Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to start debating Bill C-10, or at least have my turn at it.
I come from the riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, all the way out on the west coast on beautiful Vancouver Island, so I do not really have much of a relationship with aircraft maintenance jobs. I guess it was from my time spent as a constituency assistant for seven years that I really developed a keen passion for the plight of working men and working women. For seven years, I did the casework in the office of the former member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Jean Crowder. During the course of that seven years, I had the honour of meeting with many working men and women who were going through tough times, and I guess, coming to this honourable House as a member of Parliament, I have always identified with them. I thought my job was to come here to try to pass good laws, to implement good policy, and to make sure that the government was actually on the side of the people who give value to companies. When we talk about corporations, we often talk about the president, the board of directors, or the CEO, but the people who truly give value to a company are the men and women who go out every single day and do their job. That is what the bill is about. This is what , in a sense, we are talking about.
I want to give thanks to my colleagues, particularly the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I listened to both their speeches today and I think they both gave very passionate speeches on what is really at stake with the bill.
I have also had the time, both during Friday's debate and during this particularly long Monday session, to listen to a few comments from Liberal members of Parliament. We have heard, notably, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who has stated that in today's world, it is common for global air carriers to outsource aircraft maintenance. Those comments tell me that there is not even a pretence anymore from the Liberals for saving jobs. They just admitted, “Sorry, folks. It's a tough world out there. If Air Canada decides it's going to have a cheaper job elsewhere, well, sorry. There it goes.”
I also heard an interesting comment from the member for Parliament for Laurentides—Labelle. He said that the bill is about supporting Canadian jobs, Canadian ownership, Canadian principles, and Canadian competitiveness, that it is a Canadian bill for a Canadian company. Well, we know he is very patriotic in those comments. I do not know if he is actually reading the same bill, because the fine print is not really doing well for Canadian workers, and I would say that is not a very strong Canadian value when we are actually legalizing outsourcing, because that is precisely what the bill would do.
Of course, there is the favourite member of Parliament for members on this side of the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. We like to quote him a lot because he has been an amazing standard-bearer for his riding in years past, but not now. Principles seem to change when members occupy that side of the House, and I think his comments really do bring that to light.
When talking about this bill, he said that this would continue to reinforce the government's expectation that Air Canada would undertake aircraft maintenance in Quebec, Manitoba, and Ontario. A government's expectation is different from an actual piece of law that stipulates it has to be done. I could expect Air Canada to give me free tickets for the rest of my life, but it is not going to do it.
It is the same with this particular situation that we have with aircraft maintenance. We would be giving away the legal framework that stipulates aircraft maintenance jobs must be done in Canada. If Air Canada decides at some future point to ship those jobs overseas, we simply would not have any recourse.
I mentioned previously that I had spent seven years working as a constituency assistant. I have always had a great appreciation for law, particularly federal law. The way it is worded, sometimes it can be very direct; sometimes it can leave nothing to the imagination, and other times it is very much open for interpretation. We have a job as legislators to create the law, and the courts interpret it.
I have heard Liberal members of Parliament say that jobs, in a sense, will be protected because we have this deal with Bombardier. By the very fact of extending jobs with the deal with Bombardier, the subtext is that these maintenance jobs do not matter. It is sort of comparing apples with oranges. We are taking away with one hand, but we are giving with another.
For the benefit of all hon. members in the House, it is important to read the main clause. It states:
...the Corporation may, while not eliminating those activities in any of those provinces, change the type or volume of any or all of those activities in each of those provinces, as well as the level of employment in any or all of those activities.
Yes, Air Canada is not allowed to eliminate jobs in those three provinces, but it could maintain one job there and still satisfy the bill. That is basically the wording. That is how I read the bill. I hope the Liberal members of Parliament are reading the same bill. When Air Canada is given the freedom to change the type, volume, or level of employment, it means a person can go from those well-paying aircraft maintenance jobs to someone who is earning only $15 an hour. It would be nice if the government would institute a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. Unfortunately, we probably are going to be looking at something in the neighbourhood of $12. Those good-paying jobs that pay $60,000 a year are going to be shipped overseas. It is only a matter of time. We have seen this story play out many a time.
There are many examples of the Liberals saying one thing and then doing another. That is an unfortunate statistic that we have had to deal with. The current Prime Minister, when he was just the member of Parliament for the riding Papineau, stood with Aveos employees. He said that the law was very clear, that Air Canada had to maintain the maintenance in those cities. The fact the government is not enforcing that law is something to which we have drawn attention.
Now that he is the Prime Minister, the member is singing from a different songbook. He has forgotten the fact that he used to stand in solidarity with workers and proclaimed that the Liberal Party was there for their jobs and it would always stand by them. Now we see he has taken the side of Air Canada. He has forgotten his solemn promise to those workers. I certainly hope people will remember that as we continue on through the years. When we reach the year 2019, I know we in the NDP will certainly be reminding people of that. The progressive paint job the Liberals have applied to themselves is just that. They have become something other than what they promised.
The NDP opposes Bill C-10 because we want Air Canada to maintain jobs here. We oppose it because Air Canada is going to outsource maintenance jobs. The bill legalizes layoffs. Air Canada has been seeking carte blanche from the government. If Bill C-10 receives royal assent, it certainly will have that carte blanche.
We want to keep those good-paying jobs. I mentioned earlier that aviation maintenance engineer jobs start at a salary of around $60,000 salary and can go up to $90,000. That in my books is a very good-paying job. I used to earn less than that as a constituency assistant, and I have helped many people who have raised good families on that. They manage to keep their payments at bay. However, if we get rid of those jobs, there will be thousands of people who will be unable to pay their bills. Conversely, the government is going to lose an important tax base. Once we start losing those jobs, the spinoff effects start compounding. People will require more social assistance and so on.
The other thing I have been most interested in during the course of the debate is the deal we have seen with Bombardier, Air Canada, the federal government, and the Quebec government. We know the deal was announced in February. The subsequent tabling of this legislation and the timing of that is a little strange.
Earlier today the member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill used an interesting phrase. She said that the bill basically would do everything. She complimented the Liberals because the bill would do everything about Bombardier without even mentioning its name. That was a great phrase to use. She said that the bill should be called the “quid pro quo bill”, and it is easy to see why.
I wish the House and all hon. members could have been privy to the conversations that went on among the Minister of Transport, the CEO of Air Canada, the upper echelons of the Quebec government, and Bombardier. We would find an interesting link. On the one hand Air Canada has promised that we will get these Bombardier aircraft and that it will do a 20-year maintenance contract in Canada. On the other hand, the deal that Air Canada gets out of the Liberal government is that it changes the act so Air Canada is free to ship maintenance jobs overseas. It is pretty easy to connect the dots. It is there right in front of us, and that has been identified by many MPs in the House.
I have flown with Air Canada a lot. It is our national air carrier. I have heard a lot of talk from Liberal members of Parliament who have said that in a competitive world, Air Canada needs to be able to compete, that it needs to have all the tools at its disposal that other air carriers have.
One Liberal MP even referred to the act as a set of handcuffs. I really have to shake my head at some of the terminology being used by the government side of the House. That member might have some explaining to do to his constituents when they hear him referring to guaranteeing good paying jobs in Canada as a set of handcuffs. Guaranteeing good jobs in Canada is something we were sent here to do. It is probably one of the most noble and honourable things we can do as members of Parliament.
As I mentioned, Air Canada is a unique company because of the privatization it went through in 1988 and 1989. I am not really going on memory as I was about nine or ten years old at the time. The fact is that Air Canada inherited a sizable chunk of assets from the federal government. Those assets were paid by taxpayers. I do acknowledge that times have changed, but the fact is that Air Canada received its start as a private company with a large number of assets that any other aviation company would have to had built up from scratch. It received a good head start in the game.
The government of the day decided to put this particular clause in the Air Canada Public Participation Act. Time and time again we have seen governments negotiate deals with companies. If a company can promise the government that it will keep jobs in a region of Canada, the government will do something for that company. It will give the company a slight tax break, an incentive to offset capital costs, and so on. However, none of those agreements were enforced by law. They were basically done on a handshake. The government took the company's word that it would honour its commitment.
The government of the day felt it was necessary to put this agreement in law because so many of those agreements had been broken. There is a huge culture of bad faith. Companies would promise one thing only to do the exact opposite a year later.
The fact that this was enshrined in law gave those workers and the government of the day the peace of mind that there would be well-paying jobs in three major centres. People could raise their families on that income. These people would be a good source of revenue for the government. Ultimately a government's finances depend on a healthy tax base. It can be no other way. We need those good paying jobs to keep our economy going, and that is one way a government keeps on going.
I realize that times have changed and that the aviation world is quite different. It is a very competitive world out there and there are a lot of unknown factors, but I think it is quite disingenuous to pin all of the troubles that Air Canada is facing these days on maintenance workers in three centres in Canada. I think that should be a source of strength for the company, not something that we identify as a weakness.
In a sense, all of the Liberal arguments I have heard on the bill amount to a vote of non-confidence in our workers. The Liberals are saying that Air Canada is shackled, that it is handcuffed to these workers, and we have to give it the freedom to take its jobs overseas or the company is going to fold. That is just nonsensical.
Air Canada is not going anywhere. It is our national air carrier. Pretty much everyone I know in the House flies Air Canada. It has many guaranteed landing spots in so many airports, a virtual monopoly on prime landing spots in all the major airports in Canada. It is not going anywhere, so to pin all of its woes on maintenance workers in these three centres does not make sense. I challenge the government to bring forth some arguments that do, but I do not think it will.
The other thing I want to cover is the concept of due process. We know that the union that represents the workers from Aveos is going through a court battle right now under the terms of the act. We know that the Supreme Court is probably going to hear those arguments later this year, probably in June. However, the major trouble the union is going to face is that if the government changes this law and the bill gets royal assent before that court case, then the legal case for the union is going to be gone. The law will have been changed.
Due process is about making sure the state respects all legal rights that are owed to a person. Yes, it is well within this legislature's body to change the law, and I am not disputing that, but it is ultimately an act of incredibly bad faith to reverse the law after the union has been basically fighting a court battle since 2012.
The union has gone through the local courts and the superior court, and now the end is in sight with the Supreme Court. It is like getting a sprained ankle right when the finish line is in sight, except the person who gave the sprained ankle is the government, which is supposed to be on the runner's side. That is what is happening here. I think it is incredibly bad form not to respect the due process of the court system and to change the law before we have a chance to get a ruling.
By the way, all the courts have upheld the union's point of view: the law was broken.
As I wrap up, I would like to take a few examples from my home turf. I am so pleased to be sitting in the House today with my incredible Vancouver Island crew, the hon. members for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Courtenay—Alberni, and North Island—Powell River. Collectively, as Vancouver Island MPs, we have seen what happens when good jobs leave our communities. Right now we have a lot of fish processing plants that are closed down, and those activities are now taking place overseas in China, in Asia, and so on.
The other big one is the export of raw logs. Every single one of us here from coastal British Columbia is very familiar with the loss of good, well-paying manufacturing jobs. Do members know why those good-paying manufacturing jobs have gone? It is because we have not had a provincial or federal government that was willing to stand up for good manufacturing jobs. Instead, we are allowing raw logs to be shipped out of this country. It is just another pattern that we see time and time again.
I just wish we would see a government come to light that would stand on the side of the workers this time—not just use them as a backdrop for their election, but actually stand and do something concrete in this noble House for them.
I believe I have made my points very clear. We in the NDP absolutely and fundamentally oppose the legislation before us, and I hope that some Liberal members of Parliament will develop a conscience and vote with us against it.