Transport Committee on May 4th, 2016

[Kevin Howlette]

Can I just correct you, though? I just want to say when we tendered, we tendered globally. What I can't tell you, because I don't know, and I don't even know if there is an organization that's capable, is what Canadian suppliers bid on. I don't know that.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

So you don't have a process that you went through that actually compares prices.

[Kevin Howlette]

Yes, we do. Absolutely, we have a process.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's what I'm asking for. What I am asking for is the net difference between what the contracts were awarded at for narrow-bodied in the U.S. and wide-bodied in Asia and Israel, who got the contracts, what the costs were, and what the comparable price was from companies from Canada.

[Kevin Howlette]

It would vary by contract. It would vary by fleet type. It would vary by what the actual work order was. Engines are one thing. Components are something else. Wheels, tires, and brakes are something else. The list goes on and on.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Is it possible for your team to actually take that list that goes on and on and simply pull out a calculator, add it all up in terms of what the contracts were actually awarded at in comparison with those companies out of Canada with what they bid?

[Kevin Howlette]

If Canadian suppliers bid, I suppose it could be done.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Fair enough.Thank you.

That's the second piece of information I would like to ask for.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Iacono, a fast question.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Is being competitive really a matter of finding lower wage rates for maintenance workers?

[Kevin Howlette]

Not at all. It's not the exclusive thing. It would be one component; another would be turn time, since to take that asset out of the system and have it in maintenance is an expensive proposition. Another is quality of work, standards, and all of those things.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

If the union would offer to lower their labour rates, would you consider more jobs in Canada? Would this be a factor that could help?

[Kevin Howlette]

Not to be pejorative about it, that's a discussion we've had in the past with the unions. It would be one factor, I guess, that you'd have to look at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. Time is up.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here and assisting the committee in its deliberations. We appreciate it very much.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I know I'm a visitor on this committee and clearly I'm used to a more generous culture, but I do think it's customary for the NDP to get a last two or three minutes, depending on the committee, at the end of the other questioners.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No, it's not the way.... Next, actually, would have been the Conservatives with their next time, and then we would have gone to the NDP. Given the time constraints we are under in trying to accommodate the pressures the committee is feeling today, and given the vote, I think it time to end this portion of our meeting so that we can get on to our other panels.

Is that all right with the committee, just from a time perspective? It would have been nice if we had it, but we do try to conform.

Thank you, gentlemen, very much. If you would please exit, we could take a few minutes to get the next witnesses to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting back to order.

To the three panellists that we have in front of us, I would ask you gentlemen to introduce your associations and your names as you speak to us today, whoever would like to begin.

[David Chartrand, Québec Coordinator, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada]

Do we follow the order that was given to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, whichever way you gentlemen prefer to do it.

[David Chartrand]

Okay, I believe we were first in the order .

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Introduce the association and give your name, please.

[Jean Poirier, Official Spokesperson, Association des anciens travailleurs des centres de révision d'air Canada]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to appear before you today on behalf of the 2,600 Canadian workers and their families who were affected by the illegal closure of Air Canada’s overhaul centres in March 2012.

My name is Jean Poirier. I am the official spokesperson for the association. My purpose here today is to convince you not to approve Bill C-10, which would confer the stamp of legality upon what is currently an illegal act. In addition, I am here especially to make you understand the vital need to retain a cutting-edge economic sector that is the envy of many countries throughout the world: our aircraft overhaul industry.

In the past four years, 355 of Air Canada’s aircraft have been illegally repaired in foreign countries. Air Canada’s overhaul centres were profit-makers before the company was sold to Aveos in 2007 and before former Nortel Networks managers and the American investment funds KKR and Sageview Capital got hold of it.

The workers who were put out on the street in 2012 are the same workers who were generating profits in 2007. The only things that changed during the Aveos years are: the new management and shareholders demonstrated that they had no knowledge of the industry, and Air Canada proved that it was willing to outsource this work to other countries. They destroyed Canada’s leadership in this sector. The workers stayed the same: workers with acknowledged expertise, a positive attitude and, especially, a passion for aviation work. It is important to understand that people who choose to become aviation technicians are looking for more than just a job: they want the opportunity to work in a field they love. Ask any of the students and they will tell you they are there because they are passionate about aircraft. And if you ask them why they are dropping out, they will undoubtedly tell you it is because of the government’s willingness to outsource those jobs. You are sending quite a message to our young people.

After Aveos closed in 2012, two companies set up shop in the Montreal area and picked up the pieces of some of Aveos’ divisions. Both companies are now turning a profit and have hired Aveos’ former employees despite the fact that they are not receiving any contracts from Air Canada. These companies knew how to draw upon the expertise of our workers to develop a profitable business model with foreign contracts.

Today, 2,600 workers are paying for its illegal action with the disruption of their lives, of the well-being of their families and of their financial security. In addition, the federal and provincial governments have been deprived of tax revenue from those workers. If the federal government considered it important to keep specialized jobs in Canada in 1988, why isn’t that no longer the case today, in light of the fact that economic growth continues to slow in both Canada and Quebec? Air Canada was built on taxpayer money. The income tax collected from Canadian workers contributes to our collective wealth, and today Bill C-10 is giving all of those taxpayers the brush-off. And who will gain from all this? Air Canada shareholders, who lined their pockets when this company was dismantled and who now, despite two firm court decisions, will be absolved of all wrongdoing.

Despite our fight to make ourselves heard, we can acknowledge that we have listened to your arguments. What you say is this: the aeronautics sector is a key part of our economic growth in Canada; we must absolutely find a way to provide complete overhaul services to Air Canada at competitive prices; and Air Canada has no wish to go back to being a maintenance service provider. You now have before you a brief with a job creation plan that meets those three criteria. The solution is in your hands.

Today, members of the committee, we are appearing before you as people who want, more than anything else, to find a win-win relationship for everyone. We want to have our jobs back, we want Air Canada to be competitive, and we want the economy in Canada and Quebec to regain traction in the aeronautics sector, where we have always been world leaders. I would like to see you go back to the basics of your political commitment, that is, to serve the nation and to serve Canadians—not to serve the interests of shareholders for whom our country’s economic development is an afterthought. Their primary interest is making money, while your primary concern should be the well-being and growth of your community.

Imagine a public corporation paid for by tax payers being privatized so it could grow and expand, only to drop 2,600 jobs illegally, with your assistance. Imagine that that corporation was in your riding, and that it was people you knew who lost their jobs: your friends, your family, your volunteers, your neighbours. Now imagine that this is a bad dream, and that a solution is within reach and that this solution will only be achieved if we all work together to ensure it succeeds.

To conclude, I will leave you with a few words by Franklin D. Roosevelt who said that “democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.”

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Poirier.

Mr. Cadieux, would you like to go next?