44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 20, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 12:03:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like conclude this debate by saying that the industry is united.
The world is short some 6,000 aircraft and so far, the government's response has been timid, in the industry's words. Allow me to draw attention to the contributions of various people. We heard from 33 witnesses, including representatives from Aéro Montréal. I want to thank its president and chief executive officer. We also heard from Mike Mueller of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, along with the representatives of MDA, Airbus Canada, Airbus Helicopters Canada, STELIA Aerospace St-Laurent, Telesat and Unifor. I also want to thank Renaud Gagné of Unifor Québec.
We also heard from representatives of Boeing Canada, the Canadian Council for Aviation and Aerospace, Hexagon's Autonomy & Positioning Division, Rheinmetall Canada Inc., Boeing, Héroux-Devtek, NAV Canada, Bell Textron, and more.
Consultations with industry partners and union representatives have generated a broad consensus within the industry in support of a national aerospace strategy backed by the billions of dollars needed for the industry to develop. Is the government of Canada headed in this direction?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 2:55:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was not particularly convincing.
To sum up, Ottawa is pushing aside Quebec's expertise and opting for American planes that even the Americans do not want. This is high treason towards our aerospace industry. Quebec has all the components to assemble an aircraft from A to Z. Ottawa does not have the right to offer Boeing $9 billion of taxpayers' money without a call for tenders, especially for planes that do not even meet the maintenance criteria.
Will the government back down and issue a real call for tenders? That is basic common sense.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
