John Nater

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 3rd, 2016]

With regard to federal spending within the electoral district of Perth—Wellington for each fiscal year from 2011-2012 to 2015-16, what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded by the government, broken down by (i) department and agency, (ii) municipality, (iii) name of the recipient, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which the spending was made, and (vi) date?

[William H. Jarvis, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of the Hon. William H. Jarvis, who passed away last week at the age of 85.

Bill was first elected to the House of Commons in 1972 for the riding of Perth—Wilmot. He would go on to serve in this House for the next 12 years, always tending to the needs of his riding and to his constituents. In 1979, he was appointed to cabinet as the minister of state for federal-provincial relations.

After leaving elected politics in 1984, he continued to serve his country, and his party as president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada from 1986 to 1989.

I am sure all hon. members will join me in paying tribute and in expressing our condolences to Bill's family, including his wife Louisette, his children Richard and Elizabeth, and their mother Vivian.

While we may mourn the loss of Bill, we can certainly pay tribute and honour his legacy and his dedication to this House, his country, and his constituents.

[Agricultural Wall of Fame Inductees, April 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate this year's inductees into the Agricultural Wall of Fame at the Stratford Perth Museum: John and Mary McIntosh of Perth South and David Carson of Listowel.

These tremendous individuals were selected not only for their devotion to farming but for their extensive volunteer work in our rural communities.

David Carson is a world-renowned supplier of dairy cattle and Clydesdales. He contributes to 4-H programs, the Listowel Agricultural Society, and charity auctions, and in 2005 he hosted the International Ploughing Match at his farm.

John and Mary McIntosh have made tremendous contributions to the Perth County Federation of Agriculture, the Perth Environmental Farm Plan, the Ontario Agricultural Hall of Fame, the Perth County Dairy Producer Committee, St. Marys Memorial Hospital, and many local ploughing matches.

It is because of great community volunteers and leaders like John, Mary, and David that rural Ontario is such a great place to live and grow.

I would like to thank them for all that they do and offer my congratulations.

[Business of Supply, April 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised that all of a sudden the Liberals have figured out what agriculture is. After all, it was completely absent in their Speech from the Throne and it took up less than two pages in the budget, and even then it was just reasserting previous Conservative policies.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac how it is that all of a sudden they are these great supporters of agriculture and the agricultural industry, yet their government has been completely absent about the policy up until this point.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would direct you under Standing Order 11(2) to remind the member to return to the relevancy of this debate. He is going off on things that are not related to government business. I would encourage you to remind him to return to relevancy.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Minister of Democratic Institutions for her comments. I appreciated it when she said there are no secrets on this side of the House. I would like to ask the hon. minister if she would therefore be willing to disclose the list of attendees at the Minister of Justice's fundraiser, and perhaps while she is at it also tell us where the $40 million is that the Liberals lost and squandered in the sponsorship scandal.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 15th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke.

The government could be doing many things, but it has done nothing.

For example, it could be tying airport improvement fees to certain set projects, with clear deadlines once these improvements have been made; changing the financing model for security; and replacing the one-size-fits-all screening approach to the airlines so we could tailor certain approaches—two different airlines, two different airports—for a more agile, more nimble response to the airline industry. It is something that is important, certainly to the Quebec industry, but to all provinces as well.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 15th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his important question.

We think that Air Canada must respect certain obligations, since Canadians gave Air Canada certain benefits when it was privatized in 1998.

The Conservative Party believes that we must protect Canadian jobs, especially well-paid jobs. We think that the government can do many things, but it is not doing them, according to Air Canada.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 15th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for the question.

I would like to say that I do not trust this government to make changes to help Air Canada, or other Canadian airports and companies.

Our party thinks that the government should do whatever is necessary for every industry that might contribute to jobs in Canada. It has to be said that the Billy Bishop airport is a good example where we can help the airline industry. However, the Liberal government said that we cannot make any changes to the Billy Bishop airport. I therefore do not trust the Liberal government, but I am confident that the airline industry will survive.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 15th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-10, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures.

So far, we have heard members on the government side and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport go on and on about the quality of the Bombardier C Series aircraft and about how happy they are that Air Canada has ordered so many aircraft.

Bombardier has been promoting its new aircraft for several years now, and what Bombardier needs is to get more orders. The government's platitudes here will unfortunately not help Bombardier sell a single aircraft.

That said, it does not matter that the minister is justifying Bill C-10 by saying that Air Canada's will purchase C Series aircraft and that the maintenance of these aircraft will be done in Quebec. None of this has anything to do with Bombardier or its new aircraft.

The text of the act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures makes no reference to Bombardier or its C Series aircraft. The changes that the government is proposing in this bill make no reference to Bombardier or the C Series aircraft. Even if Air Canada purchases and takes possession of 45 of Bombardier's aircraft, that will represent only a small portion of its total fleet, about 15%.

We all know that most of Air Canada's fleet consists of Boeing, Airbus, and Embraer aircraft. This bill is only concerned with where Air Canada must do its maintenance. Talking about other things only diverts attention away from what is important. What is important is to strike a balance between keeping good jobs here in Canada and making it possible for Air Canada to continue becoming a more flexible and competitive private company.

Let us go back in time in order to understand why the federal government at that time included a provision on aircraft maintenance that read as follows:

The articles of continuance of the Corporation shall contain

...

(d) provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community and the City of Mississauga;

By passing legislation guaranteeing that operational and overhaul centres would be maintained, the then government ensured that Air Canada maintenance jobs would stay in Canada. This condition was deemed necessary because we, the taxpayers, had invested a lot of money and implemented policies that supported Air Canada. Accordingly, in 1988, when Air Canada was privatized, all parties felt that Air Canada's good maintenance jobs had to stay in Canada and, more specifically, near the cities of Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg.

These policies and this financial support still exist today. That is why the government at the time ensured that this condition for privatization was included in the legislation. That way, only a change to that legislation made by the Parliament of Canada would allow Air Canada not to have its maintenance done in the three cities named in the legislation.

We all know that the airline industry has changed a great deal since Bill C-129 was introduced and debated in 1988. We all know that the Montreal Urban Community no longer exists, but we can all see that the law intended for the maintenance to be done in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg.

What has not changed is the need to have aircraft regularly maintained by reliable mechanics with the necessary experience and training to ensure passenger safety.

Canada has one of the best air safety regimes in the world, possibly even the best. We can be proud of that, and it is not something that should be changed overnight. We all recognize that aircraft maintenance is not the same now as it was in 1998. The technology and maintenance practices have changed a lot since then.

However, this bill does not propose modernizing the act to take into account the changes that have occurred in the airline industry with regard to aircraft maintenance. It proposes eliminating Air Canada's obligation to have its aircraft maintained in Canada. That is not modernization. Modernization would be an amendment that describes the type of maintenance that must be done in Canada, for example, with regard to airplane engines or flaps. My government colleagues are arguing that Air Canada is going to maintain the C Series in Quebec, that it is going to move jobs from Mississauga and Montreal to Winnipeg, and that that is enough.

Air Canada has a fleet of nearly 300 planes that need maintenance. Its Airbus and Boeing aircraft and even other planes that were built by Bombardier but are not part of the C Series could be maintained outside Canada. As a result, 85% of the fleet of Air Canada's largest planes, such as the Boeing 787, the Boeing 767, and the Airbus A330, could be maintained abroad.

Given the comments that the parliamentary secretary made in her speech and particularly outside the House, and given the content of the bill, it seems that the government intends to pass this legislative measure before Air Canada has even taken possession of a single C Series aircraft.

That is surprising because there are many measures that the government could introduce that would make Air Canada more competitive without affecting Canadian maintenance workers.

The government could link airport improvement fees to specific projects with clear end dates. It could do a complete overhaul of the airport security funding models. It could increase the number of trusted traveller programs, such as NEXUS and CANPASS. It could increase the ownership limits to at least 49% for commercial passenger carriers. It could also reduce or eliminate the aviation fuel tax, better align the regulations with those of the United States and Europe, and simplify customs and immigration processes.

All of these measures could be introduced quickly, and they would stimulate Air Canada and the country's entire airline industry. All of these measures have Air Canada's support. Unfortunately, the government is ignoring all of these measures in this bill.

I hope that the government will explain why it is ignoring many measures that would support Air Canada without affecting nearly 3,000 maintenance jobs in Canada.