House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.

Topics

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Canadian HeritageCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #40

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I declare the motion carried.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Beauséjour New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 2012, the then member of Parliament for Papineau stated, “The law is very clear. Air Canada has to maintain the maintenance in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver.” We need to continue this debate so that every member understands that the maintenance provision of the act states that overall maintenance must be undertaken in and around Montreal, Winnipeg, and Mississauga, and not in Vancouver.

Will the government allow this debate to continue in order to provide the opportunity for the member to clarify his comments?

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount Québec

Liberal

Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that because Air Canada, the Government of Quebec, and the Government of Manitoba have stopped their litigation, this offers us the opportunity to clarify the bill known as the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This is an important bill that we have been wanting to clarify. This is our opportunity to do so.

However, I would remind the member and everyone across the aisle that the amendment that we are proposing would still require Air Canada to undertake maintenance in the three provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec. That is the gist of the bill, and we feel confident that there will be good job opportunities with Air Canada in the aerospace world in the years to come.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, using the word “clarify” is Orwellian Newspeak.

What the Liberals are doing is let a rich and powerful corporation off the hook for breaking the law, and they are doing it in a retroactive manner that has never before been seen here in the House of Commons. It is properly scandalous for them to claim that this is a clarification.

Thousands of workers lost their jobs because the government is refusing to enforce the Air Canada legislation. When the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount was on the opposition side, he said that Canadians were starting to realize that the government was not honouring what it said about transparency six and a half years earlier. That is quite something.

You heard that right, Mr. Speaker. When that same person stood in the House to criticize the Conservatives, he said that Canadians were starting to realize that what the Conservatives promised six and a half years earlier—to be open, transparent, and accountable—was false. The Conservatives would always shut us down after four or five days of debate, but the Liberals are doing it in one, and they are doing this after only six and a half months in power.

This is identical to the KPMG case. The signal being sent by the government is that there is one law for the rich and powerful and one law for everything else. The basic rule in our society is the rule of law, law that applies equally to everyone. That is being broken by the Liberal government.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raised in his comments the fact that there had not been enough debate, but I would like to remind him that it is the member for Beloeil—Chambly, seconded by the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who moved the following amendment last Friday:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting...the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-10....

In other words, the New Democrats proposed last Friday that we not continue with this bill, yet now they want to debate it some more. Where is it that the NDP stands on this issue? I am in favour of taking this bill to committee, where witnesses will have a chance to speak, and then bringing it back here and going to third reading.

There is plenty of opportunity for debate, yet the NDP wanted to kill this bill last Friday.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, is the government moving this time allocation motion because it is worried about the increasing and mounting opposition in places like Winnipeg from Air Canada's maintenance workers, who are worried about their jobs and livelihoods? Is that why the government wants to limit on the bill?

Is it because the Liberals see that Air Canada workers in Winnipeg at the maintenance facilities are truly worried that the bill would eliminate their jobs and livelihoods? Is that why the government is moving in this direction to shut down debate?

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague that Air Canada and the Government of Manitoba concluded an agreement that said that at least 150 jobs would be created in Manitoba. That agreement satisfied the Government of Manitoba to the point that it said it would no longer be taking Air Canada to court.

Of course, in Quebec, we know the situation there. The Quebec government decided to stop its litigation with Air Canada in view of the fact that Air Canada has undertaken not only to buy up to 75 of the C Series aircraft but to do the maintenance for the next 20 years.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, what the Liberals are imposing on us and on 2,600 families is outrageous. I am proud of my colleagues, proud that we are here fighting this bill.

When the Conservatives got a majority in 2011, the first thing they did was crush the postal workers' union. Now we have a Liberal government, and the first thing the Liberals are doing is crushing the Air Canada workers who lost their jobs. They are such hypocrites. In opposition they called on the Conservatives to comply with the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Now, they are changing the legislation to legalize job losses that were illegal yesterday. That is—

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order.

The hon. Minister of Transport.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, the situation has changed a lot since 2012. We know today that the governments of Quebec and Manitoba are satisfied with the position Air Canada has taken on job creation in Quebec and Manitoba.

The amendment we are proposing in this bill requires Air Canada to keep jobs in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. There will truly be job creation, which allows us to clarify the Air Canada Public Participation Act and avoid more litigation in future.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

April 20th, 2016 / 4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON

Madam Speaker, the last time we saw the Liberals make a snap decision, it had to do with inserting themselves in a question that had been asked about extending the runway at Billy Bishop airport. The beneficiary in that snap decision was Air Canada.

Now we have another snap decision brought to the fore very quickly, as we are stopping debate on the topic. Who is the beneficiary of this knee-jerk reaction? It is Air Canada.

I wonder what other sweetheart deals the Liberals have in store for Air Canada. Quite frankly, they do not need to make any legislative amendments to allow a private company to enter into agreements that would bring litigation to a close. They do not need to do this, so why are they doing it and what are they getting out of it?

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleague not to indulge in conspiracy theories. These are two completely separate matters.

I made it very clear that our decision with respect to Billy Bishop had to do with achieving the proper balance between economic development and community priorities, particularly with respect to the development of the waterfront.

In the case of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, we have taken a measure to avoid further litigation and to recognize that Air Canada must compete on a level playing field to the same extent as its competitors. That is one of the reasons we have given it more latitude.

I would remind everyone that Air Canada must still provide jobs in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Madam Speaker, the duplicity of the Liberals on this issue has been appalling, frankly.

They were duplicitous on the substance when the Prime Minister, the member for Winnipeg North, and other members got up and pretended to be the champions of aerospace workers in Winnipeg and across the country. Then, at nearly the first opportunity after forming government, the Liberals introduced legislation that would completely betray those workers and contradicted what the Liberals had been saying in opposition. That duplicity was shameful.

Now the Liberals are showing the same appalling duplicity on the process. The member for Winnipeg North, for instance, had some great things to say about time allocation in the last Parliament. I would like to share them with the hon. Minister of Transport. He said:

The government, by once again relying on a time allocation motion to get its agenda passed, speaks of incompetence. It speaks of a genuine lack of respect for parliamentary procedure and ultimately for Canadians. It continues to try to prevent members of Parliament from being engaged and representing their constituents on the floor of the House of Commons.

Does the Minister of Transport agree with the then member of Winnipeg North, who apparently is not the same member—

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Transport.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, may I remind the member for Elmwood—Transcona that during the debate on Monday, he suggested that it may be worthwhile to hear from Air Canada on this file, and not just the government. I could not agree more. That opportunity is going to occur when this bill goes to committee.

However, last Friday the NDP wanted to kill this bill, depriving Air Canada of the opportunity to speak. I do not understand how this NDP thinks.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Housing; the hon. member for Hochelaga, Housing; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, International Trade.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Montcalm.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, this is another sad day for our parliamentary democracy. For months, the minister rose in the House and in response to our questions told us that he was happy to support a lawbreaker, a company that does not obey the law. How can we expect the thousands of families of Aveos workers to now trust our institutions? Prior to and during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that he was fed up with politicians who said one thing before being elected and then did the opposite after being elected. We are appalled that this government is ignoring families that believed in the Prime Minister's promises. Now, it is over. The minister should stand up and apologize because he is one of the 40 Quebec caucus MPs and he is ignoring Aveos's Quebec workers.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Marc Garneau Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC

Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague that it was the Province of Quebec that decided, after discussions with Air Canada, to drop the lawsuit. Why? Because Air Canada decided to make a serious commitment to Quebec by purchasing Bombardier aircraft and also to open a centre of excellence for the maintenance of Air Canada's new aircraft for at least the next 20 years. That is good news. That will create good jobs. I do not understand why my colleague is not pleased that good jobs will be created in Quebec.

Bill C-10--Time Allocation MotionAir Canada Public Participation ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, if only I could have leave to articulate all of the issues, there are many things that I could comment on with respect to this matter. That said, my question is in regard to the fact that the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Quebec have been very candid over the last number of years in trying to challenge Air Canada to provide the jobs that were in the legislation framework for the Air Canada act.

In working with the provinces and the different stakeholders, it has come to the surface that indeed there is an obligation for the federal government to work with the different stakeholders, including the provinces, to try to resolve this issue going forward.

My question is for the minister. Would he not agree that there is an onus of responsibility on the Government of Canada to work with the Province of Manitoba and the Province of Quebec, along with other stakeholders, to protect Canada's aerospace industry in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba?