Debates of April 15th, 2016

Air Canada Public Participation Act

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question in terms of where the NDP might stand in relation to the Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba.

I was around when these decisions were being made back in 2010 and 2011. I was very much involved here in the House of Commons. There was a great deal of concern expressed by both the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Quebec, which ultimately led to a substantial court case against Air Canada. It would now appear that the Province of Quebec has recognized that this is in fact in the best interests of the province, from what I understand in terms of this settlement.

Can the member provide any information whatsoever related to the provincial government of Quebec and what it might be telling the member?

My understanding is that this is something that the Province of Quebec, along with Air Canada and other stakeholders, sees as a possible way out. Would the member not agree that the Province of Quebec's thoughts should be respected?

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

Madam Speaker, as far as Quebec is concerned, the lawsuit was dropped until an agreement could be reached between the parties.

However, the workers are also part of the lawsuit.

To the member coming from Winnipeg who stands up and asks who we are standing with, we are standing with the workers who are going to lose their jobs because the Liberal government has decided to make legal what is now illegal.

I have a hard time wondering how that members goes back to his home city in Winnipeg and tells the workers in that city that their jobs that were guaranteed by the law are no longer guaranteed. Not only that, even if they do manage to hang onto their jobs, there is no guarantee there anymore because of the bill drafted by the government.

To the NDP, it is very clear. We are not standing up to pit one region against another, but to protect the workers whose jobs are protected by law.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the crux of the matter is that we have an attempt here to go retroactively back and affect workers' rights, collective agreements, and all of those things that were set in place by legislation, which was clear at that time.

At that time as well, these companies received the benefits of corporate tax reductions. They received the benefits of R and D SR and ED credits. They received a lot of public investment with regard to their operations. That was the deal that was set going into this situation here, so why would the government give this extended benefit and give them a holiday from protecting workers?

By the way, in Canada, those workers have invested their family income to be trained, whether through university, college, or other types of training programs, and so has the government. However, that is cast to the wind for political expediency.

What we are trying to do, including the industry committee, is protect value-added jobs for Canadians, which is the essence of building a stronger Canada.

I would like my colleague to talk about those things.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and the work he does on this file.

At the end of the day, that is precisely the problem. This is a situation where we have a Prime Minister who was not shy about demonstrating with the Aveos workers in 2012. What is more, the re-elected Liberal members, including the hon. member who asked me the question, expressed their indignation during the previous Parliament. This is a betrayal that is absolutely unacceptable to us. We have legislation to protect these jobs.

To get back to what my colleague was saying, I would say that in changing the law, we might assume that some of the workers we are trying to defend will manage to hang on to their jobs. However, the problem with the way the bill is drafted is that we are creating uncertainty. We are allowing Air Canada to provide no guarantees, to outsource these jobs, and to create completely unacceptable instability. Furthermore, we will be creating problems for the aerospace and aeronautics sectors in Quebec and Canada. We are going to end up losing our expertise because these jobs are unstable and they could potentially be lost, although with this bill, I should probably say they will inevitably be lost. It will be very difficult to regain this expertise and rebuild our industry in Quebec and Canada. The government may not have thought about these consequences. That is why we are rising today to oppose this bill.

[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.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is true. I was a mayor in the region of Montreal. Since the forced mergers in 2001, the MUC has not existed in that name, so technically we would certainly want to amend the law for that reason.

As I mentioned in my speech, the situation has changed in 27 years. Twenty-seven years ago, the state was giving assets and privatizing a company, and as a result the state felt that it was incumbent upon it and reasonable to impose limitations on that company. Some of them remain in effect, such as the need to keep a head office in Montreal and the requirement of Air Canada to provide services in English and French across the country. Due to the changes in the industry and changes in Air Canada, which went through CCAA proceedings not 10 years ago and was losing money until 2011, some changes may need to be made, and the government is modernizing the law to make them.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

This bill would amend the articles of the Air Canada Public Participation Act that stipulate that the carrier undertake operational and overhaul maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba. For all intents and purposes, these articles would be removed. This would allow Air Canada to fulfill its maintenance needs outside of Canada and presumably at a lower cost. Consequently, Air Canada would no longer have to employ approximately 3,000 heavy maintenance workers in Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba.

The language that is used in Bill C-10 states:

...while not eliminating those activities in any of those provinces, change the type or volume of any or all of those activities in each of those provinces, as well as the level of employment in any or all of those activities.

I challenge any Liberal member to inform the House what he or she believes are the minimum number of Canadian jobs that article would protect.

Every member knows that all airlines do some maintenance work in every airport out of which they operate. This is called line maintenance, the routine checks that ensure that the planes are in good order and safe for passengers on a day-to-day basis.

Heavy or overhaul maintenance is the work that takes several days. It involves high skill because the mechanics are performing tasks such as replacing an engine or airframe upkeep. These are all high-end jobs, vital to Canada's aviation sector because of how skill-intensive these tasks are. By not specifying the type of maintenance work that needs to be done in Canada, as Bill C-10 proposes, Air Canada would be able to fulfill its legal obligation without having a single heavy maintenance person on staff.

While all Air Canada overall maintenance work would continue to be done in facilities that are certified by Transport Canada, the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood made the following point a few years ago. He stated:

By keeping Air Canada’s maintenance in Canada, we ensured a superior level of safety with tight regulations and a highly skilled aerospace workforce. By shuttering Canadian overhaul centres, Canada is losing its ability to ensure that our aircraft meet safety regulations.

While the government should be commended for looking at ways to make Air Canada more competitive, and we agree with that, it cannot be commended for introducing a measure that would lead to job losses in Canada before even considering anything else.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Transport tabled a statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act, and the review looked forward 20 to 30 years to identify priorities and potential actions in transportation that would support Canada's long-term economic well-being. The report makes a number of recommendations concerning the aviation sector that stem from many months of analytical work, significant public consultation, and experience from eminent Canadians, including the Hon. David Emerson, who actually chaired that review.

Some of the examples of these recommendations include establishing a set of principles to guide all airports in Canada when determining fees, tying all airport improvement fees to specific projects with explicit sunset provisions, and overhauling the regulator, financing, and delivery models for security.

None of these initiatives would have cost the taxpayers any dollars, and considering the size of the Liberals' budget deficit, this would be especially important and, for the context of this debate, lead to job losses in Canada.

This legislation can and should be modernized without removing one if its key provisions. Air Canada has important heavy maintenance operations in Richmond, B.C., that should be considered by this act, but it is not even mentioned.

Canadians benefit from the efficient, affordable aviation sector. As Canada's largest carrier, having carried 40 million passengers last year, ensuring that Air Canada can provide affordable service to Canadians is extremely important. However, the government should always exhaust all measures available to it to achieve its objective, before picking the one that could cost Canadian workers their jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member did not sit with her colleagues in the last government, but that government was saddled with the distinction of making changes to regulations in the tax structure that allowed 400,000 well-paying jobs to leave Canada. The Conservatives' idea was light touch regulation or deregulation.

Now I hear the hon. member talking about holding on to regulation to hold somebody's feet to the fire in order to make it potentially uncompetitive and less able to sustain itself and good Canadian jobs.

How does the member reconcile those two?

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

Madam Speaker, the previous government was very proud of the 51 trade deals that it signed. They were negotiated in good faith, and they were signed by all parties.

With respect to this, there is an issue with amending the legislation and not looking at other options. These are the issues that the Conservative Party has. We have no issue with modernizing legislation and with making companies more competitive, because that is what we do. However, it cannot come at the loss of Canadian jobs when other opportunities have not been realized fully.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am wondering whether she believes, as I do, that the government should be encouraging the creation of new jobs in Canada rather than introducing legislation that will legalize something that until now has been illegal. In addition, we know why those jobs were in the agreement that was signed. Air Canada wanted to take advantage of taxpayers' money when the transfer took place and the company was privatized.

Does my colleague believe that the government should instead be encouraging job creation, or at least preserving the jobs we already have in this sector and at Air Canada? Should we at least be ensuring that Air Canada will keep a minimum number of jobs here in Canada, instead of encouraging the outsourcing of jobs to other countries?

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

Madam Speaker, that is precisely the point. This was embedded within the agreement in 1988 because significant concessions were given by Canadian taxpayers. We want to ensure that Air Canada is viable, that it has opportunities in the market. It is our firm belief that there are many other options for doing that, not losing these Canadian jobs. As well, a fundamental piece of the agreement was to keep those jobs in Canada.

As a free enterpriser, it is important to maintain that undertaking as well as look at opportunities for expansion in trade and opportunities to expand business.