Debates of March 8th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Air Transportation

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to set the record right, the Vancouver airport is not in New Westminster—Burnaby. It is in the city of Richmond. We see a lot of economic activity because of the former Conservative government's development in that airport.

Has my colleague learned or experienced growth in her communities because of the success of the Vancouver airport?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to really understand the growth of the sector, and I know that through the work south of the Fraser has done in my area with the Cascadia corridor that runs all the way through British Columbia and the United States. We have done significant work around growing that sector. The Vancouver airport has had significant expansions. Also, BCIT is there, the start-ups, the technology, all of that has expanded has expanded significantly.

For both my colleagues who have just asked questions, it is important that we support these industries and support the sectors in every way we can to ensure job growth.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it once again is great to stand on behalf of the people of Chilliwack—Hope to speak to an important issue about the Canadian economy and aerospace industry.

I want to take a brief moment today, on International Women's Day, to salute the strong Conservative women who have been leading the debate for our side today: the members for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and South Surrey—White Rock. As well, I will take a brief moment to salute my wife, my mom, and my three sisters, who have played such an important role in my life as well.

I want to talk about a few things during my time here. I want to talk about the importance of the aerospace industry to Canada.

We know that this is often thought of as the major employers, whether it be Bombardier, WestJet, Air Canada, or Porter employing people in this sector. However, over my time as a member of Parliament, I have come to learn of the number of jobs and the economic impact the aerospace industry has right across the country. I think of companies like Avcorp in B.C. and Cascade Aerospace. They are major aerospace players in British Columbia that service not only domestically, for instance the military, but they also have contracts all around the world, providing services and high-paying jobs for workers in our communities. We should not lose sight of that when we talk about the industry. This affects not just Montreal and Toronto, but cities like Chilliwack and Abbotsford in my region.

I also want to talk about the importance of secondary airports. It was a little disconcerting to hear the Minister of Transport ask why we needed to expand Billy Bishop airport, that people could just go to Pearson, that Pearson was a good airport. I think of the effect that would have on the region I represent.

We have a great international airport near Chilliwack, the Abbotsford International Airport. This airport hosts the world-famous Abbotsford Airshow. Approximately 500,000 passengers per year use that secondary airport on many daily WestJet flights and some seasonal Air Canada service as well. It is an important regional hub of economic activity. When we promote those secondary airports, we promote the economy, better options for travellers, and more opportunity for the airlines that service those smaller and often more responsive secondary airports.

I know the Abbotsford International Airport takes pride in providing low landing fees, cheaper parking, and better customer service to attract airline investment and customers. We want to encourage not just the major airports in the country, not just Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, but also the secondary airports that people travel into or could make a choice to travel into if there were more options available. That is important.

I want to talk about the importance of our domestic airline industry, whether it is WestJet, Air Canada, or Porter.

WestJet just celebrated its 20th anniversary. In my region, it is the primary carrier that people rely on to get to work and to see their families. It started small and expanded into a great airline employing tens of thousands of Canadians.

Looking at what those airlines have done for consumers, we see that when there is more choice, the prices go down. We have seen them buying different types of planes. They have already been buying the Q400. They have expanded service. It is good for the whole aerospace industry when there is an expansion of service and greater opportunities.

I am from Chilliwack, B.C. and I am talking about a downtown Toronto island airport, the Billy Bishop airport, as the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek said, because this affects all Canadians and it sends a message.

What message does this send when the Liberal government has been seen already, in its short time in office, to be manipulating the process to get the results it wants.

We heard grandiose promises that there would be evidence-based decision making, that there would be broad consultation, that we should just sit back and watch the consultations take place. However, the Liberals have short-circuited that approach when it comes to the Billy Bishop airport.

Instead of allowing the environmental assessment that was under way to take place, which was was 90% completed, the minister unilaterally decided he would cut that off. If he truly believes in the process, if he truly believes in evidence-based decision making, why not allow that process to be completed? Why not allow the reports to be made public? Why not then respond as the federal government to the work that was done by PortsToronto and the city? Instead, to short-circuit that process, to take the political decision to circumvent it is a mistake.

We heard that in the debate on energy east. When government members think the result will go against their preconceived notion, they change the consultation process. In this case, they are cutting it short and layering on more red tape.

Yesterday in British Columbia, we saw reports of a major LNG proponent. There is some question as to whether this is the company's position, but there are real concerns in the industry that when we do not have an open and transparent consultation process in which the public can have faith, we lose investor confidence. We lose the confidence of Canadians when it is seen that the process is being manipulated. We have seen it on pipeline reviews where there has been an added layering on of the consultation process, which is in stark contrast to cutting it short in this case.

There is a problem with the process, and it gives us some concern as members of the official opposition and the Canadians we represent. What does this mean for the future consultations the government has promised to undertake with Canadians?

We talked about things like democratic reform. Broad consultations are promised. What we have seen with consultations is that when the Liberals are not sure of the outcome or they want to ensure an outcome that has been predetermined, they will cut that process short. That is not how we should be doing consultations. It does not bring confidence to Canadians that it actually will be an evidence-based decision-making process.

We are seeing a difference between the official opposition and the government when it comes to problems that present themselves in our economy. In our opposition day motions, whether it is on energy east or Toronto island airport, we are promoting market-based solutions. We are asking why we are not looking at the private sector to help Bombardier or to help get our resources to market in the case of energy east pipeline.

The government instead looks to intervene, either to shut down opportunity or to delay processes that have been in place. That does not bring confidence to Canadians and it certainly does not present the opportunity for the market to do the job it can do. Why not allow the Billy Bishop process to go forward, and then, if the government at that point wants to intervene, at least all of the information is on the table. Instead the Liberals have cut that short.

The minister has waved around his letter of intent from Air Canada. When he was asked about why he cut this process short, he told us not to look at the jobs that had been lost at Bombardier. Rather we should look at the letter of intent he had. He has the same sort of letter of intent from a different airline, but he does not want to talk about it. That is what we are talking about today.

Therefore, why not allow the process to go forward? The motion is about that. It is about letting the free market play its role in boosting private companies like Bombardier. Both of those things should go ahead, and that is why I will support the motion.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on my colleague's take on secondary airports. He mentioned the Abbotsford international airport, which I am quite familiar with. I would suggest to him that Billy Bishop airport in the heart of Toronto is in a very different situation than Abbotsford out in the cornfields of the Fraser Valley. Abbotsford airport covers the outer suburbs of Vancouver. Billy Bishop is servicing downtown Toronto. He will not find low-cost parking there, for instance, I am sure.

While I am sure that the Abbotsford airport does contribute greatly to the economic diversity of the Fraser Valley, I would like the member to comment on how this might affect the economic situation in Toronto.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I was not comparing the two airports in that way. I was simply saying that when there is a major international airport, which we have at Pearson near Billy Bishop and from which it would be drawing its customer base, there is still opportunity and there should still be encouragement given to those secondary airports like Abbotsford in relation to Vancouver to grow and thrive.

Any time we are expanding an airport, any time we are expanding service at an airport, providing opportunities for economic activity, it creates more jobs, and more revenue for governments. That is what this should be about. This is about a process. This is about continuing a process that was under way that was short-circuited at the eleventh hour by the Minister of Transport for political reasons.

I am sure we will hear again from the member who has this area in his backyard. It obviously pleased that member. It pleased members of the Liberal caucus, but they should have allowed this process to continue so that Canadians could be confident that the work was done and that a decision would be taken only after that work has been completed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about a market-based solution. Is he aware that it will require about $1.6 billion in federal funding to reconfigure the land mass to accommodate this project, if it is even conceivably possible?

Putting that aside, we have consulted in the city of Toronto for three years on this issue. There have been more than 25 reports put on the table at city council. City council has had five opportunities to approve this and not once has it ever done so. There was an election held in which a promise was made to protect the tripartite agreement. There was one party in that election that promised to open the tripartite agreement and expand the airport regardless of cost, and that was the party opposite. That party received zero seats in the election and less than 10% of the vote in the precinct surrounding this airport. There was no public support for the position advocated by that party.

We talk about the need to support Bombardier. When the city of Toronto came forward, with the support of the Province of Ontario, to purchase Bombardier streetcars in Thunder Bay and to facilitate the expansion of the transit system in this city, the member, Mr. Baird at the time, told the city in rude and juvenile language that I cannot recite because it barred to do so in Parliament, to get lost, that there was no basis to support Bombardier and build a transit system in Toronto.

If economic development and the health of Bombardier are central to this argument, why did the party opposite refuse to support the city of Toronto's request to buy Bombardier streetcars for the city of Toronto?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the previous Conservative government was a strong partner of the city of Toronto in investing billions of dollars in public transit, GO Transit, in the waterfront itself, and in the Pan Am Games. We were there as a partner with the city of Toronto working with it on its priorities.

I have a letter that says it is the city's expectation that the studies being undertaken by PortsToronto will address the conditions adopted by city council, including the caps and phasing framework. There was a process under way. The Minister of Transport short-circuited it. That was a mistake and we hope that members will vote in favour of this motion so that the mistake can be rectified.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to thank the party opposite for the opportunity to address the House on this issue, which defines some of the challenges facing the riding I represent.

The riding I represent is the Toronto waterfront and the inner harbour that stretches from the CNE grounds right across to the Don River, encompassing the Toronto island and the island airport, as well as the communities that are impacted by it.

One of the great things about this part of the city is the fact that there has been an extraordinary transformation over the last 25 years of the waterfront, led in large part by another tripartite agreement that was referenced earlier, the waterfront tripartite agreement signed by Prime Minister Chrétien, Premier Mike Harris, as well as the mayor of the day, Mel Lastman, which set in motion close to $3.5 billion in investments to transform the waterfront from an industrial port that had gone by the wayside into a new community that embraced all of the elements that make a city successful.

As for industry, we have Lafarge still shipping there, and Red Path Sugar using the port actively. We also have an airport defined by a separate agreement, called the Billy Bishop airport but known in the city as the island airport.

This investment also triggered huge private investment, much more private investment than any benefit calculated to have flowed from the island airport. We have new post-secondary institutions on the waterfront. Harbourfront Centre has more than tripled in size and is now one of the cultural centres for the city and the country.

In addition to that, we have new transit lines, new hotels, new condominiums and residences, and we also have the largest concentration of public housing in my riding 500 metres from the end of the airport.

This is the context in which the island airport is situated. I urge members to look at even one of the 25 reports that have been tabled on this file, and to look at the proposition and the configuration of the land being asked to accommodate this particular facility. The proposition is absurd, once we look at the maps and look at the falsehoods being propagated.

This idea comes from Mr. Deluce and Porter Airlines in a private communication to Mayor Ford, and was given six weeks for approval. The city has six weeks to approve this or else the deal will fall through. When it came to council, the questions that sprung from that ridiculous proposition were so serious and of such magnitude that the city has struggled through five public meetings of council, numerous consultation meetings, as well as 25 reports tabled by economic consultants, planning consultants, aeronautic consultants, and everyone else trying to figure out why this idea would even get to see the light of day, let alone be put on the order paper at city council.

We would have to ask Mayor Ford—and maybe the former Prime Minister could have done that when he had him on stage during the campaign. However, we have no idea why this idea ever came forward. PortsToronto did not promote the idea. The City of Toronto did not promote the idea. The Government of Canada did not promote the idea. None of the signatories to the tripartite agreement have ever agreed to this proposition. We are studying it to try to figure out if it makes sense.

All that the studies have done is to result in more questions. What happens to the marine exclusion zone? Does it get extended and block off the port to commercial traffic? We cannot get an answer. The airport was originally only going to have to lengthen its runway into the lake by 80 metres. That later turned out to be closer to 300 metres on each end, which means paving over and filling a half-kilometre of the lake, cutting off access to the islands and of the island ferry to Hanlan's Point, as well as potentially choking the airport at the pinch point near Ontario Place, shutting down one of the main channels to get in and out of the harbour for commercial ships.

We could not get an answer as to whether that was the right configuration of the airport, the wrong configuration of the airport, how wide it would be, and whether taxiways would be involved. There was no design. In fact, there was no business case ever advanced by anyone around this entire process.

The city has tried to study it. It put some very serious conditions in place before it would ever even consider approving this project. Those conditions have never been met. In fact, the port authority said it could not meet them, which meant that when this eventually did get to the floor of council, it was dead in the water.

The reality is that the proposition requires a half a kilometre of lakefill on either end of the runway. It cannot be moved one way or the other, because it would choke off development of the port lands or it would run into Ontario Place. It requires the marine exclusion zones to be expanded, and we cannot figure out by how much because Transport Canada will not tell us because there is no plan or design or project in front of it.

The other thing that became quite obvious is that the blast from the jets turning at the end of the runway would be so powerful that it would knock over small craft and destroy boating and recreational yachting in the Toronto harbour.

The port authority then proposed building a six metre wall the entire length of the runway, from Bay Street to Dufferin, for blast control. An entire blast wall would have to be built to protect boating in the area, but even then there was no business case to pay for it.

As a result, we end up with a situation where the project just keeps expanding in scope and cost and undermines the very good work that has been done to revitalize the waterfront, the amazing investment, which is about to be doubled again and has had far greater economic impact, far greater public support, and far greater study and collection of data to prove its value. Instead, what we have is this crazy idea from one individual who wants to further the airline.

Has WestJet or Air Canada come in support of this? No.

Has the port authority ever signed off on it? No.

Has the City of Toronto, in five public council meetings, ever said yes? No. It has had five chances to sign off on it and has always said no, unless the following conditions could be met. Those conditions, as he just outlined, have never been met.

However, the real mystery behind this proposition is the notion that it is market-based.

One of the proposals to make this idea work involved building a cloverleaf out over Lake Ontario to circle traffic in the inner harbour, around the silos, and back into the airport terminal. The cost of that alone was $600 million, which Mr. Deluce said the federal government would pay for. The federal government had an opportunity last term to pay for that, and it chose to spend the money on transit in Scarborough. It was a wise decision.

The port authority then said that it would raise all the fees to passenger fees. Except there is a problem. The letters patent of the port authority does not allow it to spend dollars that it raises on property that it does not own or are not contained in the letters patent. Therefore, it cannot reconfigure the south end of the city to its liking because it is not allowed to spend money on property it does not own, and it agreed and said yes, the city should ask the federal government for the money.

The federal government could have put that money on the table in its last three budgets. It chose not to do so. In fact, what it chose to do was to redouble its efforts and go back into the waterfront Toronto plan, the appropriate plan, supported by the City of Toronto, the people of Toronto, the business community of Toronto, and the planners of Toronto.

What we have end up here today debating is this crazy notion that has been put forth by a single business proponent to reconfigure the entire city of Toronto to his liking, to abandon the plans of a $3.2-billion federal investment on the waterfront, to turn our backs on Harbourfront Centre, turn our backs on the residents who live there—not the residents of the condominium, but residents of public housing. The public housing residents are the closest people to the end of this runway. They live 500 metres from it. The communities around there have said, “No, we were given a promise, a promise that there would be no jets and no runway expansion, signed by the City of Toronto, the port authority, and the federal government. We want you to honour that promise.”

Therefore, during the campaign, we said that we would honour that promise, and we have delivered on that promise as we committed to do in the election campaign.

However, the real concern I have about this is that when we ask the party opposite whom it has spoken to, the only people it has admitted to speaking to is the airline operator. They have met with Mr. Deluce. Mr. Deluce and his lobby organization, the Sussex Strategy Group, have been lobbying on Parliament Hill for well over a month. If we were to check the lobbyists' register, we would find that they have not registered.

The party opposite is acting on behalf of lobbyists who have not obeyed the rules and have brought to the House a motion to further the private interests of a single airline at the expense of all the other public investments.

At the very least, we would expect this operator to follow the rules for once, to follow the rules and register as a lobbyist before talking to parliamentarians about these business interests, but that has not happened. That is shocking. It is not surprising from the party opposite, but still shocking.

What we have seen time and again with the Conservative Party and the port authority of Toronto is a relationship that is profoundly secretive. It appointed people to that port authority who were the college roommates and fundraisers of some former cabinet ministers.

There has been an astonishing—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order, please.

If I could just interrupt the hon. member for a moment, I am sure the hon. member appreciates the prompting from the other side, but if they do not mind, I would appreciate it if they kept their comments to themselves. It is not good to yell across the floor.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an astonishing record of poor public administration at the port authority. It does not follow the rules. The proponents of this project are not following the lobbyist registration rules. They have not registered yet. A complaint has been filed and received.

It is shocking that, in the midst of all of this poor governance, one individual has convinced the party opposite to come forward with a motion from which he alone would profit. It is just an abysmal process. To suggest that we are going to sit here today and overrule a decision we made, a promise we committed to and kept, which is to protect the waterfront, the balance, and the airport as it is currently configured, and move forward in a coordinated and consensual way, to say that we are going to throw all of that aside for the rights of one individual who will not play by the rules is just not the way good governance is conducted. It is not the way good public policy is pursued.

In terms of consultation, I would suggest the party opposite consult more widely. Perhaps if it did, it would not be shut out in the city of Toronto every time there is a federal election.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech on this matter. Obviously, he knows this file well, as he had a role in Toronto before coming to the Hill.

I am pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister stand and defend the rights of community members to have a say in decision making about land uses in their municipality.

I too have fought long and hard in my own city to protect our river valley, which is treasured by many in our community. That runs against a lot of private proposals to develop it. There are lots of issues about building on top of a bank and what to build in the river valley, but the community is always saying it wants to preserve it, that it is a treasure of the community.

My brother used to live in Toronto and I often went along that waterfront. Every time I go to Toronto I try to find an opportunity to go down there.

As was mentioned previously in the House, we have two tripartite agreements somewhat at odds with each other. I appreciate that the member said it is the low-income housing that would be most impacted. It has been brought to my attention, and the hon. member also mentioned this in the House, that there was actually a report done by the medical officer of health in Toronto expressing concern about potential health impacts not only of the expansion of the airport but of the already continuing operation. I wonder if the member could speak to that issue and what role that should probably play or might have played in the final decision by the federal government to not allow this expansion.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the report from the Board of Health identifies the island airport as the single largest source of pollution in the entire GTA. That has very serious implications for the low-income community that surrounds the airport, in particular the building that is closest to the end of the runway, which is a supportive environment home to people with significant disabilities.

We are also seeing a spike in childhood asthma at the local school. The local school sits on one side of the street, a two-lane road to a park in this community, and the entire access to the airport runs between a school in the community and the community centre. There are no plans and no capacity to expand that roadway, even though they want to jam an airport the size of the Ottawa international airport into one-seventh the land mass.

There are other issues as well. The issue we have to turn our attention to is what is the right balance. The member opposite referred to two different tripartite agreements that govern the city's waterfront. Those tripartite agreements strike a balance and allow a small airport to operate. It has operated successfully and has allowed the waterfront investment to proceed in a way that has generated more jobs, has more economic impact, and has more work to be done. Those two tripartite agreements work in concert with each other. They were developed and are governed in concert with one another.

The agency that has governance over this issue is focused on building a great waterfront, not just a road and an airport for a single operator. We have complexities to deal with here, and the movers of the motion opposite have not even begun to do the research, let alone read the reports or talk to the stakeholders. The only person they have spoken to is the operator at the airport. Even then, it is not the operator at the airport but the main airline at the airport. That is the only stakeholder they have spoken to.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think as the day unfolds, you will find out that there have been lots of conversations with respect to the matter.

My point with respect to this motion is pretty simple. It has to do with the natural progression of justice when it comes to considering matters at the Toronto city centre airport, now known as Billy Bishop airport. We have heard in his speech and we have known for many years that the member opposite will say and do anything to try to shut down the facility. This is well known and is on the record.

One thing I want to bring to the attention of the member to illustrate that and get his comments on is an incident that happened in 2007, when the member went so far as to make an allegation about a Bombardier plane, a Q400, not being a safe plane. Obviously, it has been in operation since 2007 and has been very safe, but the president of the CAW local at the time very clearly rebuked the member for the allegation that was made. He said, “I am appalled at the despicable display of political opportunism by Councillor Adam Vaughan...in calling for the grounding of Porter Airlines Q400s”.

The issue is this. He has said and done many things in the past. This is in very much the same vein as being politically opportunistic. He is trying to push an agenda of closing this airport via his last election campaign, whereas Jim Karygiannis, a former member of the House, said that he cannot remember Liberals having taken a firm policy decision on this issue.

I would enjoy hearing the comments of the member opposite on those quotes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before the hon. member answers, I want to remind members that, even if it is in a quote, we cannot say the name of a member of Parliament in the House.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs).

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred to an incident when an early flight of a Q400, just coming out of development, had a problem with the rubber ring around the nose cone landing configuration that caused several of them to fail and crash, particularly when they flew over water and landed at maritime airports. It was subsequently fixed. There was a recall on that part and it was reconfigured to be more safe. In fact, it flies safely now; and I have no problem with the Q400 as it is currently configured, because it was fixed.

She raised the issue about due process. One of the conditions of the tripartite agreement requires the port authority to build a sewer system to distribute the de-icing fluids back to the city's sewage system so that they are not dumped directly into the lake. The member opposite, who used to run the port authority, knows that sewer system was never built in compliance with the port authority's regulations or the tripartite agreements.

If due process, proper environmental stewardship, and living up to the letter of the law in the agreement were so important, why did the member opposite, when she had control of the authority, not build the appropriate sewer system to protect the lake and the drinking water of millions of Torontonians from known carcinogens that were being shovelled into Lake Ontario? If the party opposite wants to lecture this side of the House on due process and natural justice, it ought to take a good look at its own behaviour over the last 20 years in relation to this issue.

[Kate Young, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, we heard about the so-called environmental assessment and what it did or did not bring out. I would ask that the hon. member talk about the environmental assessment that the opposition mentioned and what the status of that is.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the City of Toronto requested an environmental assessment be done, but only after the port authority agreed to put a cap on the current operation of the airport, because the current operation of the airport is overwhelming the transportation infrastructure in the community, including transit, the intersection of Bathurst and Lake Shore, and that of Eireann Quay and Bathurst.

With the current configuration, the airport is already too big for the land mass it currently occupies, and the ground transportation infrastructure is inadequate for an airport of the current configuration of 2.4 million passengers per year. The port authority refused to put the cap in place and proceeded with an environmental assessment that it configured, to which it set the terms of reference, and for which it would have the sole decision as to whether it would be approved or not. Therefore, the City of Toronto was at the point of walking away from this process because of the lack of co-operation from PortsToronto.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The first comment I will make is that I would have liked to have heard the member from Toronto speak as passionately about his government allowing the City of Montreal to dump eight billion litres of sewage into the St. Lawrence as he has with respect to a holding tank in an airport. I did not hear him talk about that at that time. It would have been nice to hear the same passion about raw sewage going into a freshwater supply.

I said this in my last speech in the House. We have to decide what we are doing in this country. Will we continue to say no to growth in jobs when the science is there to prove it is okay to go ahead or at least allow the process to work so we can come to a decision?

These are a few notes I made this morning.

The energy east pipeline would bring $16 billion plus in economic activity. The current government has reset the terms of the environmental assessments, so it is unlikely that it would even be approved at the end of its mandate.

In addition, there is a project in my riding in which the environmental assessment began in 2008. The project itself began in 2002 or 2003. The science was there and is sound. The current government has said it wants to kick the ball down the field a little longer and wait and see what else it can dig up. However, the science was there to go ahead. As a conservative estimate, it would cost nearly $1 billion for the work to begin and to provide many jobs in my area.

As well, the decision to cancel the expansion has potentially caused the loss of another $2 billion worth of economic activity in the central region of Montreal and surrounding area. If we add those up, we are almost at $20 billion worth of lost economic activity and jobs. Most economic development agencies say that there is a multiplier effect of at least four and probably six on all of those. Therefore, if we take the $20 billion and multiply it by four or six, we are talking about $80 billion to $100 billion in lost economic activity for really not a lot of scientific fact or reason.

I use that to preface my comments today because we have to make the decisions.

In my area, there are a lot of Amish and Mennonite people. They are great and wonderful people. I have known them since I was a kid. However, the reality of the situation is that we cannot go back and live like them. We have to be forward-thinking. We have to use technology. We have to use innovation to our benefit to grow and better the world.

I also worked in the technology industry. We cannot have every single person in this country developing software and IT solutions for us. It perhaps is a nice goal to have but one that will not happen in my lifetime.

Another comment I heard was with respect to the people of the city. I admit that I do not live nor have I ever lived in Toronto. If I had lived in Toronto or in that area, I perhaps might feel a little stronger about what I am about to say.

Ten years ago the number of passengers was 23,000. It is well over 2 million people today. Therefore, the people have spoken: it is a well-utilized airport, it is popular, and it makes sense.

I saw the report for January, and out of over 200 flights out of that area, which is 200 potential movements in a month, there were only 14 noise complaints. That is a pretty good number. We also heard in some other comments today about the potential of some of the CS100 versus the Q400 and any others of the Dash 8 series: 100, 200, or 300.

There was a report by Tetra Tech, a worldwide engineering firm that specializes in aviation, which stated that the noise level from the CS100 is 17% less than a 100, it is over 20% less than a 200, and over a 300 there is 57% less noise.

The numbers will continue to flesh themselves out, but the numbers that I was able to get today show that basically the cumulative measure of the three units of measurement they use will be roughly the same as a Q400, and the average will be very close. These are important facts.

Looking at the actual expansion and improvement of the airport, there is, in the terminology of Transport Canada, the runway end safety zone. There is work there that should probably be done. Then there is the expansion proposed by the airport that would help the CS100s in landing.

I can understand the concern about infilling in fresh water. Obviously there are always going to be concerns about infilling in fresh water. In my area, the Goderich Port Authority, which is one of the most profitable ports in the country, had a project that proposed to infill 14 acres of fresh water in Lake Huron, and they were working through the environmental assessment process.

I understand the environmental assessment that was ongoing or that was proposed here is different from the federal environmental assessment that was proposed in the Port of Goderich. However, I am saying that if the Liberals are saying no to any infill in fresh water, or other waters for that matter, they had better start adding up the number of harbours and marinas in this country that provide economic activity to Canadians each and every day.

There is a process. No one should be afraid of the environmental assessment recommendations that came out of the Jacobs report that would mitigate sound levels. All these are what people who are in business and people who are concerned about the environment and people who live in the city or the country are doing. This is why there are rules. That is why they do what they need to do.

I also understand the argument that increased traffic would reduce residential growth and reduce valuations of property. Has anybody read anything in The Globe and Mail recently, or in any other newspaper, about the increased prices of real estate in Toronto? We went from 23,000 passengers in 2006 to over two million passengers today. Take a look at the growth in Toronto in that area in the last 10 years. Take a look at the increase in real estate values in the last 10 years. Look at the increase in improvements in the waterfront area.

I have been down on Queen's Quay. I have stayed there many times. It is a beautiful area. It is really one of the cherished spots in Ontario, and it has been able to grow in harmony. That is how it works. When business is responsible, government is responsible, and citizens' voices are heard, that is when everything in our economy works, and that is when we can grow this country and grow this province, the province of Ontario that I represent.

I just want to summarize by saying that all Canadians have a choice. We can choose to grow our economy, respect our environment, and respect the people who live in our areas. It is not just airports; it is railways, highways, and roads. It is everything. We have sewage issues in different communities. My area obviously has a couple that could be fixed. There are sewage issues all around. There are environmental issues all around that we can all work to improve. However, this airport should have the ability to at least proceed and ascertain all the facts and collect all the data in conjunction with what the company wants to do.

There are opportunities for other companies. I should also mention that Air Canada had the run of the place for years and really did not do much with it. It was Porter that had the vision. I love Air Canada, but it is a little rich for people at Air Canada to come back and say they would like to have some of this now.

I would be happy to take any questions. I am sure I will get at least one from the member from Toronto, because I think he is the only one asking questions for the Liberals today.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am the only one asking questions because I am the only one who has actually read the reports.

There have been ample reports tabled on this issue over three years, and they are definitive. One of my favourites was a report that was the groundwork for the formal request to get someone to do a full environmental assessment, not by the port authority but under the provincial laws, because the lake is actually a provincial park. The bed of the lake where the airport wants to expand is actually owned by the Province of Ontario as a provincial park, yet the provincial environmental assessment process is forbidden from kicking in. The federal one trumps it.

The foundation report made a very interesting finding. One of the proponents said that we could extend the runways by half a kilometre into the lake and we could build new fish habitats at the end of each runway. We would do this because we found that when we studied the existing airport, there was no fish habitat in the Toronto harbour next to the airport. When we asked why there was no fish habitat there, the report said it was because the island airport dumps all of the runway snow into the lake and has killed the fish habitat, so what the proposal actually said we were going to do was to extend the runway and kill more fish habitat as we create it.

The environmental assessment, though, did not take into account the impact on the natural environment, because the scope of the environmental assessment did not do that.

Would the member opposite agree that an environmental assessment that was not authorized and did not meet the threshold of consultation that is defined by the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto, an environmental assessment that does not take into consideration the existing law, is in fact not really an environmental assessment at all?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, those are all pretty weak points.

There are 180 Liberal members of Parliament, and I think they pretty well have all of Toronto as members of Parliament, yet he is the only one to ask questions. I am sorry, but if you are the only one in your caucus who has read the report, you had better start—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

You understand what the problem is. Go through the Speaker.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I got it, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to that, the argument about the environmental assessment is very weak. I am sure that if there is a business case for the airport expansion, the proponents would be happy to do the environmental assessment at the same level that a federal environmental assessment would require. It is a no-brainer. If there is a business case to be made and it makes sense, do the environmental assessment to the same standard. As they said, there are harbours around this country that are doing them all the time. This is not new.

The marine exclusion zone is not affected. Fish habitat will not be affected. The environmental assessment will show that. If the environmental assessment shows that there are effects, then remediation will be put in place.

Anything that member is saying to the point, and I have been in the House for 30 minutes, does not pass anything with me.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard speech after speech from Conservative members saying that we should let the market prevail, so I am left very confused about exactly what the point of the motion is.

Who exactly is putting up the money to expand this airport? Who is putting up the money to buy these airplanes? What do they mean by saying it is “market driven”? Surely this is really all about a land use decision, and when one makes a proper land use decision, one confers broadly and does a proper environmental impact assessment that is supervised by a neutral independent body, which in this case would be the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

I am left totally confused about what the market-driven aspect is. Surely Bombardier, an internationally recognized company, can put together a pretty good market plan for selling not only its airplanes but also its trains, trolleys, and so forth.

What is this market argument? It seems to be simply cutting through and saying essentially that the federal government should give the money so that Bombardier can buy these planes and the airport can be expanded and everybody will be happy.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love getting market questions from the socialists down the way from the Bernie Sanders socialist party.

It is called the free market, and if there is a business case for an expansion of an airport, it is called a business case. One makes that business case, and if it will actually fund itself and pay for that investment, that is called the free market. It is a little different from what the Bernie Sanders socialists have down there.

What happens when we expand the runway is an airline says, “Gee, now we can fly in there, so now we need airplanes to fly in there that will meet that need.” Then they get the financing. Then they go to Bombardier and say, “Oh, by the way, Porter is an all-Bombardier company. We'd love to buy 30 of your jets.” Those jets cost $2 billion.

That is the way economy works. That is the way free market capitalism works. We know the Bernie Sanders socialists down there no comprenden, but that is okay.