Debates of March 8th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Air Transportation

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague also served in the Canadian Forces and attended Royal Military College, as did I. We do not have the same college number, though.

We have separate politics and the conversation around the Billy Bishop airport and whether the future of it and of Porter Airlines is tied to the C Series and Bombardier, or that Bombardier and the C Series are by virtue tied to the airport and that absolutely has to be deconflicted.

If we are talking then about the aerospace industry, this government has committed to a fighter replacement program and will ensure that we get the right fighter aircraft for our country. In terms of a long-term in-service support capability, it will be one that will serve Canadians well.

To say that we may or may not have made a decision on which fighter does not in any way jeopardize or hamper our commitment to the aerospace and defence industry.

From a Bombardier perspective, it is a very viable company and it has done incredible things, both in business aircraft and commercial aircraft. It will continue to do so with this flagship, the C Series.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting time for me to rise and speak to our opposition day motion, which catches the new Liberal government in a quandary, in that the old Liberal Party and promises to Liberal politicians are coming back in vogue and so-called evidence-based decision-making is being tossed aside if it impacts one or two people in the PMO or close to the Prime Minister.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Carleton.

I stand today with an interesting perspective. This has to do with Toronto island airport, or Billy Bishop airport, and Bombardier. I have had personal experiences with both, much like the last speaker, who did not talk at length about her experience with the air force and with Bombardier in particular.

My first landings at Billy Bishop airport were with the RCAF, which has long used Toronto island airport as a search and rescue stopping point. I have landed there with both a C-130 Hercules crew and with my Sea King crew.

Interestingly enough, the CT-142, the modified Dash 8 flown by the RCAF for navigation training in Winnipeg, was a de Havilland aircraft, later a Bombardier aircraft, that became a pillar of that company's production and its worldwide reputation. At that time, to help the company, the Canadian government acquired and utilized aircraft within the RCAF at a time when de Havilland was transitioning into Bombardier. However, today we are looking at a situation where the government is allowing politics to interfere with a private sector sale that would help Bombardier, and that is troubling.

I will be speaking on both aspects of this opposition day motion.

As an MP in the greater Toronto area and as a lawyer who, after my air force career, practised law in Toronto, both in North York and downtown on Bay Street, I used Porter Airlines the second week it was operating. The member for Spadina—Fort York was hoping that the second week would be its last week of operations, but it flourished. That first flight I took to Montreal for business had about five people on it. Its exceptional service and attention to detail led both the airport and the airline to expand.

Other partners used Billy Bishop as well, based on its function and its ease of use, thereby taking people off the highways and allowing them to use public transit to get to an airport much more frequently than the new Union Pearson Express does.

The Q400 became the linchpin of the Porter Airlines fleet. It became the standard. This aircraft sustained jobs in Montreal and the success of Bombardier. It is assembled in Toronto, and I am proud of the fact that a lot of constituents in Durham work on that line in Toronto. It is a significant employer in the GTA. Highly paid and highly skilled people work on that world-class line at Downsview, including an old friend of mine, Jeff Laird from Bowmanville, who is one of the lead engineers with Bombardier.

We are proud of the success of that aircraft and that its private sector partner was allowed to thrive and have sales around the world.

The C Series is the next Q400, the next aircraft that Bombardier is on the cusp of unleashing around the world to new customers. With its fuel efficiency, its silent operation, its ability to land at fairly smaller airports with smaller runways, it is a versatile aircraft that is best in its class.

Porter Airlines seized the ability for the next stage of its growth to allow more opportunity and more consumer choice for the millions of people who live in the GTA and use Billy Bishop airport. I have used Billy Bishop airport without ever having put a car on the highway. One would think a lot of members, particularly my friend from Spadina—Fort York, would like hopping on the GO train 70 kilometres away from the airport, getting into the city, taking a shuttle, and taking off from Billy Bishop without ever getting on a 400 series highway.

When I was a lawyer with Procter & Gamble in North York, I used to take the TTC subway Yonge line to catch my flight at Porter. It is a remarkably versatile airport and airline that would be able to do even more with the C Series.

The motion today highlights that after not even 100 days, the politics of the old Liberal Party is back and that the quid pro quo for a few members of that caucus will hold back something in the public interest for wider southern Ontario and our aerospace industry.

We have a situation where the government likes to talk a lot about evidence-based decision-making and yet issued its decision on Billy Bishop airport with a tweet limited to 140 characters, to say that thousands of jobs and an airline's expansion would be at risk, and the travel options for millions of people in the GTA would be limited.

What does this mean? Does it mean that the government will support the Pickering airport, which it ran against in the last election? At least for the decision related to the Pickering airport, we had Transport Canada do a volume assessment study. It did not just look at Pearson. It looked at Hamilton, at the John Munro airport, named after one of the Liberals' former colleagues. It looked at Kitchener-Waterloo, at Toronto Island Billy Bishop, and whether there would be a Pickering airport in the future.

If the government is to make an evidence-based decision, where is the study on the impact of this and lower growth that would result in Toronto centre? How would that impact Pearson? How would that impact Pickering? Would it make the Pickering airport larger. Perhaps the MP for Pickering—Uxbridge could answer that to the House.

None of that was done because this was tweeted to keep a few people happy within the Liberal Party. Let us not fool ourselves and deny this was done for the narrow interests of a few.

The second aspect of this is that the government, in making this political decision for a few insiders, is potentially hampering the growth of our aerospace industry. The irony is that the government is weighing a billion dollar bailout for Bombardier but blocking a private sector sale. It is ludicrous. Here is a private sector company that does not want assistance in acquiring the C Series aircraft. In fact it wants to acquire it because it is the best in the world for the operation it needs. It wants to purchase it, but the government's decision for a few insiders is limiting that sale and hampering Bombardier's ability to get the first number of sales out the door. The Minister of Transport likes to talk a lot about Air Canada's interest. That is great, but we know that a number of customers are needed to get the production line and the values for that aircraft in place. What we have here is political interference for a few people impacting thousands of jobs.

This is at a time when, as I said to my colleague from Aurora, a former air force officer herself, that Lockheed Martin, Pratt & Whitney, Bell, Bombardier, our entire aerospace industry, is worried. With the political decisions about cancelling the F-35 and prospect of being back in a decade of darkness for the military from our withdrawal from our modest mission in fighting ISIL, these global aerospace providers are looking twice at making investments in Canada. This is at a time when we have a stellar company with a world-class reputation like Bombardier.

The last thing a prime minister of our country should do is to allow borough politics, old school Boston era 1880s politics, where a few people with a megaphone and some drums can limit a private sector sale to help a company survive and the jobs of thousands of people, including people in Durham, and limit competition and the options for millions of people in the GTA. There are more people in the GTA than in Spadina—Fort York.

My hope is that the Minister of Transport steps back and says that more than 140 characters are needed to make an evidence-based decision to help a company and to make sure our aerospace industry thrives.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite speak of politics and political decisions; I prefer to speak of societal choices. Societal choices are transmitted through the democratic process, and that is exactly what happened in the election in this part of the country.

Let us use Banff as an example. A decision has been made that the people of Alberta no longer want additional development in Banff. Is the member saying that according to the evidence it is because one additional secondary residence in Banff would be catastrophic for the area, or is it a societal choice on the part of the people of Alberta who do not want to live in that kind of environment?

My comment for the member is this. The people who make decisions about buying planes, the engineers and the experts at the airlines, understand the merits of the plane. They know what it can do. That is what they are going to base their decision on. They are not going to base their decision on whether the government in Canada allowed this airport to expand its runway or not expand its runway. It is not germane to the purchasing decision.

Europe has a history of protests over airport expansions and so on. Europeans understand this. It is part of their history and culture that some people want to preserve their quality of life. That is exactly what is happening here. There has been a societal choice to preserve a quality of life in a part of a big city in Canada.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. A societal choice was made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport to listen to a few inside voices and not the millions of people in the GTA or the thousands of people working in the aerospace industry.

There is no airport in Banff. The member should visit that spectacular part of our country. However, there has been a Toronto centre airport for 50-plus years. It has been used by the Canadian Armed Forces for search and rescue, by local hospitals, by small aircraft providers, and by airlines such as Porter. This is about an existing facility that provides the ability for hundreds, if not thousands, of people to take public transit to an airport on a daily basis.

For some of the members who are most opposed to this, we are going to be waiting, because they have been promising billions of dollars in public transit. We can take public transit to an airport and give consumers options and allow a company, a private-sector player, to buy one of the best aircrafts in the world, except the choice was to listen to one or two MPs and impact a whole industry for that societal choice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my colleague for his comments on this very important issue, and for the insight that the experience he has had brings to this debate. It is very informative.

I want to ask him if he would comment on the need to respect the jurisdiction of a municipality to complete the studies it has undertaken when it is looking at a proposal that has a major impact, not only on its community and its city, but also on its economy. I am wondering if the member would like to comment further on that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this important debate to the floor today. We have to explore societal choice, which has been brought forward today, and discuss it. Jurisdiction is a key one.

The former minister of transport, my colleague from Milton, talked about how long and how well-negotiated the tripartite agreements were. Public policy decisions like this were not made with a tweet or with one member of Parliament pulling a minister aside and saying that they need this. This is about rational decision-making, working with the partners in the tripartite agreement. Tri means three; it does not mean one and one or two insiders.

The other thing I have mentioned, and I would like the government to be clear on this, is on the Pickering airport, the land seized by Pierre Trudeau. We provided a plan for a Pickering airport, but now that the Liberals are limiting Billy Bishop airport, the volume study that Transport Canada relied on is no longer effective. Are they essentially saying that they are going to build a Pearson two at Pickering? They have to approach this in a responsible public policy manner.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion is about more than an airport. It is about unlocking the creative power of the entrepreneurial spirit for the betterment of our people.

Entrepreneurship is nothing new in Canada. It built our economy. The lumberjacks of the Ottawa Valley who harvested the wood were entrepreneurs. So, too, were the craftsmen who turned it into farming implements and timber-framed barns. The wood from these barns is ironically more popular today than ever before. Trendy coffee shops, restaurants, and new homes use it as veneers, flooring, and decorative beams.

If one types the words “vintage wood” into house.com, a popular home design website, one will find 37,000 pictures of recycled products that are used in the most beautiful ways, and it is not cheap. It can go for $10 a foot. That is more expensive than many engineered hardwood floors. A few years ago, this wood was an abandoned barn that was no longer good enough to house cattle and was left as a home for rats and pigeons.

Why is it suddenly worth so much? The wood's value is in the story it tells.

A big piece of an old barn beam now on my fireplace mantle has axe marks that tell of a logger who cut it and squared it. Its mortises and tenons tell of the craftsman who joined it into a building frame that held for over 100 years. The rusted nails and the boards remind us of the calloused hands of the 19th century Lanark farmer who pounded it into a barn and his descendants who worked in it for generations thereafter. That is the story people buy when they purchase this reclaimed wood.

The modern-day story of recycling that wood is also the story of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs like Tim Priddle, one of the owners of The Wood Source in my riding, have taken the material that would otherwise decompose into a decrepit and condemned barn and have created something beautiful that makes people happy and connects them to their past. This is the triumph of free enterprise and it is part of a $36-billion second-hand economy, according to a report sponsored by Kijiji just last week.

Recently, The Wood Source expanded and invited the community for a tour of its facility, where I learned the tale of two buildings.

One was built 40 years ago. Back then, the government required a one-page drawing, stamped by an engineer, and a one-page application. Then it was done, approved, and ready to build.

If members think that is not safe, the building is still standing and in use today, decades later.

About six years ago, The Wood Source applied to build another workshop, roughly the same size and dimensions. It took 1,500 pages of applications and $600,000 in fees, reports, and professional consultants. He had to hire an arborist to write a report on each tree being removed, including the size and the species, these trees being on a few acres of otherwise useless brush. They even made it pay a fee for the loss of parkland, even though the land had never been a park. One would think it was a pulp mill and not a lumber mill because half the cost of building it was paper costs. In fact, with the money he spent on paperwork, Tim could have hired another 10 employees for a year.

Then comes the electricity costs. In the last five years, it has gone from $3,200 a month to $9,000 a month. That is $70,000 a year in increases, which is enough to hire yet another talented employee. Much of the increase pays for subsidies the government imposes for wind turbines and solar panels, which produce only a minute fraction of Ontario's electricity, despite billions of dollars in subsidies that consumers like Tim must shoulder.

He complained of these costs to his local Liberal minister, who said that he would put him in touch with some people in his office who could help him with various grant programs that might be available. Why not just let Tim keep his own money? The answer is that there would be no place for the Liberal minister. If we just let people succeed through their own hard work, that minister would not be so important. The entrepreneur would not need to come back, asking him for his money.

President Reagan used to say that the Liberals would tax anything that moved. If it kept moving, they would regulate it. When it finally stopped moving, they subsidized it.

Such is the case with Bombardier and the Toronto island airport. The airport's runway is too short to land Bombardier C Series jets. A 400-metre expansion of that runway would solve that problem and would result in Porter purchasing $2 billion worth of Bombardier planes to land there. Yet, in a tweet sent out only weeks after taking office, the transport minister announced that he was blocking this infrastructure project without any public rationale whatsoever.

The result is that the government is blocking a massive infrastructure project at the same time as it plunges the country into deficit to fund infrastructure projects. It is blocking $124 million in economic growth in Toronto while spending billions of dollars of borrowed money, ostensibly to stimulate economic growth. It is blocking $55 million in newly generated tax revenues while increasing taxes to get more revenue. It is blocking $2 billion in additional sales for Bombardier C Series planes and then proposing $2 billion in federal-provincial bailouts for Bombardier.

It is blocking business people from landing in Toronto's business district, which puts more cars on the road between Pearson airport and downtown. Then the government says that it needs to spend more money to relieve traffic gridlock. It has done this to protect the privileges of the wealthiest 1% with waterfront homes near the island airport, at the expense of middle-class workers who miss out on the jobs, middle-class passengers who get less choice, and middle-class taxpayers who bear the cost.

Elsewhere, the government pledged to raise taxes on startups by doubling the tax on stock options. However, it plans to simultaneously subsidize startups with taxpayers' money. Or, they add a nine-month delay to an already 18-month approval process for a pipeline that will carry western Canadian oil to eastern Canadian refineries. Selling Canadian oil to Canadians means we do not have to accept a discount from Americans. As former energy entrepreneur, Gwyn Morgan, wrote this week, this discount currently amounts to $10 a barrel, meaning that we forfeit $38 million every day. That means that a $250-million injection from the federal stabilization fund announced by the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Alberta would not even offset one week of market access losses.

The pattern is this. The government is standing in the way of entrepreneurial opportunity. It is blocking development. It is holding back the spirit that helped to build this country from the time of the settlers who built the barns that I spoke of earlier. Seeing back allows us to see forward.

I know that trends in interior design come and go, but the popularity of this timeless old wood, and the story it tells, gives me hope that Canadians remain committed to the same common sense, ingenuity, and work ethic that make our country great. I believe that the government, with time, will be forced to reconsider its decision to block this important economic opportunity for the people of Toronto and the people of Canada. When it does, entrepreneurs will celebrate, the middle class will celebrate, our aviation sector will celebrate, and all the people of this land who love to visit Canada's biggest city by landing in the heart of the downtown district will also celebrate. I look forward to celebrating with them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the opposition credit. It is getting closer and closer to the facts.

A while ago, a speaker said that the runway extension was 335 metres. It was then corrected to 353 metres, and now it has reached 400. The actual number is 500 metres. If you had read any of the reports, you would know that, but clearly you have not.

The second issue is this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I will remind the hon. member that he is speaking through the chair and not directly across the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, the other point is that the Conservatives keep talking about this being a cost-free proposal. The reality is that it is going to cost $1.2 billion to squeeze an airport the size of the Ottawa International Airport into one-seventh of the land mass.

One of the criteria for the City to study this, which the port authority had to agree to, was that it would pick up the cost for the expansion. The port authority said it would not pay for that. It then turned to the Government of Canada at the time, the previous Conservative government, and said that it had to pay. Faced with a choice for the new building Canada fund, the government did not choose to put the money into an expanded airport; it chose to put it into transit in Scarborough.

Where should this government expect to find the money if the previous government could not find $1.2 billion to expand this runway? It needs to be expanded by 500 metres. The cost of doing it and building the land-side infrastructure is $1.2 billion. The previous government balked at the price, so why would we spend it?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we did not receive an application for a $1.2 billion expansion because the plan is to fund the expansion through the airport improvement fund, which is paid for by passengers. We in this country have commercialized our airports, something that happened about 25 years ago under a previous Liberal government, and it was a wise decision, because it put the costs of airport improvements onto the users who benefit from those improvements.

The improvement of the Billy Bishop airport would be funded in a similar manner. No one is applying for a federal grant to build an expanded airport. In fact, the reality is that, if the member really believed that the airport could not build it without a grant, then he would not have had to send his minister out to block the project in the first place. They could have just rejected the application when it arrived. Why would they not have waited for such an application to arrive on the desk? The truth is that there was no need for such an application.

The $1.2 billion cost that the member is using is a number he is inventing, because he is speaking for a very tiny minority of very well connected and very wealthy people who do not want to see this expansion go ahead. It is unfortunate, but they are doing it at the expense of middle-class taxpayers, middle-class workers, and middle-class Torontonians who will lose out as a result of the government blocking this opportunity.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was starting my career, I lived in the Beaches area of Toronto and helped my friend John Tory run for mayor in what I call the version 1.0 campaign, and the bridge to the island airport was a big issue, as well as the subject of Porter. The issue of noise often came up. Living in the Beaches, south of Queen, on the water, I found that issue was always conflated and exaggerated. In fact, after a while, for people in the downtown of the busiest city with a vibrant boardwalk and waterfront, it became background.

I would ask my colleague to comment on how the C Series aircraft, impacted by this insider decision made by the government, is actually quieter and has the ability to operate. Noise is usually the concern people have. It is unusual that it be in a city centre airport because people downtown are not in the country, but how can the C Series impact that noise issue that was the original concern with Porter's original operation?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I myself reminisce about my time spent living one summer in downtown Toronto. It is the centre of a major metropolis. There are sounds there. One of the sounds I rarely noticed when I worked there was the airport and the air traffic.

The member is quite correct that the C Series is renowned for technology that suppresses the noise and makes it more friendly to surrounding communities in which it lands and lifts off. This innovation, of which the government claims to be such a great fan, should be encouraged rather than blocked, and that is why I am pleased to stand today in support of the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and a pleasure to rise and address issues in this wonderful chamber.

I find it interesting that the official opposition has chosen to bring forward an opposition motion that attempts to do two things: confuse members and put a bit of a wedge issue between different communities. I would like to expand on that.

I have had the opportunity to listen to a number of the Conservative members of Parliament speak on the motion, which reinforces what I am about to say.

Let us recognize what the motion is really talking about. It speaks to the importance of Bombardier, and we all agree on how important that corporation is. Then it is calling upon the government to agree to the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport.

What took place on November 12 was that the government stated that it would not be opening up the tripartite agreement with respect to the Billy Bishop airport. What a novel idea for the Conservatives. Can members imagine a government being transparent and saying, in a public fashion, that it would not see that tripartite agreement opened up? That has assisted a great number of stakeholders with their own planning and so forth in terms of where to go from that point.

Let me be clear. The port authority at one point wanted to see some sort of an expansion take place. In fact, when it was discovered that it was giving that idea some consideration, the City of Toronto said that for that to happen, there would be a number of conditions. I believe my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, said that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 25 conditions. Therefore, if there was to be any sort of expansion, from its perspective those 25 conditions had to be met. The port authority made it clear that it did not feel obligated by those conditions, nor was it prepared to meet them. It continued on with a number of different studies, and after having had the opportunity to study the project, although the city was not prepared to support it, it ultimately came to the conclusion that it was not going to be moving forward on it.

Then the City of Toronto, which on at least five different occasions could have voted in favour of seeing the expansion take place, chose not to do so.

Therefore, we have two out of the three who were fairly clear that they believed that the runway expansion of the Billy Bishop airport would be unnecessary.

Then, on November 12, the federal government made its decision based on what it had witnessed. There are very strong personalities within the Liberal caucus, and many outside associations and groups no doubt participated in the decision that ultimately led to the Government of Canada proclaiming that it was not prepared to open up the tripartite agreement, so it should not be any great surprise.

I am surprised that the Conservatives believe that today it is an issue and that this is the reason they brought the motion forward. They sat in government for 10 years. They had the ability to move that project forward and influence it, and they chose not to. Now they stand in their place and proclaim that the federal Liberal government must see that extension take place, to the degree that they are being critical of us for what we have done by being transparent, working with others, and ultimately making a decision.

Why, then, are they pushing it today?

This is where we start to get a better sense of it. The Conservatives are trying to pitch the issue of Bombardier and the importance of that particular company. I have listened to a number of them stand and speak, and they are saying that, if that does not happen, if the expansion does not take place, the Bombardier C Series aircraft is dead. They are saying it will not go anywhere, and imagine all the jobs that will be lost.

I can tell the Conservative members that Bombardier is an international company that employs thousands of people. It goes far beyond the borders of Quebec. It has a proven track record. It has an aircraft on the market that is, in fact, going to have a significant imprint into the future.

This whole running around and saying that the sky is falling, that Bombardier will be doomed if we do not expand Billy Bishop airport, is total garbage. It makes no sense whatsoever. The Conservative policy wonks in their leader's office have made the decision to try to use it as an issue to divide. I believe that the government's approach in dealing with this issue has been very clear, virtually from the beginning.

I want to talk about the aerospace industry, because when we talk about the aerospace industry, what we are really talking about not only is that first-class world product that many manufacturers in virtually all regions of our country contribute to, but it is an industry that provides good, quality jobs.

If one were to talk to my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, each and every one would boast about the importance of the aerospace industry. There is a great deal of support for our aerospace industry in the Liberal caucus, from ministers to members. We recognize the valuable contributions it makes to Canadian society. We recognize it as an industry that, if properly supported, could continue to grow into the future, creating more jobs for Canadians.

We are a party that believes in technology, in advancing it where we can. We have a budget coming up in a few more days. I am sure we will see good signs of just how valuable our manufacturing industry is. In particular, from my perspective, today we are talking about the aerospace industry.

We recognize the value of the thousands of people who work for Bombardier. We want to do what we can to ensure, as much as possible, that jobs will be protected. There is a role for government to play. Negotiations are taking place.

The Canadian government is not turning its back on the aerospace industry, unlike the Conservatives when they were in government. In fact, when I was first elected, I saw many jobs lost and devastated because the then-government of the day chose to turn its back on the industry.

The industry does not have to fear that with the Liberal government. We recognize the importance of those valuable jobs and the livelihoods of those who fill those jobs. It is an industry we truly care about. Negotiations are under way. I am an optimist. I believe not only that we, under this Prime Minister, will in fact continue to have a healthy aerospace industry but that it will grow. It will grow because the Government of Canada truly cares about that industry, unlike the former government.

I see that my time has virtually expired. Suffice it to say that I believe it is important that we do not support this motion put forward by the Conservative opposition party; it is not in Canada's best interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite would have us believe that the City of Toronto chose not to pursue the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport's proposal, and yet we know there were a number of studies under way when the minister tweeted that he was unilaterally ending the process and blocking the potential expansion. We also know that the city's expectations were that the studies being undertaken would address the conditions adopted by city council.

Does the member think that a tweet is a good way to announce major public policy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the statement in the early part of the question is just wrong. The City of Toronto had, on at least five occasions, the opportunity to say yes to the proposal. It was the City of Toronto that set the conditions, and it was told that those conditions would not be met. If the City of Toronto truly wanted it, then they would have voted yes, so I do not know where the Conservatives get that from. Moreover, it is not as if I am the first member to stand up and emphasize that point. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister has also highlighted that particular issue.

The only entity that seems to be listening to what is actually taking place on the ground is the Government of Canada. I am inclined to believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, as I do not believe that the Conservative members have done their homework on the issue. They have not read those studies the member refers to. I do not think they understand the arguments that have been put forward today. As a result, we have an inappropriate motion. Actually, I should not say “inappropriate”, because the opposition can submit whatever opposition day motion they want, but I suggest they could have done a better job and brought forward a more informed resolution that might have made a contribution to the issue.

I would have been more than happy, for example, to talk about the aerospace industry as a whole, or our airport industry as a whole because we have airports in every region of our country. We all know the valuable role they play, and there is a high level of interest in that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised not to hear the member for Winnipeg North mention our home town of Winnipeg as he spoke about the aerospace industry.

He did allude to some job losses, and it was the case that under the previous government, we lost hundreds of jobs in Winnipeg because that government would not enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act. I understand that member at that time was quite critical of the government for not being willing to enforce the act.

I wonder if the reason he did not mention our city is his shame for now sitting with a government that will not enforce that act. I wonder if he would now take this opportunity to absolve himself of that shame, stand in the House and call on his own government to enforce the act, and to stop talking about possibly changing the Act to let Air Canada even further off the hook.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for being a strong advocate for the aerospace industry, whether that aerospace industry is in my home city of Winnipeg, which I love and care deeply about, or the aerospace industry in Ontario, Quebec, B.C., or other regions. While we are dealing with this particular issue, I want to highlight just how important the industry is as a whole.

To my own city, I would advocate for those jobs, and we do that through the negotiations. I was really disappointed about the NDP provincial government not taking Air Canada to court. Why did the NDP not do that?

The member's own father was a part of the Manitoba legislature, a part of the NDP government that chose not to take Air Canada to court. One could ask why they did not do that. The Province of Quebec did. However, at the end of the day, I am choosing to believe that there are negotiations taking place and I believe in good faith that the Winnipeg aerospace industry will be healthier as a direct result of a national government that truly cares about the industry, and not just be the industry in one region, but the industry across Canada.

Where there is a concentration and a focus on developing the aerospace industry, the Liberal Party will be there to support it.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and speak to today's opposition motion regarding the Liberal government's decision to restrict the expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

Having spent approximately 20 years in aviation, I am aware first-hand of the challenges and opportunities that come with growth and expansion of airports. Airport development is always a hotly contested discussion, and so it should be.

In the early 1990s, the government at the time decided it was going to get out of the airport business. With the introduction of the national airports policy, a new framework was defined in relation to the federal government's role in aviation. The NAS comprises 26 airports across Canada that were deemed critical links for our country. These airports were deemed essential to Canada's air transport system. These airports also served 94% of the air traffic in Canada.

The airports were transferred under lease to airport authorities, and in some cases to municipalities. The infrastructure in many of these airports, if not all, was antiquated and desperately in need of attention. Through these transfer negotiations, reinvestment money was given, but the expectation for these airports was that they were to do everything in their power to build strong business cases so that they could be self-sufficient.

Airports have very few revenue generation streams. With the transfer of airports and new-found independence also came the realization that user-pay systems were needed. Airport improvement fees became the norm, and today we have airports that are incredible examples of the NAS airport transfer. However, we also have airports that struggle daily to be competitive and to remain innovative. They struggle daily to ensure that safety precautions are taken.

While we all share a love for the maple leaf and common borders, the reality is that airports compete from one to the next for machinery and for air service for the community. Airport authorities and municipalities are now responsible for developing their business case for development and creative solutions for achieving their air service development goals. The land that surrounds airports is often valuable agricultural land, and as our communities grow, we have seen residential encroachment around airports.

In my former position, I was tasked with promoting regional, provincial, and national passenger, cargo, and tourism opportunities on the world stage. I was the person who was sitting before the airlines marketing our country, marketing my community, and marketing our province, ensuring that we were competitive. During my years, I had the opportunity to represent Canada throughout Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas on trade missions, industry conferences, and regulatory panels. I have also had the chance to represent on industry topics, such as air service development, cargo, supply chain management, security, and regional tourism opportunities.

I have heard some of the arguments around unfair monopoly on slots and concerns over environmental and potential noise pollution, which are all valid points. They are concerns that are seen throughout Canada.

However, we are missing a key point: Canada needs to remain competitive. How do we do this? It is by removing trade barriers; by creating innovative air policy and trade policies; by removing barriers for the movement of passengers and cargo, thus ensuring a seamless flow of goods and people to and from Canada; and by doing everything we can to promote and facilitate growth of Canadian companies. By protecting and growing Canadian jobs and products, Canada can continue to grow.

Expanding the Billy Bishop airport would allow any company that uses the C Series aircraft to benefit from having access to downtown Toronto, whether it be Air Canada, Porter, or WestJet.

Carriers are also increasingly asking airports for longer runways. With the creation of new machinery come new safety policies from manufacturers regarding the safe operation of aircraft, not just from Bombardier but from Boeing and Airbus as well.

Why are carriers asking for longer runways to be provided? It is because it is easier on equipment and provides greater safety precautions in the event of unpredictable weather conditions.

Currently, Porter has Q400 aircraft. The current CEO has said that the company is being increasingly asked to lengthen the runway, with the increasingly challenging weather and climate we have and the issues we have in terms of the new regulatory or safety policies coming from the carriers and the manufacturers. It is a challenge for airport authorities or municipalities to be able to fund this. Billy Bishop airport is not the only one facing concerns over these safety precautions.

Billy Bishop airport is considered one of the busiest in Canada. Roughly 2.5 million passengers passed through the terminal last year, and this number is expected to grow over the course of 2016. The runways are currently at 3,990 feet, and this new proposed expansion would bring it to about 5,400 feet and allow for aircraft to run hotter and faster and safer. On a typical weekday, there are 202 commercial take-offs or landings on the island, connecting airports to 24 short-haul destinations in eastern Canada and the United States, connecting Canadian passengers and cargo to U.S. markets and vice versa. Business is good.

However, in the early 2000s when the airport infrastructure was falling apart and Air Canada Jazz was the only commercial carrier, flying to one destination, this airport was able to sell a vision to a carrier. Somebody believed in it. In Canada, we champion our pioneer spirit. The Billy Bishop airport should not be penalized for having a carrier believe in it and invest in its project and the future of this critical transportation hub. Porter should not be penalized for having the fortitude to take bold steps forward, despite a national aviation climate that protects its largest carriers. Both Porter Airlines and Billy Bishop airport should not be scrutinized for a slots monopoly or anti-competition, as WestJet faced the very same challenge when we were starting out. Yes, I was a WestJet owner. In our larger airports, both of these carriers still enjoy the very same opportunities that they are complaining about at Billy Bishop airport.

When small airports in communities across Canada are being held hostage by big carriers that wield their influence by pulling code share and shift their services at a whim regardless of the importance and vital connectivity that air service provides, somebody has to stand up to them. We should be applauding airports, municipalities, and airport authorities that are taking the bold step forward and trying to do everything in their power to preserve their air service.

However, this is about Bombardier and saving jobs, and potentially saving a government bailout by creating an opportunity and providing leadership in getting these groups around a table for open and transparent discussions. The member for Spadina—Fort York has been a vocal opponent of any airport expansion for any purpose since Porter began growing its operations out of the airport. In a letter to a citizens group aimed at stopping the growth of the airport, the member for Spadina—Fort York wrote, “No Jets. No Expansion. Period”. However, that is not all, and it has been mentioned earlier today that, just days after the election, the Minister of Transport used Twitter as his sounding board to announce that there would be no expansion at the Billy Bishop airport.

Let me put this in perspective for the hon. members of this House. Airports are key economic drivers in the regions and the communities they serve. Billy Bishop airport is responsible for 6,500 jobs, $385 million in wages, and over $2 billion in economic output. Airports are communities in the regions they serve. It is also a major contributor of taxes to the City of Toronto and the federal government, to the tune of $71 million.

This motion is about jobs and economic growth, and the airport is a major contributor to both. Blocking the expansion of this airport would limit the Canadian market for C Series aircraft, which would affect workers across Canada. It sends the wrong message to Bombardier's customers, and it gives its competitors an unfair advantage. Should we not be doing everything for a Canadian company?

Expanding the airport would facilitate billions of dollars in potential orders for Bombardier from Canadian carriers. Instead of spending billions of dollars bailing out a major company, the Liberal government should redirect its focus and concentrate on reducing red tape for entrepreneurs, rather than adding it.

It was our former Conservative government that supported the smart development of the Billy Bishop airport because it provides a convenient travel option for passengers who are going to and from Toronto and it provides a critical transportation gateway to Canada, to another community. That is why the federal government supported the construction of the tunnel to the airport.

The new Liberal government unilaterally imposed its will on Torontonians and Toronto City Council. This is a local issue. The City of Toronto should be responsible for deciding whether or not to allow the airport to expand given these considerations.

I have heard the argument from the member opposite, and I agree that there are conditions that have to be met, but the airport should be allowed to fulfill that and to work with the City of Toronto. The City made its concerns about the possible expansion known, and the project proponent will have to demonstrate that it can and will satisfy Toronto's concerns. Let us allow the two of them to have a discussion and work through it.

Toronto City Council was clear that the landing slots and passenger cap would have to be maintained, and the strict noise limits had to remain in place. This is no different from airports across Canada. We all face it. Yet, the Minister of Transport unilaterally blocked the right of the City of Toronto to hold consultations and decide whether to allow its local airport to expand and grow along with the city.

The City of Toronto also has an aggressive event management group, which is going after a number of big international events. This airport would help to alleviate congestion at its bigger airport and facilitate more tourists, more passengers, to the city of Toronto. If the minister had stated any evidence-based reason for his denial of the potential airport expansion, then proponents of the expansion would be able to alter the plans to integrate these concerns in regulations

We can all agree that the people who are most impacted by the future of Billy Bishop airport are those who live in Toronto, not Ottawa, and not Montreal.

For a government that obsesses endlessly about consulting on everything, the deliberate lack of consultation in this case is telling. When it comes to economic growth and job creation, the Liberal government should act as an enabler rather than an impediment, as it clearly has demonstrated with this action. Instead of killing jobs, maybe it should try creating some.

While the federal government keeps looking for ways to support Bombardier, which will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, it is ignoring the private-sector solutions that would not cost taxpayers a dime. Bombardier has designed a best-in-class aircraft that is ideally suited for smaller airports like Billy Bishop. Expanding the airport would create a market for Bombardier with any company who chooses to use the airport. Let us go back to my earlier point. It is about keeping Canada competitive, keeping our communities competitive. We fight for air service.

We were all elected based on our ability to see local issues through a national lens. The future of Bombardier and Billy Bishop airport will have national repercussions if the Liberal government continues to abuse its decision-making powers.

It is my sincere hope that all members in the House will support today's motion and that the Prime Minister will begin the process of supporting Bombardier and the C Series aircraft program without asking taxpayers to foot the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:43 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, March 9, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day, and it is a day where we celebrate the accomplishments of women and also look at issues that face women, face women's advancement, women's health, women's safety; and I would be remiss if I did not bring up the plight of the Yazidi women within the context of several Middle Eastern conflicts right now.

Earlier in this parliamentary session, I asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship if he would categorize or classify what is happening to the Yazidi people as genocide. He declined to answer that. I asked how many Yazidi women had been brought to Canada as part of the Liberals' refugee initiatives. He also declined to answer that.

We cannot turn a blind eye to the violence that is happening against the Yazidi women. I really feel that, if we take it lightly, if we turn a blind eye to it, when we use the term “never again”, it is going to turn into “never mind”. There are reports every day of the rape, sexual slavery, and atrocities committed to children. These are girls who are six or seven years old. I can pull out numerous newspaper articles and talk about how women are being used and treated as a subspecies. They are not even being treated as human. They are being treated as less than human.

The impact on this group of people affects everyone around the world. Everybody who is a human being on our planet should be concerned about what is happening to these women in this area, and we need to do more.

I want to highlight and emphasize some of the things that are happening. There have been mass graves found filled with Yazidi women. There are reports that ISIS has established an international sex ring by smuggling captured Yazidi sex slaves. They are being sent to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Chechnya. Women's children who are born while they are in captivity are being killed in front of them. These women are being forced to watch young girls bleed out after being raped multiple times by ISIS soldiers.

On International Women's Day, it is very important for people in the House to understand that throughout history women have been controlled by their body and by their sexuality. It is a very common thing to demean women by using acts of sexual degradation to treat them as less than human or less than whole. It is only societies and cultures that recognize that this is wrong, something we should not celebrate, something we should actively fight against, where we see true gender equality and parity of women.

I ask my colleague, not from a partisan perspective but on International Women's Day, a day when we talk about women—the United Nations has even classified what is happening to the Yazidi people as genocide—if the government will in fact call this what it is, a genocide, and if he will tell Canadians how many Yazidi women have been brought to Canada under the Liberal government's tenure.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her statement today and the interventions she has made on this issue.

Obviously on International Women's Day, it is a very timely topic of discussion. This government and my party stand steadfast in solidarity with women in Canada and around the world, including the Yazidi women who were mentioned by my friend, the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

The important piece is that there have been many Yazidi atrocities, despicable, inhumane, and tragic atrocities. We deplore all acts that have been taken in the name of the so-called Islamic State: loathsome murderous actions toward the Yazidi people, toward all people. These terrible attacks have contributed greatly to the Syrian refugee crisis that has captured the attention of governments and people around the world, including here in Canada. It goes without saying that the response to the crisis in Canada has been overwhelming. There has been a complete national effort, a large-scale effort, involving government and non-government actors. It involves private-sector individuals and service-provider organizations.

We are the only country on the planet that has private sponsorship of refugees. As of last week, 8,950 privately sponsored refugees had arrived in this country from Syria, of all different ethnicities, backgrounds, and religions. Those groups span the entire country. There are many groups in my riding itself, such as Roncesvalles Refugee Relief and the Junction Helps. It expands beyond that to include other entities that are assisting with the settlement once people arrive. This is truly the best of the Canadian spirit.

We have had people like Dr. Anna Banerji and the Parkdale Community Health Centre emphasizing and working on positive health outcomes of Syrian refugees. There have been clothing drives by people like Laura-Jean Bernhardson of the Fresh Collective, and the Humbercrest Public School, which did a coat drive. I mention this to emphasize that the care and concern for people affected in the region, including Yazidi people, is shared by this government, but it is also shared by Canadians across the board.

However, there is an important distinguishing feature here, which arose in the minister's original comments in response to my colleague. The point that was made is that we are using the UNHCR to help us target vulnerable groups. The groups it is targeting includes people across all boards and all categories. It specifically includes complete families, persons who are vulnerable due to membership in LGBTI communities, and it also includes women at risk. Let me underscore that one more time. Women at risk are a category we are looking at as vulnerable and that the UNHCR is looking at as vulnerable. That is especially important to underline today, on International Women's Day.

More importantly is that when we bring in Syrian refugees, we do it in a manner that is ethnically and religiously blind. I cannot emphasize this enough. I have said this in the House before, and I will say it again. This stands in stark contrast to the policies of the previous government.

My colleague's party chose to be selective in who was let into this country and who was not. In documents tabled in the House in response to a question on the order paper put forward by the NDP opposition critic, all of our suspicions were confirmed; the previous government targeted religious and ethnic minorities to the detriment of other groups. We are not doing this. We accept any people into this country who meet the Geneva Convention definition of refugee, regardless of their religion, be they minority Yazidis or majority Sunni Muslims. Religious hierarchies have no place in this government or this country, and we are ending that kind of policy.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in a 60 Minutes interview this week, the Prime Minister said they were picking and choosing refugees in this initiative. That is directly contrary to what my colleague just said.

He talked about being blind in this issue. That is exactly the wrong approach. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights report, in March 2015, specifically outlined this as a genocide. Why will the government not stand up and call this what it is? It is genocide. He can do that right now and send a message.

The parliamentary secretary spent four minutes avoiding telling Canadians how many Yazidi women have been brought to Canada under this initiative, and that is shameful.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the Yazidis is a complex issue, a pressing issue, and a human rights violation that is occurring in the Middle East as we speak. We recognize that and we understand that. However, it is not the only crisis that is occurring in the Middle East, and it is not the only community affected in the Middle East.

As I said in my earlier intervention and will repeat, we are not solely restricting who is coming into this country from Syria as refugees based on their membership in an ethnic or religious minority. It is quite the contrary. This government accepts that there are victims of ISIS across the board, including Sunni Muslims themselves, who are victims of ISIS and deserve our compassion and humanitarian reception as much as any other group. That is the important point. That is a point that I will underline today on International Women's Day, because it affects women in flight in the region, across the board, across all categories. It is a point that we have been making since the start of this resettlement project, and it is a point that we will continue to make. It informs all of our policies.