Debates of Oct. 18th, 2004

Questions on the Order Paper

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this being the first time I have had the floor when you have been in the Chair, may I congratulate you, and also ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of that motion that Bill C-4, An Act to implement the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

International Interests in Mobile Equipment (aircraft equipment) Act

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to congratulate you on your appointment. I am certain that the House will be enriched by your presence in the Chair.

I also would like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for North Vancouver.

Canada played a leadership role in the negotiation of the convention and protocol which were designed to facilitate the financing of aircraft equipment, airframes, aircraft engines and helicopters.

There was strong support for this project from the provinces, territories, airlines, industry associations and aircraft manufacturers. Canada's active involvement in the negotiation leading up to the adoption of the convention and protocol highlights this country's commitment to seek global solutions to global problems in cooperation with the rest of the international community.

Extensive consultation with interested parties were held throughout the development process. Representatives of the Canadian industry were present and participated in many of the meetings leading up to the diplomatic conference at Cape Town as well as at the meeting that formally adopted the instruments.

Momentum for achieving these instruments grew very strong in early 1999 with negotiations in Rome and Montreal involving Unidroit and ICAO. The convention and protocol were adopted on the last day of the diplomatic conference held in Cape Town, South Africa, from October 29 to November 16, 2001.

The package adopted at Cape Town is rather novel in form. It consists of a convention drafted in general terms and a protocol with rules specific to aircraft equipment that complement and vary the rules of the convention.

To make the instruments more user friendly, the Cape Town conference decided that a consolidated text would be produced and distributed along with the convention and protocol. The consolidated text will be a useful interpretive tool.

Canada signed the convention and protocol on March 31, 2004. To date, 28 countries have signed the instruments and four countries have ratified them. The convention came into force on April 1, 2004, and the protocol will come into effect once eight countries have ratified it.

The United States has passed implementing legislation and the president has senate authorization to ratify the convention and protocol. Other countries can be expected to follow suit once the U.S. ratifies it.

The convention and protocol are the subject of the bill currently being considered. They represent an unparalleled example of cooperation between governments and industry in creating a harmonized international legal regime.

In addition, the International Air Transport Association has indicated that it estimates that the convention and protocol would generate savings of $5 billion for the airline industry.

It seems obvious then that passage of this bill will mark an important stage in the creation of an international system which the aviation industry throughout the world will find highly advantageous.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also take the opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment.

You know that, of course, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-4, since it will allow to give equipment as security to bankers throughout the world. There is no problem with that.

However, the question I ask the member is this: does he not find it strange that we are discussing giving equipment as a security when the industry is in the middle of an unprecedented crisis? To give aircraft as security, we must be able to build them.

Of course, I find once again that the Minister of Transport, by introducing this bill before introducing the one to help the aerospace industry throughout Canada, is having a very bad start in his role as the Minister of Transport. Once again, he is putting the cart before the horse. He has done so all his life.

I will then ask my question to our Liberal colleague.

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that the entire aerospace industry supports this new protocol under which, when there are bankruptcy problems, state parties would be able to resort to an international legislation allowing equipment to be used as security.

There is no doubt that the industry is anxiously waiting for this and will achieve considerable gains through this international agreement.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I read the bill. My question is rather complex, and yet it is not.

I read somewhere that this bill will improve airlines' ability to buy aircraft. My understanding is that, under this convention, aircraft can be seized, and lending institutions can take engines and aircraft by way of security in order to get their money back in case buyers do not pay.

Here is my question about aircraft being used to carry passengers. If a carrier does not pay, and if the aircraft is abroad and is seized by the owner, how are the travellers supposed to get back to Canada?

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt this piece of legislation is quite complex. International agreements stipulate that operational details will come later on, and only then will the agreement be really in force.

Of course, these issues are under study and will be resolved as soon as the protocol becomes operational and the details of its implementation are finalized.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague in offering my congratulations to you on your new duties. If there is someone in the House who deserves to occupy the chair, it is you.

That said, I would like to put a question as well to our new colleague, whom I wish good luck in his new duties.

In the Bloc Québécois, as the member for Richelieu knows, we have given a lot of thought to Technology Partnerships Canada, because it is a program that was not sufficiently capitalized in terms of the needs of the aerospace industry, an industry which, as we know, is pivotal in Quebec's industrial sector.

Would our colleague join the dynamic team of the members of the Bloc Québécois caucus who, as we know, made the defence of Quebec's interests the focus of their concerns, to ask that more money be allocated to Technology Partnerships Canada, to enable us, for example, to better support a company like Bombardier?

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I hope I understood him well, but if is asking me to join the Bloc Québécois, I must of course tell him that it is not in my intentions as a Liberal member.

However, in my opinion, Canada has always supported Quebec's aerospace industry, and it will continue to do so. The industry minister has said it very often. Clearly, the aerospace industry is a pillar of our industry, not only in Quebec, but also in Canada.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will let my previous record stand in terms of congratulations to you.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the legislative amendments that will come into force upon the ratification of the convention on international interests and mobile equipment, and the protocol to the convention on international interests and mobile equipment on matters specific to aircraft equipment.

Canada is a leader in electronics registries and has one of the most modern asset based financing systems in the world. Canada already has a sophisticated financial regime that uses assets as collateral. However, implementation of the convention and protocol would benefit the aviation industry by amending insolvency legislation and establishing an international registry specifically for aircraft equipment.

The convention and protocol would establish an international registry in which interests in aircraft equipment would be registered. This registry would replace individual national registries. It would record the existence of rights and prospective rights and determine their priority for use in the purchasing and financing of aircraft.

Currently in Canada each province and territory maintains its own aircraft registry and the federal government maintains a registry as mandated by the Bank Act. The establishment of a single worldwide international registry would replace both the federal and provincial registries for aircraft and aircraft parts in Canada, greatly simplifying aircraft registration. This will create a uniform, secure and predictable environment at the international level for Canadian business. This is in line with Canada's goal of achieving enhanced transparency, security and predictability in international business.

The Bank Act's special security regime allows banks in Canada to register security interests on a national basis for certain types of defined products listed in the act. The types of products that can be registered under the Bank Act are technically broad enough to include aircraft equipment covered by the new protocol.

Since the goal of the protocol is to create a single international registry, amendments to the Bank Act would be required to avoid overlap. The most effective means of doing this would be to remove the aircraft equipment from the application of the Bank Act. The international registry would allow aircraft owners, lessors and financial institutions to record their rights, including security interests in aircraft and aircraft engines.

Registration establishes the purchasers' or the creditors' priority over the unregistered or the subsequently registered interests of other parties. Information in the Internet based registry will be available to and accessible by any individual or company directly. This will provide a considerable advantage in terms of time, cost savings and improved certainty in resolving questions of priorities of interests.

Aviareto, an Ireland based company, was selected as registrar to a tendering process supervised by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The establishment of the international registry has begun and Aviareto will operate the registry once the convention and protocol come into force.

Before Canada ratifies the convention and protocol, a careful examination will be done of the final acceptability of the terms of operation of the new international registry. Canada will withhold ratification until it is satisfied that the registry is fully operational and secure. Amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and the Winding-Up and Restructuring Act would also be required in order to implement the convention and the protocol.

The bill provides for a special remedy in the case of insolvency that would impose a fixed stay period of 60 days. After this period, creditors could reclaim an aircraft or aircraft equipment on which they have a security. Under current legislation there are various periods within which creditors are subject to a stay on their ability to enforce security interests. These stays can sometimes extend to more than a year. The adoption of a fixed 60 day stay period would increase certainty in the system and level the playing field between Canada and the United States.

The U.S. industry already benefits from a similar provision under the U.S. bankruptcy code. The adoption of consequential amendments to Canada's insolvency laws would benefit Canadian aircraft manufacturers, financiers and airlines at the international level. Although these changes would provide better protection for creditors, they would not materially impact the debtors' ability to pursue reorganizations in the case of insolvency.

The federal legislation required to implement the convention and protocol would make the necessary amendments to the relevant acts. The legislative amendments may be proclaimed into force at different times, but no later than the date on which the convention and the protocol enter into force in Canada.

The establishment of the international registry and the associated harmonized asset based legal regime will significantly reduce the risks associated with aircraft financing. The effect will be a healthier, more stable international aviation industry. Adopting the bill will set in motion the legislative amendments required to achieve the goal.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, may I also commend you on your appointment, as my colleague for Hochelaga has already done.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to speak to Bill C-4. I have a comment and a question.

As far as the principle of Bill C-4, we are not against virtue. However, in my opinion, it does not solve all the problems. The lack of a real aerospace policy is a major issue. It was mentioned earlier. Someone talked about Bombardier and the fact that some American states are trying to convince it to set up shop south of the border. Meanwhile, Ottawa is waiting. In addition, support for research and development is anemic. Many issues are pending. Technology Partnerships also suffers from underfunding.

It is well known that the aerospace industry in the province of Quebec generates annual sales of $14 billion and employs 40,000 people. A huge number of jobs are at stake.

We feel it is urgent that the government implement a real aerospace policy. Does the hon. member of the government party not think that that would be the real solution, rather than focusing only on one element of such a policy with Bill C-4?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the aeronautics industry is very important and vital to the economy of Canada. I can say that the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Transport are both working on an aeronautics policy which they will bring to the House for consideration.

[Réal Lapierre, Bloc, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberal Party rushed to help the Ontario auto industry during the electoral campaign, can the member assure us that measures will be taken to counter the approaches made by the three American states courting Bombardier well before an aerospace policy is adopted?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all the stakeholders involved will be brought into the process so that their interests are carefully considered by the government as it considers the solution to the aeronautics policy.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also congratulate you on your recent appointment and your heavy responsibilities. Having known you for a long time, I am sure that you will do a good job.

I have a very quick question, because I do not have too much time left. I know we are only allowed five minutes for questions and comments.

My question is for the new member. He said that the legislation would include an international aircraft registry. Since Canada already has a national registry, can the member tell me how these two registries will be transferred or how we will work with these two registries?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, we are working along with 28 other countries, four of which have signed on to this protocol, and four have already ratified it. As I indicated in my comments, before Canada ratifies this agreement it will have to be satisfied that it protects the interests we have in Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question. We are very well aware of the problem. I repeat that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-4. The problem is that the industry needs a major investment program in the aeronautics and the aerospace sector.

Can the member confirm that he will support quick action in order to help the whole industry?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the action that has been taken by the two ministers I mentioned, both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Transport, in advancing the importance of the aeronautical policy and bringing forward this proposed legislation is exactly in the interests the hon. member has raised.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that having in my riding the beautiful Mirabel region, home to a fair chunk of the aerospace industry in Quebec, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak to Bill C-4.

My colleagues have stated the Bloc Québécois's position several times already. We are in favour of the bill entitled: an act to implement the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment

We have all understood that the bill is meant to allow bankers to take equipment sold as security. It is true that the industry is facing financing problems and that airlines have difficulty getting the required financing for equipment they sell because buyers, at present, are close to insolvency. All major airlines are seeking protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Some U.S. airlines are considering that protection for the second time. Therefore, this bill is clearly needed.

I repeat the comments I have been making since the beginning of this debate. Once again, I find it rather odd that the Minister of Transport is bringing this legislation before us on its own, without any real plan to revive and relaunch the entire aeronautics and aerospace industry in Canada.

I say that because our companies are under enormous pressure, not only because they have trouble financing themselves, but also because there are many other countries that want to see this industry move to their own territory.

For some weeks, we have been listening to our American neighbours. Three states in the U.S. are ready, on their own, to offer the same amount as the Government of Canada to help Bombardier, among others, launch its complete new aircraft concept, for example.

This is a difficult message for the aeronautics and aerospace industry in Canada. I can give the House a few figures. The United States invests $45 billion per year in aeronautics and aerospace research and development. Some $6.5 billion goes to three companies—Boeing, Raytheon and United Technologies.

In Europe, Airbus receives $3 billion for research and development from various European countries. Here in Canada only $165 million is available, not for Bombardier alone but for the entire aeronautics and aerospace industry.

It should be clear to everyone that this sector is underfunded. Obviously, I have a lot of trouble with that. I will repeat that I come from the Mirabel region. We have heard that men and women who work in this fine industry are going to lose their jobs. Some have already lost them. That is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable when the only action the government is taking is to introduce a bill whose purpose is to have the banks fund this industry. It is as if the Government of Canada said to all industries, “Look here. What we are proposing today is that you go see your bank. The banks will provide financing for your buyers”.

And yet we know that, even if this bill is passed, even if all the countries in the world passed this legislation and an international registry were created, there are not many bankers who would be more interested in taking airplanes as collateral, given the state of this industry throughout the world.

Will it help? Yes, the industry thinks it will; it is asking for this legislation. It has been asking for it for years, and Canada has been waiting for years.

The problem is people are now hitting the panic button. We want a major recovery plan for the aerospace industry throughout Canada. The industry is hitting the button, but obviously, nobody in the federal government is responding. A drama is taking place in the industry. It is a drama, because 55% of all jobs in aerospace are in Quebec.

I repeat that when I started as a member of Parliament in 2000, the Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien, made a declaration, which he repeated during the election campaign. It struck me. Understandably so. Such things are of interest to an MP whose riding includes Mirabel. He said that the aerospace industry was to Quebec what the auto industry was to Ontario. At the time, he pointed out that a little more than 61% of all aerospace jobs were in Quebec.

Unfortunately, since then, we have lost 7% of them. The figures have just come out. The industry prepared an update, and representatives reported it to us last week. The Liberal members refused to meet with them. But the representatives reported that the figure is now 55%. The Liberals are happy that Quebec has 55% of all jobs in this sector, despite the fact that this figure represents a 7% reduction for Quebec. That is the reality.

In my region, as you know, Mirabel is close to Boisbriand. We benefited a little bit from the auto industry. The one remaining auto manufacturing plant in 2000 was there. However, in the past three years, since the statement by the prime minister, the GM plant in Boisbriand has shut down. Before the last election, the Liberals announced a support and recovery program for the auto industry in Ontario. Once again, Quebec and the whole aerospace industry are crying for help, arguing that survival was despite all odds. I am very pleased that it got through the events arising from September 11, 2001. The industry managed to survive. But we are currently witnessing drastic staff cuts and, obviously, fierce competition from the US and other countries in the world. They are prepared to ask our businesses, our Bombardiers of this world, the flagships of Quebec's and Canada's economy, to build a plant there, because they have money for them.

Once again, playing fair, Bombardier asks Canada to tell it promptly what its intentions are before it responds to the offers made elsewhere. Today, in this chamber, we are discussing Bill C-4 on the financing of equipment and the fact of putting the future of Bombardier into the hands of the bankers. Everybody knows that it will help and that we agree with that. The problem, though, is that Canada does not have a relief and recovery plan for the industry.

We have the figures to back up what we are saying, with the analysis provided by the famous Technology Partnerships Canada program for research and development. This program was established in 1996. Believe it or not, not one cent more has been made available since, more or less. Despite the fact that the industry's research and development expenditures increase by 8% per year, the budget for the Technology Partnerships Canada program has not been increased. Why? Assistance is provided to the industry and, under this program established in 1996, royalties are paid. Financial assistance is provided to the industry and, when the industry makes sales, it pays royalties, which are reinvested into the program. The only money available is the money that comes in. Because agreements were signed respecting the development of equipment, be it helicopters or airplanes, throughout the industry, no matter what company, money is coming back. The only new money available is the money that has been put back by the industry since the program was established in 1996.

The industry says that this does not make any sense at a time when competition is becoming ferocious. In the United States, some $45 billion is available, and $3 billion U.S. in Europe. That is how much is available to those competing with our industrial flagships, the likes of Bombardier or Pratt & Whitney, which manufacture all aerospace components in Quebec. The recovery or development plans developed by theses industries cannot be too extensive. Yet, that is what Bombardier wants to do in order to be competitive: introduce an entire line of new aircraft. The first phase of the plan includes research and development, production and construction of new lines.

There is also financing to promote exports. In addition, it is true that the bill will help bankers get guarantees. All countries, however, have funding support programs for equipment.

This has been the object of many debates in recent months. There was the loss of the contract. Air Canada bought some equipment from Embraer. This is how things work: the country where the industry is located, Brazil in the case of Embraer, provides some of the funding required. This is why I said earlier that this bill is good, because it allows bankers to take security. However, the problem is that, right now, bankers in the world do not have confidence in the aerospace industry, and particularly not in buyers. Therefore, governments are forced to provide guarantees.

Currently, Brazil is funding 80% of Embraer's deliveries, while here, the Canadian government is funding only 41% of the deliveries of Regional Jet and Bombardier. So, after the buyer paid a visit to the bank and was told that it could not get help, or that it could but only up to a certain percentage, and as Embraer needed venture capital, it turned to the Brazilian government, which guaranteed the loans. This is of course the system in place. Liquid assets must obviously be protected.

In this regard, Canada's program has not been reviewed. Once again, we are debating a bill that is indeed important and one that the industry has been asking for years. However, it merely delegates to bankers the responsibility for getting the aviation and aerospace industry back on track, but this is not what we need. We need a major federal support program, otherwise, unfortunate as this may sound, the new Bombardier regional jets will be developed in some American states or in other countries.

Of course, when we put questions to him, the Minister of Transport says that we should be realist and respectful of the ability of Canadians to pay. I hope that the minister will also be respectful of the ability of the Brazilians, Americans or Europeans who fund this high tech industry so important to us.

During the last Parliament , I had the opportunity to go with you, Mr. Speaker, to the international show at Le Bourget as the Bloc Québécois representative and transport critic; you too were involved in the transportation file. I was surprised by the eagerness of countries without an aircraft or aerospace industry that would have liked at all cost to attract aerospace manufacturing to their country. Having such an industry is very glamourous for a country. It is high tech at its highest level. This is the reality.

We in Quebec are fortunate to have the second highest concentration of aerospace and aeronautical industries in North America. That is very fortunate. We have the fourth highest concentration of aerospace manufacturing in the world.

Once again the federal government is dragging its feet. However, during the last election campaign, it did not forget to invest to help the automobile industry. It did not forget, and it was done at Quebec's expense. As you know, since the Boisbriand GM plant closed down, no car is manufactured in Quebec although the province is one of the biggest producers of aluminum and magnesium in the world. Some 85 per cent of these metals are used to build automobiles. We are one of the biggest producers of those basic materials. We do not manufacture automobiles and very few car parts because, as you now know, it is all about industrial clusters. When you have an automobile industry, a whole spare part industry gravitates around it. That is what is meant by an industrial cluster.

They set up shop in Quebec. That is what happened with the aviation and aerospace industry, but we are losing ground. I explained it earlier. In 2000, we had 62% of jobs; in 2004 we only have 55%. I repeat we must put money where ideas are. Of course I remember the statement by the then Prime Minister of Canada, which the new Transport Minister has repeated, namely, that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automobile industry is to Ontario. However money speaks louder than words. On must be able to invest where needed. A vigorous aerospace industry expansion program is long overdue. Time is of the essence.

Such a program ought to have been tabled simultaneously with Bill C-4. That is what we ought to have been hearing today, speeches in support of the government, as there are for this bill. All parties would have risen to speak in support of a massive renewal effort for the aerospace and aeronautical industry. But it is not there.

When will it be? We have just heard some members tell us that yes, they are working on it. Let them go and talk with the owners of the aviation and aerospace companies and they will see that they know what they want. They could provide you with a draft program in no time. Agreement would not be long in coming.

The problem is that there is no desire on the part of the federal government to create any major revival of this industry. Why not? I would say for political reasons. Of course, there are still bitter feelings toward Quebec. That is the harsh reality, and that is why many Quebeckers feel Canada is not their country and they would be better off on their own.

Once again today we find ourselves faced with the same reality: a federal government that is turning a deaf ear to the demands of an industry that is, once again, concentrated in large part in Quebec, but has lost a lot of ground since 2000.

The Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power in this House to return the aerospace industry to its former status in Quebec, and in Canada of course. We are here to defend the interests of Quebec. We were here, we will continue to be here, and in greater numbers than in 2000. We have many new colleagues with us now to tell this House that Quebec has needs

If Canada cannot give Quebec what it wants, it just needs to let us go. It is as simple as that, no more complex than that. We will take our own tax money and with it will be able of helping these leading lights of our industry. That solution fully respects the interests of each party.

Once again, on behalf of the people of Quebec, I am asking the federal government to waste no time in tabling a recovery plan for the entire aerospace and aeronautical industry across Canada. The entire industry needs help, and so does the part of it that is situated in Quebec.

I will end on that note. Mirabel experienced Liberal-style management. Land was expropriated for the construction of Mirabel airport. That was the approach taken. The dream came true at a cost of displacing more than 3,000 people, the greatest deportation of men and women since the deportation of the Acadians. That is what happened in Mirabel.

An airport was built in the middle of nowhere. I know there is no turning back once the airport is built. The only problem is that the Liberals have never had the courage of their political decisions. It was the Pearson government that decided to put Mirabel airport there. Do not tell me that when the airport was built they did not have plans for autoroutes 13 and 50 and a high-speed train to make it accessible. A station was built under the terminal. Anyone who has followed this file closely, knows it.

The only problem is that the Liberals lacked the political will. Just think back to when the decision was made. Mirabel was built in order to close Dorval and have all flights go through Mirabel. That was the objective, but no highway or railway links were ever built. When there were 75 Liberal MPs in Quebec it was decided that Dorval would stay.

It is time to stop thinking that the Liberals have the answer to everything. When it comes to Mirabel, they caused most of the problems we are having. In my view they have been in power far too long. The Liberals have been in power for 30 of the 40 years since Mirabel was announced. We have seen the results.

We have seen what that did to the automotive industry. GM in Boisbriand is now closed and demolished thanks to the Liberal government. I hope the aviation and aerospace industry will not experience the same fate as Mirabel and GM in Boisbriand. I hope the Liberals will be able to respect Quebeckers for once.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like myself and all members of this House, you have seen how immensely talented my colleague is. When he rose in the House, he was well aware that he spoke for a large segment of the Quebec population, and he did so with confidence. As he reminded us, the aerospace and aeronautics industry is a major element in Quebec's industrial structure.

I will ask my colleague three short questions. Could he share with us his brief evaluation of the member for Outremont's performance as Transport minister? Second, could he tell us how and in what way he would like to see the Technology Partnerships Canada program improved? Third, could he tell us in closing how he sees events unfolding in the Bloc Québécois's battle over this issue?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hochelaga for his very good questions. You know he is a hard worker, always present in the House as much as possible, except when he is called outside to discuss matters from his riding.

My colleague's first question was about the work of the hon. member for Outremont, the new Minister of Transport. It was no accident that I said that, when the Liberal Party decided not to transfer all international flights from Dorval to Mirabel but to divide them, it was during an era when there were 75 Liberal members from Quebec. The present member for Outremont and Minister of Transport was one of those who could not keep his pants on and did not have enough backbone to respect the promises made by all the previous Liberal Party leaders.

That is why I was saying that Mirabel is under Liberal governance. It was the Pearson government that made that decision. I will say that it was very wise in 1965 to build an airport outside the major urban area, and it is an even better idea in 2004, especially since September 11, 2001. The problem is that there have been other Liberal governments who let the West Island of Montreal play rough with the rest of Quebec. The West Island would rather do business with Toronto than with the rest of Quebec. Such are the hard facts.

The hon. member for Outremont, now the transport minister, was one of those 75 spineless MPs of that time who were not able to say that a decision had been made in 1965 and that it should become reality by closing Dorval and concentrating everything at Mirabel, in a brand new airport away from Montreal. In comparison to new airports built around the world, in terms of their distance from the downtown, Mirabel is about average. It is comparable to the new facilities constructed in the major industrialized capitals of the world. Once again, the Liberal MPs regressed. Just moving forward in time is not progress. Pearson was right in 1965. It is the Liberal MPs since then who have regressed. It is no accident that there are fewer Liberal MPs this time than the last time.

To answer the question of my colleague from Hochelaga, I repeat that the famous Technology Partnerships Canada program is very relevant. This money is needed for research and development. The money available in this program today still corresponds to the money that was available at the time it was created in 1996, while the industry needs are increasing by 8% every year. Is it $150 million more? I would tell you very quickly that the industry as an association can sit down with the government and tell it what it needs for the next five years. I encourage the government to do so. All members of the Bloc Québécois are willing to help, to participate with the industry and to meet with members of the other parties in the House so that we can arrive quickly at an appropriate investment for the industry.

My colleague finished his intervention by wondering how the Bloc Québécois was relevant in this issue. I just told him. I just reached out to other members in the House. The Bloc Québécois is willing to sit in committee with members of all political parties. Choose the committee that you want; we will be there to be able to invite the industry to appear and tell us what it needs. This can be done the following week. We will be there to see that the budgets necessary for the revitalization of this important industry for Quebec and the rest of Canada are adopted as quickly as possible.

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to make a comment, then, I will ask a question of my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. I commend him for his speech. He mentioned very interesting statistics. We now have a very clear understanding of the topic. His presentation was very exhaustive. He talked about research, exports, small and medium-sized business as well as competition.

I have a question to ask him. He again raised a very important issue, that is the need for a real plan to relaunch the aerospace industry. I would like him to tell us what he thinks the cornerstone or priority of this new policy should be.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the hon. for Mégantic—L'Érable for his question. It is always with pleasure that I answer questions as important as the one from my colleague for Mégantic—L'Érable. We can see, from his question, that he has a lot of experience when it comes to small and medium-sized businesses, which abound in my riding. I know he works hard for the support and development of industry as a whole in Mégantic--L'Érable.

The programs are well known. There is Technology Partnerships Canada and, of course, support and loan guarantee programs for the industry. We must be competitive and be able to offer what the competition is capable of offering. When we talk about competition, everybody thinks we are talking about other industries. This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the American states which are trying to attract our best companies by telling them, “We think you are doing a good job. We are ready to offer you the $700 million you need”. What was asked for in the case of Bombardier was $700 million for the development of a new plan and a new aircraft.

We have competitors. We must be able to stand up to them. Once more, I am convinced that the members of the House can very quickly sit in committee and invite the industry to come and tell us what programs it wants improved. That done, we would be ready to vote in favour of the necessary credits so that these investments could be made for the benefit of the communities, and Quebecers in particular.