Peter Van Loan

[National Anthem Act, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by expressing my admiration for the determination and commitment of the hon. member for presenting his bill today and his commitment to the institution of Parliament, which has been demonstrated by the extraordinary efforts he made to be here to ensure that we would have the opportunity to debate this bill.

Reputedly, it was writer H.G. Wells who said, “No passion in the world is equal to the passion to alter someone else's draft”, or, as I have heard it said otherwise, “There is no human need as strong as the need to edit someone else's copy”. Nowhere is that particular human drive more openly manifested than when it comes to national anthems.

Take Germany, for example. The Deutschlandlied or Germany song, actually had its beginning as a royal anthem to the Holy Roman Emperor. It then became the anthem for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, with the words changing each time the emperor changed. Its first appearance as a German anthem was in 1890. At that time, the Prussian royal anthem was still more popular. Deutschlandlied became the official anthem in 1922, but in the Nazi era, it was shortened to just the first verse, with its opening Deutschland über alles, Germany over everything.

That ultra-nationalist version was, understandably and for obvious reasons, banned initially after World War II. When it was restored in 1952, it was only the more benign third verse, which speaks of unity, justice, and freedom, that was used. Throughout, the version of the anthem that someone had selected had been, actually, a politically charged statement and in many cases, it was taken to mean something entirely different than was the original intention.

A similar desire to change and revise can be found in the case of the Russian anthem, and again politics has driven change. From 1816 to 1833, the Prayer of Russians, using the British music to God Save the King, served as the anthem. Later, a new anthem began to take its place, God Save the Tsar. It kept only the first line of the previous anthem and used an entirely new melody, which most today recognize as the theme representing Russia in Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture. Despite its use, idealizing the Napoleonic War of 1812 to 1814, it was actually only introduced in 1833, so not entirely historically accurate, but it did prevail as the national anthem until the February Revolution of 1917 when the tsar was removed from power.

Then, for a period of time, the provisional Russian government used The Workers' Marseillaise, a modified version of the French anthem. With the coming of the Bolshevik government, The Internationale became the anthem of the day, a new tune and entirely new lyrics, but even that was not enough.

In 1944, a new Soviet anthem was unveiled. It worked until 1953 when, with the death of the brutal dictator Stalin, its glowing references to him were no longer politically vogue, so for years the melody was played with no lyrics. In 1977, a new set of lyrics was introduced. Stalin was gone and so were references to the great war. Lenin, however, remained and the triumph and immortal ideals of communism now figured large.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Patriotic Song of Glinka was adopted as the new anthem for the now post-Soviet Russian state. The Glinka melody went without lyrics until 1999, when it finally gained words, which evoked the tsarist past, speaking of Mother Russia and the two-headed eagle. Its life and that of another competing set of lyrics was brief.

After Putin took power the next year, in 2000, he restored the old Soviet anthem's music, but, of course, once again, a lyrical rewrite was required; in fact, it was directed by Putin. Lenin and the Communist Party were not really in. A set of lyrics was settled by committee, but even it was changed before Putin set the new words in law, losing its references to tsarist era symbols. Not surprisingly, a decade later, a majority of Russians could still not recall the first line of the recently revised version of the national anthem.

In Canada, we actually also have a history of editing and changing national anthems. It is a recurring theme.

At this time I will take the opportunity to advise the House and make everyone aware that the Conservative Party has taken a position on this bill that it will be a free vote. Everyone will be able to vote their conscience, which I think is, as the hon. member has said in proposing this bill, the appropriate way to approach this matter.

In the case of the Canadian anthem changes, politics, too, has played a part. God Save the Queen was played for many years in pre- and post-Confederation Canada.

This reflected the fact of Canada as a British colony, and after Confederation, the fact that Queen Victoria was the head of state of our new country of Canada. Some, however, felt the need for a uniquely Canadian song as a Canadian anthem.

In the year of Confederation, 1867, Alexander Muir composed The Maple Leaf Forever. It was said to have been inspired by a silver maple tree in his neighbourhood in east end Toronto. In fact, beside you, Mr. Speaker, is a flag stand that has been carved from that very tree, which was felled by a storm in July 2013. However, there is some debate, I should confess, about whether the Orange lodge had the right tree when it erected the plaque there in 1958.

While, for many, The Maple Leaf Forever served as the national anthem, some criticized the anthem. They said that its words focusing on Wolfe's victory at Quebec and referencing the thistle, shamrock, and rose were too Anglocentric. Muir revised the words to include the lily, symbolizing Canada's French roots.

Although the song enjoyed popularity in the past, it has faded over time, despite many rewrites of the lyrics that sought to placate critics and salvage this undoubtedly historically significant song. Today, it is principally heard when the Toronto Maple Leafs skate onto the ice before home games. Sadly, they have experienced a similar decline in their fortunes.

Another parallel effort to give Canada a national anthem of its own was more successful. Originally commissioned by the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste to provide a patriotic Canadian song in French, it had a tune composed by Calixa Lavallée and lyrics by Adolphe-Basile Routhier. It was first performed on June 24, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, in 1880. It was O Canada, French lyrics only.

It really began to gain momentum when it was played for the visit of the future King George V, the Duke of Cornwall, in 1901. In the years that followed, competing efforts to write English lyrics took place, but a 1908 version by Montreal lawyer Robert Stanley Weir began to win hearts and minds. His version is close to the one members would recognize today, but even that would change in his own hands between the 1908 and the 1927 version, which is what I sang as a child.

Parliamentary efforts to make it official moved forward in steps from 1964, but only in 1980 would it officially become the national anthem, and through that time, more lyric changes took place. It is significant that one of the causes of delay was resistance by Weir's family to further changes to the lyrics. There have been no word changes since the 1980 law that made the anthem official.

A proposal to change the words was raised by the previous government, in which I served, in a throne speech in 2010. The public response was strong, and it was negative. Those of us who were part of the government experienced that reaction. Even though the proposal would restore an original Weir lyric, Canadians wanted no changes. Even Weir's grandson weighed in, opposing any change.

What Canadians were telling us is important, which is that symbols matter. Those things we use to create our national identity matter. They were saying that, in a world of rapid change, they want to hang on to things that matter to them. They want to continue to believe that the things that made Canada a great country remain great things. They were saying that, in a lifetime of singing the national anthem, they were doing so with pride for their country. They do not want everyone poring over the national symbols, which make us Canadian, and looking for reasons to change them. Canadians want to be able to hang on to their heritage.

It is a motivation and sentiment that I respect. It is a perspective that I believe we should value. In a world where change moves faster and faster, respecting the history of the symbols, the icons, and the stories that have made us who we are is actually a good idea. That is why I am listening to those who told our government in 2010 to leave their national anthem alone; it belongs to Canadians now.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora. He indicated that tax credits like the sports and fitness tax credit had to be eliminated in order to pay for the fiscal measures, the tax plan, of the Liberal Party. However, during the last election campaign when Liberals went to Canadians to ask for their votes, that is not what they told them. They told them that they were going to pay for it through a number of specified measures: the elimination of the universal child care benefit, which they are doing, the establishment of a new high tax bracket, which they have done, and the elimination of income splitting, which is also happening. All of those tax grabs were going to take place. That was going to finance their plan, and that was it.

Nowhere in their platform did they say anything about eliminating the sports and fitness tax credit for children or eliminating the children's arts credit. No, they did not tell Canadians that. They did not tell Canadians that they planned to eliminate the textbook tax credit. They did not tell Canadians they planned to eliminate the education tax credit. All of those things were to be untouched. They were not necessary to pay for this plan. However, today we are hearing a new tune, that they actually were necessary to pay for their plan.

Why is it that they told Canadians something totally different about the tax hikes they had in mind during the election campaign and then hit them with a surprise whole second set of tax hikes after the election to pay for promises Conservatives had said were not affordable?

[Canadian Heritage, April 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, at committee, the minister justified excluding Confederation from the 150th anniversary themes by saying “...we shouldn't play politics with [it]”.

Admittedly, Conservatives John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier drove the project, but Macdonald's archrivals, George Brown and Oliver Mowat, were partners and full founding fathers. In fact, Confederation is the ultimate bipartisan example of Canadian nation building.

Why will the Liberal government not make Confederation a theme of the 150th anniversary of Confederation?

[Canadian Heritage, April 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, next year Canada observes the 150th anniversary of Confederation, but a funny thing happened on the way to the celebrations: the new government left out Confederation. When the minister introduced the themes for the 150th anniversary of Confederation, Confederation was not there, not even the subject of Canadian history is a theme.

Why the Liberal war on history?

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Who cancelled the arts credit? Who cancelled the sports credit?

[World Theatre Day, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, March 27 is World Theatre Day, and around the world people will be celebrating the value that live theatre brings to their community. World Theatre Day honours and acknowledges the power of theatre.

Theatre can entertain us. It can challenge us, urging us to question situations. It gives us insight into human relationships. It has the power to foster dialogue and connections, leading to greater understanding and tolerance. It tells stories and helps us to know ourselves and build our identity.

In Canada, we are fortunate to have a rich array of theatre. We have signature companies like the Stratford and Shaw Festivals in Ontario, and Neptune Theatre in Halifax. We enjoy grassroots community theatres, including the Queensville Players and South Simcoe Theatre in my community. Our towns and cities are richer and more vibrant thanks to theatre.

In today's world, quality of life is increasingly linked to economic success. Theatre is an important part of enriching the experience of living in or visiting a community and strengthening its economy.

As we celebrate World Theatre Day, I wish to recognize all those Canadians who work in and contribute to theatre across our great country.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the people of the greater Toronto area have been voting with their feet and with their dollars. The growth of travel at that airport has been significant. The investment, not with taxpayers' dollars, but by air travellers and by the companies operating out of there, has been huge. Jobs have been created. There are more people flying out of there now than in decades. Why? It is because it works. It is successful. People want it. We think that is important. When people choose to fly out of there, that is a good thing. Let us give them more choices and more opportunities and not kill them through an arbitrary decision.

The problem of the member's friend sitting two seats away from him is that he did not like the growth in traffic. He did not like the tunnel being constructed so people could walk directly to the airport to facilitate travel. He did not like any of those things. In his ideal world, that airport would be shut down, or perhaps used only for air ambulances. That would be it. That is his position.

However, when the decision, made as it was, discriminates against the C Series aircraft, that we are not going to let this plane fly in and out, what does that say? It is not a decision by the people. It is not a decision by our ratepayers association. It is a decision by the Government of Canada that these planes should not be permitted to fly into Toronto.

What does that say about these planes? How do we explain that to any prospective purchaser? It is impossible. It is killing the C Series. This decision by the Liberal government is doing far more damage to the C Series than anything that any competitor is doing.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, he says the runway is too short. The runway could be made a little longer. We all know we can do that. The whole airport is fill. The whole of downtown Toronto is fill. Most of the member's riding is fill and the lake. It is not a new concept. It is not radical. It is not different.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to understand that the kind of rules in place at the Billy Bishop airport about landing slots are the same as every other airport around the world. There are these kinds of struggles over landing slots everywhere, and everybody complains. Air Canada has the inside track in Mississauga, and its partner is United. That is not relevant to the issue.

What is relevant is what the member just said, that this plane was not right for Toronto. That is the decision of the Liberal Party and that is what everybody from Boeing, from Embraer and from Airbus is going to go around saying, that the Liberal government's members are saying that this plane is not right for Toronto, that they cannot fly it into Toronto. They will all be saying that their airports are in those kinds of environments, that they want to fly their airplanes into every airport they can.

They will be saying that they cannot fly this plane into the only airport in the biggest city in Canada because it pollutes too much, because it makes too much noise, and because it is not safe. They do not have any other reason. Those are the reasons raised by the objectors.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

My constituents care about the future of Billy Bishop airport in Toronto. Our riding of York—Simcoe is in the greater Toronto area and what happens at Billy Bishop airport will affect how much choice and competition there is in air travel for my constituents. With more choice and competition meaning lower prices and more options if they travel, for many of them it may even make the difference whether they can afford to travel.

What is more, the Liberal government's decision to block the new Bombardier C Series planes will also directly affect many of my constituents who work at Bombardier.

My constituents do not understand why the Liberal government is blocking the growth of GTA jobs. They want the government to reverse its decision and allow the Billy Bishop airport expansion plans to proceed.

Currently, the airport is responsible for some 6,500 jobs, and some of the people who live in my riding enjoy some of those jobs. There are $385 million in wages and over $2 billion in economic output that result from the airport. It is also a major contributor of taxes to the city of Toronto and the federal government, at approximately $71 million per year.

However, what we have seen from the Liberal government is not an approach of using decision-making to create jobs, but rather we have seen spending decisions by the government and growing deficits that are dragging down the economy. Instead of fighting to grow employment in the GTA, the government is rejecting an important airport expansion that would see more jobs brought into our area. While the government has said that it needs to spend billions to create jobs, with the cancellation of the Billy Bishop expansion, it is killing $2 billion in contracts with Bombardier. Yet without spending a single dollar of taxpayer money, it could reverse the decision to halt the Billy Bishop airport expansion and create significant economic activity and job growth.

The government talks about evidence-based decision-making, but it rejected the proposal before it even had the evidence. It cancelled it before it could consult with the city of Toronto, which had already begun preparing three reports that included a full environmental assessment, an airport master plan, and a runway design plan. Instead of taking the time to look at all of the information that it would have had before it, the Liberal government has chosen to ignore any evidence and is moving strongly and straight away to kill GTA jobs and choices for Toronto area travellers, tourism and businesses. The decision is pure ideology, and in this case an anti-C Series ideology.

Members should consider this. If the Government of Canada says that the C Series planes has such a negative impact that they cannot be allowed to fly into Billy Bishop airport in downtown Toronto, why would anybody buy that plane?

The negative impact on Bombardier will go well beyond the $2 billion in lost sales to Porter. Other potential purchasers will take note. Of course, the competitors, Boeing, Airbus and Embraer, will be out telling that story to potential aircraft purchasers. They will be telling prospective purchasers that the C Series is so loud that the Government of Canada will not allow it into downtown Toronto. “Watch what they do, not what they say”, is what those competitors will tell prospective purchasers. “Don't listen to what the government says”, as the transport minister said today, “about what a great plane it is, look at what they actually do with their decisions, and that's how you should judge them. Yes, they are making claims”, Bombardier is, “that the jets will be quiet, but their own government does not believe it and that is why they aren't allowing them to fly into the only airport in the city of Toronto.”

Then, for good measure, the other plane manufacturers will also say that the C Series cannot be trusted on safety. They will say that the opponents of the C Series flights said that they raised significant safety issues, that the government has agreed with those opponents and has banned the C Series jets from the only airport in the city of Toronto.

The opponents of the C Series flying into Toronto will say that the jets will pollute so badly that they will cause health problems for local residents, and that apparently the Government of Canada agrees with those opponents. Those selling jets for the other manufacturers will be pointing that out to any prospective purchasers that this is the opinion of the Government of Canada on the C Series jets.

That is not the truth. The C Series jets are a great Canadian innovation. Using advanced composite materials, they are fuel efficient, clean, and quiet, with a design that is passenger-friendly. Bombardier claims it is highly reliable plane. However, the Liberal government is siding with those who have been campaigning against them by saying that they are too dangerous for Toronto.

Bombardier says that the C Series is 20% less carbon emitting than the competition and emits 50% less nitrogen dioxide than the competition does, but the Liberal government has agreed with those who say it pollutes too much for Toronto. Bombardier says that the C Series is the quietest plane in its class and even quieter than the smaller turboprops, but the Government of Canada instead agrees with those who say it is too noisy for Toronto.

The brand damage that is being done to the C Series by the Liberal government decision to keep them out of the only airport in Toronto is so great that likely no subsidy to Bombardier can rescue it. No matter how big, it cannot save the C Series. The only thing that could actually save the C Series would cost nothing. It is a reversal of the ideological decision to block the C Series from Billy Bishop airport.

As the former international trade minister, I have experienced a bit about the international market for planes and how it works. It is a fiercely competitive market and governments are heavily involved in it. It is very aggressive. The marketing is intense and it is important for a company to have its government behind it when trying to make sales.

Purchasers will judge the acts of governments when they make those decisions and in that fierce market, a vote of non-confidence from a company's own government, a decision that its planes are too dangerous, too noisy, and too polluting for the only airport in the biggest city in the country, that decision made here by the Liberal government is devastating and it is impossible to explain away.

The only way to explain it away is to acknowledge that there is no evidence or no basis for that decision, that there really is not any evidence that they were noisy, dangerous, or polluting. Never mind that they were the basis of the objections to it, but the decision was made anyhow for some other abstract political reason.

The Liberal government has to acknowledge that. If it acknowledges that there is no basis for this decision on the evidence, reverse that decision. This is the only thing that could be done to reverse the brand damage being done here and allow the C Series to survive.

What impact will it have on future C Series sales as other manufacturers can now say with a factual basis that the Government of Canada agrees with those who say that the C Series is too noisy, too polluting, and too dangerous to fly into the only airport in Canada's largest city? What does that say? How can Bombardier explain that to any purchaser? How can it defend against that brand damage inflicted by its own national government? It is impossible and that is the problem here.

The answer is that we will have some subsidies, that we will have some thoughts, that we hope they will turn out well. No subsidy can save a company when its own government says this plane is so bad that it will not let it fly into the only airport in our biggest city. That is the recklessness and foolishness of this ideological decision by the Liberal government. It will cost jobs in the GTA. It will cost jobs across Canada.

A few weeks ago, I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Transport why the government had chosen to attack Toronto's economy and jobs in the vulnerable aviation sector. His response was that Air Canada had decided to buy some C Series jets from Bombardier and this was great news for Bombardier and Quebec.

Let me put this great news into perspective for the minister because the truth is that Air Canada signed a letter of intent to purchase the C Series aircraft and the rumoured amount it will pay is approximately $28 million per plane, this for a plane that is listed at $60 million. Apparently, the brand damage has been done. The brand damage has already cut the price in half for these planes. How will it survive that? That is with a friendly purchaser in Canada. What does that say to every other prospective purchaser around the world?

That is $2 billion in plane orders being thrown out the window because the government is too stubborn to recognize its mistakes and reverse its decision, but the real damage is the brand damage.

I also want to return to the impact on consumers, the loss of choice, the loss of competition, the loss of potential lower prices for air travel. Let us go one step further. If we do not have further options for travelling and we do not have competition and lower prices, that hurts ordinary families, working families, families that the hon. member who is the leader of the campaign against these jets, claims to fight for. People who sometimes never get to travel for whom those higher prices will guarantee those travels will never happen. My constituents are like that. They work hard and for them to save to travel on a vacation is a tough thing. They will have fewer of those choices.

However, a further question exists, and perhaps this is the real agenda here. If we have an economic downturn and we are hamstringing one of these airlines or airline groups and we are not letting them compete and not letting them have other options to go head to head with other airlines, what will happen to them in an economic downturn? Would we lose that airline? Would that mean even more job losses, less competition, higher prices, and only Air Canada out of Mississauga to fly with? That may be the future. It is a foolish decision, an ideological decision, one that should be reversed.