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.
4:50 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
We understand that, but here's the difference, sir. When we did the MOU with the F-18, we got a heck of a lot more jobs guaranteed than we are, based on proportion, with this size of a contract. I'm saying if you can get access to the intellectual property with the F-18--
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
I'm going to give the floor to the last member for five minutes. Go ahead, Mrs. Gallant.
November 25th, 2010 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Through you to our witnesses, first of all, I'd like to say that I truly admire the passion with which you represent your members. That's something we can all feel and appreciate, because we do that ourselves.
I want to give you a little background, because it's evident that you haven't had the same information that we have been receiving ad nauseam for weeks.
There was a tendering process that went on about a decade ago. In fact, a previous government started the process, and all the nations that are currently participants put money towards deciding what the best technology would be. They put that out for bids at that time. That was the tendering process.
My colleague, Mr. Hawn, went through the aspect of the memorandum of understanding. In order to have access to the intellectual property so that our workers in Canada can do that work, they have to be a part of that memorandum of understanding. But part of that memorandum of understanding forbids the IRBs. The IRBs are being done through a different process altogether. It's the same end result that we're trying to achieve by ensuring that the participating nations are all going to have jobs equivalent or proportional to their purchases, but it's just not the same system that we're used to in Canada.
I have to agree with Mr. Chartrand about the risk in losing a capability. Thanks to your testimony today, that will certainly go into our deliberations and any further negotiations that go into the next phase of the purchasing.
During the decade of darkness, we lost capabilities, and it's taken us a decade to get these back. I'll tell you about a scenario. It was August in the summer of 2001. Some members of this committee back then were visiting Bosnia, and the parliamentary secretary of the day was talking about how they had removed all the mortar launchers from the troop carriers because they were at the point now in the world that things were going more peacefully in Bosnia. The idea was that we had the peace dividend and didn't need these anymore. One month later, 9/11 happened, and we had let things go for so long that we weren't ready for what the world is faced with now. We had mothballed our tanks. We had gotten rid of the airborne regiment. It was expedient to do so because there had been some trouble in their ranks. They were trying to cut money and just got rid of the regiment altogether.
When I got here in 2000, the first campaign, really, in this committee was to bring back the airborne. We never got the airborne, but we did get the capability back. Having a group of special operations forces was six years in the making. They call them CSOR now, the Canadian Special Operations Regiment. They can respond rapidly, they can jump from planes to deploy to where they have to be, and they're self-sustaining.
We do understand, and we thank you for what you're telling us about the risk of losing a capability. I just want to express my appreciation for what you brought to this meeting today. I don't really have any questions, because you've given us such full testimony.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you very much.
I also want to thank our witnesses, because they believe in what they believe. They believe in people and they think they must be in a union to succeed, and that's great--
4:50 p.m.
Assistant to the National President, Canadian Auto Workers Union
We just think it helps.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Yes. You think it's.... It's all right, then. It's why all the members appreciated this discussion that we had today. It was very alive.
Thank you for being with us. Next time we can have a debate on another subject.
4:50 p.m.
President, Directing Business Representative, Organizer, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - District 11
It'll be our pleasure.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you very much, Mr. Chartrand.
I would also like to thank Mr. Dias. Thank you for being here and for participating in the debate with the members of the committee. I believe they really appreciated it. We are very grateful. Thank you very much. We hope you have a great day and we wish you continued success.
The meeting will be suspended for two minutes.
4:58 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Order.
We're going to continue with the work of the committee.
Mr. Bachand, the floor is yours.
4:58 p.m.
Conservative
4:58 p.m.
Conservative
4:58 p.m.
A voice
We can't say much.
4:58 p.m.
The Clerk Mr. Jean-François Lafleur
If that is the committee's wish.
4:58 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Is it the committee's wish to go in camera?
I'm asking the committee.
4:58 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
We're only going to say an ending to Bryon's quote, which you heard in question period. We will not say anything else.
Even if we go in camera, we will say very little more. But if you want a little more, then go in camera.
4:58 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would like our discussion to remain public. I never have anything to hide from the public.
4:58 p.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I am going to read my motion, Mr. Chair:
That, following the appearance of the four companies...
I am going to change it so that it just says “the companies”, since I believe we have received five and I wouldn't want to get stuck because of a silly technicality. Let me start again:
That, following the appearance of the companies regarding search and rescue aircraft, the Committee ask the Ministers of Defence, Industry and Public Works and Government Services to appear to provide an update to the Committee.
I will leave it as is for now, but I know that my friends from the Liberal Party would like to propose a “friendly” amendment. Given that I am all for friendship, I agree with their amendment.
Go ahead, my dear friends.
