Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to speak to the very important motion we are debating today. I am pleased to be addressing parliamentarians on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke, who have afforded me the privilege of being here today.

This is a very important motion. As parliamentarians, one of the most important decisions we must make is to deploy the men and women in uniform who defend Canada on our behalf. This is clearly the most important decision that we are asked to make.

Therefore, it is with a great sense of responsibility and duty that I will make this decision. I will try to state my position as clearly as possible, a position that I share with many of my colleagues who have already spoken on this subject.

I would like to go back to the beginning of the Canadian mission in Iraq, which the government now wants to expand into Syria. In the beginning, the mission proposed by the government was to last 30 days. It simply consisted of advising the Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

However, when those 30 days had passed, the government made a request to extend the mission by six months. Six months ago, we also debated a motion about this mission in Iraq. Today, the government is asking us to vote on extending that mission for another year. We went from 30 days to six months to a year, and each time, we had to ask dozens of questions to try to get clear and consistent answers from the government.

People like me who watch question period every day noticed that the government kept contradicting itself. For example, some ministers were saying two different things about whether we would accompany or assist Iraqi troops. Contradictory answers were given about whether or not our soldiers would be engaging in combat and whether or not they would be near the front lines. How can the government say that our soldiers are far from the front lines when they were only 200 metres away?

In that respect, an unfortunate incident occurred not that long ago. One of our soldiers lost his life for his country. I want to express my sincere condolences to his entire family and to thank them. This soldier gave his life for our country. He was 200 metres from the front lines, when the government told us that our troops were two kilometres away from Islamic State positions. Two kilometres may seem like a lot but it really is not in situations such as this. Unlike the Americans, who did not get that close to the front, our government allowed Canadian soldiers to get only 200 metres away. That also shows that the government is not giving us clear answers about what our soldiers are doing. Just in the past few days, we heard new contradictory remarks.

This time, they had to do with the purpose of the mission. Will the government say that the mission has been accomplished when the Islamic State's capacities have been degraded, when the group has been eliminated completely or when it has been stopped in its tracks? The government has been describing the goal of the mission in several different ways.

Sometimes their descriptions were even contradictory. Has the government earned our trust? That is the question I asked myself when I was assessing the motion and deciding how to vote. Can we trust the government, based on the seven months that have passed since the start of Canada's mission? The answer is no. As the leader of the official opposition clearly demonstrated on Tuesday, any trust we might have had in this government going forward was broken as a result of its contradictory statements and unclear information.

I will not vote in favour of the main motion today for several reasons. As I just said, I cannot trust the government going forward. In addition, there is a lot missing from this motion. As military experts have said, there are two things we are supposed to have when deciding to engage in a mission: a clear and specific objective, and a planned exit strategy. We cannot simply get on a plane and leave, as the government is implying. It is more complicated than that. Military strategies are more complicated than getting on a plane and leaving. It is rather rich to hear Conservative ministers say that it is as simple as that.

Thus, there are these two things: establishing whether there is a clear objective and whether there is a clear and well-defined end to this mission. The answer is obviously no. That much is obvious.

Earlier I mentioned that there are several definitions for the end of the mission. Some ministers spoke about degradation and others about annihilation. The ultimate objective of the mission is not clear. When will the government say that Canada has done its part, that the mission has been accomplished and that we are withdrawing? It is not clear. We cannot support a mission that, in our view, does not have a defined objective and is still unclear. In this case, the objective is vague to say the least.

We are supposed to learn from our past mistakes. When we make a mistake, we try not to repeat it. However, if we look at the outcome of George W. Bush's war, which began in 2003, the results are mixed. After many years in Iraq, the results of the U.S. government's efforts in that conflict are uncertain.

The situation we are in today might, to a certain extent, be a result of that conflict, which created a situation and internal conflicts in that country. Perhaps the impact of those conflicts is being felt today. The resulting situations are certainly not pleasant for the civilians in those countries.

The Conservative Prime Minister supported the war back then; he was in the opposition. We might ask ourselves whether the mission being proposed reflects the Prime Minister's desire to go back to his 2003 position, which was to wage war. We could say that this is the Prime Minister's war and it has no legal basis. This will be my last point, since I do not have a lot of time left.

Today, we are talking about the motion to expand the war into Syria. I will not repeat the entire argument made so well by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, but the legal basis is questionable and unfounded. We are having a hard time getting answers from the government on this legal basis. If the government wants to move forward, it will have to prove that there is a legal basis in international law.

Without that, I cannot support the one-year extension of the mission in Iraq.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to pick up on a question that a lot of Canadians are asking and that many MPs have asked, because it is hard to get an answer. At what point will the government be able to say that the mission has been accomplished?

We have heard several definitions of “mission accomplished” from various ministers. Some say that it is about degrading the resources and capabilities of these groups; others say that it is about defeating or completely annihilating them.

Can the member tell us at what point the Conservative government will be able to say that the mission has been accomplished and whether it is even realistically possible to permanently annihilate terrorist groups like the one we are talking about today?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I wonder if my colleague can help us understand the vague objective of Canada's mission in Iraq, which the government is now trying to demonstrate. There seems to be no clearly defined objective for the end of the mission in Iraq.

The problem is that the government has decided to undertake a combat mission without having a clearly defined objective at the outset about when the mission will end and when we will be able to withdraw our soldiers from all of these conflicts.

Can my colleague comment on the problem of not identifying a clear end to this mission?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech. However, since she spoke after my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, who eloquently expressed his views on the lawfulness of Canada's action in extending its mission into Syria, I was expecting her to address my colleague's concerns in her remarks.

Could she then at least answer the question about the lawfulness of this intervention, which will now extend into Syria, with respect to international law? Can she answer these questions, which are not only on my mind but also on the minds of most of my colleagues in the House and of most Canadians?

[Petitions, March 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of people in Sherbrooke who are calling on the federal government to use all of the diplomatic resources at its disposal to secure the release of blogger and prisoner of conscience Raïf Badawi. Since his family has sought refuge here in Canada, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to take action and do everything it can to secure his release and reunite him with his family here in Canada.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

A Conservative member surprised me earlier, if the Conservatives can still surprise anyone. He criticized us for lacking judgment, because we decided to talk about this extremely important issue. This is just further proof positive of how little importance the Conservatives attach to the environment, since the issue we are discussing today pertains to the environment and something that is harmful to our environment.

Does my colleague see this as an important issue and does she think that protecting the environment should be a priority for the Canadian government?

[Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, March 9th, 2015]

I consent, Mr. Speaker.

[Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It is difficult for me to say why the government did not present a solution earlier. The goal of my motion is to put pressure on the government so it will feel compelled to take action.

It is my hope that the House of Commons will support my motion—I implore my colleagues to support this motion—to somehow put additional pressure on the government so that it will take action and allow airports such as the Sherbrooke airport and many others in Canada, as I said in my speech, to grow and establish commercial ties with other major North American centres. It would certainly be a significant economic and tourism vector for the Sherbrooke area and the Eastern Townships.

I will also repeat that this mechanism would be available to all the other airports that are not currently designated under the act. This is not just a local solution, but one that will apply across Canada. I hope it will receive the support of all my colleagues in the House.

[Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, March 9th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his co-operation on this issue, which is taking quite a bit of time. I want to remind hon. members that the Conservatives opened the door to this mechanism in June 2013. I am pleased to see that we are heading toward a solution to this lingering impasse. In Sherbrooke, there has been talk of an airport and the resulting economic development for a long time.

It is also important to keep airport security in mind. I understand the situation at the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which, according to the government, is not an economic development agency. I agree. We must always keep airport security in mind, however. This mechanism could ensure security at every airport. It would make it possible to provide security service inside the Sherbrooke airport and security service for all of Canada.

[Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, March 9th, 2015]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should present, as soon as possible, a mechanism that would allow non-designated airports, that is, airports that are not on the 2004 list of airports designated under the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act (CATSA), to provide, at their expense, CATSA-recognized security screening in a manner that would not compromise the health and safety of passengers, and would uphold existing CATSA standards.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate the motion that I have the honour of sponsoring, Motion No. 553. I feel proud and privileged to be able to express myself on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke on such an important issue.

For the benefit of my colleagues and Canadians who are watching, I would like to begin by reading the text of the motion I have moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should present, as soon as possible, a mechanism that would allow non-designated airports, that is, airports that are not on the 2004 list of airports designated under the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act (CATSA), to provide, at their expense, CATSA-recognized security screening in a manner that would not compromise the health and safety of passengers, and would uphold existing CATSA standards.

I would now like to put all of that into context and explain how significant this motion is for many airports across Canada, including of course the Sherbrooke airport. After reading the bill, I have to admit that it is quite technical, but I will do my best to explain it in layman's terms before I try to convince members.

What is CATSA? I am sure many of my colleagues who fly back and forth between their ridings and Ottawa every week are already familiar with CATSA agents. If they are not, they meet them every week. Here is how CATSA defines itself:

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority is a Crown corporation responsible for securing specific elements of the air transportation system—from passenger and baggage screening to screening airport workers.

Established on April 1, 2002, CATSA is fully funded by parliamentary appropriations and is accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Transport.

CATSA is governed by a Board of Directors with its operations directed by a Senior Management Team....

CATSA was the centerpiece of the Government of Canada's response to the events of September 11, 2001 and part of a comprehensive $2.2 billion package of aviation security initiatives in the December 2001 budget.

Established on April 1, 2002, CATSA’s responsibilities fall into four major areas:

Pre-board screening of passengers and their belongings;

Hold baggage screening through explosives detection systems at airports;

Non-passenger screening of those entering restricted airport areas;

Restricted area identity card implementation and management....

CATSA’s mission is to protect the public by securing critical elements of the air transportation system as assigned by the Government of Canada.

It is important to highlight “as assigned by”.

Why is such screening by CATSA so important? People are probably wondering what the problem is exactly. Why are we moving this motion today? The answer is simple. When CATSA was created in 2002, the then government established a list of 87 airports that would be served by the administration. In 2004, two airports were added to that list, bringing the number of designated airports to 89. Is the Sherbrooke airport on that list? Obviously, the answer is no. That is where the problem lies, and that is precisely why I am raising this issue today.

Some will likely ask me what difference being on this list makes to an airport's ability to offer commercial flights. It changes everything for Sherbrooke.

Sherbrooke was close to concluding an agreement with a national airline, which was prepared to start operating flights between Sherbrooke and major economic centres. The essential, non-negotiable condition for the airline in question was that the Sherbrooke airport be designated under the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act. It was during these talks that Sherbrooke applied to Transport Canada for its designation.

In June 2013, Transport Canada, through its minister, rejected this application for designation. The agreement with the airline fell through. This abortive agreement proves something very important: airlines are interested in the Sherbrooke airport, and there is certainly an attractive market because they were ready to add flights in 2012-13.

The simplest solution would be to add Sherbrooke to this list as the 90th airport. The government must have thought, why do things the easy way when we can do them the hard way.

Why did the government refuse to give the Sherbrooke airport that designation, especially when adding it is rather simple? It can be given by regulation made by the Governor in Council and does not require legislation. I would remind members that two airports were added by regulation in 2004.

We still do not know why Transport Canada refused the application. Although we have repeatedly asked the minister for an explanation, she has only given one response that might give us a clue, in which she said that CATSA is not an economic development body. Ten other airports besides Sherbrooke have applied for designation since 2004. They were all refused. Is it for financial reasons? It is up to the government to tell us.

Sherbrooke had anticipated this potential pretext for Transport Canada's refusal. In its application for designation, Sherbrooke had offered to cover the associated costs. In its June 2013 letter of refusal and subsequent answers in the House, Transport Canada opened the door to a mechanism that would allow non-designated airports to provide Canadian Air Transport Security Authority security screening on a cost-recovery basis.

Given the government's categorical refusal to add Sherbrooke to the list of designated airports on the one hand and its openness to providing a mechanism whereby non-designated airports could obtain the administration's services on the other, I have questioned the government on several occasions about how the development of the mechanism that it itself proposed is coming along.

We have heard absolutely nothing since June 2013. Nothing has been proposed. No legislative changes have been introduced. That is shameful, and that is why I am moving this motion, which calls on the government to present the mechanism in question to the House as soon as possible.

All of the airports that are not currently on the list of 89 airports would benefit. In my opinion, that is the beauty of the proposal before us today. It does not simply seek to resolve the problems of one airport, the Sherbrooke airport, but to provide a development opportunity for hundreds of non-designated airports across Canada.

There are 518 airports across Canada. If we do not count the 89 airports that are already designated by Transport Canada under the law, over 400 airports could be interested in a mechanism like the one called for in my motion.

Sherbrooke has waited long enough. The Eastern Townships have waited long enough. The airports that could benefit from this mechanism have waited long enough. It is high time the government took action.

We are all well aware that airports across the country are important economic drivers. A fully functional airport with better commercial ties with other large North American centres will generate major economic spinoffs, which have already been examined at length.

The study led by Luc Savard, a full professor with the faculty of business administration at the Université de Sherbrooke and the director of the Groupe de recherche en économie et développement international, did an excellent job of explaining this.

...a review of existing literature.... Some findings emerged from this review...they all confirmed that airports have a huge impact on their region. First, there appears to be a positive correlation between the number of boardings and GDP, as well as between GDP growth and the growth in the number of domestic flights. Second, when there is an airport on the outskirts of a city, it has a facilitating effect on regional businesses by giving them access to new markets. Third, an airport changes the economic and demographic structure of the region and is one of the factors that companies such as research and development firms consider when deciding whether to locate there.

...Ivy et al. (2005) show that the connectivity of airport services has an impact on jobs at headquarters and promotes the development of research institutions as well as the financial sector. In addition to the complementarity of public and private investments, an airport has a facilitating effect, which increases access to people and their ideas, to capital and to markets...

...Green (2007) finds a strong connection between air traffic in a region and the growth of its population and job market.

...The Sherbrooke University Pole, which helps generate research and development activities in addition to private sector investments, could greatly benefit from this facilitating effect, increasing the economic impact on the region.

The problems related to transportation that the Sherbrooke area is currently facing are part of a larger, similar problem facing Canada, the United States and Australia, namely, low population density and vast distances between communities across the country. In 2011 for instance, about 54% of the population lived in the Montreal and Quebec City census metropolitan areas. That being said, population growth in the Sherbrooke census metropolitan area is higher than the Quebec average. This population growth is taking place without the air transportation infrastructure that the region needs, which means that people from Sherbrooke have to travel to Montreal, if not further, to take a flight anywhere. Population growth is positively correlated to air traffic. For instance, between 1980 and 2000, the population in the U.S. grew by 24%, while air traffic grew by 136% over the same period.

—The bottom line here is that the economic benefits of a fully functional airport have been well established. They have been studied at length and are indisputable. We also have to remember that not having a functional airport can even result in economic losses, because Canadian air travellers will go to U.S. airports near the border. This is a real problem in southern Quebec.

There have been a number of studies on this issue, which affects not only Quebec, but also communities along the Canada-U.S. border all the way to British Columbia. The Library of Parliament summed it up as follows:

Based on the results of these studies, we know that approximately 5 million Canadian passengers travel by plane from American airports every year. According to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications study, Air Canada representatives estimate that, by 2015, up to 3.4 million Canadians could be travelling out of airports in Buffalo, Niagara Falls (U.S.), Plattsburg and Bellingham exclusively, with an associated direct negative impact to the Canadian economy of $2.3 billion. The extent of the impact of this exodus may be summarized as follows: (1) a reduction in the amount of air traffic...in Canada; (2) the undermining of the role of larger Canadian airports as international hubs; and (3) an increase in fees paid by each passenger because airport fixed costs will have to be spread over fewer people. According to the [Conference Board of Canada] report, these factors will likely result in a loss of revenue ([for example,] taxes) for all levels of government.

I wonder if my colleagues know that Sherbrooke is the only centre in Canada with more than 200,000 inhabitants that is not served by a regional airport. That has to change. This is critical to the economic prosperity of Sherbrooke and the whole region.

I would like to close with some thoughts on the words of John Kasarda in his 2011 book Aerotropolis: The Way We'll Live Next. He suggests that aerotropolises, which are cities that grow up around an airport, are the cities of tomorrow. The major urban centres of days gone by were built around railway stations, but those of the future will develop within a 33-kilometre radius of airports.

I would be happy to answer my colleagues' questions.