House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 44% of the vote.
Air Canada Public Participation Act April 15th, 2016
Madam Speaker, I always believe open discussion is a good thing to have when we look to amend any bill. However, extracting fundamental components out of it prior to having those conversations is backward. We should maintain the fundamental components of the agreement and the deal that was put in place in 1988, but the committee can still come forward with additional amendments that look at other options, other than losing Canadian jobs.
Air Canada Public Participation Act April 15th, 2016
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.
Air Canada Public Participation Act April 15th, 2016
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.
Air Canada Public Participation Act April 15th, 2016
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.
Air Canada Public Participation Act April 15th, 2016
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.
Air Canada Public Participation Act April 15th, 2016
Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the member has any indication as to how this amendment would affect the level of safety regulations.
Infrastructure April 15th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, public transit is one of the most important infrastructure needs for Canadian communities.
Last fall the Liberals made numerous promises in order to get elected. We heard those promises, and they have delivered on none.
The minister talks about fast-tracking public transit projects, but all we are seeing is road repair and data collection. Could the minister tell Canadians when they can expect to see the funding for new transit projects?
Infrastructure April 15th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget indicates that all public transportation money given to communities will be based on ridership numbers. This means that communities with underdeveloped public transit will receive less funds than those communities with robust, developed public infrastructure. It is precisely those communities that do not have adequate public transit that need those funds the most.
Will the minister amend the statement in the budget to reflect this reality and support small and rapidly growing communities across Canada?
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns April 11th, 2016
With regard to the Provincial Territorial Infrastructure Component, National and Regional Projects of the New Building Canada Plan, and how much money has been earmarked for projects of interest which have been planned but not yet been announced: (a) what funds have been allocated to each province and territory; (b) what is the number of projects in each province and territory; (c) how much money has been earmarked for each project listed in (b); (d) what data was used to determine which projects would be selected; and (e) when will these projects be announced?
Events in Brussels March 22nd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my constituents in the riding of South Surrey—White Rock and all residents to stand in solidarity with the people of Brussels. This morning, 31 innocent people were murdered and over 100 were injured in a series of attacks. I want to acknowledge the work done by the Belgian military, police, and first responders, who have been working tirelessly since this incident occurred.
This kind of deadly tragedy has unfortunately become far too commonplace around the world. As these terror attacks continue to impact us all, we must stand strong together and united with our allies.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those murdered and injured in Brussels today. Their lives will be forever impacted.
As well, I would like to extend my condolences to the Ford family on the passing of the former mayor and a colleague, Rob Ford. He led a colourful life, loved his community, and will be missed by all who knew him.