Transport Committee on May 9th, 2016

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

In your opinion, how much time is needed for these talks with the federal government?

[Heather Stefanson]

I think it is very important at this stage that.... It can be done as quickly as they want it to be done, as soon as there is that net benefit being offered to Manitoba. Right now we are not getting that indication from the federal government. That is why we are here today, because we are going to fight for these jobs in Manitoba.

In my opinion, it is up to the federal government. The ball is in their court. If they want to help move jobs along in Manitoba, they can do so tomorrow. They can do so today, right now. That is the kind of indication and commitment that we need from the federal government when it comes to jobs and our economy.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

The committee, which is made up of parliamentarians from all parties, is currently studying Bill C-10. What amendments should the committee make for the bill to become acceptable to the Government of Manitoba? In other words, what sort of Bill C-10 would your government consider acceptable?

[Heather Stefanson]

I think the way it stands right now, our main concern.... Again, I have given you indications of the areas of the bill that we have no problem with. The fact of the matter is that we are not in favour of any amendments at this stage. We are opposed to the bill as it stands, because it has a negative impact on jobs in the Manitoba economy.

Again, our focus will be to work collaboratively with the federal government as much as we can to ensure that there is a clear commitment from the federal government to make sure that there isn't a net loss of jobs in our province, but in fact a net gain.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

You do not seem acquainted with everything that is happening with the Government of Quebec in this regard. It too is asking us to wait before we pass Bill C-10.

So, you want the federal government to make a greater commitment to keeping jobs in Manitoba.

[Heather Stefanson]

Yes, that is exactly right.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you.

I have a minute left. As I promised, I have a question for Mr. Rebeck.

You represent the Manitoba Federation of Labour and you know the industry well, as you worked in it. In your opinion, why is the government in such a hurry to pass Bill C-10?

[Kevin Rebeck]

I wish I knew. I think the government needs to be more thoughtful and take its time doing this.

Our government representative locally has been very clear—and I stand with her—that we want to protect good jobs in our province, just as others do in theirs. I think Canadians are highly competitive and have the skills and knowledge to provide these jobs, and there is an obligation that needs to be lived up to. We can deliver those things. We have the skills, we have the workforce, and we should continue to be given that opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Badawey, go ahead.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to ask this question of both of you folks.

There is an attempt to strike a balance, ensuring sustainability as well as growth within the industry. I think we all can agree with that. With that said, there exists a reality to allow a more competitive environment for all those, especially the corporate bodies, to do just that. Bill C-10 specifies that Air Canada's articles of continuance include:

maintenance of any type relating to airframes, engines, components, equipment or parts, in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba

However, the bill would also allow Air Canada, while not eliminating those activities in any of the three provinces, to change the type or volume of any or all of those activities.

I have two questions.

What do you think should be the minimum levels, if any, of employment and maintenance activities in the three provinces, below which Air Canada would no longer be in compliance with the proposed amendments to its articles of continuance in Bill C-10? That's question number one.

Question number two is.... I know, Heather, that you sort of answered this question, but I do want to try to dig a bit deeper, because I think there is some participation for all of us to work together for any amendments to be struck. What amendments, if any, would you propose to this provision of the bill?

[Heather Stefanson]

Thanks very much for your question.

Again, I'll go back and reiterate that we would love to be able to support this bill. We're in favour of the modernization of the act and of the expansion of the geographical scope. We don't have any problems with that. The problem, again, comes in that area you alluded to. It provides and allows for too much flexibility to pull jobs out of Manitoba. We have a problem with that.

Our main objective here is not so much about tweaking legislation and making changes to legislation; it's about a net benefit in jobs in Manitoba. That is really our main focus.

I think that probably clarifies both questions, with your second question being about amendments. To me it's really about negotiating with the federal government and making sure that any legislation and amendments that are brought forward to any act don't have a negative impact on jobs and our economy.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Go ahead.

[Kevin Rebeck]

If I can chime in on that, as well, I think even using the word “flexibility” is extremely kind and generous. Really, what this act does is eliminate any obligation or requirement, and we're opposed to that elimination because there is a commitment there. At what level does it make sense? I think that if the language is such that it says that major maintenance and service will be done in these regions, then at a minimum a majority of that maintenance and service for Air Canada should be done in those regions. Our historic levels have been in the 400-jobs range. I think that should be a target we protect.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I may, Madam Chair, in terms of amendments, are there no recommendations for amendments to this act from any of you, whether it be from the government, albeit a newly elected one, or from the federation?

[Heather Stefanson]

Again, I think I go back to our main concern not being about legislative changes but about protecting jobs in Manitoba. Aspects within this legislation do have a negative impact when it comes to jobs and our economy. Again, I prefer to look at ways we can work collaboratively with other levels of government to ensure net benefit for regions, but as this legislation stands, there is no net benefit.

I'll leave it at that with my comments and let Mr. Rebeck answer.

[Kevin Rebeck]

The purpose of the changes being made is to take out reference to maintaining maintenance and service in our region, and we take offence to that being removed. If I were to make an amendment, I would remove the reference that takes us out and protect those jobs in our province.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's, in fact, what we're trying to do here, as I mentioned to the witnesses we had here last week. Sustainability, jobs, and industry, and there was a balance they were trying to strike with respect to allowing a more competitive environment for Air Canada while at the same time, as you're stating, sustaining if not growing those jobs. It goes to the centres of excellence and the critical mass that the centres of excellence can actually accrue over time with respect to their asset management and returns on investment.

Again, it goes back to that balance, hence the reason I'm asking both the government of the Province of Manitoba—as we would ask the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec—as well as the Federation of Labour what some of those balances should be in terms of trying to add some benefit to the environment with respect to Air Canada being more competitive, and from the federation side with respect to sustaining and growing the jobs. What would some of those amendments be? That's what I'm trying to drill down on, because it is a partnership. I'm trying to pull out of you what some of those recommendations are.

[Kevin Rebeck]

Sure.

Recommendations would include having some guaranteed jobs and work that would be in our region. I stand with our local government that we want to see a net gain in our province. There's absolutely room for us to grow in centres of excellence, but it shouldn't be at the sacrifice of the maintenance and service work that needs to be done as well.

If part of the attempt to modernize the act or bring things up to speed is to build in components about centres of excellence, we absolutely have an interest in that, but not at the expense of losing jobs that are committed to our region on the maintenance and service side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Minister, do you want to add any last-minute comments to that?

[Heather Stefanson]

Yes, thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I have just a few last comments. I think I have already stated this, but certainly you know we did mention the memorandum of understanding earlier. We are reviewing that right now and we are looking at ways to work with the federal government to make sure that there is a net job increase in Manitoba.

As this stands right now in the way this legislation reads, it potentially takes away those jobs in Manitoba. Again, I think there is a way that we can work together on this, but as the legislation stands today, I think it takes away our ability to work together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you both very much. Your information was very valuable to the committee as we move forward.

We have a minute or two of committee business to discuss, which I think we're all aware of.

Given the fact that Wednesday we are scheduled to do our clause-by-clause study, in order to be able to share the amendments with each other and departmental officials in advance so that everyone will be aware of what the amendments are, we need direction to our clerk to be able to share those amendments with departmental officials and with members of the committee.

Is everybody all right with that motion?

Mr. Blaikie.

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

I don't see a need to have to do that. I was just through a clause-by-clause study on another bill, and it wasn't done at that committee. I just don't see a need for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Well, we're a really sharp committee here and we try very much to follow all of the rules that our clerk brought down for the transportation committee. We are told that it is required. Believe me, I'm not a big rule person. If it wasn't required, I wouldn't be asking, but I am told it is required at this transportation committee.

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

Why would we need a motion if it's already required?

I mean, it seems to me that it's not required, or we wouldn't need a motion to require it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We have departmental officials coming on Wednesday. For the departmental officials to be able to respond to the amendments, which are very technical in nature, they need to know in advance what those amendments are. We cannot give them to the departmental officials when they are in front of us and then ask them to respond.

Whether it's a courtesy or requirement, I haven't been told.