Air Canada denies it’s violating privatization act

Critics argue the company is ignoring ‘heavy maintenance’ clause in federal law

Air Canada sent more signals Wednesday that, if challenged legally, it plans to argue that its own maintenance centres in Canada comply with the 1988 privatization act that requires it to do its maintenance at three centres, in Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto.

The airline is being challenged, including by Montreal Mayor Gérald Tremblay and Quebec Premier Jean Charest, to respect the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which they claim was violated by the shutdown Tuesday of Aveos Fleet Performance Inc.

“Air Canada is in full compliance with all aspects of the Air Canada Public Participation Act,” the company said in one of two statements to The Gazette.

“Air Canada continues to employ 2,300 maintenance employees at various bases in Canada, including those in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal.”

Except that critics, including Tremblay, Charest and the union at Aveos note the act specifically states “heavy maintenance” – the thorough technical work that until Sunday was done by Aveos. The firm shocked the industry Tuesday, one day after placing itself under bankruptcy protection, by dissolving itself and firing all its 2,628 employees across Canada. It claimed that Air Canada had not sent it work it had promised. Air Canada rejected that, saying Aveos had done the vast majority of its heavy maintenance.

The 2,300 Air Canada mechanics and technicians are what remains of more than 4,800 maintenance people the airline employed until 2007. It sold off its Air Canada Technical Services division that year, about 2,500 mechanics who did the heavy maintenance – complete aircraft overhaul and refurbishment and repairs of critical systems and components. The 2,300 still with Air Canada conduct “line mainten- ance,” the daily checks and fixes aircraft require.

Air Canada said that “in May 2011, ... the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on the issue of whether we were in compliance with the maintenance facility requirements of the Act following an application by the IAMAW. The court found that Air Canada did meet the Act’s requirement on the basis of its own overhaul and maintenance functions.”

That ruling on the Air Canada Act, a federal law, could be appealed to a higher court – although no one in Ottawa has yet raised that possibility.

The unanimous motion against the Aveos shutdown in Quebec’s National Assembly Tuesday carries little legal weight.

“Air Canada is satisfied that the current circumstances do not change that (Ontario court) finding,” the airline said, and “intends to remain fully compliant with the Act, which also requires we maintain our head office in Montreal.”

Transport Canada officials did not return calls Monday and Tuesday and failed to provide promised information Wednesday.