SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 181 - Apr/20/23

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Apr/20/23 10:24:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am truly pleased to rise in the House today and say a few words about the aerospace report that was tabled by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I should say “finally” tabled, considering that we have been calling for a study of this key sector for years. Since I was elected about three and a half years ago, I have often risen here in the House to ask that Canada develop a promising, coherent strategy that would allow our industry to reach its full potential. Better late than never, I guess. Not long ago, when I brought the matter to the attention of my colleagues opposite, I was told that air sector support programs had been launched. This was the response I often got during the pandemic. I am delighted to see that some progress has been made. At least they know what aerospace means now. Someone got out a dictionary and looked up “aerospace”. If nothing else, it is a start. That is worth celebrating. I remember one time when I was replacing my colleague from Joliette at the Standing Committee on Finance, which was hearing witnesses from the aerospace sector. The government officials asking questions said they had wanted to help Air Canada. The only problem is that Air Canada is not part of the aerospace sector. That is a different cluster, a different sector. At least someone opened a dictionary—I am not sure which—and now they understand what it is. Now, thanks to the work of the Bloc—and, more specifically, our representative on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, the member for Abitibi-Témiscamingue—we can say this matter was addressed in a study. Finally, the sector was able to make itself heard. Finally, there is an official report that advocates for an aerospace strategy. I urge the government to follow its recommendations so that Canada is no longer the only country with a major aerospace industry without a strategy to support its development. I would even go as far as to beg the government to take that step. Our efforts are paying off here. In fact, they are probably behind the 2021 announcement that the minister referred to a few minutes ago. Indeed, it is an excellent announcement that we welcomed. We are not opposed to virtue. However, without our constant demands, would the Prime Minister have gone to Quebec to announce that Ottawa was going to invest up to $440 million to support innovative projects in the aerospace industry? I have my doubts. I must point out that he knew he would call the election a few months later, but that is another story. Just in passing, Quebec has had an aerospace policy for 20 years now. These investments that have been announced are significant, and we welcomed them, but it is not a strategic policy or a comprehensive vision. Despite this progress, for now, Canada still lags behind, unfortunately. However, there is an important hub in Canada. It is the third-largest aerospace hub in the world, after Seattle and Toulouse. Indeed, greater Montreal is one of the rare locations able to design and supply all components of an aircraft from A to Z, in addition to making it fly and certifying it. When he was the federal industry minister, Jean Lapierre said, “the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automobile industry is to Ontario”, and that is true. It is even rooted in our history. The first glider to take flight in Canada was designed and piloted in Montreal by a 14-year-old teenager, Lawrence Lesh. In 1907, he achieved what was then the longest gliding flight in the history of aviation. In 1911, 112 years ago, the first airplane designed in Quebec was developed by Percival Reid in a garage on Sainte-Catherine Street, in Montreal. Today, Quebec's aerospace industry represents $18 billion in sales. That is 12% of our manufacturing exports. The sector represents 40,000 direct and 100,000 indirect jobs. It includes 220 companies, of which 200 are small and medium-sized businesses. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou asked a question earlier, and said that these were not only large companies. Indeed, there are also small and medium-sized businesses. When we consider things in purely numerical terms, instead of by weight, 200 out of the 220 companies in Quebec are small and medium-sized businesses. These companies are a source of great pride; they are innovative success stories at the forefront of research. In all, 70% of the sector's research and development in Canada is done in Quebec. Need I remind the House that the greenest commercial aircraft in the world, the Airbus A220, was created in Quebec? Unfortunately, it has been sold, but the plane was created in Quebec. As I was pointing out, this sector certainly does not owe its success to the vision of Ottawa and successive governments. In fact, since this report was produced and the subsequent announcement made, the government has squandered several opportunities to demonstrate that it is serious about supporting this industry. Apart from a pre-election announcement, nothing has happened. There have been endless missed opportunities since then. Let us not forget that we are still waiting to see Ottawa take action to help position Quebec as a leader in aircraft recycling. We have been asking. The machinists' union sent a press release about this in the fall of 2021. The election was over, and it fell on deaf ears. The Bloc Québécois relayed the request because we supported it. Our efforts and the times that the various aerospace groups have tried to engage with the government must not be in vain. North America has the largest aircraft graveyards in the world, and there is a market there. According to the specialized firm Cirium, more than 21,600 commercial aircraft will be permanently retired by 2039. This is an incredible economic and environmental opportunity that we must take advantage of. Quebec has the expertise to become one of the main North American hubs for aircraft storage and recycling. It is home to the only two companies in Canada that specialize in that area. The development of such centres in Quebec would be perfectly in line with the necessary transition to a green economy, not only in terms of the reuse of used parts, which is very important, but also in terms of preventing soil contamination with toxic fluids and metals from the aircraft. The government needs to walk the talk. The government has turned a deaf ear to the industry's calls to change the luxury tax. We saw that in the budget we voted on yesterday. That decision will cost 2,000 good jobs in Quebec and will have a major negative impact, especially when our manufacturers are already dealing with cancelled orders because our competitors do not have to deal with this type of tax. Worse yet, there are a number of states that are even offering incentives while our government is imposing punitive measures with respect to our aircraft. By stubbornly insisting on going forward with this tax, the government is encouraging buyers to purchase aircraft from non-Canadian, non-Quebec sellers and to even register the aircraft and have their maintenance done outside Quebec. Meanwhile they continue flying in Canadian airspace. Anyone who read today's La Presse is aware of this scandal: Canada is currently considering purchasing a fleet of military surveillance aircraft, specifically 16 P‑8 Poseidon aircraft and related equipment from U.S. giant Boeing, without a call for tenders. A contract worth at least $5 billion is at stake. Bombardier had, however, expressed interest in providing its own aircraft as a potential replacement for the Auroras and had made a number of representations before various ministers, in vain. Let us talk about Boeing's P‑8A Poseidon aircraft, which Canada is looking at purchasing. A report from the U.S. government revealed that the aircraft has failed in recent years due to sitting too long in a workshop. The Poseidon availability rate, which corresponds to the percentage of aircraft that are capable of performing missions, fluctuated between 53% and 70% between October 2018 and March 2020, which is quite low compared to the U.S. military requirement of 80% performance. Such a scenario would be an absolute betrayal of the aerospace industry in Quebec. Offering that kind of untendered contract to an American company for planes that would fail to meet maintenance standards when we have a local company just asking for a chance to promote its planes, which are built in this country, by participating in an open competition is outrageous. Therefore, I am pleased that the report has been tabled, and hope it will help wake some people up.

1498 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 10:34:19 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in the previous question, I made reference to the importance of the aerospace industry, in particular in the province of Quebec. However, it is important for us to recognize that the aerospace industry goes far beyond the province of Quebec or even planes. When we talk about the aerospace industry, we talk about everything from satellite developments to helicopters. The best helicopters in the world are arguably made in the province of Quebec. There is satellite technology and development in the province of Manitoba; the wings for the F-35, for example, are made in the province of Manitoba. This is an industry that goes beyond the province of Quebec, and it is important, as the federal government has recognized, that we continue to work with the stakeholders, those businesses, small and big, within the sector, and with the provincial governments in order to protect the tens of thousands of jobs that are there and the many contributions that the industry makes to our communities throughout the country. Would the member not agree?

175 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Apr/20/23 10:35:20 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree, but let me rephrase a few things. First of all, the member talked about helicopters made in Quebec. Indeed, we have Bell Textron, an amazing company. However, it is really sad that Bell Textron has never been able to bid on federal government contracts. Is that a coincidence? I wonder why that is. Therefore, the member might consider refraining from mentioning these companies. I would also rephrase the member's words. Yes, I agree that we need to work with this industry. However, instead of saying that they are continuing to work with it, I would say they are starting to do so.

107 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Apr/20/23 10:35:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's passionate speech in support of the aerospace industry and its economic benefits for Quebec and beyond. I want to pick up on the point about the P-8 surveillance aircraft. I am having a hard time understanding why a government that claims to be responsible would not launch an open and transparent bidding process to award this contract. It almost feels like the government wanted to apologize to Boeing for buying the F-35 from Lockheed Martin, so it is awarding this contract to Boeing at the expense of Canadian and Quebec companies like Bombardier.

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Apr/20/23 10:36:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is somewhat incomprehensible. Honestly, I, too, am trying to find the logic in that. My colleague's interpretation makes sense. It is quite possible that this was indeed meant to make it up to the Americans, but that is ridiculous. Many countries do not even accept competitive bidding processes because defence is considered too sensitive a sector for that. Since it is such a strategic sector, national companies are automatically given priority, and bidding processes are not even launched. I emphasize the word “automatically”. Here, we have the opposite situation, in other words, no bidding process, but with the aim of prioritizing an American company, to give it a free pass. It is absolutely incomprehensible.

121 words

All Topics

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Apr/20/23 10:37:24 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his very positive and important speech. We know that the needs are great in the aerospace industry. Very often, airlines do not manage to serve the markets all the time. I want to underscore the importance of supporting all our airports. I am speaking in particular of the Val‑d'Or airport, which needs lighting and funding. We always have to ask the minister to provide funding with no conditions. It is often also a question of life or death for the indigenous communities of northern Quebec. How can the committee take into consideration the needs and the reality of our regions?

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Apr/20/23 10:38:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I work with my colleague who sits on the committee. Clearly, these demands will not be ignored. Of course, this also concerns the regions, as was mentioned a little earlier. The aerospace industry is not just in Montreal. It is also present in many places, in many areas. Small suppliers and small businesses are found all over. A member said earlier that it is a constellation, a cluster. I want to emphasize that point because I believe that people are not fully aware of it. Quebec is one of the three places in the world where a plane can be fully assembled. Think about it. This means that all the parts can be manufactured and assembled in Quebec. This area is sustained by this important industry. The luxury tax is a threat to at least 2,000 jobs, and some of them are definitely in the regions.

149 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Apr/20/23 10:39:00 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-330

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in the House to speak to this important report from the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology on the key sector of aerospace and aviation. We know how important it is for Canada as a whole, for western Canada and Manitoba, and obviously for Quebec. This sector creates and maintains thousands of jobs in Quebec, including 40,000 direct jobs and maybe 100,000 indirect jobs, with an entire supply chain made up of hundreds of small businesses. I will come back to that. This is a major economic sector that supports thousands of families with good jobs. As the report indicates, these jobs pay on average 10% more than the average salary in Canada. These are good jobs that are often unionized and represented by the machinists' union, Unifor, CSN and FTQ. I want to use this opportunity to talk about the importance of good union jobs and support the union movement in general. Right now, federal public service employees are on strike. These are good jobs, but not as good as they used to be, which is making it harder to attract and retain federal employees. This is partly why 155,000 workers have been striking since yesterday. The government has to stay competitive on the labour market and offer working conditions that enable workers to cope with the rising cost of living resulting from the last two years of inflation. I want the workers to know they have our full support. From the start, the NDP has always been a party that promotes the cause of workers and acknowledges their right to seek a balance of power and exert pressure. It is part of the party's DNA. Workers can count on us. We will always be there for them. I think their demands are legitimate and reasonable. Once again, I ask Treasury Board to speed up negotiations to get good, well-paying jobs for federal employees who in turn can provide good services to citizens, Quebeckers and Canadians. Let us come back to the aerospace and aviation industry. It is fitting that I am able to rise in the House today to talk about this industry because, just a few minutes ago, I introduced a private member's bill affecting airport workers. Since I have a little more time now, I will take this opportunity to talk about the importance of that bill, which fixes a problem with and closes a loophole in section 47.3 of the Canada Labour Code. Unfortunately, because of that section, there is no continuity in airport subcontractors' collective agreements and work contracts. That is called contract flipping. Every time there is a tendering process, the lowest bidder gets a new service provider contract, and those contracts can vary a lot. This can affect workers who do maintenance, those who bring food to the planes for passengers, those who fill the planes with fuel before departure and so on. Every time there is a call for tenders and a new company is awarded a contract by bidding extremely low, the pre-existing labour contract disappears. This leads to a new attempt to renegotiate the contract. In practical terms, what that means for these workers is that, unlike workers in almost every other sector in society, their wages, working conditions, insurance and benefits get worse every time there is a call for tenders. Right now, 600 workers at the Montreal airport are affected by this issue. Two contracts have been put out to tender, one by Swissport, if I remember correctly. Some 600 people in Montreal are currently affected by this contract flipping. This has a very real impact. That anomaly, that loophole, is virtually unique in the Canada Labour Code. There is no other federally regulated unionized worker in the same boat. That is why I am bringing this private member's bill to the government's notice. This is something that it can look to as an example and use to try to end this unacceptable and wholly disrespectful situation. I have already spoken to previous labour ministers about this. I hope that the current Minister of Labour will be sensitive to this reality. I have already told him about it, and I hope that he will be open to listening to these people. With respect to the aviation industry, I asked my colleague a question a few minutes ago about this. This seems to be just a news item, but I also want to highlight the fact that the Liberal government seems to be considering awarding a sole-source contract to Boeing for the purchase of surveillance aircraft, the P-8 Poseidon, even though there are Canadian and Quebec companies, that is, Bombardier, but others, too, that may be interested in offering their services for the construction and sale of surveillance aircraft for National Defence. Why is the government favouring an American company for something that could be done in Canada? Instead of having a free and transparent competition, why is it giving a gift to a foreign company, when there will be no positive economic impact or spinoffs for Canada? We have companies that could build the plane and sell it. In addition, the P-8 Poseidon is a last-generation place that is on its way out. No one buys them anymore, not when there are new models from a new generation, with new technologies, that perform better and that could be considered by National Defence and the Liberal government. It seems like there is some sort of backroom deal going on. The government just awarded three huge contracts to Lockheed Martin for the purchase of a large number of F-35s, so it almost seems like it is trying to make it up to Boeing by promising to purchase the P-8 Poseidon. This plane is not a good plane, the manufacturing will have no economic spinoffs in Canada, and there are Canadian companies that could build better aircraft with greater economic benefits for Canada. I am not demanding a full-on “buy Canada” policy, but can we at least prioritize Canadian companies, Canadian jobs and Canadian technology so that we get a better plane that also meets our future needs? Speaking of the future, for years, the Liberal government has had no vision for the aerospace industry. As was stated several times this morning, Canada is one of the few countries in the world where it is possible to build an aircraft from start to finish. We are fully independent. That is amazing. This sector provides 235,000 direct and indirect jobs at hundreds of companies, ranging from huge corporations to small but capable companies. I remember visiting companies in Drummondville's industrial park that are able to engineer parts for aircraft that are unique in the world and that have special capabilities, with machines that I could not begin to understand. Clients send them plans for a part that has never been made and tell them what they need, and these companies are able to digitize it, model it, put it into the computer and then manufacture multiple copies. They are among the best in the world at this work. That is happening in Drummondville, and it is high-calibre work. I see my colleague from Drummond nodding, so I assume he agrees with what I am saying. I thought this work was fascinating and very impressive. That is just one example of companies that are capable of making parts for seats and engines. I am also thinking of Longueuil. These people are capable of building extremely precise high-tech, high value-added components. These are very good jobs. These people are capable of ensuring that the aircraft built here are among the best in the world. Let us come back to the matter of the Liberal government's lack of vision. Canada is at the back of the pack globally in terms of strategy, because we do not have one. It does not exist. We have no strategy. We do not have an overall vision for one of the economic sectors that we excel in. It is astounding. France, Brazil and the United States take care of their aerospace and aviation sectors. They have a vision that melds civil aviation, defence, space, research and development, and worker training, by bringing all the partners to the table. Here at home, the opposite is true. Things are done piecemeal, ad hoc, by chance. We have ad hoc programs that respond to a small need for help here, a bit of innovation there. The government might put a bit of money into a project or grant a loan if construction is involved, but there is no regularity, predictability or overall vision. The NDP, along with several other parties, is calling on the Liberal government to sit down and finally develop a national aerospace and aviation strategy, because we need one. We also need more R and D investments to ensure that we have the best technology so we can be at the forefront. As we know, many other countries around the world, including China and India, invest heavily in R and D. If we do not do the same, if the sector is not there to support the industries so they can be the best in the world, we will fall behind. We will no longer be among the best. We will no longer be the international leader in aviation and aerospace. A massive effort is needed, particularly regarding the energy transition. We know that civil aviation, air travel, is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. That is one of the concerns of the NDP. We want to see that industry reduce its carbon footprint. I think everyone would agree that it is important for that sector to do so, although perhaps not as important as it is for the trucking sector, for example, or the energy sector, like the oil and gas sector. We all agree on that. I read recently on the news website Courrier international that, in terms of greenhouse gases, the civil aviation sector is the equivalent of landfills, of waste management, which represents between 3% and 4% of total emissions. That is not insignificant, but it is not the worst problem either. However, there is room for improvement. Interesting things can be done for the future. We hear a lot about the electrification of private and public transportation. However, looking ahead, there are many possibilities for the future of air transport thanks to electrification based on several models. I am not an engineer, but we are not yet at the point of having electric planes, although we already have electric buses, trains and cars. I am very pleased to have a fully electric car. I can participate in the green movement, although it is better to use a bike if possible. We are a long way from electric aircraft for a host of reasons, in particular because they require tremendous amount of energy. Given the size of battery it would take to generate the necessary energy, the plane would be too heavy to take off. We are not there yet. Perhaps green hydrogen will be a promising fuel option. The hydrogen must be produced with renewable energy. Having a plane run on hydrogen produced with natural gas is not necessarily the best option. There would not be much benefit to such a change. However, the federal government has a role to play in the electrification of transport, and it could ensure that the industry is able to propose promising and productive innovations for the future. Once again, we must not get left behind by foreign competitors. If we fall asleep at the wheel, others are going to get ahead of us, which would be a great pity for our industry and its future. Speaking of the future, I mentioned the importance of professional training earlier. The unions, including the machinists' union, are talking about the next generation of workers. It takes time to train new workers, because these are often skilled jobs that require specialized knowledge and have a learning curve. It is sort of like the apprentice system from the Middle Ages. Experienced workers coach trainees and show them the ropes. Currently, little is being done in our high schools and trade schools to steer our youth to the aerospace industry, even though it is an industry that is here to stay, an industry with a future. It is an industry that has good, often unionized jobs with numerous benefits. As mentioned earlier, the industry pays its employees 10% more on average than other Quebec or Canadian workers. I think it would be a good idea to partner with the provincial governments to attract youth to training and employment opportunities in aerospace and aviation. At present, there are no partnerships. Things are done almost randomly, and the current system is essentially word of mouth. This is concerning in terms of maintaining our capabilities, especially considering the labour shortages and stiff competition we are facing. I would also like to address the matter of creating an aircraft recycling program. No provision is made for what happens to aircraft at the end of their life cycle, when they are longer able to fly and need to be replaced. We basically have gigantic scrap yards full of aircraft all over North America. There is usable material in them. There are parts that could be reused. There are some things that could be melted down and recycled. There is no system for recycling aircraft. That is too bad, because we are losing a lot of natural resources and parts that could be repurposed. We have recycling systems for many things in our lives, in daily life, in our municipalities and in our departments, but it seems nothing has been planned for the aviation industry and its aircraft. That is a concern for us. I think the federal government has a lot of work to do on a range of issues relating to the aerospace industry. I am pleased to see that this report includes four solid recommendations. I think we could go further than those recommendations, but they are a good place to start. We need to make sure that Canada and Quebec continue to be centres of excellence in aircraft manufacturing. Together, let us keep making sure that tens of thousands of families can count on a good job and a good income in order to foster our shared prosperity. Let us keep good jobs in Quebec and in all parts of the country.

2443 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 10:57:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that the aerospace industry is worldwide. At the end of the day, many manufacturers, both small and large, in Canada benefit by contract. For example, many would acknowledge that the F-35 is one of the top-rated aircraft in the world. Those F-35 wings are manufactured in the city of Winnipeg, at Magellan. Magellan has the expertise and skill sets that have an impact in the aerospace industry. When the member says that Canada should be purchasing Canada only, in part, he does a disservice to the expertise we have in towns across Canada. Many of those skill sets can provide for the aerospace industry worldwide. Could he could provide his perspective on the importance of Canadian skills being able to capitalize on worldwide tendering projects?

134 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Apr/20/23 10:58:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I was misunderstood. I did not say that the government should be purchasing Canada only. What I said was that I do not understand why it would award a contract directly to an American company without opening a tendering process to Canadian companies that could have submitted a bid. That is the key difference. Why give a gift to Boeing when we have companies here that can make better-quality surveillance aircraft than the P-8? It is not the same thing. For the F-35s, for example, I agree that there can be positive economic spinoffs for companies, including the one in Winnipeg. An aircraft can be built from start to finish here, but that does not mean that a company will do all its work in one country. We know that. I had the opportunity to visit a Bombardier plant in Mirabel that was building the C Series at the time, before it was sold to Airbus for the A220. Some parts for the C Series were made in Ireland. It was the wings, if my memory serves me. Those parts were then brought here. I think that is part of the global model, where aircraft parts are made in different parts of the world based on each place's expertise. That is how it should be.

224 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/20/23 11:00:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has clearly done his homework on several aspects of the report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I would like to take this moment to acknowledge the excellent working relationship I had with his colleague, the member for Windsor West, on the issue of the aerospace industry, in particular. The committee's report contains seven recommendations that touch on important themes: the idea of a centre of excellence, research and development, basic research, greener aircraft, energy transition, the circular economy, recycling, maintenance, innovation and procurement. The member will no doubt appreciate recommendation 7 of the report, which reads as follows: That the Government of Canada collaborate with provinces and territories to fund post-secondary training across all sectors of the aerospace industry, adequately accessible all over Canada. I believe that is one of the things the member brought up. I would also like to talk about recommendation 5, which he touched on quickly: That the Government of Canada, following consultation with industrial partners and labour representatives, develop a national strategy for its aerospace sector. That is fundamental to a vision for the future. Is the NDP ready to work with the Bloc Québécois to put pressure on the government to implement this strategy and a vision for the future of Quebec's economy for the next 20, 30 or 50 years?

233 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Apr/20/23 11:01:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. We are prepared to work with all of the parties in the House on a national aerospace and aviation strategy. I am very honoured to have been part of the all-party caucus on the aerospace industry for the past few years. We have had a lot of discussions in that regard, and there were many panels on the subject during election campaign debates. Everyone seems to be working in good faith in order to have a comprehensive strategy and an overall vision so that we can bring all of the partners to the table, partners from the industry, the unions and the education and job training communities. We want to help the industry get ahead. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is dragging its feet. The last budget was a disappointment in this regard. Let us be clear. All this industry of excellence got in the budget was a hastily offered pittance, and yet the demand is clear. There seemed to be some signs of interest on the part of the Liberals. We need to once again take up the torch for the aerospace industry. It is high time we had a comprehensive strategy.

202 words

Mrs. Rechie Valdez (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 11:03:02 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech and vision for the future. I am curious about this: What are his thoughts on the Canadian Space Agency's recent announcement that Jeremy Hansen will be the first Canadian to travel to the moon, and what opportunity would that bring for us here in Canada?

55 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

Apr/20/23 11:03:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, regardless of our political stripes, I think that we all felt proud when we learned the name of the Canadian astronaut who would be part of the next mission around the moon. I want to emphasize the importance of the Canadian Space Agency within the aerospace and aviation ecosystem. The space aspect should not be overlooked. I am proud to see we are able to continue that tradition. Even if we are not a world superpower, we still have some input. We are a part of that great human adventure. I want to congratulate the astronaut on his appointment. We will be following his adventures and his journey with great interest.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Apr/20/23 11:04:25 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the aviation and aerospace industry is really important in Longueuil. We have an airport, there is Héroux‑Devtek and Pratt & Whitney. I even visited Pratt & Whitney, which is working on a hybrid electric engine. I saw it, from a distance. The company does not reveal its secrets to just anyone, but I know that it is working on it and it is important. This is an issue my colleague raised. He talked about the fight against climate change in relation to the aerospace industry. He seemed to suggest that it was not very significant, but he did highlight the fact that the industry is responsible for 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions. If the industry were a country, it would be the 11th biggest emitter. That is actually significant. I would like my colleague to tell us more about the importance of working on this. The most radical environmentalists are telling us that no one should fly anymore. I do not think that that will happen overnight. We need to help the industry gradually migrate to hydrogen-powered electric engines, and time will tell. It is really important for us to invest in this area. I would like him to tell us more about that.

213 words

All Topics

M. Alexandre Boulerice

Apr/20/23 11:05:39 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would not ask my colleague to reveal Pratt & Whitney's industrial secrets, but I am pleased to hear that the company is working on this. I hope it will come up with a solution that allows the aerospace and civil aviation industries to improve their carbon footprint. I was not trying to minimize the sector's importance. I was saying that 3% is not the same as 40%, although it is important. We have to do better. Every time I take an airplane, I make a donation to a Université du Québec à Chicoutimi program so trees will be planted to offset the greenhouse gas emissions from my flight. However, this is not a long-term solution. The industry will eventually have to improve its carbon footprint. The auto industry is currently making the transition. The inter-city bus sector is currently making the transition. Yes, we need to do more and the federal government needs to do more to support the sector and innovation for research and development to reduce the carbon record of the air transport sector, which, by the way, is not going anywhere either. I think that everyone will want to get together, meet up and visit other countries. I do not think this is ever going to stop. We can reduce, be more discerning about how often we fly. We need to encourage the industry to have a much more acceptable carbon record.

245 words

All Topics

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Apr/20/23 11:07:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. He told me that his was the most beautiful riding in Canada. I am sorry to tell him that mine is the most beautiful. Sadly for him he represents the second most beautiful riding. This morning I have the pleasure to rise to speak to the report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that was tabled on June 16, 2022. This report, entitled “Development and Support of the Aerospace Industry”, has three chapters. Chapter one reiterates that the aerospace industry was one of the hardest hit by the COVID‑19 pandemic. The second chapter is an overview of the different points of view on the implementation of support measures for the aerospace industry. The third chapter presents recommendations to the committee on the industry's recovery. We all know that this industry experienced serious problems during the pandemic. Everyone was affected—the entire industry, not just in Quebec, but across Canada. It is important to emphasize that. It is also important to mention that Quebec is a true leader in the field of aerospace. It is truly world-class. We know that many large companies have developed in Quebec over the years. Today, Quebec is home to a number of large companies, such as Bell Helicopter, Bombardier Aviation, Textron, CAE, and Pratt & Whitney Canada, as well as many equipment manufacturers and an extremely strong network of subcontractors. Some subcontractors are in my riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and I am proud of that. We know that, when building an aircraft, safety is obviously the most important thing and all the parts that make up that aircraft must be made with extreme diligence and precision. I am very pleased to know that several companies in my riding contribute to this sector in Canada and Quebec. Most companies in this industry are located in the greater Montreal area, but Quebec has over 200 aerospace companies and about 20 research centres for which it is renowned. It is renowned for the entire network surrounding aerospace: the university network, research centres, college centres for the transfer of technology, or CCTTs. Incidentally, there are three CCTTs in my hometown, La Pocatière. They are all organizations that, directly or indirectly, contribute to the quality of this industry. The industry generates revenues in excess of $34 billion, representing a contribution of $20 billion to $28 billion to the GDP. Over $700 million is invested each year in research and development. That is a lot of money. Montreal is one of the world's three aerospace capitals, with Seattle in the United States and Toulouse in France. In Canada, 50% of aerospace production takes place in Quebec. It is a Canada-wide industry, but aerospace is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario, just as British Columbia has the best vines in Canada. Every Canadian province thus strives to highlight their entire industry, which also explains why Canada is so diverse in the production of all these elements. Our universities and technical colleges, including Montreal's École polytechnique, train over 4,500 students every year, who join a highly skilled workforce. It should be noted that there are 200,000 people working in aerospace in Canada. This report was prepared by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Before the final report and recommendations were presented, 33 witnesses had appeared. On November 2, 2020, the committee undertook a study of the issues related to the development and support of the aerospace industry. Four meetings were held and, as I said, 33 witnesses appeared. The testimony highlighted the fact that, even before the COVID‑19 pandemic, the industry was already experiencing difficulties. We have to put this in context: There were significant labour shortages, just as there are in many Canadian and Quebec sectors at present. It was already a reality in the industry. Canada had started to lose highly skilled workers to other countries, and training centres had difficulty providing new workers. This was a very important aspect of all the speeches that were made before the committee. Witnesses came to talk to us about it. We are in competition with the rest of the world and, obviously, we must have the best training centre and we must be able to integrate the people who arrive in Canada as quickly as possible based on the training that they already have. The same is true for the medical and health care sectors, among others. We must have the best employees in the world in the industry, and we must be ready to welcome them. The industry was hard hit by the pandemic, and the airlines basically stopped operating. The entire commercial aircraft production chain was broken. Collectively, Canadian companies in the industry lost 40% of their revenue, and more than half of them had to lay off workers. Commercial flights have since resumed, but the aerospace industry is still suffering. Support for the industry was one of the issues that was raised as part of the study that led to the report. Most of the witnesses that we heard from said that they were in favour of the idea of federal support for the aerospace industry. Many organizations indicated that the industry has been doing a lot of research and development that benefits other industries and Canada's economic growth. Of course, the research in this sector is very important and has an impact on other sectors of the Canadian industry. Witnesses recommended actions rooted in four main areas: direct funding; research, development and training; procurement; and strategy and regulation. After hearing from all witnesses, the committee made some recommendations, the most important of which I am going to share. We know that this government is extremely wasteful. That is nothing new; we have seen huge deficits for the last eight years. As a Conservative, it would be rather ill-advised of me to ask the government to spend even more and loosen the purse strings even more. At the same time, there are concrete solutions, incentives and measures that the government could put in place to help the aerospace industry while remaining fiscally prudent. Here is the first recommendation: That the Government of Canada ensure that a Center of Excellence on Aeronautics 4.0 be created and that it can bring together university- and college-level expertise in this field, and that this Center increase research capacities and development in this sector. I spoke earlier about the college centres for the transfer of technology, the university network and the government of Canada's research centres. Earlier, I heard members talking about airplanes that could become electric. If we got all these people to the same table, we would be working together. As recently as yesterday, I saw a report about the first airplane with an electric motor, a small aircraft that is now authorized to fly in Canada. We need to continue to do research in that field. Here is the second recommendation: That the Government of Canada ensure that significant financial incentives be put in place for basic research, including to develop a greener aircraft... This is what I just talked about. This same recommendation requests the following: That the Government of Canada promote a circular economy approach in order to establish a policy for recycling aircraft that are taken out of service. We are currently conducting another study on plastics and battery recycling. All of these elements must be integrated with one another. Of course, we did not think about it as much when we started talking about electric vehicles. This will be another very important aspect in terms of pollution. It is one thing to collect all the raw materials to make batteries, but it is quite another to dispose of them after they have been used, and recycle them to make other batteries that can be used in other sectors, or even in the auto sector. It will be the same with aircraft, and we have to start thinking about it now. I will read another of the recommendations, which I think is one of the most important ones: That the Government of Canada...develop a national strategy for its aerospace sector. A national strategy would essentially bring together all the players, not only in Quebec, but across Canada, to push us even further in terms of what we can achieve in this industry. Obviously, we are talking about airplanes, but aerospace is much broader than that. It includes a whole sector of activity, essentially anything related to the sky. I think we need to do better and do more for the aerospace industry and more for Quebec. We know that aerospace is especially important in Quebec, just like the auto industry is important in Ontario, as I was saying earlier, and vineyards are important in British Columbia. I am sure my colleague will get into that. We have everything to gain as a country from developing this industry even better and regulating it even better.

1545 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/20/23 11:17:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's reference to the automobile industry. It is important for us to recognize that often in different regions of the country we will find certain industries that have excelled. When we think of the automobile industry, we have to think of the province of Ontario. When we think of our aviation and aerospace industry, which is very strong and healthy, we think of the province of Quebec. We also have significant industries in Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia and even in other areas, and it all feeds into the bigger picture of Canada's aerospace industry. I say that because it is important that we recognize that there are many ways, both direct and indirect, that the government has been supporting the aerospace industry. Could my colleague provide his thoughts in terms of the worldwide impact on the aerospace industry which has been hit hard by the pandemic, leading to less demand as a direct result of the pandemic?

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Apr/20/23 11:18:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question, that the pandemic had a global impact on the industry. The impact in Canada is even greater. The Canadian industry is so developed that we are not only supplying aircraft to Canadian companies such as Air Canada, WestJet and others, but we are selling aircraft, and aircraft engines and parts around the world. Obviously there was an impact. My colleague's question is interesting because he talked about the automobile sector. He said that this had repercussions across Canada, which seems obvious to me. In my riding, there is a company called Liberty Spring. It supplies half the shocks of all the vehicles built around the world. We can be extremely proud of that kind of business. Its headquarters are in Montmagny, in my riding. I am a business owner myself. We can be proud of what business owners have done to develop this industry for over a century now in Quebec and Canada. The same goes for the auto industry. These industries are not in competition, and we should not frame them as such. We all have to work together in this country.

192 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/20/23 11:19:48 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my generous colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his presentation today and for his collaboration. He is an important ally at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and I would like to point that out. There is someone else I would like to acknowledge for their leadership in preparing this study. Members know how the topic of a study is chosen. I had negotiations and interesting discussions with the other vice-chair at the time, the member for Carleton, who is now the leader of the official opposition. In view of all the points he made, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup spoke with the eloquence of a possible future innovation, science and industry minister. Will he pledge to support the report's fifth recommendation and ensure that it is in the next election platform of the Conservative government in waiting? Will the Conservative Party have a national aerospace policy, which would obviously be developed after consulting union representatives and industry partners? Will the Conservative Party have a formal recommendation in its next election platform? Specifically, will the leader of the official opposition support and advance that strategy?

211 words