I'll speak to this a little bit and to a few other things.
One of the first questions asked by a member was why Aveos was not mentioned in the act and why the IAM was not mentioned in the act. I think that some of this questioning on where we are proved exactly what Aveos was created to do, and that was to become a little bit of a red herring and to do exactly what you suggested, which was to allow Air Canada to shed labour and labour costs.
I saw some media reports from some Air Canada executives last week that suggested they were willing to and would love to keep the work in Canada, but attached to that was a quote, “at globally competitive rates”. We understand that licensed aircraft engineers in Central America earn $500 a month. So for somebody working a 40-hour workweek in Canada, that equates to just over $3 an hour. I certainly hope Air Canada's not suggesting that that's what it would take to keep those jobs in Canada.
We view Aveos's Air Canada maintenance as a turnkey operation. You've hit it exactly. The facilities are there. The workers are there. The skills are there. All it needs is a willingness for somebody to go in, unlock the door, and turn on the lights. It would take literally 72 hours to get this operation up and running, to get these people back to work doing this maintenance.
Essentially we have come here looking for leadership from the government on an issue, and the government is the sole entity in Canada that has responsibility for making that happen. Air Canada is a federally regulated transport carrier. It is the national airline. It was a crown corporation. It was privatized under the Public Participation Act. The spirit of that act and intent of that act were to make it an airline that worked for Canada and that had Canadians working for it, and that is why we are here.