Why the NDP Calls Ottawa's Airport Operations Plan Privatization

NDP Leader Avi Lewis says Ottawa's plan to let private investors bid to operate Canada's four largest airports is privatization.

Speaking outside the House of Commons on Sept. 22, Lewis said it is disingenuous for the government to describe the plan as anything else. Private operation, he said, will likely mean higher traveller fees at airports in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver The Globe and Mail.

His argument rests on length and control. Lewis said the plan is privatization because it hands a public asset to investor control for decades. That rejects Ottawa's distinction between owning an asset and running it. Ownership means holding legal title to the land. Operation means managing it day to day and setting charges.

He spoke flanked by his caucus and labour leaders. The setting was deliberate. It tied the airports file to jobs and working conditions, not only to passenger costs.

The federal government says it will still own the airport lands and that airports would face the same safety rules. Ottawa says money from investor contracts could be put into smaller regional airports to lower fees there.

That reinvestment promise is now disputed. NDP transport critic Heather McPherson said the government already collects $525-million a year from airports. The New Democrats use that figure to argue Ottawa does not need private money to support the regional system.

The Sept. 22 remarks follow a party statement published Sept. 15, titled "Avi Lewis: Canada's airports are not for sale" NDP. In that statement, Lewis said privatization in other countries has led to higher travel costs, fewer jobs and worse working conditions. He said privatizing Canada's airports would be a disastrous deal for travellers, workers and the public purse.

Lewis has repeated the message on social media in recent days. He called the plan to privatize Canadian airports a mistake. In a separate post, he said previous Liberal governments considered privatizing airports but did not proceed.

The broader context here is a dispute over words that will shape the policy debate. Ottawa uses a narrow, legal definition focused on who holds title to the land and keeps safety regulation. Lewis uses a working definition focused on who runs operations and sets charges over a long term. For specialists, details such as concession contracts, authority over fees and the length of operating rights decide where the financial risk sits, even when ownership does not change.

Looking at what this means for Parliament, the NDP is presenting airports as both a cost-of-living file and a labour file. The fee argument speaks to travellers in the four largest markets. The jobs argument speaks to organized labour and airport workers. Ottawa's regional reinvestment argument speaks to smaller communities where air service is thinner and lower fees are attractive. How those claims compare with the existing $525-million in annual rent, and with any binding promises on transfers to regions, will determine whether this stays a debate about definitions or becomes a debate about money.