Transport Committee on Jan. 26th, 2021

[Christopher Rauenbusch]

We as the union for our 4,100 flight attendants feel that there's still an element of risk with rapid testing. Rapid testing will help in the short term, but we do feel that this government does need to create a framework for, frankly, world-class testing and arrival procedures for airlines to follow. This needs to be something that's not a mishmash of different things. It needs to be a policy that is integrated into public health and it needs to very much be a part of the long-term thinking to help this industry survive.

Rapid testing in the very short term would absolutely be better than what we have today, but we think it needs to go further than that into a national framework for arrival with full PCR testing or whatever the case may be.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I would ask the same question to Mr. Lesosky and Mr. Dias.

[Wesley Lesosky]

I completely echo what Chris just said. I think to paint a picture, since we've been doing the testing 72 hours out from departure, we've had, as of yesterday, 134 flights come into the country with COVID-positive passengers on board since January 9. That right there is a concern.

A rapid test is going to narrow that window down from 72 hours to a time frame that is closer to when somebody gets on the plane. If you were to do it on the outbound, which I have been strongly suggesting and advocating, however you want to put it, through the union—Air Canada Component and the airline division—it would make the environment on board safer. A rapid test might have its flaws much as the other tests do, but at least it's something with a much closer time frame, and I think the results would be a lot better because you'd be dealing with a real-time scenario as opposed to one from 72 hours out.

[Jerry Dias]

As the previous speakers said, it's one tool in the tool box. There's no question we have to be in a situation where the rapid testing is done on departure as well as on arrival. We have to make sure there is adequate time so that we can get decent results. Is it perfect? No. That's why, obviously, for people coming into Canada there's still going to have to be some quarantine.

It's just one part of the overall strategy, not the entire strategy.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you very much.

In terms of the Canadian model—I don't want to call it that, because I don't think it originated from us. There are 20 other countries doing it and I think the U.S. is moving to it as well. In terms of the rapid testing, does the infrastructure exists? I don't have up-to-date figures and I take you at your word. We've heard from Transport Canada officials, or I have anyway, that the numbers are way down. I know that an airport is a big space and our land borders.... Do we have the capacity to do these rapid tests? At what point do they stop being effective? Have those discussions taken place?

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Who are you directing that question to? We have time for only one answer.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'll ask Mr. Dias.

[Jerry Dias]

I'm sorry.

I didn't catch the question. You were going in and out.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm sorry.

Basically, does the infrastructure exist at our airports and land borders to conduct these rapid tests to the extent that would be required?

[Jerry Dias]

Yes, absolutely. We have some basic structures in place already. I don't think implementing it would be all that difficult. It's going to require political will.

Let me just talk about one other thing you have raised, if you don't mind.

When I speak to people, there seems to be a preoccupation with executive compensation and the whole issue of return to shareholders: the amount of money, for example, that Air Canada had on hand when the pandemic hit. That can't be justification for doing nothing. It's not about executive salaries, even though they're exorbitant. It's not about return to shareholders. It's about the tens of thousands of people who are unemployed and the future of the industry.

We need to start concentrating on that, because we're not going to have a “build back better” if we don't have a strong airline industry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, the floor is yours.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dias set the stage nicely for what I want to say in my next question.

I must say right off the bat that I am disappointed to see my government colleagues unrepentant about the government's current inaction in terms of assistance to the aviation sector.

Airline companies and the government are engaged in a negotiation process. That's very well, but it should not excuse the inaction. Issues such as ticket refunds, bonuses, restrictions related to dividends and executive salaries are being raised. Yet the government is calling the shots, as it can decide on the assistance to provide and impose its conditions. A company executive disagreeing because they will not get their bonus this year does not prevent the government from taking action.

What do you think about this, Mr. Lesosky?

[Jerry Dias]

I covered it. Look, I know Air Canada just borrowed $6 billion at pretty high interest rates. That's not the ticket for a long-term strategic business plan.

The whole issue of executive salaries and bonuses is a subject for another day, and I could eat up the entire two hours on that alone, but you can't miss the forest because of the trees. This is about preserving the industry. It's about putting money in people's pockets and making sure they can pay their rent and put food on the table.

That's the big issue here. We can always go down rabbit holes and say we can't do something because of this and that, but we're missing the bigger picture. We'll never have an economic recovery coming out of COVID if we don't have a strong airline industry, period.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you for your answer, Mr. Dias.

I would like to hear Mr. Lesosky on the issue.

Do you think something prevents the government from attaching conditions to its assistance?

[Wesley Lesosky]

No. I don't see anything that would prevent the government from imposing conditions.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

In other words, we are going around in circles. The government could have made a decision nearly a year ago. In March, Mr. Trudeau said he was talking to airline companies. In November, Mr. Garneau said that assistance was imminent. That was at the approach of the economic update. It is now nearly February. What all the witnesses are calling for here is quick and immediate action. The time for fooling around has passed.

I have no further questions on this, Mr. Chair. In any case, my time is running out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My first question is for Mr. Dias.

I was listening with great interest to your remarks about potential conditions and some of the concerns the Canadian public has around how these financial packages are structured. A lot of Canadians were pretty dismayed that there were big corporations that took the wage subsidy and then turned around and paid dividends to their shareholders.

I take your point that we need to see the big picture, but do you not feel there's some way to structure a financial relief package that ensures that workers are protected and that these kinds of misuses of public funds are avoided? If so, what do you think those restrictions or conditions might look like?

[Jerry Dias]

First of all, there's no question that none of that money can be used to bolster CEOs' wages. I think that would be an insult to Canadians. The whole issue of return to shareholders is not what it's about. The money should be used specifically for the industry to put people to work. One of the problems with the wage subsidy program was saying to the employer, “We'll pay you the wage subsidy, but you're going to provide all of the payroll taxes, the benefit costs and everything under the sun.” In some circumstances, it just wasn't compatible with what they could afford. We have to make sure it's structured so that the bosses get absolutely nothing.

By the way, I realize that we're keeping away from this subject, but the federal government will not be giving a nickel to an airline unless they're prepared to pay citizens who want their cash returned. There's an element that will have to satisfy the consumer, and I understand that as well. There's no reason why the government can't put into place a package that says, “Here's x amount of dollars. You're going to repay the customers. We're going to fix the wage subsidy piece so that you can bring more people in to work.” It all has to be based on getting people back to work and securing the industry, not those who are profiting from it.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Cameron, the member of Parliament for Windsor West, Mr. Brian Masse, has a private member's bill right now that would empower the minister to remove certain airports from consideration by NavCan for service cuts. Do you feel this private member's bill would help prevent the kind of situation we're seeing right now?

[Paul Cameron]

Without seeing it, the only thing I can say is that, to a small extent, yes. To my understanding, the commercialization act holds Nav Canada's feet to the fire for a certain level of service, but they can still cut. They just have to tell people when and where, and have to give them a certain amount of time.

If it would slow things down, yes, I'd like to see it happen, because the more services we have still at airports, the easier it is to maintain and not bring it back. It's very difficult to bring it back once it's gone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you.

We'll move to Mr. Kram from the Conservative Party.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for joining us today and sharing their perspectives on this very important study.

I was interested in your opening statements, Mr. Wayland and Ms. Daviau, in particular your request for a $750-million subsidy to Nav Canada. This subsidy would be contingent on a moratorium on layoffs. As I'm sure you're aware, Nav Canada is currently studying the closure of several air traffic control towers across Canada. Does that mean your unions are also in favour of a moratorium on the closure of air traffic control towers as well?

[Matt Wayland]

Yes, we've heard from witnesses and from members of the committee that any reduction in services is not just for airlines; it's food security and it's cargo materials getting to these smaller airports. We certainly want to see a moratorium on those, as well as any layoffs. I believe my colleague Mr. Cameron mentioned that the reduction in staffing also increases fatigue for those who may still be left behind.

[Debi Daviau]

As you can tell by Matt's and my opening remarks, we've been comparing notes and working together on this issue. That's because not one of our groups of members could operate in a silo. The workers, particularly at Nav Canada, rely very heavily on each other's expertise. A cut to my members, for example, could necessarily affect the safety of other members and the Canadian public. It's really important to recognize that we're not just talking about an airline industry. As I mentioned, this is about a whole aviation industry. When you cut workers, you absolutely have to reduce points of service, or at least reduce the level of service. That necessarily impacts on safety for Canadians and definitely needs to be addressed.

We absolutely support a moratorium on further layoffs. We believe the money we're requesting could fund the existing workforce so that no further cuts would be required. As we mentioned, Nav Canada was understaffed even before the pandemic. Understanding that there's been a reduction in air traffic, a number of these services don't reduce their workload as a result of reduced flights. It means that those left behind will have to work that much harder. Again, that results in safety concerns for Canadians.