Robert Vincent

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. The operating funds the government intends to give to universities are one thing, but if more money were provided to allow our students to go further and if they were handsomely subsidized at that stage, we would see the results.

We can have the best students and the best graduates, but the laboratory technology is also necessary for them to be top performers, and that is what the government has cut.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my allotted time with the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

It is imperative that this government support the aerospace industry. In recent years, the Conservatives have abandoned the forestry and manufacturing sectors to their fate. It is time this government of inaction became a real leader in aerospace, as we face this economic crisis.

As we know, at the end of 2006, the Conservative government abolished Technology Partnerships Canada, a program to support industry-based research, because it was perceived as wasteful by the western provinces, whose economy is resource based.

In April 2007, Ottawa announced with great fanfare the establishment of a program to support research in the aerospace industry. The fact is that the government simply revived the Technology Partnerships Canada program it had itself abolished, but with a budget cut by one-third and with all industries but aerospace being excluded. Industries such as the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and environmental industries, which are well established in Quebec, have been abandoned.

The Bloc Québécois calls on the federal government to substantially increase its support to research and development, and industrial research in particular.

One would nevertheless expect to see Quebec get its fair share of federal R and D spending, regardless of how inadequate that spending is. But, as in many similar instances, such is not the case. While Quebec accounts for 29% of total R and D spending in Canada, it receives a mere 24% of federal funding, while Ontario gets 48.3%.

Quebec is a world leader in the aerospace industry. It ranks 6th, behind the major players: USA, France, UK, Germany and Japan. The Montreal region, where 95% of the activity is concentrated, ranks 5th in the world as far as employment in this economic sector is concerned.

There are 250 aerospace companies in Quebec. These include 240 small and medium-sized businesses, which account for 49% of total jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry, along with 57% of payrolls, 62% of business revenues, and 70% of R and D expenses.

Forty thousand people, over ten thousand of them engineers or scientists, work in the sector, which works out to 1 Quebecker in 200, and 1 out of 95 Montrealers. Per capita, there is no country in the world where aerospace occupies a more important place than in Quebec. And we are talking of quality jobs, with average earnings of $60,000. It is the main foundation of our cutting edge economy.

In fact, with its sales of more than $11 billion, 80% of that abroad, the aerospace industry is the mainstay of our cutting edge economy. It accounts for the bulk of our high tech exports and our R and D business investments.

While companies in the rest of Canada are mainly sub-contractors, Quebec is at the hub.

What is more, competition is likely to be stepped up, as the Chinese prepare to enter the field, and the Russians are interested in penetrating the regional jet market. If we are to ensure the survival and long-term development of our industry, the time to invest is right now. Let us not lose sight of the fact that research and development carried out today will result in the launch of a new aircraft only 10 or 15 years down the road. Today is the day to decide whether that aircraft will take off or stay stuck on the ground, and if it does the latter, our entire economy will be grounded along with it.

It is urgent that we develop a real aerospace policy. Whether the Conservative government likes it or not, laissez-faire, empty slogans and magical thinking are not policies. For a number of years now, the Bloc Québécois has been asking the government to establish an aerospace policy that would provide companies with reliable and predictable support, thus enabling them to plan their development projects. Faced with the lack of interest from the members of federalist parties, the Bloc Québécois even submitted its own policy, which was very well received by the industry.

Unfortunately, under the Conservatives, the federal government seems to have decided to take Canada out of the game, which is catastrophic. Not only does the government not have an aerospace policy, but all of its actions—whether out of incompetence, blindness or both—serve to weaken this cornerstone of our economy.

And what about military procurements and the fact that the Conservatives have abandoned Quebec? Military procurements are excluded from trade agreements, so governments can buy anywhere they like, under any conditions they choose and thus maximize the benefits for our industry. In June 2006, the former minister of national defence and former military industry lobbyist announced that the federal government would be increasing its purchases of defence equipment by $17.1 billion in order to implement its defence plan, Canada First. The aerospace component of Canada First totalled $13 billion: $7 billion for new aircraft and $6 billion for in-service support and maintenance over 20 years.

The three aerospace procurement programs are: $1.2 billion to purchase four new Boeing C-17 heavy tactical transport planes, plus $2.2 billion for service and maintenance over 20 years. The total comes to $3.4 billion. The second is $1.4 billion to purchase 17 new Hercules C-130J tactical airlift aircraft from American manufacturer Lockheed Martin, plus infrastructure, support and maintenance for 20 years. The plane selected for this contract is Lockheed Martin's Hercules C-130J, for a total of $4.6 to $4.9 billion. The third program involves $2 billion to purchase 15 new Boeing Chinook medium to heavy lift transport helicopters, plus $2.7 billion for support over 20 years. None of these aircraft have been or will be built in Canada.

On Friday, February 2, 2007, the government bought four Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft. The contract specified that Boeing would have to buy or invest $3.4 billion in Canada, with half of that for aeronautics and defence and 15% for SMEs. The aircraft are to be built and serviced in the United States. Direct spinoffs from the contract will therefore be negligible. There will only be indirect spinoffs.

The contract does not specify the quality or geographic distribution of the investments. Boeing will invest where it sees fit and buy from whomever it chooses, even though Quebec's aeronautics industry represents between 55% and 60% of Canada's aeronautics industry. The decision was poorly received in Quebec, but the government did the same thing again on January 16, 2008, when it announced the purchase of 17 Hercules C-130J aircraft from Lockheed Martin. Once again, the Conservatives failed to specify proper spinoffs and did not require the company to invest in Quebec. The initial tenders do not bode well. They do not include any technology transfer, and purchases will be minimal: warehousing, nuts and bolts, containers, printing. The good-quality contracts the government talked about appear to have been nothing but a mirage.

The government could have ensured that Quebec received its fair share of good contracts. After all, it is the customer. Furthermore, trade agreements do not apply to military procurement and so it had the freedom to set the conditions it wanted with respect to spinoffs as well. It decided not to do so. The Quebec industry fought for and managed to obtain a fair share of the spinoffs from the purchase of the Boeing C-17 planes. We do not yet know about the other contracts but it is not looking good. Spinoffs from military contracts for the aerospace sector, which may total $9.2 billion, will go elsewhere. If Quebec were to receive its fair share, these contracts would generate 37,000 person-years of employment in Quebec—those are years of work for full-time employees.

What would a true aerospace policy consist of? A transparent government would offer a clear and consistent program in support of research and development. It would make R and D tax credits refundable. It would re-institute the technology partnerships program, cover 20% to 30% of research and development costs and change repayment terms so that the risk is truly shared by both the company and the government. That would require a fixed and predictable commitment to financing of sales, especially exports. EDC financing of sales contracts would have to match Embraer financing of 80% of contracts, rather than the 40% provided here in Canada. EDC turns a profit; it earned $4 billion over the past three years.

The current level of funding provided by IRAP-TPC—the TPC component for small and medium-sized enterprises—to a program for aerospace SMEs must be increased substantially. A true loan guarantee program must be established to increase businesses' working capital. SMEs must be given a greater role in product development and allowed to bid on larger contracts. A program to help small businesses obtain certification and accreditation with larger companies should be implemented.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2008, the Prime Minister and the former minister of cake unveiled a science and technology policy that was disappointing, to say the least.

The government is stating new priorities, but not announcing any measures. Its priorities address Canada's needs more than Quebec's. Ottawa wants to play a more immediate role in our universities by directing research conducted by graduate students, but the document does not respond to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology report on the manufacturing industry, which suggested substantially increasing federal funding for research and development and making tax credits for R and D refundable.

Can the member tell me whether the government should take this committee report into consideration and act on its recommendations? I would also mention that the committee report was unanimous.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, March 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my Conservative colleague's reference to the fact that, in the budget proposed by his government, workers, families and seniors would benefit. We probably did not read the same budget. The measures for workers are in fact for just two years. Five weeks are being added on to employment insurance. These are not appropriate measures for workers. Given the job losses and this government's inertia as far as injecting enough money to get out of this economic crisis, the program for older worker adjustment, or POWA, would have been useful. The government ought to have made an effort in that direction.

Then, they talk about the $1,500 income tax deduction for seniors. But those people have to be paying income tax. If seniors are living below the poverty line, we can be sure they will not be paying income tax, and so they cannot take advantage of that government measure.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. What would be the solution, the attitude Parliament ought to take, to this Conservative government and to this budget?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I compared the government to a mother-in-law interfering in her children's households, but it is even worse than that. At least mothers-in-law talk to their children, whereas the government does not even talk to the provinces to try to find out what they think about securities. I would like to read a short paragraph from Monique Jérôme-Forget:

As for the expert panel, I note that you have ignored the proposals made to you by the Provincial-Territorial Council of Ministers of Securities Regulation. In so doing, I believe you have missed a good opportunity to obtain information that would have helped you better understand the point of view of the provinces and territories. Unfortunately, I fail to see that yet another panel, whose conclusions seem predictable to us...

This expert panel cost us $150 million, and its findings were a foregone conclusion. The government could not care less about what the provinces think. All it cares about is interfering in the provinces' jurisdictions.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that if Canada were to create a Canada-wide securities commission, Quebec would lose its voice at the International Organization of Securities Commissions.

Does my colleague think that we will be left out in the cold, just as we have been at UNESCO?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as for the stock exchange lists, we have specialists in Quebec who can tell us what we should do. It is always more difficult when the federal government is meddling everywhere. Everything becomes so complicated. Just the feasibility study for this project cost $150 million. Earlier today, there was some discussion about employment insurance. The program for older worker adjustment would cost $35 million for all of Canada. Therefore, just with the money spent on the study, the program could have been offered for five years to workers 55 years of age and older across Canada, to help them make their way out of the recession. I would like to hear what my distinguished colleague has to say about this.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listen to the eminent Conservatives telling us one after the other that a single Canadian securities commission is the best way to go. As an example, let us say that we have a family of 12 children. They have been married and living on their own for 25 or 30 years. All of a sudden, the mother-in-law decides to manage the money of each of these families. This is what the government has in mind right now. For many years, commissions have been building up their organization in each province. Therefore, they are able to decide and make laws accordingly.

Why would we want to have a mother-in-law manage our business and interfere in our fields of jurisdiction to tell us what to do? Establishing a single Canadian commission is equivalent to that.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that our colleague would speak to us about the budget. If so many people find the budget so good and so perfect, then why does it talk about 0.7% of GDP when the IMF is telling us to invest 2% of GDP?

It so happens that 2% of GDP is a lot more than 0.7% of GDP. This 0.7% of GDP represents $20 billion when it should have been $40 billion. The government needs to double the amount already invested. If it wants to have a budget that it is in line with what the IMF has asked us to do, it will have to invest another 1.4%, which means it has to double the amount already invested.

The Americans have already invested 2.7% and we are just the poor cousins with 0.7%. The government says it has done a good job and presented a perfect budget, but it is missing 1.4% and twice the amount of money.

Can my colleague tell me when the government will invest the other 1.4% that the IMF is asking our country to invest?

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to tell the House why the government wants to establish a national financial institution for Canada instead of leaving things as they are. What does the government stand to gain from that?