44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 20, 2023 10:00AM
- Apr/20/23 10:19:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his important question.
Do I think the federal government is stepping up? Hardly. Just compare the aerospace sector with the automotive industry in Ontario. The government contributes billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars, to that industry. However, when it comes to supporting Canada's aerospace economy, it contributes only millions of dollars. I think that is a fundamental difference.
Why do we not have an aerospace supercluster in Quebec based in Montreal and centred on Aéro Montréal? In my opinion, that would be key.
We are talking about an aerospace strategy. We could use industry leadership to send a message. We are one of the only countries without an aerospace strategy. We are talking about risk sharing, the importance of cash flow, and the need to adapt to the needs of SMEs. The economy is also an economy of SMEs, of all the parts suppliers in the orbit of Bombardier, Airbus, Bell Textron, Pratt & Whitney, MDA, Héroux-Devtek and CAE. That is the economy we need to strengthen.
The federal government is not stepping up for the industry. That is what witnesses told our committee.
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 10:24:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to acknowledge that this was a major step. In my opinion, this step is a direct result of the study done by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology a few months before the announcement. The industry came before the committee and clearly stated its needs to the government of Canada.
Yes, the response was issued within a pre-election context, but this response must go beyond just one step. What we need is a truly comprehensive national aerospace strategy that will bring predictability for the next 15 years. The federal government must send a clear message to the Quebec economy underlining the importance of the aerospace industry.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 12:20:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a question that directly relates to recommendation 3 of the committee's report.
It is no secret that Canadian aerospace has benefited workers right across the country, but there is certainly an economy that exists within aerospace beyond just the navigation of these flights; for example, there is the actual maintenance of the equipment. It is important that we support, invest and actually find ways to have local, domestic manufacturers produce some of these parts.
Does the member agree that recommendation 3 has aspects of what we need to see?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 12:33:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as a member from the Montreal area, I support any investment that strengthens the region's economy.
I do not follow this file as closely as my colleague does, but I believe the government issued a report last summer on the state of the Canadian aerospace industry. I assume this report provided an overview of the industry's economic impact.
I expect the report will be used as a basis for a future strategic approach to this industrial sector.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 2:42:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to my colleague. The kind of competence we have on this side of the House is that we listen to Canadians. That is exactly what we did in the last budget, something Conservatives do not like to talk about.
What did they say? To help them with groceries. That is why we came out with the rebate on groceries, and 11 million Canadians will benefit from it. That is listening.
The second thing they said was that they want a family doctor. That is why we invested in health care.
The third thing they said was to build the economy of the future. That is why we got Ericsson to invest close to half a billion dollars here in Ottawa. That is how we build an economy.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 5:32:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the very end of the member's question, he asked if the government was putting sustained pressure on the issue.
We could go back to 2015, when the government was first elected, we had tariffs being put on. At the time, discussions were taking place, with the current government, in terms of how vitally important the softwood industry is to the Canadian economy and how these tariffs were causing a wide spectrum of problems.
Virtually from day one, we have been dealing with this issue, whether it is today's Deputy Prime Minister, who had taken that issue head-on, to the current ministries. The Prime Minister has talked about the issue over the years. We continue to recognize it.
This is not a new problem. It has been taking place under different administrations. Unfortunately, I would suggest, in my humble opinion, it is the American barons, the gigantic, wealthy individuals in the United States, who are really the cause of the problem. Unfortunately, there have been small businesses and companies, and ultimately the workers, here in Canada that have paid the price.
That is the reason why, as a government, it is important we are there to continue to advocate for and support the industry. The member made reference to different ways we could support the industry, whether it is looking at buildings, and it is truly amazing to see the number of tall buildings, skyscrapers, being built with timber, or looking for those alternative ways we could build into the future. That is one of the ways we could do it.
However, there is no doubt that the best interests of all concerned is in fact in dealing with the tariffs, because they are unfair. We have demonstrated that through trade agreements and trade referees. At the end of the day, we know we are on the right side of the issue, that these tariffs are not appropriate. Ultimately, time has shown that we do prevail. Unfortunately, it has been at a substantial cost.
We have to look at ways in which we could minimize those costs to the industry here in Canada. I would suggest, as the member referenced himself, that the American consumers are paying a much higher price because of these tariffs, because of the unfair advantage that the few in the United States are asking for and ultimately being successful at getting those tariffs put in place.
I see my time has expired, but there will be another minute to continue to expand on this.
424 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
