Mr. Speaker, I will answer on two fronts. First of all, the member is in error. As many Canadians are doing, he is mixing up the 10% ownership rule with the foreign ownership rule.
The 10% rule means that for Air Canada, not Canadian Airlines, no single person or body can own more than 10% of Air Canada. That was implemented when Air Canada was privatized. The foreign ownership rule is the 25% rule.
When the Onex proposal came forward it was in the form of a proposition. Clearly, if the government at that point in time had a policy decision that it was not going to contemplate increasing the 10% rule, the government would have said so. Onex would not have proceeded up to this point if it did not feel the government was open to that discussion.
I find it amazing that Air Canada would be so dogmatic about the 10% rule. I think it is somewhat self-serving. If Air Canada came forward with a proposal which violated the 10% rule, my take on that would be that it would be saying that it does not meet the requirements of the law of the land now, but it would respectfully submit that there is a proposal on the floor which now exceeds the rule and it would like its proposal to be considered as well.
We are legislators. When people talk to us they ask us to legislate. Why is it so impossible for someone to say that we should reconsider the 10% rule?
At times, when it is convenient, people hide behind these rules. No one has actually increased the 10%. No one has done that. No one has violated the law of the land. Someone has come forward and said that perhaps we should reconsider. Frankly, if Air Canada had done the same I do not know how our government could possibly have said “You cannot do that”, because we did not say that to Onex.
I am fully confident that if Air Canada had come forward with that proposition we would have had the same kind of policy framework that has been articulated more recently by the minister.
Are we playing games or are we interested in solutions? Let us try to work on this.