Evidence of meeting #30 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aveos.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you very much.
You currently have a legal opinion that you yourselves prepared. A legal opinion is used to interpret the provisions of an act. Do we agree on that?
In preparing the legal opinion, were the members and ministers who were in office in 1988 consulted?
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio, Department of Justice
The legal opinion was written by the Department of Justice, by me. It is an objective opinion based on the facts given to us.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Actually, the question I am asking you is the following: did you talk to Benoît Bouchard, who was Minister of Transport at the time of privatization?
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio, Department of Justice
No.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio, Department of Justice
No.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
How can you interpret an act today without having talked to those who prepared it in 1988, to find out what their opinion is?
10:10 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio, Department of Justice
We give our opinions on the basis of the act as written, on the basis of case law and on the basis, of course, of our knowledge and our experience. We do not consult politicians on what they may have thought at a certain time.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
A legal opinion is there to provide an interpretation. The interpretation of the people who designed the act, who created the act, who privatized Air Canada should have been a priority in forming a legal opinion.
A legal opinion is there to interpret the intention of the legislators. The legislators have publicly said that if they had known that the maintenance facilities would be taken out of the three cities, they would not have privatized Air Canada.
How can you believe a legal opinion is valid without having talked to the people behind that act, the people who wrote that act, to find out what their intention was?
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio, Department of Justice
I would say that, very generally, we do not consult politicians or members of Parliament who may have worked on the act at the time. We examine the act as it stands; we interpret it.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio, Department of Justice
The act has been in existence since that time.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
So, Benoît Bouchard and Don Mazankowski wrote the act, presented it and made the case for it. Mr. Bouchard has been quoted publicly, he has said himself that the intention of the act was clear, and you are coming to a different interpretation today.
How can you justify a different interpretation, not only from that of the Minister of Transport at the time of privatization, but also that of the Minister of Transport who was in place last year and who had the same interpretation as Mr. Bouchard had at the time?
10:15 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Regulatory Law Portfolio, Department of Justice
Once again, we provide an objective opinion based on the act as written.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Chair, I will give the rest of my time to Mr. Nicholls.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I'd like to move, Mr. Chair, that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities issue a summons for the appearance of Joe Kolshak, the president and CEO of Aveos, to appear before the committee on Tuesday, April 3, 2012, in relation to the study on the closure of Aveos Fleet Performance Inc.
The questions raised have been clear that the parliamentary secretary asked how the company ran through $1 billion in five years. Other members, such as Mr. Holder, have questions for Aveos. I think it's time to take legal action and ask Mr. Kolshak to come to answer questions that we as parliamentarians have for him.
I think it's our role as good public administrators to ask these questions of a company that has benefited from the hard work of its labourers and from the support of a private company, Air Canada, that used to be a crown corporation. We have valid questions to pose to the head of this company.
We would hope that all parties agree here today to summon Mr. Kolshak to the committee.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
For the sake of the committee, the motion is in order and is subject to debate.
I have Monsieur Poilievre and then I have Mr. Lamoureux.
Monsieur Poilievre.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
In a sense, Aveos has testified. The company's refusal to be here today indicates to us their unwillingness to explain themselves or to provide clarity as to how they burned through a billion dollars in five years and still went bankrupt.
We are not going to provide Aveos with a bailout; this government will not do that. It has been proposed, it has been rejected, and taxpayers cannot afford it. Frankly, to pull a billion dollars out of the economy to fund such a bailout would kill far more jobs than it would create.
As such, we are going to be voting against this motion.
Thank you.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
This has nothing to do with the motion, Mr. Chair. Mr. Poilievre is playing politics.
He's trying to paint the opposition as requesting a bailout, which is not contained in the motion whatsoever. No mention of a bailout is made in our motion, and therefore what Mr. Poilievre is saying presently does not pertain to this motion in particular.
We have a legal obligation and we have legal tools to call Mr. Kolshak to this committee.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's not a point of order; it is debate.
Mr. Poilievre, do you have a final comment?
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The reality is that we've heard the advice from our esteemed non-partisan public servants—who, by the way, are the best in the world. We've learned from this opinion that there is no provision under the Air Canada Public Participation Act to force Aveos back into operation.
The opposition claims it wants something done. The only remedy left to the opposition, given the aforementioned opinion, is a bailout.
The “billion dollar” number comes from the fact that this is the amount of money the company has burned through in the last five years. We are not prepared to support a billion-dollar bailout for a bankrupt company that refuses to explain itself before a parliamentary committee. Their testimony is their refusal to be here. It tells us everything we need to know.
Thank you.