Mr. Speaker, since I was elected, I have had the opportunity to speak in the House about bills and motions several times. Sometimes I have been strongly in favour of certain bills and sometimes I have been strongly opposed. This is a first for me this evening. I will be attempting to prove that this motion is futile because it seems to pretty much go nowhere and the work has already been done.
I have been listening for quite a few minutes to statements of policy and principle, especially in the speeches by my colleagues opposite. However, I see very little proof. I will attempt to back up my statement.
I am rising today to speak to Motion No. 387 in an attempt to bring my humble view to bear on the issue of the possible expansion of the blue sky policy on air transportation. We must recognize that the sky in question has a palette of all possible shades of blue, which often leads to more questions than answers.
Let us start with a sky blue or blue sky, as the case may be. The motion states “That, in the opinion of the House, the government should further the success of its 2006 Blue Sky Policy...”. It seems to me that before we further the so-called success, the member moving the motion, the government or all MPs who speak and support this motion should provide proof of this so-called success.
Surprise, surprise. No assessment of the various agreements signed has been released. And it also seems that there has been no in-depth analysis of these agreements to determine if there has been a net benefit.
To digress for a moment, I would remind the House that all our friends opposite are experts in rhetoric. I even think that they believe that repeating something often enough will make it meaningful. For example, we had long debates about the notion of suitable employment for employment insurance purposes. We heard all sorts of things, including the fact that the only job that would not be suitable is not having a job. That does not define the notion of suitable employment.
Whether we are talking about international trade treaties or the case before us today, we keep hearing about a net benefit to Canadians, but the government has not dared to define this term so that we can decide where we stand.
If I am being asked, as a parliamentarian, to show blind faith, I would say that the sky is a rather dark blue. What would be the benefits to Canadians of this open sky? Would there be lower plane ticket prices, more flights, greater long-term job creation or higher GDP?
Those possibilities seem attractive. If they were defined and proven, I might be inclined to change my position. I would at least be open to thinking about it. It all seems great, but as we speak, we already have open sky agreements with over 50 countries. My hon. colleague listed them a few minutes ago. There could even be a royal blue sky agreement with Great Britain, but I am just kidding.
These existing agreements account for 85% of total passenger traffic in Canada and 87% of travel abroad. That is not far off 100%. We are discussing a motion on something that already exists and that accounts for 85% of passenger traffic in Canada. We could perhaps do a bit more, but we must acknowledge that a large number of agreements have already been signed.
However, since I have been travelling at my own expense—I must point out—I admit that I have not experienced the benefits these different agreements have for Canadians. Furthermore, there are no studies to show that my perception does not reflect reality.
According to my observations, many of the objectives of this blue sky policy, as promising as it is, are out of touch with reality. In fact, I think that the Conservative government's various fees and budget cuts are constantly undermining the ability of Canadian airports and airlines to compete with their counterparts, and that is driving my purchasing power down.
Open competition has also had adverse effects on Canadian consumers. Airlines compete on ticket pricing by sometimes hiding the real cost of tickets. Surcharges differ so dramatically from one ticket to the next that it is impossible to calculate the actual cost based on the advertised price.
This common practice prompted the Union des consommateurs to file a class action suit against Air Canada on the grounds that fees charged were significantly higher than the prices advertised on the company's website. I will not comment on the case here, but it seems to me that this illustrates how out of control a deregulated open market policy can get.
With about 50 agreements already signed, the fact is that the primary partners are already involved in this type of agreement. So once again, why this motion?
China might be one country with which we do not yet have an agreement that could be a major partner.
However, we should consider whether it is a good idea to sign this type of agreement with a country whose carriers are administered and financed by the government.
Could their ability to influence the market through long-term offers made possible by government subsidies result in unfair competition? We may have to examine this issue more thoroughly before moving forward.
However, it seems that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is not letting such issues slow him down. During his recent trip to China, the Conservative minister clearly opened our airspace a little bit more to Chinese companies. I would like to quote the press release from his own office:
During the meeting, the Minister and Vice-Administrator Xia also signed amendments to the existing bilateral air transport agreement to facilitate the movement of goods and people between the two countries. The expanded air transport agreement, negotiated under Canada's Blue Sky policy, will help deepen Canada's important air transport, trade and investment relationships with China.
The 85% I was talking about earlier could go as high as 90%, 92% or 94%. Once again, I have to wonder whether this motion is relevant.
It is clear that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has all the latitude he needs to go ahead with the blue sky policy, as he appears to be doing with authorities from the People's Republic of China. However, in this case, we would like to hear a little more about what is in that agreement. Has the minister concluded an agreement with China under the blue sky policy or are these merely discussions?
If that is the case, what is the point of the motion before us here today for this second hour?
Does the Conservative member realize that his motion has absolutely no point? Coming from a party that is always bragging about how it likes to reduce paperwork, it is a bit hypocritical.
What a strange way to govern the country. That member is not aware of what is happening within the Conservative Party. He is not aware of the policies in place and the announcements made by his own minister.
What a strange way to keep us members busy here in the House, with motions that are of no consequence and have no impact on government policy, since everything seems to be working just fine.
Clearly, the Conservative Party does not have what it takes to set this country's policy agenda.
Since the positive impacts for consumers have yet to be proven, this could have long-term adverse effects on Canada's already precarious situation.
As we know, Canada is a country of vast open spaces with a small population, which, in the eyes of many international airlines, makes it a second level market. Players entering the market with the advantage of political and financial support from their government could considerably hurt Canadian airlines.
I can already hear the Conservatives' comeback—and I will conclude on this point—that is, that we are against trade, against businesses, against consumers and against everything else. Personally, I would call our position pragmatic. We do not reject that approach, but we refuse to blindly believe the Conservative dogma.
