Evidence of meeting #53 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was centres.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Vice-President, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Local lodge 1751
My pay is about $60,000.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
So we're talking about 4,500 jobs at an average wage of $60,000. That is what's at stake.
I'm going to tell you the solution that the Bloc Québécois might propose and tell me whether you agree. You can always start a legal action, but in our opinion, and I hope my Conservative colleagues and all the other parties understand clearly, that would really call for an amendment to the legislation so that even if part of Air Canada's assets is sold, it will still have an obligation to maintain the jobs in Canada. Today we are talking about your jobs, but the same thing could happen at the head office. They might leave just a commissionaire to unlock the door of a closet somewhere in Montreal and say they still have a head office in Montreal. If the commissionaire speaks French and English, the official languages obligation is maintained. At the moment, Air Canada is doing indirectly what the act doesn't allow it to do directly. That is shameful. It would take an amendment to the legislation. I haven't had time to draft one because I'm coming out of another meeting. What do you think of an amendment to the legislation in which it would say in black and white that even if Air Canada divests itself of certain assets, it is not relieved of the legal obligations set out in the 1988 act?
Vice-President, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Local lodge 1751
I more or less agree, Mr. Guimond.
I would like to take you back to 1988. I am going to read a passage from our brief slowly so that everyone understands.
"Conservative MP George Minaker [who wanted to win his seat in Winnipeg because this was during the run-up to an election] stated in response to the unions, including the International Association of Machinists, that the Act protects us and the employees from any attempt [and I am weighing my words here] by Air Canada to get rid of or to sell [I repeat: sell] its operational and overhaul centres."
In our opinion, Air Canada is acting illegally. This is an illegal sale. That is what the act says and that is what was said in 1988.
Secretary-Treasurer , International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Local lodge 1751
It is clear and plain to us.
Let me add something in relation to jobs. We're talking about 4,500 jobs. But if you observe how Air Canada has been managed since ACE came into being, you will see that everything has been sold piece by piece. For example, the company wants to get rid of mechanics. Next time, it will be customer service or baggage handlers, and there are 6,000 or 7,000 of them.
Air Canada's objective is to make maximum profits in minimum time. We think it is a sure thing that the next step will be customer service. It will want to get rid of 6,000 or 7,000 employees making nearly $20 an hour, to cut wages to $10 an hour. Is it going to stop there? What we think is that the company will go as far as it can to eliminate as many jobs as possible.
There's a problem. We came here today to meet with you to defend jobs in Canada, to preserve the economy and the aviation industry in Canada. It is inconceivable that we should be here debating this, even though the act is clear and plain.
I am wondering what answer the Conservative government is going to have for the Air Canada employees in Alberta, who work in Calgary and who are going to be laid off, and the ones in Winnipeg, Manitoba? Some people here in the room today come from various regions of the country.
What answer is it going to have for the ones who live in Vancouver, British Columbia, and the ones in Ontario, in Toronto and Mississauga, who work for Air Canada and who are going to lose their living?
What answer is it going to have for the ones in Montreal, in Quebec City or in Halifax, in the Maritimes? It is going to say that they just have to endure global competition while letting passenger safety deteriorate.
What is it going to say to Air Canada passengers when they board a plane? Is the government going to say it's sorry they're taking a plane that is no longer as safe as before but it costs Air Canada less?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I would really ask that we don't shout, because I can't hear you. I don't understand a word you're saying because of translation, to be very blunt. As soon as you raise your voice and start talking like that, it just doesn't come through. So please, when you answer my questions, just keep it down. Thank you.
I want to confirm something with you. I've lived in Alberta my entire life, pretty much, in a town that has grown from 1,500 to 100,000 people and that is, to be honest, one of the hottest job markets in the world for good jobs--$150,000 to $160,000 a year for driving a truck, as I think you know. I don't want to see any jobs leave Canada either. Nobody wants to see that. So just to be clear on that, I don't think anybody is interested in that at all. But what I don't get is....
I mean, with respect, Mr. Gélinas said that a legislative change is necessary, and I'm not really sure...because you said the legislation is clear.
That's what you just said, right? The legislation is clear.
Now, my understanding of the legislation and the privity of contract between Air Canada and its shareholders....
Are any of you shareholders of Air Canada, first of all?
Vice-President, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - Local lodge 1751
No, not me.
Conservative
secrétaire archiviste, Association internationale des machinistes et des travailleurs et travailleuses de l'aérospatiale - Section locale 1751
Oui.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Okay. One shareholder.
I don't know if you're aware of it, Mr. Guay, but as a shareholder you can sue Air Canada and make them comply with ACPPA.
secrétaire archiviste, Association internationale des machinistes et des travailleurs et travailleuses de l'aérospatiale - Section locale 1751
Yes. Maybe.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Why don't you do that? Then you wouldn't have to be here today.
Any shareholder, in fact, can do that. I think there are about 100 million outstanding shares, so literally one million or two million people in Canada can make Air Canada comply with the clear act that was specified before.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
He doesn't own shares.
So why don't you just go and do that?
secrétaire archiviste, Association internationale des machinistes et des travailleurs et travailleuses de l'aérospatiale - Section locale 1751
It's an approach we have considered, bringing action against Air Canada. But why should I, as a shareholder, have to take that step when an order in council was made in 1989, a year after the act was passed? It designates the Minister of Finance as...
--I'll read it in English--“Order Designating the Minister of Finance as Minister for Purposes of the Act”. He's in charge of the law.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand that, but we're talking about a legal system--
secrétaire archiviste, Association internationale des machinistes et des travailleurs et travailleuses de l'aérospatiale - Section locale 1751
We're asking him to pursue Air Canada.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand that, sir, but obviously you pursued that avenue, so you know that avenue's available to you.
secrétaire archiviste, Association internationale des machinistes et des travailleurs et travailleuses de l'aérospatiale - Section locale 1751
Yes.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
You say it's a clear act. You want Air Canada to comply with the spirit of the law of ACPPA, which clearly you can do. You have the privity of contract to do it. I can't. I don't own Air Canada shares. I'm not allowed to. But you can. So why don't you do it?
What did your lawyers tell you? Can you share with us why you're not doing it?
secrétaire archiviste, Association internationale des machinistes et des travailleurs et travailleuses de l'aérospatiale - Section locale 1751
Absolutely. Why should I spend my money when the act is not respected by the government and the Minister of Finance himself?
He was put in charge by that order in council, by the Treasury Board of Canada. But he is not enforcing the act.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Even you have said clearly here in this room that people are divided on whether it's clear or not.
I've been here for all the meetings, every single second of them, and my understanding is they do comply with the act. I believe they do. You don't believe they do, so why don't you get a court to interpret whether they do or not? It's not suing. You can get an order to compel them to comply with ACPPA. Why don't you just do that? It seems like a fairly simple thing. There's one judge. You go in with a statement of claim and file it for $210. You go in and say, “Listen, I want Air Canada to comply with this act. They don't comply. Please make them comply.” A thousand bucks later, two thousand bucks later, you're done; you've won everything and you're done.
With 23,000 or so union members in the country, why don't you get a dollar each from them and there you go? You have $23,000 to--
Conservative
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Chair, Mr. Jean is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Is he reflecting to members of the committee, to the witnesses, and to the general public of Canada that this is indeed the position of the Government of Canada?
Conservative
