This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Marc Garneau Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Air Canada Public Participation Act to provide that Air Canada’s articles of continuance contain a requirement that it carry out aircraft maintenance activities in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba and to provide for certain other measures related to that obligation.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport
Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
Because Quebec and Manitoba decided to drop their lawsuit against Air Canada, we were able to make amendments to the Air Canada Public Participation Act, through Bill C-10. That is what we are doing.
However, I remind my colleague that Air Canada is still required to perform maintenance in Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians are very concerned about the government's position on support for the aerospace industry, which is extremely important to our economy.
When we recently asked the Minister of Transport why he had pushed through Bill C-10 under a gag order, he said that it was to make Air Canada more competitive.
Will the minister finally admit that he is leaving the door wide open for Air Canada to sacrifice good-quality jobs here in Canada?
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Okay.
My last question, Madam Chair, if I may, is this: do you think, when you look at the overall sector, that there is a bigger issue attached to this? Is there a bigger issue attached to this, not with respect to just Bill C-10, but to actually being able to sustain the industry in a broader manner?
If I may, I am going to say that we can engage in this kind of debate, which is good for the gallery, but the real reason we are here is to say that the legislation guaranteed jobs in Canada, and to sound the alarm because 2,600 of our jobs have been exported outside the country. If Bill C-10 is passed, then a year from now, another 2,400 jobs will disappear. I think you need to be aware of the situation. We are telling you that this is the reality. You can dodge the problem if you like, but you will be accountable for your actions if you do.
We went to court to have the legislation interpreted. Six judges in Quebec have interpreted it the same way. We had got to the stage of enforcing the judgment when the president of Air Canada came before you to make threats, saying that he was not sure he would give Bombardier a contract if you refused to amend the legislation. That is shameless blackmail. As guardians of the public interest, you have to rise above partisan politics and determine whether or not jobs will be lost if Bill C-10 is passed. The answer is yes. I hope my words are being recorded. If you pass this bill, we will repeat what happened, over and over again, when we lose all of our jobs.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Poirier, I have never seen a new business project start up with no money. Honestly, I was a little surprised to hear that.
I am pleased to see you here again. You have been patient, and for that, I thank you. I think it is important. There are things we need to hear.
A little earlier, you said you had heard a number of ministers, who were in opposition at the time, tell you all sorts of things or make all sorts of promises concerning Aveos. This past March, Mr. Garneau said that Bill C-10 was good news for the aerospace industry. From your testimony today, I understand that is not the case.
How many of you and others who are in the room were present when Mr. Trudeau made his speech in the House of Commons, on Parliament Hill. Could you stand up?
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
At present, the big maintenance, repair, and overhaul centres are outside Canada. The biggest of those centres in Canada, Aveos, has been closed. It was closed and it no longer exists. Air Canada decided to sign agreements with its friends at Star Alliance and have the maintenance on its planes done outside the country.
Do you think a company like Lufthansa is going to come and open an aircraft hangar here when it can put its employees in Germany to work? Do you think Air France is going to put people to work here? No, those companies are going to put their workers in their countries to work. Air Canada made a business decision when it said it was over.
We have something to propose to you, and you are part of this plan. You could act as arbitrator and tell us to be as competitive as Air France, and give us a list of costs and we would do the work at that cost. We are prepared to present a business case. Give us 12 months, and we will present you with one. In the meantime, shelve Bill C-10.
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you guys for your patience today.
When I met with machinists in Winnipeg and asked if they had been consulted by the federal government before Bill C-10 was tabled, it was a clear no. I think what we've heard from you today was a clear no. We had the minister here on Tuesday. He said that he didn't talk to Air Canada about this before presenting the bill. Today we heard Air Canada resist saying that they had meaningful exchanges with the government on Bill C-10. It's a significant decision for the aerospace industry in Canada, yet there seems to have been no consultation.
Can you guys speak to what this means with respect to the government's ability to leverage getting that kind of work here in Canada in the future?
Québec Coordinator, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada
We urge this committee to send Bill C-10 back to the House with the following recommendations:
Remove the new subsection (4) pertaining to maintenance activities. We ask that the jobs and this industry be maintained in Canada and that the government continue to invest in and support the maintenance, repair and overhaul industry in Canada.
In conclusion, we ask this committee to put forward and support these recommendations.
President and Directing General Chairman, District Lodge 140, Richmond, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada
This bill allows Air Canada to focus on a race to the bottom and not on protecting jobs in the industry for future Canadians. This bill makes us wonder whether the government has given up on the aviation sector in Canada. We wonder if the government has given up on good jobs this sector can provide across the country. We wonder if corporate profits have become more important than good jobs to this government.
We urge this committee to send Bill C-10 back to the House with the following recommendations.
One, we recommend that the proposed new subsection 6(4) on maintenance activities be removed, and two, we ask that the jobs and this industry be maintained in Canada and that the government continue to invest in and support the MRO industry in Canada.
In conclusion, we ask that this committee put forward and support these recommendations.
Fred Hospes President and Directing General Chairman, District Lodge 140, Richmond, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada
We'll both be speaking.
Good evening. My name is Fred Hospes. I'm the president and directing general chairperson of the transportation district 140 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. I am here today with Dave Chartrand. I am the Quebec coordinator.
We thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before you to present our views on Bill C-10.
The IAM is the largest union at Air Canada and represents approximately 8,000 workers. When Air Canada was privatized in 1988 through the Air Canada Public Participation Act, we raised our concerns that Air Canada would move its maintenance and overhaul operations outside of Canada. The Progressive Conservative government of the day responded with legislation requiring Air Canada to maintain operational and overhaul centres in Montreal, Mississauga, and Winnipeg. In addition, the government and Air Canada stated publicly that the act guaranteed that aircraft heavy maintenance overhaul employment would be maintained and even grow in those communities.
Following the Aveos bankruptcy in 2012, the majority of Air Canada's aircraft heavy maintenance overhaul work was done outside of Canada. Make no mistake: we also represent the 2,600 Aveos workers who lost their jobs.
We have serious concerns with the introduction of Bill C-10. In particular, proposed subsection 6(4) of the act explicitly allows Air Canada to “change the type or volume of any or all of” its aircraft maintenance work “as well as the level of employment”.
Serge Cadieux General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My name is Serge Cadieux and I am the General Secretary of the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec.
The FTQ is a union with 600,000 members in Quebec, more than 20,000 of whom are aerospace employees. They manufacture and maintain aircraft and aircraft components, work as cabin crew members or pilots, or are employed in airports.
The FTQ recently intervened in this area by filing a motion with the Quebec Superior Court against Air Canada regarding the maintenance and overhaul of its aircraft. Our motion requesting an injunction was the only possible way to force Air Canada to comply with its legal obligations and to respect the unanimous decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
Now, unexpectedly, the federal government has tabled Bill C-10. That is why we are here before you today. We are here to ask you to choose the jobs and health of the aerospace industry as a whole over this bad Bill C-10.
All of Quebec understands today why Boeing is supported by the U.S. federal government and Airbus by the European governments. The people understand that Bombardier cannot be an international player without strong government support. They understand that aerospace is not an industry like any other. It is strategic. An industrial sector may be strategic for many valid reasons, such as national security, the impact on the economy, or jobs. Canada got it right by supporting its automobile industry.
Similarly, it must be understood that the gradual disappearance of Canadian expertise in heavy maintenance of aircraft is a step backward for a strategic industry, a step backward that will have a negative impact on thousands of workers, whose jobs will be either exported or made precarious. In fact, that is what the real issue is with Bill C-10. By proposing an amendment to sections 1 and 6 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act and repealing the provision requiring Air Canada to maintain operational and overhaul centres in Montreal, Winnipeg and Mississauga, the government is siding with Air Canada, which has already outsourced the 2,600 heavy maintenance jobs at Aveos.
Worse still, by doing so, it is endangering another 2,500 Canadian jobs in the field of aerospace maintenance. To do their job properly, MPs should ask Air Canada where the 2,600 jobs at Aveos went, why they were exported, and if the expertise needed to maintain its fleet of aircraft is available in Canada. The answers to these questions will reveal that the jobs did not go to China or Honduras, but to the United States and Israel, that they were exported to create added value for Air Canada’s shareholders, and that all the expertise needed is available right here in Canada. This Parliament, which is invested with the mission of defending Canada’s public and national interests, can choose either to create and maintain employment for thousands of workers, thereby benefiting the workers, their families and their communities, or to ratify the plans made by Air Canada’s shareholders for their own interests. The public must also know that aircraft maintenance and overhaul operations help maintain an important pool of expertise for the development of the aerospace industry.
Aircraft development and maintenance are related. No one could imagine building cars without having garages to repair them in. The aerospace sector is as important for Quebec as the automobile industry is for Ontario. Montreal is the third largest world aerospace centre after Toulouse and Seattle. More than 41,000 jobs in 235 companies create 2% of Quebec's GDP. The concentration of expertise, the availability of capital and the existence of complementary companies support an exceptional industry cluster that must be protected by public authorities. By allowing the exportation of maintenance jobs, Bill C-10 is weakening one of the links in the industrial chain. We find this government negligence difficult to understand.
In closing, today, we are urging you to give jobs a chance. We believe that we have what it takes to get Canada's aircraft heavy maintenance jobs back. We have the necessary expertise. The aerospace industry needs to keep that expertise, and we can be as competitive as any other country.
There is therefore no need to change the current legislation. This industrial sector provides a safeguard against the exportation of quality jobs. It is also a deliberate choice made by Canadian legislators to protect jobs rather than to kowtow to shareholders. We cannot fault senior management at Air Canada for doing what they need to do to perform as demanded by their shareholders, but we can certainly reproach the government and Parliament for failing to safeguard the interests of the majority.
The will to keep Air Canada's maintenance and overhaul centres in designated cities meets national geopolitical imperatives and safeguards the Canadianness of the company by firmly anchoring it in certain regions of the country.
By enacting Bill C-10, Parliament will be sending the message that growth and wealth, even at the expense of jobs, are more important than jobs and the national geopolitical imperatives and Canadianness mentioned in the original text.
The FTQ thanks the committee for allowing us to appear today.
Jean Poirier Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to appear before you today on behalf of the 2,600 Canadian workers and their families who were affected by the illegal closure of Air Canada’s overhaul centres in March 2012.
My name is Jean Poirier. I am the official spokesperson for the association. My purpose here today is to convince you not to approve Bill C-10, which would confer the stamp of legality upon what is currently an illegal act. In addition, I am here especially to make you understand the vital need to retain a cutting-edge economic sector that is the envy of many countries throughout the world: our aircraft overhaul industry.
In the past four years, 355 of Air Canada’s aircraft have been illegally repaired in foreign countries. Air Canada’s overhaul centres were profit-makers before the company was sold to Aveos in 2007 and before former Nortel Networks managers and the American investment funds KKR and Sageview Capital got hold of it.
The workers who were put out on the street in 2012 are the same workers who were generating profits in 2007. The only things that changed during the Aveos years are: the new management and shareholders demonstrated that they had no knowledge of the industry, and Air Canada proved that it was willing to outsource this work to other countries. They destroyed Canada’s leadership in this sector. The workers stayed the same: workers with acknowledged expertise, a positive attitude and, especially, a passion for aviation work. It is important to understand that people who choose to become aviation technicians are looking for more than just a job: they want the opportunity to work in a field they love. Ask any of the students and they will tell you they are there because they are passionate about aircraft. And if you ask them why they are dropping out, they will undoubtedly tell you it is because of the government’s willingness to outsource those jobs. You are sending quite a message to our young people.
After Aveos closed in 2012, two companies set up shop in the Montreal area and picked up the pieces of some of Aveos’ divisions. Both companies are now turning a profit and have hired Aveos’ former employees despite the fact that they are not receiving any contracts from Air Canada. These companies knew how to draw upon the expertise of our workers to develop a profitable business model with foreign contracts.
Today, 2,600 workers are paying for its illegal action with the disruption of their lives, of the well-being of their families and of their financial security. In addition, the federal and provincial governments have been deprived of tax revenue from those workers. If the federal government considered it important to keep specialized jobs in Canada in 1988, why isn’t that no longer the case today, in light of the fact that economic growth continues to slow in both Canada and Quebec? Air Canada was built on taxpayer money. The income tax collected from Canadian workers contributes to our collective wealth, and today Bill C-10 is giving all of those taxpayers the brush-off. And who will gain from all this? Air Canada shareholders, who lined their pockets when this company was dismantled and who now, despite two firm court decisions, will be absolved of all wrongdoing.
Despite our fight to make ourselves heard, we can acknowledge that we have listened to your arguments. What you say is this: the aeronautics sector is a key part of our economic growth in Canada; we must absolutely find a way to provide complete overhaul services to Air Canada at competitive prices; and Air Canada has no wish to go back to being a maintenance service provider. You now have before you a brief with a job creation plan that meets those three criteria. The solution is in your hands.
Today, members of the committee, we are appearing before you as people who want, more than anything else, to find a win-win relationship for everyone. We want to have our jobs back, we want Air Canada to be competitive, and we want the economy in Canada and Quebec to regain traction in the aeronautics sector, where we have always been world leaders. I would like to see you go back to the basics of your political commitment, that is, to serve the nation and to serve Canadians—not to serve the interests of shareholders for whom our country’s economic development is an afterthought. Their primary interest is making money, while your primary concern should be the well-being and growth of your community.
Imagine a public corporation paid for by tax payers being privatized so it could grow and expand, only to drop 2,600 jobs illegally, with your assistance. Imagine that that corporation was in your riding, and that it was people you knew who lost their jobs: your friends, your family, your volunteers, your neighbours. Now imagine that this is a bad dream, and that a solution is within reach and that this solution will only be achieved if we all work together to ensure it succeeds.
To conclude, I will leave you with a few words by Franklin D. Roosevelt who said that “democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.”
Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Rheault, I'm going to stop you there. I don't want to know what happens, but what you discussed. I want to know if, following agreements with the two provinces, you asked the government to speed up the process to pass Bill C-10.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Rheault, could you tell me if the government's intention to pass a bill that would repeal Air Canada's obligation of maintaining the centres as they existed before the introduction of Bill C-10 was addressed during those meetings?
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thank you, and I'll be sharing my time.
Was it the amendments to Bill C-10 that allowed you to purchase the C Series?