Debates of March 8th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Air Transportation

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York for asking that question because it hits on exactly what I am speaking about.

There is a city building exercise that is being done at the waterfront. We have invested heavily already in the waterfront. We have seen wonderful development. It has made it so much more accessible. There are people working, studying, and enjoying our waterfront. It is a key part of our city.

It is also a source of employment. In fact, the next phase of waterfront development looks at the port lands. The potential is for roughly 7,700 person years of employment in the construction phases of that development project.

There is a lot of potential, and we should be supporting that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be a little more general in my approach to asking my question. We do recognize the valuable role that airports play in our society.

A very important aspect, when we look at the potential for expansion, is to take into consideration what our community needs actually are. To that degree, when we look at Billy Bishop airport, I have listened to the parliamentary secretary reflect on what is in the best interests of his constituents and the community.

Could the member reflect on how important it is to let stakeholders know in a timely fashion about the proposals being brought forward, which is what we have seen through the minister responsible? The member might also want to provide some comment in terms of how thoroughly this whole issue has been talked about over the last number of years, as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister has already indicated.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a very thorough discussion about the prospects for expanding the Toronto island Billy Bishop airport.

In fact, what we have seen is that the community is engaged in city building. We have an international airport at Pearson. As I stated earlier, I take no issue with the current configuration of the Billy Bishop airport. However, what we are talking about is expanding runways into our waterfront, and it is not what the community wants. It actually works against the work we have been doing and the investments we have been making to move forward.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand in the House to offer the following in regard to the role of Bombardier as an economic contributor to Canada's economy.

As outlined in the text of the motion devised by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Bombardier has demonstrated excellence through its ability to construct state-of-the-art aerospace and transportation products for domestic and international markets. Bombardier is not just in the business of creating airplanes and transportation solutions; it is supporting families through jobs, developing ideas, and encouraging growth within the domestic and global economies.

The focus of my speech today is on the effects of domestic regulatory decisions on the future of Bombardier and its C Series project.

On November 27, 2015, the Minister of Transport destroyed the prospects of any expansion of the Billy Bishop airport on Toronto island. The extension of the runway by 1,100 feet beyond its current 4,000 feet would have provided strong economic benefits for Canada's economy, specifically in Ontario and Quebec. In Toronto alone, where the enhanced airport was to be located, the total economic benefit would have been over $2 billion and would have created over 1,000 additional jobs. That is just the beginning of the benefits it would have provided to our economy, as this does not include the jobs related to the construction of the C Series airliners. These jobs would be located predominantly in Quebec and Ontario, from an estimated $2.3 billion purchase order, which is dependent on the expansion of the airport, and yet none of this was taken into consideration by the minister, the Prime Minister, or the government.

Without ideals, without evidence, without opportunity for dissension, without a business case, without good information, the current government cancelled the future jobs of thousands of Canadians. The only reason that has been floated to us on this side of the House is that it is some sort of pet project of the member for Spadina—Fort York. Basically, the government made a decision with respect to thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in economic activity, hundreds of families, and competition in a market with significant inhibitors to expansion based on its need to win a couple of seats.

We, the citizens of Ontario, have heard this story before. I know that the Speaker will be very familiar with this one. This is how it goes.

There is a project that needs the consent of a Liberal government. That Liberal government does not do the right thing because it wants to win some electoral seats, and that ends up costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The Liberal government then does everything it can to prevent parliamentarians from all parties from finding out the truth about how all of that went down. In Ontario, we call it the gas plant scandal. In Canada, in this Parliament, and in the industry committee we call it the Bombardier affair.

In a time of economic uncertainty, the current Liberal government has said no to the island airport, no to billions of dollars in positive economic activity, and no to increased competition. The result is that not only has the Province of Quebec had to subsidize Bombardier to the tune of $1.3 billion, not only has the growth of Porter Airlines been sidelined, not only has competition helping consumers been obstructed but now the federal government is also under unrelenting pressure to bail out and subsidize Bombardier and its C Series program because it blocked a $2.3 billion deal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Prince Albert.

The current government is directly responsible for job losses and preventing job creation in the service and manufacturing sectors. When this boondoggle was finally drawn into the public arena, my Conservative colleagues on the industry committee asked publicly for an investigation into what had transpired, but as this committee is dominated by Liberals, we have not heard a single thing.

Is the current government following the example of its provincial cousins, the Liberal Party of Ontario, and blocking representatives of the citizens of Canada from knowing what transpired behind closed Liberal doors? Is it hiding behind processes to protect members of the government? Is it intentionally stalling the work of parliamentarians and stifling transparency and accountability for actions that have cost taxpayers billions of dollars directly, and billions more in unrealized tax revenue?

After all of that, what I find most difficult to rationalize about the government is that its behaviour is so contradictory to what it says. Its rhetoric is not just out of sync with its actions, it is just plainly false.

The throne speech delivered to the House four months ago states the following about Canadians:

...they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them. Things like growing the economy; creating jobs; strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it. Through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the Government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it.

The House must hold the government accountable for its statements and actions. So I ask the following. When the government opposed the Toronto island airport, did it grow the economy? No, it weakened the economy throughout Canada, and specifically in Quebec and Ontario.

Did it create jobs as the throne speech says it would? No, it killed 1,000 jobs in Toronto and countless elsewhere.

Did it strengthen the middle class and help those that are working hard to reach it? No, it made it more difficult to reach the middle class by reducing the number of jobs available.

When it decided not to allow the airport expansion, was that carefully considered and respectfully conducted? No, there was no rationale and it was announced through a tweet in the middle of the night.

Finally, did the government meet the challenges facing this country? No, there were no challenges except for the Liberal government itself, which has created the need for a billion dollar bailout by doing what was politically expedient.

Only the Liberal government, only this Prime Minister, and only the Minister of Innovation can turn a $2.3 billion windfall into the need for a $1 billion bailout. The government's conduct is just crazy. All it had to do was nothing. Do not interfere with the process under way. Do not play politics with jobs for hard-working Canadians. Do not post a tweet in the middle of the night, and the results would have been celebrated.

Bombardier would have received a $2.3 billion purchase order. Porter airlines would have been expanding its fleet, its infrastructure, its number of employees. Consumers would be gaining from the benefits of increased competition in the marketplace. The government would be receiving increased tax revenue instead of increasing its deficit by looking at providing a bailout.

It could not be more clear. Canadians have a right to know. This is not a bailout of Bombardier, it is bailout of Liberal intervention in Toronto politics. It is a bailout of failed Liberal policies by the Prime Minister. It is a bailout of politically motivated decision-making for electoral gains and, worst of all, it is a bailout of millionaires and billionaires on the backs of hard-working Canadians.

The Prime Minister should not be subsidizing millionaires and billionaires using the tax dollars of lower- and middle-income Canadians. He should be looking those Canadians straight in the eye and apologizing for costing our youth their first job, our workers their next raise, and our unemployed their opportunity for economic independence.

I stand today speaking in favour of the motion, not to support one airline over another or one airport over another, or even one sector over another. I speak in favour of the motion because it means lower prices for consumers through increased competition. It means more jobs in Toronto, more jobs in manufacturing in Ontario, more jobs in manufacturing in Quebec. It means supporting the aerospace industry simply by getting out of its way instead of forcing it into cardiac arrest and having to give it a billion dollar shot of adrenaline.

I believe that Canadian companies build the best planes, that Canadian companies provide the best flights, and that Canadian job creation is best for the Canadian economy. I therefore believe that the House should adopt the motion.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, if a runway is built the length of the extension just mentioned in that speech, the jets would end up in the water. For someone who claims to have read the reports and understands the facts around this conversation, it is odd that the runway extension he is citing is about 60 metres short of the one required and being requested by Porter airlines.

I will put the fact that the member does not use facts aside and get to the issue he raised about employment. If he goes to page 18 of the economic impact study that the members quote liberally from one side of the page but not on the other side, does he not understand that the decision to invest in developing the waterfront creates 16,000 jobs? It will not happen if the airport is expanded, which will only create 6,000 jobs. The 6,000 jobs we are speaking of are not affected by the decision we have made. In other words, if we pursue their policy, we will lose 16,000 jobs in Toronto. Has he not read the report? Is the only person he has spoken to Mr. Deluce?

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member cited me as referring to 6,000 jobs. I do not believe I said that. I am not sure where he was during the speech, but I welcome him back.

At the end of the day, the member is talking about public funds going in. The best business case for the Government of Canada and its shareholders is when we do not put a dollar in, but we get increased tax revenue. That is what we are talking about with the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport. That is why our party is standing up for that expansion. That is why our party is standing up for the expansion of Porter Airlines. That is why our party is standing up for Bombardier and its shareholders and the employees who depend on it.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that he does not want to subsidize corporations and industries.

As a Quebec member who is from a riding where Bombardier employees are going to lose their jobs, I want to understand why it was all right for the Conservatives to subsidize Ontario's automotive sector and why now, all of a sudden, the Conservatives have decided that it is not a good idea to help Bombardier during a difficult time and protect these Quebec jobs.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is incredible, but that is the second question in a row that shows they obviously were not listening to what I said. I did not say we would not support any sort of subsidization or help. What I said was that it is Liberal policies, that it is the current government's policies, that have left us in a situation where we do not know what the future of Bombardier will be.

If only the current government had allowed the expansion to continue, we would have had thousands more employees in the Toronto area and thousands more employees throughout Quebec and Ontario directly employed by Bombardier and Porter, as well as by suppliers to those companies. I think the member needs to perhaps go back to the notes.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of working for de Havilland in Toronto, building the Dash 7s and Dash 8s in the late 1970s, as a summer student. Unfortunately, we all know of the demise of that company.

The Dash aircraft is commended for its STOL technology, which also allowed for the expansion and the utilization of the Billy Bishop airport. Since that time some 40 years ago, the expansion of the Toronto skyline along the waterfront has been exponential and the economic benefit has been exponential. I wonder if the member could give us some indication as we talk about the expansion of that waterfront of the jobs there would be not only from extending the runway but also from expanding the skyline.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see, these things go hand in hand. Obviously, increased infrastructure in the area would also increase the need and demand for housing, the demand for commercial space, and the demand for industry down there as well. Certainly, these are things that would go hand in hand from an expansion of the airport as well as the development of the waterfront.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues for this great motion, moving forward. I think there are a lot of things we can talk about in considering why this should actually be considered and looked at to move forward.

I want to highlight a few things, and the first thing I want to talk about is the process itself that was used to say no.

We heard about the midnight text. We heard about how things are done behind closed doors. This is coming from a government that said it would not do things that way and that it would hold consultations.

In fact, with the TPP, we are going across the country holding consultation after consultation, because of the importance of that type of agreement. Well, this airport expansion is not just about Toronto.

I had the pleasure of flying into Billy Bishop airport, and what a great name for an airport. When I say the name, it just rolls off my tongue. It is a great little airport.

I joined a flight here in Ottawa to Toronto, and I sat beside a new friend, a Scot from Moncton, who was going to the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada conference in Toronto. He was telling me that he is a prospector who does business in Toronto.

Of course, we all know that Toronto is the mining capital of the world. When one is looking at investing in a mine, one goes to Toronto to get the expertise on how to do that. Our Canadian companies are the best in the world when it comes to not only mining but to corporate social responsibility in the development of mines everywhere across the globe.

It was interesting listening to him. He said he did a lot of prospecting and he goes to Toronto, and what a great way to do it. He flies right into downtown Toronto, and 15 minutes after getting off the plane, he goes through the tunnel, which has just been developed. I have to say it is an improvement over the ferry. However, he goes across by the tunnel, grabs a taxi, and he is at his place of business for work in half an hour. He said it is just so convenient. It allows him to go down in the morning and do his business in Toronto and fly home that afternoon or evening. That is a very strong tool for Toronto to attract business people to its business community.

I just looked at that C Series jet that has come in. First, it is not a jet. It is a turbofan. The engine is different. It is quieter and more efficient. In fact, we are looking at 50% to 75% noise reduction in that engine. That is one thing that I would think anybody in the Spadina riding would look at and think it was great. They would want that plane flying in there because it is quieter. Its fuel reduction is 60%. It is a more fuel-efficient plane to run and operate. That is why I think Porter, Air Canada, and other companies are looking at this plane. I think that is why they have some 230 orders on the order books.

However, we also need Canadian companies to show confidence there. We need to show that Canadian companies like to buy Canadian products. However, when we see a barrier put up like we are seeing put up in Toronto at this airport, so that they cannot take advantage of this new technology, so they cannot have a quieter and more fuel-efficient plane coming onto that runway, it does not make a lot sense. What makes even less sense is the process.

We have a process under way, and it is looking at all the implications of the expansion of that runway. Instead of waiting for that process to finish, they say no. That is what they said: no. There is no consultation with any other communities that may be flying in and out of Toronto. There is no consultation with the airlines and the employees that are using it. There is no consultation with the businesses outside of the Spadina riding. What we have here is a classic NIMBY.

However, this is an asset. When we look at this area, we see this airport that used to handle about 26,000 people and now handles two million people a year. When we look at the area around the airport, we see it is developing like crazy. That airport is not a hindrance. In fact, some people would tell us that they are living in that area because they are close to the airport. That airport is important for them. Why would we not give them the opportunity to fly in the latest and greatest aircraft? If we look at the options we are putting in front of Canadian travellers with this new C Series jet, we see it is actually something that should be strongly considered and should not be discounted in a midnight text.

I have seen the current government do a few things that really make me scratch my head. When we look at processes that are put in place to help decide whether we should go forward, whether it is with a pipeline or runway expansion, we would put together a process that is actually at arm's length from government so that no political decisions can be made based on partisan politics. It would be based on the merit of the project itself.

We have a tripartite agreement here, three parties that actually would look at this project and decide whether it should go forward. They agreed on the study. The study was in process. Then one party said no, based on partisan politics. This is what is really scaring me when I talk about energy pipelines, when we are looking at getting energy to the east coast or to the Petronas project in B.C., which we heard about in question period today.

Having a process that lays out the rules that say, for example, that if companies want to build pipelines, they have these 99 recommendations they have to follow before we agree to it, that makes sense to industry. It is bankrolled. It says, okay, this is what it has to do to meet the requirements to build a pipeline.

However, when we add at the end of the process that not only will the companies have to do these 99 things but the government will make a partisan decision and it will come back into politics and the government will decide on the final yea or nay, how does that work?

What is the decision factor at that point in time? Companies go through it as a business, spend $12 billion, meet all the requirements laid out in front of them, keep meeting more requirements; then they find out that, unless they take a few people in cabinet out for lunch or dinner, they may not get it. That puts our cabinet ministers in a horrible position. It puts companies in a horrible position. It takes the process, which is very simple and straightforward, and pollutes it. That is what the government has been doing. It is really disturbing, because any type of governance would say we would not do this, but the Liberals are ignoring that, and I find that really disturbing.

I talked a little bit about Canadian companies showing faith in Canadian companies, whether it is bringing oil from Alberta into Quebec and eastern Canada or whether it is buying jet planes that will be flown across western Canada. I am actually pretty excited about the C Series jet, because this might be the ticket to actually having a commercial carrier flying out of Prince Albert. Maybe so, maybe not; economics will decide it, as they should.

I look at Saskatoon, Regina, and Winnipeg. The range of this jet will create the opportunity for those flights to actually come into downtown Toronto. That is something we do not have with the existing aircraft of today. If we look at Toronto and the potash sector in Saskatchewan, we see these people are filling up planes every week, going back and forth from Toronto to Saskatoon, and they are based in downtown Toronto. If they can fly in and out of Billy Bishop, that is pretty exciting for them. Just think of the time they would save. Just think of the time they will have with their families because they are not sitting in an airport, a subway, or a taxi.

This is a very important key economic activity, a tool that is important for the entire Canadian economy. We cannot just look at the NIMBY effect and say that is how we will make our decision. We have to look at all the pieces of the puzzle, and then sometimes we have to make a tough choice. We have to recognize the fact that sometimes we will not please everybody. Somebody will be upset. That is the thing about governing. That is the thing about tough choices.

Government members over there are very naive, thinking that just increasing the number of times they talk to people will somehow change their minds. In a lot of cases, their minds are already made up. All they are doing is playing the Liberals for fools, and they are delaying projects in such a way that the people who are backing those projects can no longer financially afford to continue going through the process.

I will wrap up my speech with that point. This is a process that should have been thought through. It should have been recognized as a process that would come to some sort of result and then brought forward. It was cut short. It was cut by partisan politics and it was cut by NIMBY. It does the Canadian economy no good, it does the city of Toronto no good, it does the commuters who fly in and out of Toronto no good, and for what? The Liberals should tell me.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

That was another lecture about process, Mr. Speaker. Let us go through the process that was not followed.

The City of Toronto agreed to study the proposition if 25 conditions were met, and the port authority said it would not do that, and it proceeded in defiance of the parameters agreed to by the city and city council.

The environmental assessment was not to be proceeded with until such time that the two parties could agree on a cap on users of the airport that respected the planning criteria that were defining how much traffic could get in and out. It had nothing to do with noise. It had nothing to do with whether anyone liked the airport. It had nothing to do with anything other than the physical constraints on an airport that has a single two-lane road accessing it. The port authority refused to comply with those parameters.

In five council meetings since the port authority has been party to this process, city council has had in front of it the question of whether or not it wanted to go ahead with this proposition, and five times the city council refused to take that position.

On the issue of process as well, Mr. Deluce has not registered as a lobbyist. Porter Airlines has not registered as a lobbyist, despite the fact that he has been up on Parliament Hill talking to individual members of Parliament and the ministerial staff. He has not obeyed the rules.

How can your party advocate for a lobbyist and a private interest that refuses to obey the laws of Canada? Where is the shame in your party in standing up for a private individual who will not obey the rules of Parliament?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I will ask the hon. member again to direct his comments through the chair. There is a reason for that, actually. By directing it to the chair and talking in the third person to other hon. members, we avoid references that can become personal and lead to potential disorder in the House.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have 40 billion reasons not to take advice from the member or his party, and that is $40 billion that went missing some years ago in Quebec.

I want to get it on the record that, in April 2014, the Toronto city council voted unanimously to adopt the city staff report that would allow the city, the Toronto port authority, and the federal government to negotiate conditions for proceeding with Porter's proposal to add jet service and extend the runway at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. That was unanimous support to proceed with a process. This was a process that the minister cut short in a text. He did not even have the courtesy to do it in public. He did it through Twitter. I rest my case.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to be a little more transparent in terms of the reality of the situation. The government has taken a very proactive approach. The motion deals with the industry, and the government has been dealing with the industry. The motion deals with the airport and the potential request for an expansion. The government has been very straightforward with its position on that.

What we are seeing is a very transparent and open government on the whole issue. Through questions and answers, we have seen an opportunity for Canadians to really get an understanding of why the government took the position it did on the issue.

He seems to be offended by a tweet. I remember the former prime minister being overseas when he made the off-the-cuff decision to increase the age for old age pension from 65 to 67. It might have been Twitter. I am not too sure exactly how it came down the pipe. It might have been handed over on a napkin. Who knows?

The bottom line is that the Government of Canada has been fully transparent on the issue. We have to, at the very least, recognize what the majority of citizens in the affected area truly want, and ultimately the economics of it make a whole lot of sense.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, is Twitter how they are going to do their announcements from now on?

As far as the effect on the area is concerned, there is more than Spadina in play here. That is the point I am trying to get across. The gentleman was from Moncton. If he did not have service to downtown Toronto, it would affect him. It affects the travellers out of Ottawa, the potential travellers out of Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, London, and all these other cities that actually have service into the centre of Toronto. I am not even talking about the American cities that would look at that airport. Those are the options that are available if they proceed.

Right now, you went and cut it off at the knees with no justification.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I remind hon. members again to direct their comments through the chair.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, in respect to immigration, refugees, and citizenship; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, regarding international trade; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, in respect to foreign affairs.

Now we will go to resuming debate. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I am very pleased to speak to today's Conservative opposition motion. The Bombardier file is very important to me not only because I represent a riding that is home to many workers affected by the unfortunate news we have heard over the past few weeks, but also because this is part of my family history. My grandfather spent his life working in one of the Canadair plants in Saint-Laurent, which is where many members of my mother's family were raised. Some of them still live there.

For those who may not know this, Canadair is now an essential part of Bombardier. It was a crown corporation that, when privatized, became a key component of Bombardier. I am very familiar with this file. My family is from a neighbourhood where many people work for Bombardier. I have family members, friends, and especially constituents who work there. I recognize that the aerospace industry is critical to Quebec's economy and to Canada's, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk about it today.

I want to start by addressing the issue raised by the Conservatives regarding the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The Conservatives are saying that the C Series will reduce noise and pollution because the aircraft is more efficient and makes less noise. The problem is that the increase in air traffic will cancel out those benefits. If we take 10 away from 30 but then add 15, we are left with a higher number than we started with. That is the situation we are in now. Furthermore, proper procedures were not followed. Some of the proposals that were made did not go through the appropriate channels. The wishes of Toronto residents who will be affected by this also need to be respected.

The problem is bigger than the details of a file that specifically affects the City of Toronto and the people living near Spadina Avenue. This situation shows how ridiculous the Conservatives can be because, in 2008, that party did not hesitate to help the automotive industry in Ontario. We understand how important that sector is. The point is not to pit one sector against another. It is to show how now, all of a sudden, they seem more reluctant to help a company, an industry, that is so important to Quebec's economy and the Canadian economy in general, and that is aerospace industry. It is unfortunate that that willingness does not seem to exist today. Saying that an airport will solve a very complex and difficult issue shows how the Conservatives propose simplistic solutions to very serious and complicated problems. I find that unfortunate because we are now in a situation where many people are paying the price. People are going to lose their jobs. Why? Because the government that was in office for 10 years did absolutely nothing for the aerospace industry or the manufacturing industry in general.

This type of motion seems very hypocritical to me. It talks about wanting to support Bombardier, wanting to support an entire industry, but wanting to address just one issue that has to do with an airport is not the answer. Our criticism of the Conservatives does not let the current government off the hook. We are in a situation where, once again, given that this industry is so important to the economy of Quebec and Canada, it was no secret that these issues would land on the new government's desk from the get-go.

The NDP was proactive on this very important issue. During the last election campaign, we proposed an aerospace strategy. This industry does not depend on Bombardier alone, in spite of how big it is. There are also related businesses. We are talking about businesses that do research and development. Many of those businesses are located in my riding and neighbouring ridings. It is an industry that supports other businesses, not just Bombardier. That is why there needs to be a long-term vision, a strategy. The NDP was prepared to make investments. Unfortunately, the Liberals have not made any commitments on this. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

When we heard that people would lose well-paying, good-quality jobs and that families would be struggling, I participated in a number of panels and conducted numerous interviews. I had the chance to talk with some Liberal members, who gave me the same old story we hear for every issue. They tell us that they need some time because they just started. Then they say that they have made commitments and they give us the same lip service we heard during the election campaign.

In the United States, people often say that if the American president has not accomplished anything after 100 days, he will not accomplish anything in his term. I realize that American politics and Canadian politics are different. However, the first 100 days are crucial. At some point, the government needs to start helping people and taking real action.

Employment insurance is another good example. Some workers lose their jobs and do not receive any government assistance. With all due respect to the Minister of Transport, who has accomplished a lot and is a great Canadian, when he tells the House that he has been in a C Series aircraft, he is showing how out of touch he is with the people who are losing their jobs. It is ridiculous. They are going to have to get over themselves eventually. The election campaign is over and these people need help. Now is not the time for them to repeat what they said during the election campaign. Now is the time for the government to govern and come up with a proposal.

The simplest proposal is to subsidize the company. We need to sit down at the table and get to work. Any financial assistance provided to a company like Bombardier must come with conditions. Taxpayers have the right to be concerned and ask questions. We are spending their money after all.

That is why the NDP firmly believes that the government must provide assistance, but that there must be conditions attached. There have to be loan guarantees. Furthermore, talks must be held to determine how the company will restructure and how the C Series will be deployed after it receives federal government assistance. It is not complicated: we can help, but there must be strings attached.

During the last election campaign, I went door to door and met people working at Bombardier in plants, in research and development, and in administration. They did not feel that people were ready to govern and make proposals that would help workers. Fortunately, the NDP had a strategy to help this industry.

As I already said, the election campaign is over. The government needs to wake up, take responsibility, and help these people. It is unfortunate, but we will have to vote against the motion. The Conservatives decided to move a motion that is written in such a way as to divide people. They want to leave the House saying that we voted against a motion that recognizes the importance of Bombardier. However, we must talk facts, not semantics.

If the Conservatives strongly believe that increasing airport traffic and creating an environmental nuisance and traffic problems in the largest city in the country will really help an industry that is so important to Quebec and Canada, they are dreaming in technicolour. We wonder why, in 10 years, they did not do something to avoid the current situation.

In conclusion, I will take advantage of this opportunity to say that workers in my riding and all over Quebec who are affected by this unfortunate news can count on me and the NDP caucus. Fortunately, the NDP will stand up, and not just with respect to Bombardier. We have also reviewed the Aveos file and other files that are just not getting the attention they deserve from the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I am very proud to belong to a team of MPs who will stand up and put forward a real plan to help a major industry. I have a personal interest in the industry because it affects my constituents, my friends, and my family. I know that.

I am very proud to have shared this with the House and to offer my support to my constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the industry. As such, my question will be based on that.

Over the years, the aerospace industry has been impacted negatively. Its potential has not been fully recognized in Canada. It is important that government identify the importance of technology in moving forward and investing in our aerospace industry. We heard that in some of the responses today.

Unlike the previous administration, this government truly cares about the aerospace industry and that bodes well for the community I represent, Winnipeg North, where there is a strong aerospace industry. We want the government to show that it is genuinely concerned about it. I have attended many rallies in support of our aerospace industry.

Canada has a significant aerospace industry in a number of pockets throughout Canada. Would the member not agree that it is important that we as a government and as members of Parliament advocate for the protection of the industry so it can create jobs into the future?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government cares so much about the industry, why did it have nothing to say during the election campaign about helping the industry? The Liberals were completely silent on this issue.

That is why I have questions about files like Bombardier. On the day the new government was sworn in, one of the first questions addressed to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, as the portfolio is now known, was about Bombardier. That was one of the first questions addressed to several ministers who paraded before the media. That was in November, and we still have not gotten any real answers. In the meantime, people are losing their jobs and looking for help.

I also want to mention the Aveos workers, who are also living with uncertainty. They remember a Prime Minister who was eager to demonstrate with them and show the so-called good faith that the member mentioned, but who is nowhere to be found now that the Liberals are in power.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to salute and congratulate my colleague on his interesting remarks, particularly regarding his personal background, as well as the fact that some of his constituents work for Canadair, and therefore for Bombardier. I would remind the House that it was in 1986 that the government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney decided to privatize the company. It was then purchased by the Quebec company founded in Valcourt, in the Eastern Townships, thanks to the creative genius of Joseph-Armand Bombardier. He acquired it for basically what the company was worth. A few years later, Bombardier completely revolutionized and reinvented the aviation world with regional jets.

Here is what I want to say: for the C Series to work, Bombardier has to sell planes. Here is a Canadian company, Porter, that is ready to buy 30 aircraft. For that to happen, the government has to allow these planes to land at an airport. It would not cost the federal government a single dime to let Porter buy them.

We will see what the government proposes to help Bombardier. We know that the Quebec government made a proposal, but it was harshly criticized by the opposition. We need to give the government some time and then decide whether we agree with the proposal. Why would anyone oppose a proposal that will not cost taxpayers a single dime and, more importantly, will allow Bombardier to sell planes?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's passion for the history of Canadair and Bombardier. Indeed, there have been highs and lows. My grandfather experienced that. At one point, he was one of the only workers left at plant 1. Then there was a wind of change. We acknowledge the history of the industry, especially in Quebec, and it is part of our collective history.

I understand the hon. member's question and his concern. My problem is that we know that Porter is currently having financial difficulties. We also know that the Conservatives are promising us that this will not cost the taxpayers anything. However, we have questions about the hidden costs. We have all sorts of questions. Is this something that will truly not cost the taxpayers anything? I am not convinced. After all, we know that this could cause traffic and nuisance problems, which could result in hidden costs. Costs are not always financial, of course. At the end of the day, what we take issue with here is that this is not the perfect solution. It takes a government that is ready to show some leadership, ready to propose a real strategy for this industry and finally tell us whether or not it is going to help Bombardier.

My colleague alluded to what was done in Quebec. We are very aware that it is in the taxpayers' interest that we respect their money. That is why we want any agreement between the federal government and Bombardier to have all the necessary criteria to ensure the proper use of taxpayers' money.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for his very elegant and nuanced, but also realistic speech on the future of this important industry and the situation of people living in downtown Toronto. I would like to elaborate on one point brought up by my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly.

Once again, the Conservative motion reflects the politics of division. It is trying to pit Toronto against Montreal; it is trying to pit the quality of life and concerns of Torontonians against the future of a sector mainly based in the metropolitan area. The Conservatives are mixing apples and oranges for political gain and to put the other parties on the spot.

Some might say that it is not so difficult to put the Liberal Party on the spot because it seems to be doing an embarrassing flip-flop on the promises it made to the people of Toronto during the election campaign.

I think it is terrible that they are trying to start a war between Montreal and Toronto, at the expense of residents, when this debate is about a very important airport that, I admit, many passengers appreciate. However, the Conservatives seem to favour a case-by-case approach, as though we could fix the problems in Canada's aerospace industry one airport at a time.

That is not the way to support industries that provide jobs for hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of people, if you count indirect jobs.

These petty politics, or divisive politics, are nothing new from the Conservatives, and we saw the same thing in recent years with Ports Toronto. If I can, I will come back to this later.

The New Democrats believe that the quality of life of Toronto residents is what is most important. Toronto's waterfront belongs to all Toronto residents, and that is essential to us. We want to protect a clean and green waterfront, where noise pollution does not affect residents' quality of life.

The Liberals shared this position for years, but that no longer seems to be as clear, since the Minister of Transport sent out his infamous tweet.

For years, people in Toronto have been banding together and working hard to preserve their quality of life, an initiative that we applaud and agree with. We understand and share these residents' legitimate concerns about an excessive expansion that could negatively impact ecosystems and increase air and noise pollution.

The NDP's position is and remains that the 1983 tripartite agreement must be honoured. I hope that that is still the Liberal Party's position. For us, it is clear, and an NDP government would guarantee the enforcement of the 1983 tripartite agreement in order to limit excessive noise and noise pollution for the residents of Toronto.

The NDP also hopes that the airport will fall under the responsibility of the City of Toronto and not Ports Toronto, as is currently the case, because the Liberals and the Conservatives have been playing politics there for years by holding fundraisers and appointing political contributors to port authority positions. That is the case in Toronto and in Montreal as well.

Members will remember all of the wheeling and dealing that the Conservative Party did over the past few years with regard to the Port of Montreal. I spoke about this numerous times. The NDP wants to prevent any more problems like this in the future, and that is why we are proposing that the airport fall under the responsibility of the City of Toronto from now on.

Given the NDP's values, policy positions, environmental positions, and respect for citizens' movements, we hope that a rational approach will be taken on this issue. We also want actual assessments to be conducted regarding the noise levels.

I would like to remind members of a proposal that my colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, made during the discussions that we had in Quebec, or at least on the south shore.

His riding is home to the Saint-Hubert airport, a major regional airport that could be used as noise level testing grounds for the new C Series aircraft, which are much less noisy and polluting. These tests could be conducted in collaboration with the City of Toronto. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert put the suggestion out there. I would like my colleagues to comment on that. That would be a constructive, logical approach.

I would also like to highlight the aerospace sector's contribution to Quebec's economy and Canada's. This is a big deal to an MP from the greater Montreal area. I should point out that Bombardier alone accounts for 17,500 jobs and 40,000 direct and indirect jobs in all. This key sector sustains tens of thousands of families. It is also a sector in which we excel on the world stage. We can build some of the best airplanes in the world, if not the best. The C Series plane is considered the best in the world in its class.

Sadly, the Conservative government was asleep at the wheel for the past 10 years as far as the aerospace sector goes. It invested nothing in worker training or innovation and did nothing to promote purchases here at home. We hope that the new Liberal government will have a different approach and pay closer attention to the people of the greater Montreal area, whom the Conservatives ignored for 10 years. Unfortunately, things are looking pretty grim, if I may say so.

With respect to Aveos, the 1988 Air Canada Public Participation Act was crystal clear. The Conservatives ignored the issue for years, and now the Liberals are doing the same. I would note that according to section 6 of the Air Canada Public Participation Act, 2,600 Air Canada aircraft maintenance jobs were supposed to be maintained in Winnipeg, Mississauga, and Montreal, if I remember correctly. That was part of the deal.

For years, the Conservatives chose to disregard the law and leave workers to fend for themselves in the courts, and they won twice. Today, after demonstrating with Aveos workers, expressing its support, and calling on the Conservatives to abide by the law, the Liberal government is opening the door to changing the law in order to legalize something that was illegal for many years. That is what we call stabbing the Aveos workers in the back, when they had a real chance in the Supreme Court to get their jobs back and force Air Canada to listen to reason.

It is Liberal hypocrisy pure and simple. In 2012, the Prime Minister chanted “so, so, so, solidarity”, here on Parliament Hill, when he was the leader of the second opposition party. Today, we get radio silence. The Liberals are missing in action. The government can no longer assure these people that it will uphold the law to keep these important jobs that are the bread and butter of hundreds of families across the country, including 1,700 people in the Montreal area. Unfortunately, they were abandoned by the Conservatives for many years.

The aerospace sector is tremendously important. As the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I am reaching out to the Liberal government and all the other opposition parties to work together on developing an action plan that will help Bombardier sell its C Series aircraft here in Canada, create connections between all the airports, and promote this product so that it is purchased here at home and sold all around the world.

I hope that the Prime Minister will do what President Obama did for Boeing and take the plane himself and go to major international shows where the sale of such aircraft is negotiated, so that, as the leader of the NDP proposed during the election campaign, the company becomes the main seller of Quebec and Canadian products, especially when they are of the calibre of the C Series.

Let us not play politics with this. Let us come up with an action plan, a comprehensive, overarching strategy, to promote our products, Bombardier's products, the C Series planes, which will allow us to keep jobs and create new ones here at home.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that the passionate and urgent request from the member opposite to deliver security not just to Bombardier but to the families of the workers at Bombardier is heard on this side, and we understand and hope that the talks currently under way will deliver a prosperous future for a great Canadian company and, more importantly, for a great Quebec company that provides significant employment based in Montreal. We heard the call for action, and I know the ministers are attending to that.

What I am concerned about is the fact that nobody on the Conservative side seems to have read a single report contained in this decision. We just heard from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent that 30 planes were going to be ordered. If we read the letter to the City of Toronto by the head of Porter Airlines asking for the jet exemption, we see that he claims to have only a provisional order, a conditional order, for 12; it was never 30. The Conservatives talk about the runway being 335 metres long, and that is all the extension that is required. If we read the same report, we see that it is 200 metres, plus safety aprons.

In light of the fact that the Conservative Party seems to be incapable of getting the facts right or even reading the reports that the decision is based on, does the member opposite have any confidence that the Conservatives have any idea of what is happening in the airline industry or the aerospace industry in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Spadina—Fort York for his question.

The answer to that question is pretty simple. If my colleague is asking me if I trust the Conservative Party to support the aerospace industry, the answer, of course, is no. I would add, however, that I also have some doubts about his government. I welcome the openness it is showing in terms of supporting Canada's aerospace industry. However, actions speak louder than words, so I would like the Liberal government to promise, first of all, to honour the tripartite agreement reached in 1983 regarding the expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and, second, not to change the 1988 Air Canada Public Participation Act, in order to keep the Aveos jobs in Canada.