Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, what I'd like to do is to try, as much as possible, to simplify the issue.
I'm not a lawyer myself. I do believe in the rule of law. I do believe that whether an individual or a corporation breaks the law, there should be some justice that comes out of it.
There's a sense of frustration. The workers of Aveos, who were formerly Air Canada employees, feel that there has not been any justice, that their government has let them down.
Let's look at what the law actually says. This is paragraph 6(1)(d): “...provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain operational and overhaul centres in the City of Winnipeg, the Montreal Urban Community and the City of Mississauga”.
Now, for the average worker, including myself as someone who is concerned about the worker, we read that and interpret it as meaning that Air Canada is obligated to maintain those overhaul centres. Then Air Canada kind of privatizes and pushes that responsibility over to Aveos. A court then makes a decision that because Aveos is now there, Air Canada is indirectly keeping those jobs.
Many of the workers were not pleased with that court ruling, but they could at least understand the ruling. Aveos now is disappearing. The law saying that those jobs are supposed to be there is still in place. How else can the employees interpret the fact that, on the surface, it would appear there is a violation of the law?
If we go back to the time when the law was put into order, this was what was actually said on April 12, 1988, by Minister Don Mazankowski, the Conservative government's Deputy Prime Minister and former transportation minister, who introduced the bill in question. There are five quick points I will quote:
1. Maintenance and Overhaul Centres in Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto are fundamental to the success of Air Canada; 2. None of these Centres will lose its importance; 3. The Centres will continue to expand; 4. The company fleet maintenance will continue to be done at those locations; 5. The Act would have to be amended if there were going to be any modification concerning the transfer of Air Canada's Overhaul Centres to another location.
Now, if I am an employee and I look at that, that sounds pretty much sealed. I realize that you can get a legal opinion on anything, on different opinions. It really seems to confuse things.
You represent the federal government. Is your recommendation to the federal government that Air Canada is in compliance with the intent and the law itself?