Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to have a few moments to ask questions here as well.
I certainly want to say at the outset that I support my colleague's amendment that this not come into force before August 1, 2016.
My colleague from the NDP just inquired as why we would do this. I would say that we would do this because it would give a little bit of time for the government to come forward with more of the information and give time for the courts to move forward with their process even further. It may still not be settled in that time frame, but the governments in Manitoba and Quebec are very uncertain as to what the future might be in this present format under the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
I think it's a very reasonable amendment to bring forward at this time and I urge all colleagues in the transport committee to vote for this in order to, as I say, give us that bit of time to perhaps allow the courts to come through with further clarity and to provide an opportunity for more information to come forward as well. My experience both in the legislature in Manitoba and in Parliament is that it takes quite a bit of time to get freedom of information documents back.
This is important because there is no guarantee of the jobs being held in these areas. I'm not against the geographic changes they propose. I know the Manitoba deputy Premier indicated the other day before committee that perhaps they could look at expanding these geographic areas, as long as it was done within the provincial jurisdictions that are already named, and as well that it would help make sure there was a guarantee of 150 jobs coming into some of those areas.
Manitoba used to have some 400 jobs; now it's saying it will have 150. That doesn't look like a plus to me. Even though there would be 150 there, and I certainly would welcome them, I guess there's nothing to stop these airlines from moving maintenance projects to other areas that may be in more competitive jurisdictions, if we can put it that way. I'm wondering whether the government has taken that into consideration in bringing its amendment forward here.
I agree with Ms. Wiebe's comment that we should deal with facts and not hypothetical issues here, and I think this is a fact. What we have before us is a bill that provides certainty in those provinces for at least some time while the bill can be determined in court and finalized in those areas. I know that agreements were put forward, but there is no certainty in those agreements either.
I have a couple of quick questions for Transport. First, from your perspective, is it common for the government to amend legislation that is presently in front of the courts?