Alex Nuttall

[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 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.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, just to get a formality out of the way up front, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

I rise today to address the House regarding the government motion tabled on February 11, 2016. This motion seeks to gain the support of the House to redefine the mission in Syria and Iraq through the removal of our CF-18s from its sorties while increasing our training mission in Iraq.

Prior to continuing with my remarks, I would like to take the time to thank all of the men and women of the armed forces for their continuing effort to help those who have been made victims of this radical group of terrorists known as the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria. Furthermore, I would like to thank those who have served in the armed forces from all sides of the House in any capacity.

Canada's strategy to date has been one that has engaged in a multi-faceted and comprehensive approach, ranging from helping refugees gain resettlement, delivering aid to refugees in camps, training Kurdish troops, air strikes on key ISIS positions, and even stepping up to help defend Kurdish positions that are under intense attack. My colleagues have clearly and succinctly outlined the benefits that our CF-18s provided on the ground in Mosul to our ground troops, as well as the need to maintain those assets in the region.

The most succinct way to describe the government's actions on this motion is this. It is increasing the number of soldiers training forces for the front lines while reducing the capacity of our military to protect those same soldiers. While the increase in the number of troops would automatically increase the risk for Canadians, the government is further exacerbating that increased risk by removing assets available to support our troops and allies on the ground.

What I find most troubling on this matter is that the government fails to explain, after 1,378 sorties by CF-18s, destroying 399 targets, and 251 air strikes, what benefits our allies, Canadians, and our military gain by stepping back. The track record of the Royal Canadian Air Force speaks for itself. We have been deliberate and unwavering in our commitment to freeing the people of the region from tyranny and injustice, that is, until February 17, when the Prime Minister and his cabinet instructed the Royal Canadian Air Force to cease air strikes against ISIS. The government has failed to provide a reason, sensible rationale, or compelling argument as to the goals or objectives that they are trying to fulfill by stepping back from the fight against ISIS.

The reality is that we do not need the Prime Minister to stand in the House to tell us why. We already know. The Prime Minister made a campaign promise without military consultation, without discussion with our allies, without understanding the ramifications or consequences, without a single piece of sound planning. The Prime Minister wrote this foreign policy for political gain rather than effective government policy and then wonders why we are not invited to planning meetings with our allies on the war on ISIS.

When we properly assess the lack of rational arguments provided by the government, it is concerning. The fact that the government, led by a Liberal leader, can make structural change to a military mission based purely on political expedience is shameful, to say the least. At what point do members of the Liberal Party stand and say that this is wrong?

It is wrong to abdicate Canada's responsibility to stand up for those without a voice, it is wrong to leave our men and women on the ground with reduced capacity for reinforcements from the air, it is wrong for Canada to step back on the fight against radical terrorism, it is wrong for Canada to abandon the CF-18 mission against ISIL, it is wrong to make decisions that literally determine whether human beings live or die, live free or in bondage, live or flee in fear based on a campaign promise. I am tired of hearing words like “irresponsible”, “naive”, or “well intentioned” to describe the changes in this motion. The people I have spoken with say there is only one word to describe this motion, and that is “wrong”.

I understand the Prime Minister wants to keep one of his 200 promises to the people of Canada. That makes sense to me. However, why not keep the promise to only go $10 billion in deficit, to have tax changes that are revenue neutral, to be in surplus within four years, to run an open and transparent government, to restore the role and respect of parliamentarians in the House?

Why is it that the only promise the current government has to keep is the one that degrades our ability to help people in an utterly devastated region of the world? In doing so, it walks all over another promise that I just mentioned, that of restoring the role of members of Parliament and operating with respect for parliamentarians. The members of this House are so unimportant to the government that it asked for approval not before ending the air strike mission but after.

I know that during the campaign and while in opposition, the Liberal leader spoke often regarding respect for Parliament. The Prime Minister went so far as to outline this in the very Speech from the Throne that was delivered just months ago. The Prime Minister stated, “In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.”

On this motion our role was not honoured when the Prime Minister took this House for granted. We were not respected when being asked to approve a motion on an order that had already been made. We were certainly not heard prior to a decision on military conflict.

Here in these chambers only one voice, only one vote, only one perspective mattered, and it was not the voice of a Prime Minister but a leader campaigning to be one. The Prime Minister silenced this House by giving the order to cease operations in advance of the House speaking to his motion.

I am less concerned about the Prime Minister's 337 colleagues in this House than I am the 36 million people across this country who do not have a voice on a motion that literally deals with life and death. I am less concerned by the political gamesmanship practised by the government to stifle the ability of the opposition to give meaningful contributions to government than I am by the government's approach to stifle the voice of its citizens in this House.

The throne speech stated the following, “Let us not forget, however, that Canadians have been clear and unambiguous in their desire for real change. Canadians want their government to do different things, and to do things differently.”

The government is fulfilling this part of the mandate within the throne speech with this motion. Not only is it doing different things by stepping back from the fight against ISIS, it is doing things differently too.

On March 24, 2015, the member for Calgary Heritage, then the Prime Minister of Canada, announced a government motion regarding the beginning of an air strike campaign against ISIS and Syria. This was an expansion of an existing air campaign that was solely operating in Iraq.

The decision was put to a vote on March 30, five days before the mission was expanded not five days after. The members of this House therefore stood for all Canadians and they had a say in the expansion of Canada's role prior to its initiation. This is an example of leadership. It is an example of respect for this House, of restoring honour to Parliament, and of giving Canadians a voice. That is a decision of a prime minister I am proud of.

I have one last quote from the throne speech, which I believe clearly applies to this debate, which is, “They want to be able to trust their government.”

This is true. The people of Canada want to trust that the things that its government are telling them are both true and advantageous for its citizens. However, to gain the trust of Canadians, the government must trust that Canadians and their representatives will make the right choice. The current government must allow people to speak through their elected officials and representatives in advance of ending the mission, not as an afterthought.

What insight has been neglected in this House? Which citizens' voices did the current government ignore? We as Canadians expect better from our government, especially when debating actions that will have a direct impact on the great men and women of our armed forces.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member across found so funny, but I certainly hope he shares it with us later on.

Regarding the hon. member's comments, it sounds to me like he had something very significant to include in this debate. As members know, we are no longer partaking in the bombing mission.

As I said earlier, in the throne speech the government said in this Parliament, “...all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.”

Was the voice of the member heard prior to the government ceasing the mission?