Mr. Speaker, I am raising a question of privilege in the House of Commons with respect to misleading information that the Minister of Transport and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport gave to the House about the litigation involving Quebec and Air Canada and arising from the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
Here are the facts. On Wednesday, the House made two decisions with respect to the Liberal government's argument justifying the rush vote at second reading on Bill C-10, the Air Canada bill. It was the same argument the government has been making for months, but the facts on which it based its argument are inaccurate. The Government of Quebec refuted them yesterday morning.
In question period yesterday, the Minister of Transport continued to supply the same false information that the Government of Quebec had refuted just that morning.
On Wednesday, the House made two major decisions, decisions that could lead to the permanent demise of 2,600 jobs in the aerospace sector, including 1,800 in the Montreal area, most of them in the riding represented by the member for Saint-Laurent.
First, we voted on a time allocation motion to end debate on Bill C-10. As a result, Quebeckers represented by Bloc Québécois members were silenced at second reading in the House, which is why I have chosen to speak up now.
Then, the House voted on the bill at second reading. The government claims that rushing the vote was essential because the NDP had moved an amendment to withdraw the bill.
We understand that the NDP tabled its amendment to demonstrate its opposition to Bill C-10. Government bills rarely receive unanimous support in the House of Commons. Does the fact that some members oppose a bill justify time allocation?
To answer that question in the affirmative would be to deny parliamentary democracy. We understand very well that fallacious arguments are part of the debate and that disagreements between members are to be expected and are fodder for debate. The House made those two decisions in good faith, and I have no doubt about that.
This brings me to the vote on Bill C-10 at second reading. The House voted based on two pieces of false information that had been presented by the Minister of Transport.
On Wednesday, at 4:25 p.m., he said, and I quote, “Air Canada, the Government of Quebec, and the Government of Manitoba have stopped their litigation”. At 4:30 p.m., he added, “the Province of Quebec...decided, after discussions with Air Canada, to drop the lawsuit”. At 4:35 p.m., he said, “the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba have decided they will not pursue Air Canada”.
Then, at 4:42 p.m., during his very last intervention, the minister closed the debate saying, “the reason we have proceeded with the bill is very simple. It is because the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba have come to an agreement with Air Canada, and they are dropping their litigation.”
I want to emphasize the word “reason”. The minister gave the House false information. Quebec did not drop its litigation. Quebec never decided to withdraw from the lawsuit. Litigation between the Government of Quebec and Air Canada is ongoing.
That is essentially what Quebec's minister of the economy said during her status update on the issue, which contradicted the information presented by the minister and the parliamentary secretary.
In response to our question yesterday, the Minister of Transport decided to stay the course and keep contradicting what the Government of Quebec said, and I quote:
“We decided to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act precisely because the governments of Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuits against Air Canada.”
These are repeat offences of making false statements over the course of several weeks. In reoffending, it seems clear to me that the government deliberately misled and continues to mislead the House by providing false information.
The request that the Government of Quebec filed with the Supreme Court on February 23, is further proof of this, and I quote, “An agreement has been reached between the parties to postpone the decision on the application for leave to appeal until July 15”.
I am almost finished. I was told I should present the facts and that is what I am doing. I imagine that your ruling, Mr. Speaker, will be more informed if I complete my argument, even if you find that one of the arguments may not be the best.
Since the decision on the application for leave to appeal will not be rendered until July 15, 2016, the lawsuit is still ongoing. The Government of Quebec simply asked the court not to rule on the issue before mid-July, and with good reason. It wants to retain some bargaining power in order to negotiate Air Canada's purchase of Bombardier planes and its establishment of maintenance centres in Quebec.
That brings me to the second piece of false information. On April 15, at the beginning of the debate at second reading of Bill C-10, the government, or more specifically the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, explained to the House that it was a good time to pass Bill C-10:
In light of Air Canada's investments in aerospace in Canada, including aircraft maintenance...
However, we learned yesterday morning that Air Canada still has not decided to invest in aerospace and aircraft maintenance. That is why the Government of Quebec still has not dropped its lawsuit and why this matter is still before the Supreme Court.
The government misled the House by providing it with false information. As a result, it is possible that, acting in good faith, the House was led to commit an error when it adopted the time allocation motion and supported the principle of Bill C-10. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to find that the government violated the Standing Orders of the House, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of Wednesday's votes.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, if you find that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: “That the House acknowledge that the government deliberately misled the House and that it reconsider the vote on the NDP amendment and the vote at second reading on Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.”
Mr. Speaker, I rely on your good judgment to propose the best way to proceed.