Finance Committee on June 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

You have 10 seconds for a response.

[Renaud Brossard]

Absolutely, we are concerned. The cost of interest—that's assuming 3% interest and $750 million—is about what 106,000 Canadian taxpayers pay in taxes every year—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Brossard. That concludes your time.

Thank you, Ms. Cobena.

Professor Ebrahimi is now online.

Professor Ebrahimi, I will give you five minutes for your opening remarks before we continue the question period with the committee members.

The floor is yours.

[Mehran Ebrahimi, Professor and Director of Research, Université du Québec à Montréal, International Aeronautics and Civil Aviation Obervatory]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this meeting.

I'm here as an expert in aviation and aeronautics and in all matters related to airport management. It is in this capacity that I am speaking today.

My primary objective is to make the honourable members of the committee aware that, in Canada, there is unfortunately a significant shortfall in the airport management system, despite the fact that we have a very good aeronautical system, that we are excellent aircraft manufacturers, that we have excellent airlines and that all the international aviation institutions are based here in Canada. This creates problems in terms of attracting tourists to the country as a whole and in terms of the smooth flow of passengers. This also poses a problem for scientific exchanges, scientists and committees. Finally, the fact that our airports are inadequate or dysfunctional causes other supply chain issues.

For several years now, there has been indecision regarding the governance model for airports in Canada, and so far, we have largely maintained the status quo. This is starting to pose an economic problem.

The idea is also to ask ourselves what role, collectively, as a nation, we want to assign to airports. That's more or less the point I wanted to make. The status quo is very damaging to the country. The question we must ask ourselves is this: What do we want to do with our airports? There's no strategy in this regard. The issue isn't limited to deciding whether we want a private or public entity. These days, there's talk of privatizing airports. This is an important issue. First and foremost, we need to know the purpose behind this and what we're aiming to achieve.

Does the way we view airports, as large-scale infrastructure projects that play a key role in economic development, require us to have a debate on this issue? The questions that will arise as a result are as follows: Are they private or public? Are they public in terms of governance? What about private operators? All of these elements can be on the table. We can be creative, but for now, the status quo is preventing us from moving forward.

We simply view airports as entities that generate revenue for the government. I have no problem with that, since it's a very good thing. We must also think of airports as drivers of economic development. From there, we can consider private or public models, or partnerships, as I mentioned earlier. The crux of my remarks relates to this. We cannot maintain the status quo. If we continue to approach airports in the same way—that is to say, if we lack a strategy or overarching direction for our airports—whether they're publicly or privately owned won't make much of a difference. The same problem will arise, but it will take a different form.

I urge the committee members to consider this crucial issue, which today is becoming an obstacle to economic development, at least in the aviation sector. Let me remind you that we're talking about several hundred thousand people and an increase of several tens of billions of dollars in gross domestic product.

I'll leave it there. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Professor Ebrahimi.

We'll now go to questions from members.

Mr. Leitão, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, distinguished witnesses, and thank you for being here.

Since we are hearing from several groups of witnesses and my speaking time is limited, I'll try to go quickly. If I don't have time to address each of you directly, please accept my apologies in advance. That said, I'm pleased that you are all here.

I'll start with you, Mr. Olsen, from LiUNA. I want to tell you that I know your colleagues, particularly the ones in the Toronto area. A significant proportion of their members are actually folks of Portuguese origin. I'm well aware of the work that LiUNA does, and that work is hugely important.

You mentioned the labour mobility tax credit. Yes, we also think it's a hugely important point, but I would like to discuss with you, or ask if you have any ideas—I'm sure you do—on the labour training side. The unions in general, and particularly LiUNA, have in-house training programs, which I think are quite successful.

Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about that.

[Eric Olsen]

Certainly, yes.

We have training centres right across western Canada. I deal with western Canada, so I can't speak about the east. Each local in the four provinces has training centres. We offer a variety of training, from basic labour-related training right through to Red Seal. We are mobile with training. We go out and work with indigenous groups and other groups across the west. It's a major part of what we do and how we get our members to have the skills they need to build these projects.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I was going to mention the first nations, because we do have—as you pointed out—several major projects under way in western Canada. One of the deciding factors, or one of the conditions—I should say—is the involvement of and benefits to first nations. One way to make sure that those benefits flow through is employment opportunities. To have employment opportunities, of course, they need training. I commend the work that LiUNA does in that.

Again, on the legislative side, we have this tax credit as well as other measures to fund skills training, which I think are useful.

Ms. Levasseur, I'll continue with you.

Of course, agriculture is an extremely important sector. You said that the regulatory approach you're suggesting is a risk management approach rather than a very strict one.

Could you tell us a little more about that?

How might we go about suggesting that?

What legislative changes could be made to ensure that risk management is taken into account?

[Stéphanie Levasseur]

We all know that there's no such thing as zero risk. So trying to regulate based on zero risk is a bit of a catch‑22. In agriculture, we need agility. We need access to new tools. Since it's a very small market, it's less attractive to companies trying to get products approved.

We have a very cumbersome regulatory system. This morning, Mr. Champagne boasted about certain data he had seen in the OECD reports. One of the less flattering statistics is that Canada ranks 32nd out of 43 countries in terms of bureaucracy and the regulatory system. So the changes to the mission proposed here might help improve this ranking and provide access to all the tools needed for the farming sector to be more competitive in today's market.

Mr. Berrigan, would you like to add anything?

[Brodie Berrigan, Senior Director, Government Relations and Farm Policy, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Very quickly, with respect to specific legislative changes, the provisions outlined in division 7 and division 8 would recognize economic and food security interests in the mandates of the pesticides regulatory directorate and the CFIA, and will go a long way toward accomplishing this objective. Implementation will be key, as Madame Levasseur said in her introductory remarks.

We do hope that PRD and CFIA will be open to further consultation and discussions with industry on how we can operationalize this new mandate that's outlined in the legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Leitão. That concludes your speaking time.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

All right. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Before giving the floor to Mrs. DeBellefeuille, I'd like to ask Professor Ebrahimi to raise his microphone slightly so that the interpreters can hear him clearly.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being with us.

My questions are for Professor Ebrahimi.

We know that, in unstable economic situations—given the tensions we're currently experiencing, certain lobby groups often try to convince the government that the key to success, the silver bullet, is the privatization of sectors that are in the public domain, that is to say, under government control.

That brings me to a question for you. Let's play a little game together, if you'd like.

Would you say that airports should be viewed as a cash cow or as a driver of economic development?

[Mehran Ebrahimi]

They should definitely be viewed as a driver of economic development. In every country, airports are considered a driver of economic development, whether they are privately or publicly owned.

We have made very significant gains thanks to airports' contribution to the economic fabric. That's been proven, regardless of what ideology one subscribes to. There are figures and facts to back it up. When we build a highway—at least here—we don't charge people to use it. It's public infrastructure, but it contributes to economic development. People travel, goods are transported and the economy flows. We must also view airports in this light.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Discussions are currently under way. It's believed that the government might, in essence, be tempted to privatize certain airports. I spoke with my colleague from the riding of Côte‑Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, and she told me, of course, that the Côte‑Nord and remote regions, which are already underserved by public airports, don't view this favourably.

Do you think that, right now, as we speak, we're doing the right thing by seeking to privatize airports?

[Mehran Ebrahimi]

If we look at the global rankings today, we see that the three largest and best airports in the world that have been categorized are public airports.

First, the claim that privatization is the solution doesn't hold up.

Second, we've seen cases in certain countries, such as Australia and Norway, where small airports and regional areas are not necessarily the focus of privatization advocates when this approach is pursued. In fact, that is not where they will look to generate significant revenue or profits.

When something is privatized, it is generally done with the aim of generating added value. That's not possible in those regions. The airport must be viewed as a link to the rest of the country. The airport must serve as a catalyst for economic development so that people—businesspeople, passengers and tourists—can travel freely around regardless of a region's characteristics.

Once again, whether we keep it private or public, the question is what we want to do with our airports and what status we want to grant them. We can then find solutions, whether they involve private or public airports. All of these issues can be addressed.

However, the government cannot claim, under the pretext of privatization, that it is leaving this to the private sector and withdrawing. In countries where this has been done, it was later regretted. There's been a deterioration of services in the regions served. Ultimately, it ended up costing more than the previous status quo.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Basically, what you're telling us, Professor Ebrahimi, is that a decision is being made through Bill C‑30 to change the mission of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This requires careful consideration, but you're telling us that we need to be cautious and that there's no question of privatizing immediately without first thinking through what we actually want.

What is the mission of our airport infrastructure? Basically, the government has a role to play in this infrastructure.

Are we putting the cart before the horse to possibly make things easier down the road?

Should we give in to private sector lobbyists, who are currently taking advantage of the economic instability?

[Mehran Ebrahimi]

Absolutely.

I often quote the saying, “no wind is favourable to a ship without a destination”. With that in mind, I wonder what direction we want to take with airports. When we build an airport, a highway or a major infrastructure project, what's the purpose behind it?

For several decades now, at least since the 1980s, the prevailing view has been that airports are a way to generate lease revenue and takeoff and landing fees, thereby filling the government's coffers.

I have no problem with that; it's legitimate. The question is whether these facilities are fulfilling their mission or not. Once again, as for the idea of selling them, I'm not opposed to privatization. There are private airports that operate very well, such as Paris—Charles‑de‑Gaulle Airport in Paris. These airports are private entities, but the government keeps a very close eye on them to ensure that the airport fulfills its original mission.

As far as we're concerned, we haven't defined a mission for our airports. Whether they're private or public doesn't matter—we don't know what's expected of them, aside from making money. That's all well and good, but what else?

So if we move forward—and this issue isn't clear—if they're privatized, it will be people who are just making money for their own benefit. If they remain private, those people will line their own pockets. However, deep down, we're forgetting the airport's primary mission: to serve as a driver of economic development.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

What you're saying is clear, Professor. There's basically no real thought behind it. Privatization is seen as a magic solution that would free up funds for the government to finance other projects.

So, based on your expertise, you are warning us about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

[Mehran Ebrahimi]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you.

We're going to continue now with Mr. Kelly for five minutes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you to the Montreal Economic Institute. You have testified about the frightening trajectory of the federal government's budget horizon here and the direction they're going.

We had earlier testimony today from other witnesses who are calling on the government to at least have a plan and to table some kind of—long-term, if it must be—plan toward a balanced budget and to more disciplined budgeting. The minister, subsequent to that, dismissed all of our questions around that issue. He appears to really hold in contempt anyone who would mention a balanced budget or remind him that in 2015—11 years ago—they promised to deliver one.

Could you expand on your comment around the government budgeting? You said that the country is swimming in surpluses. What would a disciplined budget look like?

[Renaud Brossard]

Thank you so much for the question.

The first part of budget discipline would be to undo a lot of the mistakes of the last 10 years. The unprecedented growth in the size of Canada's bureaucracy has been detrimental not just to the state of our finances but also to the state of our economy. If you put in more bureaucrats and more regulators, they're not necessarily going to do better bureaucracy or regulate better. They're going to regulate more and add bureaucratic layers. That's what we've seen happening in this country for a long time.

The first part of any plan to get back to balance should be to slim down the size of bureaucracy quite aggressively and see if we can use some of those new technologies, such as AI, to progressively reduce the need for as many bureaucrats as we have now.

Of course, the other thing we need to look into is not putting in new spending but rather doing a total program review. This asks not just if there is a benefit to what we're doing, but also if this is an appropriate role for the federal government. We've seen the federal government expand into many areas of provincial jurisdiction, where not only it is not doing better, but it's also harming our federal finances.