Debates of Feb. 9th, 2005

Patent Act

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would not respond to the innuendo and hearsay that seems to characterize all the questions we get. Let us deal with the facts.

Yes, 20% of cases are complex and are not resolved in as expeditious a manner as we could. We sometimes have look at them and find out whether they require special intervention. The current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said very clearly, and this is our government's priority, that he has a six point plan of action to speed up the process, to change some of the processes where they do not work and to deal with them, but to do it in a manner in which we set some very clear ways to look at this. We have an evaluation. We continue to evolve the system to meet the changing needs of the clients who come into the system. Let us work together.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said very clearly that he has a six point plan. We want to hear what members across the hall have to say. We want to hear what Canadians have to say. Let us take the complex questions and get some complex solutions to serve them in a flexible, transparent and compassionate manner.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Madam Speaker, on November 17, 2004, a few months ago, I put a question to the Minister of Industry, encouraging him to move forward with his aerospace strategy. At that time, his answer was:

—we are moving ahead on a strategy and we will announce the strategy once we have completed discussions and negotiations... We are moving forward with an aerospace strategy, and we will do it in a timely manner.

We are still waiting for a strategy to be announced. All we have heard since was that, at least, an offer had been made by the government to find a solution to help Bombardier so that it could build its new aircraft. At least, in that respect, the Minister of Industry took action following the questions we had put.

However, this happened also after the Minister of Transport, who is the minister responsible for Quebec, made some sort of false statement in January, when he said that an offer had been made on January 13, even though that was not the case.

What is important now is ensuring that the government will reach an agreement with Bombardier. The project must go forward, while respecting the current distribution of jobs in Canada, with approximately 55% in Quebec. We must ensure that we do not lose this project to New Mexico, for example, because the federal government acted too slowly. I hope that the necessary efforts will be made, today, to make up for lost time and ultimately produce results.

This afternoon, I asked a question confirming that, last fall, Bombardier had been offered a $1.5 billion loan guarantee so it could build jets for Air Canada. Four months later, the letter of credit agreement is unconfirmed, uncertified and not applicable. Bombardier itself has to assume the cost of additional credit because of this. So this is a bad example of the reality in which we are living.

Can the government spokesperson reassure me that we are going to reach a solution quickly and that the thousands of jobs at stake are going to be saved? We have developed an aerospace industry, especially in Quebec, but elsewhere in Canada as well, which deserves our support, and which deserves assistance for research and development. We also need an approach that complements the efforts of the Quebec government and others.

Now that the employees in the Toronto area have said they do not want to renegotiate their contract with Bombardier, is that not a compelling reason for us to have an announcement as soon as possible? Such an announcement is necessary so that Bombardier's board can decide to construct its new aircraft and so that we can benefit from the economic spinoffs, which would be good to have.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian aerospace industry makes a significant contribution to the overall Canadian economy, with some 700 aerospace and defence firms across the country. It employs more than 75,000 people. Sales in 2003 exceeded $20 billion.

Aerospace is much more than just one Canadian traditional industry. It is one of Canada's leading advanced technology exporters. The sector invested approximately $1 billion on research and development in 2003. Aerospace is the second largest investor in R and D in Canada and the fourth in Canada's top 20 industrial R and D performers.

In recent years markets have been slow and competition is tight. Aerospace products require substantial investments and have long development periods. These realities are placing tough demands and new pressures on the aerospace sector. The government is quite conscious of the new pressures and wishes of the aerospace industry.

In the Speech from the Throne we made it very clear that aerospace is a key industry and a priority for the government. The government has committed itself to developing a national strategy to help the sector strengthen its technology leadership and position itself for the future.

A national aerospace strategy could provide the broad context within which the company could consider individual funding decisions. This broad context would include considerations such as the changing international business climate, the economic impact and fiscal implications of support, skills development, trade policy and individual investments that fit the overall direction of Canada's aerospace sector.

The Minister of Industry is moving quickly to develop this strategy. He is collaborating with the industry stakeholders and provincial counterparts. An initial strategic framework will be completed within the next few weeks to provide the context for pressing decisions. This initial framework would then pave the way for developing a long term, comprehensive strategic action plan.

In developing a national aerospace strategy, we will build on impressive achievements to date and on government programs, such as sales financing from Export Development Canada and research and development support such as that available from Technology Partnerships Canada. The partnerships, which have been forged between industry and government, have produced good results for companies and Canada.

Bombardier's success with its family of regional jets is a case in point. There are many other examples in which a risk sharing investment by the government has resulted in new aerospace business for firms in Canada.

Speaking of Bombardier, the third largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, the government also recognizes that the company is one of aerospace's top anchors. Bombardier's aerospace division is Canada's largest aerospace firm with sales of $11 billion, more than 50% of Canada's overall space output. The company employs 13,000 workers in its facilities in Montreal, Toronto and North Bay and relies on an extensive supplier network.

Members will know that Bombardier is currently considering a next generation aircraft, the CSeries, and we are doing everything we can to recognize timetables that Bombardier would require to move this project forward.

The federal government recognizes how important this aerospace industry is to Quebec and to all other Canadians. We are working very hard to develop a national aerospace strategy and will work hard to ensure the growth and prosperity continues.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the parliamentary secretary and I share the same view as regards the importance of the aerospace industry. This is obvious. However, last fall, the federal government, based on the minister's replies, was supposed to release a study on its policy. It is now February and the hon. member is talking about a policy paper, a background paper that is being prepared through a consultation process. I hope this document is available as quickly as possible.

The government's offer is a major factor in the decision by Bombardier's board of directors. However, the more general framework under which these investments will be made for the “C” series aircraft is also important. This is also true for all other investments, for small and medium size businesses in the aerospace industry, and for other sectors such as helicopter production, for example, and related industries. It is urgent that this policy be known. It is urgent that this consultation process be completed and that we get a clear message, as we did for example in the 1980s regarding the development of patent drugs, which generated an economic boom.

Can we get assurances that the government will release its study and, more importantly, that it will make an interesting offer to Bombardier, so that this issue can be settled as quickly as possible?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the prospect of Bombardier CSeries has created a great deal of interest in Canada. The government recognizes the importance of this program and is developing a national aerospace strategy that will provide context within which we can make decisions. We would like Bombardier to assemble the CSeries in Canada and are continuing to discuss areas of possible collaboration with our provincial counterparts.

That being said, I am sure the member would agree on focusing only on Bombardier gives a very limited view to aerospace industry. While Bombardier is important, we have other strong, competitive companies that are key players in this aerospace sector. These companies are also embarking on new research and development projects for their companies and competition in the future. Our national aerospace strategy will reflect this strategy.

Aerospace is a key industrial priority for the Government of Canada. We are developing a new national aerospace strategy to ensure continued growth and prosperity. We are interested in Bombardier and the entire aerospace industry.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:39 p.m.)