Debates of March 8th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Air Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for all the hard work he has done over the past five years to defend the workers of Bombardier, Aveos, and Quebec, when the Conservative government turned its back on them. Unfortunately, if we continue down this path, the new government will end up doing the same thing.

I would like to come back to the work that my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert is doing regarding the Saint-Hubert airport. He mentioned it in passing. I am originally from Saint-Bruno, so I am very familiar with this issue. People have voiced concerns regarding the development of this airport. I think that a parallel can be drawn here. We need to respect what residents in Saint-Hubert and Toronto, for example, think about what is being done or what should be done. Unfortunately, that was not the approach taken by the Conservatives. The Saint-Hubert airport is close to where I live. It is located in a neighbouring riding, or what used to be a neighbouring riding in any case. I am mentioning this because it relates to a point that I raised in my speech. Too often, the argument used by people who do not want to support Quebec industry is that the assistance is just a bailout for Bombardier. We are not talking about just one company. It is important to understand that. Perhaps my colleague can talk a little more about it. A number of companies depend on the aerospace industry. We are not just talking about workers at Bombardier. Thousands of workers in Quebec depend on this industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly for his question. As he is from the south shore, my colleague is obviously familiar with the issues affecting jobs in the aerospace sector, since many of his constituents earn a living in that sector. He has touched on an extremely important point. The federal government has a role to play in supporting a leading-edge industry such as the aerospace industry, just as it had a responsibility to help Ontario's auto sector a few years ago. It is exactly the same type of investment. It is a reasonable and responsible investment, and taxpayers will get a return on their investment. This is not just about throwing money at a problem.

It is true that we are not talking about Bombardier alone. We are talking about the whole structure of small and medium-sized businesses, the suppliers of parts, labour, expertise, contracts that increase Bombardier's ability to make good and better products. All this makes up an industrial fabric that we are very proud of and that we must continue to support.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

My constituents care about the future of Billy Bishop airport in Toronto. Our riding of York—Simcoe is in the greater Toronto area and what happens at Billy Bishop airport will affect how much choice and competition there is in air travel for my constituents. With more choice and competition meaning lower prices and more options if they travel, for many of them it may even make the difference whether they can afford to travel.

What is more, the Liberal government's decision to block the new Bombardier CSeries planes will also directly affect many of my constituents who work at Bombardier.

My constituents do not understand why the Liberal government is blocking the growth of GTA jobs. They want the government to reverse its decision and allow the Billy Bishop airport expansion plans to proceed.

Currently, the airport is responsible for some 6,500 jobs, and some of the people who live in my riding enjoy some of those jobs. There are $385 million in wages and over $2 billion in economic output that result from the airport. It is also a major contributor of taxes to the city of Toronto and the federal government, at approximately $71 million per year.

However, what we have seen from the Liberal government is not an approach of using decision making to create jobs, but rather we have seen spending decisions by the government and growing deficits that are dragging down the economy. Instead of fighting to grow employment in the GTA, the government is rejecting an important airport expansion that would see more jobs brought into our area. While the government has said that it needs to spend billions to create jobs, with the cancellation of the Billy Bishop expansion, it is killing $2 billion in contracts with Bombardier. Yet without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money, it could reverse the decision to halt the Billy Bishop airport expansion and create significant economic activity and job growth.

The government talks about evidence-based decision making, but it rejected the proposal before it even had the evidence. It cancelled it before it could consult with the city of Toronto, which had already begun preparing three reports that included a full environmental assessment, an airport master plan, and a runway design plan. Instead of taking the time to look at all of the information that it would have had before it, the Liberal government has chosen to ignore any evidence and is moving strongly and straight away to kill GTA jobs and choices for Toronto area travellers, tourism and businesses. The decision is pure ideology, and in this case an anti-C Series ideology.

Members should consider this. If the Government of Canada says that the C Series planes has such a negative impact that they cannot be allowed to fly into Billy Bishop airport in downtown Toronto, why would anybody buy that plane?

The negative impact on Bombardier will go well beyond the $2 billion in lost sales to Porter. Other potential purchasers will take note. Of course, the competitors, Boeing, Airbus and Embraer, will be out telling that story to potential aircraft purchasers. They will be telling prospective purchasers that the C Series is so loud that the Government of Canada will not allow it into downtown Toronto. “Watch what they do, not what they say”, is what those competitors will tell prospective purchasers. “Don't listen to what the government says”, as the transport minister said today, “about what a great plane it is, look at what they actually do with their decisions, and that's how you should judge them. Yes, they are making claims”, Bombardier is, “that the jets will be quiet, but their own government does not believe it and that is why they aren't allowing them to fly into the only airport in the city of Toronto.”

Then, for good measure, the other plane manufacturers will also say that the C Series cannot be trusted on safety. They will say that the opponents of the C Series flights said that they raised significant safety issues, that the government has agreed with those opponents and has banned the C Series jets from the only airport in the city of Toronto.

The opponents of the C Series flying into Toronto will say that the jets will pollute so badly that they will cause health problems for local residents, and that apparently the Government of Canada agrees with those opponents. Those selling jets for the other manufacturers will be pointing that out to any prospective purchasers that this is the opinion of the Government of Canada on the C Series jets.

That is not the truth. The C Series jets are a great Canadian innovation. Using advanced composite materials, they are fuel efficient, clean, and quiet, with a design that is passenger-friendly. Bombardier claims it is highly reliable plane. However, the Liberal government is siding with those who have been campaigning against them by saying that they are too dangerous for Toronto.

Bombardier says that the C Series is 20% less carbon emitting than the competition and emits 50% less nitrogen dioxide than the competition does, but the Liberal government has agreed with those who say it pollutes too much for Toronto. Bombardier says that the C Series is the quietest plane in its class and even quieter than the smaller turboprops, but the Government of Canada instead agrees with those who say it is too noisy for Toronto.

The brand damage that is being done to the C Series by the Liberal government decision to keep them out of the only airport in Toronto is so great that likely no subsidy to Bombardier can rescue it. No matter how big, it cannot save the C Series. The only thing that could actually save the C Series would cost nothing. It is a reversal of the ideological decision to block the C Series from Billy Bishop airport.

As the former international trade minister, I have experienced a bit about the international market for planes and how it works. It is a fiercely competitive market and governments are heavily involved in it. It is very aggressive. The marketing is intense and it is important for a company to have its government behind it when trying to make sales.

Purchasers will judge the acts of governments when they make those decisions and in that fierce market, a vote of non-confidence from a company's own government, a decision that its planes are too dangerous, too noisy, and too polluting for the only airport in the biggest city in the country, that decision made here by the Liberal government is devastating and it is impossible to explain away.

The only way to explain it away is to acknowledge that there is no evidence or no basis for that decision, that there really is not any evidence that they were noisy, dangerous, or polluting. Never mind that they were the basis of the objections to it, but the decision was made anyhow for some other abstract political reason.

The Liberal government has to acknowledge that. If it acknowledges that there is no basis for this decision on the evidence, reverse that decision. This is the only thing that could be done to reverse the brand damage being done here and allow the C Series to survive.

What impact will it have on future C Series sales as other manufacturers can now say with a factual basis that the Government of Canada agrees with those who say that the C Series is too noisy, too polluting, and too dangerous to fly into the only airport in Canada's largest city? What does that say? How can Bombardier explain that to any purchaser? How can it defend against that brand damage inflicted by its own national government? It is impossible and that is the problem here.

The answer is that we will have some subsidies, that we will have some thoughts, that we hope they will turn out well. No subsidy can save a company when its own government says this plane is so bad that it will not let it fly into the only airport in our biggest city. That is the recklessness and foolishness of this ideological decision by the Liberal government. It will cost jobs in the GTA. It will cost jobs across Canada.

A few weeks ago, I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Transport why the government had chosen to attack Toronto's economy and jobs in the vulnerable aviation sector. His response was that Air Canada had decided to buy some C Series jets from Bombardier and this was great news for Bombardier and Quebec.

Let me put this great news into perspective for the minister because the truth is that Air Canada signed a letter of intent to purchase the C Series aircraft and the rumoured amount it will pay is approximately $28 million per plane, this for a plane that is listed at $60 million. Apparently, the brand damage has been done. The brand damage has already cut the price in half for these planes. How will it survive that? That is with a friendly purchaser in Canada. What does that say to every other prospective purchaser around the world?

That is $2 billion in plane orders being thrown out the window because the government is too stubborn to recognize its mistakes and reverse its decision, but the real damage is the brand damage.

I also want to return to the impact on consumers, the loss of choice, the loss of competition, the loss of potential lower prices for air travel. Let us go one step further. If we do not have further options for travelling and we do not have competition and lower prices, that hurts ordinary families, working families, families that the hon. member who is the leader of the campaign against these jets, claims to fight for. People who sometimes never get to travel for whom those higher prices will guarantee those travels will never happen. My constituents are like that. They work hard and for them to save to travel on a vacation is a tough thing. They will have fewer of those choices.

However, a further question exists, and perhaps this is the real agenda here. If we have an economic downturn and we are hamstringing one of these airlines or airline groups and we are not letting them compete and not letting them have other options to go head to head with other airlines, what will happen to them in an economic downturn? Would we lose that airline? Would that mean even more job losses, less competition, higher prices, and only Air Canada out of Mississauga to fly with? That may be the future. It is a foolish decision, an ideological decision, one that should be reversed.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member should really consult the reports that are on the table and that have been considered by the city of Toronto. They completely contradict virtually every fact in his argument, including the fabricated words he tries to put in our mouths. We have never damaged the brand. We stand firmly behind Bombardier, and there has been no criticism of the airplane from this side of the House. We support the development of the C Series plane and we think it is a good plane. The trouble is it does not fit the airport it is trying to fly it into.

The issue is this and it needs to be explained. The member opposite talked about competition. Is he aware that Continental looked at the airport and refused to fly in and out of the airport because there was an anti-competition law at the airport that did not allow new airlines to compete against Porter? It is the same provision that is keeping WestJet out of that airport. It is the same provision that is keeping Air Canada out of that airport. If the member believes in open skies and competition, why did his party stack the port authority with individuals who gave Porter a monopoly, and forbid WestJet, Air Canada, and Continental from competing on price and on schedule? Why did the Conservatives allow that to happen?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to understand that the kind of rules in place at the Billy Bishop airport about landing slots are the same as every other airport around the world. There are these kinds of struggles over landing slots everywhere, and everybody complains. Air Canada has the inside track in Mississauga, and its partner is United. That is not relevant to the issue.

What is relevant is what the member just said, that this plane was not right for Toronto. That is the decision of the Liberal Party and that is what everybody from Boeing, from Embraer and from Airbus is going to go around saying, that the Liberal government's members are saying that this plane is not right for Toronto, that they cannot fly it into Toronto. They will all be saying that their airports are in those kinds of environments, that they want to fly their airplanes into every airport they can.

They will be saying that they cannot fly this plane into the only airport in the biggest city in Canada because it pollutes too much, because it makes too much noise, and because it is not safe. They do not have any other reason. Those are the reasons raised by the objectors.

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

The runway is too short.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he says the runway is too short. The runway could be made a little longer. We all know we can do that. The whole airport is fill. The whole of downtown Toronto is fill. Most of the member's riding is fill and the lake. It is not a new concept. It is not radical. It is not different.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Sport and Persons with Disabilities]

Mr. Speaker, we are getting two different messages from the members opposite. Some Conservatives are saying that we are spending too much, that we are overspending. Now, my colleague opposite is saying that we need to invest more.

As everyone knows, it is very costly to build this airport and expand it above water. There are also other factors to consider. The government recognizes that Bombardier contributes to the Canadian economy and the airport industry. That is very important to us.

I should also point out that the Conservatives did nothing in the past 10 years. We committed to consulting the public. That is what we have done, and that is what we are doing right now.

Could my colleague opposite tell me whether he would be comfortable making a decision today, if he were in power, to invest more in the airport, without consulting the public and municipalities and without examining the regulations and legislation on this issue?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people of the greater Toronto area have been voting with their feet and with their dollars. The growth of travel at that airport has been significant. The investment, not with taxpayers' dollars, but by air travellers and by the companies operating out of there, has been huge. Jobs have been created. There are more people flying out of there now than in decades. Why? It is because it works. It is successful. People want it. We think that is important. When people choose to fly out of there, that is a good thing. Let us give them more choices and more opportunities and not kill them through an arbitrary decision.

The problem of the member's friend sitting two seats away from him is that he did not like the growth in traffic. He did not like the tunnel being constructed so people could walk directly to the airport to facilitate travel. He did not like any of those things. In his ideal world, that airport would be shut down, or perhaps used only for air ambulances. That would be it. That is his position.

However, when the decision, made as it was, discriminates against the C Series aircraft, that we are not going to let this plane fly in and out, what does that say? It is not a decision by the people. It is not a decision by our ratepayers association. It is a decision by the Government of Canada that these planes should not be permitted to fly into Toronto.

What does that say about these planes? How do we explain that to any perspective purchaser? It is impossible. It is killing the C Series. This decision by the Liberal government is doing far more damage to the C Series than anything that any competitor is doing.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin the main part of my speech, I would like to read the motion. I have been hearing a lot of things today, but I think that members are forgetting the main points of the motion under debate. In the motion, we are asking:

That the House: (a) acknowledge the contribution Bombardier makes to the Canadian economy and the aerospace industry;

We all agree on that. We are also asking that the House:

(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.

I do not think that there is anything negative for anyone in there. Let us take this one step further and come back to Bombardier. My maternal grandfather was the mayor of Valcourt and a good friend of J. Armand Bombardier. Mr. Bombardier always said to my grandfather, “I invent and my accountant does the math.” The point I am trying to make here in the House is that we need to find creative ways to help, but we also need to be able to do the math.

I am pleased to be able to participate in today's debate on the future of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and the quality jobs that Bombardier provides all across Canada, but particularly in Quebec. The tripartite agreement between the City of Toronto, Ports Toronto, and the Government of Canada describes what can and cannot happen at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The agreement, which was signed in 1983, has been amended twice, once in 1985 to allow the Bombardier Dash 8 aircraft to land at the airport and again in 2003 to allow for the construction of a tunnel linking the city to the airport, which, by the way, is on an island.

When this tripartite agreement was signed, the Liberal government of the day had just expropriated hundreds of farms north of Montreal to establish an airport near Mirabel for intercontinental flights. As we all know, because of technological advances, an aircraft can now fly non-stop from Vancouver to Paris, and Mirabel airport now solely serves cargo companies. Today, air transportation is accessible and affordable for most Canadians, which was not the case 30 years ago. For that reason, there are better links between our cities.

Government regulations for airports and aircraft must also be in step with technological advances. Bombardier designed and built the best plane in its class with the C Series. This is the quietest aircraft, even quieter than the Dash 8, which has been authorized to land at Billy Bishop for more than 30 years. This aircraft consumes less fuel per passenger than a new car.

This aircraft will give passengers a more comfortable travel experience with its innovations. The new Bombardier aircraft is, quite frankly, ideal for use at small airports such as Billy Bishop in Toronto or LaGuardia in New York.

However, the Liberal Party, through its Minister of Transport, unilaterally decided to eliminate numerous potential orders for this new airplane by blocking the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport. Furthermore, in a single tweet, the Minister of Transport imposed his will on every Toronto resident and city councillor. In a single tweet, our champions of consultation put an end to thousands of hours of consultation and studies that were already complete. I point this out, since my colleague earlier did not seem to be aware of this. We have to wonder where this decision came from, what motivated it, and whether the minister truly understood the impact of his decision.

I would like to share a little information. In 2013, a Canadian airline submitted a request to the City of Toronto to extend the Billy Bishop airport runway and end the ban on jets. This airline's hub is located at the Billy Bishop airport, which generates many jobs in Toronto.

After long debates at city council, after receiving briefs and presentations from stakeholders, Toronto city council unanimously voted to allow the city manager to negotiate with Transport Canada and the Toronto port authority on a phasing framework to manage growth at Billy Bishop airport. As a result, the City of Toronto ordered a full environmental assessment, an airport master plan, and a runway design plan. The cost to the City of Toronto for these plans and assessments is estimated at $4 million. The three studies were 90% complete, and City of Toronto officials were to make recommendations to city council in early 2016.

When the minister sent out his tweet blocking the expansion in November 2015, the city stopped examining the proposal.

The City of Toronto had a list of 25 issues to be addressed before it would approve expanding the airport, and it was in discussions with the Toronto port authority regarding its concerns.

Given that the Liberal government will not stop talking about the importance of working with Canada's provinces and municipalities, it took some real audacity for the minister to throw nearly two years of hard work out the window with a single tweet. It is shocking.

Is it because the Minister of Transport wants to give priority to rail development in Toronto? It is a legitimate question.

Expanding the airport would be good for Bombardier. The Government of Quebec announced that it had purchased a 49% stake in the C Series program at a cost of $1 billion U.S. The Quebec and Ontario governments are calling on the federal government to make a financial commitment and support Bombardier and the entire aerospace industry.

We think that Bombardier expects to receive at least $1 billion in financial support from the Canadian government. What Bombardier really needs is more orders for C Series planes. So far it has orders for fewer than 300 aircraft.

Bombardier needs airlines that want to showcase the assets and advantages of this new aircraft. There is a solution that would really help Bombardier, would not cost taxpayers a dime, and would allow that company to create jobs. However, this government made a decision that was entirely political, one that is going to cost thousands of jobs in Toronto and Montreal. One has to wonder whether the political leanings of the stakeholders in this matter explain and justify that decision.

I hope the government House leader will allow the Liberal members to vote freely on this motion, which is important to the economic future of Montreal and Toronto.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again there is this reference to a City decision, a decision that was made when I was on council. It stipulated very carefully that 25 conditions needed to be met before the City would consent to any more studies being done, including the environmental assessment.

The port authority wrote the council back. They were required to consent to these 25 conditions. They said they could not and would not meet those conditions. Some studies went ahead, but they went ahead without the permission of the City. As a result, the City has now met five times and refused five times to endorse this proposal. In fact, the port authority itself has now withdrawn the studies and withdrawn any request.

No member of the tripartite agreement stands in support of this process. Only the airline does. In light of the fact that no consent has ever been granted, can the member not concede that the City of Toronto, given ample opportunity over three years to approve this request, has now refused it? It has refused it because the port authority has said it cannot proceed under the conditions stipulated by the elected representatives for the people of Toronto.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his point of view.

However, it is clear that the process was still under way and that the minister put an end to discussions with a single tweet. That was it. One tweet from the Minister of Transport, and it was over.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his highly informative and well-researched speech regarding the facts, the sequence of events, and especially the sad reality that one of the first things the minister did as minister was put an end to a research and assessment process that was under way. The whole thing was shut down.

We all need to understand that in this case, the best way to help a company is to allow it to sell its products. It is as simple as that. The best approach, the best way to support a company, is to sell its product.

Here we have a Canadian company offering to buy Canadian products if it can get permission to land at a Canadian airport, and with a single tweet, the government brought it all to a crashing halt and told them to forget about it.

That is a far cry from what happened with the auto sector 10 years ago when the Conservative government decided to give that industry a helping hand. It was a global problem, we had connections with the United States, and it involved three major companies. In this case, it is just one product and one company.

With respect to our motion, can the member tell us why the government is refusing to let Bombardier make airplanes that would be bought by a Canadian company and could land at a Canadian airport in Canada's biggest city?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention.

The Conservative Party, the NDP, and the Liberal Party have a totally different way of seeing things. The Conservatives are all about supporting entrepreneurship. The Billy Bishop airport is a project that will support Bombardier's development as well as business development. The Airport will create more opportunities for business and leisure travel.

We know there will probably be some financial assistance, but that is not even what our motion is about. We admit that Bombardier is a large corporation and that it has certain needs. However, we think that the Billy Bishop airport is a factor in economic development and, for the Conservatives, that is what counts. It is not just about handing out money, it is about helping businesses grow.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. We all agree here on the importance of the aerospace industry in Canada, especially in Quebec. I am the first to defend it and believe in it.

However, I have a hard time understanding how the Conservatives can believe that expanding the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is the right strategy for helping Canada's aerospace industry. We knew that the Conservatives lacked ambition when it came to this industry over the past 10 years and that has now been confirmed.

I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks that this is the right strategy for the aerospace industry.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his question. We obviously support economic development. The economy has always been the prime concern of the Conservative Party.

Expanding the runway at Billy Bishop airport would make it possible for the company currently operating there to purchase Bombardier planes. We support the development of the aerospace sector as well as business development. There are a number of other issues in Canada but here, in Toronto, we are talking specifically about Billy Bishop airport. If the runway were extended, Bombardier could sell its planes to Porter, just to name one company. Perhaps Air Canada could fly C Series aircraft into the Billy Bishop Airport.

In what way are we opposed to development?

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

The motion before us gives me the opportunity to speak about Bombardier's C Series aircraft. I will delve further into the technical details of an approval and show how Bombardier gets its certification.

On December 18, the hon. Minister of Transport announced that Bombardier had finally obtained certification for its C Series aircraft. This certification represents Transport Canada's approval of the design, airworthiness limitations, and operating conditions for the aircraft. Certification requires an exhaustive review of the design in order to verify that it meets airworthiness standards and environmental regulations.

Bombardier can now take the final steps to deliver C Series aircraft to clients around the world, such as obtaining international approvals and training staff. Although Transport Canada's main role in this area is to ensure air safety, it is also closely involved in the financial success of the aerospace industry. Obtaining certification was vital to Bombardier's operational needs and to support ongoing activities required for entry into service of the aircraft in the summer of 2016.

Swissair is the first of many European airlines that will receive deliveries in 2016. Air Canada also recently confirmed that it has ordered Bombardier aircraft. Since these planes are built in Canada, Transport Canada is responsible for determining the airworthiness of Bombardier's aircraft, in accordance with the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

There is still much work to be done before the aircraft will be ready for service. However, the department takes its responsibilities seriously and is actively working with Bombardier to keep the process moving. The C-Series project was an important achievement, the result of excellent co-operation among Transport Canada and Bombardier officials. In addition to the work being done by Transport Canada, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and the European Aviation Safety Agency, or EASA, are also validating the Canadian certification.

These validations are required before the aircraft can be put into service. The EASA validation is especially important, since the first flight will fall under its jurisdiction. In order to simplify this process, Transport Canada is in talks with other agencies to reduce the involvement of the validation authorities by taking advantage of existing bilateral agreements. In September 2015, these agencies met in Brazil, and their meeting was key to moving this initiative forward. Work is under way to move forward with the procedures subject to these bilateral agreements, and this will require agencies from around the world to work together.

It is a constant challenge to adapt new aircraft technologies and the evolving certification process to the existing regulatory structure. As a result, international agencies must work closely to keep the aircraft design and manufacturing industry on a level playing field. Transport Canada's involvement and expertise are essential in maintaining Canada's status as a key player in the global aerospace industry.

The expertise required to approve aeronautical products at Transport Canada is very specialized. There are engineers who specialize in various fields, from cell structure to quality assurance to software design, as well as test pilots and qualified flight test engineers. The certification of the C Series is supported by a team of approximately 61 experts at Transport Canada.

Ministerial delegation is another essential aspect of the aircraft certification program. Approximately 450 ministerial delegates are qualified to make findings of compliance with design standards. Transport Canada experts work with these delegates in an oversight capacity. The delegates play an important role in the certification of the C Series. The certification of any product involves a comprehensive examination of the design to verify that the product complies with its basis of certification; that is, the applicable airworthiness standards and environmental regulations with which the product must comply.

There are five phases in the process. In phase one, the applicant applies for the type certificate, and provides details of the product design. Transport Canada establishes the certification basis.

In phase two, the applicant and Transport Canada agree on a certification plan that describes the means and methods to be used in showing compliance with the basis and the involvement of the certification team members.

In phase three, the product is built and tested, reports are written, compliance documents are reviewed for acceptability as documenting compliance, and the supporting approval documents are prepared. After the flight test phase, inspectors visit the manufacturer periodically in order to ensure that aircraft production and assembly comply with regulations.

In phase four, which is based on the compliance demonstration in phase three, the design, airworthiness limitations, and operating conditions are approved, and the type certificate is issued.

Finally, in phase five, the product enters service and any post-certification design changes made by the type certificate holder are incorporated.

For the C Series, the process took over five years, and many, many hours were needed to ensure its success. After the type certification and commissioning, Transport Canada is responsible for monitoring the safety performance of the aircraft in the fleet. If there are any safety concerns, Transport Canada must take the necessary measures to ensure the continued airworthiness of the product. This can range from mandatory inspections to a requirement to replace a defective part, or in some cases, prohibiting an aircraft from flying until the cause of the safety concern is better understood.

Canada has one of the safest air transportation systems in the world. Over the last decade, we have seen a steady decline in the accident rate. Our safety record contributes to our international reputation as a world leader in aviation safety. This allows us to promote our aviation safety program and the interests of our air industry around the globe. Our safety record provides a solid foundation for promoting Canadian products wherever they are used.

Our vision of air safety in Canada is one in which improvements are made at every level, where safety is not the sole responsibility of one particular sector of the aviation industry, but rather the responsibility of all of its members, and where the regulatory body is part of the culture of safety and rounds out an already robust and progressive safety system.

That is how Transport Canada envisions the growth of Canada's aviation industry. After all, in order for the growth to be sustainable, it must be safe.

The aviation community did not hesitate to rise to the challenge to make the business of flying safer than ever before and deserving of the trust that Canadians continue to put in the safety of air operations in Canada.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his eloquent explanation of the importance of the certification process for flight approval. However, if we look at certification by U.S. organizations, we see that the timelines are exceedingly long.

I would like to know whether the member believes that this could be a deliberate attempt to delay entry of the C Series aircraft onto the U.S. market and, therefore, to help Boeing.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, the main reason for certain delays is safety. Safety cannot be jeopardized. I do not have any information that would lead me to believe that our neighbour's government is causing unnecessary delays, because it has a vested interest, as we do, to ensure optimum safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a point that was raised a little earlier on the amount of effort by some to deal with the issue of the Billy Bishop airport.

We understand fairly clearly that there is a tripartite agreement that needs to be taken into consideration. The City of Toronto, on several occasions, has had to approve any sort of expansion of the Billy Bishop airport and has chosen not to do so. The port authority itself is choosing not to proceed. It would seem to me that this is an idea being put forward by the Conservative Party as a wedge issue to try to divide communities, quite possibly, when in fact the government's position on this issue is very transparent and fairly straightforward. We are not trying to fool anyone.

Would the member want to comment on the fact that this has been talked about for many years and that it is time for us to move on? Yes, it is important that we do what we can to support the aerospace industry, which also includes Bombardier. I would ask for his comments and thoughts.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me an opportunity to clarify.

Much has been done to enable Bombardier to market and sell its C Series planes. I think it is insidious to throw up more pointless roadblocks by trying to make us believe that expanding the Billy Bishop airport will instantly breathe new life into Bombardier.

They are conflating two separate issues, but what we should be doing is working together to help Bombardier perform as well as possible and secure new orders as quickly as possible. Instead, people are spending time in the House moving motions designed to divide us on a subject that should bring us together and inspire a sense of national unity. I did not hear anyone say anything bad about Bombardier. Everyone has very good things to say about the company.

Everyone in the House should come together to talk about Bombardier rather than mix up the issues all the time. Issues involving different airports are all being mixed up here today.

There is another file that focuses on communities. It is important to listen to them, and that is what we are doing. Our government wants to consult and hear from communities before making major changes.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, the department of transport and the public first heard of the proposed expansion of, and changes to, the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport on April 10, 2013.

At this time, Porter Airlines announced that they planned to purchase Bombardier C Series aircraft, but only if the City of Toronto, Ports Toronto, and the federal government amended the tripartite agreement that governs certain operations at the airport to allow an expansion of the runway and the use of the airport by jet aircraft such as the C Series.

This created, in people's minds, a link between the C Series and the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. This, however, was misleading. The future of the C Series is not tied to that airport. No aircraft, regardless of the manufacturer, is tied to a specific airport. The real discussion to be made was whether or not the changes to the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport were appropriate in the circumstances.

Following the announcement in April 2013, the former government had multiple opportunities to make a decision on the future of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

On April 3, 2014, the Toronto City Council adopted a motion that asked city staff to begin negotiations with the then-Minister of Transport and Ports Toronto to, among other things, and here I am quoting:

...request the Government of Canada (represented by the Minister of Transport) to submit a letter confirming the government's commitment to managing growth at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport through caps and phasing, and their engagement in negotiating Tripartite Agreement amendments....

The government of the day could, at any time after that April 2014 decision by the Toronto City Council, have entered into the requested negotiations, and negotiations are just that, in that one party does not always have to accept exactly what the other party says. However, they did not engage.

The issue of the proposed changes to Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport were discussed and debated for several years. There were many opportunities to make decisions on this issue, and this did not happen.

The members of the current government heard those debates, participated in those debates, and in November 2015, the government made a decision. The government stands by its decision regarding the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

The government feels that the current tripartite agreement strikes the right balance between commercial and residential interests. The airport provides a significant economic benefit to the city of Toronto. The remarkable growth in passengers using the airport demonstrates that, and these are largely new passengers, not a transfer of traffic from Pearson International to Billy Bishop.

For just about every city that a passenger can get to from Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and from Toronto Pearson, the number of passengers has increased from both airports. The number of flights has increased, and fares have decreased. That benefits not only the city of Toronto and the cities at the other end of the flight, but the whole system. These increased flights mean more connections, more spending, and more jobs.

However, the government also had to consider other interests of the surrounding community, the people who live near the airport, the people who work near the airport, and those who use the waterfront and Toronto Islands for recreation. Those people also had to be considered. The opportunities for recreation that the waterfront and the islands provide for the entire population of Toronto are equally important.

The ongoing efforts to redevelop Toronto's waterfront also had to be considered, and as I just said, the waterfront is very important to the people of Toronto and the people who visit Toronto. The efforts to improve it, enhance it, and make it even more useful and interesting to all those people are most certainly worth protecting.

Toronto Pearson is 25 minutes from downtown Toronto by train. It is a fully jet-capable airport with flights to all parts of the world. The C Series can just as easily be operated from that airport as from Billy Bishop. There is nothing to say that Porter Airlines or any other airline is forced to fly from one airport.

Airlines are not licensed and certified to fly out of one specific airport, and they can weigh the options, make the business assessment, and choose to fly out of many airports all across the country. That is why we have an economically deregulated system. It allows airlines to exercise their business judgment.

That economically deregulated system is working well, as the recent Canada Transportation Act review said. Our major airport and air navigation infrastructure is excellent, and our airlines are profitable and internationally recognized for customer satisfaction. That system, in 2014, carried 125 million passengers and transported $116 billion worth of cargo worldwide. In 2012, it employed 141,000 Canadians, contributed $34.9 billion to the country's GDP, and paid $7 billion in provincial and federal taxes.

Porter has repeatedly demonstrated the entrepreneurial spirit that is the backbone of the entire industry. It is up to the airline to decide what best meets its needs in a given circumstance.

Porter Airlines is a commercial entity and makes decisions about the aircraft it acquires, and the markets and routes it serves in its best commercial judgment. Although its base is at the Billy Bishop airport, it can operate from any appropriate airport where the airline, in its commercial judgment, sees opportunities.

Many carriers have delivered service from Billy Bishop. Some have failed and others, such as Porter, are succeeding, but the Government of Canada must look beyond the immediate needs of a carrier and strike the right balance in ensuring the greatest public good in its decisions.

Porter Airlines has succeeded at Billy Bishop through innovation and hard work. Condé Nast Traveler's 2015 Readers' Choice Awards just named Porter Airlines as one of the best international airlines.

I have every confidence that Porter Airlines will continue, as will Bombardier, to provide innovative products and services for Canadians and the world.

Aerospace is important to the Canadian economy, and Bombardier is a key player in that sector. I realize that Bombardier faces a difficult economic situation, and this government sympathizes with the Bombardier employees who are affected by the company's restructuring announcement. The federal government will continue to work with Bombardier to better understand the company's situation and position. This government believes in Bombardier and in the C-Series aircraft.

As was said earlier, the recent announcement by Air Canada that it intends to purchase the C Series is significant, and Air Canada's commitment to maintain these aircraft in Canada further encourages job creation in our country. This government has said before that it believes that this aircraft is gaining momentum.

Bombardier is confident that the first C-Series aircraft will be delivered to Swiss Airlines International as planned in the summer, just a few months from now. The pending entry of the C Series into commercial service will give Bombardier the chance to show what it has produced to the world, what the C-series is capable of, and what it can do for airlines.

This government trusts that the C Series will demonstrate to all that it is the excellent aircraft that reports are predicting it will be, and it will be able to show that regardless of what happens with Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

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

Mr. Speaker, the aerospace industry is obviously very important in Canada. It is not the kind of industry one can exit and then get back into later. Therefore, I think it is important that we show support for the aerospace industry.

We cannot really consider the motion outside of the larger question of a strategy for the aerospace industry in Canada. If the motion is meant to pit Toronto against Montreal, it completely forgets the western aerospace industry. If part of the point of the motion was to present cost-neutral, free, or costless things that the government could do in order to support the aerospace industry in Canada, one of those things would be to call on the government to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary if she would stand in her place and express support for simply enforcing the Air Canada Public Participation Act. It is something the previous government did not do. We lost hundreds of jobs in aircraft maintenance in Winnipeg as a result of that, and we would like to see a change from the current government. However, so far, the language of the current government has not indicated that it is willing to do so. In fact, the Liberals seem to be considering changing the law to let Air Canada off the hook that the Conservatives did not pursue.

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

Mr. Speaker, underlying the whole conversation is the strength of the aerospace industry, but the most important thing we have to remember is that the future of the Toronto city airport and Porter Airlines is not conditional on the C Series and Bombardier, and the aerospace industry as a whole.

We are very fortunate that the aerospace industry in Canada is the fifth largest in the world. We are the third largest manufacturer in the world. Many certainly think that comes primarily from Quebec, but in actual fact we have five very vibrant regions of aerospace industry in our country, and they are growing quite considerably.

My hon. colleague made reference to in-service support and aircraft maintenance, and that is almost 40% of the overall contribution to GDP that the aerospace industry makes. A robust in-service support capability and aircraft maintenance is one that this government recognizes, and is looking at all the mechanisms that can support it.

This government is committed to supporting the aerospace industry, recognizing the strength it has both in manufacturing and in-service support, and ensuring it is strong and regionally diversified across this nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my colleague's service in the Royal Canadian Air Force, particularly on International Women's Day. We are very proud of her service to Canada.

The government has announced a reckless decision to cancel the F-35 project. Bell Helicopter is slowing down its manufacturing in Canada. The Liberals are making a political decision for a few members from their Toronto caucus, which will essentially set Bombardier back from a private sector sale when it is asking for public money.

In her experience in the defence industry and in uniform, should we not be helping our proud aerospace industry and the jobs related to it by taking the politics out of decisions related to Billy Bishop airport?