Debates of March 8th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Air Transportation

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss this important issue.

We are talking about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport in Toronto and the benefits that such an expansion would have for Toronto. We are talking today about Bombardier and the benefits that the airport expansion would have for Bombardier and more broadly the province of Quebec, but we are also talking about a fundamental principle, and that is the importance of stimulating the economy and how we do so.

I think there is broad agreement in this House not only about the importance of having a strong economy but also about the role for government in looking for ways to strengthen our economy, in looking for policies or structures that can be put in place to facilitate stimulation of the economy.

We have a different approach on this side of the House. Our view is that as much as possible, the first action is to seek to work with and leverage opportunities for investment for stimulus from within the private sector. If there are opportunities to encourage private sector investments that lead to economic stimulus and economic growth, that is a very good thing. We should prioritize these types of initiatives as much as possible. We should look first to stimulating private sector investment before looking for big injections of public dollars.

That approach is different from the government's approach. The Liberals jump automatically from wishing to have a strong, stimulated economy to saying that means the government has to put in a whole bunch of new spending.

Again, we know of the government's plan to run very large deficits, but I think what is behind that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way we stimulate the economy. We want to see strong private sector-driven economic growth, and this motion is an example of how we go about doing that. We want private sector-driven economic stimulus. We want policies that make it easier for the private sector to make investments, and that is exactly what the motion is all about.

Our strategy prioritizes private sector investment, and that is where we start. We did a number of things that encouraged that kind of investment. One of the ways to encourage private sector-oriented stimulus is to have open trade and efforts to attract international investments, and of course we did that over the last 10 years. A strong transportation network, frankly, is part of that. It is part of facilitating international trade and the people-to-people interactions that make trade possible.

Of course, a stable but relatively limited regulatory environment is important as well. This encourages new investment. A regulatory environment that is predictable and limited but that is always oriented to encouraging new investment is important. This is what we need to stimulate our economy. This is what we need to encourage private sector-driven stimulus.

The third thing, and the focus of our discussion today, is how important transportation and infrastructure links are for having private sector-driven economic stimulus. In the history of our country, which is such a large country, transportation and infrastructure links have always been very important. There is a role for the government to be involved in those things, but whenever there is an opportunity to encourage private sector investment in transportation and infrastructure links, I would argue that we need to work as hard as possible to make that happen.

One of the things we have talked about in this House is the importance of pipelines. Pipelines are the nation-building infrastructure of the 21st century, and another part of that is strengthening our airports and the airport connections in the country. This is what this is all about: having pipelines, having airports. These things interconnect our country economically to facilitate trade and help to create jobs.

I am sure other members have talked specifically about the economic benefits of the Billy Bishop airport, but let me just go over this again. Annual direct impacts are close to 2,000 jobs, $100 million in wages, $220 million in GDP, and $980 million in economic output. A study found that the impact of non-local visitors' spending on air services at the airport amounted to approximately $150 million a year, so we know that significant economic benefits are facilitated by having that transportation infrastructure in place.

We need to do this. We need to see the value of this. We need to get this done. It is just unfortunate that we are dealing with a government right now in this country that really only sees one tool in the tool box when it comes to stimulating the economy. When the Liberals want to have a strong economy, they think the solution is always more government spending. During good times, bad times, and in-between times, all they want is more government spending. The reality is that when they have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

As a result, instead of simulating the economy by identifying opportunities in the private sector by working with the private sector to facilitate investment from other places, they just want the government to spend more money.

Our approach on this side of the House is different. Recognizing a multiplicity of tools in the toolbox for stimulating and strengthening the economy is necessary, but generally speaking, public expenditure should be a last resort. If we can stimulate the economy without having significant injections of taxpayer dollars, that is obviously preferable, because any major government spending does cost taxpayers.

I want to talk a bit about the issue in the context of local control and who is involved in making decisions with respect to the airport. There is a tripartite agreement in place that gives the federal government theoretical authority to make decisions about this airport, but because this is a development decision, a decision about what happens inside Toronto, we see it as something that the people of Toronto should ultimately make the fundamental decision about. Even though we encourage development, we want to see local control in this context.

Proceeding with development projects can always be difficult, whether we are talking about building a building, expanding an airport, or doing natural resource development. It can be difficult enough without having the involvement of many different levels of government where everyone feels like they have to be onside before something can move forward. Let us let the people most directly involved and most directly impacted have the biggest role in this. The City of Toronto has put a lot of money into studying this. It has effectively been limited now in its ability to proceed because of the Liberal government's desire to interfere, which it technically and legally does have the authority to do, but which most properly should be decided by the people of Toronto.

These are really the central points here that the government is missing. When the government is stimulating the economy, it is not all about putting a whole bunch of money into the economy if there are opportunities instead to leverage private sector investment. This is something that has huge economic benefits for Ontario and Quebec. There is an opportunity to leverage the involvement of the private sector, and that is a better way to go, a better way to stimulate the economy, than the alternative, which is simply the government putting a bunch of money into things.

Then there is also the issue of local control. The challenges with development are enough that we do not need everyone trying to control the process. We should leave the process as much as possible to the people of Toronto, to the people directly affected, and to their representatives in the City of Toronto.

I think that on that basis, understanding the proper place of economic stimulus and the need for local control, this is an important motion. I look forward to voting in favour of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec will be interested in the member's arguments about local control of all decisions by the federal government. I hesitate to wonder what that means for pipelines and the position of the member's party on that issue.

The member said that the people of Toronto should be allowed to make the decision. City council has had this issue in front of it five times since the initial request was made by the one airline, and five times it has layered on more conditions and gone further away from making decisions on it. In those five opportunities to approve this project, each time it has declined to do so. That is the voting record of the City of Toronto.

As for the notion that private sector stimulus is better than public sector stimulus, is the member opposite aware that this project would require close to $1.6 billion of public money to reconfigure the airport to accommodate the proposal and that the money has to come, according to Mr. Deluce, the proponent, from the federal government if this project is going to fly?

With his perspective that no money should come from the federal government or that federal money is bad for economic stimulus, is the member aware that this project cannot fly without $1.6 billion in new taxes and infrastructure investment, a decision that your previous government had the opportunity to make and declined?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to speak through the Chair and not directly across the floor to each other.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member clearly did not listen to the point I was making. With respect to his point about local control, it is very clear that there are certain responsibilities that are more effectively handled at some levels of government than others. Of course, I am not saying that absolutely everything should be done by the municipality.

Something like interprovincial transportation is constitutionally a federal government power, and it makes sense that it is because it involves and goes across the whole country. But specifically, this is a decision about an airport inside the city of Toronto and something that the people of Toronto have the primary stake in, and it is quite sensible to have their involvement in the decision.

The principle of local control is that as much as possible, decisions should be made at the level that is closest to the people. That is the principle behind our convictions of local control, which might be called subsidiarity, which we value.

In terms of past decisions at Toronto city council, again, that is exactly the point. It should be to the greatest possible extent their decision to make. If the people of Toronto decide they do not want this, so be it, but what has happened is that the federal government has sought to put the kibosh on this.

In terms of the cost of federal spending, again I want to be very clear about what I said. It is not that all federal spending is bad. The member is completely misconstruing what I said, intentionally or not. My point is that we should seek to leverage investment by the private sector for the benefit of the economy as much as possible. We should not ignore the possibility of private sector investment. We should use that to our advantage. There is a role for the public sector as well, but we should seek to leverage the private sector involvement as much as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could possibly reflect upon the 10 years of our Conservative government and the jurisdictional respect that we showed for provinces, cities, and municipalities alike, something that the Liberals may want to also consider.

Would he also care to speculate about when another member of the Toronto Liberal caucus will ask a question today, besides the member for Spadina—Fort York, who has asked many if not all the questions today? I am wondering when he will remove the muzzle from his Toronto colleagues and let them ask a question. It is 12:50 p.m. and there have been zero by them so far. Let us hear some questions from other Liberal members from Toronto.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a great point that our party helps to strengthen our federation by respecting jurisdictions. We did not push agendas that were outside of federal jurisdiction. We sought to listen to and collaborate with people at other levels of government and respect their decision-making authority.

In the case of the city of Toronto, we are listening to what is coming out of Toronto and not trying to have members from Toronto micromanage what happens in Toronto. This is about land use. This is about development and the future of the city. Obviously, many Torontonians see great opportunities in the expansion of the airport. Certainly the federal government should not get in the way, but we need to work with other levels of government. The most important way of doing that is to respect their jurisdiction and respect the ability of the private sector to be involved in investments that benefit our whole economy.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this Conservative motion. The aerospace sector is an economic growth hub that focuses on innovation, economic activity, and highly skilled jobs, and makes a significant contribution to Canada's social and economic well-being.

In 2014, Canada's aerospace industry contributed $29 billion to the GDP and generated more than 180,000 jobs, including 76,000 direct jobs. The remaining jobs create economic activity in various regions of the country.

Canada is one of the most important countries in the international aerospace sector. The OECD ranks Canada fifth after the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Furthermore, Canada is ranked third in the world in aeronautical manufacturing. Canada is also a world leader in the manufacture of flight simulators and aircraft engines.

Canada's aerospace industry is world-class, and it exports almost 80% of its production to various trade partners. The United States, Europe, and Asia-Pacific are the three top export destinations and account for 57%, 21% and 14% respectively of Canada's aerospace industry exports. Almost 60% of Canada's aerospace exports are supply chain related.

Anyone familiar with the aerospace industry knows that innovation is crucial. The aerospace industry is one of the biggest contributors to research and development, with $1.8 billion in annual spending accounting for close to 20% of the industry's activity. It is impossible to talk about Canada's aerospace industry and its contributions to the economy without talking about the contributions of its flagship companies. Yes, I am talking about Bombardier.

Bombardier directly employs over 23,000 people in Canada. Bombardier's activities and those of its immediate suppliers represent one-third of the aerospace industry's contribution to Canada's gross national product. Since 2012, it has led research and development spending in Canada.

In recognition of the importance of innovation, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is developing a new program for innovation. The program will focus on ways that the government can enable aerospace companies, including small and medium-sized ones, to innovate, grow, and, ultimately, contribute to the sustainable growth of the aerospace industry.

I would also note that the Government of Canada's support for the industry goes beyond innovation. The government supports the industry through its world-class certification program, its export development funding, and its industrial and technological benefits policy.

I could go on for some time, but I should take questions from my colleagues. However, I just want to add one last point: any discussion of Bombardier must include the fact that, as the third-largest civil aviation company in the world, it is a magnet for direct and foreign investors.

Many companies that want to supply services and parts to Bombardier come to Canada and create good, innovative jobs. Canada's aerospace workers benefit.

I could take questions from other members, but I could also continue, because I have an opportunity to talk more about how important Bombardier is to the aerospace industry.

When a company like Bombardier accounts for nearly one-third of the activity in the aerospace industry, it is very important that it get support. Such a valuable industry helps create high-quality jobs and helps grow the Canadian economy.

That is why the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development reiterated that it was important to consider the status of the aerospace industry. It is important to look at the facts and to come up with a solid plan to help this company. As soon as this study is complete, we can move forward and make a decision in the coming weeks or months.

As many of my colleagues and I have already said in the House, the aerospace industry is extremely important to Canada. Not only does Bombardier employ 23,000 people, but another 180,000 jobs are directly or indirectly related to the aerospace industry, and not all of those jobs are in Montreal. They are all across Canada, including Toronto, western Canada, and eastern Canada. The entire supply chain is important, and it is connected to the aerospace industry.

I know that all members of the House take their jobs seriously. We all want to represent our constituents properly, but the best thing we can offer them is the opportunity to have a good job, a worthwhile job that allows them to earn a decent living.

People who work in the aerospace industry have that opportunity. Having studied science or engineering at CEGEP, college or more often at university, they often work in jobs that pay very well in the aerospace industry, and this is important.

I know that all my colleagues in the House, regardless of their party affiliation, will join me in showing our support and ensuring that Canadians continue to fill those jobs. The economy of the future depends on it. Canada needs to take its place on the world stage to ensure that we create good, important jobs that also contribute to the Canadian economy.

That is why I am proud to rise here today to share my thoughts with all members of the House and express support for Canada's aerospace industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's party campaigned on transparency, but there seems to be a lot of secrecy and a lack of action regarding Bombardier's situation. Is his government planning to match the $1 billion lifeline for Bombardier?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has a long history in the House, certainly longer than mine, and I appreciate having the opportunity to address his question.

As I said during my comments, this is a very complex situation and a very important one. We certainly want to ensure, as the minister has made clear to the House on several occasions, that we take the time to make the right business case for supporting Bombardier. It is a huge company. There are many ways that the federal government could play a role, or perhaps not play a role, but we want to ensure that whatever decision we come to, it is the one that makes the best business case for Canadians. That is the reason why the government is taking its time.

Let me assure the member that departmental officials are meeting with Bombardier and the Government of Quebec, and are taking a look at options. The minister has made it very clear to the House that when a decision is finally made on this issue, it will be in the best interests of Canadians. We will certainly let the hon. member and the entire House know what that decision will be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question about innovation in the aerospace industry. Today's opposition motion makes it appear as if the government is not supportive of the aerospace industry. Could the hon. member talk about the ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, and whether the ministry is committed to expansion of the aerospace industry?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure my hon. colleague and the entire House that the government and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development are working very hard on developing the innovation plan.

We have many elements at stake, and the aerospace industry is a key element of that. The reason is that the aerospace industry requires so much of an innovative economy. It requires us to be competitive. If Canada classes itself as third among countries in the aerospace industry, it is because we have made those investments in the universities and colleges to ensure we get the graduates who can compete in that. It takes a high degree of numeracy, of engineering for people to be part of the aerospace industry. It is the reason why being involved in the design and manufacturing of that industry is so economically remunerative.

Workers can make a lot of money in this industry. That is why these jobs are highly sought after by students in engineering, mechanical engineering, and many other fields. The average salary in this industry is quite high. As a government, our plan for innovation is to focus on jobs and promising industries.

I am not just talking about the aerospace industry. Last week, I spent a day in Sudbury, in northern Ontario, where I saw the extraordinary work of mining sector workers. That is where there is innovation. There is innovation everywhere and soon our government will be announcing policies to support it.

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

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

I want to begin by acknowledging the voters in my riding. Even though it has been nearly five months since we were elected, I think it is important to take the opportunity to thank them for placing their confidence in me on October 19. I promise to work extremely hard to represent them well over the next four years.

My riding has great strengths and we must work very hard to continue to develop our economy and create stable, well-paying jobs. That is the key to helping families, workers, and seniors improve their quality of life. It is an extremely simple process: creating good jobs results in a better quality of life.

That is precisely the purpose of this motion. It seeks to improve the quality of life of a large number of people, including travellers who fly to the wonderful big city of Toronto. The decision to expand the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport has unforeseen direct and indirect positive effects.

Let us begin by talking about how Torontonians and Canadians will have access to an up-to-date airport without having to pay more taxes. Quieter planes will be landing right in their backyard, in downtown Toronto. Because of the quality of these aircraft, airport workers will be exposed to less environmental noise, which will improve their working conditions. What is more, travellers will be closer to their final destination, which, surprisingly, will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Regardless, the aircraft that Bombardier and its workers designed and produced is extremely sophisticated. It will allow for economies of scale, not only because of its weight, but also because it is more environmentally friendly. The Minister of Transport has been boasting that this aircraft is the best in the world. We are very pleased to know that Bombardier makes the best aircraft in the world, and we agree with that.

We must not forget that Bombardier is a company that, with its Canadian presence, promotes the quality of Canadian jobs and the goods manufactured here in Canada. Canada and the provinces, especially Quebec and Ontario, have invested billions of dollars in the aerospace industry in the last 20 years. This sector of the Canadian economy is extremely important. The Canadian aerospace network is very important. The quality of the goods manufactured here in Canada is recognized around the world.

Bombardier is renowned not just for the quality of its aerospace products, but also for its excellent train cars, subway cars and streetcars. These cars are manufactured in a few locations in Canada, including a plant in La Pocatière, where I was born and continue to live. This plant currently provides 400 jobs. As we speak, it is completing the contract for the Montreal subway. This is an extremely sophisticated and well-developed train. With a suite of innovations, it is one of the best trains in the world, just as the Bombardier plane is one of the best in the world.

Therefore, I am well positioned to speak about the importance of Bombardier, because this company was in a sense born in La Pocatière with the manufacture of Ski-Doo snowmobiles. After that there was the first contract with Montreal and New York, which led to the expansion of the La Pocatière plant.

At one time, 1,200 people were working at the La Pocatière plant on the New York City contract. There is no doubt that a plant like that is important to our community.

Bombardier forms a whole; it is a company that operates in various sectors. If something goes wrong in one sector, things could go wrong everywhere. Right now, Bombardier has invested a significant amount of money in developing this airplane, which would be very welcome in Toronto. As a result, there is now a weak link at Bombardier, which is the aerospace sector.

Bombardier needs all kinds of help. One way to help this company is to allow these airplanes, which are the best and most economical in the world, and also the quietest, to land in Toronto. This is consistent with an overall transportation vision that takes into account the environment, productivity, and the quality of life of people in the surrounding area, since some people say that Toronto residents could be affected. That seems to be one argument against expanding the airport.

This is also about the country's economic growth. The government says that it has an economic development plan. Here is an absolutely incredible opportunity to inject some vitality into the aerospace industry and innovation. It is passing up an absolutely incredible opportunity.

We need to realize that a company like Bombardier does not operate in isolation. We are talking about a major industrial cluster. The Bombardier subcontractors are important players too. A Canada-wide network supplies goods and services to Bombardier and creates jobs.

I think that the government's decision is completely irrational. It does not support the sustainable development that the government prides itself on championing. The government must take another look at its decision and give Bombardier the opportunity to sell airplanes to Canadian airlines. We have to sell Canadian airplanes in Canada, create jobs here in this great country, and help companies like Bombardier. The company is going through a very difficult time because it invested heavily in this project, which is absolutely critical to its future.

The company must gain the country's trust by getting Canadian companies to buy its airplanes, which Air Canada did recently. Other Canadian airlines can do the same to help the company grow. That would send a strong, clear, unmistakable signal to international airlines that we are supporting our own local industry and that we are proud to do so. I believe that we absolutely must continue to support Bombardier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and appreciated the comments about how important Bombardier is, not just to the Quebec economy, but right across the country, from coast to coast to coast. That includes, of course, Ontario, in Toronto at Downsview, as well as in Thunder Bay, where trains are built.

I am sure the hon. member opposite is aware that the future of Bombardier rests on more than one plane and one airport; it rests across its entire platform. I wonder if he could perhaps help to explain this. The previous government, when presented with an opportunity to purchase LRT streetcars for Toronto and source them specifically from Bombardier, specifically from workers in Thunder Bay, chose not to. His party told the City of Toronto, and I cannot use the words—they are words more properly spoken by Donald Trump than by me—to basically get lost and for that contract not to be pursued; it would not be funded by the previous government.

If Bombardier is such an important component of the Canadian economy and the future of Bombardier is so critically important to workers right across the country, why did the previous government not support the purchase agreement for the City of Toronto's streetcars?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the specific question posed by my colleague opposite, I have to be honest and say that I do not know exactly why our government did what it did with regard to the plant in Thunder Bay. That being said, I can say one thing, and that is that the Government of Quebec made the right decision by awarding Bombardier the contract to build subway cars for Montreal. I think that we are building the best train in the world.

Whether we are talking about the company's production site in Thunder Bay or La Pocatière, Bombardier is important for Canada. It is important to understand that. We need to grow that business. Bombardier was just awarded a contract by the City of Edmonton, and the company is now considering whether it will build the light rail components in La Pocatière or Thunder Bay. It is not a matter of competition. Jobs are being created in Canada. That is what is important.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my many years here, I have seen some incredible displays of ridiculous behaviour in terms of pretending that we have a party that understands the economy and then it comes in with a solution that is ridiculous. Then, it huffs and puffs that nobody is taking them seriously.

We are talking about 6,000 to 7,000 job losses at Bombardier. Its solution is that the little island airport in Toronto is going to somehow fix that and that we are wasting our time in Parliament talking about that notion of a solution.

I remember the last government and how much it ridiculed the notion of public transit when we were trying to get subway cars down from Thunder Bay, from the Bombardier plant, where we have hundreds of jobs. Public transit across the country is seen as a great wish, but, of course, it goes against the fundamental ideology of the privatized oil lobby that is known as the Conservative Party and we are wasting time in this House talking about the little island airport as somehow being an economic solution.

Thank God, the Conservatives do not control the economy anymore. For all the folks back home, I want to say that they pay these people a lot of money, and their solutions are always about wedges; their solutions are always about trying to find some ridiculous point that we waste time on in this House.

If that party were serious about supporting Bombardier, it would have come with something that was a little more coherent, and perhaps something that supported public transit. I know it is very hard for them to say those words, but it is something that would cause most Canadians to say, “Well, that was not a bad discussion. That was not a bad way to spend an afternoon in Parliament.” That is as opposed to this ridiculous motion, which is another of many ridiculous motions that we have been subjected to by that party.

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

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague thinks he is wasting his time here, he can stay home. That is not a problem. The reality is that over the past few years, our government created 1.3 million net new jobs in Canada. If my colleague thinks that our party does not understand the economy, I do not know which party he thinks does. We created 1.3 million net new jobs following the worst economic crisis. He has the nerve to say that we are wasting our time here today talking about this motion. All government and opposition motions and bills are important here in the House. Those sorts of comments show that the member is not thinking about workers and everything that makes up our country's economy, including the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. There is nothing ridiculous about what we are doing here today.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to the House about what I think is a very important topic, despite the comments by the previous speaker.

The motion before us today is simple. We are asking for an acknowledgement by the House of the contribution that Bombardier makes to our country. We are asking for recognition that there is a market solution, one of many that could be made available to support Bombardier. I will talk a bit more about that. We would like the House to acknowledge that the planes are well suited to urban airports, and that helps Bombardier to sell planes around the world.

It also asks us to recognize that Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is a major economic driver for the GTA, which it is; we can provide the statistics on that. We are asking the House to recognize that the expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport would allow airlines to purchase the Bombardier C Series jet. That is what we are talking about today.

Finally, we ask the House to call upon the government to reverse a very specific decision that it made on November 12, in 88 letters. It was a decision to prohibit any discussion on whether an operating agreement could be changed to allow for jets to fly into an airport or allow the runway to be expanded by a certain amount. It does not get into how long. That is the operating agreement that has been in place for many years. It expires in 2033. It is there to ensure that the airport operates in the context of a larger urban city.

The waterfront was a very different place back in the 1980s, and great advancements have been made since then. A tripartite agreement was made many years ago between the federal government, the City of Toronto, and the then Toronto harbour commission, and all signed off on it. It was with respect to not allowing jets on the island airport and not allowing further expansion of its existing runways. It was an agreement that was made over 30 years ago. Eight days after the current Minister of Transport was sworn in, those 88 letters stated that there would not be any consideration of the matter.

The member previous asked why we are wasting the time of the House. The plan being put forward by us to use a market solution has worked in the past. Members in the House may not know this, but in the beginning the Q400 turboprop, which is another Bombardier product, did not have a lot of buyers. It was the purchase by Porter of a Toronto-made plane for a Toronto-based airline that got the attention of other buyers in the world. That is when the Q400, to make a bad pun, took off in sales. When a business operates in a country that backs its product to the point where it will be utilized in a showcase facility specifically suited to that plane, other countries and other airlines of the world take note.

When Porter announced its purchase of the Q400, it was a very important time for Bombardier, and for CAW Downsview, because it was on its last legs with respect to jobs. That is what prompted everyone to rally behind it. CAW, management, and everyone, came together on this issue because it was the right thing to do to save the facility, and it did.

The interesting part is that, of course, airlines do not want competition. No one wanted to see Porter come on the scene, least of all Air Canada and WestJet. The then president of WestJet asked why passengers would want to fly in a Q400 and have a propellor whirling next to their head as they sat in their seat. Times have changed, and WestJet now has a smaller part of its airline using the Q400, which has a turboprop spinning next to the heads of the passengers. That is because a showcase was provided for the ability of this plane to save on fuel and to be environmentally friendly.

The City of Toronto and PortsToronto embarked on a series of studies, at the request of the City of Toronto, to determine whether there was a case to be made for the two parties to lift the jet ban and give the Bombardier C Series jet the opportunity to come into the Billy Bishop airport, as we call it.

That progress was on its way, but it takes a lot of time. As members have pointed out, it took a lot of consultation along the way. Unfortunately, that process was stopped in its tracks with that one tweet. This is the way it works. It is three parties to an agreement, and all the parties have to agree.

In full disclosure, I was a CEO the last time we amended the tripartite agreement. It took a long time. I had two children during that time. That is how long it takes to amend a tripartite agreement. However, the way it always worked with respect to the federal establishment versus local interests, either expressed through the city of Toronto or the Toronto port authority, harbour commission, PortsToronto, however one calls it, was that local interests determined local matters.

Minister Collenette, of Minister Valeri, and of the last minister who was involved in it, all of those ministers consistently said the same thing, that if the city of Toronto and PortsToronto could agree, then the federal government would come in at that point, study it, and make a decision.

In this case, it is completely the opposite situation. We highlight it today because it is a problem in the way in which the federal government will be interacting with communities around the country. This will not be the last time a local community will appeal to the MP to intervene on a local matter and make it go its way, just because it wants a number of seats in the area.

It is a dangerous precedent, not only because all those studies that were under way, if not completed in a lot of cases, will not be seen by the public, and the public had real questions associated with the provision of this service at the Toronto city centre airport.

It is true that the studies had not been completed, but is that not an even greater reason why the federal government should not take a decision? Is that not the crux of the issue here today, that without a single study, without a proposal, it has come in over the top and has made a determination that really starts with the local councillors at the city of Toronto?

Had the Conservative government come in and taken a decision that stripped the city of Toronto on final decision-making abilities on an issue that was important to it, any councillor, including the former councillor, who now sits as a parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, would have had a fit. They would have called for the resignation of the government.

That is the issue we have today. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander in terms of interference with local matters. We consult, we listen, we let sophisticated parties that have their processes in place to get through their processes. Then the decision comes to the level of government, or the order the government in the federal sphere, so it can make the decision.

The market solution is real. It is an opportunity to showcase a Canadian-designed, implemented, conceived, manufactured airplane that can rival any other airline and airplane in the world and has the possibility of moving sales as a result of purchases done by Porter, or perhaps by an upstart new carrier that wants to come in. Perhaps it could be interested in the C Series because of its fuel efficiencies. Maybe that will be of interest to those new upstart carries. However, they all want to see that first step, and the first step in the case of the Q400 was Porter.

As I have already mentioned, the process was being followed. It is incredibly important that the process continue. That is why the last part of the motion is the crux of the matter. It asks the government to reverse the decision and let the process flow, let the reports come out, let them be published. If at that point in time the city of Toronto and PortsToronto decide they do not want to proceed, that is the appropriate level of lobbying and discussion. Then it comes to the federal government.

In 2002, when Porter was attempting to come in to fly Q400s, an organization that the parliamentary secretary was very much involved in, called CommunityAIR, predicted that the arrival of Porter would plummet property values by 25% and jeopardize $20 billion in waterfront development. That simply did not happen. If we take a look at the riding of the member, we will see very clearly that waterfront property values have increased by 70% with a functioning island airport in its midst.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Bombardier C Series is a great plane. The government is very pleased that Air Canada has announced that it will be purchasing a number of these aircraft.

Let us discuss for a moment the Bombardier C Series jet. From the member's point of view, is there anything stopping Porter Airlines from purchasing the Bombardier C Series jet and flying it out of Toronto Pearson International Airport?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member because it is the one myth that is put out there all the time. The reality is that this can work one way. Air Canada can buy these planes and have them fly out of the island airport, because it actually has access to the island airport.

Pearson airport, as members may know, is a slot-constrained airport, with the inability for a new entrant to come in without any significant movement on slots. As a result, Porter is actually prohibited, in its business plan and in application, from purchasing a C Series jet and finding accommodation for a schedule that works at Pearson airport, unless we want to build another airport in Pickering.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the work she did when she was the CEO at the port authority, and for the work she did as minister of transport. She brings a level of knowledge to this debate for which I am very thankful.

No one on this side of the House is arguing that the concerns and issues identified by those who live, work, and play in that area need to be addressed. As a former mayor, I understand the responsibilities the council has to weigh and measure all of those concerns. However, I also understand the need to respect the jurisdiction of a municipality when there is a process put in place to determine what the needs of a community are and how to best address the concerns that are raised by that community.

Therefore, would the member speak a little more on the need to respect the jurisdiction of a municipality to complete its studies on the expansion proposal, as that city council needs to do?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing the motion today. It is a very timely subject and an important one on which to have a discussion.

In terms of what we know about how Torontonians feel about jets at the island airport, we have one data point. It is a 2013 Ipsos Reid poll, not an election, which was on a number of major issues and not one specific issue. When Torontonians were asked very specifically and very succinctly whether they supported the use of jets at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, 60% were in favour and 37% were opposed. That is more than just first past the post. That is a very solid majority for what people want.

That is still not enough. We still need to have the studies that feed into the questions individual council members had on Toronto city council. We are not afraid of process. Why are the Liberals afraid of process?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Toronto—Danforth today.

The government has noted the importance of Canada's aviation and aerospace sectors, and has noted Bombardier's contribution to these sectors. Allow me to reiterate our view that the Canadian aerospace has one of the strongest mechanisms for both investment and international trade, and serves both Canada and the world.

As the minister said at the start of the debate, our aviation and aerospace sectors connect people to jobs and help deliver essential goods and services. Their products, people and skills are in demand around the world, as are Canada's abilities as a certifier and regulator in these sectors.

Last year, our aerospace sector generated more than 180,000 jobs and added $29 billion to our country's economy. Companies such as Bombardier export approximately 80% of the products they make.

As we have noted, the Government of Canada was pleased by Air Canada's announcement about its intention to purchase Bombardier's C Series aircraft. The C Series aircraft is a major advancement in aviation as I have mentioned, and we are confident that its addition to Air Canada's fleet will benefit both the company and Canada's aerospace sector.

However, interest in the C Series has not been limited to Air Canada. The first C Series aircraft will be delivered to Swiss International Air Lines in the spring. The entry of the Swiss C Series aircraft into commercial service will give Bombardier a chance to show the world that the C Series is truly a quality aircraft for the world.

The government is proud that Transport Canada has been a part of the process to certify that the aircraft meets Canada's standards for air worthiness and environmental regulations. This initial approval is a significant step toward Bombardier obtaining full certification in Canada, Europe, the United States, and abroad. Such approval will also help Bombardier to build investor and customer confidence.

Moving on to the question of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, I would like to restate our position that the question of whether to amend the tripartite agreement and allow the expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, address the use of commercial jet aircraft and extend that airport's runway was not based on whether Bombardier could sell more aircraft.

The greater Toronto area and southern Ontario as a whole are well served by their airports, and I will include the London International Airport in that mix. Let me reiterate what the minister has said.

Toronto Pearson is by far Canada's busiest airport and has more international passengers than any North American airport, after New York's John F. Kennedy International. Billy Bishop helps to connect Toronto's business heart to other major centres in Canada and the United States. Other airports like the London International Airport and Hamilton's airport are expanding and providing specialty services, for instance, Hamilton courier traffic. Together these airports serve general and commercial aviation, passengers, shippers, and businesses contributing to both local and national economies.

Billy Bishop airport now offers service to 24 cities in Canada and the U.S., with connections to more than 80 cities across the globe. It is also a base for an air ambulance service, which flew approximately 4,600 flights in 2014, and is home to a sizeable personal aviation community that includes a flight school. Billy Bishop airport is already an important contributor to Toronto's economy and is already providing a valuable service without expansion.

Last month, it was named one of the top airports in North America and the Airports Council International, ACI, 2015 airport service quality award. It tied for third in the best airports North American region category, one of only two Canadian airports to make the list along with the Ottawa international airport. This recognition demonstrates that the investments that have been made in the airport are already providing its users with better amenities, improved access, and an exceptional travel experience.

On November 12, 2015, the Minister of Transport announced that the Government of Canada would not reopen the tripartite agreement among this government, the city of Toronto, and PortsToronto to allow expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

As the minister has noted in the debate, the government stands by this decision. The current tripartite agreement strikes the right balance between commercial interests and the interests of local communities, environmental and cultural challenges, including the evolution of the waterfront. This issue is larger than just the airport. With other jet-capable airports close by, we believe there has been no reason to change the current approach.

The government is not alone in this position. Several citizens groups in GTA have opposed any proposed expansion of Billy Bishop airport. Accordingly, they support our position against re-opening the agreement.

As the minister pointed out, this issue goes beyond just the airport, and involves the fact that Torontonians desire a greater say in the development of their waterfront, a waterfront that could be affected by expansion of the Billy Bishop airport.

To entertain a proposal to amend the tripartite agreement between the federal government, the city of Toronto, and PortsToronto, we would have to consider more than just whether to allow jet aircraft or a runway extension. We would have to assess many factors related to safe, secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible air travel and cargo services.

This has already been done. The government continually assesses the air policy framework to ensure that Canada's air transportation system can respond to this evolving environment and is properly equipped to facilitate future growth. This decision considers the best interests of Torontonians and Canadians.

In April 2014, Toronto City Council debated the issue and actively sought the views of the then federal government. The city asked the federal government of the day to take a public position on proposed changes to the tripartite agreement that would permit the expansion of the airport and to allow jet aircraft, such as the Bombardier C Series, to operate from the airport.

Let me remind members that from April 2013 to the fall of 2015, there were multiple public meetings, conferences, and other events at which the proposed expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport was discussed. There were web forums, opportunities for public comment, and many other open avenues where anyone could express their views on the issue. Many factors related to the proposal were discussed and debated, as were its potential economic benefits, but to link the expansion of Billy Bishop with the success of the Bombardier C Series is simplistic and ignores the larger picture.

Bombardier products have always and will always succeed based on their quality and competitiveness in global markets. Opposition members cannot imply that the success of Bombardier only depends on the expansion of Billy Bishop.

Let me reiterate that the government is confident that the existing tripartite agreement strikes the right balance between commercial interests and the interests of local communities, environmental and cultural challenges, including the evolution of the waterfront.

We made the right decision in not permitting the expansion, and we stand by this balanced decision. The government will therefore not support the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, airports do evolve. The London airport in 2008 was recognized and allowed by then Minister John Baird to have an international air cargo transport program. The government subsequently vested $8 million in an agreement to put a terminal there. Airports can change and evolve. They fit the needs of those today, and those in the future.

If all the requirements were met, the environmental assessments were met, all the requirements of Transport Canada were met, the needs of the community were met, and the fisheries and oceans requirements were met, would she be open to allowing an expansion of Billy Bishop airport? Would she allow that to happen if all the requirements were met?

[Kate Young, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking that question because it true that at the right time, expansion is good, as it was when the London airport became an international airport. However, there is no compelling case to say that this Billy Bishop airport should be expanded, and the city of Toronto had a number of opportunities to open the tripartite agreement, but it never did.

Billy Bishop airport is already providing valuable airport services without an expansion, so it is important for the Toronto economy and it will remain important to the Toronto economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, in three years at five public meetings, at each juncture the City of Toronto could have approved this project and refused to do so, in large part because its conditions were not met. The port authority has said that it cannot meet the conditions imposed by the City of Toronto and expand this airport. It has said that explicitly, as has the operator of Porter Airlines. In light of the fact that it cannot meet local conditions, would you not agree that expansion is impossible?