Evidence of meeting #11 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was jobs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
That might be your job, as—
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
If I may, hold on. I'm going back to the question. Why are Canadian companies not bidding on some of these contracts?
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
At present, the big maintenance, repair, and overhaul centres are outside Canada. The biggest of those centres in Canada, Aveos, has been closed. It was closed and it no longer exists. Air Canada decided to sign agreements with its friends at Star Alliance and have the maintenance on its planes done outside the country.
Do you think a company like Lufthansa is going to come and open an aircraft hangar here when it can put its employees in Germany to work? Do you think Air France is going to put people to work here? No, those companies are going to put their workers in their countries to work. Air Canada made a business decision when it said it was over.
We have something to propose to you, and you are part of this plan. You could act as arbitrator and tell us to be as competitive as Air France, and give us a list of costs and we would do the work at that cost. We are prepared to present a business case. Give us 12 months, and we will present you with one. In the meantime, shelve Bill C-10.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Okay, so my last question is going to your point. I'm glad you answered the question that way, because to some extent that's what we're trying to do here. When we look at the centres of excellence, they are an attempt, when I read into it, to do exactly what you're saying. It's to create a critical mass, to give an ability to a company, a centre of excellence, and then to accrue over time a critical mass in terms of expertise.
It goes back to my first question about sustainable human resources. You have the critical mass in terms of those 600-plus employees who are being educated and who are coming into the market. You have the ability with that critical mass to do the work, and therefore you are able to tender on the work because you have the human resources. You have the ability not only to maintain the assets that are being managed by Air Canada, but you also have an opportunity to maintain the assets from other companies.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
Mr. Poirier, keep it short—a short answer for a tough question.
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
I would simply like to say that companies like A. J. Walter Aviation and Lockheed Martin, which produce components, will go there automatically. They will no longer go anywhere else. That is the solution and it will not cost you a cent to do that. You only have to act as arbitrator to ensure that the prices are as competitive as elsewhere.
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
It will cost you a bit of money, but that is another story. We will talk about that later.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Poirier, I have never seen a new business project start up with no money. Honestly, I was a little surprised to hear that.
I am pleased to see you here again. You have been patient, and for that, I thank you. I think it is important. There are things we need to hear.
A little earlier, you said you had heard a number of ministers, who were in opposition at the time, tell you all sorts of things or make all sorts of promises concerning Aveos. This past March, Mr. Garneau said that Bill C-10 was good news for the aerospace industry. From your testimony today, I understand that is not the case.
How many of you and others who are in the room were present when Mr. Trudeau made his speech in the House of Commons, on Parliament Hill. Could you stand up?
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
I was there. I could even tell you an anecdote about it.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
One moment, Mr. Poirier. I know you have a lot of things to say.
At that time, to the Liberals, it was important to preserve the obligations and the quality of the maintenance work, and that involved centres here in Canada. Am I interpreting what went on correctly?
Mr. Chartrand can answer to begin, and then it will be Mr. Poirier's turn.
Québec Coordinator, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada
It is exactly as you said.
Justin Trudeau's remarks at that time were that this country's wealth is not extracted from the soil; it comes from the hard work and minds of the workers. Today, however, the government is doing the complete opposite.
The Prime Minister, Mr. Garneau, and Mr. Dion, and a number of other members have said that the company broke the law and the government had to bring it to heel, but that was not done. Today, instead of requiring this company to do what it should do, the government is legalizing a certain way of doing things by bringing in a bill.
General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
If I may, I am going to say that we can engage in this kind of debate, which is good for the gallery, but the real reason we are here is to say that the legislation guaranteed jobs in Canada, and to sound the alarm because 2,600 of our jobs have been exported outside the country. If Bill C-10 is passed, then a year from now, another 2,400 jobs will disappear. I think you need to be aware of the situation. We are telling you that this is the reality. You can dodge the problem if you like, but you will be accountable for your actions if you do.
We went to court to have the legislation interpreted. Six judges in Quebec have interpreted it the same way. We had got to the stage of enforcing the judgment when the president of Air Canada came before you to make threats, saying that he was not sure he would give Bombardier a contract if you refused to amend the legislation. That is shameless blackmail. As guardians of the public interest, you have to rise above partisan politics and determine whether or not jobs will be lost if Bill C-10 is passed. The answer is yes. I hope my words are being recorded. If you pass this bill, we will repeat what happened, over and over again, when we lose all of our jobs.
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
Concerning Mr. Trudeau, we did not twist his arm to come with us. He came on his own initiative. At that time, I was working on this with Denis Coderre and Mr. Trudeau came to see me and said: "Jean, I want to go and see the workers. Jean, we have to meet simply to address this issue." At the time, he found the situation to be disgusting.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Cadieux, you beat me to my next question, because you have put your finger right on the problem.
What I wanted to say is that, when the time comes to make decisions that affect the workers, the idea is not just to impress the gallery; we have to be able to act and to make good decisions.
You have made us aware of the dangers of job losses and that is what I have taken away from your presentations. That is also what I take away from your last remarks, and that is exactly what I wanted to get to. That is the reason why I told you it is easy for politicians to put on shows, but today, what is being done? I noticed that the word "may" that appears in the bill causes you considerable concern. Is it sufficient to change only the word "may" in the bill, or must Bill C-10 in its present form be simply withdrawn? Even Ms. Anglade has asked us not to pass this bill. I also noted the remarks by the Air Canada representatives concerning Bombardier. I think it is important to know your opinion so we can then share it in the House.
Mr. Cadieux could answer, and we could then go around the table.
General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
I have one failing in my life: I am a lawyer by training. When an enactment says "may", it means something may be done, and it may also not be done.
It means that Air Canada is given complete discretion as to whether or not to preserve the jobs. When I saw the fancy footwork and the answers I heard from the two Air Canada representatives, I was not reassured, particularly because the legislation was clear: Air Canada had to keep maintenance services in the three large Canadian cities and it failed to do so. Now Air Canada is being given complete freedom to subcontract those jobs.
If you read between the lines even the least bit, it is clear that the two representatives who came here told you that the jobs must be competitive and the wages must be competitive. Someone asked the question of whether wages are the only thing at issue and whether the unions should lower their wage demands. They certainly did not say no. Last year, Air Canada negotiated a reopening of the collective agreement to get two wage scales. A pilot at Jazz earns $38,000 a year. That is a lower wage than a Montreal city bus driver. At some point, it has to stop.
Québec Coordinator, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada
To add to that, don't forget that the workers have made $2 billion worth of concessions to keep their jobs in Canada.
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
Politics should never be mixed with legal issues.
There are two clear judgments, and that took four years. These people suffered for four years. There are people who have died. The Castonguay judgment is clear: the aircraft have to be overhauled. Air Canada has to bring its fleet of 400 planes back here.
At present, we are here to find a solution. I have presented you with a solution. We simply have to have collaboration between yourselves and the government of Quebec to revive a sector in the aerospace industry that may disappear forever. The airplane overhaul sector is not the Bombardier sector. Bombardier builds airplanes. It is the airplane overhaul sector that some people are trying to sell off today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay. Thank you very much.
You may have a couple of short questions, Mr. Badawey.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to go back to our discussion, Mr. Poirier, and give you the opportunity to finish up what you were telling me when you were cut off. If you want to continue on the question I asked earlier, you're more than welcome.
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
I come back again to the plan we have submitted to you.
We simply want a pause, a 12-month suspension, in the examination of Bill C-10. We want to sit down with you and discuss it. We want you to act as arbitrator in the dispute between us and Air Canada so the list of our demands—which I will not read, since you have them in front of you—is known. We will need the help of Transport Canada. At present, there are people who no longer have their aircraft maintenance technician licence. That would be simple to solve.
People are working alongside me to make our plan achievable. If we submit a good business plan to you, then, like any good federal government and any good provincial government, you are going to help us financially, for example, if we need to buy equipment. We do not need a lot of specialized equipment to start the hub up again, because A. J. Walter Aviation and Lockheed Martin are behind us. So together, we can succeed.
I appear before you today so that we can find a solution. I am asking you to suspend the examination of Bill C-10 and discuss an agreement.
General Secretary, Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec
I would like to add one point that we have to be aware of.
When we read Air Canada's financial statements, we see that it is making profits. Mr. Chartrand mentioned that a few minutes ago. The problem is that Air Canada comes and tells you that it wants to do even more to satisfy its shareholders. Your job, however, is not to satisfy the shareholders of this company; it is to serve the public interest. You are representatives of the public.
Certainly, capitalists want to make more money. I have nothing against capitalists, but your duty is to ensure that there is a balance between capital and labour. In fact, Air Canada is not coming here and saying it is not making money; it is saying, rather, that it would like to operate on the same terms as its competitors, who are not subject to any constraints. That is not how the situation must be judged. We are starting from the fact that Air Canada, which is a former public corporation, has become a private enterprise, but on certain conditions. As a private enterprise, it has twice knocked on governments' doors seeking subsidies. It has knocked on the unions' door to have them reopen their collective agreements and allow it to do certain things.
Remember the battle that took place between Canadian and Air Canada. Air Canada has benefited from subsidies that came from the taxes paid by all the working men and women in Canada. Workers and the general public have made concessions to enable Air Canada to survive. In return, Air Canada puts people in Israel and the United States to work. That is too obvious. If you do not see this, there is a real problem.
Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada
Suppose that we start the maintenance shops back up tomorrow morning. Companies like WestJet are going to want to have the work done here. Other Canadian companies will want that too. Today, no foreign company is going to come and operate here. Foreign companies prefer to employ people who live in the countries where they are located.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Perhaps I could just jump in there—and thank you; I appreciate that information.
How much time do I have, Madam Chair?