Leona Alleslev

[Canada Post, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is this government's job to ensure that we have an open and transparent and independent review to ensure that Canadians are receiving the services they need from Canada Post at a reasonable price.

The four-person independent task force will prepare a discussion paper and present all of the viable options for Canada Post. Following that, a parliamentary committee will engage with Canadians from coast to coast to coast on this important question and will report back by the end of the year.

This is an important review, and it will be one that we hope all members of the House and all Canadians will be proud to take part in.

[Canada Post, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is as simple as this. It was a promise made and a promise kept. Our party committed during the campaign to undertake a review to ensure that Canadians receive quality postal services at a reasonable price, and yesterday we did just that. The four-person independent task force will prepare a discussion paper that will present viable options for Canada Post services.

Canadians are at the centre of the decisions we make. I encourage all members to get involved in this process.

[Asbestos, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to summarize the government's position. We take the health and safety of our buildings' occupants and visitors very seriously. Whenever the presence of friable asbestos is identified, immediate action is taken to remediate the situation.

Public Services and Procurement Canada strictly adheres to the legislative health and safety requirements, and these buildings have strict asbestos management plans.

As of April 1, 2016, Public Services and Procurement Canada no longer uses asbestos in Public Services and Procurement Canada's new construction and major renovation projects.

[Asbestos, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on this important issue. Until recently, asbestos was widely used for many centuries in thousands of building construction products in Canada and around the world. This included insulation for walls, ceilings, and plumbing fixtures.

However, an increasing body of scientific evidence has shown us that asbestos creates serious health risks. Health Canada advises us that breathing in asbestos fibres can cause cancer and other diseases.

One of the government's main responsibilities is to protect the health and safety of its citizens, especially when it comes to the presence of asbestos in old buildings. Therefore, as soon as asbestos is detected in a government building, immediate action must be taken to eliminate the risks.

In the case of buildings that belong to Public Services and Procurement Canada, these measures are taken in strict conformity with all legislative requirements, and this includes asbestos management plans and corrective action, such as removal of the asbestos dust and encapsulation.

Asbestos is removed or encapsulated when there is risk to health and safety or there is a requirement for maintenance or renovation that results in the unavoidable disturbance of asbestos-containing materials.

Furthermore, Public Services and Procurement Canada conducts annual inspections and reports on asbestos-containing materials identified within buildings. The government has always managed current asbestos-related issues, in accordance with the changing regulatory and legislative framework of the past few decades.

That is why whenever the presence of asbestos is identified in a government building, immediate action is taken to remediate the risks. In the case of buildings owned by Public Services and Procurement Canada, this action is taken in strict conformity to all legislative requirements. This includes asbestos management plans and corrective actions such as asbestos abatement and encapsulation.

Asbestos is removed or encapsulated when there is a risk to health and safety or there is a requirement for maintenance or renovation. It is true that asbestos-containing materials are still used across the construction industry in limited applications where it does not easily break apart and thus cannot be inhaled.

The government takes the health and safety of its buildings, occupants, and visitors very seriously and strictly conforms to the legislative requirements for health and safety. To minimize the risk to building occupants, asbestos is removed when there is a health and safety hazard and when undertaking building recapitalization.

As of April 1, 2016, Public Services and Procurement no longer uses asbestos in Public Services and Procurement Canada's new construction and major renovation projects. This follows a review on the use of asbestos in future Public Services and Procurement Canada new construction and major renovation projects.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, this amendment to the act is primarily focused on competitiveness around aircraft maintenance because that is the opportunity that has presented itself and has been of significant dispute as a result of the situation with Aveos. Therefore, this government is committed to ensuring that the aerospace industry as a whole is vibrant, and Air Canada as well.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, again, this government is committed to the vibrancy of the aerospace industry in Canada, and hence is ensuring that there would still be a commitment of Air Canada to have its maintenance provided in Canada—not by Air Canada, the company itself, but rather by service providers who excel and specialize in the business of aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul.

This would be merely a redistribution. Rather than Air Canada's being the primary one delivering the service, it would purchase those services from other entities. That is why this would be great for Canada and for the aerospace industry and would allow Air Canada to become more competitive on the world stage.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I clearly reject the assumption that we know it would lead to job losses in Canada.

We have a very viable Canadian aircraft maintenance and repair and overhaul capability, and we have for many years, but the airlines are focused upon delivering air service, to moving people from places across the country. Their core business is not aircraft manufacturing. What this bill would allow them to do is to purchase and procure services from companies whose core business is aircraft maintenance.

We are very fortunate to have extensive capability in Canada and now we even have the potential of increased service in centres of excellence, which would ensure that our airline industry, the commercial carriers, can focus upon their business of carrying people and the aircraft maintenance organizations can focus upon maintaining aircraft.

That is why this part of the amendment of the Air Canada Act is focused upon that specifically.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, April 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak today. The bill is about modernizing the Air Canada Public Participation Act to make it more in keeping with the realities of the global air transport sector, and to ensure that the act will continue to be relevant as the aviation sector evolves in the future.

First, it is important to recall that the Air Canada Public Participation Act was brought into force in 1988 primarily to provide the federal government with a legislative framework to enable the divestiture of Air Canada. This was made possible by permitting the government to organize Air Canada not as a federal crown corporation, but as a share capital enterprise incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

By holding Air Canada as a share capital enterprise, the government could dispose of its equity in the company by allowing Air Canada to issue shares for public investment, which the company did through two public offerings, the first in 1988 and the second in 1989.

Air Canada returned nearly all the proceeds from those share offerings to the Government of Canada, allowing a return to be realized as compensation for support the company had during the time it was a federal crown asset.

With that second public offering, Air Canada was fully divested by the government, and it has since been engaged in the air carrier industry as a private sector company.

The Government of Canada's divestiture of Air Canada was in keeping with the evolution that was happening to Canada's air carrier industry at that time.

Then, under the legislated framework of economic deregulation that began in 1987, Canada's air carrier industry was evolving from being a regulated industry to one that had to deal with market forces. Competition was the order of the day, providing discipline to pricing and capacity in the marketplace.

Nearly three decades have passed since deregulation took effect, and it is now time to update the Air Canada Public Participation Act to reflect the evolution in the aviation sector. I am referring particularly to 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".

To be viable as a going concern in today's air carrier industry means that inputs from the supply chain must be cost competitive, and that includes the provision of aircraft maintenance.

Air Canada is the only carrier, both domestic and international, that has obligations such as these. All of the other carriers, including other Canadian air carriers, are free to take advantage of competitive undertakings to support their aircraft maintenance.

The Province of Quebec, with intervening support from the Province of Manitoba, and Air Canada have been litigating the matter of that company's aircraft maintenance for a number of years.

This began with the insolvency in March 2012 of Aveos Fleet Performance, a third-party provider of aircraft maintenance repair and overhaul services. On February 17 of this year, the Province of Quebec and Air Canada mutually agreed to pursue an end to their differences in favour of a better way forward.

Then, on March 14, the Province of Manitoba and Air Canada announced a collaboration of their own. In both cases, these ways forward include co-operating in the establishment of centres of excellence for aircraft maintenance, one in Montreal, and the other in Winnipeg.

As well, Air Canada is committing to maintaining all of its newly acquired CS300 aircraft in Quebec for at least 20 years. These aircraft will also be designed and manufactured by Bombardier of Quebec.

In Manitoba, Air Canada will be facilitating and supporting the establishment of a western centre of excellence by three of its long-standing suppliers and partners, including Hope Aero Propeller and Components, which specializes in propellers, wheels, brakes, and batteries; Airbase Services, which specializes in aircraft interior equipment maintenance; and Cargojet Airways, to which Air Canada has agreed to lease one of its Winnipeg hangars on favourable terms to enable it to establish aircraft maintenance activities.

The centre of excellence in Winnipeg is expected to create 150 jobs, starting in 2017, with the possibility of further expansion and job creation in the future. These are net new job increases.

These developments are consistent with a company and an industry that must continually seek competitive ways of operating to stay in business. These are progressive developments whereby the parties are collaborating instead of litigating. This conduct should be encouraged.

The legislation, as it is currently written, lent itself to this litigation about how it should be interpreted. That is why this government is proposing to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act to remove any doubt that Air Canada can seek best-in-class, cost-competitive aircraft maintenance wherever it is offered, a choice to which all other air carriers are entitled.

At the same time, we are reinforcing the expectation that Air Canada will continue to carry out aircraft maintenance in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

The amendment would also induce providers of aircraft maintenance in Canada to be cost competitive, given the potential business from Air Canada, which should be able to choose from among those services on the basis of best Canadian value.

As well, the establishment of a centre of excellence for aircraft maintenance would reinforce Montreal's role as a world-class aeronautical hub, bolstered also by the Montreal-based headquarters of the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization; the presence of the International Air Transport Association; the aviation and aeronautical programs at McGill and Concordia, to name but two; and industry stalwarts such as Pratt & Whitney, CAE, Bombardier, Air Canada, and others.

The centres of excellence are good for Quebec and Manitoba, and for Canada, raising the profile of local expertise and thus generating positive attention and more investment in our nation's skilled trades and knowledge-based economy—and it all begins with co-operation and collaboration by all of the parties, who were formerly in dispute but are now working together toward a common purpose. I ask that members offer the same level of support.

It is my pleasure to speak to the bill, to support it, and to ask all members to do the same as the government moves to support the competitiveness of the Canadian airline industry in the 21st century.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague also served in the Canadian Forces and attended Royal Military College, as did I. We do not have the same college number, though.

We have separate politics and the conversation around the Billy Bishop airport and whether the future of it and of Porter Airlines is tied to the C Series and Bombardier, or that Bombardier and the C Series are by virtue tied to the airport and that absolutely has to be deconflicted.

If we are talking then about the aerospace industry, this government has committed to a fighter replacement program and will ensure that we get the right fighter aircraft for our country. In terms of a long-term in-service support capability, it will be one that will serve Canadians well.

To say that we may or may not have made a decision on which fighter does not in any way jeopardize or hamper our commitment to the aerospace and defence industry.

From a Bombardier perspective, it is a very viable company and it has done incredible things, both in business aircraft and commercial aircraft. It will continue to do so with this flagship, the C Series.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, underlying the whole conversation is the strength of the aerospace industry, but the most important thing we have to remember is that the future of the Toronto city airport and Porter Airlines is not conditional on the C Series and Bombardier, and the aerospace industry as a whole.

We are very fortunate that the aerospace industry in Canada is the fifth largest in the world. We are the third-largest manufacturer in the world. Many certainly think that comes primarily from Quebec, but in actual fact we have five very vibrant regions of aerospace industry in our country, and they are growing quite considerably.

My hon. colleague made reference to in-service support and aircraft maintenance, and that is almost 40% of the overall contribution to GDP that the aerospace industry makes. A robust in-service support capability and aircraft maintenance is one that this government recognizes, and is looking at all the mechanisms that can support it.

This government is committed to supporting the aerospace industry, recognizing the strength it has both in manufacturing and in-service support, and ensuring it is strong and regionally diversified across this nation.