Linda Duncan

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech and for her listing of priorities. Those priorities are the same as they are in my constituency. Sadly, though, the budget does not address those priorities.

I am happy to see that the green infrastructure is going to include an expansion of LRT. My mayor is certainly happy that there will be additional money, but in this budget, sadly, there will be no monies to actually extend the line. The decision was to base it on ridership, but ridership cannot be increased until the line is built.

I welcome an increase, and my mayor is happy. It will be 50% potential funding by the federal government, but it costs a billion dollars to build the line. We need more than $130 million.

Here is my big concern. The hon. member says that one of her top priorities is seniors. It is the same for me in my riding. The Liberal Party promised $3 billion over three years for health care, but it is not in the budget. The Liberals are not committed to renegotiating the cutting of $36 billion over 10 years in health care, and there is no money for pharmacare.

Could the member please speak to the matter? They promised additional action on providing health care to Canadians. Where are the dollars?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see that the new Liberal government is supporting collective bargaining. What is unfortunate is that it is not supporting true collective bargaining. The government is not extending the usual rights in this legislation, which is the inclusion of collective bargaining on harassment, staffing, and discipline.

It is clear that the Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada specifically requested that at the bargaining table they be able to deal with disciplinary measures and the allocation of resources.

Could the member speak to why the government is reducing the actual rights of collective bargaining to RCMP members? Could the member tell us what issues on harassment have to do with security?

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is obviously very passionate about the topic.

I am pleased to hear the hon. member raise the concern about lack of due process and rule of law. This is something that we stand for proudly in Canada. When I worked overseas in other countries, we tried to encourage them to move in that direction.

I am sad to say, though, that apparently this law still leaves some unilateral powers vested in the minister without a judicial hearing, and perhaps they will revisit that provision.

One thing I would like to raise is that it is one thing to improve the law, and as my colleague previously said, many of my constituents were also very concerned about Bill C-24 and will be pleased that I am standing here supporting changes in that law.

We are deeply concerned about the delays in bringing on immigration staff to expedite applications for family reunification and so forth. In my jurisdiction, we are now facing, for the second time, having no citizenship judge. We went through this a year ago. We had to wait a year for a citizenship judge, and now we are without one again.

What is the hon. member willing to do to get his party to employ people and get people appointed so that we can move on making people citizens of Canada?

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, as he always speaks from the heart in here. I know he has represented constituents well every single year he has been in this place.

I thank him for reminding us of family values. Where the former government used to stand for family values, I would like him to reiterate the importance of treating these people like human beings. Far too many times, immigrants to our country, waiting to get their citizenship, have had family members die and cannot even go to the funeral.

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have a great interest in the reforms that have been brought forward. I have three university campuses in my riding, and my incredible staff in my constituency office has had student after student coming to us. They were foreign students. They graduated and got their degrees, a lot of them engineers, and they had a lot to offer our country.

I remember one particular case with a foreign student looked forward to becoming a Canadian but he did not yet have his citizenship. He had a job offer from an engineering company, but he would be temporarily based in the states. He could not take the job because we did not credit his time in the country while he was studying and becoming acquainted with Canada. Therefore, I am very supportive of those measures.

Yes, the Liberals are making some good legislative changes, reversing the bad law that the Conservatives put through, but could the member tell us if the government is also committed to ending the lengthy wait times and the huge backlog, particularly in family reunification? We have case after case in my constituency office which are just heartbreaking. Family reunification and citizenship could be better expedited.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard speech after speech from Conservative members saying that we should let the market prevail, so I am left very confused about exactly what the point of the motion is.

Who exactly is putting up the money to expand this airport? Who is putting up the money to buy these airplanes? What do they mean by saying it is “market driven”? Surely this is really all about a land use decision, and when one makes a proper land use decision, one confers broadly and does a proper environmental impact assessment that is supervised by a neutral independent body, which in this case would be the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

I am left totally confused about what the market-driven aspect is. Surely Bombardier, an internationally recognized company, can put together a pretty good market plan for selling not only its airplanes but also its trains, trolleys, and so forth.

What is this market argument? It seems to be simply cutting through and saying essentially that the federal government should give the money so that Bombardier can buy these planes and the airport can be expanded and everybody will be happy.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech on this matter. Obviously, he knows this file well, as he had a role in Toronto before coming to the Hill.

I am pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister stand and defend the rights of community members to have a say in decision-making about land uses in their municipality.

I too have fought long and hard in my own city to protect our river valley, which is treasured by many in our community. That runs against a lot of private proposals to develop it. There are lots of issues about building on top of a bank and what to build in the river valley, but the community is always saying it wants to preserve it, that it is a treasure of the community.

My brother used to live in Toronto and I often went along that waterfront. Every time I go to Toronto I try to find an opportunity to go down there.

As was mentioned previously in the House, we have two tripartite agreements somewhat at odds with each other. I appreciate that the member said it is the low-income housing that would be most impacted. It has been brought to my attention, and the hon. member also mentioned this in the House, that there was actually a report done by the medical officer of health in Toronto expressing concern about potential health impacts not only of the expansion of the airport but of the already continuing operation. I wonder if the member could speak to that issue and what role that should probably play or might have played in the final decision by the federal government to not allow this expansion.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

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 a 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.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

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 queuing 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.