Debates of April 20th, 2023

Industry and Technology

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the aviation and aerospace industry is really important in Longueuil. We have an airport, there is Héroux‑Devtek and Pratt & Whitney. I even visited Pratt & Whitney, which is working on a hybrid electric engine. I saw it, from a distance. The company does not reveal its secrets to just anyone, but I know that it is working on it and it is important.

This is an issue my colleague raised. He talked about the fight against climate change in relation to the aerospace industry. He seemed to suggest that it was not very significant, but he did highlight the fact that the industry is responsible for 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions. If the industry were a country, it would be the 11th biggest emitter. That is actually significant.

I would like my colleague to tell us more about the importance of working on this. The most radical environmentalists are telling us that no one should fly anymore. I do not think that that will happen overnight. We need to help the industry gradually migrate to hydrogen-powered electric engines, and time will tell. It is really important for us to invest in this area.

I would like him to tell us more about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not ask my colleague to reveal Pratt & Whitney's industrial secrets, but I am pleased to hear that the company is working on this. I hope it will come up with a solution that allows the aerospace and civil aviation industries to improve their carbon footprint.

I was not trying to minimize the sector's importance. I was saying that 3% is not the same as 40%, although it is important. We have to do better. Every time I take an airplane, I make a donation to a Université du Québec à Chicoutimi program so trees will be planted to offset the greenhouse gas emissions from my flight. However, this is not a long-term solution. The industry will eventually have to improve its carbon footprint. The auto industry is currently making the transition. The inter-city bus sector is currently making the transition.

Yes, we need to do more and the federal government needs to do more to support the sector and innovation for research and development to reduce the carbon record of the air transport sector, which, by the way, is not going anywhere either. I think that everyone will want to get together, meet up and visit other countries. I do not think this is ever going to stop. We can reduce, be more discerning about how often we fly. We need to encourage the industry to have a much more acceptable carbon record.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. He told me that his was the most beautiful riding in Canada. I am sorry to tell him that mine is the most beautiful. Sadly for him he represents the second most beautiful riding.

This morning I have the pleasure to rise to speak to the report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology that was tabled on June 16, 2022. This report, entitled “Development and Support of the Aerospace Industry”, has three chapters.

Chapter one reiterates that the aerospace industry was one of the hardest hit by the COVID‑19 pandemic. The second chapter is an overview of the different points of view on the implementation of support measures for the aerospace industry. The third chapter presents recommendations to the committee on the industry's recovery.

We all know that this industry experienced serious problems during the pandemic. Everyone was affected—the entire industry, not just in Quebec, but across Canada. It is important to emphasize that. It is also important to mention that Quebec is a true leader in the field of aerospace. It is truly world-class.

We know that many large companies have developed in Quebec over the years. Today, Quebec is home to a number of large companies, such as Bell Helicopter, Bombardier Aviation, Textron, CAE, and Pratt & Whitney Canada, as well as many equipment manufacturers and an extremely strong network of subcontractors. Some subcontractors are in my riding of Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and I am proud of that.

We know that, when building an aircraft, safety is obviously the most important thing and all the parts that make up that aircraft must be made with extreme diligence and precision. I am very pleased to know that several companies in my riding contribute to this sector in Canada and Quebec.

Most companies in this industry are located in the greater Montreal area, but Quebec has over 200 aerospace companies and about 20 research centres for which it is renowned. It is renowned for the entire network surrounding aerospace: the university network, research centres, college centres for the transfer of technology, or CCTTs. Incidentally, there are three CCTTs in my hometown, La Pocatière. They are all organizations that, directly or indirectly, contribute to the quality of this industry. The industry generates revenues in excess of $34 billion, representing a contribution of $20 billion to $28 billion to the GDP. Over $700 million is invested each year in research and development. That is a lot of money.

Montreal is one of the world's three aerospace capitals, with Seattle in the United States and Toulouse in France. In Canada, 50% of aerospace production takes place in Quebec. It is a Canada-wide industry, but aerospace is to Quebec what the automotive industry is to Ontario, just as British Columbia has the best vines in Canada. Every Canadian province thus strives to highlight their entire industry, which also explains why Canada is so diverse in the production of all these elements. Our universities and technical colleges, including Montreal's École polytechnique, train over 4,500 students every year, who join a highly skilled workforce. It should be noted that there are 200,000 people working in aerospace in Canada.

This report was prepared by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Before the final report and recommendations were presented, 33 witnesses had appeared. On November 2, 2020, the committee undertook a study of the issues related to the development and support of the aerospace industry. Four meetings were held and, as I said, 33 witnesses appeared.

The testimony highlighted the fact that, even before the COVID‑19 pandemic, the industry was already experiencing difficulties. We have to put this in context: There were significant labour shortages, just as there are in many Canadian and Quebec sectors at present. It was already a reality in the industry. Canada had started to lose highly skilled workers to other countries, and training centres had difficulty providing new workers. This was a very important aspect of all the speeches that were made before the committee. Witnesses came to talk to us about it.

We are in competition with the rest of the world and, obviously, we must have the best training centre and we must be able to integrate the people who arrive in Canada as quickly as possible based on the training that they already have. The same is true for the medical and health care sectors, among others. We must have the best employees in the world in the industry, and we must be ready to welcome them.

The industry was hard hit by the pandemic, and the airlines basically stopped operating. The entire commercial aircraft production chain was broken. Collectively, Canadian companies in the industry lost 40% of their revenue, and more than half of them had to lay off workers. Commercial flights have since resumed, but the aerospace industry is still suffering.

Support for the industry was one of the issues that was raised as part of the study that led to the report. Most of the witnesses that we heard from said that they were in favour of the idea of federal support for the aerospace industry. Many organizations indicated that the industry has been doing a lot of research and development that benefits other industries and Canada's economic growth. Of course, the research in this sector is very important and has an impact on other sectors of the Canadian industry.

Witnesses recommended actions rooted in four main areas: direct funding; research, development and training; procurement; and strategy and regulation. After hearing from all witnesses, the committee made some recommendations, the most important of which I am going to share.

We know that this government is extremely wasteful. That is nothing new; we have seen huge deficits for the last eight years. As a Conservative, it would be rather ill-advised of me to ask the government to spend even more and loosen the purse strings even more. At the same time, there are concrete solutions, incentives and measures that the government could put in place to help the aerospace industry while remaining fiscally prudent.

Here is the first recommendation:

That the Government of Canada ensure that a Center of Excellence on Aeronautics 4.0 be created and that it can bring together university- and college-level expertise in this field, and that this Center increase research capacities and development in this sector.

I spoke earlier about the college centres for the transfer of technology, the university network and the government of Canada's research centres. Earlier, I heard members talking about airplanes that could become electric. If we got all these people to the same table, we would be working together. As recently as yesterday, I saw a report about the first airplane with an electric motor, a small aircraft that is now authorized to fly in Canada. We need to continue to do research in that field.

Here is the second recommendation:

That the Government of Canada ensure that significant financial incentives be put in place for basic research, including to develop a greener aircraft...

This is what I just talked about.

This same recommendation requests the following:

That the Government of Canada promote a circular economy approach in order to establish a policy for recycling aircraft that are taken out of service.

We are currently conducting another study on plastics and battery recycling. All of these elements must be integrated with one another. Of course, we did not think about it as much when we started talking about electric vehicles. This will be another very important aspect in terms of pollution. It is one thing to collect all the raw materials to make batteries, but it is quite another to dispose of them after they have been used, and recycle them to make other batteries that can be used in other sectors, or even in the auto sector. It will be the same with aircraft, and we have to start thinking about it now.

I will read another of the recommendations, which I think is one of the most important ones:

That the Government of Canada...develop a national strategy for its aerospace sector.

A national strategy would essentially bring together all the players, not only in Quebec, but across Canada, to push us even further in terms of what we can achieve in this industry. Obviously, we are talking about airplanes, but aerospace is much broader than that. It includes a whole sector of activity, essentially anything related to the sky.

I think we need to do better and do more for the aerospace industry and more for Quebec. We know that aerospace is especially important in Quebec, just like the auto industry is important in Ontario, as I was saying earlier, and vineyards are important in British Columbia. I am sure my colleague will get into that. We have everything to gain as a country from developing this industry even better and regulating it even better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's reference to the automobile industry. It is important for us to recognize that often in different regions of the country we will find certain industries that have excelled. When we think of the automobile industry, we have to think of the province of Ontario.

When we think of our aviation and aerospace industry, which is very strong and healthy, we think of the province of Quebec. We also have significant industries in Ontario, Manitoba, British Columbia and even in other areas, and it all feeds into the bigger picture of Canada's aerospace industry. I say that because it is important that we recognize that there are many ways, both direct and indirect, that the government has been supporting the aerospace industry.

Could my colleague provide his thoughts in terms of the worldwide impact on the aerospace industry which has been hit hard by the pandemic, leading to less demand as a direct result of the pandemic?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's question, that the pandemic had a global impact on the industry. The impact in Canada is even greater. The Canadian industry is so developed that we are not only supplying aircraft to Canadian companies such as Air Canada, WestJet and others, but we are selling aircraft, and aircraft engines and parts around the world. Obviously there was an impact.

My colleague's question is interesting because he talked about the automobile sector. He said that this had repercussions across Canada, which seems obvious to me. In my riding, there is a company called Liberty Spring. It supplies half the shocks of all the vehicles built around the world. We can be extremely proud of that kind of business. Its headquarters are in Montmagny, in my riding. I am a business owner myself. We can be proud of what business owners have done to develop this industry for over a century now in Quebec and Canada. The same goes for the auto industry. These industries are not in competition, and we should not frame them as such.

We all have to work together in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my generous colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for his presentation today and for his collaboration. He is an important ally at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and I would like to point that out.

There is someone else I would like to acknowledge for their leadership in preparing this study. Members know how the topic of a study is chosen. I had negotiations and interesting discussions with the other vice-chair at the time, the member for Carleton, who is now the leader of the official opposition.

In view of all the points he made, the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup spoke with the eloquence of a possible future innovation, science and industry minister. Will he pledge to support the report's fifth recommendation and ensure that it is in the next election platform of the Conservative government in waiting? Will the Conservative Party have a national aerospace policy, which would obviously be developed after consulting union representatives and industry partners? Will the Conservative Party have a formal recommendation in its next election platform? Specifically, will the leader of the official opposition support and advance that strategy?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must lower the member's expectations. I am far from being appointed minister. We are far from that. Actually, only one person can do that in a government, and that is the Prime Minister himself. The member is right to say that the Prime Minister is waiting. We hope he will not be waiting too long. The future Prime Minister of Canada is sitting on this side of the House.

He was once a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. One thing is certain, we will make sure that the aerospace industry as a whole can continue to grow as robustly as possible, not only in Quebec, but right across the country.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to share a few comments on the report entitled “Development and Support of the Aerospace Industry”, tabled by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology of which I am a part. However, I will note that I did not participate actively in this study. That said, I cannot outline enough how important the aerospace industry is to the Fraser Valley, my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, the neighbouring riding of Abbotsford and all other areas in British Columbia.

We are in a changing global context where the needs of the Canadian military are expanding, both for national security and for natural disasters. In the Fraser Valley, when the great floods came in the last couple of years, we had to rely on the Royal Canadian Air Force to help our constituents and to fly in supplies. Helicopters from Vancouver Island based out of Esquimalt came to rescue people in my riding. Also, the threats that Canada faces from Russia in our far north are growing. Just recently, two spy balloons that originated from China came into Canadian aerospace. The need for the government to act and do more is essential at this stage right now.

I will note three particular recommendations that came out of this report that are worth mentioning today.

The first one, recommendation 3, is “That the Government of Canada accommodate the needs of the various air fleets, particularly with regard to the maintenance of their aircraft, and support the development of companies specializing in the maintenance of these aircraft.”

Second, recommendation 5 in the report, is “That the Government of Canada, following consultation with industrial partners and labour representatives, develop a national strategy for its aerospace sector.”

Third, recommendation 7, is “That the Government of Canada collaborate with provinces and territories to fund post-secondary training across all sectors of the aerospace industry adequately accessible over all of Canada.”

In British Columbia, there are a number of big companies that have a national and global impact. We could talk about KF Aerospace in Kelowna, Conair in Abbotsford and Cascade Aerospace, which employs hundreds of people in my constituency. It is an operating unit of IMP Aerospace & Defence, which was ranked Canada's number one defence company in 2017.

The IMP group is one of Canada's best-managed companies and it has its head office located in Halifax. Its aerospace defence and aviation sectors provide comprehensive in-service support, repair and engineering. It accounts for over 3,500 jobs across Canada. There are approximately 550 of those jobs in Abbotsford at this time.

The division of IMP in Cascade Aerospace is approved by Transport Canada for maintenance, manufacturing, training and design. It is an FAA-approved company and is accredited with the Department of National Defence for maintenance, material support and technical organizations. It is one of only two Lockheed Martin-approved C-130J heavy maintenance centres and one of 13 approved C-130 service centres. To say that this company has a lot of specialties is an understatement.

Right now, Cascade is providing military support not only to the RCAF and the USAF, but it also provides support to Mexico, Tunisia, Thailand, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, UPS, WestJet, Alaska Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Longview Aviation. Cascade has that specialization in IMP for maintenance repair and the overhaul of aircraft as an accredited manufacturing facility for a various suite of aircraft types. To put it bluntly, as I mentioned earlier, in the changing global landscape that we find ourselves today, facilities like Cascade Aerospace are not only good for our economy, they are essential to Canada's national interest to maintain a robust aviation sector both for commercial and defence purposes.

That said, in conversations with employees and the executive team at Cascade Aerospace, there are ways we can improve its ability to do business, to serve the Canadian and U.S. militaries, in particular, and to provide the types of jobs that Canadians want, which are high-skilled jobs in the trades that are very technical and specialized.

In the conversations with those at Cascade, they mentioned that Transport Canada could do a better job of responding to applications for design-approval delegation. It could also do better with certifications to make sure there is a more consistent approach. They mentioned that there are regulatory gaps in certification authority for military export. Design audits, in their minds, are sometimes ineffective, and regulations, in some cases, are very dated. One specific example is that the training book for new technicians still includes a section on cloth aircraft. We are working with a company that deals with the most modern technology in the 21st century, but we are still training young technicians on the repair of cloth aircraft.

One of the big regulatory gaps that Cascade Aerospace outlined is the need to recognize foreign credentials. As I mentioned earlier, Cascade Aerospace serves the United States Air Force, the Mexican air force and the Bangladesh Air Force. Sometimes technicians from those countries might even immigrate to Canada, but Transport Canada regulations would prohibit an aircraft technician trained in Mexico from necessarily being able to work right away in the same capacity as a technician trained in Canada, even though they were working on the very same aircraft in their home country.

I would encourage Transport Canada to continue working closely with Cascade Aerospace and the entire aerospace sector, across Canada, to make sure that our regulations are up to date. Right now, as has been told to me by the national association, Canada lags behind the FAA regulations. If there is one country that we want to be aligned with, both for businesses and military strategic purposes, it is the United States of America. My plea today to the government is to get those regulations updated as soon as possible.

The second big area that needs to be addressed, which is reflected in the three points I raised at the beginning of my speech, is the challenges we face in the labour market. Cascade Aerospace has been innovative in its approach to not only retain but also train the best Canadian workers possible. It is interested in hiring more indigenous people from our local first nations and more women to the trade sector. It has made lots of investments and has taken many steps to ensure that it has an in-house training program to make sure its technicians are the most competent and capable to compete at the global level for defence and other contracts.

Right now, though, the Province of British Columbia has to work more closely with companies such as Cascade Aerospace to ensure that their competency-based, hands-on training programs recognize the needs of the sector and are aligned with labour market regulations and certification programs, both through the Red Seal and labour programs at the provincial and federal levels.

To conclude, we have a lot of work to do in the aerospace sector. I am very proud to live in a community where there are hundreds of people employed in high-paying jobs in the aerospace sector. We need to work with these companies to not only meet the global challenges we are facing today, but also meet the labour challenges we are facing in communities across our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked our government to do more. Located in both my riding of Mississauga—Streetsville and the riding of Milton, Cyclone Manufacturing is a Canadian company that competes in the aerospace sector. Our government launched the aerospace regional recovery initiative to help companies such as Cyclone compete on the global stage and adopt clean technologies. FedDev provided Cyclone a repayable investment to develop and manufacture new complex, green aerospace parts, which will result in Cyclone commercializing up to 1,500 new greener parts.

Could my hon. colleague give his thoughts on the importance of the green innovative solutions needed for the future of the aerospace industry?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, the Canadian aerospace regulations still fall behind those of countries such as the United States. I know that many companies in the aerospace sector have one thing in mind, and that is making a profit. How are they going to make a profit? They are going to make a profit if their planes are efficient and well maintained. That is how they are going to be greener in the Canadian context.

We have to make sure that our regulations are up to date to account for even battery technology in airplanes, which is being researched effectively by scientists at NRCan here in our nation's capital. Until we get our regulations up to date, we are not going to see anything other than government announcements about it giving one company a dollar amount. We are not going to see an overall improvement to making our planes more efficient and environmentally friendly until our regulations are updated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his speech and, I would go so far as to say, his rigour. He is my ally when it comes to any rural issues relating to our economic development. Also, I always appreciate him making an effort to speak French.

He talked about a number of recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. There is one that we have not really focused on yet, and I would like to hear his thoughts on it. It is recommendation 1:

That the Government of Canada ensure that a Center of Excellence on Aeronautics 4.0 be created and that it can bring together university- and college-level expertise in this field, and that this Center increase research capabilities and development in this sector.

This leads me to reflect on the whole issue of the importance of clusters. In his response, the minister stated that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had established five advanced manufacturing clusters in February 2018, including Scale AI on artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and the digital technologies that support the aerospace industry.

However, there is no cluster or supercluster that directly involves the aerospace industry. Should such a cluster be created and is my colleague moving in that direction?

I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for his question today. It was a very long question.

Perhaps I can answer the first part. It relates to the first recommendation in the report. I would like to know whether the Bloc Québécois would support a centre of excellence for the aerospace sector in British Columbia. Will the Bloc Québécois support the creation of good jobs in British Columbia in the aerospace sector?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for bringing up the reality of the flooding in the Fraser Valley and how there was a lack of access to supply chains for food, medication, and essential goods and services. I think this is a conversation we need to have about how aerospace is going to be used differently with climate change.

With that in mind, does the member believe that the Liberal government understands the impacts of changing our behaviour or how climate change is affecting supply chains in this country?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the floods happened, it was really frustrating for some people on the ground in the Fraser Valley that the Royal Canadian Air Force had to ship equipment from the province of Quebec to serve the needs of British Columbia. A national aerospace strategy needs to look strategically at the capabilities of the Canadian military at large to respond to climate-related natural disasters in the province of British Columbia to ensure that we have sufficient equipment and resources to respond in the most immediate terms possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is one issue that I do have fairly strong opinions on. I was in high school when I was going out to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, to watch the air shows. People might not realize that, when it comes to touch and go, at one time Moose Jaw was Canada's busiest airport, even busier than Toronto, once it had its training school.

Since then I have had an interest in planes, which ultimately grew into an interest in the aerospace industry, so that is something I am pleased to talk about. However, before I start talking about it, I would like to make a general observation because, once again, we are speaking to a concurrence motion.

I have enjoyed the discussion and the comments. I value how important the aerospace industry is to our country, with its tens of thousands of jobs and so forth. I think of the opportunity lost by the Bloc in not using this particular issue for debate on an opposition day, when they could have crafted a motion, and had a vote toward the end of it, on something that would have been creatively positive, which would have assisted the industry either directly or indirectly.

I say that because, when I reflect on the two opportunities the Bloc has had to debate important issues for Canada and the province of Quebec, they first chose a constitutional change, which would not happen, and then they chose a change to our standing orders related to prayers, which in my opinion, had nothing to do with the priorities of Canadians.

Today, and this may be because the members of the Bloc are sitting so closely to those in the Conservative Party, I think the Conservative Party is really rubbing off on them. The Bloc is now using Conservative—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the real shameful stuff is going to come up, I can assure the member, in regard to the Conservative Party, but the Bloc is sitting a little too close. I was just wondering if the member wants to shoo over a little bit more. I agree. I would do that too.

They are starting to have a negative influence on the Bloc. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-27, and we know how important it is to our constituencies that we provide security in the privacy of information on the Internet. We all recognize how important that issue is. The Bloc do not want to discuss that today, even though we have attempted to have it passed through the House. I understand it supports the legislation, which is a good thing. However, it wants to talk about the aerospace industry by bringing through concurrence of a report to use up government time. This is not the first time. We are used to the Conservative Party doing it.

Having said that, I am happy to talk about the aerospace industry. When I think of the aerospace industry, I think of John Diefenbaker. Do members remember John Diefenbaker? John Diefenbaker was a prime minister of Canada.

Canada, at the time, was leading the world, virtually, in the development of a first-class interceptor, a plane that was incredibly fast. We have to remember that this was after the world war, when there was a need for development and an enrichment of our aerospace industry. The prime minister at the time, John Diefenbaker, destroyed Canada's aerospace industry by cancelling the Avro Arrow.

That was a high-altitude plane. It was ahead of its time. I want members to imagine that plane program not having been cancelled. Avro employed hundreds of people at the time, possibly over 1,000, but I will say hundreds for now. They all worked in the province of Ontario.

I think of the technology and the research that was done. They actually rolled one of the Avro planes out. It was recognized around the world as likely the leading candidate for the development of a plane that was like a rocket, going to altitudes of 40,000 and above.

John Diefenbaker cancelled the program. Back in the late fifties, he cancelled the program. It is the truth. As a result, Avro actually went broke and closed its doors. All of the equipment and, more important, all of the brains and skills were dispersed. Many of the individuals who developed the Avro ended up leaving Canada so they could get into and expand that particular industry. Canada lost out big time, and it is something which even today, 70 years later, we reflect on. What would our industry look like today?

Well, earlier today, I was asking questions of members of the Bloc. I am happy to say that it is the province of Quebec that leads our aerospace industry. I pointed out, in the question I posed earlier, that in the province of Quebec, one can build a plane from the very beginning, from the bolts to the polishing of the aircraft, the final product. That is fairly rare.

When we think of the aerospace industry in Canada, one is talking about tens of thousands of jobs, well over 100,000 jobs. Do members know the average salary of someone working in the aerospace industry in Manitoba? It is estimated, I believe, to be over $60,000 a year. These are good middle-class types of jobs with incredible skill sets. In Canada today, it is Quebec that leads.

With respect to jobs, I suspect that the province of Ontario lost the opportunity to play that leadership role as a direct result of a federal government's decision not to invest in the aerospace industry.

Let us fast forward a few decades. Today, we have a national government that does support our aerospace industry in a clear and tangible way, and we have done this from day one. We talked about Bill C-10 and how important it was that we ensure future contracts. We talked about how we could support the industry even though, at times, it meant there would be some give and take. That give and take is important to recognize. The world has changed.

I had a tour of Magellan in my home city of Winnipeg. I felt a sense of pride when I walked around the floor and saw an F-35 wing being manufactured. We have an absolutely incredible aerospace industry in Winnipeg, which contributes to the industry not only in Canada, but worldwide.

Those workers show their love and passion for the construction of very important components of the F-35. Imagine being a worker at Magellan who sees an F-35 on a news broadcast. He or she might reflect on whether that wing was manufactured in Winnipeg. Even in crating the wing, someone would need an engineering background to build the crate that houses the wing prior to its shipping.

The member before me talked about the importance of schools. Magellan has a classroom in which Red River College contributes to the education. It is very important to recognize that it is not only Ottawa that has the responsibility of supporting these industries, even though it feels we are alone in doing that at times. Many stakeholders have a role in ensuring that Canada continues to lead an industry that is so vitally important to the world. The best way to do that is to work with our partners and stakeholders.

When I was an MLA a number of years ago, and I hope the Manitoba legislature Hansard would show this, I spoke about the aerospace industry in the province of Manitoba. I said that the province needed to step up and support the industry. If the local entities and provincial governments are not at the table, it hurts the industry. It also hurts it if the industry itself is not at the table.

As much as I would love to talk about the province of Quebec, I think the similarities are striking between Manitoba and Quebec. We have aerospace industry umbrella organizations and those organizations are there for the health and the well-being of that industry.

This comes from Winnipeg's aerospace industry's umbrella agency. I will quote from its website so people can get a sense of what I am referring to when I talk about Manitoba's aerospace industry. It states:

Canada is a global leader in aerospace and Manitoba is home to Canada’s third largest aerospace industry. Our highly competitive aerospace sector produces world-class products for customers on six continents.

From modest roots in small bush plane repair in the 1930′s, the Manitoba aerospace industry has grown to include sophisticated design, manufacturing, servicing, testing, certification and research and development capabilities. We are home to Canada’s largest aerospace composite manufacturing centre, as well as the world’s largest independent gas turbine engine repair and overhaul company. Also located in Manitoba are the internationally acclaimed Composites Innovation Centre and two of the world’s most advanced aircraft engine testing and certification centres developed by Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney and GE Aviation. Along with these global aerospace leaders, Manitoba has a network of SMBs that compete and supply into the global marketplace. This growing cluster is strengthened through the Competitive Edge Supplier Development initiative, an internationally recognized learner to world class supplier and supply chain development program.

This gives us a sense of the impact the aerospace industry in Manitoba has on the world. We could come up with even a stronger statement, in a different perspective coming from the province of Quebec.

I remember another occasion when I was in the Phillippines. I talked to some military representatives, who talked about the Bell helicopter. They thought that the province of Quebec had a wonderful product in the Bell helicopter, that Quebec was a place they could look at. I asked a representative why he was looking at the province of Quebec in particular and what he thought about the manufactured helicopter. I did not expect, and the member commented on this, him to say that it was the fact that politicians in Quebec were so impressed with the makeup of the workforce in the construction of the helicopter, referring to the fact that people of Filipino heritage were in that industry.

With respect to our aerospace industry, one of the nice things is the diversity we see when we tour these plants, whether they are in Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario or British Columbia, “the big four”, as I would like to say. Hopefully Manitoba will even become higher and more prominent, but that is a personal bias. It is that diversification of the workforce and the skills they have.

That is why it is so critically important that Ottawa not only continues to support the aerospace industry, as it has prepandemic, during the pandemic and today, but that we also ensure, as much as possible, that those stakeholders are at the table as well. We want Red River College and the University of Manitoba at the table. We want those post-secondary facilities, whether they are in Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, B.C., or any other jurisdiction, to be at the table to ensure we continue to invest in research and technology.

When we think of manufacturing in Canada, many would argue, especially many of my Ontario colleagues, that we lead in the automobile industry. After all, we can take a look at the hybrids, at the plants that are being announced, the thousands of jobs, the clean energy, and all these things. In a good part, it is coming out of Ontario, but when we take a look at the overall picture of the manufacturing industry, Canada's aerospace industry is recognized, within our bigger picture of the manufacturing industry, as one of the best, if not the best, in investing in research, technology and advancement. We are seeing that in the types of demands that are there for Canada.

Ottawa should continue to support the industry. As the Minister of Industry indicated in a question about something he recently announced in the province of Quebec, I can make reference to things that recently have been announced in Manitoba. Whether it is through procurements and how the federal government supports the industry, or direct investments in the industry, or indirect things that are done through things such as trades and skills, my appeal would be that we look at what other stakeholders and jurisdictions can do that would complement the types of initiatives that the federal government is taking to advance a very important industry.

This industry employs thousands of people, with well-paying jobs. It contributes billions of dollars every year to our GDP, thereby enhancing our lifestyle. We can all take a sense of pride in how our aerospace industry has been able to do relatively well even during the pandemic. As we get through the pandemic and look at the potential to increase its demand in the years ahead, it is critically important we continue to look at ways to support our aerospace industry.

As much as I enjoy talking about the aerospace industry, I hope the Bloc and Conservatives will come onside and support Bill C-27 when it comes up for debate later today. It would be wonderful to see that legislation pass, which would make this debate that much better.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to remind folks to visit the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, where they can see the Avro Arrow, or pieces of it.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have many fine universities and colleges in Ontario that are conducting space research. The hon. member mentioned post-secondary investments in his speech. Could the member elaborate on the research and training opportunities?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member from Scarborough is a strong advocate for her constituents. I referenced somewhat in my comments the importance of education and bringing that to the table. The member has recognized that there are so many opportunities for young people today to enter into a career by taking advantage of and looking at those opportunities. Whether it be in an engineering capacity or a welding capacity, all kinds of opportunities are available. We rely very much on our secondary and post-secondary facilities to support such a critical industry.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North certainly has a rather dysfunctional relationship with the truth. In fact, what he had to say matched reality about as well as his tie matches his jacket, which is not at all.

The reality is that decisions made during the Louis St-Laurent government led to the forced cancellation of the Avro. I found it quite ironic that the member talked so much about Magellan and the F-35, when he and his party campaigned repeatedly on the fact that they would kill the F-35, which would cost many jobs in his riding and across Canada.

The member talks a lot about supporting the aviation industry. I wonder if he could comment on his government's plan to sole-source the maritime surveillance craft to the U.S. for the P-8, instead of allowing Canadian companies such as Bombardier or PAL in Newfoundland to bid on the project. Why are the Liberals sending the jobs offshore without even allowing an opportunity for great Canadian companies to bid on the work?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rewrite history, and history is very clear. For anyone who wants a clear indication of a lost opportunity, a simple search of Dr. Google will quickly tell them that the Avro Arrow, a leading interceptor that was ahead of its time in the late 1950s, was cancelled in 1959. If we do a Google search, we will also find that the prime minister at the time went out of his way to say that we were cancelling the program. Hundreds of jobs were lost. The member does not have to believe me; he can read the history books. We can choose what to believe, but we cannot rewrite history.

Canada is looked up to, around the world, because of our procurements and tendering. We recognize that our aerospace industry is a worldwide issue. That means that, at times, when we go abroad, there are all sorts of other aerospace industry SME benefits that would be taken into consideration.

It is a fairly complicated issue. The member is more than welcome to sit down with some of the departmental staff, who, I am sure, would be happy to explain the benefits of the program that the federal government provides with respect to procurement.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleague across the aisle spent a lot of his time complaining about the issues the Bloc Québécois has chosen to address. Today, it is the report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. He reminded the House that we devoted some opposition days to the issues of prayer and the monarchy, reminding us these were not real issues in his mind, that there were more important issues. Today we are raising the issue of aerospace. We might have expected him to applaud our choice and say that it was a good idea, that it finally allows us to talk about something that affects people, but instead he tells us that we should have talked about Bill C‑27.

The question we in the Bloc are asking is quite simple. Despite the agreement between the parties to drop the debate on Bill C‑27, is the member finally inviting us to discuss it and to add speakers to the debate? The Liberal position is not clear.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not fully understand the question.

If we had had, for example, an opposition day motion that gave some specific direction to the government as to what the Bloc was hoping to achieve that would ultimately have been voted on, it probably would have been more productive than bringing forward a three-hour concurrence motion and debate. I love the opportunity to talk about the aerospace industry and its strength in Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario and B.C., as well as in other regions, as I do not want to say it is in just those four jurisdictions. I believe that would have been more valuable on an opposition day than talking about a constitutional change or a change to the Standing Orders. I do think that, at times, the Bloc's priorities might be a bit mixed up.