Two years ago Air Canada filed for bankruptcy protection and the federal government stepped aside, allowing the airline to stitch together a private sector solution.

Last week, Jetsgo stranded thousands of passengers at airports across the continent and then it too filed for bankruptcy protection. Stock market investors cheered because the failure of Jetsgo was seen as a natural step in the evolution of Canada’s airline industry and proof that Ottawa intends to let the market rule the skies.

At least one investor, FMR Corp, the Fidelity group of funds made money on Jetsgo’s collapse even though it had a $25 million investment in the airline. It seems they also had investments in Air Canada and Westjet that produced share value increases of $61.8 million on news that Jetsgo was gone, thus offsetting their $25 million Jetsgo loss.

A few weeks earlier, Robert Milton, President of Air Canada announced that his airline will withdraw service from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan. He offered JAZZ as a no frills, band-aid replacement and there was barely a whimper heard from this community.

Federal Transport Minister, Jean Lapierre says “it is time to govern the skies on behalf of passengers not those who fly them around.” He promotes a relatively free market and a more open skies agreement with the United States as beneficial to passengers on the basis that free markets and open skies result in lower airfares and more frequent flights.

Robert Milton’s answer to free markets is to designate three Canadian provinces as second class and withdraw service by Air Canada.

Good airline service is important to the economic development of a region. Poor service restricts development by limiting the attractiveness of an area as a location for business.

How do we get airlines to compete on the basis of quality service rather than lowest cost service? How do we wean Transport Canada from its free market zealotry?

The U.K. Air Transport Users Council serves as a watchdog for passenger interests. The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority advocates on behalf of passenger service. In Canada, we sit passively by as our airlines collapse without consequence and the survivor carriers substitute shareholder interest for passenger interest.

Air Canada would have us believe that a small aircraft, regional air service by Jazz that will feed us into airline hubs in Halifax, Montreal and Toronto will somehow be good for us. They ignore the fact that quality of air service matters to us because it affects our cost of doing business whether it’s the cost of face to face contact with customers and suppliers or the cost of moving cargo through major distribution centres like Moncton.

Travel is far more costly in terms of time and money when business travelers are forced to make time-consuming connections at out of the way “hub” airports or when they are unable to return home in a single day. To give you an example, an Air Canada trip from Boston last week took me nearly seven hours through Montreal from hotel to home.

A non-stop jet flight from Boston to Moncton would take about 1 hour and reduce overall travel time by nearly 4 hours. Time is money in my business. It would be a lot less expensive to pay another $200 for service than to waste a day and a half traveling.

Robert Milton’s decision to terminate service in New Brunswick will leave the Province with nothing but small narrow-bodied Jazzcraft. We’ll be without the air-cargo service provided by wide-bodied jets. We’ll continue without non-stop service to anywhere but the three hub cities. Every destination on the continent will require an aircraft change in either of Halifax, Montreal or Toronto and/or double-back flights to destinations like Ottawa and Boston.

I’m not alone on this. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council argues in its “Agenda for Growth and Prosperity” document that if Atlantic Canada wants to succeed, it must turn its attention to new growth paradigms such as strengthening the capacity of the region’s larger urban centres so as to provide a base for the high quality jobs associated with the knowledge economy and strengthening the foundation for innovation.

The Council points out that one of the success factors in growth economies is the high quality of public services such as transportation. They remind us that current federal policy priorities are focused on major cities. They call for better connectivity to the national and global community through broadband initiatives and the transportation system. Is the federal government listening?

A reduction or elimination of air services in the region will not encourage economic growth. To the contrary, Robert Milton’s decision to terminate Air Canada service will signal to the business world that three of Canada’s provinces are no longer significant enough to warrant service by its national carrier, the implication being they may not be very good places to do business.

Economic development and transportation are closely linked. Today's competitive, technology-driven economy requires products and parts to move quickly and safely between diverse regions of the nation and the world. New Brunswick businesses and consumers are increasingly dependent on air travel to satisfy their shipping needs and to provide convenient access for tourists and business travelers.

I don’t believe we have to accept Robert Milton’s termination decision. The Government of Canada, as regulator, has the authority to compel the carrier to continue service to the three provinces. A ‘free market’ that disconnects us from Canada’s “national” airline is bad economic policy and bad regional development policy.

After years of writing letters to the Editor, the Times & Transcript has asked me to write a weekly column in this newspaper.

That’s somewhat ironic, given the fact that my father was a columnist/reporter for this newspaper 60 years ago before he traveled the Maritime path to Ontario to write for the Windsor Star, the Chatham News and then on to the Toronto Star and the Star Weekly as a reporter, columnist and editor.

I’m not sure whether my invitation to write for the Times & Transcript is a compliment or an attempt to neutralize my point of view but my inclination is to accept the former and pursue the latter.

A few days ago, a British Columbian Supreme Court Justice ruled that Ripudam Singh Macik and Ajaib Singh Bacrii were not guilty of bombing an Air India passenger jet 20 years ago. I remember being outraged at the fact that Sikh militants, determined to avenge the killings of thousands of their own in a 1984 slaughter by Indian Government troops, had brought their grievance to Canada.

More than 300 people died over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Ireland in that tragedy. Others died in a second but related event in a Japanese airport moments before the crash. I would not pretend to argue the merits for or against the Sikh’s right or need to avenge the killings by Indian Government troops because I don’t know enough about the circumstance to justify a position.

I do know that Canada and Canadians have lived together in relative peace for more than 100 years. Wars between the English and the French, between Canada and the United States have long since been resolved or staid without resort to bloodshed.

That other societies have been unable to do so is unfortunate but provides no justification for importing their unresolved issues and/or violence to Canada. The two men charged with masterminding the Air India bombing have been set free by Justice Josephson. I have no doubt that his decision was rendered with the utmost conviction and legal rationale but I find it difficult to agree with him.

I have a problem with the fact that a major crime, a horrendous terrorist act goes unresolved after 20 years of investigation and trial. I have a problem with the fact that a single individual, Justice Josephson is left with the decision to convict or let free. I have a problem with the fact that one man is left to determine whether the testimony of a witness or witnesses is conclusive or credible. A jury might have arrived at the same conclusion but surely the unanimous decision of 12 people would be more credible than the learned or scholarly decision of one man.

Media commentators and some politicians argue that conflict between CSIS and the RCMP excuses the presentation of conflicting or inconclusive evidence. Some argue that such conflict justifies a failed or inconclusive decision.

Others suggest that because victims were visibly different in their appearance, there was and is no appetite in Canada for conviction. Still others suggest that the tribal wars of far off lands are not meat for Canada’s justice system and that Canadians should be indifferent to the outcome of a criminal case that indulges the grievances of such warfare.

To top it off, Canada’s Minister of Justice defends the outcome of this case with the conclusion that weaknesses in a 20 year old relationship between CSIS and the RCMP justify tolerance of a questionable legal outcome.

On the one hand, we have a Justice of British Columbia’s Supreme Court deciding whether or not two men conspired to destroy the Air India flight and its passengers. On the other hand, we have the families of 329 passengers and crew devastated by the fact Justice Josephson is unable to render a guilty decision.

The Justice has concluded that evidence fell short of requisite standards of ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’. Survivors have concluded that 20 years in the pursuit of justice and closure is futile.

My view is that the legal infrastructure that directed the gathering of evidence and oversaw the prosecution of defendants in this case was flawed. Further, that our inability to find closure in the Air India bombing has weakened our credibility as a global player in the fight against terrorism.

More importantly, we may have inadvertently created a perception of safe haven for terrorists. Perhaps worse, we have failed to (a) defend the right of Canadians, regardless of colour or heritage, to travel our airways with impunity and (b) to demonstrate to Canadians that we will defend our institutions against intrusion by non-Canadian conflict.

I’m not a lawyer but it’s my opinion that the Attorney General of British Columbia should appeal Justice Josephson’s decision. If there is no ground for legal appeal, then Canada’s Minister of Justice should appeal as a matter of public interest.

Justice Josephson’s decision is being second guessed by the media and panned by the survivors. A public inquiry will resolve nothing. An appeal would serve the public interest by upholding the basis for Justice Josephson’s decision or by overturning it. Regardless of the outcome, an appeal would confirm that justice has been done and tell the Country and the world that Canadians have no tolerance for the import of hereditary violence or revenge.

W.E. (Bill) Belliveau is a Shediac resident and Moncton business consultant. He is a former Advertising Executive and Magazine Publisher, a past Governor of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, past President of a National Publishers’ Association, political advisor and tournament organizer.