Debates of April 20th, 2023

Environment and Sustainable Development

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 23(5) of the Auditor General Act, the spring 2023 reports of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), these reports are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government response to two petitions.

These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Canada Labour Code

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-330, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (successor rights and obligations — airports).

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to introduce this bill under Private Members' Business to close a loophole in the Canada Labour Code that annuls existing labour contracts or collective agreements when there is a change of employer for subcontractors working at Canadian airports.

This is an anomaly in our Canada Labour Code that causes these workers to go back to square one every time. Over the past few years, we have seen how this has led to disastrous results. Negotiations have to start over so the workers can get acceptable working conditions.

Over the years, these employees have suffered setbacks in terms of their salaries, working conditions and the benefits they had. That is no way to ensure good labour relations in Quebec and Canada. This is not how things work in the whole of the private sector in this country, except for people who work at airports.

This bill will attempt to fix this flaw by ensuring that these workers have the same rights as everyone else in this country. I encourage all parliamentarians to pay special attention to this and ensure that everyone has the same labour rights in Canada.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Lebanese Heritage Month Act

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-246, An Act respecting Lebanese heritage month.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me today to officially sponsor Bill S-246 on behalf of the people of Halifax West, all Lebanese Canadians and all Lebanese. It has been an immense privilege to work closely with Senator Jane Cordy on this piece of legislation, which complements the Lebanese heritage month bill I brought before the House last April.

This bill is dedicated to those brave women and men who came to this land of opportunities, looking not only to provide for themselves and loved ones, but also to give back to their chosen country, Canada, just like my mom and dad. It celebrates and spotlights our many distinct Lebanese communities across Canada and gives them a new platform to share their histories, culture, language and food traditions with our entire Canadian family. It is a meaningful step that shows those in the motherland that they are never far from our thoughts.

My thanks go to Senator Cordy, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and all senators who supported the bill unanimously. I look forward to hearing from colleagues in the House and to passage of this bill unanimously and without delay.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Industry and Technology

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, presented on June 16, 2022, be concurred in.

I am honoured to rise in the House to promote and defend the aerospace industry, especially Quebec's. As we know, it is a leading industry. I have been waiting for this moment for years now. This matter has already been debated and studied at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology in a previous Parliament. I want to especially thank my colleagues at the time, who contributed to this debate.

I am therefore taking this opportunity today to have a frank discussion with my colleagues in the House about support for the aerospace sector. I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the Bloc member from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and I would like to recognize his leadership and initiative in promoting the development of the aerospace industry.

Air carriers were hit hard during the pandemic and are slowly recovering. However, there are still many challenges and the federal government is not treating them fairly. This has to stop. I devoted several hours to this study. Many testimonials from across the country have helped identify challenges and lay out the vision needed to support the industry’s development. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the IAMAW, and in particular that of David Chartrand and Éric Rancourt.

What is a national aerospace strategy?

It is a table at which all stakeholders, including workers, companies and the Quebec government, gather to share their reality and their needs, much like what Ottawa does for the auto industry. These are specific programs adapted to the sector's reality. They provide predictable, long-term support that enables stakeholders to engage in more long-term projects. Let me emphasize the word “predictable”. It is a global vision that includes every link in the chain, a military procurement policy that takes into account benefits for the industry, a long-term commitment that strengthens the entire cluster. Risk sharing is a fundamental aspect of the industry, especially when it comes to the risks associated with larger projects. It is a review of research and development support programs to ensure they respond better. It is also credit for buyers who purchase Canadian aircraft.

There is currently a shortage of 6,000 aircraft worldwide. Airlines are renewing their fleets, and other markets are growing. Quebec can play a major role here. What is the federal government doing right now? It has just now done the opposite of what the industry has been saying over and over. We need a strong signal. We could do better, and the government knows it. It knows it because the Bloc Québécois has reminded it many times of the needs expressed by the aerospace industry. The report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is clear.

What is the aerospace industry in Quebec?

It is an industry that, thanks to the Quebec government, benefits from the presence of a dynamic industrial cluster that brings together businesses, research centres and post-secondary institutions. This concentration of expertise and resources fosters innovation and competitiveness in the industry. It is an industry that plays a key role and that generates about $16 billion in revenues annually. Quebec’s aerospace industry employs over 40,000 people directly and over 20,000 others indirectly, which represents about 45% of the entire Canadian aerospace industry. That is something.

The main stakeholders in Quebec’s aerospace industry include Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney Canada, CAE, Bell Textron Canada and Héroux-Devtek. Many of these companies took part in the study. They manufacture airplanes, helicopters, engines, pilot training systems, and aircraft simulation and maintenance systems, and are involved in aircraft recycling. In fact, Quebec could play a major role in the circular economy by recycling retired aircraft.

Quebec has several post-secondary institutions that offer aerospace training programs, which helps provide a highly skilled workforce. World-class innovation zones support a cutting-edge high-tech industrial ecosystem and the capacity to work on long-term projects. Quebec is a major research and development hub for the aerospace industry, with research programs supported by universities and research centres like the Consortium for Research and Innovation in Aerospace in Quebec, or CRIAQ, and the Innovative Vehicle Institute, or IVI.

In short, Quebec’s aviation industry is an important pillar of the province’s economy. It creates jobs and promotes economic growth, while offering innovative solutions to meet aerospace challenges.

Quebec’s aerospace strategy puts the emphasis on the latest technological developments and new trends in the industry, such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, enhanced security and safety, digitization and connectivity. It is essential that we improve the efficiency and adaptability of the aerospace supply chain, which is complex and comprises many players, such as parts suppliers, aircraft manufacturers, airlines and maintenance companies.

To ensure optimal management of the supply chain, we are considering the benefits for the future of all industries, such as artificial intelligence, automatic learning and connected automation. These can play a crucial role and support production predictability, improve delivery performance and make it possible to respond quickly to minimize production interruptions. Connected automation allows for voluntary transparency between businesses and the supply chain and can be used to connect the various players and allow for real-time collaboration and visibility for the entire chain.

IoT sensors can also be used to track and monitor the condition of products, which allows for better production and delivery planning. Order processing can also be automated to reduce errors and delays.

This shows the whole potential of what can be developed, but that would take a federal aerospace strategy in Canada. It is fair to say that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry formally committed to fund the strategic innovation fund as part of his government mandate to stimulate innovation and R and D in Canada.

However, as I have showed this morning, the industry’s needs are far greater. The government needs to take real action if we are to truly improve the competitiveness of our aerospace industry. Some stakeholders in the industry have criticized the lack of funding and inadequate government support to implement the strategy’s initiatives. They also point out that the strategy does not address important issues such as foreign competition, regulations and sustainable development. It is clear that the implementation and long-term effectiveness of the federal initiatives we have seen so far remain a concern.

With respect to Quebec’s innovations in the aerospace sector, one of the most remarkable is Héroux-Devtek’s development of a new electric landing gear system for aircraft.

To get back to the report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, we received a response from the government, and I think it is important to address certain aspects. One of the most important recommendations made by the committee and supported by the people in the industry is the whole question of a national aerospace policy. Predictability and long-term vision are extremely important. Investing in an airplane means investing over 10 or 20 years, or even longer, in research and technology. These are major investments in risk capital.

These major companies are jewels of Quebec’s economy. We know that the federal government has provided little support so far. When it withdrew from the pharmaceutical industry, we lost some of the leaders of Quebec’s economy. That is why a Canadian aerospace strategy is essential. I welcome the leadership of the minister, who could make this vision a reality and give our industries the predictability they need to innovate. If we want green aircraft to take flight, we need to give these companies predictability and substantial risk capital.

The minister's response to this recommendation acknowledges that this is needed. He stated the following: “By no means exhaustive, these actions are the pillars of the Government's pandemic response and its strategic plan for the recovery of Canada's aerospace sector.” Those are fine words, but that acknowledgement should be accompanied by funding to protect these long-term investments.

The committee made recommendations in the context of COVID-19. Now that the pandemic is behind us, we have to be able to implement strategies.

Allow me to touch on another problem affecting regional air travel. It is a basic need, but it is not working right now. Air Canada cancels almost one in five flights without notice. This is a problem throughout Abitibi-Témiscamingue and in every region.

How could we provide better support for companies in the aerospace industry? Air Canada may not be the key player anymore. Maybe we should rely more on regional airlines, like Propair or Air Creebec in Quebec.

There is also Transport Canada's remote air services program, which is in place but could be enhanced to ensure a better vision.

The last thing I want to mention is that the government promised investments of around $400 million on July 15, 2021, during the election campaign. That is substantial, but it does not meet the industry's needs when it comes to everything we could be developing to maintain Quebec's competitiveness in the aerospace sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tend to disagree with the member on one thing. The Government of Canada has been very supportive of the aerospace industry, virtually from day one. It recognizes the valuable role that the aerospace industry plays in our society, which goes far beyond the industry itself.

In fact, Quebec has led the country in terms of having a diversified aerospace industry. Quite frankly, one can build a plane from beginning to end in the province of Quebec. I think all Canadians are very proud of that. We have an aerospace industry throughout the country. Winnipeg is an important hub of that industry.

The pandemic had a worldwide impact, and the federal government stepped up to support the industry because we recognize just how important those jobs are and how important the industry is to the country as a whole.

Does the member recognize that the pandemic had some very strong, negative impacts on the industry as part of the worldwide impact?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

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.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, when we raised the issue of the aerospace industry and its need for financial support, we have often been told that the major airlines are already receiving funding and support. However, the aerospace industry is much more than just the big airlines.

I would like my colleague to explain what the aerospace industry is exactly.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking of my colleague's leadership when it comes to the importance of the Davie shipyard.

It is important that the government also choose Quebec companies in order to better share the wealth. Too often, we feel that we are not getting our fair share, and the national capital region has the same problem.

In answer to my colleague's question, I want to quote Jean Lapierre who, when he was minister, said that the aerospace industry is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario.

What does the aerospace industry in Quebec represent? It represents 400,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs; 220 businesses, including 200 SMEs; $18 billion in revenue; 80% of production for export, since it is Quebec's largest exporter; 12% of manufacturing exports; 50% of jobs in Quebec; 60% of sales; 70% of research and development compared to the rest of Canada; and 55% of industrial research in Quebec. It is the third-largest aerospace hub in the world after Seattle, with Boeing, and Toulouse, with Airbus. It is clearly an integrated industry.

There are only three places in the world with suppliers that are capable of manufacturing all of the components of an aircraft from A to Z, and the greater Montreal area is one of them. It is an absolutely vital industry, and we need to do more to support it.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for tabling the report and for his comments this morning.

I noticed that my colleague's comments left out part of the story. Just a few months ago, our government made the biggest announcement in Canadian history for Quebec's aerospace sector. We made that announcement in Montreal, alongside Premier Legault. This shows how much we care about aerospace workers.

My colleague mentioned CAE. Bombardier came up. We can talk about Airbus, Safran, Héroux Devtek. We on this side of the House are well aware that innovation, that the heart of aviation, is in Quebec, as my colleague so aptly said.

Aerospace is not just in Montreal. Two other companies come to mind. The two biggest companies in my region, Mauricie, are in the aerospace sector, specifically Delastek and Placeteco.

I would say to my colleague that we obviously want to continue to support the aerospace industry. However, I would like him to acknowledge to the Canadians who may be watching this morning that we made a historic announcement to support investment in the aerospace industry, not only in Canada, but specifically in Quebec.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

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.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the previous question, I made reference to the importance of the aerospace industry, in particular in the province of Quebec. However, it is important for us to recognize that the aerospace industry goes far beyond the province of Quebec or even planes. When we talk about the aerospace industry, we talk about everything from satellite developments to helicopters. The best helicopters in the world are arguably made in the province of Quebec. There is satellite technology and development in the province of Manitoba; the wings for the F-35, for example, are made in the province of Manitoba.

This is an industry that goes beyond the province of Quebec, and it is important, as the federal government has recognized, that we continue to work with the stakeholders, those businesses, small and big, within the sector, and with the provincial governments in order to protect the tens of thousands of jobs that are there and the many contributions that the industry makes to our communities throughout the country. Would the member not agree?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, but let me rephrase a few things.

First of all, the member talked about helicopters made in Quebec. Indeed, we have Bell Textron, an amazing company. However, it is really sad that Bell Textron has never been able to bid on federal government contracts. Is that a coincidence? I wonder why that is. Therefore, the member might consider refraining from mentioning these companies.

I would also rephrase the member's words. Yes, I agree that we need to work with this industry. However, instead of saying that they are continuing to work with it, I would say they are starting to do so.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's passionate speech in support of the aerospace industry and its economic benefits for Quebec and beyond.

I want to pick up on the point about the P-8 surveillance aircraft. I am having a hard time understanding why a government that claims to be responsible would not launch an open and transparent bidding process to award this contract. It almost feels like the government wanted to apologize to Boeing for buying the F-35 from Lockheed Martin, so it is awarding this contract to Boeing at the expense of Canadian and Quebec companies like Bombardier.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is somewhat incomprehensible. Honestly, I, too, am trying to find the logic in that. My colleague's interpretation makes sense. It is quite possible that this was indeed meant to make it up to the Americans, but that is ridiculous.

Many countries do not even accept competitive bidding processes because defence is considered too sensitive a sector for that. Since it is such a strategic sector, national companies are automatically given priority, and bidding processes are not even launched. I emphasize the word “automatically”.

Here, we have the opposite situation, in other words, no bidding process, but with the aim of prioritizing an American company, to give it a free pass. It is absolutely incomprehensible.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his very positive and important speech.

We know that the needs are great in the aerospace industry. Very often, airlines do not manage to serve the markets all the time.

I want to underscore the importance of supporting all our airports. I am speaking in particular of the Val‑d'Or airport, which needs lighting and funding. We always have to ask the minister to provide funding with no conditions. It is often also a question of life or death for the indigenous communities of northern Quebec.

How can the committee take into consideration the needs and the reality of our regions?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I work with my colleague who sits on the committee. Clearly, these demands will not be ignored.

Of course, this also concerns the regions, as was mentioned a little earlier. The aerospace industry is not just in Montreal. It is also present in many places, in many areas. Small suppliers and small businesses are found all over.

A member said earlier that it is a constellation, a cluster. I want to emphasize that point because I believe that people are not fully aware of it. Quebec is one of the three places in the world where a plane can be fully assembled. Think about it. This means that all the parts can be manufactured and assembled in Quebec. This area is sustained by this important industry.

The luxury tax is a threat to at least 2,000 jobs, and some of them are definitely in the regions.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in the House to speak to this important report from the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology on the key sector of aerospace and aviation.

We know how important it is for Canada as a whole, for western Canada and Manitoba, and obviously for Quebec. This sector creates and maintains thousands of jobs in Quebec, including 40,000 direct jobs and maybe 100,000 indirect jobs, with an entire supply chain made up of hundreds of small businesses. I will come back to that.

This is a major economic sector that supports thousands of families with good jobs. As the report indicates, these jobs pay on average 10% more than the average salary in Canada. These are good jobs that are often unionized and represented by the machinists' union, Unifor, CSN and FTQ.

I want to use this opportunity to talk about the importance of good union jobs and support the union movement in general. Right now, federal public service employees are on strike. These are good jobs, but not as good as they used to be, which is making it harder to attract and retain federal employees. This is partly why 155,000 workers have been striking since yesterday. The government has to stay competitive on the labour market and offer working conditions that enable workers to cope with the rising cost of living resulting from the last two years of inflation. I want the workers to know they have our full support.

From the start, the NDP has always been a party that promotes the cause of workers and acknowledges their right to seek a balance of power and exert pressure. It is part of the party's DNA. Workers can count on us. We will always be there for them. I think their demands are legitimate and reasonable.

Once again, I ask Treasury Board to speed up negotiations to get good, well-paying jobs for federal employees who in turn can provide good services to citizens, Quebeckers and Canadians.

Let us come back to the aerospace and aviation industry. It is fitting that I am able to rise in the House today to talk about this industry because, just a few minutes ago, I introduced a private member's bill affecting airport workers.

Since I have a little more time now, I will take this opportunity to talk about the importance of that bill, which fixes a problem with and closes a loophole in section 47.3 of the Canada Labour Code. Unfortunately, because of that section, there is no continuity in airport subcontractors' collective agreements and work contracts.

That is called contract flipping. Every time there is a tendering process, the lowest bidder gets a new service provider contract, and those contracts can vary a lot. This can affect workers who do maintenance, those who bring food to the planes for passengers, those who fill the planes with fuel before departure and so on.

Every time there is a call for tenders and a new company is awarded a contract by bidding extremely low, the pre-existing labour contract disappears. This leads to a new attempt to renegotiate the contract. In practical terms, what that means for these workers is that, unlike workers in almost every other sector in society, their wages, working conditions, insurance and benefits get worse every time there is a call for tenders.

Right now, 600 workers at the Montreal airport are affected by this issue. Two contracts have been put out to tender, one by Swissport, if I remember correctly. Some 600 people in Montreal are currently affected by this contract flipping.

This has a very real impact. That anomaly, that loophole, is virtually unique in the Canada Labour Code. There is no other federally regulated unionized worker in the same boat.

That is why I am bringing this private member's bill to the government's notice. This is something that it can look to as an example and use to try to end this unacceptable and wholly disrespectful situation. I have already spoken to previous labour ministers about this. I hope that the current Minister of Labour will be sensitive to this reality. I have already told him about it, and I hope that he will be open to listening to these people.

With respect to the aviation industry, I asked my colleague a question a few minutes ago about this. This seems to be just a news item, but I also want to highlight the fact that the Liberal government seems to be considering awarding a sole-source contract to Boeing for the purchase of surveillance aircraft, the P-8 Poseidon, even though there are Canadian and Quebec companies, that is, Bombardier, but others, too, that may be interested in offering their services for the construction and sale of surveillance aircraft for National Defence. Why is the government favouring an American company for something that could be done in Canada? Instead of having a free and transparent competition, why is it giving a gift to a foreign company, when there will be no positive economic impact or spinoffs for Canada?

We have companies that could build the plane and sell it. In addition, the P-8 Poseidon is a last-generation place that is on its way out. No one buys them anymore, not when there are new models from a new generation, with new technologies, that perform better and that could be considered by National Defence and the Liberal government.

It seems like there is some sort of backroom deal going on. The government just awarded three huge contracts to Lockheed Martin for the purchase of a large number of F-35s, so it almost seems like it is trying to make it up to Boeing by promising to purchase the P-8 Poseidon. This plane is not a good plane, the manufacturing will have no economic spinoffs in Canada, and there are Canadian companies that could build better aircraft with greater economic benefits for Canada.

I am not demanding a full-on “buy Canada” policy, but can we at least prioritize Canadian companies, Canadian jobs and Canadian technology so that we get a better plane that also meets our future needs?

Speaking of the future, for years, the Liberal government has had no vision for the aerospace industry. As was stated several times this morning, Canada is one of the few countries in the world where it is possible to build an aircraft from start to finish. We are fully independent. That is amazing.

This sector provides 235,000 direct and indirect jobs at hundreds of companies, ranging from huge corporations to small but capable companies. I remember visiting companies in Drummondville's industrial park that are able to engineer parts for aircraft that are unique in the world and that have special capabilities, with machines that I could not begin to understand. Clients send them plans for a part that has never been made and tell them what they need, and these companies are able to digitize it, model it, put it into the computer and then manufacture multiple copies. They are among the best in the world at this work. That is happening in Drummondville, and it is high-calibre work. I see my colleague from Drummond nodding, so I assume he agrees with what I am saying. I thought this work was fascinating and very impressive. That is just one example of companies that are capable of making parts for seats and engines.

I am also thinking of Longueuil. These people are capable of building extremely precise high-tech, high value-added components. These are very good jobs. These people are capable of ensuring that the aircraft built here are among the best in the world.

Let us come back to the matter of the Liberal government's lack of vision. Canada is at the back of the pack globally in terms of strategy, because we do not have one. It does not exist. We have no strategy. We do not have an overall vision for one of the economic sectors that we excel in. It is astounding.

France, Brazil and the United States take care of their aerospace and aviation sectors. They have a vision that melds civil aviation, defence, space, research and development, and worker training, by bringing all the partners to the table.

Here at home, the opposite is true. Things are done piecemeal, ad hoc, by chance. We have ad hoc programs that respond to a small need for help here, a bit of innovation there. The government might put a bit of money into a project or grant a loan if construction is involved, but there is no regularity, predictability or overall vision.

The NDP, along with several other parties, is calling on the Liberal government to sit down and finally develop a national aerospace and aviation strategy, because we need one. We also need more R and D investments to ensure that we have the best technology so we can be at the forefront. As we know, many other countries around the world, including China and India, invest heavily in R and D. If we do not do the same, if the sector is not there to support the industries so they can be the best in the world, we will fall behind. We will no longer be among the best. We will no longer be the international leader in aviation and aerospace.

A massive effort is needed, particularly regarding the energy transition. We know that civil aviation, air travel, is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. That is one of the concerns of the NDP. We want to see that industry reduce its carbon footprint. I think everyone would agree that it is important for that sector to do so, although perhaps not as important as it is for the trucking sector, for example, or the energy sector, like the oil and gas sector. We all agree on that.

I read recently on the news website Courrier international that, in terms of greenhouse gases, the civil aviation sector is the equivalent of landfills, of waste management, which represents between 3% and 4% of total emissions. That is not insignificant, but it is not the worst problem either. However, there is room for improvement. Interesting things can be done for the future.

We hear a lot about the electrification of private and public transportation. However, looking ahead, there are many possibilities for the future of air transport thanks to electrification based on several models. I am not an engineer, but we are not yet at the point of having electric planes, although we already have electric buses, trains and cars. I am very pleased to have a fully electric car. I can participate in the green movement, although it is better to use a bike if possible.

We are a long way from electric aircraft for a host of reasons, in particular because they require tremendous amount of energy. Given the size of battery it would take to generate the necessary energy, the plane would be too heavy to take off. We are not there yet. Perhaps green hydrogen will be a promising fuel option. The hydrogen must be produced with renewable energy. Having a plane run on hydrogen produced with natural gas is not necessarily the best option. There would not be much benefit to such a change. However, the federal government has a role to play in the electrification of transport, and it could ensure that the industry is able to propose promising and productive innovations for the future.

Once again, we must not get left behind by foreign competitors. If we fall asleep at the wheel, others are going to get ahead of us, which would be a great pity for our industry and its future.

Speaking of the future, I mentioned the importance of professional training earlier. The unions, including the machinists' union, are talking about the next generation of workers. It takes time to train new workers, because these are often skilled jobs that require specialized knowledge and have a learning curve. It is sort of like the apprentice system from the Middle Ages. Experienced workers coach trainees and show them the ropes. Currently, little is being done in our high schools and trade schools to steer our youth to the aerospace industry, even though it is an industry that is here to stay, an industry with a future.

It is an industry that has good, often unionized jobs with numerous benefits. As mentioned earlier, the industry pays its employees 10% more on average than other Quebec or Canadian workers. I think it would be a good idea to partner with the provincial governments to attract youth to training and employment opportunities in aerospace and aviation. At present, there are no partnerships. Things are done almost randomly, and the current system is essentially word of mouth. This is concerning in terms of maintaining our capabilities, especially considering the labour shortages and stiff competition we are facing.

I would also like to address the matter of creating an aircraft recycling program. No provision is made for what happens to aircraft at the end of their life cycle, when they are longer able to fly and need to be replaced. We basically have gigantic scrap yards full of aircraft all over North America. There is usable material in them. There are parts that could be reused. There are some things that could be melted down and recycled. There is no system for recycling aircraft. That is too bad, because we are losing a lot of natural resources and parts that could be repurposed.

We have recycling systems for many things in our lives, in daily life, in our municipalities and in our departments, but it seems nothing has been planned for the aviation industry and its aircraft. That is a concern for us. I think the federal government has a lot of work to do on a range of issues relating to the aerospace industry. I am pleased to see that this report includes four solid recommendations.

I think we could go further than those recommendations, but they are a good place to start. We need to make sure that Canada and Quebec continue to be centres of excellence in aircraft manufacturing. Together, let us keep making sure that tens of thousands of families can count on a good job and a good income in order to foster our shared prosperity. Let us keep good jobs in Quebec and in all parts of the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that the aerospace industry is worldwide. At the end of the day, many manufacturers, both small and large, in Canada benefit by contract. For example, many would acknowledge that the F-35 is one of the top-rated aircraft in the world. Those F-35 wings are manufactured in the city of Winnipeg, at Magellan. Magellan has the expertise and skill sets that have an impact in the aerospace industry.

When the member says that Canada should be purchasing Canada only, in part, he does a disservice to the expertise we have in towns across Canada. Many of those skill sets can provide for the aerospace industry worldwide.

Could he could provide his perspective on the importance of Canadian skills being able to capitalize on worldwide tendering projects?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has clearly done his homework on several aspects of the report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I would like to take this moment to acknowledge the excellent working relationship I had with his colleague, the member for Windsor West, on the issue of the aerospace industry, in particular.

The committee's report contains seven recommendations that touch on important themes: the idea of a centre of excellence, research and development, basic research, greener aircraft, energy transition, the circular economy, recycling, maintenance, innovation and procurement.

The member will no doubt appreciate recommendation 7 of the report, which reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada collaborate with provinces and territories to fund post-secondary training across all sectors of the aerospace industry, adequately accessible all over Canada.

I believe that is one of the things the member brought up.

I would also like to talk about recommendation 5, which he touched on quickly:

That the Government of Canada, following consultation with industrial partners and labour representatives, develop a national strategy for its aerospace sector.

That is fundamental to a vision for the future.

Is the NDP ready to work with the Bloc Québécois to put pressure on the government to implement this strategy and a vision for the future of Quebec's economy for the next 20, 30 or 50 years?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. We are prepared to work with all of the parties in the House on a national aerospace and aviation strategy.

I am very honoured to have been part of the all-party caucus on the aerospace industry for the past few years. We have had a lot of discussions in that regard, and there were many panels on the subject during election campaign debates. Everyone seems to be working in good faith in order to have a comprehensive strategy and an overall vision so that we can bring all of the partners to the table, partners from the industry, the unions and the education and job training communities. We want to help the industry get ahead.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government is dragging its feet. The last budget was a disappointment in this regard. Let us be clear. All this industry of excellence got in the budget was a hastily offered pittance, and yet the demand is clear.

There seemed to be some signs of interest on the part of the Liberals. We need to once again take up the torch for the aerospace industry. It is high time we had a comprehensive strategy.

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech and vision for the future. I am curious about this: What are his thoughts on the Canadian Space Agency's recent announcement that Jeremy Hansen will be the first Canadian to travel to the moon, and what opportunity would that bring for us here in Canada?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of our political stripes, I think that we all felt proud when we learned the name of the Canadian astronaut who would be part of the next mission around the moon.

I want to emphasize the importance of the Canadian Space Agency within the aerospace and aviation ecosystem. The space aspect should not be overlooked. I am proud to see we are able to continue that tradition. Even if we are not a world superpower, we still have some input. We are a part of that great human adventure.

I want to congratulate the astronaut on his appointment. We will be following his adventures and his journey with great interest.