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.

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the member has any indication as to how this amendment would affect the level of safety regulations.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the idea of the role of the provinces. They have been fairly involved in the negotiations and the talks, and I like to think that they also have a vested interest in protecting their respective industries within their provinces. I wonder if the member would at the very least acknowledge that provinces do matter and that their discussions and their beliefs should be taken into consideration.

Provinces that have worked along with Air Canada and other stakeholders are inclined to say that these multi-faceted agreements are at least protecting the future of the aerospace industries. Does the member believe that there is any obligation on his part, or in particular on the part of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons, to at least try to reflect some honesty as to what provinces are actually saying in their involvement in this process?

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party has nothing to teach me about how to treat Quebec or other provinces that have definitely been impacted by the Liberal Party's lack of respect. We need only think of the cuts to transfers in the 1990s, not to mention all the other consequences that have been felt over the years.

Let us be clear about Quebec's decision with respect to the dispute. It asked that the suit be suspended until the two parties reach an agreement. Air Canada agreed to purchase C Series planes, but that does not give the Liberal government carte blanche to completely flout the law, change it, and betray the government's previous positions. Nor does it give the government blanket authority to remove legal protections for workers who currently have good jobs that are protected under the law.

I would like to reassure my colleague. We will always listen to the Government of Quebec. There is no doubt about that. However, we are here listening to Quebec workers who will lose their jobs. Why? Rather than singing Kumbaya and chanting “So-so-so-solidarity”, the Prime Minister has simply decided to slap them in the face, change the law and remove these protections. That is a disgrace and we will never be ashamed to say it.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mount Royal.

This is an issue about which I feel very passionate, because at the end of the day, I have had first-hand experience of the ramifications of decisions that were made five, six, even seven years ago in the lead-up to those decisions.

I can recall meeting with many of the workers and other stakeholders, particularly in my home province of Manitoba, who were directly affected. I could only wish that we had this type of resistance at that time from New Democrats and Conservatives, because when I was meeting with employees and other stakeholders, especially in Manitoba, I felt very much alone as an elected official in trying to make sure that the employees in the aerospace industry in the province I love were in fact being protected.

Let us have a review. We had legislation to protect a series of obligations when Air Canada was privatized. I would argue that those were very important obligations, because it has been difficult at the best of times to ensure that industries in my home province were being protected.

I have talked in this House on numerous occasions about the importance of the aerospace industry to Manitoba, and even beyond that, when I have talked about Quebec and Ontario, because that is what we are really talking about here today.

That said, it gives us a sense that whether it was through petitions, postcards, question period, questioning the Prime Minister directly when these decisions were actually being made and the government should have been taking a more proactive approach at protecting the employees, that was the time when we really needed to see action. That is when we saw the Conservative members sit on their hands, and I cannot recall seeing New Democrats jumping from their seats to protect jobs back then. I cannot recall seeing that.

Let us fast-forward a little. Now we have the provincial government of Quebec, which responded a little ways after some of those decisions were made, and we had the NDP provincial government in Manitoba respond a little bit later by saying that it will become involved. I can remember talking to employees, saying that Manitoba should be a stand-alone, that we had to hold Air Canada accountable and so forth. There was a great deal of emotion.

No one can tell me that they are more concerned about the former employees who got shafted. I am very much concerned about those employees. I wanted to see answers. This goes back a number of years.

Now we have a situation in which the Province of Quebec, the Province of Manitoba, Air Canada, and other stakeholders have been negotiating, the best I can tell, for a good period of time to try to rectify what I believe was a significant wrong, which I have been anxious to see resolved.

There are two issues. The first issue has to be, from my perspective, the long-term interests of the aerospace industry in our country, and more specifically for me and my constituents and the area I represent, the interests of the aerospace industry in Manitoba.

The desire of this government is to see those industries grow, and we will do what we can to facilitate that growth. All one needs to do is look at the budget we have presented, which the NDP and the Conservatives are voting against, and one will see that there are significant things in that budget that will help our aerospace industry, help those individuals who will be future employees in that industry, and even help those who are currently employed.

I am very much concerned about the many different ways this agreement seems to be moving forward. Hopefully we will see more light and more benefit for all three provinces going forward.

Why do we have this bill? The essence of the bill, from what I understand, is that we have a sense of an obligation that Air Canada has to maintain a presence not only in the province of Manitoba, but also in the province of Quebec. I am very pleased to see that.

From what I understand, Air Canada has also announced an agreement with the Government of Manitoba for the establishment of a western Canada centre of excellence, which is expected to create 150 jobs in aircraft maintenance starting in 2017, with the possibility of even further expansion and job creation.

Given the importance of this industry to the province of Manitoba, I see that as a positive thing. I realize there is a cost going into negotiations, and if the New Democrats were fairer in their criticisms, they would acknowledge that the employees who were burnt by what took place four, five, six years ago are still feeling the pain of it. Some of them actually had to move outside the city of Winnipeg. I know of a family that ultimately had to move Calgary. That is an issue which still concerns me.

I am open, willing, and want to meet and work with, in particular, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley who has been a very strong advocate for the aerospace industry and its employees. I am very concerned with regard to whether we can do something to support those former employees. I am prepared to work with the Government of Canada, the Government of Manitoba, unions and whoever else it might be. If there is something that can be achieved, I am open to doing that.

For me, that is a very important issue, a reality that I cannot express strongly enough, in terms of how I feel for those families that were affected. I walked on picket lines with them. I protested at the Winnipeg International Airport. I had meetings with them on the side. The care and compassion for those who have lost their jobs is there. It is real. If something can be done, I am open to doing that.

Let us move on to the terms of the overall impact on the industry. If members believe that Manitoba has the potential to continue to grow and prosper in the aerospace industry, I would suggest that at the very least we should support this bill to go to committee. If members say that they are an advocate for some of these workers or for the aerospace industry, whether it is in Manitoba, Ontario, or Quebec, we should at least have a vote on it and allow it to go to committee.

We are more than happy to have opposition members invite witnesses to the committee, and we will see government witnesses. I suspect we will have representatives from many of the different stakeholders. Let us hear first-hand what they have to say. I am very much interested in the proceedings that will be taking place at committee.

The Prime Minister himself has talked about the importance of our aerospace industry. Given the sense of commitment and expenditures that we are seeing in the budget, I believe that right from the Prime Minister to the minister responsible to cabinet to all members of the Liberal caucus, there is a desire to see our aerospace industry prosper. It is very real. This is the motivating factor behind this particular bill.

At the end of the day, I would highly recommend to opposition members that when they comment on this piece of legislation to please take into consideration the efforts the stakeholders are making to try to rectify a very serious issue. When we are talking about stakeholders, it is not only the national government but provincial jurisdictions, private corporations, unions, and others as well.

I hope that this legislation will be allowed to pass in a timely fashion. In view of the importance of this industry, we need to emphasize the importance of passing this legislation in a timely fashion. Let us see what happens at the committee stage.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

In his speech, as well as in those of his Liberal colleagues and our Conservative colleagues, to some extent, it is argued that Air Canada should be allowed to compete with other airlines around the world.

Their speeches seem to suggest that the Government of Canada accepts and encourages the outsourcing of good jobs to other countries, whether it is Mexico or any other country where labour is cheaper. We even heard some members say that this would allow Air Canada to be more competitive.

Since when has the Government of Canada encouraged the outsourcing of good jobs to other countries?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me clearly indicate that the bill would continue to reinforce the government's expectation that Air Canada would undertake aircraft maintenance in Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario. In fact, Air Canada has entered into an agreement with the Province of Manitoba, where we will see the establishment of a Western Canada centre of excellence.

This is something I do not want to write off. Others have spent a great deal of time trying to develop it. I want an aerospace industry that is going to prosper not only in my province, but in Canada in general. There are certain aspects to the legislation in this holistic package that would actually derive some benefits.

All I am suggesting to the member is to remain open-minded. I am going to stand for workers too. Let us see this bill get to committee and listen to what people have to say.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, Air Canada employs 26,000 people across Canada. We need to ensure that Air Canada can be successful moving forward. Could my hon. colleague explain to us how the bill would give Air Canada more flexibility to be more successful moving forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians as a whole understand and appreciate the importance of flight today. One of the things we want to do as a government is ensure that Air Canada is there for future generations.

I believe there are certain aspects of the original act, which was brought forward back in the late eighties, that we need to continue to fight to preserve. As a government, where it makes sense, we can provide encouragement through these centres of excellence where future jobs could be created to enhance and build upon our aerospace industry. There is an obligation that the Government of Canada today is prepared to recognize and support where it can. That is something completely different from the former Conservative government that did absolutely nothing. It sat on its hands.

We have to make sure that Air Canada is able to sustain itself well into the future. There is a role to ensure that Canadians have that sense of pride. Air Canada used to be a fully public corporation, but is now a very responsible private entity that sometimes might go off the rails, to use a different mode of transportation metaphorically. It might need to be put back on the rails so that we have the long-term viability of good quality jobs, a fantastic airline, and something that would provide competition well into the future.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my great honour to rise in the House today to talk about the changes to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The bill is very short, and I do not suppose that much of it is controversial. For example, I do not think that the changes with respect to the City of Mississauga, the Montreal Urban Community, known as the MUC, the City of Winnipeg, Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba are controversial.

I imagine that the fact we are updating the definition of what constitutes maintenance is not controversial.

What I do hear from the opposition, and I understand, is the concern about jobs. It is a concern about the fact that the law would allow more flexibility to Air Canada and would not require that all of its maintenance be done in Montreal, Mississauga, or Winnipeg, or even in those provinces. It would give flexibility to Air Canada to decide where it may locate workers, provided that it retains centres of excellence in those three provinces.

I can understand. I hear the NDP. I understand from the perspective of unions that they are nervous. They are worried that jobs may be lost because there would no longer be the same legal protections there were before. I get that.

I listened to the Conservatives. I heard the argument that Air Canada originally, in the late 1980s, when it was privatized, had received from the Canadian taxpayers a certain amount of equipment and landing rights and other things, which meant that Air Canada had certain obligations that would not be imposed upon other airlines. I understand that, as well.

Let me explain why I do believe this amendment to the act actually does make sense.

First, I would like to say that, as a Montrealer, I am very pleased to know that Air Canada's headquarters must remain in Montreal. Also, we still have the same bilingualism requirements as before.

On the other hand, Air Canada is a company in a market that has changed very significantly since the 1980s. In the 1980s, there were far fewer airlines. Those of us who, before we came into this House, travelled a lot for business know that today there are low-cost carriers domestically and abroad. There are carriers from the Far East and the gulf states that now have taken over a lot of the international routes.

American aeronautics companies have merged and have been restructured. Almost every one of them has passed through bankruptcy protection. Even Air Canada went through the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act 10 years ago.

Air Canada is not the healthiest financial company that there is. We all understand that. The success of a very strong domestic airline like Air Canada—and it is good that we have other domestic airlines as well, like WestJet and Porter—is a prerequisite for the Canadian economy to be successful because Air Canada employs not just 2,600 people in maintenance, but 26,000 people across Canada.

Air Canada does need, now that it is a privatized company, the ability to move jobs sometimes. It is clear. I was in private industry. Before I came here I was the general counsel for a multinational. We always wanted to keep jobs in our major centres, but it is important to have flexibility, because companies owe debt. There are shareholders of those companies, and there is a need for success. We do not want to, as a government, be told that we will need to put another $1 billion, $2 billion, or $5 billion into Air Canada to keep Air Canada afloat one day.

We really do need to look at what Air Canada needs to do.

I have looked at it from this perspective. Yes, there were assets, but I think the main argument—and I would hope to convince my Conservative counterparts of this—is there were obligations that were given in the late 1980s based upon the Canadian taxpayers having helped set up Air Canada. However, for every one of the assets that Air Canada would have received in 1989, the amortization period would long since have ended. The usefulness of those assets would be hardly the same today as they were in the late 1980s. So, not only has the market changed, but the situation has also changed 27 years after this law was first adopted.

It is true that we put obligations in the law in the late 1980s, but now Air Canada may well need to compete with more flexibility. Let me also say that, when I talk about flexibility, because this was the case in my company, I am not talking necessarily about moving jobs out of the domestic market. We would be looking at whether all jobs should be in Montreal or whether we should put jobs in Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, or Halifax.

Why are there are only three provinces in the country where Air Canada can locate these jobs? Why can Air Canada not say it is more competitive, that there is a company in Vancouver or Edmonton? The Alberta economy is suffering and maybe there is a company in Edmonton that can do this work cheaper and better than the companies that it is outsourcing to in another city that is covered under the law. Why can Air Canada not decide to move jobs there, when every one of its competitors can make that rational decision?

I understand the need to protect Canadian jobs, but all of the domestic air carriers in Canada do not have the same limitations as Air Canada. As I hope I have successfully explained, the historical context is not as relevant today as it was in 1989 when this law was adopted, because the assets provided, the lending rates provided, and everything have depreciated since then.

Let me then go back to the issue of what this allows Air Canada to do. There was litigation with Aveos in 2012. Quebec commenced litigation and won in both courts in the first and second instances with respect to the fact that Air Canada had an obligation legally to keep jobs in Montreal. There were discussions with the Quebec government and the Government of Manitoba. I assume the federal government, at the time and continually, was kept up to date and in the loop on those discussions.

I do not know of any of us in this room who were sitting at the table at those settlement discussions that probably went on for a very long time. The conclusion was that promises were made. There has been a contract given to Bombardier. There has been a commitment to the Government of Quebec that the Bombardier aircraft will be maintained in Quebec for the next 20 years after delivery. There is an agreement in Manitoba that there will be a centre of excellence in the Winnipeg that will hire and employ 150 people.

Air Canada does, indeed, seem committed and has actually negotiated settlements with governments in these jurisdictions, at least to the satisfaction of those governments, to keep jobs in their respective provinces and agree to drop the suit. At that point, the federal government also needs to look at what has been negotiated. It was not necessarily right at the table, but it was probably kept in the loop. We need to say that the Quebec and Manitoba governments are satisfied with these changes. Air Canada has said that, as a prerequisite probably of doing these buys and making the commitments, it needs more autonomy, that it needs to be able to compete, and the federal government is acting to allow that.

Again, am I sorry for the people who may be worried that, as a result of these changes, their jobs may be more at risk? Yes, I am, and I think this government has committed in the budget to do more to enhance technology in Canada, to enhance aeronautics in Canada, to invest in middle-class jobs. However, am I panicked about this? No, I am not, because these are not widget-making jobs that can be easily exported to China or India. These are highly skilled mechanics doing work on specific aircraft owned by Air Canada.

In my view, Canadian workers who are highly skilled and highly trained are able to convince any company to keep jobs domestically. That is my feeling. I feel that the workers in Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, and across the country will be able to convince Air Canada that they can do the job more effectively and more cost-effectively than relocating those jobs abroad. While I understand the concerns and acknowledge the concerns—I am not going to say there are no concerns—I do believe that the amendment to the law is correct and I am proud to support it.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member laid out in his eloquent speech, there were significant taxpayer concessions that were given at the time of the agreement, but I also recall the Prime Minister sitting here not two days ago saying a deal is a deal is a deal as it related to the Saudi arms deal. I am wondering why it does not apply to this.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, what the Prime Minister was speaking of was a deal with a foreign country, where Canada's reputation abroad is at issue. We are talking now about amending the law. There was no signed agreement related to the federal government adopting a law. These were terms laid out by the federal government at the time. We are not breaching a contract. We are going back to the Parliament of Canada and asking the Parliament of Canada to legally amend the law. I really do not see that there is the same issue there.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I am quite surprised to hear that kind of speech from a Liberal. In the past, their messaging was completely different. I distinctly remember seeing the current Prime Minister on the steps of Parliament with his microphone, chanting rousing slogans in support of workers and demanding that the law be enforced and that jobs be maintained. I think he was particularly concerned about jobs in Montreal, and I expect my colleague is too.

What has changed since then? Not much time has passed since the days when the Liberals demanded that the law be enforced and that Aveos workers be respected. Now they are saying that Air Canada will decide where the jobs should be based on market forces. That will not prevent them from moving jobs outside of Canada.

Why did they not, at the very least, make sure that jobs would stay in Canada? If my colleague is so concerned about the fact that designating three cities is too restrictive, why not at least ensure that jobs will stay in Canada?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question.

That is precisely why we should all support this bill, so that it can be examined in committee, where he and his party could propose an amendment in that regard. Personally, I am quite pleased to see that the environment has changed since 2012. The dispute has been settled, which has protected many jobs in Montreal. Bombardier has received a number of orders for planes, and a contract will be signed. Under the contract, Bombardier will keep jobs in Montreal for 20 years after the planes are delivered.

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

Madam Speaker, the existing rules require that the maintenance be performed in the Montreal Urban Community. The Montreal Urban Community has not existed in 15 years or about three prime ministers.

I would like the member to speak a bit about why it is important to modernize the laws and bring them up to date.