Leona Alleslev

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

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

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

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.

[Canada Post, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's plan to convert door-to-door delivery has been suspended since last fall pending the outcome of a review of the corporation.

This government is committed to an open, transparent, evidence-based review that will cover all aspects of Canada Post and will allow all Canadians to have a say in the choices that are made concerning Canada Post.

The review will help ensure that Canada Post is providing the high-quality services that Canadians expect, at a reasonable price.

[Canada Post, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue this evening in the debate on the future of Canada Post. I am inspired by the enthusiasm and the engagement of Canadians on this subject.

During the election, we committed to end the further installation of community mailboxes that began under the previous government. We also committed to conducting a review of Canada Post to ensure that it provided high quality service at a reasonable price to Canadians no matter where they lived. This is what we are doing.

One week after the election Canada Post announced it was suspending the conversion to community mailboxes pending the review.

Now, about that review. We made a clear promise to review Canada Post to ensure that it provides the high-quality service that Canadians expect at a reasonable price.

According to the mandate letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, details of the review are being finalized. However there are three things I can say about it tonight.

First, this review will gather together all the pertinent facts around Canada Post in line with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision making.

Second, these facts will be shared with Canadians, because our government has set a higher bar for openness and transparency.

Third, through this review, the opinions and views of stakeholders, groups, everyday Canadians right across the country will be sought. This is in line with our government's commitment to consult widely and to pursue goals collaboratively. In other words, Canadians will have a say in the future of their postal service. Their concerns will be heard through what will be a thorough evidence-based process.

I hope all parliamentarians will encourage and be part of this national dialogue. I look forward to working with my colleague on this important subject.

Canadians have valued Canada Post highly for a long time. From a practical standpoint, this organization helps us connect with each other across our vast country. The government believes that, if we want to have a useful discussion on the future of Canada Post, Canadians should, as consumers, have a better understanding of the services offered by Canada Post, of the pressures the corporation is facing, and of its financial reality.

The review will ensure that Canadians have access to information about Canada Post. The corporation will also have a chance to participate in an informed discussion. Canadians and the government will make decisions about the future of Canada Post together.

[Canada Post, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's plan to convert door-to-door delivery has been suspended since last fall, pending the outcome of a review of the corporation.

The government is committed to an open, transparent, and evidence-based review that allows Canadians to have a say in the choices that are made concerning Canada Post.

The review will help ensure that Canada Post is providing the high-quality services that Canadians expect, at a reasonable price.

[Canada Post, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part this evening in this debate on the future of Canada Post. I would like to use the time I have been allotted to recap what we said we would do about Canada Post and what we have done.

During the election, we committed to end the further installation of community mailboxes that began under the previous government. We also committed to conducting a review of Canada Post to make sure that it provides high-quality service at a reasonable price to Canadians no matter where they live. This is what we are doing.

One week after the election, Canada Post announced it was suspending the conversion to community mailboxes pending a review.

Now, about that review. We made a clear promise to review Canada Post to ensure that it provides the high-quality service that Canadians expect at a reasonable price.

Here is the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

Details of the review are being finalized. However, there are three things I can say tonight about it.

One, this review will gather together all the pertinent facts around Canada Post, in line with our government's commitment to evidence-based decision-making.

Two, these facts will be shared with Canadians, because our government has set a higher bar for openness and transparency.

Three, through this review, the opinions and views of stakeholder groups and everyday Canadians right across the country will be sought. This is in line with our government's commitment to consult widely and to pursue goals collaboratively.

In other words, Canadians will have a say in the future of their postal service. Their concerns will be heard through what will be a thorough, evidence-based process. I hope all parliamentarians will encourage and be part of this national dialogue.

Canadians highly value Canada Post. From a practical standpoint, this corporation helped us connect with each other across our vast country for a long time.

The government believes that if we want to have a helpful discussion on the future of Canada Post, Canadians should, as consumers, have a better understanding of the services offered by Canada Post, of the pressures this corporation currently faces, and of its financial realities.

The review will ensure that Canadians have access to information on Canada Post. The corporation will also have a chance to participate in an informed discussion. Canadians and the government will be able to make decisions together about the future of Canada Post.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose the following to my my hon. colleague, that there might be another way of looking at this. I attended the Royal Military College in Kingston. One of the key courses we had to take was military and strategic studies. As part of that, we had to look at strategy and tactics for all different kinds of engagements to understand when one needed to go in with a certain strategy, but more importantly, when to understand that that strategy needed to change with the changing conditions of the particular conflict.

Is this not one of those occasions where we must change strategy? Does it make our contribution any less valuable, simply because we may not have fighter pilots? There are 25,000 other men and women in uniform who serve in meaningful roles each and every day in our Canadian Forces, and this new mission will allow us to bring a different level of strength and capacity to this mission. It will be as effective, if not more so, than it has been in the past.

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

Madam Speaker, I too served in Cold Lake and my husband was a CF-18 pilot. I would like to say that he, like all pilots of the Canadian Forces, was well trained and very proud of the job he did. The pilots are helping and have done what they wanted to do when serving.

I ask the hon. member opposite, are the jobs of people who are not fighter pilots somehow less valuable than those of fighter pilots?

We need to understand that the men and women who will do this change in mission are no less valuable than the fighter pilots. I would like to put that to the hon. member.

[Shipbuilding Industry, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government is determined to implement the national shipbuilding procurement strategy and purchase its ships in Canada in an open and transparent manner. A decision has not yet been made regarding the requirements for large tugs, and therefore the project is still in the preliminary phase.

As with all military acquisitions, our goal is to leverage economic benefits for Canada.