House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bombardier.
Arif Virani LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 94(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I have the honour to table this morning, in both official languages, the annual report on immigration, 2015.
Randy Boissonnault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and pursuant to the repealed section 110 of the Public Service Employment Act, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 2014-15 Public Service Staffing Tribunal annual report.
Randy Boissonnault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and pursuant to the repealed section 251 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the 2014-15 Public Service Labour Relations Board Annual Report.
Gord Brown Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, at the conclusion of the debate on today's opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, March 9, 2016, at the conclusion of oral questions.
(Motion agreed to)
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today.
The first petition deals with the issue of sex selection and pregnancy termination. The petitioners are calling on members of Parliament to condemn discrimination against girls, which is occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, the other petition has to do with palliative care. The petitioners are pointing out that it is impossible for a person to give informed consent to assisted suicide or euthanasia if appropriate palliative care options are not available to them. Therefore, our petitioners are calling on Parliament to establish a national strategy on palliative care.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring a petition from my riding of Sarnia—Lambton regarding fair electoral representation. The petitioners are looking for an equal and effective vote to be presented fairly in Parliament and to have proportional representation.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions.
The first is from Families for Justice, a group of Canadians who have lost a loved one by an impaired driver. The petitioners believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it truly is, vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by a drunk driver. Canadians are calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide, and for this Parliament to support Bill C-226, Kassandra's law, and Bill C-247.
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am also honoured to present a petition regarding palliative care. The petition requests that the House unanimously pass the motion from the last Parliament to create a national strategy on palliative care. It also highlighted that in Carter v. Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that a competent consenting adult who has a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering should be allowed access to physician-assisted suicide, but also that the individual be required to have quality palliative care, so that the person can make informed consent. The petitioners are therefore calling on Parliament to establish a national strategy on palliative care.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
moved:
That the House: (a) acknowledge the contribution Bombardier makes to the Canadian economy and the aerospace industry; (b) recognize that there is a market solution already available that could support Bombardier; (c) acknowledge that Bombardier has designed the quietest and best aircraft in its class that is well suited to urban airports like the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport; (d) recognize that the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is a major economic driver for the Greater Toronto Area that supports both business and leisure travel; (e) recognize that the expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport would allow airlines to purchase Bombardier aircraft; and (f) call on the government to reverse its decision on restricting the expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this morning and speak to this motion.
Last November, just days after being appointed to his new role, the Minister of Transport took to Twitter to announce that he would block any future expansion of the Billy Bishop airport. In fewer than 140 characters, the Minister of Transport unilaterally blocked the right of the City of Toronto to hold consultations and decide whether to allow their local airport to expand and grow along with the city.
In April 2014, Toronto City Council voted unanimously to adopt a city staff report that allowed the city, the Toronto port authority, and the federal government to negotiate conditions before proceeding with a proposal to add jet service and extend the runway at Billy Bishop airport.
Consequently, the City of Toronto ordered a full environmental assessment, an airport master plan, and a runway design plan, at an estimated cost of $4 million. All three studies were reportedly 90% complete and due for release shortly after the minister sent out his tweet, effectively removing them from the decision-making process on this issue. Even the Toronto Star called the minister's politically motivated decision to shut down discussion on the expansion of the airport before all the facts were in as ill advised.
For a government that obsesses about endless consultation on everything, the deliberate lack of consultation in this case is telling. When asked why the government acted with such haste to halt the proposed Billy Bishop airport expansion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport noted that all three parties of a tripartite agreement must concur with any amendments for the agreement to be ratified. Having a veto over any amendment to an agreement does not mean that the government should use it without consulting with those most affected, in this case the City of Toronto.
To date, I have not heard the minister state a single reason that falls under federal jurisdiction to oppose this project, whether it be safety for passengers or concerns about aircraft congestion in the GTA. I hope that over the course of this debate today, we will hear a sound rationale as to why this project should not go ahead.
My concern is that the minister acted so quickly to oppose this development because he feared he would be hard pressed to explain why he opposed a position taken by the City of Toronto or the port authority once they had held their extensive consultations. We are having this debate today because I believe that the Minister of Transport clearly failed in his responsibilities when he neglected to consider the full range of the implications of his actions.
When it comes to economic growth and job creation, the federal government should act as an enabler, rather than an impediment, as it has done in this case. As a result, the federal government must now contemplate ways to support Bombardier that will cost taxpayers in the billions of dollars, while ignoring the private sector solution that will not cost the taxpayers anything.
Here are the facts. A Canadian company has signed a letter of intent to purchase up to 30 C Series aircraft from Bombardier, contingent on the airport expanding its facilities to accommodate it. The C Series aircraft has been described by the minister himself as best in class. I should note that the C Series is the best in its class because it is quieter than the Q400 turboprop aircraft, uses less fuel than any compatible aircraft, and has the lowest break-even load factor.
People travelling to and from Toronto from underserved destinations, like Timmins, Thunder Bay, and Moncton, will benefit from flying in a state-of-the-art aircraft that burns less fuel and is therefore more environmentally sound and cost-effective to operate than those of its competitors. In addition, Bombardier gains a major client.
This is a win-win for Canada. Yet, by blocking the potential expansion of the Toronto city airport, the minister is allowing Bombardier and its employees to be disappointed. They have designed a best-in-class aircraft that is ideally suited for operating out of this airport. Furthermore, he has reduced access to the thousands of businesses and business travellers who rely on the airport as a convenient, time-saving alternative to Pearson airport.
In 2015, the Toronto island airport served 2.5 million passengers, making it the ninth busiest airport in Canada and the sixth busiest Canadian airport serving the United States. This airport is responsible for 6,500 jobs, $385 million in wages, and over $2 billion in economic output. It is also a major contributor of taxes to the City of Toronto and the federal government.
Just last week, the Billy Bishop airport was named the third best airport in North America by the Airports Council International, considered to be the world's benchmark measure of airport excellence. This makes the minister's unilateral rejection of an expansion all the more stunning. If the minister had stated any evidence-based reason for his denial of a potential airport expansion, then the proponents of the airport expansion would have been in a position to address those concerns and perhaps alter their plans. His sudden refutation of this airport expansion leads me to wonder when the minister would ever consider reopening the tripartite agreement.
For example, what if his own department recommended to the Toronto port authority, the owner and operator of the airport, that the main runway be extended for the installation of a runway safety area. As the minister knows, the Transportation Safety Board includes the issue of landing accidents and runway overruns to its watch list of the transportation safety issues posing the greatest threat to Canadians, with the runway safety area identified as a key mitigating measure.
Alternatively, would the minister consider reopening the tripartite agreement if his own department recommended, based on scientific evidence, that aircraft of any type would be able to take off and land more quietly if they could use a longer runway and therefore not have to accelerate as quickly.
The tripartite agreement has been reopened twice before. In 1985, the agreement was opened to allow the de Havilland Dash 8 onto the list of aircraft allowed to use the airport. In 2003, the agreement was once again opened to expand the hours of operation of the airport and allow for the construction of a tunnel linking the airport to the city. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to use that tunnel, and it was quite convenient to get to the airport.
These were both reasonable amendments that gave travellers greater access to a convenient travel option in Toronto. Innovation and the adoption of new technologies and practices drive Canada's economy, and government regulations should change to adapt along with new technologies.
When the tripartite agreement was first signed in 1983, the only aircraft allowed to land at Billy Bishop was the Dash 7 aircraft. This was a four-turboprop engine plane with a maximum speed of 450 kilometres per hour. The first Dash 8 added to the list of aircraft that could land at Billy Bishop, after the 1985 tripartite amendment, was designed for 38 passengers, was 73 feet long, and had a cruising speed of 500 kilometres per hour.
The Q400 variant of the Dash 8 aircraft, which is commonly used at Billy Bishop today, seats 68. It is 107 feet long and has a cruising speed of 667 kilometres per hour. Amazingly, the sound profile of the Q400 aircraft is actually quieter than the Dash 8-100. Today, I believe we have reached a similar point where technological innovation in the aerospace sector is forcing a change in our laws, and government should be flexible enough to adapt.
A decade ago, none of us could have imagined that a Canadian company would build a 100- to 150-seat aircraft that would be quieter than a Q400 turboprop, which was also an incredible achievement in its time. Two decades ago, none of us would have imagined that a turboprop would be able to carry nearly 70 passengers from Toronto to Winnipeg.
I believe Canadians should be embracing the opportunity to utilize this new aircraft across Canada. Instead, with his purely political decision to overrule a process of study and consultation that the City of Toronto was on the verge of completing and to block the development of the Billy Bishop airport, the minister is hurting jobs and Canada's leadership in the aerospace sector.
Today's motion calls upon the House to acknowledge the contribution Bombardier makes to the Canadian economy and the aerospace industry. It calls upon the House to recognize that there is a market solution already available that could support Bombardier and would not cost taxpayers any money. It calls upon the House to recognize that the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is a major economic driver for the greater Toronto area, which supports both business and leisure travel. It calls upon the House to recognize that the expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport would allow airlines to purchase Bombardier aircraft. Finally, it calls upon the government to reverse its decision on restricting the expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.
Support for the motion would send a clear signal that Canadians support entrepreneurialism and taking advantage of a made-in-Canada aircraft that will be able to better serve underserved communities.
The Billy Bishop airport is an asset that few major cities in the world can boast. It creates jobs and has become an important transportation asset for the GTA.
Bombardier has designed an aircraft that is both best in its class and ideally suited for use in airports like Billy Bishop.
It is my hope that all members will see that there is the potential for an incredible synergy here that would help create jobs in Toronto, at Bombardier in Montreal, and at every destination that is served from this airport.
All of us were elected to look at issues through a national lens. The future of Bombardier and the Billy Bishop airport will have national repercussions, and members of Parliament should consider this a national issue.
I also hope all members in this place believe that, when the private sector is ready and willing to step up and support Canada's aerospace champion, this is a preferable solution to one that has the Canadian taxpayers, who are already seeing over $30 billion in new deficit spending this year, having to do so.
The Prime Minister has called the C Series a superlative product and an extraordinary plane, and just last week he asked the $1.3-billion question, “...how do we make sure that airplane is a success and how are we making sure it is a Canadian success story?”
One way to ensure that the C Series is a Canadian success story is by staying out of the way of Canadian firms wanting to purchase the aircraft. By voting in favour of today's motion, the Prime Minister can restart the process of supporting the City of Toronto, the Toronto island airport, Bombardier, and the C Series aircraft program, without asking Canadian taxpayers to foot the bill.
In closing, I will end where I started. I recognize that there are those who will ask why a member from Saskatchewan cares about the Toronto island airport and Bombardier, a company based in Montreal. My answer is quite simple. As the critic appointed to hold the Minister of Transport to account for decisions that just do not make sense—the decision to exercise a veto to block this expansion at the eleventh hour of the process undertaken by the City of Toronto—deserves to be challenged.
The debate today will scrutinize the decision on a number of fronts. First and foremost, we need to ensure that decisions are evidence based and that jurisdictions are respected.
On that note, I ask all members in this House to support the motion.
Opposition Motion—Air TransportationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Spadina—Fort York Ontario
Liberal
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)
Mr. Speaker, I am curious as to whether the member opposite has read any of the 25 reports that have been tabled with the City of Toronto, which include reports from the Board of Health, the executive committee of the planning department, as well as the economic development committee. I am curious whether the member opposite has talked to any of the residents, businesses, or stakeholders on the waterfront, including whether or not she has met with Mr. Deluce or Porter Airlines.
I am curious whether or not she is aware that the cost of doing this project has been estimated at close to $1.6 billion, of which there is no source of funding. This would include the cost of filling half a kilometre of Lake Ontario and paving it over for the extension of the runway; the cost of a 20-foot wall that would run the entire length of the runway from Bay Street to Dufferin Street, which is almost a mile in length across the waterfront; the fact that the reconfiguration of this airport would require fitting an airport the size of the Ottawa international airport into one-seventh of the its mass, again with no funding source at all to pay for the land site improvements that would be required to move 4.3 million passengers; and it would also require additional dollars to be paid through an airport levy tax to do the lakefront.
I wonder if the member has read any of those 25 reports and whether she has consulted with any of the stakeholders on the waterfront besides Mr. Deluce.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the member has been a vocal opponent of the airport expansion for any purpose. Since Porter began growing its operations out of the airport, the member has been the main anti-airport development force in the Liberal caucus.
What I do have in front of me is a letter that was written by the City of Toronto stating:
It is the City's expectation that the studies being undertaking by PortsToronto will address the conditions adopted by City Council, including the caps and phasing framework.
Therefore, we absolutely know that the City of Toronto was in support of studying the expansion of the Toronto island airport. That is why I am speaking today. That process needs to be respected and supported, and it is up to the City of Toronto to decide whether the expansion should go ahead.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. I always enjoy hearing her speak in the House of Commons.
I find it passing strange that the Conservatives would put forward a motion without having consulted the residents of Toronto in any way. When we compare it to the performance of the Liberal government taking decisions around the Toronto harbour out of the hands of the residents of Toronto and putting them with the Toronto port authority, we have seen in both of the old parties a lack of respect for the residents of Toronto that is quite palpable.
I want to come to the issue of the aerospace industry because in my area, the lower mainland of British Columbia, we hemorrhaged out hundreds of aerospace jobs because the former Conservative government was simply not willing to do anything to protect the jobs that should have been protected under the Air Canada act. At the same time, as the Speaker would know, we have lost half a million manufacturing jobs under the Conservatives, not just in aerospace but in every single manufacturing sector and right across the country from British Columbia right through to Atlantic Canada.
My question for the member is quite simple. What lessons have the Conservatives learned from their appalling performance on manufacturing and the aerospace industries when they were in power in Canada?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, obviously today's motion is about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport and supporting the City of Toronto when it unanimously voted to adopt a city staff report that would allow the city, the Toronto port authority, and the federal government to negotiate conditions for proceeding with Porter's proposal to add jet service and extend the runway of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. Consequently, it ordered a full environmental assessment, an airport master plan, and a runway design plan at an estimated cost of $4 million. It had made a list of 25 issues that it feels must be addressed prior to giving its approval for an airport extension and has had ongoing discussions with the Toronto port authority about these concerns.
Again, this is about allowing a process to continue and allowing the City of Toronto to decide.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for a wonderful and fact-based speech.
I have heard that the current government is considering giving multibillion-dollar bailouts to Bombardier to keep it from filing for bankruptcy and from losing 2,600 jobs in Quebec.
Could the member reiterate the economic benefits with respect to jobs and GDP that would result from the Billy Bishop expansion?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question and for the very important work that she does as a member of Parliament representing a riding in Ontario.
We know that this motion is about the economy and jobs. We know that there are jobs to be created at Bombardier if it can sell the aircraft that it has produced. We know that there are jobs to be created at airports if they can expand and continue serving Canadians. This is a win-win scenario for Canada. It is a win for the aerospace industry and it is a win for the city of Toronto and the Toronto Island airport.
Opposition Motion—Air TransportationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs raised a valid point when he talked about the numerous reports related to the potential expansion. It seems to me that the Conservative Party has not done its homework. That is really apparent.
My question is to follow up on what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs asked. Can the member assure the House that she has actually worked with the different stakeholders surrounding the airport in question? If so, could she share with us some of their thoughts on the issue? In listening to her speech, it seems to me that the Conservatives might have been premature at the very least, and unfortunately it sounds as though they just have not done their homework on that project.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I will say what is premature. Premature is blocking the process that was already under way to determine whether this expansion was feasible. This is a local issue. The City of Toronto should be responsible to decide whether to allow the airport to expand, given these considerations.
The City of Toronto has made its concerns known about the possible expansion, and the project proponent will have to demonstrate that it can and will satisfy those concerns. However, that process was not allowed to be completed. Those studies were under way and we were waiting to hear the results of the studies. That is when the minister tweeted that this expansion would not be going forward.
He blocked the process. That is what I call premature.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to let the member off the hook.
The Lower Mainland of British Columbia lost 400 aerospace jobs. The member has been speaking about jobs, saying this is about the aerospace industry, jobs, and employment, yet my area, the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, saw a hemorrhaging of good aerospace jobs. Machinists were tossed aside because the Conservative government would not enforce what was already in law.
I would like to simply ask the member what she has to say to those hundreds of aerospace workers, those machinists, who lost their jobs because of the lack of action of the Conservative government. Will she apologize to those workers who lost their jobs because of the actions of Conservatives?
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to let that member off the hook for making white noise and trying to make this motion about something that it is not. It is about a process and it is about the minister blocking a process that was under way. This is about economic growth for the city of Toronto, and for all of Canada, when we consider the impact it will have on Bombardier and the jobs at Bombardier.
That airport is responsible for 6,500 jobs, $385 million in wages, and over $2 billion in economic output. That is what today's motion is about, and I am not going to let the member off the hook.
Opposition Motion—Air TransportationBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount Québec
Liberal
Marc Garneau LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this motion, because I have been asked on many occasions to comment on it in question period. In fact, a couple of weeks ago when I was asked about it and while I was answering the question from my hon. colleague, I overheard the hon. member for Beauce say quite clearly that nobody wants to buy the C Series.
What I am suggesting today is that perhaps this motion from the opposition does not necessarily have a consensus in that party. I would be interested in knowing why the member for Beauce, who, after hearing my colleague quote me in saying that this is the finest airplane in its class in the world—and I agree with that comment—does not agree with that assessment and is not wholeheartedly supporting sales of the CS100. I would be interested in that answer.
Today I will speak to the opposition motion on Bombardier and Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.
Canada is the second-largest country in the world. We depend on our strong transportation and communication networks to connect us to each other and to the rest of the world.
I would like to begin by stating that the Government of Canada fully recognizes Bombardier's contribution to Canadian industry and the international market.
Our aerospace sector has given Canada a strong reputation internationally. Its contributions to aeronautics and satellite technology benefit our country as a whole as well as the international community.
The sector has been and will continue to be one of the strongest drivers of investment and international trade. It is also a key player in Canada's social, green, and economic infrastructure. It connects people to jobs and helps deliver essential goods and services.
Canada's air sector is a global leader, and Transport Canada is recognized around the world as a certifier and regulator. I would like to highlight that the recently tabled review of the Canada Transportation Act reported that “Canadian-certified aircraft, equipment, and skilled personnel are in high demand around the world.”
Aerospace is an important element of Canada's manufacturing sector, and Bombardier is a strong player in the field. Last year the aerospace sector generated more than 180,000 jobs and added $29 billion to our country's economy. It is a significant contributor to economic growth. Aerospace companies such as Bombardier export some 80% of the products that they make.
Consequently, the Government of Canada was pleased by Air Canada's announcement on February 17, 2016, of its intention to purchase Bombardier C Series aircraft. This is clearly good news for the Canadian aerospace industry. It will result in well-paying jobs for highly skilled workers in this sector. I am encouraged by the benefits that will result from this important transaction between these two iconic Canadian companies. The C Series aircraft is a major advancement in aviation, and I am sure that this addition to Air Canada's fleet will be a major benefit both to that company and to Canada's aerospace sector.
The Government of Canada has confidence in Bombardier and in its C Series aircraft, which are becoming more advanced. As I have said in the past, the C Series aircraft is the best in its class in the world.
Despite what the member for Beauce said last month, there is demand for the C Series aircraft. The first C Series plane will be delivered to Swiss International Air Lines in the spring. Once this Swiss C Series aircraft enters into commercial use, Bombardier will have the opportunity to show the world, especially potential buyers, what this aircraft is capable of and what it has to offer airlines.
Our government is confident that the C Series aircraft will prove to be the outstanding aircraft that early reports predict it will be.
Last December I took part in the certification of Bombardier's C Series aircraft, which was a historic occasion for the Canadian aerospace industry, and I am proud that Transport Canada was part of the process.
Type certification of any aircraft involves a careful examination of the design to verify that it complies with our airworthiness standards and environmental regulations. This design certification is required before the aircraft can enter into commercial use.
This initial approval is a significant step toward Bombardier obtaining full certification in Canada as well as in Europe, the United States, and abroad. It is a significant step toward delivering aircraft to customers worldwide. This approval also allows Bombardier to build investor and customer confidence.
I thank my colleague across the way for her motion and her interest in this file.
With reference to the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, it would be misleading to suggest that the only issue to be considered when examining the proposal to amend the tripartite agreement and allow the expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport to permit the use of commercial jet aircraft and to extend the runway is whether or not Bombardier could sell more aircraft.
Our nation's economy relies on connecting to the world, and the greater Toronto area and southern Ontario as a whole are being well served by a network of airports working together to form an international gateway. This gateway helps Canada stay competitive and attracts air travellers and traffic from around the world.
Toronto Pearson is by far Canada's busiest airport, and I was there myself in December, celebrating the 40 millionth passenger for 2015. It has more international passengers than any North American airport after New York's John F. Kennedy International, and Billy Bishop airport helps to connect Toronto's business heart to other major centres in Canada and the United States.
In addition, many airports look to expand their business footprint. We can see specialty niches form, such as the courier activities at the Hamilton airport. Together, southern Ontario's airports provide economic stimulus to the region by offering services to general and commercial aviation, passengers, shippers, and businesses. These airports bring passengers from around the world, all contributing to the local and national economies.
All of this movement of people and goods attracts business and drives trade and foreign investment in our great country.
I would like to share with hon. members some important information from the Canada Transportation Act review that I had the pleasure of tabling in the House on February 25, 2016:
In 2012, air transportation directly employed 141,000 Canadians and contributed $34.9 billion in GDP and more than $7 billion in taxes to federal and provincial treasuries. In 2014, the industry served nearly 125 million passengers, up 45 percent over the decade since 2004, and transported $116 billion in international cargo.
The Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is a very good example of this thriving network. It is located just a few minutes away from downtown Toronto, on Toronto Island, and ranks ninth in Canada in terms of traffic, welcoming more than 2.4 million business or leisure travellers every year. The Billy Bishop Airport now offers services to 24 Canadian and American cities, with connections to more than 80 cities around the world. This airport is a major economic driver of Toronto's economy. It is also a base for air ambulance services with nearly 4,600 such flights in 2014, and is home to a sizable personal aviation community that includes a flight school.
Billy Bishop is also a historic airport. Members may not know that it was opened in 1939. When the Second World War began, it served as a training base for the Royal Norwegian Air Force, as part of what would earn Canada the title of “aerodrome of democracy” from U.S. president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This history was enhanced even more a few years ago when it was renamed in honour of legendary Canadian aviator and war hero, Billy Bishop.
The fact is that the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is already providing a valuable service without expansion. Last month, it was named one of the top airports in North America in the Airports Council International's airport service quality awards. It tied for third in the best airport North America region category, one of only two Canadian airports to make the list, along with Ottawa international airport.
Such accolades demonstrate that the investment that has been made in the airport, from developing its infrastructure to its working with stakeholders to provide better amenities and improved access to the airport, is providing passengers with an exceptional travel experience.
The government recognizes that the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is a major economic driver for the greater Toronto area and that it supports business and leisure travel.
On November 12, 2015, I announced that the Government of Canada would not reopen the tripartite agreement between the this government, the city of Toronto, and PortsToronto that would allow Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport to pursue an expansion. The government stands by this decision and feels that the current tripartite agreement strikes the right balance between commercial interests and the interests of local communities, and the environmental and cultural challenges, including the evolution of the waterfront. Also, with other jet capable airports very close by, the government believed there was no compelling case to change the current approach.
The government is not alone in this position. Several citizens groups in the GTA have opposed any proposed expansion of Billy Bishop airport. Accordingly, they support our position against reopening the agreement.
As I mentioned earlier, this is about more than just the airport. It is about Torontonians wanting a greater say in the development of their waterfront, which will be significantly affected by the expansion of the airport.
When the proposal to amend the tripartite agreement between the federal government, the City of Toronto, and Ports Toronto was examined, as indicated in the member's motion, a number of issues had to be considered, not just whether jets should be allowed or whether the runway should be expanded.
Every situation is unique and complex. The Government of Canada examines each situation carefully in order to provide Canadians with safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible air travel and cargo services.
The government continually assesses the air services policy framework to ensure that Canada's air transportation system can respond to this evolving environment and is properly equipped to facilitate future growth.
I would like to assure members that the decision was made in the best interests of Torontonians and Canadians. The Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport has been a model of effective management for many years. It is up to Ports Toronto and the airlines that operate out of the airport to continue to make their business model work.
In April 2014, Toronto city council debated the issue and actively sought the views of the then-federal government. The city asked that the federal government of the day 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. That was three years ago. All of this could be seen on the city's website, as well as in media reports. It was very public.
From April 2013 to the fall of 2015, about two and a half years, 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 venues where anybody could express their opinions and views on the issue.
The proponents and opponents of the proposed expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport were very active and very engaged. The possibilities, concerns, and opinions related to the proposal were discussed and debated, and the potential economic benefits of the proposal, those for the region and the for the country were certainly well aired.
The member opposite should not suggest that the expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport will determine the success of Bombardier's C Series. It is simplistic and it ignores a much larger picture. Bombardier products have always, and will always, succeed based on their quality and competitiveness in global markets. One cannot imply that the success of Bombardier only depends on the expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.
I would like to reiterate that the Government of Canada feels that the current tripartite agreement strikes the right balance between commercial interests and the interests of local communities, which are important, as well as between the environmental and cultural challenges, including the evolution of the waterfront. The Government of Canada made the right decision when it refused to authorize the expansion of the airport in November 2015, and it stands by that decision, as it has mentioned a number of times.
The government will therefore not support this motion. Canada's airline sector is robust, competitive, safe, secure and efficient. Our government will continue to maintain Canada's reputation as a global leader and strengthen the sector's competitiveness.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the clarity he has provided in some of his position today.
He has mentioned that he has been asked questions a number of times in the House, questions which he has refused to answer. I would point out that five hours before his tweet, the minister said in an interview that this was a complex issue and he was studying it. Yet he tweeted that he would block this decision.
Perhaps we could find more clarity in his answer before the Senate on February 17 when he was asked why he would cut Porter and Toronto off at the knees like this. His response was:
The answer is simple. We had made an undertaking to the people of Toronto during the election that if we were elected we would not open the tripartite agreement, and we kept that promise.
Could the minister expand on that?
