Evidence of meeting #36 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
What is it? It's nine and seven.
4:30 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
Hold on. It's not $5.5 billion--that's the issue. The actual program is $9 billion plus $7 billion, and if we do the same offsets with this program that we did with the Hercules, we ought to have the opportunity for all of it.
4:30 p.m.
President, Directing Business Representative, Organizer, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - District 11
It seems that there's a little bit of time left.
A good example of when I'm talking about politics is the CL-415. That's the water bomber. I used to work on that plane. Can it put out forest fires quicker than a helicopter with a bucket? Why aren't the Americans buying it? Because it's politics. That plane makes much more sense for putting out forest fires in the United States, in California and all those states where they're having forest fire problems, but they're not buying it. Why aren't they buying it? It's because it's built here. It's not built there. There they figure more buckets, more jobs. Politically it's more intelligent for them not to buy this plane, even though it puts out forest fires much more quickly and is a much more effective aircraft. I'm confident we have the best technology to put out forest fires, but they're not buying it.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you very much.
I will give the floor to Mr. Boughen for five minutes.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Let me add my voice of welcome to my colleagues. Thank you for appearing before us.
I have a couple of questions for the gentlemen. Without a work order in place, we don't have any access. So we need an MOU that really leads the way, to get us in the door and make sure we have an opportunity to challenge for these contracts.
If I look at space, I'm not one of the guys who looks to the sky and sees aircraft. My claim to fame is I flew one time with the Snowbirds, but that was just a fun event. But when we look at airplanes and when we look back, Canada had the Arrow, which was the leading aircraft on the planet. I have no doubt in my mind, when I look at space and see a space arm, that we have the technology and the intellectual capacity to challenge any other country in the world, and we have the physical attributes to carry that off.
When I look at things like hockey and “Sid the Kid”, and all the rest of those things--there are hundreds of examples of expertise in this country, and aerospace is one of them, without any question.
Why would we hesitate in challenging for those contracts? We would be at the top of the ladder in getting those contracts because we have the people who can do the job. Is that a fair assessment?
4:35 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
That's absolutely a fair assessment. We can challenge for the jobs. The Avro Arrow is a great example, because that comes out of our plant. The problem is, who controlled the fate of the Avro Arrow? One can argue that the U.S. government demolished Canada's aerospace industry at the time. But the question isn't about the MOUs. I understand that we have to start somewhere, but I'm saying that if Israel was not a part of an MOU and they could get 150% to 180% offsets, how can we argue that we've done such an incredible job? If I listen to the previous comments, we might be able to get more than we invested. That's wonderful. But I would take the guaranteed investment and see if we can get anything over and above. That's all we're talking about. We're just talking about the best deal for the citizens of Canada in the way of jobs.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
How did Turkey get the contract? You said Turkey had a contract.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
Pratt & Whitney awarded it to them.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
We have to decide how that happened, and then we have to take that as a way of doing business, slap it on the table, and say, “Our turn.”
4:35 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
That's the key. There's one thing about awarding work to Canadian companies. There's something else saying, “I'm awarding you this work and you're creating jobs in Canada.” There's a difference.
4:35 p.m.
President, Directing Business Representative, Organizer, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - District 11
These companies subcontract it, and there's no guarantee for them. There's nothing stating that they have to keep the work here.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ray Boughen Conservative Palliser, SK
Then how, in your estimation, can we increase that guarantee, the probability of our getting the contracts? I agree with other speakers that this is paramount to this project. We're talking about billions of dollars of work here.
4:35 p.m.
President, Directing Business Representative, Organizer, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - District 11
I believe the only way would be negotiations with Lockheed Martin. We can't guarantee that here. The Canadian companies that are going to bid on the work can't guarantee it. I believe the only one that can guarantee it is Lockheed Martin.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
We talked about intellectual property and the request to do in-service support in Canada. I agree that we've done a great job with the F-18 and every other program we've had.
I'll go back to a comment I made before, that we need intellectual property to do that. I think that would be a fair statement. If we don't have the intellectual property, we can't do in-service support for our planes. We wouldn't have the information. If we're not in the MOU with the other eight partners, we have no access to the intellectual property. So if we're not in the MOU, we will not have the capacity to do in-service support. That's simply a fact.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
We're not debating whether we should be in or out of the MOU. We understand that you have to get your foot in the door. The question becomes, is it a great deal? Did you do a good enough job? Are there enough guarantees for Canadian workers? If we are going to have $16 billion worth of government procurement, are we getting the correct number of jobs for our $16 billion investment? That's what the issue is.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
You don't understand the value of the program, but that's okay.
4:35 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
Oh, I do. I've been in the aerospace sector for 30 years.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, following up on Mr. Braid's comment, if Mr. Chartrand wants to join the opposition, he's more than welcome any time.
4:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Where Mr. Dias is concerned, you wanted to respond to some comments that were made. I know Mr. Hawn likes to dissect the witnesses' responses, so I thought I'd give you the opportunity to respond to some of the issues. Clearly, our concern is about jobs; it's about economic benefits. If you have some information that has not been presented, that you'd like to put on the record, please proceed.
4:40 p.m.
President, Directing Business Representative, Organizer, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - District 11
I'd like to speak about the MOU. I believe that somebody is trying to make us justify getting into that MOU, right? We're not arguing whether it's the right thing or the wrong thing. What if the Canadian government had decided to buy an aircraft from Boeing? Would it have been the right decision to get in that MOU and to have invested all that money? That's pretty much what I have to say about that. I'm glad to be part of that technology. I'm glad that we may get a right to get some of those contracts. But what if the Canadian government had decided to go ahead and buy the Boeing aircraft?
