House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.
Manufacturing Industry March 9th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are missing in action. The Canadian manufacturing jobs are at risk. The low dollar has put Canadians goods on sale, but the Liberals refuse to explain how they will encourage private sector investment. Yesterday, they even blocked the industry committee from asking Bombardier about a billion-dollar bailout.
What are the Liberals hiding? Is the reason the Liberals will not share their plan with Canadians that they do not have a plan to share?
Manufacturing Industry March 9th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, Liberal policies make doing business in Canada more expensive. Auto manufacturers are hurting in Ontario because our electricity rates are 30% higher than in other jurisdictions, and that is before the new Liberal carbon tax.
When will the Liberal government give manufacturers a break, rather than break manufacturers?
Business of Supply March 8th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see, these things go hand in hand. Obviously, increased infrastructure in the area would also increase the need and demand for housing, the demand for commercial space, and the demand for industry down there as well. Certainly, these are things that would go hand in hand from an expansion of the airport as well as the development of the waterfront.
Business of Supply March 8th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it is incredible, but that is the second question in a row that shows they obviously were not listening to what I said. I did not say we would not support any sort of subsidization or help. What I said was that it is Liberal policies, that it is the current government's policies, that have left us in a situation where we do not know what the future of Bombardier will be.
If only the current government had allowed the expansion to continue, we would have had thousands more employees in the Toronto area and thousands more employees throughout Quebec and Ontario directly employed by Bombardier and Porter, as well as by suppliers to those companies. I think the member needs to perhaps go back to the notes.
Business of Supply March 8th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member cited me as referring to 6,000 jobs. I do not believe I said that. I am not sure where he was during the speech, but I welcome him back.
At the end of the day, the member is talking about public funds going in. The best business case for the Government of Canada and its shareholders is when we do not put a dollar in, but we get increased tax revenue. That is what we are talking about with the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport. That is why our party is standing up for that expansion. That is why our party is standing up for the expansion of Porter Airlines. That is why our party is standing up for Bombardier and its shareholders and the employees who depend on it.
Business of Supply March 8th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, today I stand in the House to offer the following in regard to the role of Bombardier as an economic contributor to Canada's economy.
As outlined in the text of the motion devised by the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, Bombardier has demonstrated excellence through its ability to construct state-of-the-art aerospace and transportation products for domestic and international markets. Bombardier is not just in the business of creating airplanes and transportation solutions; it is supporting families through jobs, developing ideas, and encouraging growth within the domestic and global economies.
The focus of my speech today is on the effects of domestic regulatory decisions on the future of Bombardier and its C Series project.
On November 27, 2015, the Minister of Transport destroyed the prospects of any expansion of the Billy Bishop airport on Toronto island. The extension of the runway by 1,100 feet beyond its current 4,000 feet would have provided strong economic benefits for Canada's economy, specifically in Ontario and Quebec. In Toronto alone, where the enhanced airport was to be located, the total economic benefit would have been over $2 billion and would have created over 1,000 additional jobs. That is just the beginning of the benefits it would have provided to our economy, as this does not include the jobs related to the construction of the C Series airliners. These jobs would be located predominantly in Quebec and Ontario, from an estimated $2.3 billion purchase order, which is dependent on the expansion of the airport, and yet none of this was taken into consideration by the minister, the Prime Minister, or the government.
Without ideals, without evidence, without opportunity for dissension, without a business case, without good information, the current government cancelled the future jobs of thousands of Canadians. The only reason that has been floated to us on this side of the House is that it is some sort of pet project of the member for Spadina—Fort York. Basically, the government made a decision with respect to thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in economic activity, hundreds of families, and competition in a market with significant inhibitors to expansion based on its need to win a couple of seats.
We, the citizens of Ontario, have heard this story before. I know that the Speaker will be very familiar with this one. This is how it goes.
There is a project that needs the consent of a Liberal government. That Liberal government does not do the right thing because it wants to win some electoral seats, and that ends up costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The Liberal government then does everything it can to prevent parliamentarians from all parties from finding out the truth about how all of that went down. In Ontario, we call it the gas plant scandal. In Canada, in this Parliament, and in the industry committee we call it the Bombardier affair.
In a time of economic uncertainty, the current Liberal government has said no to the island airport, no to billions of dollars in positive economic activity, and no to increased competition. The result is that not only has the Province of Quebec had to subsidize Bombardier to the tune of $1.3 billion, not only has the growth of Porter Airlines been sidelined, not only has competition helping consumers been obstructed but now the federal government is also under unrelenting pressure to bail out and subsidize Bombardier and its C Series program because it blocked a $2.3 billion deal.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Prince Albert.
The current government is directly responsible for job losses and preventing job creation in the service and manufacturing sectors. When this boondoggle was finally drawn into the public arena, my Conservative colleagues on the industry committee asked publicly for an investigation into what had transpired, but as this committee is dominated by Liberals, we have not heard a single thing.
Is the current government following the example of its provincial cousins, the Liberal Party of Ontario, and blocking representatives of the citizens of Canada from knowing what transpired behind closed Liberal doors? Is it hiding behind processes to protect members of the government? Is it intentionally stalling the work of parliamentarians and stifling transparency and accountability for actions that have cost taxpayers billions of dollars directly, and billions more in unrealized tax revenue?
After all of that, what I find most difficult to rationalize about the government is that its behaviour is so contradictory to what it says. Its rhetoric is not just out of sync with its actions, it is just plainly false.
The throne speech delivered to the House four months ago states the following about Canadians:
...they want leadership that is focused on the things that matter most to them. Things like growing the economy; creating jobs; strengthening the middle class, and helping those working hard to join it. Through careful consideration and respectful conduct, the Government can meet these challenges, and all others brought before it.
The House must hold the government accountable for its statements and actions. So I ask the following. When the government opposed the Toronto island airport, did it grow the economy? No, it weakened the economy throughout Canada, and specifically in Quebec and Ontario.
Did it create jobs as the throne speech says it would? No, it killed 1,000 jobs in Toronto and countless elsewhere.
Did it strengthen the middle class and help those that are working hard to reach it? No, it made it more difficult to reach the middle class by reducing the number of jobs available.
When it decided not to allow the airport expansion, was that carefully considered and respectfully conducted? No, there was no rationale and it was announced through a tweet in the middle of the night.
Finally, did the government meet the challenges facing this country? No, there were no challenges except for the Liberal government itself, which has created the need for a billion-dollar bailout by doing what was politically expedient.
Only the Liberal government, only this Prime Minister, and only the Minister of Innovation can turn a $2.3 billion windfall into the need for a $1-billion bailout. The government's conduct is just crazy. All it had to do was nothing. Do not interfere with the process under way. Do not play politics with jobs for hard-working Canadians. Do not post a tweet in the middle of the night, and the results would have been celebrated.
Bombardier would have received a $2.3 billion purchase order. Porter airlines would have been expanding its fleet, its infrastructure, its number of employees. Consumers would be gaining from the benefits of increased competition in the marketplace. The government would be receiving increased tax revenue instead of increasing its deficit by looking at providing a bailout.
It could not be more clear. Canadians have a right to know. This is not a bailout of Bombardier; it is a bailout of Liberal intervention in Toronto politics. It is a bailout of failed Liberal policies by the Prime Minister. It is a bailout of politically motivated decision-making for electoral gains and, worst of all, it is a bailout of millionaires and billionaires on the backs of hard-working Canadians.
The Prime Minister should not be subsidizing millionaires and billionaires using the tax dollars of lower- and middle-income Canadians. He should be looking those Canadians straight in the eye and apologizing for costing our youth their first job, our workers their next raise, and our unemployed their opportunity for economic independence.
I stand today speaking in favour of the motion, not to support one airline over another or one airport over another, or even one sector over another. I speak in favour of the motion because it means lower prices for consumers through increased competition. It means more jobs in Toronto, more jobs in manufacturing in Ontario, more jobs in manufacturing in Quebec. It means supporting the aerospace industry simply by getting out of its way instead of forcing it into cardiac arrest and having to give it a billion-dollar shot of adrenaline.
I believe that Canadian companies build the best planes, that Canadian companies provide the best flights, and that Canadian job creation is best for the Canadian economy. I therefore believe that the House should adopt the motion.
Black History Month February 25th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, as most of us know, this is Black History Month. Two hundred years ago, Canada was the final destination for over 30,000 oppressed peoples fleeing slavery on the Underground Railroad. In Canada, one of the major destinations was to the township of Oro-Medonte, where those fleeing were given land to farm in the 1840s.
The settlers built the Oro African Church on the 3rd line of Oro-Medonte soon after their arrival. It stands today as a national heritage site for being the oldest African church standing in North America.
Thanks to the leadership of the Township of Oro-Medonte, the MP for Simcoe North, and many local residents, over $400,000 has been raised to restore this national treasure. This includes $90,000 in crowd funding, and a contribution from the former government of $78,000.
Restoration is projected to be completed this summer and the church to be reopened to help recognize our collective history and educate those in our community.
On behalf of the people of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, I would like to congratulate Oro-Medonte on this success.
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL February 24th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the word “rhetoric” used by my colleague across the aisle. The reality is that the government did not respect the House of Commons. Liberals did not respect the people of Canada and their representatives in the House of Commons when they decided to cease the mission in advance of asking the House to give consent.
If the member believes that the result of the election gives them carte blanche going forward, then why are we even standing here?
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL February 24th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for shaming you before.
The reality is if the member is calling it madness that the Government of Canada would step in and help those who are incredibly vulnerable, try to be part of an answer to get people back in their homes in their homeland, then call me mad. I want to see a resolution.
The multi-faceted approach that we have taken in terms of providing aid, bringing Iraqi and Syrian refugees here to Canada, training troops on the ground, and definitely in terms of air strikes, is the right approach to continue with. Unfortunately, the government made a unilateral decision without coming to the House and applying for consent in order to do so.
Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL February 24th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I really am shocked that we have a member on the other side of the House who did not come into this chamber to discuss the changes to a mission that are affecting real lives in a devastated part of the world. Instead he wants to play politics and relive October 19. The reality is that the people in the region are living a nightmare every day and instead the member wants to relive a date from over four months ago. Shame on you, sir.