House of Commons photo

Track Pierre

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is quebec.

Conservative MP for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2025, with 42% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply March 8th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his question. We obviously support economic development. The economy has always been the prime concern of the Conservative Party.

Expanding the runway at Billy Bishop airport would make it possible for the company currently operating there to purchase Bombardier planes. We support the development of the aerospace sector as well as business development. There are a number of other issues in Canada but here, in Toronto, we are talking specifically about Billy Bishop airport. If the runway were extended, Bombardier could sell its planes to Porter, just to name one company. Perhaps Air Canada could fly C Series aircraft into the Billy Bishop airport.

In what way are we opposed to development?

Business of Supply March 8th, 2016

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

The Conservative Party, the NDP, and the Liberal Party have a totally different way of seeing things. The Conservatives are all about supporting entrepreneurship. The Billy Bishop airport is a project that will support Bombardier's development as well as business development. The airport will create more opportunities for business and leisure travel.

We know there will probably be some financial assistance, but that is not even what our motion is about. We admit that Bombardier is a large corporation and that it has certain needs. However, we think that the Billy Bishop airport is a factor in economic development and, for the Conservatives, that is what counts. It is not just about handing out money, it is about helping businesses grow.

Business of Supply March 8th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his point of view.

However, it is clear that the process was still under way and that the minister put an end to discussions with a single tweet. That was it. One tweet from the Minister of Transport, and it was over.

Business of Supply March 8th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, before I begin the main part of my speech, I would like to read the motion. I have been hearing a lot of things today, but I think that members are forgetting the main points of the motion under debate. In the motion, we are asking:

That the House: (a) acknowledge the contribution Bombardier makes to the Canadian economy and the aerospace industry;

We all agree on that. We are also asking that the House:

(b) recognize that there is a market solution already available that could support Bombardier; (c) acknowledge that Bombardier has designed the quietest and best aircraft in its class that is well suited to urban airports like the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport; (d) recognize that the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport is a major economic driver for the Greater Toronto Area that supports both business and leisure travel; (e) recognize that the expansion of Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport would allow airlines to purchase Bombardier aircraft; and (f) call on the government to reverse its decision on restricting the expansion of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport.

I do not think that there is anything negative for anyone in there. Let us take this one step further and come back to Bombardier. My maternal grandfather was the mayor of Valcourt and a good friend of J. Armand Bombardier. Mr. Bombardier always said to my grandfather, “I invent and my accountant does the math.” The point I am trying to make here in the House is that we need to find creative ways to help, but we also need to be able to do the math.

I am pleased to be able to participate in today's debate on the future of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport and the quality jobs that Bombardier provides all across Canada, but particularly in Quebec. The tripartite agreement between the City of Toronto, PortsToronto, and the Government of Canada describes what can and cannot happen at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. The agreement, which was signed in 1983, has been amended twice, once in 1985 to allow the Bombardier Dash 8 aircraft to land at the airport and again in 2003 to allow for the construction of a tunnel linking the city to the airport, which, by the way, is on an island.

When this tripartite agreement was signed, the Liberal government of the day had just expropriated hundreds of farms north of Montreal to establish an airport near Mirabel for intercontinental flights. As we all know, because of technological advances, an aircraft can now fly non-stop from Vancouver to Paris, and Mirabel airport now solely serves cargo companies. Today, air transportation is accessible and affordable for most Canadians, which was not the case 30 years ago. For that reason, there are better links between our cities.

Government regulations for airports and aircraft must also be in step with technological advances. Bombardier designed and built the best plane in its class with the C Series. This is the quietest aircraft, even quieter than the Dash 8, which has been authorized to land at Billy Bishop for more than 30 years. This aircraft consumes less fuel per passenger than a new car.

This aircraft will give passengers a more comfortable travel experience with its innovations. The new Bombardier aircraft is, quite frankly, ideal for use at small airports such as Billy Bishop in Toronto or LaGuardia in New York.

However, the Liberal Party, through its Minister of Transport, unilaterally decided to eliminate numerous potential orders for this new airplane by blocking the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport. Furthermore, in a single tweet, the Minister of Transport imposed his will on every Toronto resident and city councillor. In a single tweet, our champions of consultation put an end to thousands of hours of consultation and studies that were already complete. I point this out, since my colleague earlier did not seem to be aware of this. We have to wonder where this decision came from, what motivated it, and whether the minister truly understood the impact of his decision.

I would like to share a little information. In 2013, a Canadian airline submitted a request to the City of Toronto to extend the Billy Bishop airport runway and end the ban on jets. This airline's hub is located at the Billy Bishop airport, which generates many jobs in Toronto.

After long debates at city council, after receiving briefs and presentations from stakeholders, Toronto city council unanimously voted to allow the city manager to negotiate with Transport Canada and the Toronto port authority on a phasing framework to manage growth at Billy Bishop airport. As a result, the City of Toronto ordered a full environmental assessment, an airport master plan, and a runway design plan. The cost to the City of Toronto for these plans and assessments is estimated at $4 million. The three studies were 90% complete, and City of Toronto officials were to make recommendations to city council in early 2016.

When the minister sent out his tweet blocking the expansion in November 2015, the city stopped examining the proposal.

The City of Toronto had a list of 25 issues to be addressed before it would approve expanding the airport, and it was in discussions with the Toronto port authority regarding its concerns.

Given that the Liberal government will not stop talking about the importance of working with Canada's provinces and municipalities, it took some real audacity for the minister to throw nearly two years of hard work out the window with a single tweet. It is shocking.

Is it because the Minister of Transport wants to give priority to rail development in Toronto? It is a legitimate question.

Expanding the airport would be good for Bombardier. The Government of Quebec announced that it had purchased a 49% stake in the C Series program at a cost of $1 billion U.S. The Quebec and Ontario governments are calling on the federal government to make a financial commitment and support Bombardier and the entire aerospace industry.

We think that Bombardier expects to receive at least $1 billion in financial support from the Canadian government. What Bombardier really needs is more orders for C Series planes. So far it has orders for fewer than 300 aircraft.

Bombardier needs airlines that want to showcase the assets and advantages of this new aircraft. There is a solution that would really help Bombardier, would not cost taxpayers a dime, and would allow that company to create jobs. However, this government made a decision that was entirely political, one that is going to cost thousands of jobs in Toronto and Montreal. One has to wonder whether the political leanings of the stakeholders in this matter explain and justify that decision.

I hope the government House leader will allow the Liberal members to vote freely on this motion, which is important to the economic future of Montreal and Toronto.

Veterans Affairs March 7th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, the soldiers who sacrificed their lives to defend our country are honoured on Remembrance Day. This commemoration is essential to honour the memory of those who perished and to remember the veterans who survived.

Why is the government cancelling the plan to pay tribute to veterans? What consultations did it hold with veterans before making this decision?

National Defence February 26th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the Minister of National Defence as a veteran.

However, no one understands what the Liberals are doing. Only the Liberals understand each other. This week, I asked the minister whether Canada was at war. He said, “I do not fully understand the member's question.”

Then he had to say whether this was a combat mission or not. To that, he said, “this is a non-combat mission. However, we are in a conflict zone...I also point out that they are not the principal combatants.”

After four long days of debate in the House, there is still no intelligent explanation for withdrawing the CF-18s. The government wants to engage in a mission that comes at high risk to our soldiers, while denying that we are at war against the Islamic State. The cherry on top is that the minister wants our troops to fight in Libya, while our allies are recommending that we do not go there.

How much more confusing could this be?

National Defence February 25th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is a great improviser.

After having a discussion with the Italian foreign affairs minister in Brussels, he is now moving the Canadian war effort against ISIS to Libya.

Recently, in Washington, a senior official with the American government explained that it was not a good idea for Canada to go to Libya because of the presence of another terrorist group, Boko Haram.

What are Canadian soldiers going to do in Libya?

National Defence February 25th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the government has been inventing new phases for its plan to combat ISIS every day. This plan jumps from Jordan to Lebanon and from Syria to Iraq.

Yesterday, in the Senate, the Minister of National Defence indicated that this war plan now includes Africa.

Can the minister tell us what countries our soldiers will be fighting in and how he can justify that without Parliament's consent?

National Defence February 24th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, combat is the foundation of Canadian Armed Forces soldiers' jobs once they have finished their required training. It is important for soldiers to know whether they will be participating in combat operations on the ground.

The United States has declared that it is at war against ISIS, and France has said the same. This is a fundamental issue for our soldiers.

Can the minister tell us whether Canada is at war against ISIS, yes or no?

National Defence February 24th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat a third time.

Charles Brown, the American general in charge of the coalition's air campaign, was very disappointed to hear that the CF-18s were being withdrawn. He said, and I quote, “It is kind of sad to see them go. I realize that for your operators who fly the CF-18s, your pilots, I think they are a little disappointed...I would probably be feeling the same way. We welcome them back...if the minds there change.”

The general in charge of the coalition's air campaign is telling you this, minister. When will you allow our CF-18s to return to combat?