Jamil Jivani

Madam Speaker, this Thanksgiving, many moms and dads will go into debt, putting groceries on credit cards because they do not have enough cash in the bank. Liberals in Ottawa will say there is nothing they can do about it, but the reality is that Liberals could take action now if they cared enough to confront big business. The Competition Bureau of Canada has spent years advocating for more competition in the grocery industry to lower food prices. The policy ideas are out there, ideas to stop property controls from blocking market entry, ideas to empower independent and online retailers, ideas to enforce clear unit pricing rules, but Liberals will not adopt those policies. Liberals will not confront big business. Instead, Liberals will use big government to enrich big business while hard-working Canadians struggle to afford food.

Madam Speaker, as we discuss Bill C-39 in advance of its likely going to committee, I want to raise some concerns about how I think the bill would be used to further the current government's airport privatization agenda. I believe that is an agenda that deserves some severe scrutiny, and it is one that I oppose wholeheartedly. Sometimes it is difficult to get people to pay attention in this job to what is going on in Ottawa, but I do hope that, with my comments today, I can encourage Canadians to pay attention to just how bad airport privatization would be for our country and why Bill C-39 is a problem because it would further that agenda. When I was doing research on this topic, I learned that when I was five years old, the federal government, in the House of Commons, had a debate about airport privatization. Obviously I was too young to pay attention at the time. I was busy watching Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior on television. I learned that it was a Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who put an end to the airport privatization deal for Pearson airport at that time. There was a lot of back and forth, and in the record, we can see that ultimately, when he was elected prime minister of this country, Chrétien concluded that airport privatization does not serve the public's interest. I think he was completely correct. It is interesting to see how much things have changed since then. We are now having this debate again with another Liberal government that is coming to a completely different conclusion from what Prime Minister Chrétien came to. In fact, the current Liberal Prime Minister has actually contracted help from big banks, such as CIBC and J.P. Morgan, to sell off four major Canadian airports, in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver. I believe that the policy idea, the goal that the Prime Minister has set out, is bad news, not just for Canada's national interest but also for workers and for travellers. I am going to use my time to outline why I think that is such a concern and why Bill C-39 is of particular concern for how it would facilitate the selling off of our airports. I will start with the national interest. Prime Minister Chrétien was correct to say that airport privatization does not serve the public's interest. The federal government is fundamentally altering the way that airports function in our country. Instead of treating airports as critical national infrastructure, which they are; instead of treating airports as necessary for our economy to function, which they are; and instead of treating airports as necessary for connecting people across our country, which they are, the government's current plan is to make airports a profit-seeking venture, a complete transformation from what airports are currently doing across this country today. The International Air Transport Association has been clear in warning of the dangers of privatization, because of how it shifts the way that airports function. It has outlined in its studies of privatization across the world that it produces bad outcomes for a country's ability to preserve airports as critical national infrastructure. I would like to quote from some of its research. It states, “The primary focus of airports should be to support local and national prosperity as an economic catalyst.” However, the IATA goes on to say, “in private hands, shareholder returns take top priority.” That is the danger of the current Liberal Prime Minister's airport privatization agenda. By putting shareholder interests at the centre of how our airports operate, it is fundamentally changing the nature of how these very important economic, cultural and political institutions behave. The IATA goes on to say, “When [airports] are privatised, the public entities...wash their hands about this infrastructure”. That means that the record in studies done around the world is that once privatization occurs, governments tend to stop caring about making investments themselves and preserving the integrity of the infrastructure. They stop taking responsibility for making sure that maintenance is good or that the public interest is being served. In the context of what is happening in Canada right now, multiple organizations have warned of what the government's agenda is going to do to airports in this country. The Air Line Pilots Association of Canada has echoed warnings of the dangers of airport privatization, warning that the federal government's privatization agenda opens up the country's largest airports to foreign private investment that poses significant risks not only to the independence of the country but also to the operation of the facilities, including safety risks. The reason the Air Line Pilots Association raised that point is that it shares what Prime Minister Chrétien said, which is that airports have a duty to serve the good, and they will no longer do that if shareholder interests take primacy. The association also said, “Canada's airports are important national assets, and the government must ensure they continue to prioritize the public interest, safety, and the needs of Canadians—not the interests of private investors and shareholders.” The reason that all of this is very important to keep in mind when we take a look at Bill C-39 is that it is a violation of the direction that the government set last year. In passing the Building Canada Act, the government set out a definition of what constitutes national interest for infrastructure projects. That definition included a very important line from the government's legislation, which said that it strengthens Canada's autonomy, resilience and sovereignty. It is very clear that airports are essential to that. With that context in mind, it makes absolutely zero sense to sell off our airports in this country, because that does not serve the national interest, even taking the government's own definition of that concept at face value. Where does Bill C-39 come in to facilitate this? To advance the airport privatization agenda, the Liberal Prime Minister is exploiting the concept of national interest to change labour laws in our country. Through this legislation, the Prime Minister seeks to make it easier for airport privatization to move forward. Bill C-39 would hurt the collective bargaining power of airport workers, and the federal government would use this bill to ensure that private interests face lower labour resistance as they seek higher profit margins in their takeover of this industry. The reality is this. We are in a scenario where the Liberals have a majority government. There is only so much that the opposition parties that occupy seats in this House are able to do, but one of the important lines of defence in ensuring that our airports do not become something we are not proud of is ensuring that unions are able to actively negotiate and fight for their own interests. This legislation would completely put them at a disadvantage. This legislation would, in fact, give the government the ability to railroad unions in its effort to hand over our airports to private interests. That should be of concern to all Canadians. Unifor, which represents 17,000 unionized airport workers, has taken issue with some of the changes to labour law in this legislation. Specifically, Unifor has pointed to section 107, which would give the federal government, in particular the minister of labour, new powers to end labour disputes and force binding arbitration. Under section 107, the minister could direct the CIRB to end a strike or lockout, which would put unions at a disadvantaged position for negotiating and would limit their ability to hold private interests accountable. The Air Line Pilots Association of Canada has also pointed out how its members would be affected by this type of privatization, citing potentially negative outcomes for “runway maintenance, de-icing capacity, staffing” and other safety measures. From a national interest standpoint and a worker standpoint, Bill C-39 would facilitate an agenda that threatens to bring harm and risk to our country. Lastly, with the remainder of my time, I want to talk about travellers, the people who are worried about how expensive it is to fly anywhere in Canada right now. Members know how hard it is to travel across this country, especially with the affordability crisis the way it is. The International Air Transport Association, academics across the country and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have all found constantly, over and over again in their studies, that privatization only makes air travel more expensive, not less expensive. In fact, in Australia, they have found that since privatization occurred there, travellers and airlines have paid $1.6 billion more to travel around their country than they would have if privatization had not occurred. For the good of our country and the good of people who are trying to see their families, we should oppose this agenda.

Madam Speaker, it is shameful for the member opposite to suggest that I speak for anyone but my constituents. I have fought very hard for a better relationship between us and the United States at a time when I believe the governing party is exploiting bad relationships between the two countries for its own political benefit. The conversation we are having today is a perfect example. I just spoke for 10 minutes about the Liberals' airport privatization agenda, and instead of responding to any of the legitimate concerns Canadians are noting, they want to draw attention to the United States. This is their political strategy in a nutshell: advance policies that under no other circumstances would have public support, but hope that if they fearmonger enough, they will get their agenda done. I am not falling for it.

Madam Speaker, what a fantastic question that was from my colleague. He precisely pointed out what is going on, which is that we are facing a temporary crisis and the government is using it to bring in permanent measures and changes to our country. The airport privatization issue is a perfect example. We have had very little public discussion about this and very little conversation here in the House of Commons, yet we are seeing massive changes being done to our country under the guise of responding to the current crisis. We will deal with the consequences of these decisions for generations, and that is exactly why we have to be vocal and oppose them every chance we get, even when the Liberals point a finger at us and smear our good reputations.

Madam Speaker, transparency is such a great word, and absolutely we need more transparency here. Unifor has raised concerns about how this bill would impact the constitutional rights of unionized workers. I would love to see the government produce an analysis of how this bill would affect the charter rights of Canadians.