This is my interpretation: I believe that you are doing indirectly what the law prohibits you from doing directly. You are a lawyer; so am I. That is a basic principle of law, you cannot do things indirectly. That is why Mr. McCallum was asking you questions about the installations that Aveos acquired in El Salvador. You are required to maintain overhaul centres in those three cities.
I quoted the letter of the law. As a lawyer, you know that there is also the spirit of the law. I did a little research at the Library of Parliament to read up on the discussions that were held in 1988 on Bill C-129, which dealt with this piece of legislation. Mr. Jeanniot, your former president, gave a very good description of what are maintenance and overhaul centres.
I will not have enough time to ask my last question, since my speaking time is almost up. Please consult page 118 of the debates of June 21, 1988. Please note that, Mr. Galimberti: I am referring to page 118 of the debates of the legislative committee, dated June 21, 1988, when Mr. Jeanniot gave a very good description of what are maintenance and overhaul centres. I am starting to become familiar with the issue.
Janet Smith, Deputy Minister of the Office of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs of Canada, also appeared on that occasion. Mr. Minaker, a conservation MP, said the following:
I have a question for those who are here to advise us. It is my understanding that section 7 will prohibit any future board of directors of the new corporation from manipulating the mandatory provisions set out in paragraphs 6.(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d), especially with regard to the overhaul centres located in Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal.
Would that section prohibit them from doing anything in the future? This is 2010, we are in the future.
Here's what Ms. Smith answered:
That is correct. Moreover, paragraph 6.(1)(a) prohibits them from, let us say, incorporating in a province in order to circumvent the regulation.
To circumvent a regulation means to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.
Ms. Smith concluded her response as follows:
There can be no transfer of jurisdiction.
Then, Mr. Minaker added this:
If I am not mistaken, neither can they do that through a two-thirds majority vote...
Ms. Smith then specified the following:
The only way for them to do so is for someone to amend the act.
That is why I first asked you whether the act was still in effect and whether it had been amended. The answer is no. I will continue to speak out about this, and I hope that the other parties will support me: Air Canada is doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.
In your presentation, you said that Aeroman did not have the required certification. What would prevent it from being certified? You concluded by saying that Air Canada had absolutely no intention of sending any airframe maintenance work to Aeroman, now or in the future.
What guaranties do you have to that effect? Are we to take your word for it?