Evidence of meeting #13 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was jobs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Chair, I would like to raise a point of order.
The division bells are ringing. The next vote in the House will be held in less than 20 minutes. I want to see whether you plan to suspend our meeting while we go vote.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
What is your intention, Mr. Berthold? Would you like to talk the clock out? Should we order dinner in? What would you like?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I have not even gotten to the heart of my presentation, Madam Chair. I was just getting to it. I need another 10 minutes or so at the most.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
If it is the wish of the committee to give Mr. Berthold another 10 minutes, then we would suspend and go back and vote, and then return.
The clerk would like to know if he should order food in for tonight.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Berthold, if you'd like to have your 10 minutes, we have permission to stay here until the clock reads 10 minutes to the hour.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
However, if the colleagues in attendance tell me that they absolutely want to eat with me, it would be my pleasure.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
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.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We have two minutes and 47 seconds left. Please, continue.
While I have the floor, can I ask if anyone has questions for our departmental staff? If no one has questions, I think the polite thing would be to allow them to leave so that they don't have to wait.
Do we need the departmental staff to remain?
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
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?
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
Thank you for the question.
Certainly, we can't speak to how Air Canada would choose to operationalize the new legislation that would come into force, how it would choose to pursue it.
This legislation would come into force only upon royal assent, and then it would be up to Air Canada to determine how it would choose to take advantage of the additional flexibility offered by the legislation.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Will the bill come into force immediately after it receives royal assent?
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
That is correct. It comes into force upon royal assent.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
It's immediate. So the bill does not provide for a later coming into force date.
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
According to the legislation as it is currently drafted, it comes into force upon royal assent.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
It would be legal to include in the bill a coming into force date, as stipulated in the amendment we are proposing, correct? That way, the bill could come into force only on the date proposed in the amendment?
May 11th, 2016 / 6:05 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
At this point in time I am guided by the drafting instructions that were issued by cabinet with regard to the creation of the bill. The addition of a date goes beyond those drafting instructions. I don't have the policy authority to agree to the addition of a date.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
No, that was not the point of my question.
Legally speaking, could a government set for a bill a coming into force date that would be later than the date on which the bill received royal assent?
