OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 252 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 21, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 21, 2023 DEBATES No. 252 No. 252 N o 252 Volume 151 252 21 11 2023 2023/11/21 10:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1000) [ English ] Committees of the House Science and Research

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, entitled “Support for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Food and Drugs Act

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-366,

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (substances in menstrual tampons) . Bill C-366. Introduction and first reading He said: Mr. Speaker, today is a special day. It is the culmination of the Create your Canada contest in my riding. I want to give credit to two students from my riding, Isha Courty-Stephens and Hana Reid, who are both in Ottawa today to witness the introduction of their bill. Every year, millions of Canadians use menstrual products without readily accessible information about the risks to human health of the substances contained within them.

There is a lack of adequate research on the side effects and possible dangers of certain common ingredients in tampons and certain undisclosed ingredients that have been labelled as possibly carcinogenic by the World Health Organization. Many tampon companies have also included harmful ingredients, such as fragrance, bleach, aluminum, alcohol and hydrocarbons. Today, I am very proud to rise and table this bill,

an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding substances in menstrual tampons. This enactment would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide that labels on menstrual tampons must include a list of the substances they contain. The bill would increase awareness around menstrual products and the ingredients used in tampons. I think there is a strong will in Parliament to strengthen labelling requirements for these products to increase transparency and to better allow Canadians to make informed choices about the menstrual products they purchase.

I want to congratulate both Hana and Isha and recognize them for their work on this issue and for being the driving force behind this bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

(1005) Petitions Foreign Affairs

Mr. George Chahal (Calgary Skyview, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise this morning to present a petition signed by Canadians addressed to the Government of Canada. The petition recognizes that Palestinians in West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem have endured Israeli occupation and continuously expanding Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Gaza has been under a blockade for 17 years, which has included restrictions on movements, basic services and human rights, and nearly 50% of the population of 2.5 million are children. It is estimated that 13,000 Palestinians have been killed in the last month and 5,000 of them were children.

The petition calls on the Government of Canada to engage with the international community to work toward a ceasefire and genuine pathway to a political solution in the form of a two-state solution and to condemn violations of international law. It calls on the Government of Canada to condemn anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and all forms of bigotry and to advocate for the Israeli government to meet its commitments under the Geneva conventions and international humanitarian law. Canada was a leading voice 67 years ago in advocating for action “not only to end the fighting but to make peace”, in the words of Lester B.

Pearson.

Pakistan

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place to present petitions that are important to Canadians and my constituents. Specifically, I have a petition today that was brought forward by a constituent of mine and signed by a number of Canadians from across the country. The petition says that the people of Pakistan and Pakistani Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about reports of political turmoil and the uncertainty in that country.

There is particular concern about reports of violence and threats of violence being used as a way to suppress opposition parties in Pakistan in the lead-up to general elections in that country later this year. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to condemn in the strongest possible terms the use of violence as a political means in Pakistan or anywhere else in the world. It is an honour to present this petition in the people's House of Commons today.

Old Age Security

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here to speak on behalf of my constituents of North Island—Powell River, many of whom signed this petition. They note that OAS, old age security, payments were increased by 10% for seniors 75 and older in July 2022 and that seniors aged 65 to 74 have not received that increase. That means over two million seniors were left out by the Liberal government's decision to create a two-tiered system for OAS.

We know that across this country, the cost of living is increasing and is having a very profound effect on seniors, who often have a fixed income and cannot afford basic necessities. Seniors are asking the government to change that and make sure there is not a two-tiered system but one system and that OAS is increased for all seniors, including those from 65 to 74.

Foreign Affairs

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition that was initiated by multiple pro-democracy and human rights groups across the country. In total, the petition garnered 5,799 signatures. The petition notes that in view of the recent CSIS revelation on China's interference and influences in Canada, the petitioners are deeply concerned that some members of the community are using the centenary anniversary of the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, to undermine the government's commitment to proceed with the foreign influence transparency registry.

It also notes it is imperative not to conflate the racist act, which discriminates against all Chinese, with the registry. It is applicable only to those, Canadians or not, who lobby on behalf of foreign governments. Anti-Chinese racism cannot be used as a shield to distract from and minimize the urgent actions required to preserve our Canadian democracy. Setting up a comprehensive system of our own foreign influence transparency registry is one of the most effective ways to safeguard our Canadian democratic system and uphold the universal core values of freedom, democracy and justice.

Canada must be in step with our allies, including Australia, the U.K. and the U.S., each of which has established its own registry. Canada simply cannot afford to play politics with our national security or democratic process.

As such, the petitioners are calling for the government to, one, move expeditiously with the passage of the foreign influence and transparency registry legislation in the coming fall session of the House; two, develop a proactive and comprehensive strategy in eradicating systemic racism in all its manifestations within Canada; and finally, develop a proactive public education strategy on promoting civil engagement and democratic participation.

(1010) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I remind hon. members that presenting petitions is for just a

summary of a petition and not necessarily the reading out of the whole petition. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

Health Care Workers

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present, signed by many Manitobans, with regard to health care and health care workers. The petitioners are asking for the federal government and the provincial government to look at ways to work together to improve the retention of health care workers, recognizing the skills they bring to Canada, often through immigrant credentials, for example, and to be there to support and have the backs of our health care providers.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

Is it agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders Government Orders

[ English ] Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act Bill C-52. Second reading

The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-52,

An Act to enact the Air Transportation Accountability Act and to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I will start by letting you and the table know that I am splitting my time with my hon. friend and colleague from the beautiful riding of Kenora . Although he is not from western Canada, he is on the western side of Lake Superior and it is a beautiful part of our nation. It is an honour to rise to enter the debate on Bill C-52 and kick off the debate we are having here today.

I will take a brief moment to acknowledge one member of my team whom I had the honour of honouring last night with the presentation of her five-year service pin, although with a four-year delay, for her time in the House of Commons. I note on the record how appreciative I am of my casework manager Amy. I know that all of us in this place work diligently, but we could not do what we do without the good people who support us in our offices.

I give a big congratulations to Amy, although the presentation is four years late because of COVID, for her five-year pin, which she was granted last night at a ceremony where so many long-serving members and employees of members of Parliament were given pins. We are here debating Bill C-52 . Although I cannot show it to members, I did share a video on my social media shortly after it happened that highlights what I would suggest is the failure of the Liberals when it comes to the air transportation sector.

I will take members back a number of months to when the president of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority was holding a press conference and talking about how improved the service at the Toronto airport was. The cameraman, who I hope still has a job, did a great job of exposing something that we often in politics refer to as gaslighting.

As the president of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority was at Pearson airport talking about how great their service record was and how they had recovered from the challenges related to COVID, with a long speech opining on how great their work was, the cameraman simply panned the camera up toward the departures screen of the airport. I encourage members to imagine this shot. Anybody who is watching can google this and easily find the video. If I was not prohibited from showing it in this place, I would show it, because it was a demonstration.

As this high-placed president of the Pearson airport authority talked about how great their service record was, the cameraman simply panned the camera up toward the departures screen. I know all of us in this place spend a fair amount of time in airports. I know my colleagues experience this on a daily basis. What we see when there is a delayed or cancelled flight is an orange or a red line. A majority of the flights that day had been delayed or cancelled, which was completely contrary to the message being presented by this airport official.

I bring that up here today because it is an illustration of the government's record when dealing with challenges that our nation faces. The Liberals are quick to talk and quick to make announcements, but when it comes to delivering results for Canadians, they fail and the facts prove it. As we saw in that video, the cameraman did more investigative reporting than probably the Minister of Transport and his office had done when it comes to showcasing the failures of our transportation sector.

As a member of Parliament who represents a rural area of Alberta, I do not have any international airports in my constituency, although I have a whole host of airports of a regional nature, and I have many constituents who are required to use our transportation system. I have heard from hundreds of people, probably more than a thousand, over the course of the last number of years about how frustrated they are with the level of service being provided.

(1015) It was the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the member for Carleton, shortly after he was elected leader of the party in what was the largest leadership vote of any political party in Canadian history, as a note for the record, who made the comment that everything in Canada feels broken. It was interesting that the Prime Minister and many Liberals over there took great offence to that: How dare the Leader of the Opposition make such a statement?

Something was quickly repeated to myself, and many of my Conservative colleagues, and I know for a fact that it was shared with many members of the Liberal Party. I have just a slight aside. I find it really interesting that members of the Liberal Party stand up and say they have never heard from a constituent about a real concern. For example, we can take the carbon tax, frustrations when it comes to our air transportation sector or any other of a host of issues.

Maybe my colleagues could enlighten me if I am the only one here, but I am getting cc'd on emails that are being sent by constituents of Liberal members of Parliament who find my content on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter. They cc me when sharing their concerns with Liberal members of Parliament. It is very interesting when those Liberal members stand up. I believe it was a constituent in the riding of the parliamentary secretary, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge . The member said she had never had a concern brought to her attention related to the carbon tax.

I am cc'd on emails sent to those MPs, and I think it speaks to how out of touch the Liberals are. We have Bill C-52 before us, with three parts that sound great. However, when it comes to the substance of the bill being able to address the challenges we face, we certainly heard from stakeholders who shared that this bill does not deal with the meat of some of the challenges that our airports face. I know we have also heard some concerns about how this would affect other federally regulated transportation sectors, including ports and our rail system.

There are concerns about whether the measures in this bill would be enforceable. The former minister of transport in this country oversaw one of the worst failures in our transportation sector. It led to Canadians facing, in many cases, tragic frustration because they would miss things such as weddings and funerals because of the failures in the system. The minister was fired, yet here we are debating this bill that simply does not address the meat of the challenges that our transportation sector is facing.

I look forward to being able to answer some questions about why we need to ensure that we have a transportation system that works for Canadians. Unfortunately, under the Liberals, we have seen a deterioration of the trust that Canadians should be able to have in that sector. As a large country, we need to know that our infrastructure works for Canadians. Under the Liberals, that system has become broken. This bill would not take the steps required to fix it. I look forward to answering questions on this subject matter.

(1020) Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am curious about why the members opposite would be opposed to transparency in the transportation system. Is it because, when they were in office, their infrastructure plan consisted of fake lakes and gazebos? Are they suggesting that transparency in building infrastructure is not needed, so they can continue to build fake lakes and gazebos and pretend that this actually helps Canadians?

Mr. Damien Kurek :

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the previous Conservative government, we had a legacy of building things for this country. Thousands of projects were built across this country. We saw economic stimulus that built the infrastructure that actually served the best interests of Canadians. However, the member's government has overseen a multi-billion dollar boondoggle in the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has built zero projects. I find it rather rich that this member is asking for transparency.

Specifically, let us get back to this bill, which highlights exactly how hypocritical and out of touch the member and the Liberals are. We have a backlog of over 50,000 complaints when it comes to the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is taking more than 18 months for those complaints to be heard. When it comes to transparency and accountability, the Liberals fall so far short of the mark that I do not think they know whether they are coming or going. Just like the Canada Infrastructure Bank, they have overseen failure after failure.

It is time for real leadership in this country that can bring accountability back to our transportation sector. When it comes to infrastructure, let us be a country that builds again.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I have always thought about bringing back the Homer Simpson award. I really believe Conservatives are out of touch. It is unbelievable that they would be so critical of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Does the member have any concept, any idea whatsoever about the tens of billions of dollars, approximately a third of which is coming from government support at the national level, and the projects out there that are going to help millions of Canadians? Why is the Conservative Party so naive that it is trying to mislead Canadians by saying that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad idea? It demonstrates very clearly just how reckless the Conservative Party of Canada is today.

Mr. Damien Kurek :

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that there seems to be no other Liberal who is capable of standing up and defending the government's record other than the often-on-his-feet member for Winnipeg North . That aside, we are trying to talk about the transportation sector here. I get why the Liberals are so afraid to talk about it. It is because Canadians are so disgusted with their management of something that is directly within federal jurisdiction. Coming back to what the member asked about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, let us look at the facts. Infrastructure is meant to be built in this country.

The Liberals have been unable to do it. When Conservatives are in charge, we will be a country that builds again to ensure that Canadians have the world-class infrastructure that is required to ensure that we can serve the best interests of Canadians and build prosperity for the future of our country. The Liberals have failed. Conservatives will bring home a Canada that builds things again.

(1025) Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we heard the government members talking about the need for transparency. Much of what is being proposed in this legislation will be set forward in regulations from the minister rather than being embedded directly in the legislation and having to pass through Parliament. Does my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot, who was so kind as to split his time with me, have any comments about his frustration or concern, which I am sure he would share with me, in relation to this?

Mr. Damien Kurek :

Madam Speaker, it is a great question. I am glad the member will be covering that because if I had been given the opportunity to speak for the full 20 minutes, I would have gotten into some of the challenges when it comes to a typical trend the government has undertaken, which is to defer responsibility. This bill in particular gives the minister an incredible amount of latitude to determine what the regulatory framework will or will not look like in this. Unfortunately, what we have seen in the record of the Liberals is simply one of perpetual failure. Canadians want a bill that has teeth. This bill does not have that.

Mr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is great to rise in the House. The Liberals could clap too. I appreciate the warm reception from my colleagues, even if it is a bit sarcastic. I appreciate the opportunity to rise and share some comments today on behalf of the people of the Kenora riding and right across northern Ontario. I apologize for causing so much chaos in this place. It is certainly not my intention. It is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-52 , the enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act.

As was alluded to by my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot before me, this bill was brought forward on the tail end of a disastrous travel season for Canadians. Looking back on 2022, we know that there were people who were stranded on the tarmac, stranded in planes for hours and stuck overnight at airports. I heard many colourful descriptions of the Toronto Pearson airport over that period of time. In particular, not just Canadians, but people right around the world expressed their frustration with Canada's air travel system. We were in international headlines for a lot of the wrong reasons throughout this period.

The Liberals dropped this piece of legislation, Bill C-52 , on the table in June. I believe it was the day before we rose for the summer break, which is a concerning trend that we have seen from the Liberal government. It drags its feet for weeks and months on end; then, at the 11th hour, it puts forward a piece of legislation, saying that it is very important and that we need to move forward on it, right before the summer break.

In some instances, when it comes to indigenous legislation specifically, the Liberals will drop it on the table without proper consultation and expect it to be rushed through the House of Commons. It is a concerning trend, and we see it here with Bill C-52 . To speak to the bill more directly, I would note that, substantively, this bill proposes to set publicly reported service standards on private sector companies and government agencies responsible for air travel at airports, almost exclusively through regulations created by the minister. I will get into that more specifically later on.

The bill would establish requirements respecting the provision of information to the Minister of Transport by airport operators, air carriers and any entity providing flight-related services. It requires that airport operators take measures to help Canada meet its international obligations in respect to aeronautics in accordance with directions issued by the Minister of Transport. As well, the bill authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the development and implementation of service standards related to flights and flight-related services.

This includes a dispute resolution process in respect of their development and publication requirements for information related to compliance with those standards. Further, the bill goes on to propose that airport authorities formalize noise consultation processes, publish climate change action plans and publish information on diversity among the directors and senior management of those airport authorities. I want to bring it back to the issues the transport sector is facing. We particularly talked about them in 2022, with all the issues that we saw as a result of the government's mismanagement.

The Liberal government was very focused on the announcement of the bill and bringing this bill forward, again, at the 11th hour, right before we rose for the summer. Throughout this time, we have seen that the backlog of complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency has grown by an average of 3,000 complaints per month. There are currently over 60,000 complaints awaiting adjudication. This bill does nothing to address that massive backlog.

(1030) Passengers who have been unable to resolve compensation claims with airlines are having to wait over 18 months to have complaints considered by the Canadian Transportation Agency. It would have been a positive step to see the bill include some standards for the CTA as well to address the fact that, as we have seen quite clearly as a result of the government's mismanagement, an incredible number of people are waiting for a response from that perspective.

Conservatives have been advocating and will always advocate the rights of air passengers to receive compensation in instances where there was inadequate service provided, or perhaps even no service provided in many instances. We believe that every federally regulated entity that has a role in air travel must be financially responsible for delays or cancellations. This should include airlines, of course, and it should include airports, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and the Canada Border Services Agency. In looking at Bill C-52 , we know that the CBSA would be excluded from it.

It is further unclear which entities would in fact be considered under the bill, as it would be broadly left to future regulations. It is unclear what service standards would be and what consequences there would be for those who fail to meet them. Again, as a result, this is setting the pathway for much to be decided through regulation by the government and by the minister directly. That is something that I just want to focus on a bit more.

It is part of a concerning trend with the current government, which is moving forward with trying to give its ministers more power, rather than respecting Parliament's ability to debate and pass legislation. Overall, the bill is at best a toothless one that contains no specific remedies to the issues we are seeing in the air transportation sector, but the more concerning

part is the power going directly to the minister. I say it is concerning because it is definitely not the first time we have seen an example of the current Liberal government going for a heavy-handed approach. We see, on a regular basis, the government's desire to move time allocation and limit debate on bills in the chamber, not allowing MPs the opportunity to rise and to speak to issues of concern to them, or to speak to different pieces of legislation.

We also cannot forget that it is the current government that brought forward the online censorship bill, which gives too much power to the government itself to regulate what people can see on the Internet. As a result, as we all know, it has been almost impossible to share certain news articles and pieces of information on social networking sites. I will remind members that it is the current government that brought in the overreaching Emergencies Act during the freedom convoy protests.

It is the government that originally looked to ban a number of firearms through an order in council instead of bringing the issue to Parliament to be debated. If members can remember all the way back to 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, buried in an initial aid package, the current Liberal government attempted to grant itself unlimited tax-and-spend powers until the end of 2021, which would have been, at that time, over a year of unfettered and unchecked spending.

I share all of these examples because there is a concerning trend of the current government's granting more power to itself and trying to, in many ways, circumvent the will of Parliament. In terms of Bill C-52 , it is difficult to comment specifically on many of the service standards and what their effectiveness may be, because we do not know what they are. The government is asking Parliament and Canadians to trust that it will be able to get this right through regulation.

However, after eight years of the government's mismanagement, Canadians are losing their trust in the Liberals, and I would say that I am as well. It is not that they ever had my trust, but I certainly do not trust them to move forward on these regulations. I look forward to questions, hopefully from the member for Winnipeg North.

(1035) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, not wanting to disappoint the member, I do have a question, which is in regard to the marine aspect of the legislation. I understand that members of the Conservative Party are now taking the position that they are going to be voting against the legislation, but there are some substantial changes coming for the marine component. We would have an agency that would be able to look at the ports and establish possible fines and the amounts of the fees being charged, which would really have a significant impact, I would suggest to the member, for producers on the Prairies, for example.

Members of the Conservative Party are very eager to be critical of the legislation, and are now on the record saying that they are going to be voting against the legislation, but it seems to me that there is a lot of good stuff within it. Why is the Conservative Party not actually reading the legislation and providing an alternative with respect to what they would like to see in it?

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to respond to a question from my friend across the way from Winnipeg. It is a good question, because the member raised the point that there are some aspects of the bill that we are certainly in favour of. We are not opposed to many parts of the bill, but again, as I stressed, overall we see that it is moving forward with many regulations and service standards that would be decided solely by the minister and the government, and that is something that is a major red flag to us.

I would much prefer that the government were able to explicitly state within the bill what the service standards should be so we could debate them, discuss them and bring in witnesses at committee to have input and just provide more transparency. Therefore, even though there are some aspects of the bill that we are certainly in favour of, it is very difficult to support, not knowing what many of those broader issues would be.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kenora on his speech. We have here a government that is trying to rein in the airlines. I would like to mention a very specific situation that is happening in my region, the Lower St. Lawrence. As of December 4, the Mont-Joli regional airport will no longer be offering any regional flights within the Lower St. Lawrence, nor will it be offering flights to Quebec City, Saint‑Hubert or Montreal. We are isolated.

The government has no problem giving billions of dollars in subsidies to Air Canada, but when it comes to finding solutions and requiring airlines to provide services to the regions of Quebec, it does nothing. In Bill C-52 , which is before us today, the government is seeking to increase transparency by requiring airport authorities to publicly disclose information respecting directors and senior management, but that is not what people in the regions need. They need airlines. They are isolated in terms of transportation. It is impossible for them to travel to urban centres. We do not have any trains.

As members know, Via Rail is a fiasco. The train comes through twice a week at two o’clock in the morning. That is the service that is provided in my riding. Well done to the federal government on that one. As of June 2020, Air Canada closed its doors and sold all of its assets in the Mont-Joli regional airport. I would like my colleague from Kenora to tell us what he intends to do if the federal government provides billions of dollars to airlines that are not active in the regions of Quebec.

(1040) [ English ]

Mr. Eric Melillo :

Madam Speaker, the member highlighted, which I think I made very clear in my remarks, the concern I share with him on the lack of transparency in Bill C-52 . He spoke of the transportation difficulties in his area, and I would echo that, as there are many similar transportation challenges in northern Ontario. He mentioned Via Rail, and there is a Via Rail “station” in our riding where people are standing outside, often at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., waiting for the train to come through. It is a very limited service and a difficult service for many people to access, so I share a lot of the concerns the member raised.

Hopefully, we will be able to work together and with the other parties to bring more transparency to the bill.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-52 . I think the Conservative Party really needs to get a better understanding of the substance of the legislation. It appears as if Conservatives are going to be voting against the legislation, giving the false impression that it in essence does not do anything for Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are substantial aspects of the legislation that would improve things such as efficiency, transparency, accountability and accessibility. These are all very important aspects of the legislation.

We have had two members of the Conservative Party stand up to say virtually that the legislation would not be doing anything. That at least implies that they are going to be voting against the legislation, even though when I posed the question to the member across the way, he indicated that maybe there are some good things in the legislation. I would encourage those members to take a broader look at the importance of things such as our airports and the roles they play in our community, and at the airlines.

The first speaker about the legislation made reference to the Toronto international airport, one of the finest airports in the world, I would suggest. Yes, there are some problems with the Toronto international airport; I have even had my own complaints and concerns in regard to it. I think the member and the Conservative Party are wrong to blame some of those issues strictly on the airport authority. There are many aspects to an airport.

The legislation attempts to deal with a wide spectrum of issues that are important in order to make sure that our airports, airlines and different stakeholders are all going in the right direction, because we recognize their true value. There were interesting topics raised by members speaking to the bill. I made a quick note of some of them. One member made reference to the issue of time allocation, saying that the government is trying to push through legislation.

So far, in listening this morning, I suspect that the government is going to have a difficult time without using time allocation on the legislation, primarily because it appears as if the Conservative Party is prepared to continue to talk and talk about this particular legislation. We will have to wait and see. I suggest it is important legislation, and hopefully, the Conservatives will come to the realization that it is in Canadians' best interests. We all know that members across the way could prevent the passage of the bill very easily by just talking.

It does not take much to use up time when there are 100 members of the Conservative opposition who are determined to prevent legislation from passing. Another issue that was brought up by members opposite in dealing with this is the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, about which I was able to ask the member a question. Our airports are very important to us. They are a very important aspect of Canada's infrastructure. We know that as a government, because we have actually invested in airports in a very real and tangible way. We have argued that by investing in infrastructure, we are building the economy.

I think members need to be aware of the degree of importance our airports play in contributing to the economic well-being of our communities. There are large international airports, such as the ones in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and in Calgary, which is growing exponentially, along with other airports, like my very own, the Winnipeg international airport.

(1045) These airports play a critical economic role, but it is not just the large airports. In the province of Manitoba, there are the Winnipeg Richardson International Airport and the St. Andrews Airport, where training programs are provided. When we look at the St. Andrews community, we can see the impact aerospace has had on that community, which is just north of Winnipeg, just outside of my riding. There are training programs for domestic and international students to make sure there will be pilots into the future. People also rely on the transportation there.

In the past, there have even been industries, such as the aerospace industry, which has invested in aerodrome in that area. Things like potential satellite development have been looked at. There are smaller airports throughout the province, such as in Brandon. There are also grass runways to help farmers with fertilizer and so forth. Airports are very important. The member made reference to infrastructure, and I would suggest we undervalue our airports if we are not prepared to invest in them. Investing in airports is something we have done as a government.

Conservatives talk about a lack of actions by the government, trying to give the impression that things are broken. This is a consistent message we hear from the Conservative Party. Its members go around the country espousing how Canada is broken in every aspect. It is as though everywhere a Conservative member walks or flies, there is a black cloud over them. They want to rain negative thoughts as if everything were going wrong in Canada. The degree to which they push that is amazing.

Whether it is on the floor here in the House or through social media, they want to give the impression that Canada is falling apart and is broken. Conservative members have stood already to talk about this legislation. They have said that it was terrible legislation and that they would be voting against it. This is legislation that would make a positive difference. I have news for my friends across the way, and it is that the vast majority of Canadians recognize and know Canada is not broken.

They know there is good reason to believe Canada is on the right track and moving forward, especially if we compare Canada to virtually any other country in the world, particularly the G7 and the G20 ones, the most powerful industrialized countries. Canada is doing exceptionally well. This legislation supports the idea and principles of moving forward. The government has a responsibility to bring in budgetary and legislative measures that would have a positive outcome for Canadians. We have seen that consistently from day one.

I would suggest to my Conservative colleagues that they let a little sunshine come in and start talking about some of the good things that are taking place, even here in Ottawa. I will give some specific examples. Even though the Conservatives are apparently going to be voting against this legislation, let me make references to what this legislation would do.

(1050) The bill would establish requirements respecting the provision of information to the Minister of Transport by airport operators, carriers and entities providing flight-related services. It would establish requirements. How is that a bad thing? It is building up expectations. We should all have expectations of the different stakeholders. I would think members on all sides would support that. The legislation would make regulations respecting the development and implementation of service standards related to flights and flight-related services, including a dispute process.

Those who travel, especially who travel frequently, I am sure, could share all forms of stories. I have been to the Ottawa airport, as all of us have, and I have heard the reasons and rationale that are often given. It is not just one sector of the airport. I have been in a situation of waiting for a flight crew to arrive because of traffic issues. I have been in a plane that sat on the tarmac waiting, as other passengers have, for a ground crew to arrive. I have spoken with constituents who talked about the problems with baggage. The problems are wide and varied.

I have had frustrations with Air Canada, in particular, most recently with the cancellation of direct flights and the excuses given. There is a wide spectrum of factors that need to be taken into consideration, so the idea of making regulations respecting the development and implementation of service standards related to flights and flight-related services, including, I would emphasize, a dispute resolution process, is a good one.

How many times do we hear from individuals who have legitimate concerns about what is taking place at airports, things that cause all sorts of delays for people needing to get to their destinations in a timely fashion, which might cause other problems? This aspect of the legislation is very positive, yet the Conservatives seem to have overlooked that because they are again voting against the legislation. Hopefully, as I go through some of these things, they will reconsider their position on the legislation. What we are really talking about is, in essence, a framework and principles.

If the legislation is allowed to go committee, members would be able to add additional thoughts. If there are ways they think they could improve the legislation, they could put them in the form of amendments. Conservatives should at least have an open mind, as opposed to saying they do not support the legislation and that they will not allow it to go committee because they want to talk it out. As Conservative members who spoke before me indicated, they are concerned with issues such as time allocation, so they are setting down some track on that particular issue. They do not want the legislation to go forward.

I will go through other issues, but just based on a couple of the things I have mentioned already, why not allow Canadians to have the types of laws that will impact the quality of services at our airports, such as the dispute mechanism, as I pointed out, to address the frustration?

(1055) People want to understand that there is a way to allow them to receive some sort of attention with respect to the concerns they raise, as opposed to, let us say, contacting an airline and hoping to talk to someone live, who then tells them they have to go through a particular department, or whatever it might be, let alone trying to contact an airport itself. The bill would require airport authorities to publish information on diversity among directors and senior management. I have been to airports that have an airport authority board. The diversity of our boards is important to the government.

We saw a feminist Prime Minister who said that the makeup of cabinet needs to reflect the makeup of Canada. I would argue we have the most diverse cabinet in the history of Canada. One should not be surprised to see that we want some of these other corporate entities to also incorporate diversity. Whether it is the federal government through showing leadership or within some of the corporations we are responsible for, sending a message of expectation on diversity is a positive thing. I would think the Conservative Party would be inclined to support something of that nature.

However, if that is one aspect it does not support, then it can attempt to bring in an amendment at committee stage to see if it can get a majority from the MPs. After all, we have a minority government here. That means it takes more than one political party, even at committee stage, to get something passed. Could the Conservative Party get enough support for some of its ideas? Maybe one of the reasons it does not want it to go to committee is that it knows that, in many ways, it cannot generate the support required.

The bill provides for an administration and enforcement mechanism that would include an administrative monetary penalty framework. The legislation does not necessarily have to go into the details, which we have already heard from some of those speaking to the legislation. They are saying that it is not specific enough. The legislation does not have to deal with the specifics of everything, and members know that. This particular point talks about providing an administration and enforcement mechanism that would include an administrative monetary penalty framework.

There needs to be a consequence, and that consequence can be defined better through regulations. I again see that as a positive thing. If things are not going right at our airports, being able to establish fines and other potential consequences would be a positive. I am very quickly running out of time. I wanted to talk about the port authorities and highlight them because the members opposite did not talk about that. I raise the fact that these changes to that aspect of the legislation, the Canada Marine Act, is in the best interests of all of us.

I am thinking specifically of our farmers and producers in the Prairies. I am being very fussy on that, but we need to look at how fines and fees are established, and we have to ensure there is some sort of dispute resolution mechanism in place to protect the interests of our prairie farmers. There is so much within this legislation, but I have already run out of time. I hope the Conservatives will flip-flop and support the legislation.

(1100) Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, that felt like a long 20 minutes. I do want to make a commentary about the member admonishing the Conservatives for simply bringing forward concerns with legislation, expressed both by our constituents and stakeholders. The member for Battle River—Crowfoot mentioned that the legislation would not address the 60,000-plus complaints. I would draw the attention of all members of the House to the fact that the parliamentary secretary complains about members standing in this place to raise concerns. He has spoken over 3,000 times in this place since 2021.

That is more than every other member of the Liberal Party right now. In fact, he has spoken 20 times more than any other member in the House. If we rise in this place, it is simply to speak on behalf of our constituents and stakeholder groups, which have pointed out defects in the legislation. This information can then be used at a committee. People will follow up and look at the transcripts, as I do when matters are brought up. Members have mentioned organizations and constituents who have concerns. That is the job of this place.

The parliamentary secretary has already said that the government will guillotine the debate if this continues, but we will not stop representing our constituents and Canadians in this place.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, even the Conservative Party has to acknowledge that, as an opposition party, there is a responsibility to ultimately allow decisions to be made in the chamber. There is only one of two ways that the Conservative Party will allow that to happen. It has to be clearly demonstrated that what we are doing is so terrible that they are literally shamed into allowing a vote to take place, or it has to be done through some form of time allocation. The true Conservative agenda is to debate things endlessly, never allowing it to come to a vote.

The member said that Conservatives would like to make some changes at the committee stage. In order to make those changes, the legislation has to get to the committee. The Conservative members have already said that they do not support the legislation. Maybe the member, and other members, could tell us what kind of amendments they would like to see. They could show us how they want to benefit Canadians.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I was struck by something my colleague said in his speech. He said that the bill itself does not need to be overly specific. There is an airport in my riding, the Saint-Hubert airport. I held a public consultation on the subject last year, because this airport's development has been problematic for years. In particular, there are noise-related issues, because this is an airport in an urban environment. That is somewhat new, but there are also many groups who oppose the airport's development as part of the fight against climate change.

We know that the aviation industry produces a lot of greenhouse gases. It is a problem and people are very engaged in the issue. Why does this bill not include measures on that? If the government is serious about fighting climate change, it has to start by legislating and writing bills with measures that will actually help reduce greenhouse gases. It could have done that here. Why are there no specifics in the bill?

(1105) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but in fact it is done. It would establish requirements for airport authorities to create plans respecting climate change and climate change preparedness, and it would authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting reporting requirements for those plans. The Liberal government has recognized that there are issues for communities and that airport authorities need to have noise abatement advisory committees to support the airports and protect the people who live in and around the airports.

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, we get to hear that member speak a lot, and I guess we do our best to enjoy it. My question about the legislation is incredibly important. I have a lot of constituents who represent organizations that work on behalf of the community of persons living with disabilities. They talk about the many challenges they face in travelling. The Auditor General of Canada published a report in March of this year entitled “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities”. It examined the accessibility of federally regulated transport services.

Between 2018 and 2020, 2.2 million persons with disabilities travelled. Those were the ones who were willing to take that risk. A lot of people choose not to travel simply because they are not treated in a way that is encouraging and inclusive. Of those 2.2 million people who used transportation during that time, 63% faced significant barriers. That concerns me. This bill takes some steps in a direction that are somewhat positive, like ensuring that data is available to the public. That leads to more accountability.

It would require service providers with the federal transport system to establish a process for dealing with accessibility complaints. The report from the Auditor General stated clearly that the Canadian Transportation Agency had insufficient tools and enforcement staff to address all of these barriers. Does the member agree with the NDP that we should see more inclusion of these organizations and people living with disabilities, as we figure out these regulations moving forward?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, in

part 2 of the legislation, there is a

section dealing with the issue the member has referenced. We recognize this and it is one of the reasons we have incorporated that into the framework of the legislation. It would enable the Governor in Council to put together regulations that would assist in dealing with the importance of accessibility for people with disabilities. It was not that long ago that Air Canada made a formal apology for an incident that involved an individual with a disability. It was appropriate for Air Canada to make that public apology. Hopefully more attention will be brought to this when it goes to committee.

I suspect we will hear from different stakeholders. I hope one of those stakeholders will be from a disability organizations.

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I always take great joy when the hon. member is speaking in this chamber. Some days bring more joy than others. I know I am going to have a bad day when I hear someone on an airplane thanking me for my patience. It usually means I am either having a bad day or I am about to have a bad day, and it is a phrase that unfortunately all of us in this chamber, who are all frequent travellers, hear all too frequently. I noticed that part of this bill is to authorize the Governor in Council on service standards. Could the hon. member opine on some of the service standards that are not being met on an all-too-frequent basis for those of us who travel on airplanes fairly frequently?

(1110) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, there is an area I have not really provided very much comment on to improve standards, and that is the issue of competition. It would be a wonderful thing to see. I genuinely believe that the best way to improve some of the services we receive is through competition. We need to encourage and promote that competition. Where there is a lack of genuine competition there is an obligation on agencies, such as government, to ensure some basic service standards are being applied. Canadians deserve equality. Obligating airlines and airports to start publishing records would ensure more accountability.

Registering the complaints and how airlines and airports are dealing with them would go a long way in improving service standards. In other words, let us start publishing that information for accountability and transparency purposes.

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I want to thank hon. colleagues for allowing me to be part of this debate on Bill C-52 . I have listened intently to the debate. I even went back to listen to the debate of October 27. Some may ask why I did that. I spent about 25 years in aviation and I am keenly interested in the transportation sector. I think there might be a handful of us in the House who have lived it, breathed it and know what we are talking about when it comes to aviation and our transportation networks, Therefore, I am going to be come at this in a few different areas.

I have heard what our Bloc, NDP and Liberal colleagues have said, and a few things need to be addressed. Bill C-52 was an opportunity that the government had, after eight years, to actually fix some of the problems with the disastrous travel seasons in the last couple of years post-pandemic. How did we get here? We had a summer season that was horrible. We had a winter season, a Christmas season, when passengers were sleeping on the floors of our national airports.

I am probably not going to make any friends with my airport colleagues, probably limiting any of my post-political career job opportunities, when I say that our national airports or our gateway airports are failing us. Why are they failing us? Because the government has failed to put into place measures to make things better for passengers, Canadians and the travelling public, the people coming to and from our country.

Only a decade ago, Canada had a government that understood that our country was a trading nation, that our success as a nation was predicated on our ability to move people and goods seamlessly and securely. Our former Conservative government invested in our ports and airports, our roadways and railways. We were able to move people and goods seamlessly and securely. We did not see the blockages or blockades to the number we see now. We are losing our reputation on the world stage to be a frontrunner of trade and in the movement of goods and people.

Our success is predicated on being able to move the goods and the talent we produce here to other countries. The member for Winnipeg North talked about Bill C-52 and its goals to increase the efficiency, accountability and transparency of our ports and airports. He said that the blame was on the airports, but the blame is spread a little throughout. The government has failed to do what it could in the last eight years. It has really fallen down.

This was most evident during the last Christmas break when thousands upon thousands of visitors to our country and Canadians were forced to camp out on the floors of our airports and major gateways for hours and days. I was on an aircraft for six and a half hours waiting for de-icing fluid for de-icing tanks. However, my time was minimal compared to those who spent days in that airport. I am so proud of Vancouver, YVR, one of our major gateway airports, but I was very vocal about how it had failed.

The reason I say this is because I have sat in pre-winter briefings with our major airports as a small airport manager. As a regional airport, we have to funnel our passengers through our major gateway airports to get them to and from our country.

(1115) We ask our major airport officials whether they are ready for Christmas and for the snowfall. They say, “We are ready.” As a matter of fact, YVR released a shiny video with all its snow removal equipment. We get two or three inches of snow, which is a normal dump of snow for those of us in rural areas and our airports stay open, but it causes chaos in our major airports. Therefore, they will pardon me if I get a little frustrated when our major airports continue to fall down. I was invited to join a winter debriefing call.

I challenged our airport and airline colleagues as to whether they were ready, and what were some of the lessons learned. I heard they have learned their lesson. How many times in 20 years have I heard that? It is so frustrating. My travel day is 12 to 15 hours on a good day. Most times, it is delayed, but I am okay; I signed up for this and I just take it as it comes. What about the average Canadian passenger who is delayed or cannot make it to a funeral or a wedding? Our concerns are that Bill C-52 proposes to make airports more accountable, but it does not look at the aviation ecosystem as a whole.

What about Nav Canada? What about CBSA? Again, there is flow control. How many times are Canadians forced to sit on a plane due to flow control because Nav Canada has not been able to staff up our air traffic control towers? I heard from our Bloc colleagues about air service development. Bill C-52 would do nothing about air service development. Here is a news release saying that Bill C-52 would not do anything about it. The only thing they can do is work with their regional carrier. The reality is that we are all in competition. Every community across our country is in competition for air service.

There are 26 airports in our national airport system and four regional airports that have over 200,000 passengers. There are 71 regional airports and we are all in competition. Not only are we in competition with one another, but we are in competition with our border communities in the United States. Billions upon billions of dollars are lost every day because we are failing in our competition with airports and ports just across our border. We have people who leave Canada out of my province and take a flight out of Bellingham. Why is that? It is because a $29 fare in Bellingham is a $29 fare.

In Canada, a $29 fare would be probably about $174, if not more. That is because we have a user pay system in Canada. The idea is that the costs for airports, for the operation, for airlines and whatever are borne by the air travellers. It is in the form of airport improvement fees. That was introduced in the 1990s. YVR, I believe, was one of the first airports to allow for airport fees for renovations.

We do that because we as a country view our airports as cash cows and not necessarily the economic engines that they really are, so airports have to recover their costs in one of a few ways: landing fees, terminal fees, real estate and commercial fees. That is really the only way that they can do it. There are very limited revenue opportunities for airports. I will get back to Bill C-52 . I am on a soapbox right now, and I apologize for that. Our colleague across the way said that we over here on the opposition side like to talk and talk about legislation. Is that not what we are here for?

Is that not like the pot calling the kettle black? As my colleague just mentioned, that colleague from Winnipeg North has stood up over 3,026 times, I believe, since 2021.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen: That's not enough.

Mr. Todd Doherty: Madam Speaker, I am hearing from one of the colleagues that it is not enough.

(1120) I, on the other hand, have risen 162 times. Shame on me. I should be getting up a little bit more. I have to be doing my job a little bit more. I get heckles from across the way. I listened to the debate on October 27. In response to a question from a Bloc member about why there is no air service in their region, that they have an airport but they do not have air service, and shame on this government, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport stood up and said that he had heard the same from one of his colleagues in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and that he is working on that.

One is telling me that the government is going to pick winners and losers, once again, as it has throughout this whole eight years, that it will subsidize air service in the Yukon and Northwest Territories but perhaps not in Quebec or not in B.C. or not in some of our rural or remote areas that some of our other colleagues on the opposition side represent. Once again, we see Liberals picking Liberals over the rest of Canadians. That is shameful. Our colleague from the Green Party talked about the fact that Bill C-52 fails to mention intermodal opportunities. She is right.

We missed a great opportunity in following up on the great work that our former Conservative government had started, investing in intermodal opportunities, making sure that we can seamlessly move people and goods through our airports, ports, railways and roadways. We have the fastest and greenest marine port to Asia in the Port of Prince Rupert just adjacent to my riding. We have the fastest and greenest railway into the U.S. Midwest, connecting the Port of Prince Rupert from Asia and bringing goods by rail into the U.S. Midwest.

If Canada ever figured out what we really wanted to be in this world, we could set the world on fire. We could really do some incredible things. Bill C-52 was a great opportunity for the government to put a stamp on the transportation network and yet it did not. This government does some things really well. Let us give credit where credit is due. It does photo opportunities incredibly well. We had the transport minister banging his fist on the desk, saying that he sure told those airlines and the aviation business and they are going to listen to him. Bill C-52 does nothing. It is lacking in so much detail.

All we have asked for is to be provided some details. Who are they going to make more accountable? Where are the regulations for CATSA? Where are the regulations for CBSA? It would require “airport authorities to publish” an annual report on “diversity among directors” of the airport authority and members of “senior management”. We have among the most diverse individuals, with the most expertise, on our airport authorities than any other nation, I believe. We have incredible people on our airport authorities. It would force airport authorities to create and publish five-year climate change adaptation plans.

One Bloc member talked about how there is no air service in their region and then another Bloc member said that it is GHG emissions and the noise abatement issues. One cannot suck and blow at the same time. One cannot have it both ways. What is it? Does one want air service or not? As for noise abatement issues, there are regulations for airports. Our airports do have to report to Transport Canada. They are heavily regulated. As a matter of fact, we have among the most heavily regulated and we have the highest cost aviation jurisdiction in the world. Why can we not attract carriers to our country?

We cannot attract carriers to our country because it is expensive to fly into our country. It is expensive to even just fly over our country. They have to pay NavCan fees. I will go back to intermodal opportunities now. Our colleague from the Green Party mentioned bus service. My community of Prince George is on the Highway of Tears and the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls has been widely publicized.

(1125) Far too often, members of our indigenous and our rural and remote communities are forced to hitchhike to get to major service centres or other communities because there is no national bus service anymore. Greyhound, the national bus service that we had for so long, that served some of our smaller communities, pulled its service in 2021. I believe the last service was in Ontario and that service was pulled. There are no coordinated services amongst provinces.

We have smaller bus agencies that are trying to get another bus service, but without a coordinated plan, either federally or provincially, we are going to continue to see that. I was amongst the first employees of WestJet. We looked at how to pick markets to go into. We did bus surveys. The idea was we were going to get bums out of bus seats and into planes. WestJet has been pretty good at that, but the ripple effect makes it harder for people in rural and remote communities, because of the departure of our national bus carrier, Greyhound.

Our colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood mentioned service standards. He asked our colleague, the member for Winnipeg North about the service standards that are not being met. It was interesting, because he did not ask about the service standards in Bill C-52 . There are no service standards in Bill C-52. Bill C-52 lacks a ton of details, and that is our concern. It gives the authority to the minister, once again, without having to come before the House or Canadians to say that this is what the government is going to do. Earlier in the day somebody said to me that trust and respect are earned.

I would hazard that the Liberal government received the trust and the respect of Canadians in 2015, but in the last eight years, the Prime Minister and his government have squandered that. Fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me. What we have seen over time is that Canadians are just waking up to the fact that the government is not worth the cost. Bill C-52 is yet another piece of legislation where the government is saying, “Do not worry about it.

We will get it to committee and work on it.” The Liberals say all the time that it is the Conservatives who are squandering time and delaying bills, but they have a majority with their NDP coalition, and now with their Bloc coalition. If Liberals really want to force things through, and believe me, I sit on the committees and I see it all the time, they could get it done, if they really wanted to do it. We are on the record. I see a colleague across the way waiting to get up and ask me a question. I will simply leave with this, Bill C-52 is just another example of a bill where the Liberals are saying, “Trust us”.

Canadians know they can no longer trust the government to get anything done, and that Conservatives will come in and clean up the mess.

(1130) Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, nobody is saying, “Trust us.” I do not think anybody is saying that at all. All we are saying is that we should use the Westminster parliamentary system in the way that it is intended to work, which is to bring an idea before the House, have a debate here about it and move it to committee to make the required improvements that the member wants. Every Conservative who has stood up so far has basically said that the bill does not go far enough.

Why on earth would we not at least get it to committee, which is the way our system works, and then we could try to improve where Conservatives do not think it goes far enough? Then we could bring it back to the House in due course. The member says Liberals have a majority with the NDP and the Bloc. That is how the system works; that is how Parliament works. We debate things, we vote on things and we move on.

Just because the Conservatives might be upset that they are in the minority, and are against a particular bill, does not mean they should just throw up their hands, throw their bike in the ditch and run home.

Mr. Todd Doherty :

Madam Speaker, is that not what our Prime Minister does when he does not get his way? That is exactly what our Prime Minister does. If he does not get his way, he throws a hissy fit. He grabs his toys and complains that we are picking on him. Again, I am going to use the same comment. One cannot suck and blow at the same time. One cannot say one wants Westminster style and wants democracy and then force closure all the time. The government lobbied and promised Canadians sunnier ways and that it was going to be truly transparent. I have lost count of how many times the government has forced closure on debate. I will wait for the next question, because that one was just laughable.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by my colleague's words. A Bloc Québécois member said that the regions are poorly served by Air Canada, and another said that aircraft noise can be a nuisance. My colleague said this is contradictory, so everything should be tossed out and no improvements are possible. He finished his speech by alleging there is an alliance between the Bloc Québécois and the party in power. This strikes me as symptomatic of something I have noted among the Conservatives for some time, which is an appalling lack of rigour.

When a party leader can stand in the House and say there are people asking for medical assistance in dying because they have nothing to eat, and a group of members are ready to vehemently defend the notion that there is a tax on carbon in Quebec when there is none, this kind of speech follows.

[ English ]

Mr. Todd Doherty :

Madam Speaker, perhaps it was in the delivery or perhaps it was in the translation, but what I was saying in terms of noise abatement and regional air service is there are mechanisms in place to deal with that. In his local community, the regional airport will have noise abatement rules it has to follow. Canadian aviation regulations need to be followed. It should have a noise abatement committee or a director responsible for noise abatement. Another colleague was looking at air service development.

Again, I offer to my colleagues, free of service as a matter of fact, some constructive ways their communities can maybe partner with airlines to put air service development plans in place. There are mechanisms in place for those communities to do that. Bill C-52 clearly is another opportunity that was missed. It does not address any of those areas. That is merely what I was saying. We have one Bloc colleague blaming noise abatement issues and greenhouse gases and then another one talking about not being able to get regional air service. They should coordinate their questions.

Again, if any of them want to talk about air service development, I did it for a long time and perhaps I can offer them some tips on how they can get their community some direct air service.

(1135) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the first two Conservative speakers today implied they are going to be voting against the legislation. Given the member's first-hand experience, would he not at the very least acknowledge there are many positive things within this legislation that would in fact be of great benefit for Canadians as a whole, and in particular air travellers? Would he not agree having it go to committee at the very least affords the opposition the chance to improve upon the legislation? Why would the Conservative Party not want to vote in favour of the legislation? What within the framework is so appalling that the Conservative Party is going to vote against it?

Mr. Todd Doherty :

Madam Speaker, one of the frustrating things with Bill C-52 and the Liberals' argument is they failed to mention the Canadian Transportation Agency. Complaints to this agency have grown to over 3,000 per month. There are over 60,000 Canadians who are waiting for their complaints to be adjudicated by the agency. Their complaints are waiting to be adjudicated by the agency, and yet Bill C-52 does not even mention the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Liberals continue to tell Canadians or whoever is listening, whether it is with this legislation or others, that Conservatives are obstructionary and do not want to get it to committee. We have seen this time and time again. I go back to the comment, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Liberals keep asking why we would not just let the bill get to committee where all these issues could be resolved. What we have seen time and again is when we get a piece of legislation to committee, they partner with their NDP colleagues, ram it down the throats of Canadians, and we get flawed bills.

The government should be held accountable. The government should be accountable to Canadians who elect all 338 members of Parliament. However, what we have seen time and again is the Liberals shirk the issues. Bill C-52 is another example of that.

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on a comment from another colleague across the way, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood . Let me state for the record that I do not enjoy the member for Winnipeg North speaking quite as much as he does, but I want to pick up on the question he asked the member, which my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George also referenced, and that is the lack of service standards. Where is the specificity? That is what Canadians are looking for, not another promise or photo op. Would the member agree?

Mr. Todd Doherty :

Madam Speaker, I would agree 100%. That was my comment. Who sets that service standard? Are they going to set up yet another committee of industry experts who will meet and do nothing? Who sets those standards? Who agrees to those standards? What we see in Bill C-52 is that, once again, it would give all the power to the minister with no accountability to Canadians. Who sets those standards? That is the question Conservatives have.

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion between what is law and what is regulation. This would be a law that possibly sets up an agency for the creation of regulations. This is not the place to ask for specific standards as to when baggage should or should not arrive or when airplanes should fly on time or not fly on time. It probably would be better in committee. Once the bill is passed and the regulations are published, there would be a scrutiny of regulations committee to establish whether the regulations are appropriate. Can the hon. member give us his understanding of the interaction between the creation of law and the creation of regulations?

Mr. Todd Doherty :

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague, who has been in this House a lot longer than I have, summed it up quite succinctly. The issue that Conservatives have with Bill C-52 is it lacks the meat, the intention and the direction for when it gets to committee. What is the mandate for the committee? What is the direction and where is the meat in Bill C-52 that will set the guidelines for the work that the committee is going to do? Bill C-52 fails to do that. Similar to what the government has done in the last eight years, it has failed Canadians on the transportation file.

(1140) Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I would really love some understanding on where the hon. member stands. I understand that we are talking about service standards and regulations, and I too am concerned about an industry that self-regulates. That has consistently been an issue, especially when dealing with the safety of Canadians. Is the member saying it is imperative that it be part of this bill, that there should be transparency in government to ensure that transportation standards cannot be self-regulated and that those significant changes be made in the bill?

Mr. Todd Doherty :

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague correctly, no. Our transportation sector is among the most regulated in our country. Are there areas that we need to focus on? Absolutely. We need look no further than news reports in recent weeks about those who have disabilities and travel. One gentleman was dropped in the middle of the aisle and had to literally crawl his way to the front of the plane. That is absolutely unacceptable. Bill C-52 has some points in it that I think are great and I support, but there are areas that we need to address. Bill C-52 does not go far enough. That is what concerns Conservatives.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I look forward to discussing Bill C-52 . Before I do that, I want to say that just as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was finishing up his speech, I got a real kick out of seeing a Conservative member come running into the House to jump up and criticize the member for Winnipeg North for having spoken over 3,000 times. It was as if somebody had punched things into a computer in the backroom to figure that out. The reality is that we are now in a position where Conservatives are criticizing members for wanting to get up and repeatedly represent members of their community.

The member for Winnipeg North should take great pride in the fact that he stands up for his constituents so many times. Over 3,000 times he has stood up for the people of Winnipeg since 2021. That would be something to celebrate, in my opinion. Only a Conservative would come in here and suggest that it is somehow to the detriment of democracy that the member for Winnipeg North continually stands up and represents his constituents.

It is no wonder the man keeps getting elected and sent back to this place by the people of Winnipeg when they see that time after time after time he gets up to represent his constituents. If we could all represent our constituents to that effect, we would be absolutely incredible members of Parliament, all 338 of us. I take great pride in sitting so close to such a passionate member who represents his community. Let us talk about Bill C-52 for a few minutes. This is a very important piece of legislation.

I find it quite interesting that the most recent Conservative member who got up to speak, in response to a question from the NDP, basically admitted that the bill does a lot of what he thinks it should do, in particular, with respect to the scenario that my NDP colleague brought up. He said that he thought the bill would actually do a lot of that stuff and would be good in that regard; however, it does not go far enough in another area that he is concerned about. However, the Conservatives have had a difficult time articulating that today.

None of them have really pinpointed where that is, other than to say that regulation is bad and extreme competition is good. Why will they not at least send the bill to committee? Why will they not at least get it to committee? Then the member or his colleagues who are represented on that committee could talk about it and try to address the issues they have. I would suggest it is not because Conservatives are genuinely interested in the bill or genuinely interested in advancing any kind of meaningful policy for Canadians.

I think it is just that they do what they always do, which is to delay and prevent legislation going forward at any cost. It does not matter what the issue is. I actually have a hard time sitting here wondering when the last time was that Conservatives voted in favour of anything the government proposed. I understand if they say they disagree with everything that this government does, but what are the odds that they would just happen to be against absolutely everything? I think that it is really—

(1145) Mr. Ron Liepert :

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I believe we now have quorum. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands may proceed.

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, if this were the first speech I ever gave in the House and we lost quorum, I would feel personally offended that everyone ran out of the room when I started to speak. However, I am going to assume it is that it is close to lunchtime and people are hungry, so I will not take offence at the fact that we seem to have lost quorum during my speech. In any event, let us talk about Bill C-52 , because I think it seeks to address a lot of the issues we see with airports in our country. Before I identify some of those key challenges, let us reflect on Canada's transportation ecosystem.

In the year 2019, for which I have the data, a total of 162 million people boarded and deplaned at Canadian airports. It is really important to note that 69% of those people either boarded or disembarked from a plane in these four cities: Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal. That is really important, because it speaks to why we need this legislation, given that so many people are using just four airports. There were 26 airports in the national airport system that served around 90,000 air travellers since the 1990s.

Most large airports were operated by private not-for-profit entities, which we know as airport authorities, through long-term leases with the federal government. There were 150-plus other airports owned and operated by provinces, territories and municipalities, including the municipality of Kingston. Of the air carriers, in 2019, Air Canada and WestJet accounted for 86% of the market share domestically. Let us think about that. Two operators accounted for 86% of the market share. Multiple mid-sized and small carriers existed.

Those airports would often hire external service providers for baggage, ramp handling and refuelling, for example. Canada's geography and population density can lead to unique challenges, as members can imagine. We have those four primary locations where people get on and off planes, which literally, if one were in Europe, would be several countries apart with respect to geography.

It is also important to point out that private or not-for-profit corporations are responsible for civil air navigation services across 18 million square kilometres of Canadian airspace, and they oversee more than 3.3 million flights a year through a network of air control centres. That is all done, as we know, by Nav Canada. There are CATSA, CBSA and U.S. CBP. It was indicated that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority screened just under 68 million passengers between 2018 and 2019.

The Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for guarding our border, for immigration enforcement and for customs services. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection currently provides pre-clearance at eight airports. That provides the context for where the challenges exist, and I think it is important to understand what the ecosystem looks like in order to do that. There are key challenges, and I will identify five of them. The first challenge is with enhancing federal oversight legislation in the air sector.

Canadian airports are not subject to an oversight framework legislation, apart from, as we know, safety and security. I think that is a major need, in the transportation sector specifically, and we really need to address it to provide that oversight framework. The second challenge is the accountability deficit that impacts air service to Canadians. There are long-standing concerns, particularly about major disruptions like storms, and about system accountability and transparency, because we quite often hear about them.

(1150) I will never forget waiting to board a plane, and it was four or five hours late. We were told it was out of their control. Due to weather, the plane was going to be late, and nobody was going to be compensated. I looked out the window, and it was a bright, sunny day. I wondered how it was even possible that they blamed it on the weather. It turned out, after I bugged some people, that it had more to do with what the weather was like for the crew who had to fly from another area of the country. There has to be accountability when it comes to those things, and quite frankly, it does not exist right now.

How many times can we allow that domino to fall over? Eventually, one is going to hit somewhere in the world that has bad weather that can impact one's flight down the line. That is where there is a deficit in accountability. A third challenge is that the system lacks service standards and a reporting framework. Canada's air transportation ecosystem lacks clear standards among key operators to ensure the delivery of efficient air transport. Why is having those standards so important? It is very important, especially in a sector that has fewer players, because the competition is not as robust.

We should have standards in the aviation sector anyway. Specifically, when a sector has only two key players, Air Canada and WestJet, that make up 86% of the market in our country, it is extremely important that we have standards in place. In some instances, we cannot rely on the competitive nature to develop those standards, especially when the competition is so low in terms of the number of players. The fourth challenge is insufficient accountability in the marine mode.

We know there are concerns that Canadian port authorities are not sufficiently accountable and are lacking appropriate recourse mechanisms when taking certain decisions like changing fees. Right now, those port authorities can, at their own will, change their fees to whatever they want, and there is no oversight mechanism. It is important because it is not as though those fees can be done by somebody else. The fee is inelastic from an economic perspective. It is a fee that the marine port authority can charge at its discretion, and users have no recourse. That is a big challenge.

The last challenge I want to address is specifically with respect to data about accessible transportation, which needs to be improved. The Auditor General of Canada has called for better compliance data for service providers to identify and to remove barriers to accessible transportation. That one is self-sufficient. We heard a question regarding that. That is why it is so important. Those are the challenges that exist. I would now like to talk about how this bill attempts to address those challenges.

First, the bill introduces legislation, the air transportation accountability act, that would establish an oversight framework for airports on noise; establish requirements to provide information, environmental reporting, and equity, diversity and inclusion reporting; and provide regulation-making authority for the creation of service standards and the associated public reporting for operators in the airport ecosystem. As I indicated, there are some authorities with respect to safety, but it pretty much stops there.

We brought in a bill of rights back in 2018 for airplane passengers, but that pretty much stops at the actual interaction on the plane itself. That does not extend to everything else that happens from the moment one arrives at the airport to the point when one departs from a Canadian airport. We are looking to extend that framework and to allow it to encompass all those things in the ecosystem of the airport, not just on the plane itself, in addition to the other issues I talked about regarding noise and providing information on environmental reports.

The second thing this bill would accomplish would be to amend the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Governor in Council with the authority to make regulations: to require certain persons to provide data on key accessibility metrics to the Minister of Transport and to the Canadian Transportation Agency to support an accessible transportation system; and with respect to the process of dealing with complaints related to accessibility.

(1155) We did hear, earlier in the debate, examples of individuals who were put in extreme hardship as a result of not having that information in place. We know we have to do more for people with disabilities, and we have an obligation to bring in meaningful changes to ensure that people are treated with equity and fairness. However, we also need the data to be able to properly develop those regulations, and that is what the second part of the legislation would do.

Finally, this legislation would amend the Canada Marine Act to improve Canadian port authorities' accountability and transparency on fee setting and the related complaints process established in the regulations of dispute resolution mechanisms. I mentioned earlier that a port authority at a marine location can change its fees at its own discretion, whenever it wants and without consultation.

We would put in place a mechanism to ensure consultation would take place with users, and there would be a mechanism to file a complaint if the users did not feel they had been justly informed and included in the creation of fees or the changes made to those fees. Again, this is about making sure the framework is there to have a better experience for users. This entire bill would do that. It is about making the experiences for users of our airport authority ecosystem and of our marine ports better and more accountable. It is incredibly important.

I am getting the sense, after listening to the debate this morning in the House, that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc will likely be in favour of moving this to committee. I recognize that the Conservatives appear to have some issues with the bill not going far enough, which is what we have heard them say. I do not know why that would prevent the Conservatives from at least voting for it at this point to get the bill to committee. In the eight years I have been around here, times have become perhaps slightly cynical, but I would suggest that is a bit of a red herring.

The Conservatives do not want to support the bill, but it is easier to say it does not go far enough, and it should go further; therefore, they will vote against it. It is probably more along the lines that they do not like the framework and do not think the framework should be in place. They believe in a form of extreme competition, even when it only includes two major players in the airline industry, for example, and they do not believe we should have regulations in place for standards. Perhaps that is just my cynical side, but it certainly has come across over many years of listening to debate in the House.

I hope that, at the very least, Conservatives will not filibuster this bill so it can never get out of the House to committee and that we do not have to work with the NDP and/or Bloc to time-allocate the bill so it does get to committee. However, I know that is another game the Conservatives like to play, so we might end up going down that road as well. In any event, this is a very important bill. It would improve the experience of people utilizing marine ports and the airport ecosystem.

I strongly encourage all members to support it so we can get it to committee, make the required amendments, and then bring it back before the House so it can become law for the betterment of our country and of those transportation systems.

(1200) [ Translation ]

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, people living in the northern boroughs of Montreal, be it Ahuntsic or Montréal-Nord, are extremely concerned about the noise from Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport's air corridor. For years, they have been pleading for noise mitigation measures. While there are good things in Bill C‑52 , the New Democrats would go further. We would implement World Health Organization standards for noise around airports. We would make public Transport Canada noise data for areas surrounding airports, and we would improve data collection on ground-level airport noise.

All these actions are found in the report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities released in 2019. Why has the Liberal government not decided to go further, pushing forward to protect citizens suffering from excessive noise in the vicinity of airports?

[ English ]

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comment, but I think the important thing here is to recognize the fact that, while this NDP colleague brings forward a concern, he also knows that he can address it when the bill gets to committee. The member referenced a report where this issue about noise has already come up. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood made a comment earlier about the difference between legislation and regulation. I do not know if the member's concern falls into the legislative part of it, which is what we are dealing with now, or the regulation that comes out of the framework that is created.

In any event, what we are trying to do here and what the bill would establish is the oversight framework for those airports. As I indicated, I think 69% of all air travel in Canada is in four airports, with Montreal being one of the busiest four airports in the country. Obviously, the other three will probably have similar concerns with respect to noise.

However, this framework would set up the manner in which the data that the member is talking about will be collected; the rules, decisions and regulations can then come out of that framework to better improve the negative experience that people are encountering at the Montreal airport.

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the bill purports to make travel experience better, but it does not really have service expectations or standards set out clearly. A lot of it is just left to the Governor in Council, or in other words, cabinet. I think it would be unfounded, but the member may have comfort in the Governor in Council today. He may not have that comfort in the future. Could he comment a little bit on whether the bill should not have more service standards and expectations built into it?

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but the member must not have been in the House to hear a similar question from the member for Scarborough—Guildwood , which would have answered it. However, this is where I think the Conservatives are just using the issue as a red herring. The member should know better than to suggest that those specific details should be included at this point. The bill is about setting up the framework to be able to collect the data and then make those regulation decisions. The member is basically asking why that detail is not in here, which I think is a red herring.

This is just the Conservatives' excuse to vote against the bill. The member should know better than to suggest that this information should be included at this stage. This is about setting up the framework so that what he is going after can actually be obtained and then decisions made with regard to the regulations.

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to carry on from the two previous questions and the information in the bill. The bill would create a formal process for notifying and consulting the public on changes to aerospace designs that affect aircraft noise near airports and ensure that communities would be consulted. The simple question here is this: Does the hon. member, or any of us, know anything about aircraft noise? I dare say that, in my case, I certainly do not. I am interested in the hon. member's views on his expertise on aircraft noise.

(1205) Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not an expert on it, nor do I claim to be. However, I know that there are experts out there, and they are probably the ones we should be relying on to collect the evidence and to make recommendations. This is the exact point. From time to time, we have to put in a framework such as this one, with various pieces of legislation. The criticism, which I think is just a red herring, is that we are not doing the regulations. Well, would we not want to consult people first, obtain the information, talk to experts and then put in regulation? Of course we would, and that is what this bill would do; it would set up the process to allow that to happen.

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I just have a couple of quick comments and then a question for the member. Early in his speech, the member asked about the last time Conservatives voted in support of a Liberal bill. We did that yesterday, not even 24 hours ago. The second thing is that I just want to thank the member for putting on the record that every member of Parliament should have as many interventions in the House as the member for Winnipeg North does, with 3,000 in the last two years. We may have two years left in this Parliament.

I am looking forward to every other member in the House getting 3,000 interventions in the chamber in the next couple of years. That would be a great way to represent our constituents. I want to thank the member for putting that on the record. Part of this bill would set up a framework for dealing with the challenges in our air industry, particularly the complaints. The member represents an area that has a local, regional airport. Having flown out of it many times in the past, I have run into a number of challenges flying through Kingston.

Could the member elaborate on whether he has heard any concerns in the last couple of years about his airport in Kingston?

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, Kingston has had an airport since World War II. It continues to operate today. Absolutely, there are always concerns. One of the challenges for Kingston, which other people see as a benefit, is that it is located two hours from Ottawa, two hours from Toronto and two hours from Montreal. The member said he flew through Kingston, and I do not understand that; one is either arriving or leaving to go to one of those other spots. However, the point is that while we have what might be seen as a detriment to Kingston, in terms of our airport, we also have the fourth-busiest train station in the country.

People might not expect that of Kingston, but it is the case because of our proximity to the other cities I just mentioned. In Kingston's case, it makes more sense for the average traveller to take the train, for example, from Kingston to downtown Toronto, jump on the train to Pearson, and then fly out of there. There are some people who still prefer to fly right out of Kingston, but the options are not as great as they are for some other small regional airports. We have challenges, and I want this framework in place so that some of those challenges could be dealt with. That is what the framework is all about.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I commend by colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his speech. While the bill is well intentioned, certain aspects create great uncertainty. I would like my colleague to offer his opinion on the matter. We note that the regulations in this bill give the minister a lot of latitude. Most of the changes will be through regulations. This raises many concerns for the various industries involved. Furthermore, it does not give legislators either control or certainty regarding the scope of the measures. I would like my colleague to enlighten us on this matter.

(1210) [ English ]

Mr. Mark Gerretsen :

Madam Speaker, this is the theme of my questions. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood said this better than I can. The framework is put in place, the regulations are put in place and then we have a committee that can oversee the regulations. If a member of Parliament has an issue, they should talk to their representatives on that committee, where the regulations that have been put in place by the minister could be scrutinized.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the incredible constituents of Calgary Midnapore. Before I begin my speech, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher . I look forward to his remarks following mine. When I received the request from our shadow minister for transport, the member for Chilliwack—Hope , I was, in fact, very honoured. One of my greatest achievements in my time in the House of Commons was serving as the shadow minister for transport during the pandemic.

I can certainly tell everyone that things did not function as they should have during that time. They did not function at all, in fact. My experience, based upon that time, leads me to the conclusion that there is, in regard to the government, lots of regulation and no responsibility. This also summarizes my conclusion regarding Bill C-52 . I think that this is a theme we have seen with the government. We have seen this with some recent decisions made at different levels of government, as well as at higher courts, including with regard to Bill C-69 , the “no more pipelines” bill, as we called it here.

There, they put in significant regulation against not only pipelines but also, actually, lots of other pieces of infrastructure. We see that this was, in fact, overturned. Just this past week, as well, we were very happy to see, on this side of the House, the overruling of the single-use plastics legislation that was put in by the government. Again, the government imposes all this regulation on industry, on Canadians and on third parties without taking the responsibility for the regulations that it has imposed upon itself. I think we are seeing this again in this bill.

I am sure that we are aware that 2022 was a disastrous summer travel season, as well as a terrible holiday travel season through December. Really, if we look back at that, it was for the reason that I gave at the beginning of my speech, which was poor management of the transportation sector through the pandemic. Frankly, they had no plan for the airline sector at that time. As the shadow minister of transport, I certainly tried to get them to produce a plan. They did no such thing.

This had significant and widespread consequences not only for Canadians but also for workers across Canada, as well as for different communities and regions across Canada. I implored them to come up with a plan for regional airlines at the time. Regional airport authorities were left to fend for themselves. I, along with my colleagues, made a very strong push for them to implement rapid testing and implement it sooner than they did, in an effort to more easily facilitate both travel and the travel sector. As well, I tried very hard to convince them not to use the supports for sectors for executive compensation.

All these requests that I made as the shadow minister for transport fell upon deaf ears at that time. In addition, of course, I was not alone in doing that. There were also my colleagues, the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and the member of Parliament for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley . Sadly, in September 2020, we saw 14% of Nav Canada employees being laid off in centres in Winnipeg and Halifax. That is just another example of the lack of action of the government during the pandemic.

At that time, 750 families had to go home and tell their families that they did not have a job anymore. I said back in September 2020, before the throne speech, that our economy simply cannot function, let alone thrive, without major carriers and airport authorities. Ironically, I said that on mini-budget day, and here we are again today. In 2020, the Calgary Airport Authority alone was expecting a 64% drop in passenger traffic from 2019 levels and projecting a loss of $245 million in revenue. Other airport authorities across the country were facing similar challenges at the time.

Stakeholders also reported that some supply chains had been overloaded as a result of the pandemic, with demand for some products having increased by up to 500% and vulnerabilities having become apparent. At that moment, I asked for the government to develop a plan with common-sense solutions. We continue to ask for such solutions today; again, they are not apparent in Bill C-52 . Once again, we see a government that has lots of regulations, yet takes no responsibility.

(1215) I will turn my speech now to the point about complaints. Over the past year, the backlog of complaints with the CTA, the Canadian Transportation Agency, has grown to an average of 3,000 complaints per month, with a backlog of over 60,000 complaints now waiting to be adjudicated by the agency. In fact, the bill before us would set no service standards for the Canadian Transportation Agency and would do nothing to eliminate the backlog of 60,000 complaints.

I have an example from my riding, where, as of July 2023, I had a constituent waiting two years for a response from the CTA to the complaint they had registered. In the same eight months when the CTA processed 4,085 complaints, the complaints grew by 12,000, doubling in that time. It is no wonder Canadians are dissatisfied with the current process in place, and the legislation would do little to improve it without said standards. As well, it is not clear which entities would be covered by the bill as the bill would be left to future regulations.

A theme we have heard on this side in discussing the bill today is there are lots of regulations. In fact, we have seen from the other side of the House that members take advantage of the regulations. They take advantage of Canadians in using these regulations. We might see something that is perhaps gazetted and then all of sudden brought into implementation, with both industry and Canadians being forced to respond and to pay the price for the use of regulation by the government.

Fundamentally, the bill remains a toothless bill that contains no specific remedies to the problems that have been plaguing the system since the pandemic. I will add that during the difficult time coming out of the pandemic, the then minister of transport blamed Canadians for forgetting how to travel. I talked about the government's shirking responsibility, and there we see it again with the minister of transport's not saying that it was his bad or that he should have come up with a plan during the pandemic, but rather blaming Canadians.

He was not even addressing it through the complaint process, nor was he willing to fix the complaint process. I have a quote from a significant air passenger rights advocate, Gabor Lukacs. Anyone who sits on the transport committee certainly will have communicated with him. He says, “There may be penalties, but even those powers are left to the government to create.” Since I am throwing out Gabor Lukacs's name, I would also like to mention Roy Grinshpan, who has also been an incredible advocate for passenger rights and passenger advocacy.

Even the pilots with whom I worked so closely during the pandemic are not in favour of the legislation. The president of ALPA Canada, Captain Tim Perry, for whom I have a lot of respect, brought to my attention that safety might be compromised as a result of the implementation of the bill to ensure that passengers are taken care of. This is simply another concern, which is that passengers are not being taken care of, and even the pilots who fly the planes are voicing their concern over this. To conclude, I talked about the implementation of regulation, so much of it, but again there is no responsibility.

The then minister of transport said that there would be consequences for service providers that do not meet the standards, but he did not disclose what they would be. Again, there is so much regulation and no responsibility. The government tells Canadians and industry time and time again that they have to do this and that, but it never takes responsibility for the legislation it implements. In conclusion, Bill C-52 and the government are about lots of regulations but no responsibility.

(1220) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, because today I understand that the Conservatives are doing a count, I think this is my 3,260th or so time that I have actually stood up in the House. I can honestly say that this is in good part because the Conservative Party continues to want to mislead Canadians and direct them off track. Unfortunately, that means I do have to stand up periodically to set the record straight and put some facts forward, as opposed to the mischief that the Conservative Party wants to constantly create and spread throughout social media. The bill is a very good example.

Bill C-52 is good, solid legislation that would improve the conditions of air travel and port fees for Canadians virtually from coast to coast to coast. It is good, substantial legislation, yet the Conservative Party is going to be voting against it. Why would the Conservative Party vote against the legislation, as opposed to supporting it, allowing it to go to committee and maybe looking at making some changes like the member herself is? It seems to be common sense.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a single thing the member said after I heard that he has stood up in the House 3,000 times and is not a member of cabinet. I think, rather than responding to that, I am actually going to start a petition that the member should be brought to cabinet. I encourage the member to keep advocating anything and everything. I am not getting a lot of support for the idea on this side of the House. I guess with 3,000 interventions, we have to wonder who is listening. I was not.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, it shows that Conservative members, much like the member said, are not listening. That is part of the problem. Conservative members do not listen to what Canadians are saying. They are more concerned about what I mentioned yesterday: bumper stickers. The legislation is sound legislation that would improve air travel in Canada, yet the Conservative Party wants to filibuster and to see the legislation defeated, as opposed to recognizing the good within the legislation.

If they have some ideas, which has been very rare unless it has been about cryptocurrency or something silly like that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party does not want to contribute to good, healthy legislation but, rather, oppose and filibuster. How does the member justify such irresponsible behaviour to her constituents, given what we hear on a daily basis coming from the Conservative Party of Canada?

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Madam Speaker, I think I made it very clear in my speech. I am listening. I am listening to stakeholders that the government has ignored for years, including pilots, passengers, airport authorities, airlines and Canadians. Do we know who has not been listening? It is this member. He is talking and has done so over 3,000 times.

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I would just like my colleague to elaborate a little bit on the challenges that passengers have been having, maybe from her riding. The Canadian Transportation Agency has a backlog of over 60,000 complaints. I know I have had people in my riding complain. I would just like to give her the opportunity to expand on what she is hearing in her riding of Calgary.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound was instrumental on the leadership team during the time of the pandemic, so I appreciate that. In fact, I do have an example from my riding. This is from a constituent: “On June 25, 2022, I filed an air travel complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency. By November 25, 2022, I was 10,203 in the complaint queue out of 40,000 complaints. As of today, I am 6,118 in the queue out of 52,000 complaints”. Do members know who should listen to this? The Liberal government should.

(1225) Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak on behalf of Canadians and, particularly, of my constituents in the riding of Provencher. For those who do not know where Provencher is, it is in southeast Manitoba. Today, I am speaking to Bill C-52,

An Act to enact the Air Transportation Accountability Act and to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act . While there are parts of the bill that I believe go in the right direction, I will affirm that I have concerns. Probably one of the biggest concerns is the bill’s title's not living up to its intentions, and not just missing an opportunity but also missing the point.

Members may remember the story of the man in a restaurant who calls out to the waiter, “What is this fly doing in my soup?” The waiter is at first silent, then looks down at the soup and exclaims, “The backstroke.” Like the waiter, the bill misses an opportunity and misses the point. Something Conservatives have observed over the last eight years is that while the current government is very good at photo ops and making announcements, it is much harder for the government to implement initiatives that get to the heart of the real issues.

The importance of considering how each decision, each effort and each initiative would make a difference to the big picture in any bill or directive gets lost in the photo ops and glossy announcements. However, let me say what I believe the bill intended to do, based on its title, because accountability is a foreign concept to the NDP-Liberal government and something that has not proven easy for the government to even comprehend. No doubt my hon. colleagues will remember the summer of 2022, with 9,500 flights being cancelled in July and August, and the Christmas that followed.

My colleagues will well remember the time, because their offices were flooded with travel stories that went wrong. After being cooped up, isolated, mandated and restricted, Canadians were finally free to travel, to visit loved ones they had missed through COVID, to catch up celebrating family milestones that had been neglected, and to embark on new adventures and experience the joys of travel, but also free to grieve and mourn with those whose loved ones had passed away.

However, as the stories unfolded, the long-held dreams became deflated with long wait-lists, overflowing baggage halls, stranded passengers, flight cancellations and delays. On-time performance, according to Greater Toronto Airport Authority president and CEO, Deborah Flint, was at 35% in the summer of 2022. That would be a failing grade even by Liberal standards. It was reported that Toronto Pearson Airport was listed as the second-worst in the world for delays.

Travellers made every effort to avoid connecting through Toronto, yet luggage lagged even farther behind, with some headlines reporting that airlines were donating unclaimed baggage to charities after 90 days. In some cases, frustrated and angry travellers traced their luggage through the use of air tags and found their luggage stowed away in off-site storage facilities. This past January, it was reported that a shortage of pilots compounded the problem. Regardless, people slept on floors and endured the relentless chaos. As we can see, the problems were layered and complicated.

It was good that the government finally felt compelled to act, and Bill C-52 was its response. Clearly, the layers of accountability need to be considered and addressed, which is why Conservatives believe that every federally regulated entity that has a role to play in the delivery of air travel must be held responsible for delays or cancellations, including airlines, airports, CATSA, Nav Canada and CBSA. If security lineups are delaying people to the point that they are mis