the legislation to cover the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, which allows for Air Canada's maintenance work to extend to areas around the named cities, as opposed to remaining strictly within the city limits. Furthermore, Bill C-10 would clarify that paragraph 6(1)(d) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act requires Air Canada to commit to carry out or cause to be carried out aircraft maintenance, including with regard to airframes, engines, components, equipment, or parts, in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

However, this does not mean to specify particular types or volumes of such maintenance in each location, or particular levels of employment. In this way, it will be clear that we are not tying the hands of a private company to manage its operations into the future. Air Canada will be able to adjust its activities to respond to the evolution of the air transportation sector in the same way that any other company does.

I would like to remind the House of the nature of air transport and how it has evolved. This is a truly global business, characterized by large international corporations providing services over vast networks, using extremely expensive equipment. It is also highly susceptible to external shocks and is cyclical in nature. Air transport provides essential connectivity, both within this vast country and to the outside world. It is also a major source of employment. Air Canada alone employs close to 25,000 people.

Air transportation has evolved considerably since the 1980s. We have seen important new aircraft technologies, huge global growth in traffic, new business models, and new air carriers. It has also weathered major shocks, such as pandemics, economic crises, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We can only imagine how the sector will evolve in the future.

Federal policy regarding Canada's air transport sector places a premium on competition and market forces. We do not subsidize the sector. Rather, we support the user-pay principle with regard to infrastructure and service. This is not the case in all countries.

Since its privatization, Air Canada has existed as a private enterprise without state support, despite weathering some difficult periods. While the federal government participated in bridge financing, along with private partners, to help Air Canada through the credit crunch resulting from the 2009 global financial crisis, this was done on commercial terms. Any loans were paid back in full with interest.

Where both air transport and aerospace are concerned, it is essential that Canada be competitive, but we cannot rest on our laurels as the world of aviation is changing quickly.

I am particularly pleased that our aviation and aerospace sectors have come together, with the recent announcement by Air Canada regarding its purchase of the Bombardier C Series. This will allow Air Canada to operate aircraft that set new standards in aviation by cutting fuel consumption, reducing GHG emissions, and minimizing noise.

These aircraft will be designed, assembled, and maintained in Canada, creating opportunities for well-paid employment. It is hard to imagine a better outcome. This is the sort of result we hoped to see when we raised concerns around the closure of Aveos.

I am also very pleased that Quebec and Air Canada are nearing an end to the litigation based on the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

I commend Air Canada for supporting the creation of centres of excellence that will provide employment for highly skilled aerospace workers in Manitoba and Quebec.

In this context, it is now time to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act to clarify its intent. Yes, we want the legislation to be clear that Air Canada will undertake aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. However, as it is a company that needs to compete in an evolving global marketplace, we need to give Air Canada the flexibility to meet these requirements in a way that also supports its competitiveness.

I believe that Bill C-10 achieves that balance. I hope honourable members will join me in supporting this bill and will quickly refer it to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where we can hear from stakeholders.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

moved 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I have good news. I have no documents to table, and thus there is no need to worry.

This afternoon will conclude the fourth and final day of the budget debate.

Tomorrow we will commence second reading of Bill C-10, the Air Canada legislation, and continue that debate on Monday.

Next week, we will have opposition days on Tuesday and Thursday. On Wednesday, we will begin debate on Bill C-14 on medical assistance in dying, introduced this morning by my colleague, the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, after discussions with all parties I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, pursuant to Section 20 of the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development be designated for the statutory review of the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act and the Special Economic Measures Act.

Air Canada

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after years of pretending to be champions for Air Canada workers, the Liberals tabled legislation that gives Air Canada free rein to ship the good-paying jobs of 2,600 workers and their families right out of Canada.

The Prime Minister once stood alongside protesting maintenance workers. He was chatting about solidarity and probably throwing in the odd Kumbaya for good measure, but where is that solidarity when it could actually do something for workers?

Will the Prime Minister stand up, apologize for his cynicism, and withdraw Bill C-10?

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

(Motions deemed adopted and bill read the first time)