Debates of March 8th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Air Transportation

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why we took that position is exactly the reason we took that position.

I expanded in my presentation to point out that this decision was based on achieving a proper balance between commercial interests and the interests of the community. That counts for something, and that is fundamentally what the opposition fails to understand in this debate about Billy Bishop airport.

The concerns of the community are important. We have achieved the right balance with Billy Bishop airport. It is a thriving airport. It continues to provide excellent service, 2.4 million passengers per year. Bombardier is a first-class aerospace company. I am sure Bombardier will not rise or fall on the decision related to Billy Bishop airport.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. minister. It is encouraging that he has said, at least in this circumstance, that he will stand by a legally binding tripartite agreement, unlike the arrangements undermining the agreement with Aveos.

I am appreciative that the minister has mentioned the waterfront because we are talking about two tripartite agreements: a tripartite agreement with the Billy Bishop airport and a tripartite agreement on the waterfront.

A number of noted architects, a former mayor of Toronto, and chief planners have reiterated the importance of the Toronto waterfront for parks and trails, linked neighbourhoods, and places to live and work. There has been a lot of comment about the economic advantages of preserving and developing the waterfront. As I understand it, by and large, it is not so much the residents of Toronto Island, who historically have opposed some development. It is the people living on and recreating on the waterfront who have been opposing the expansion.

Could the minister speak to whether he thinks it is important to perhaps revisit the mandate for the port authority that was established, and we have a potential conflict of interest here, that gains most of the revenue from the airport?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I echo what the member has said. There is a significant number of people living on the waterfront in Toronto. They care deeply about the development of their waterfront. They want that waterfront to a good place to live. That is why they have exerted pressure. By the way, the development of that waterfront would lead to significant economic opportunities.

The reality is that there is an airport, the Billy Bishop airport, that comes under PortsToronto. It is an airport that provides good service at the moment to 2.4 million passengers. It is well viewed by the public. It came in third, as I mentioned, in a contest. However, it provides a service that is just perfect at the moment in terms of balancing between commercial interests and the important priorities of the community that lives along the waterfront and wants to see that waterfront developed, not because of commercial pressures but because of the way the people want to see it developed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the city of Toronto has debated this issue for three years and the city council of Toronto has had five opportunities in those three years to make a formal request to open the tripartite agreement: in April 2013, July 2013, November 2013, February 2014, and March 2014. At no time in any of those public meetings, at which I was a voting member at some, did we ever request the opening of the tripartite agreement.

As well, the port authority, or PortsToronto as it is now known, has been meeting for three years and at no time in its three years of existence, while this debate has gone on, has it ever asked for the tripartite agreement to be opened to consider jets. In fact, the only person who wants this is the owner of a single operator at the island airport. That individual, in a letter to Rob Ford, then mayor of Toronto, pursued this with great vim and vigour.

Why have the signatories to the tripartite agreement, the Government of Canada, the port authority, and the city of Toronto, never formally requested that this issue be opened?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question, and my colleague is intimately familiar with this file. It underlines the fact that there is a lot of misconceptions and that this issue is being driven by factors that are not really true factors at play in this debate. It is important. I would go back to my colleague who raised this motion today, and ask her whether she has read any of the 25 reports that were alluded to and whether she really understands the complete picture in this file, instead of playing politics on the basis of Bombardier.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has said that we are currently well served in the air market. After travelling globally and within Canada for over 30 years, I beg to differ on that. We have a near monopoly with Air Canada and we could use a bit of growth.

The member said nice things about Bombardier and he said nice things about the revenue generated by the Billy Bishop airport. However, in his whole speech, I did not hear a single reason why he would short-circuit a process to consult broadly and work to address concerns in order to have even more nice things to say about Toronto.

Could the member say why he shut down the process while it was still in consultation and had not come to final report?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, we were clear on the fact that we made a decision that was based on balancing commercial interests with the interests of the community, and I am talking specifically of the people who share that waterfront.

On the larger question about whether Air Canada has a virtual monopoly, that is a bigger debate. I would be interested in hearing from the member for Sarnia—Lambton why she made the comment about Air Canada not necessarily serving Canadian interests, and I assume other airlines as well, and why she thinks it is a near monopoly situation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's speech, as always.

However, we lost aerospace jobs under the Conservatives, and now that the Liberals are in power, they are saying that they will not enforce the law to maintain aerospace jobs in the Montreal region. That is what I do not understand about the agreement that my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona just mentioned. The agreement with Aveos is more than an agreement. It is a law that requires Air Canada to keep aerospace maintenance jobs in the Montreal region.

Why does the Liberal government refuse to enforce a law that would keep these jobs in Montreal?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admire the way that my NDP colleague tried to completely change the topic of today's debate. This is a completely different topic. It had nothing to do with the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport or the tripartite agreement.

However, in the coming days, or perhaps even today, during question period, we will no doubt have an opportunity to answer his question. In the meantime, I would rather stick to the topic of today's debate.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague, the member of Parliament for Windsor West.

I am rising today to speak to the motion tabled by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. While I very much enjoy working with that member in committee and in my previous committee, frankly, I do not share her enthusiasm for her motion.

Certainly, my colleagues and I acknowledge the contribution by Bombardier to the Canadian economy, not just for aerospace but also for the manufacture of rail and light rail. That is the motor transport of the future—something that the official opposition fails to recognize.

I do wish to recognize in this place that much to my pleasure and to many of the cities in this country, and certainly the big city mayors, the government of the day, in its wisdom, is deciding to put a good portion, at least one-third of its infrastructure dollars, into transit. I hope that some of those dollars may well go to one of the shiny examples of corporate success in Canada, Bombardier, which seeks many contracts in the areas of light rail and rail.

I also note that the Emerson report, the mandatory report that was prepared, is recommending that due consideration be paid by the Government of Canada to investing in the expansion of commuter rail so that we can reduce greenhouse gases and pollution from car traffic.

So, yes, indeed, my colleagues and I fully appreciate the contribution of Bombardier to our country, but it is not simply through the aerospace aspect of its efforts.

What is also troubling about this motion is the faulty logic of trying to tie the economics of a specific Canadian corporation—in other words, Bombardier—with what is essentially a land-use decision, which should be left with the locale, the City of Toronto.

My understanding, and as has been mentioned in the House already, is that Torontonians have clearly said that they want to have their waterfront protected. When they were in power, the official opposition also had trouble allowing those who were impacted by government decisions to have a voice in what would happen to their lands and communities.

As mentioned by other speakers, the agreement on this airport goes back to 1937. It was a tripartite agreement between Toronto, what is now known as the Toronto port authority, and with the Minister of Transport, on behalf of the Government of Canada. The federal government put up money, and Toronto made the lands available, and successive amendments to the agreement have been made.

The one thing that has not changed in this agreement is a number of conditions that were imposed. If I may, would like to reiterate those conditions.

Clause 11 prohibits nuisances to adjacent occupiers of land, and it is significant that we hear about a parallel tripartite agreement for the Toronto waterfront. I would like to share with members the words, thoughts, and concerns expressed by Paul Bedford, once the chief planner of Toronto; David Crombie, former mayor of Toronto; and Jack Diamond, a renowned and internationally recognized architect. They published the following:

From south Etobicoke to the Scarborough Bluffs and beyond, what is emerging all along the Toronto waterfront is one of the most remarkable transformations of its kind anywhere providing new and improved places for the public to enjoy: parks and trails, a linked series of neighbourhoods, places to live and work, and places of recreation, repose and natural beauty. With literally billions of dollars in private...investment in progress it is one of the largest such revitalization efforts in the world....

Clearly, those on the waterfront, whether they are sailing, walking along the beaches, buying condominiums, or going to the many restaurants, have spoken very loudly against the introduction of jets. They do not want to open this tripartite agreement to remove that clause as there is strong opposition to that.

Second, clause 14 prohibits any new runways or airport extensions and prohibits the construction of vehicular bridges or tunnels.

There has been flexibility in improving access to the Billy Bishop airport. As we speak, they are completing a pedestrian tunnel that would make it easier for people to go from the airport to Toronto.

To their credit, to this point in time, all federal governments have stood by this tripartite agreement prohibiting any extensions of the airport. Delivering on what the opposition members are calling for would require the reopening of the tripartite agreement that has essentially been with us since 1937.

I note that in 1985, there was an amendment made to allow for Bombardier Q-400s, then known as the de Havilland Dash 8, and so there has been flexibility to accommodate and enable the sale of Bombardier airplanes. In 2003, it allowed, as I mentioned, the underwater pedestrian tunnel.

The motion to allow the Bombardier CS100 jets would require all three parties to agree. That would require an amendment to the tripartite agreement. It would clearly offend the conditions that the people of Toronto want maintained. Porter has requested a 336 metre extension of the runway. That is clearly prohibited under the tripartite agreement. Transport Canada, as I understand, has not cleared the project for aeronautical safety reasons, or for the zoning of jets.

If I could reiterate, a second fundamental problem with this proposal is that Transport Canada, the federal agency responsible for airport operations and safety, has yet to rule on technical aeronautical safety and zoning issues. My understanding is that the minister has been very clear in the House today: they will not make accommodations for the expansion of this airport, and many potential impacts have been identified, detrimental environmental and safety impacts, in the “environmental assessment”.

I would like to move on and talk about this so-called environmental assessment. The official opposition did great damage to the previous federal environmental assessment process and undermined particularly the right of communities to have a say.

One of the greatest criticisms of the process on deciding whether or not to allow the extension of Billy Bishop airport has been this facade of a proper environmental assessment, which as I understand has been led by the port authority. As I mentioned, I am informed that the vast majority of the revenue for the port authority come from the airport. Therefore, is this a proper authority to be leading and making determinations on whether or not this development would or would not have environmental impacts? People in the Toronto area are saying no.

There has also been no comprehensive plan to assess southern Ontario transportation needs or how Toronto island may contribute. I understand that there has been some assessment of the need for an expansion of the Pearson airport, and of the potential strategic use of the Hamilton airport, and possibly Waterloo airport. Toronto island airport or Billy Bishop has never been mentioned in any of the reviews by Transport Canada on addressing southern Ontario's needs for air traffic.

The Island airport is already physically constrained. A litany of issues has been raised about why this airport could not be expanded despite the fact the official opposition is proposing this. Public parking is undersized in capacity. The terminal building is too small. There is no opportunity to put in de-icing facilities. The airport has likely already reached its capacity limit. Moreover, drop-off and pick-up space is undersized and the taxi queueing space is already at capacity.

Surely we cannot address or propose in this place to give support to some of our leading corporations such as Bombardier by slipping in a decision where we are undermining a local decision on land use. As has been suggested by one of the councillors in Toronto, Mike Layton, if we are to support Bombardier, why not have the federal government give dollars to build more streetcars and trolleys, including support for the Union Pearson Express that will deliver air passengers from Toronto Pearson airport to the city of Toronto? That is the method of transport for the future.

I would encourage the Liberal government to give consideration to providing more dollars, and am pleased that one-third of infrastructure dollars will be going to transit.

Without further ado, I stand in opposition to the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised the issue of land-use planning, which is at the heart of this controversy. It is as if the industrial strategy to help the auto industry ought to be to build more parking lots. It is a ridiculous proposition to reconfigure an entire city and an entire neighbourhood for one business at the expense of all the others.

Is the member opposite aware that within 500 metres of the end of the runway, the most significant impact is being felt by a low-income community, largely Toronto Community Housing co-ops, but in particular a group of housing units, not people in condos sipping lattes as the member opposite suggested yesterday, but senior citizens and people with severe disabilities?

This airport has now been identified in a public health report on the record at city council as the single largest source of air pollution in the entire GTA. The report notes that the asthma rates are starting to spike among school children who live in this neighbourhood, and that the most vulnerable population is bearing the brunt of the existing operation, let alone a doubling of the size of this airport.

Is the member aware of the extraordinary health impact this will have on a low-income and vulnerable community?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are a good number of concerns felt both by the residents of Toronto Island and by the residents across the channel, including those in the newly developing areas.

I am glad the member has raised this issue, and it is one that I actually raised in committee yesterday. The issue is that 25% of the emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide are caused by transport, including the aeronautics industry.

It is important that the federal government step up to the plate and start looking into this matter. There have been no commitments on taking action to reduce the emissions from the transport sector, and I welcome the member raising that matter in the House.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the speech by my hon. colleague, who does an excellent job as transport critic. She has also worked very hard on the environment file. Just yesterday we had an all-party committee meeting on climate change.

She talked about the importance of having a long-term plan to combat climate change, which could help Bombardier. It is very important to the future of our society in general, and even to the future of our existence on this planet.

Could my colleague tell us a bit about what the Liberals could do not just to combat climate change, but also to support our manufacturing companies, such as Bombardier or rail companies?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very dedicated to improving environmental protection and action on climate impacts in this country. It is very much appreciated.

It is important that the government, as I understand, is opposing this project for a number of reasons, including the potential environmental impact, but we would like to see a much bigger strategy. We are still waiting for action on climate change. One of the areas where the federal government clearly has an area of responsibility is in transport. That is certainly the case in the aeronautics industry and it is certainly the case in the rail industry. As I mentioned, reducing greenhouse gases from the transportation industry is one area that was not addressed at Paris.

However, it is also very important that we recognize the half billion dollars already invested by the Government of Ontario to take the metro lines from Toronto to the Pearson airport. That would take cars off the road, and it would also mean that we would be moving more passengers expeditiously.

I am wondering if the government could come forward with a strategy to address the need to reduce air emissions and greenhouse gases from the transport sector in Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this opposition day motion and to follow my colleague, who has not only been in politics but who did extensive work on the environment prior to that and has been a leader in that field for many years. I appreciate her intervention.

When I look at the motion being proposed, I see in it a circumvention of a real strategy for the airline industry. It is using this as a one-off in terms of the Toronto Island airport to try to introduce a new strategy. What we have been lacking in this country, whether it be in the automotive, shipbuilding, or aerospace sectors, is a national strategy to build these industries that actually result in jobs for Canadians and applying that application in a measurable fashion.

I find section (b) rather interesting. It says, “recognize that there is a market solution already available that could support Bombardier”. That is based upon tearing up a tripartite agreement that took place to actually create this opportunity to begin with, whereby there was compromise on all sides to create the current conditions, yet the suggestion is that this is a market solution.

It definitely is not finite. There is a limit to the purchasing that is going to be considered, even if all carriers took up the challenge and actually did this. In addition, with this motion in place, I have fears that it would make travel, whether for business or leisure purposes, much more complicated and most likely less efficient, given the limited space not only for individuals leaving Toronto but individuals coming from the United States and other jurisdictions across Ontario and Canada, depending upon where their flights originate.

As well, it is an area where there are sensitive issues related to weather conditions that could affect other airports, depending upon where the planes can land and the types of aircraft that use the island facility. It goes against what has been agreed to, and there seems to be at least a general truce in the sense of how things will play out. I believe the agreement goes to 2033. There are people who believe that the current agreement has gone further than they wanted, and it is affecting them, as we know from evidence with regard to Toronto City Council and others.

I am a little partial to the area. I lived at Dufferin and Queen back in the early 1990s when I worked for Community Living Mississauga. I would travel out of Toronto, back when people could actually do that and there would not be traffic—it is not like that any more—and then go back to Toronto when traffic was leaving. I was often in that area on the weekends and I know how important it is for the entire Toronto region to have a waterfront as a destination that is accessible and successful and that integrates the population, whether they are going to Toronto Island to use the lakes for fishing, boating, sailing, kayaking, canoeing, or other things that are available in the area, such as the trail system that people use to exercise.

I say that because I am a former city councillor in Windsor, and it took years and years, probably seven decades in total, for the six kilometres of waterfront to become a green trail that is very important for a number of different initiatives for the environment. There is a new fish habitat. Windsor helped Detroit move its waterfront along, which is now as extensive as Windsor's and is becoming a cross-border tourist initiative on both sides. The work on the Windsor side actually, ironically, came from Chicago. The late Mr. Battagello, a city councillor at that time, was key and instrumental in that. Later a number of different people were involved, including Mayor Mike Hurst, to create the waterfront that we now call the crown jewel. People outside of that area enjoy going there.

I feel much reservation and will not support this motion, because as a former city councillor I believe that we have drifted away from supporting our municipalities with waterfronts. If we look at the urban planning that has been done in many different areas, adding roadways and infrastructure has created barriers to pedestrians, cycling, public parks, and other activities.

Isolating parts of that element would create a lower standard of living because it would create problems in enjoying some of the natural features that we often take for granted. The Great Lakes are one of the most important bodies of fresh water in the world and are arguably part of our most treasured resources. We should be reducing the impact on them rather than enhancing the impact, as would happen with this activity, which would further isolate people from their natural surroundings. Toronto has worked on a number of different initiatives to integrate the waterfront, but it has a long way to go.

I was here when the government decided to expand the mandate of Canada's ports, especially the smaller ones, and give them more freedom from municipalities with respect to planning. That has been at the expense of municipalities, the general public, and so forth, because developers will no longer have to go through some of the planning processes that they often had to carry out in the past.

I see this as a stretch. It is almost like a Hail Mary pass thrown at the end of a football game. Every once in a while it will work, but not often. It is not a play that a team expects to make. I see this Bombardier production as that type of attempt. It is a desperate measure to think that we could have a strategy for aerospace based upon increasing the landing strip of one runway, whether in Toronto or somewhere else. That is not a strategy in the true sense. Not having goals or standards will not lead to more Canadians jobs. We need to set goals and we need to achieve those goals. We need to have measurable standards that will allow us to see the progress of the public money that goes into our projects.

The federal government shows a great deal of disrespect toward provinces and municipalities by tearing up agreements, not just in this situation but with other agreements as well. What is next? Can government, on a whim, actually tear up agreements that are already in place? That sets a bad precedent for urban planning.

This agreement goes until 2033. A lot of money has been spent on the planning process, and to take that process away from the public at this time would do a disservice to taxpayers. Some provincial and federal contributions have gone into the process, but with a different vision for that area. Adding elements such as traffic management, more pedestrians, and travellers coming and going complicates things. The location of facilities, whether for de-icing or for other weather challenges, is highly problematic for this site and could backfire and become less efficient. There is a higher potential for doing this than there is for getting the jets from the company. That is not an aerospace strategy by any means.

It is important to note that there needs to be respect for the municipal planning that takes place. I cannot understand why that is not included in the motion. The motion has several elements to it, and one would think that this aspect would have been identified at the very least. The motion talks about other important factors, but there is nothing that recognizes Toronto City Council and asks for its input.

The motion does talk about things that we understand, such as the movement of passengers for both pleasure and business, and that is important. We agree with that. It has been noted as both business and leisure travel, but I do not understand why comment or support from those at the municipal level who are either for or against this measure has not been included.

New Democrats really believe in the planning process. Many people on this side of the House are used to working with municipal governments on a regular basis. Reaching an agreement allows stakeholders to build upon a model that they have set in place. If we are going to deviate from that process, what are we going to do to ameliorate those problems or at least bring them to the table? We have not seen this evolve under this process.

I will be standing against the motion with regard to the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport.

Canada's auto manufacturing and assembly industry has gone from number two in the world to number ten in the world. I have seen the industry left behind in trade agreements, as most recently with the TPP. For example, Canada will have a five-year phase-out; t he United States gets 25 years. Malaysia gets 10 years. We were out-negotiated by Malaysia.

I will conclude by saying that proper planning does not take place just in the halls of the House of Commons; it takes place with our citizens on the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is clear and what we need to go back to is the fact that the Toronto City Council voted unanimously to adopt a city staff report that would allow the three signatories of the tripartite agreement to pursue the possibility of opening it up. They undertook a full environmental assessment, the development of an airport master plan, and a runway design plan. Even before these studies were completed, before any recommendations could be made, the minister decided to block the expansion.

For someone who supports public consultation and understands the importance of evidence-based decision-making, I am wondering how the member squares the minister's action with supporting public consultation and evidence-based decision-making.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the minister, but I can speak for myself. These planning processes actually just study something. That is at one level. However, there needs to be further public engagement along the entire process.

We have done this with the international border crossing in Windsor. There have been a series of environmental, structural, and community-based groups, on both sides of the river, that have been actively working together as units of advice and input as the process has evolved. It has gone from basically not having a location to now having a location and a roadway built. They have been involved from the very beginning, from the concept to working towards a solution. I would see that as a more appropriate model than that of reacting as part of the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, putting aside the fact that the conditions for an environmental assessment, to start, were never met, and putting aside that the City of Toronto protested strenuously at the beginning of the environmental assessment and that the terms of reference were never completed and never consulted on, the issue that the member opposite raised was the need to respect municipal planning.

My question is about the federal planning around this issue. When a report was tabled on November 2013 at the City of Toronto, it showed that the land-side cost to configure the airport, to even begin to think about expanding it at its current configuration, would cost close to $600 million. The proponent of this project, the airline, not the port authority and not the City of Toronto, said that the city could use the money from the new building Canada fund, $600 million from the federal government, to pay for all the changes that were required on the city's property.

The federal government at the time was given the choice. It could fund the port authority and the airline's request, but it chose a different course. It actually funded transit in Scarborough with that money instead of acquiescing to Mr. Deluce's request. In light of the fact that the previous federal government did not support this project when given the opportunity, does the member think that the current opposition should support its previous position on the file?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if it wants to be consistent, the quick answer is yes.

However, we need to look at the $600 million. It sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but when we look at the infrastructure deficit and the challenges that Toronto has, like many municipalities, it puts the stress on getting some projects prioritized and done.

I can speak from experience, from having safe water supplies into homes by getting rid of cast-iron piping and lead that might be in the soldering process. Some sewers, as in my municipality, were built in 1910. There are a lot of different priorities considered with regard to planning. Therefore, $600 million in one project, to basically tear up an agreement that is already in place, is a tall order for any council, let alone one that has the natural challenges of redoing infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and support the motion that was put forward by my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. I will be sharing my time today with the member for Chilliwack—Hope.

Everyone recognizes that the Billy Bishop city airport is a major economic driver for the greater Toronto area. There are significant opportunities that can still be realized, and we should not lose this opportunity.

There are three pieces to this equation. The first piece is with respect to economics. The Billy Bishop airport's economic contribution to the Toronto area is significant. The airport is currently responsible for 6,500 jobs, over $2 billion in economic output, and it also contributes $71 million each year to taxes. If we look at how many jobs could be created and how much additional revenue could be realized for both the Canadian companies and Canadian taxpayers, that in itself is something to be looked at.

The Billy Bishop airport expansion opportunities would allow entrepreneurs to grow their businesses and provide a greater service to the customers who use the airport. It would also allow airline companies, such as Air Canada, Porter, or WestJet, to purchase additional aircraft and grow their businesses and their networks. This will support both Canadian manufacturers like Bombardier, and Canadian airline companies like the ones I just mentioned.

The second piece is around aircraft design and supply. The supplier of the aircraft would be the Bombardier C Series. The C Series aircraft is the quietest one in its class. It is exactly the kind of aircraft that a city centre airport like Billy Bishop needs.

If the motion passes—and I have heard that the motion will not pass—and the airport is allowed to expand, the C Series aircraft would be added to one of the airline fleets. It would not only add significant economic benefits to the region, but would also assist in solving a significant problem that Bombardier faces with the recent announcement of the loss of 7,000 jobs.

Bombardier is currently looking for a bailout of approximately $1 billion from the federal government. I am curious to hear if the government will support that. Also, the company presently has approximately $9 billion of debt. Quebec has purchased a 49% interest share in the C Series program, and both Quebec and Ontario have asked the federal government to step in financially. They have asked the Liberal government to support Bombardier, to support the struggling aerospace sector, and to support the workers who will lose their jobs. The expansion of the Billy Bishop airport and the procurement of aircraft will go a long way in assisting Bombardier to deal with its current financial issues. This is not just a one-off, but part of a larger picture to assist Bombardier.

The third and last component that I want to speak to is with respect to process. An open and transparent process is what is required here. At a cost of $4 million, the City of Toronto had ordered a full environmental assessment, an airport master plan, and a runway design plan. All three were 90% complete. They were under way, and the plans were ready for release.

The City of Toronto also had a list of 25 conditions to be addressed prior to any approval being given. These issues ranged from noise restrictions and mitigation, landing and take-off curfews, proper environmental assessments, and wildlife management plans. These are all important issues that need to be addressed for the community. However, the Liberal government has arbitrarily made a decision to restrict the expansion of the airport. This is most definitely a lost opportunity for economic development, job creation, and market support, for Bombardier and for the aerospace sector.

Bombardier has designed aircraft for all types of applications and is well suited for urban airports. The proposed expansion should go through an open and transparent process and should engage all stakeholders. This initiative should move forward and be given the time that it deserves.

I want to remind my fellow members that the Liberal government often talks about being a partner for municipalities and fighting for Canadian jobs. Well, here is a great opportunity for the government to step in to help a struggling Canadian company, and to listen, hear, and understand the needs of a municipality.

Both the Toronto City Council and the Toronto ports authority have a process in place for the potential approval of the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport, but the Liberal government has stepped in and decided to block the expansion and the process.

It is our duty as members of Parliament to support Canadians, job creation, and to try to meet the needs of communities. Therefore, I call upon my fellow members to support this motion, to support Bombardier, and to support the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport. I ask the government to reverse its decision and allow the process to continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, putting aside the fact that the City of Toronto never ordered an environmental assessment, nor would it ever pay for one; putting aside the fact that the port authority said it would not and could not meet most of the 25 stipulations put in place to even consider this issue; putting aside the fact that the City of Toronto had five opportunities to approve this application, including a deadline that it had to be done by July 3, 2013 or else the deal was off; putting aside all of those factual realities not present in the speech that was just made, the member opposite raised the issue of Air Canada and WestJet having open access to this airport.

Have you ever met with Air Canada and WestJet to discuss the fact that they have completely limited access, that there is a near monopoly that has been granted to the operator of Porter Airlines? Have you discussed that WestJet and Air Canada have grave reservations about how Conservative appointees to the port authority configured this airport in a near monopoly setting, which is so restrictive that they are not allowed to compete with Porter Airlines with flights? In fact, the U.S. airline industry has refused to fly in and out of this airport because of the restrictive conditions put in place to benefit one airline over all others.

Are you aware of the fact that WestJet and Air Canada are silent on this issue and want nothing to do with this process?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their questions through the chair.

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an important question, because the other airlines have requested to have access as well.

I think it is important to look at an open process with open access, to ensure that the economic opportunities are realized. Through an open and transparent process, that would be a discussion that should be fully undertaken.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague about her reference to economic opportunities. Can she speak to the importance of the discussion around jobs, particularly in the aerospace industry, which we are talking about today? While I have heard from others that this is not on topic, I do not know what is more fundamental than the need to protect good jobs in our communities and to make sure that government policy is protecting those jobs.

Unfortunately, under the previous Conservative government, we saw thousands of manufacturing jobs, including in aerospace, bleed away across our country. Now we have a new Liberal government that is failing to do anything when it comes to living up to its obligations to Aveos workers, including in my home province of Manitoba, who have been negatively affected.

I think it is critical that we make a connection to the need for federal government leadership to support manufacturing jobs in our communities, in all sectors, and realize that government needs to be supportive of these industries as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague that it is important to work with different sectors and make sure that we are growing those sectors.

As a former mayor, I know it is very important to come together, especially in the aerospace industry, with the Cascadia Corridor, the expansion of aerospace supply chain jobs at the Abbotsford airport, in Richmond, in making sure that we work with all levels of government.

I think it is absolutely key and crucial, without a doubt, that we support our partners, ensure that there are good jobs, and grow the sector.