Debates of April 20th, 2016

Bill C-10--Time Allocation Motion

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Air Canada Public Participation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #41

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division and the proceedings from the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 40 minutes.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on an answer given by the Minister of Immigration yesterday in the House to my question regarding the cost of $6.4 million to renovate Canadian forces bases to accommodate refugees who were never housed. The minister stated, “My colleague beside me, the Minister of National Defence, confirms there is nothing truthful in the member's comments about defence.”

The question was based on an Order Paper question, signed and tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. Question No. 18 has already been tabled in the House. The substance of my question and the figures that were used were based on information derived from this very document.

One of two things possibly happened. Either the Minister of Immigration misunderstood the Minister of National Defence's confirmation of the information given to him, or he misled the House and Canadians.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

This sounds more like debate. I guess the member has made his point and now we will go on.

The hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and I hope if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent that the government's response to Question No. 70 be made an order for return and that the response be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

There is no consent.

The hon. government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling, in both official languages, the government's response to Question No. 70.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to provide for certain other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Second reading

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to feel the support of my dear friends, but that is certainly not what Aveos workers are feeling today.

Normally, I am pleased to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Longueuil and Saint-Hubert to talk about bills that matter to them. Since I was elected in 2011, I have been saying that I am my constituents' ears at home in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert and their voice here in Ottawa.

Today, however, I am rising to express their dissatisfaction, disgust, and concern with regard to Bill C-10. God knows that I share those feelings. I cannot believe that things have gotten to this point. When I think of all the things that this Liberal government and previous Liberal governments have done, this takes the cake. The government is signalling left and turning right.

The Liberal government recently boasted about its love and support for the aerospace sector, a leading-edge sector that we can all be proud of, particularly in Quebec. However, when it came time to take real action to support this sector, the government got off track and made a shocking 180-degree turn. It does not make any sense. It is shameful.

Not only will Bill C-10 dilute the guarantees for the City of Mississauga, the City of Winnipeg and the Montreal Urban Community that are in the law, but it will also allow Air Canada to determine the acceptable number of jobs that will remain in Canada instead of complying with the previous provisions of the law.

This will open the door to international outsourcing that Air Canada will consider necessary in order to remain competitive. In short, the government could not care less about the hundreds of good jobs across the country.

It would seem that with the knowledge that Air Canada is committed to buying Bombardier's C Series aircraft, which is an excellent business decision in itself, the Liberal government is passing the buck by easing the legal rules around aircraft maintenance. It is as though production and maintenance are being pitted against one another and the government is not thinking of the Canadian aerospace sector as an industrial ecosystem. I will come back to this later in my speech.

In short, Bill C-10 sends a very ominous message to aerospace workers. It is very worrisome, and I am expressing these concerns on behalf of thousands of people in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert who work in the aerospace sector.

Not all MPs may know this, but the aerospace sector is of particular importance to the people in my riding. Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is home to the Canadian Space Agency, which is located very close to the École nationale d'aérotechnique, a specialized school affiliated with the CEGEP Édouard-Monpetit that trains new workers for high value-added jobs in this sector.

I have had the honour of representing this riding since 2011, and the vitality of the industrial sectors is especially important to me. The industrial cluster employs thousands of people in our region's SMEs.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would ask those who are not here for the debate to take their conversations elsewhere.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for bringing the House to order. After all, jobs are at stake.

In Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, the aerospace sector is made up of companies like MCS-Servo, which makes electrohydraulic control systems, and Héroux-Devtek, which specializes in landing gear. The first leg of the LEM, or lunar module, that landed on the moon was created back home. MAX Technologies is in software and simulators. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention one of the biggest employers in my riding, Pratt & Whitney, a leader in the field of aircraft engine manufacturing, whose achievements include the famous quiet C Series engine. Beal Technology specializes in variable speed drives and load controllers. TechNOW Automation specializes in ultrasound inspection devices. We also have MSB Design and Usinage Netur for components, and Automation Machine Design RC, which specializes in automated equipment. I would not want to forget Amrikart, which is a master in the field of 3D digitization. The list is long, and I could name many more.

¼The point I want to make here is that the aerospace industry cannot be described in monolithic terms. As I said earlier in my presentation, it is an industrial ecosystem, and the vitality of the industry stems from more than just the large corporations, like Bombardier.

I really like using the example of Aéro Montréal and its MACH initiative. Here is how the organization itself describes the initiative:

...the MACH initiative aims to strengthen the supply chain structure and companies involved in it by creating special collaboration links among customers and suppliers....By doing so, it aspires to help develop a world-class supply chain...[and] optimize its performance...in an effort to increase its global competitiveness....The initiative will progressively make available to participating companies services, tools and methodologies to evaluate and improve their performance and market position and further develop business opportunities.

Aéro Montréal should be really proud of this initiative, which will help the supply chain become more competitive. However, the ecosystem comparison does not stop there, and two crucial aspects need to be explained.

There is the contribution of the education system, especially the École nationale d'aérotechnique, which I mentioned earlier, but there is also considerable support from the university sector, especially the École de technologie supérieure, which helps promote new blood, new ideas, and the next generation of workers in this important economic sector. The same can be said for a program like the master's in aerospace engineering, offered jointly by the École polytechnique de Montréal, the École de technologie supérieure, Université Laval, McGill University, Concordia University, and the Université de Sherbrooke.

Above all, there is political will. Take, for example, the Government of Quebec, which decided to take the bull by the horns and invest in innovation in the aerospace sector, recognizing the positive economic impact it can have on Quebec.

I want to quote Suzanne Benoît, the president of Aéro Montréal, talking about the Government of Quebec's strategy:

This strategy will contribute actively to the development of the high value-added aerospace sector which is generating increasing revenues every year. In 2015, they totalled $15.5 billion, an increase of more than 12% compared to 2014.

These impressive figures illustrate the Government of Quebec's political will. For its part, the federal government seems to be headed in the completely opposite direction. Bill C-10 sends some particularly worrisome signals.

The Liberal government is completely destabilizing the ecosystem of the aerospace sector, as I said earlier. We have to think of the aircraft maintenance services as a supply chain of integrated firms. If Air Canada is released from its legal obligations to have its maintenance work done in Canada, not just the company that provides those services will suffer, but also all the companies that supply the parts, the machinery, and the technology. The supply ecosystem is being attacked, and that is serious.

What message are we sending to the current workers and those who want a career in the aerospace sector in the future? We are saying it is no big deal to send jobs overseas, as long as Air Canada remains competitive. The other reason it is no big deal is that we are keeping jobs at Bombardier to build the C Series. That is not how it works.

I think what the government is trying to say is that aerospace production is good, but maintenance is less important. That does not work. We have the legislative means to outsource even more of the manufacturing base. If I were the Liberal government, there would be nothing stopping me from making the big players and Air Canada happy. The employees are being shortchanged.

Shipping jobs abroad, where they likely will not pay as well and come with unknown working conditions, will create uncertainty for many families here at home. This is increasing social inequality. Everyone sees where this is going. We are starting to get quite far away from the sunny ways that the leader of the Liberal Party promised us during the election campaign. Is this his plan for jobs in Canada?

We have two Liberal governments, one in Quebec and the other in Ottawa. They are making decisions that are inconsistent, go every which way, and threaten to undermine an industrial ecosystem that is the envy of the entire world. They are creating utter uncertainty for hundreds if not thousands of workers.

Indeed, Bombardier is important. However, Bombardier is not the only company in Canada that works in the aerospace sector.

Today, I am standing up for the small players, the small businesses, and, of course, students, such as those at the ÉNA. These companies and these people play by the rules. They dedicate themselves to development programs, such as Aéro Montréal's MACH Initiative. To them, this bill sanctions Liberal hypocrisy.

Aerospace workers in Longueuil, Saint-Hubert, and the rest of Quebec will always be able to count on my NDP colleagues and me to condemn this bill, which poses a real threat to good-quality, high value-added jobs in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert. That is unacceptable, so I will be voting against Bill C-10 at second reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the member's remarks. We must recognize that the Government of Canada has an obligation to the aerospace industry and it is meeting that obligation. One only needs to look at the most recent budget.

In a sense of co-operation between Ottawa, and in particular on this issue, the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, both provincial jurisdictions have determined with the stakeholders that it is in the best interests to drop the lawsuit believing that the aerospace industry will be healthier in both my home province of Manitoba and the province of Quebec, not to mention the province of Ontario as well.

Would the member not acknowledge that as a national government, we have a responsibility to listen to what provincial governments are saying? In this case, the province of Quebec has agreed to drop the lawsuit.

Why would the NDP argue that the Liberal government should not listen to the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find that strange because if there is one person who spends a lot of time talking here, it is that member. However, he seems to have mixed up some very simple terms. Dropping the lawsuit, as he puts it, is one thing, but changing laws is quite another. It is completely different.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I note that we still have not heard responses from Liberal members on the following key issues: the cost savings for Air Canada, the minimum number of maintenance jobs that would remain in Canada, and whether the government would have introduced this legislation if Air Canada had not purchased the C Series aircraft. What other options were considered to support Air Canada's competitiveness? Why is the government in such a rush to introduce this legislation?

Would the member like to comment on any of these points I have raised and whether or not he agrees that some of these other issues should have been addressed?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

For the people who live in my part of the world, in Longueuil and Saint-Hubert, the aerospace industry is something that has really shaped the landscape. Earlier, I briefly mentioned Pratt & Whitney and Héroux-Devtek. A federal budget that barely mentions the aerospace industry is insulting for people in my riding. It is a slap in the face.

The Liberals made all sorts of nice promises during the election campaign. Some of my neighbours are engineers, men who are now about 75 years old. They worked on the PT6 engine, which is known as man's best friend, after dogs and horses. These people have aeronautics in their blood, and they think that a budget like this one that does not do anything for this industrial sector is pathetic. I would like to remind members that Héroux-Devtek, in my riding, is the company that made the landing gear for the Apollo lunar module.

As far as we are concerned, there are some measures that could have been included, particularly for SMEs, which once again got the short end of the stick. They made their budget forecasts taking into account a tax cut that was supposedly promised to them but that they will never see.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Does he think that this major coincidence, where the provinces decided to drop their lawsuit, is really plausible? Is it not more likely that when there was a change in government and the new government indicated that it was prepared to change the law, the provinces decided that the time was right to negotiate in order to get something? They knew that the federal government was no longer on the side of Air Canada workers.