Transport Committee on May 11th, 2016

[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.

[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, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Boulerice.

Is there any further discussion or debate?

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I thank Alexandre for his comments, because for anybody who witnesses someone losing a job, it's not pleasant. It's not nice. The dislocation to families and to communities is substantial.

As we went through the witnesses who appeared before us to give us background on this, a couple of things came out of this.

There is the argument that Air Canada is in a highly competitive environment, and they are being required to do things that their competitors are not, while their competitors are getting work done here in Canada, including heavy maintenance.

No one was able to tell us how many of the 2,600 who had been employed at Aveos had found new employment, because at that time when Aveos went down, Air Canada was required to find somebody else to do that work. Some of that work did gravitate to other companies, but it was a concern to some of us that the existing Canadian companies didn't necessarily bid on that work very aggressively. That was also a concern.

We also see from information provided by the witnesses that schools are continuing to turn out graduates in all lines of maintenance, including heavy maintenance. We heard from industry representatives that in their businesses, let's face it, sometimes things are a little tight, but nonetheless they're hanging in there, and one even seemed to be extremely successful.

The reasons for guaranteeing jobs when the law was first passed have changed substantially. The company that was privatized way back when no longer exists. You could make an argument that the law we're being asked to uphold was broken as of the moment they sold their heavy maintenance division to somebody else. The fact that company failed to make it while other Canadian companies remained, and remained viable, suggests that it was more of a management issue, and that the opportunities and the jobs are still there.

When you consider that putting one company at a competitive disadvantage may indeed jeopardize more jobs, and when you consider that the industry at stake here remains in not bad shape—it could be better, but it's not bad—then this is where the centres of excellence come in. With a highly specialized aircraft like the C series, we have an opportunity here to put the stake in the ground and this will be the place where airlines from across the world will bring their aircraft to have them maintained, including the heavy maintenance, and the airframes, and the line maintenance, although line maintenance can happen anywhere.

The reason for the Air Canada Public Participation Act in the first place has changed quite substantially, and the conditions have changed quite substantially. Based on what the witnesses told us, I think we remain convinced that times have changed enough that there are opportunities for those workers in the existing aerospace industry, as well as in the industry that will develop, especially as the C series gains even more success as it seems to be doing. That's one of the reasons why after all this time, as difficult as it may have been, it is probably time to move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Sikand, do you have some comments? Is there any further discussion?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Just touching on what my colleague said, I want to take the discussion to a little bit of a macro level.

We know we have the fifth-largest aerospace industry in the world. It is not first; it is fifth. In order to fight for that position, we need to be competitive.

I have some stats here. The aerospace industry directly employs 76,000 people, 25,000 of those being from Air Canada. It also contributes $13.1 billion to our GDP.

We really require this aerospace industry to be competitive. In fact, the Emerson report itself urged Canada to promote its aerospace industry abroad and to negotiate co-operation agreements with emerging industry players, such as China and India. Not only are we in a competitive aerospace industry, but we have others joining the competition.

Having said that, I really believe we should do as much as we can not to hinder our competitive advantage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Berthold, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to speak to this proposed amendment because it allows me to recall some of the important considerations we heard when the committee studied Bill C-10.

First of all, we had the opportunity to hear from the minister. He told us about Bill C-10, but he was not able to explain the urgent need to act and to pass Bill C-10. Why is the government in such a hurry to pass Bill C-10? Even today, members asking the question have had no answer.

Why is it important to understand the urgency on the part of the government in acting on this matter? It is simple. A number of the groups who testified have told us that it was important for them for Bill C-10 not to be passed in haste, too quickly, without obtaining guarantees in some form. There must be a guarantee that workers’ jobs in this industry will be preserved and that the centres currently located in each of the provinces be maintained. There must be a guarantee that workers’ rights will be preserved, workers who, I remind you, have gone to court on several occasions and have won their case each time. There must be a guarantee that another group of former workers will have the time to present a plan to revive the heavy maintenance industry, even to maintain aircraft in Canada. There must be a guarantee that the quality of the work done here will be preserved, just like our knowledge and our skill in the aviation industry. There must be a guarantee that provinces will be allowed to reach real agreements with Air Canada.

From the outset, we have heard about Air Canada acquiring C Series aircraft from Bombardier but we have never been told the reasoning and the role that Bill C-10 is playing in the acquisition of those aircraft. There seems to be no agreement between the government and Air Canada. There seems to be no agreement with Bombardier either, for the acquisition of these aircraft. However, everyone who has testified here has made a very clear and precise link between those agreements that we have heard nothing about, that are not supposed to exist, but that apparently do exist. If you are following me, it is quite clear.

That is why it is our responsibility to ask questions. Are there legal reasons, administrative reasons? Are there reasons to justify these deadlines that we do not know about and that, as parliamentarians, we should have known about?

You said earlier that you would give us the time. I am new to Parliament and I am not used to all this procedure. Can I ask the witnesses questions about this now? Is this the time? Can I ask questions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, please do.

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

Thank you.

Given the current legislation and the cases before the courts, is there an obligation that is forcing the government to pass Bill C-10 at this stage? Is there anything in legal or administrative terms that justifies passing a bill like this?

[Sara Wiebe, Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport]

I am not aware of any legal administrative purpose that requires the bill to move forward immediately.

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

So there was no request from any administrative body to do this, for either legal or administrative reasons?

[Sara Wiebe]

I am not aware of any.

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

Thank you very much.

That is another reason that leads me to wonder why we have to act so quickly and why it was decided to impose closure so that Bill C-10 is passed more quickly.

In another comment, I will take the opportunity to talk about the involvement of the two governments. There has been a lot of talk that they need Bill C-10 to be passed, supposedly in order to finalize the understandings that have not been reached. Why is it so urgent to pass Bill C-10?

The amendment that my NDP colleague has introduced allowed me to reflect on this matter. Before we moved to pass this bill, I would like it to have gone back to the House so that committee members could get some answers to these questions. Unfortunately, the time allocation does not allow us to do that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

I am not seeing any further debate. Shall the NDP amendment moved by Mr. Boulerice carry?

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

Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived; nays 8; yeas 1. —See Minutes of Proceedings)

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The amendment has been defeated.

It was good attempt, Mr. Boulerice.

We will now move on to amendment CPC-1, and I turn it over to Ms. Block to speak to it.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Block.

We have 15 minutes left. I think we might, depending on the committee's wishes, suspend the meeting now, come back immediately after the vote, and then we can continue the debate at that particular time.

Everyone's in agreement with that?

I'll move suspension, and we'll go to the vote and come right back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

We are resuming debate and discussion on Ms. Block's motion.

Is there any further discussion on Ms. Block's motion?

Mr. Badawey or Mr. Iacono, would you like to make comment on Ms. Block's amendment?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

First I want to say that I have great sympathy for the former Aveos workers. I think the way they lost their jobs was particularly brutal and abrupt, and I certainly understand their anger.

That being said, we did learn over the course of our meetings that following the Aveos bankruptcy several hundred jobs were created in other maintenance sites in Quebec, such as at Premier Aviation in Trois-Rivières and in Quebec City.

We also know that the agreement in principle between Air Canada and the Quebec government may create as many as a thousand new maintenance jobs, and also that a centre of excellence will be created.

If you combine those numbers, you can see that they go a good chunk of the way to making up for the close to 1,800 jobs that were lost in Quebec when Aveos went bankrupt. Very importantly, those jobs are created because it makes business sense for Air Canada to do so, rather than to have that done through legislative action. This is a more sustainable model.

I appreciate that my colleagues want to protect jobs. So do I; so do we, and so do Minister Garneau and our government.

Air Canada was privatized in 1989. Since that time, Air Canada has not always managed to be viable and able to prosper in a highly competitive global environment. We simply want to give Air Canada the opportunity to establish itself in a competitive position in a constantly evolving air industry where other carriers are not subject to similar requirements.

There is no specific urgency. It is just that the time is right because the governments of Quebec and Manitoba, as well as Air Canada, have decided to put an end to their legal proceedings. So the time has come to clarify and modernize the act so that this sector can become ever more competitive. All the witnesses we have heard from have clearly stated that they want a competitive aviation industry. With a competitive aviation industry, more jobs will surely be created.

As for the notes you requested from Minister Garneau, I just wanted to tell you that he appeared before the committee for an hour and you had the time to ask him all your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Boulerice.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Can I use my time to ask the witnesses a question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, you may.

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

Good afternoon.

In your opinion, under Bill C-10 in its present form, unfortunately without the amendments that the New Democrats proposed and perhaps with one amendment from the Conservatives, how many jobs maintaining Air Canada aircraft will remain in Canada?