Debates of June 1st, 2016

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, no offence to my hon. colleague, but now I understand their position on electoral reform and Bill C-10 a little better.

What we just heard is a federal minister who does not respect the results of a provincial election. It is the new provincial government's prerogative to make whatever decisions it likes, and it is asking the federal government to delay the passing of Bill C-10, because this bill does not guarantee any jobs in Manitoba. That is what the deputy premier herself told us in committee.

Who are we, in this House, to question the word of the new deputy premier of the Province of Manitoba? That is not my intent.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have risen a number of times on this bill. The government seems to want to conflate the issue, saying that the opposition to this bill is an attack on the entire Canadian aerospace industry, when, in fact, this bill deals with one single organization. However, indeed, it deals with 2,500 jobs in Canada that we could lose in that area.

Can the member really believe the rhetoric that we are hearing from across the way?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my speech I had many opportunities to explain why I cannot believe the rhetoric from across the way because they said one thing and did another. It has been like that since the beginning of the session. It is hard to believe this rhetoric. They get caught up in this rhetoric all the time. They use words, slogans, messages drafted by communications firms to convey a message, but when it comes time to take action, there is none.

The entire aerospace industry is waiting for the government to do something tangible, and it will keep waiting. The government could have done so much more with Bill C-10, but it decided to do nothing but end the lawsuits between the provinces and Air Canada and jeopardize thousands of jobs.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I agree with some of what my colleague said in his speech. I thank him for his comments and for calling out the government on a few things.

However, Aveos went bankrupt when his party was in power. There is some confusion there because when the Conservatives formed the government, they did nothing.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about their interpretation of heavy vehicle maintenance versus light maintenance in Canada.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I found the first part of the question more interesting than the second.

The important thing today is just to tell the government to delay passing Bill C-10. Regardless of the measures or the past, passage of Bill C-10 must be delayed to ensure that the jobs at risk are guaranteed.

Until the provinces have the assurance that Bill C-10 will help them, I believe we should not pass the bill, as it will interfere in negotiations between the provinces and Air Canada.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today for report stage of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

Governments, and especially new governments, have to set priorities and decide what they want to achieve during the length of their mandate.

Each party campaigns on a platform that is expected to serve as a road map for its early days as a government. Over the course of the campaign, parties make dozens of commitments. Upon taking office, a government must decide which commitments it wants to prioritize. A government must make decisions on what it wants to do right away, what it will do in six months, in two years, and what it will never do. On occasion, the Supreme Court will force the government to introduce legislation, as has been the case with Bill C-7 and Bill C-14.

Other pieces of legislation, like the budget, are presented each year. Because new governments like to check items off of the list of fulfilled campaign commitments during the first year, we often see legislation that reflects their campaign commitments. However, Liberal campaign commitments, like restoring mail delivery, have been pushed back on the priority list with the promise of consultations. Additional funding for the CBC has been pushed down the list of priorities because of a lengthy consultation process. A response to VIA Rail's proposal to build a dedicated track between Toronto and Montreal will take three years due to consultations.

It took the Liberals seven months to create a committee to enact consultations on electoral reform that is effectively identical to every House of Commons committee, and whose recommendations will be both non-binding and, like the preferred option of the Prime Minister, a ranked ballot.

The Minister of Transport has decided to spend an entire year consulting on the recommendations of the Emerson report, which was itself the product of 18 months of consultations with the entire transportation industry.

On so many issues, the Liberal government has pushed back making a decision to a later date.

However, with Bill C-10, we have none of that. What we have is a bill that came out of nowhere and was not the product of any consultations. Why is the government being so inconsistent?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport confirmed, during its second reading debate, that she was rushing this bill through so that the stakeholders could provide input during the committee stage. She was outsourcing her government's consultative responsibilities to committee. A parliamentary committee studying a bill is not a consultative body. Its purpose is to probe the bill for weaknesses and address these weaknesses through amendments if the majority of the members agree.

Witnesses at committee, including the Government of Quebec and the Government of Manitoba, highlighted a number of obvious weaknesses in the legislation. The opposition proposed amendments to address some of these problems. In the case of Bill C-10, the Liberal majority did not accept any of these amendments to the legislation.

If the purpose of sending the bill to committee so quickly was so that the stakeholders could provide input on the legislation, then why did the Liberal members ignore the recommendations? This illustrates more inconsistency on behalf of the government.

While all of us support a regulatory environment that allows for a viable legacy carrier in Canada and affordable air travel, I do not think a single Liberal candidate campaigned on reducing Air Canada's maintenance obligations as they are described in the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

Considering the government appears to be in no rush to do anything else, its incredible haste to get this legislation that came out of nowhere passed before the summer has opened up a pandora's box of questions. By now most members are aware that in 2013 the Government of Quebec, with the Government of Manitoba as an intervenor, brought Air Canada to court to challenge the carrier's assertion that it was fulfilling its maintenance obligations under the Air Canada Public Participation Act. The Quebec Superior Court, presided over by Justice Castonguay, ruled on the side of the Attorney General of Quebec. Consequently, Air Canada appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of Quebec, and that court upheld the lower court's ruling in November 2015. On January 5, 2016, Air Canada announced that it would challenge that ruling in front of the Supreme Court. Less than two months later, Air Canada began negotiating with Quebec and Manitoba to end litigation, starting with the signing of a letter of intent to purchase 45 C Series aircraft. Whether Air Canada decided it would lose its appeal in front of the Supreme Court or the Government of Canada prodded it to make a purchase of the at the time troubled C Series aircraft, the carrier started to propose real commitments to keep some of its overhaul maintenance work in Quebec and Manitoba.

As the Government of Quebec has recently placed over $1 billion U.S. into the C Series program, it was obviously pleased to see Air Canada make the first major purchase of the aircraft.

This point cannot be made clear enough. Air Canada was forced to negotiate a settlement with Quebec and Manitoba because the carrier lost in court.

What Air Canada has proposed to settle its lawsuit in the case of Quebec is the purchase of the C Series and a commitment to undertaking maintenance of these aircraft for 20 years in the province. Air Canada also proposed to create a centre of excellence in aircraft maintenance in Quebec. In the case of Manitoba, Air Canada announced a willingness to transfer about 150 jobs from other parts of the country to Winnipeg. It is worth noting that these are not new jobs, merely work that is being shuffled from one part of Canada to another.

These Air Canada commitments to do maintenance work on narrow body aircraft in Canada are good, but these are not listed in the act we are debating today. Air Canada is making these commitments because it lost in court on the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

The Provinces of Quebec and Manitoba understand that if the law is repealed, as is being proposed by the Liberals, then their negotiating position with Air Canada will be swept out from under them. That is why both provinces explicitly asked the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities during the study of the bill to only allow this legislation to pass upon conclusion of their litigation against Air Canada. These calls came on deaf ears.

None of the Liberal members at the committee questioned the statements by Manitoba's deputy premier or Quebec's minister of the economy asking for more time, or attempted to justify the prompt passage of this legislation. The Minister of Transport's own officials also confirmed at committee that there was no legal or technical reason why speedy passage of the legislation was necessary.

Therefore, here we are. We have a bill in front of us that two provincial governments have asked for its coming into force to be delayed, and there are huge questions concerning why it is being rushed through Parliament so quickly ahead of the rest of the Liberal agenda.

We also have the problem that the Liberals are missing an important opportunity to make Air Canada and the entire aerospace sector annually more competitive. The Emerson report, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, made a number of good suggestions that would stimulate the aerospace sector while maintaining jobs in Canada. For example, the government could tie all airport improvement fees to specific projects, explicit sunset provisions, which would ensure that these fees are to fund a specific project and not the airport's overall operations. They could look at overhauling the airport security model to mirror those used at major international airports, like London's Heathrow or Amsterdam's Schiphol, which have clear customer service standards and much lower delivery costs.

However, the bill does not do any of that, and we have not heard any indications from the Minister of Transport that measures to improve the competitiveness of the entire airline industry are forthcoming.

I look forward to questions from the government and opposition members.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the previous speakers and heard a great deal of criticism coming from the Conservative Party in regard to Bill C-10. I need to remind members that when Air Canada was in violation of the act, that was over five years ago. The then Conservative government chose to do absolutely nothing. It was actually the Provinces of Manitoba and Quebec that pushed the issue and brought it to court.

The Government of Canada has worked with the many different stakeholders, including the provinces. There was the potential to have this whole issue put in front of us to hopefully see jobs being guaranteed in certain areas, including my home province of Manitoba.

The provincial government of the NDP thought it was a positive thing. Why does the member believe that the Conservative Party has all of a sudden taken this active interest, as when it was in government and actions were being taken, members sat on their hands and did nothing?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to remind the parliamentary secretary that the courts enforce the act and the government changes the laws. That is what our job is, and I will remind him of that as he states what we did six years ago.

The bottom line is that we are talking about these jobs and about things being moved around the country. We need to see that we are going to continue having these jobs in Canada. That is what our position is. We want to make sure that the jobs are secure in Canada, and we do not see this in the legislation.

I thank the member for pointing out that they did speak to the other provincial governments. I am going to remind him that they spoke to the governments, but they did not listen to the governments because the two provincial governments are requesting it to be delayed. It is great to have a one-way conversation, but the Liberals did not get any results from it.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member more or less answered my question, but I will nevertheless ask it again.

Does she feel, as I do, that there are no guarantees in Bill C-10 concerning the percentage or the volume of maintenance activities to be kept in Canada?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member very much for that, because when I was reviewing the legislation that was put forward, I, too, looked at some of the words, and they are very open-ended. It is so grand and general, but it does not say that these jobs are going to be secure. It indicates the activities, which can mean one thing, but jobs and employment are a totally different thing.

Therefore, I agree with the member on the language. It is very ambiguous. It does not indicate jobs, but it indicates activities, which are two very separate issues.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are both new members. However, my colleague for Winnipeg North is not new, so he should know even better than us the record of significant investments by our previous government in the aerospace sector. In fact, I will mention the close to $1 billion spent on the strategic aerospace defence initiative, which was a major initiative specifically supporting innovation investment in the aerospace sector. Also, of course, there are other measures that supported economic growth more generally, with things like opening up trading opportunities and lowering business taxes.

I wonder if the member can correct the record in terms of what was said incorrectly across the way, and talk about how much our previous government did for the aerospace sector, as well as the economy more generally.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many different opportunities that we have for that.

I looked at some of the different things that our government did work with, and even something as simple as lowering the GST. It may not be as much to aerospace, but it was to all businesses, to all Canadians, that reduction from 7% to 6% to 5%. It is one of the small things that we have done. As I said, it was more general and not specific to aerospace.

However, we have done many things. Working with our provincial levels of government and making sure that we support our workers here in Canada was the most important thing.

Anything to do with business is what the Conservative government did in the 10 years prior to 2015. We made great efforts to make sure that the red tape was cut and that we cut taxes for corporations so they had a better opportunity to create more jobs and be successful.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise to debate Bill C-10, proposing amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

I would like to take a few minutes to explain why the Government of Canada believes this is an appropriate moment to modify the almost 30-year-old act.

Let us first recall that the Air Canada Public Participation Act's primary purpose was to convert a crown corporation into a thriving and competitive private corporation in an industry that is characterized by aggressive competition, strong cyclical business patterns, and sensitivity to external shock.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act was brought into force in 1989 to provide the federal government with the legal framework to privatize Air Canada. It also required the airline to have provisions regarding where it carried out its maintenance, the use of official languages, and where its headquarters would be located. Other airlines, Air Canada's competitors from Canada and abroad, are not subject to such conditions. The market conditions in which Air Canada operates are now greatly different from those of 1989.

The 1980s was characterized by deregulation. Since that time, the world has seen a proliferation of new air carriers as well as new airline business models. In June 1980, the then president of the International Air Transport Association reported that its membership was composed of 100 airlines from 85 nations. Today, its membership is composed of 260 airlines.

In short, the air carrier marketplace is now much more competitive. This is a good thing. It benefits travellers and it pushes the airlines to be as efficient as possible. However, we must ensure that our carriers are able to compete themselves, or we risk limiting Canadians connectivity and we threaten the economic viability of these carriers in Canada.

The Canadian marketplace has also evolved. By the end of the 1990s, Canadian Airlines International ceased operations, reducing the extent of competition. Other carriers, like Canada 3000, also came and went. However, since then there has been a flourishing of growth among Canadian companies. WestJet, Porter, Transat, Sunwing, and others provide important travel options for Canadians. I should also note the important role played by foreign carriers in offering other travel options to and from Canada. Choice is good for the consumers.

Air Canada continues to provide vital connectivity, both within our vast country and also to the outside world. It is also an important source of employment and opportunity. Our air sector has weathered some difficult times, including the tragic events of 9/11, global pandemic, and the recent economic crisis, yet it continues to robustly offer service options to Canadians. In short, we have come a long way since the 1980s when the government of the day created this law.

The Air Canada Public Participation Act has clearly achieved its primary objective of successfully privatizing Air Canada. Furthermore, many other aspects of the act remain relevant. However, given that times have changed and the air transport sector has evolved, it is also important to ensure that this statute remains up to date.

In particular, the provisions of the act that deal with aircraft maintenance risk hampering Air Canada's competitiveness by limiting its ability to organize its activities in a way that responds to the evolution in the air sector. Furthermore, given Air Canada's role in providing Canadians with connectivity, this could also impact on the overall competitiveness and cost of air transport throughout the country.

This leads me to my second point, which is about economic opportunity for Canada's aerospace sector. Air Canada and Quebec have indicated their intentions to end their litigation regarding the carrier's compliance with the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This announcement came on the heels of Air Canada's declared intention to purchase up to 75 Bombardier C Series aircraft, to ensure that these planes will be maintained in Canada for at least 20 years, as well as to collaborate in the establishment of a world-class centre of excellence in Montreal.

Furthermore, Air Canada will also be facilitating the creation of a centre of excellence on aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, and we understand that this has led the government of that province to agree to discontinue litigation.

The Air Canada-Quebec agreement will allow the carrier to benefit from cutting-edge aircraft technology produced here in Canada. It will also result in significant benefits for the aerospace industry, including aircraft maintenance right across the country. This is the sort of investment that the aerospace sector needs.

Quebec and Manitoba have accepted that these conditions create a context in which they no longer feel the need to pursue litigation against Air Canada. These developments provide us with an ideal opportunity to rethink our approach and look for opportunities for improvement.

Federal officials have identified specific concerns around the maintenance provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act because they create challenges for Air Canada's ability to be competitive. Specifically, they prevent Air Canada from doing what other carriers do, which is to organize its supply chain to optimize efficiency.

The intention of Air Canada, Quebec, and Manitoba to discontinue the litigation creates an appropriate context to modernize the act and indicates that the parties are working together toward a similar objective: the growth of Canadian prosperity. However, let me be clear, we continue to believe that Air Canada should commit to undertaking aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and we intend for this to be stipulated in the law. However, we need to provide Air Canada with the flexibility to meet the requirements to compete in an evolving global marketplace.

We cannot predict how the airline industry will evolve in the future. Whatever happens, our carriers will need to adjust to meet the challenges and remain competitive. Air Canada needs the flexibility to enable it to adapt to changing market conditions. Bill C-10 allows us to target the right balance between such flexibility and the continued expectation that the carrier will undertake aircraft maintenance in Canada.

The time is now to modernize the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to achieve this balance. With Bill C-10, the government is taking a necessary step to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act to ensure it will continue to be relevant as the sector evolves in the future.

I would now like to take a minute to review how the air carrier sector has evolved since Air Canada was privatized in 1989.

There have been some fundamental shifts in the last 30 years. For example, there has been an important rise in the market share of new global carriers, like those of the Gulf States, that are now playing a major role in global competition.

In the United States, there has been significant rationalization of air carriers, where most major airlines have been through chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, resulting in a major reduction of their costs.

Europe has also seen a series of major air carrier alliances. The low-cost model has come to be a predominant paradigm for certain types of travel within some markets, like Europe, Southeast Asia, and the U.S.

All of these points speak to a highly competitive environment that creates a need for air carriers to seek constant cost reductions to meet travellers' and shippers' expectations.

Canada is no exception where major shifts in the air sector are concerned. Our air transport sector is now fundamentally different from how it looked in 1989. Following years of financial difficulties, Canadian Airlines International ceased to operate in the 1990s and was ultimately acquired by and merged with Air Canada. WestJet has since become a major player, resulting in robust and sustainable competition between two Canadian carriers. Other newer carriers have also been added to the Canadian market, such as Porter Airlines and Sunwing. Canada's charter market is particularly active with many carriers, such as Air Transat, offering services to Canadians. Air Canada itself underwent a major restructuring in 2003-04, under the provisions of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA, which allowed the carrier to emerge as a healthy and viable global competitor.

Where aircraft maintenance is concerned, Air Canada's restructuring under the CCAA included making some previously in-house operations independent, including its maintenance operations, repair and overall service provider, which ultimately became Aveos. Air Canada's decision at the time was in keeping with the practices of many global carriers.

The 2012 aerospace review noted the increasing importance of low-cost maintenance, repair and overhaul service provided in developing countries, many of which are closer to the growing markets in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. While Air Canada is not outsourcing its aircraft maintenance to suppliers in developing countries, many of its competitors are.

From these examples, it is clear that for a carrier to be viable in today's industry, it must be able to adapt the elements of its supply chain to manage its costs and remain competitive. For carriers, this covers all aspects of its business, including being able to determine how and where it conducts its aircraft maintenance activities.

Currently, Air Canada is limited in being able to deal with market forces the way other carriers can. I am referring, of course, to the provisions of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, specifically the obligation in paragraph 6(1)(d) that requires Air Canada to include in its articles of continuance provisions requiring the corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the city of Winnipeg, the Montreal urban community, and the city of Mississauga.

What we need to remember is that the original intent of the Air Canada Public Participation Act was to function as a framework for the privatization of Air Canada almost 30 years ago. It also contained a number of provisions, including the requirement for aircraft maintenance, which we are talking about today. The intent was to turn a crown corporation into a viable and competitive private company while also ensuring that it was committed to undertaking aircraft maintenance activities in those three communities. We believe that the proposed amendments maintain the spirit of this intent by requiring Air Canada to undertake aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, while allowing it to choose the nature of this work in each location to remain competitive.

As we know, these provisions have been the subject of ongoing litigation between Air Canada and the Province of Quebec, with intervening support from the Province of Manitoba. However, on February 17 of this year, the Province of Quebec and Air Canada mutually agreed to pursue an end to this litigation. The decision of the Province of Quebec and Air Canada to reach an agreement has opened up an opportunity for our government to finally modernize the act and relieve Air Canada of prescriptive obligations where its operational and overhaul centres are concerned, while maintaining the spirit of the intent behind them.

We are not proposing to repeal paragraph 6(1)(d). Rather, we are proposing amendments that would allow Air Canada to undertake aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec, and choose the nature of this work in each location to help it remain competitive. These amendments, which I am urging hon. members to support today, are consistent with the government's approach to the air sector as an industry that is deregulated and responsive to market forces. It is these guiding principles that we believe induce companies to continue to innovate their business and seek out better ways to work and be cost competitive in the face of a changing and ultra-competitive market.

The amendments the government has put forward would allow Air Canada the same flexibility that other carriers have to seek out the best aircraft maintenance services it can find and the ability to actively manage its costs. Modernization of the act is the right decision. We know that the Province of Quebec, the Province of Manitoba, and Air Canada have agreed among themselves to collaborate on the establishment of two centres of excellence for aircraft maintenance, one in Montreal and the other in Winnipeg.

In Winnipeg alone, this new western centre of excellence is expected to bring 150 jobs to the area by 2017. In Quebec, Air Canada has committed to maintaining all of its newly acquired CS300 aircraft in the province for at least 20 years and to the establishment of a centre of excellence for aircraft maintenance which will boost Montreal's role as a world-class aeronautical hub.

These developments are a clear indication that there is a willingness among the parties to foster an ongoing relationship, one that I hope will bring economic benefits to Canada and job opportunities for Canadians long into the future.

I urge hon. members to support this bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on one thing the member said in particular. He talked about Porter and argued benefits to Porter were associated with this legislation. I want to ask, though, what he thinks about the minister's decision to block the Toronto island airport expansion and the impact that has on Porter. After all, would that not be a more effective way of providing the kind of stimulus to the aerospace sector that we would like, a way that would not negatively affect jobs in a different part of the sector?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his intervention today. I was expecting to hear from him. He enjoys intervening in this place and I enjoy addressing his questions.

His question is a valid one, of course. I support wholeheartedly the position of the minister on that, but this has nothing to do with Bill C-10. I was speaking to the competitive nature of the airline industry and Porter remains a competitive player in that marketplace. In fact, I often fly to Ottawa on Porter from the island airport, because it is a little easier to get to from my house than it is to get all the way out to Pearson.

As I mentioned in my speech, what these amendments to the act would do is help maintain a competitive airline marketplace in Canada, which I think everyone in the House agrees is a service to Canadians that is needed in this marketplace, and I am happy to support anything that supports competition in the Canadian marketplace.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

The government often says that it supports families, the middle class, and workers. Expediting the bill and retroactively changing the law will result in the loss of 2,600 jobs.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to straighten out the premise of the question.

There is no retroactivity in this bill. There will be no retroactive effect. Anything in this bill will start whenever the bill becomes law, so we do not have to worry about that.

I am not necessarily convinced that 2,600 jobs will be lost either. What I am concerned about is that if we do not get these amendments done, if we do not get this act changed, there will be considerably more losses. Air Canada will have to compete effectively with one arm tied behind its back in the competitive global marketplace. That is what I am afraid of. I am convinced it will cost way more than 2,600 jobs, if we do not let Air Canada compete with both hands, and ready to go.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I rise in support of the minister and the bill.

I would like to use the flexibility in relevance to make a statement first, that I would be very upset personally if any government employee from a federal department, a federal agency, or a federal crown corporation were to travel to the northern third of the country, the three territories, and did not fly on one of the three airlines owned by those territories: Air North, First Air, and Canadian North.

I was at a presentation recently about various sectors of the economy which showed that the airline sector is one of the most tenuous business sectors in the world. It is very competitive with very small margins to succeed and stay viable.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member took the opportunity to plug three great airlines from his part of the country. It is another indication of the viability and competitive nature of airlines in Canada. It is great that there are three successful companies in the north.

The margins are tight. I am no expert on the airline industry, but just by the nature of the change in the industry, we see companies going bankrupt. In Canada we see mergers and acquisitions, and companies in the United States going through chapter 11. There are clearly tight margins. There is a lot of unpredictability in the industry. Things happen outside in the world that impact on the airline industry.

Anything we can do to help our airlines compete, such as giving them the tools they need to be flexible when it comes to competing in this global marketplace, is something we should all strive for as members of this House.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, having lived, eaten, and breathed aviation for 20 years, I know full well the industry inside and out from the airport side, from the air service development side, the business development side, and the airline side of it.

There are some flaws in the member's presentation. A couple of comments caught me off guard.

The member mentioned the threat from the Gulf States' airlines, yet the government cannot approve a pipeline that would stop the oil that is coming from the exact same Gulf States, and our reliance on that.

The member made some comments about doing anything that supports making our airline industry and our Canadian companies more competitive. The Air Canada Public Participation Act states that 75% of the carrier's voting shares be held by Canadians.

Would the member support increasing the voting ownership limit to 49% for foreign ownership? Does my hon. colleague support increasing foreign ownership in our Canadian carriers?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the member has way more experience in this sector than I do. He has had a long career in the aviation sector.

To be frank, I have not thought about supporting more foreign ownership in Air Canada. If that case were presented, I would, of course, as a member of this strong Liberal government, review all the evidence before me at that time, do my analysis, and come to a conclusion. I would decide what was in the best interests of Canadians, and I would side on that side.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, Air Canada used to charge about $800 to fly from Cranbrook to Vancouver until Pacific Coastal Airlines came along, which is a B.C.-owned private airline. When I met with the company representatives in the past, their biggest complaint was that the government over the years had bailed out Air Canada significantly.

The purpose of this bill, which I disagree with as I think those jobs should be kept in Canada, would be to potentially improve competition for Air Canada, as the hon. member said. Along with this, is there a guarantee that the Liberal government will never provide bailout money to Air Canada, moving ahead into the future, thereby allowing the private airlines to compete?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the jobs are going to remain in Canada. They may be in different urban centres, but they are going to remain in the three provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, with the amendments in the bill, so I do not see jobs leaving Canada as a result of this bill.

In response to the member's specific question about whether I will give a guarantee, I do not think I am in a position to give a guarantee. I cannot predict the future. Even if I were to give a guarantee, I do not think it would bind the government, so it would not really be worth much, so there is no point in my giving that guarantee. However, I appreciate the member's interest in this bill and his question.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the former question somewhat interesting. The NDP seemed to be advocating through this particular member that we should not ever bail out Air Canada, which is a bit surprising given the debate we are having today.

My question for the member is more related to his making reference to the negotiations that had taken place with the stakeholders. Manitoba and Winnipeg would in fact derive a significant benefit. Being a Winnipeg MP, I think it is important to highlight that we would be getting the centre of excellence; there are job guarantees; and at the end of the day it is nice to see that the Government of Canada was able to work with the stakeholders to achieve something that would in fact deliver jobs and at the same time provide better opportunities for Air Canada.

Could the member add further comment to that?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and the ability to comment. The member from Manitoba is right. This would create more certainty of a better competitive playing field for Air Canada and it would create and keep jobs in Canada, which are two things that everyone in this House agrees we need to pursue. I am going to continue to support this bill and any other legislation that comes up that would create jobs in Canada and keep jobs in Canada.

On another note, the best thing that happened was that the Province of Quebec and Air Canada decided to stop the litigation. I spent years as a commercial litigator. Litigation is not a good way to keep one's business partners happy and it is expensive, so this is good that they are stopping litigation. We need this bill now to prevent future litigation, and that is another reason why we are doing this today.