Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much.
I want to ask Mr. Quick, in your opinion as a leader in the industry, is it the case...? We heard a little bit about what the C Series jet could mean for the Canadian aerospace industry. Is it your understanding that there is a connection between Air Canada's purchase of the C Series and the passage of Bill C-10 ?
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you for your answer, and thank you for your patience. We went in camera earlier because there was a motion on the floor. I've said in a few different venues that I think the idea of going in camera for what are really substantive motions for the committee is a bad practice. I know that witnesses are often interested to know what the committee is discussing in its deliberations.
I'd like the committee now to consider a motion that the committee suspend its study of Bill C-10 for 12 months, effective at the end of this meeting, and that the committee call on the Government of Canada to work with Air Canada and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers to develop a business plan for performing Air Canada's maintenance overhaul and repair work in Canada competitively under the existing terms of the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
It's my hope that we won't have to go in camera in order to consider that motion, but I'm prepared to do so if that's the will of the committee.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
It's my understanding that motions that pertain directly to the matter being considered by the committee do not require any special dispensation to be considered.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
—relevant sections of O'Brien and Bosc that I think would merit being considered by the committee.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
On page 1,051, it says that:
A motion is needed to submit a proposal to a committee and obtain a decision on it. A motion is moved by a Member to have the committee do something, order its Chair...[etc.]. Where the motion is debatable, moving of the motion triggers a period of debate. If no Member wishes to speak to the motion, the debate ends.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Well, is there discussion? Typically, in my experience there's discussion for a challenge of the chair.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
In fairness, Madam Chair, considering that it's the last regular committee meeting before clause-by-clause study of the bill, I think it's appropriate that we address these matters seriously. There will be no other opportunity to bring motions pertaining to this study after this meeting, so I think it's appropriate that it be considered properly.
I also think that to say that any motion brought to a committee meeting without the 48 hours' notice, even when it's directly pertaining to the matter under study, sets a bad precedent, Madam Chair.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much.
I'll start by saying thank you to you both. It's nice to hear some voices from home.
I think part of the issue with Bill C-10 when it first came to the floor and as it has progressed at a rapid pace through the House of Commons has been that it pits sector against sector in terms of trading maintenance jobs for manufacturing jobs, and to the extent that it has serious consequences for the future of the maintenance industry in Winnipeg, it also risks pitting region against region. I think that's what Minister Stefanson was alluding to in her remarks.
Of course that's something we want to avoid. That's why in the NDP, Alexandre Boulerice from Quebec and I have been looking at this. We want to make sure that it doesn't encourage that kind of regional divide. Unfortunately I'm not convinced we are there yet.
I'll start my question to you, Minister Stefanson, just by saying congratulations on your new position and by telling you how pleased I am that on the first issue on which we've had occasion to work together, we're on the same side of the issue. May that long be the case.
I just want to say that earlier I tried to move a motion at this committee that would give time to the Canadian industry players, workers, and their representatives to make the business case for how we could keep this work in Canada. I think that's one of the issues at stake. We've got a federal government now that is pronouncing on the state of the industry in Canada and saying that Canadians can't do this work competitively. I don't think that's true. I don't think it's true of folks back in Manitoba.
You have a new government. You're getting used to these files. I'm just wondering if you would appreciate that time to work with people in Winnipeg to see if they can mount a business case for how they could do the work under the existing terms of the act.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rebeck, we've heard a lot about the centre for excellence, and maybe that's part of a deal to change the act or maybe it's not part of a deal. We're not quite sure, but what we don't hear, because it gets overshadowed by these so-called centre of excellence jobs, is what it would mean for employment in the aerospace industry if we simply enforced the terms of the act.
Could you help us take a moment here at the committee to appreciate what it would mean for employment in Winnipeg if we simply enforced the terms of the existing act?
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
With these centre of excellence jobs, again, it's great, and it's always nice to have more jobs created, but it's often pitched as if these are moving in to where Aveos was. In fact, they are very different kinds of work.
I wonder if you could speak to the relative benefit of having heavy maintenance repair and overhaul versus the kinds of jobs that are coming with the centre of excellence.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
I don't see a need to have to do that. I was just through a clause-by-clause study on another bill, and it wasn't done at that committee. I just don't see a need for it.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Why would we need a motion if it's already required?
I mean, it seems to me that it's not required, or we wouldn't need a motion to require it.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Is there really any reason to think that amendments brought forward for this bill would be any more technical than amendments brought forward for any other bill? It's actually a really small bill.
Results: 1 - 15 of 30 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|