Debates of Nov. 9th, 2017

Automated External Defibrillators

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking my colleague for introducing this very important motion. I want to thank the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue who just spoke in favour of the motion. I particularly want to thank the parliamentary secretary, the member for Ajax, who I think is indicating that the government side is likely to support the motion. I think he was speaking in his capacity as the parliamentary secretary and therefore on behalf of the government rather than in his capacity as a private member. In either capacity, his support is very much welcome.

I want to talk about how effective defibrillators can be in saving lives and in particular about a numerical demonstration, a statistical demonstration of just how effective installed automatic external defibrillators, AEDs, can be when placed in the trunks of police cars.

First, let us step back a bit. The purpose of an AED is to reduce fatalities from heart attacks, but specifically to reduce fatalities from the kind of heart attack we refer to as a sudden cardiac arrest, which normally starts as what is known as a pulseless ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation. This is a huge issue in terms of the number of lives that are involved in this kind of cardiac crisis.

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in Canada and in the United States. Out of hospital, sudden cardiac arrest accounts for 50% of cardiovascular disease deaths, so half of the largest cause of mortality in our country. Ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation are, according to one study I was looking at, the source of 85% of all sudden cardiac arrest deaths. The rest of them are caused by trauma, poisoning, pulmonary embolism, drowning, hypothermia, drug overdose, cerebral haemorrhage, and a grab bag of other causes. However, 85% of that 50% of the biggest killer is caused by events that, in principle, could be stopped if a defibrillator were available and applied quickly, along with some other interventions.

In principle, AEDs can be used to save many lives. Let us be clear. It is all about how fast one gets to the person. I want to cite an academic paper published in 2009, in which the author states:

...every patient with a witnessed ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest should survive. If the patient does not survive, the goal is to determine why.

The paper said “every patient”. In principle, there should be a 100% save rate. As I say, it is all about the speed with which one is able to intervene, and to make that point, I want to call upon and describe the American Heart Association's chain of survival metaphor. The member for Ajax who was involved in the Canadian heart association would be very familiar with this indeed.

The American Heart Association's chain of survival metaphor lists the key ingredients for success: one, rapid access, calling 911 immediately; two, rapid cardiopulmonary resuscitation or CPR; three, rapid defibrillation. A fourth step follows defibrillation: rapid advanced care. Usually that takes place after an ambulance has arrived and continues on in the hospital.

In principle it is 100%. In practice, the highest survival rate we have seen for witnessed cardiac arrests, where someone actually sees when it happens, is 74%. That is the survival rate that takes place in casinos. In casinos, it is a high-stress environment, often with people who are in bad health who are doing a high-stress activity, but they are also always on camera. Casinos typically have defibrillators and trained staff close at hand. In that ideal environment, a 74% success rate has been achieved.

However, as I said, time is of the essence. To make this point, it is worth noting that after 10 minutes, the rate of success drops to less than 10%. Within three minutes, the success rate can be as high as 74%. If someone gets there and starts applying an AED after 10 minutes, there is about a 2% success rate.

This is why the public policy response both here and in the United States is focused intensely on putting AEDs into emergency response vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks, of course, to speed up response times when someone witnesses a cardiac arrest and contacts 911. We would like to see these put into police vehicles, in particular RCMP police vehicles.

The difference in survival rates in various American cities is based almost entirely on response times. To make this point, I just want to read the different response rates, from a few years ago, in a series of American cities. Detroit was 0%. It could not be literally 0%, but it must be below a 1% survival rate. Chicago is 3%; New York City, 5%; Los Angeles, 7%; the state of Alabama, 8%; Salt Lake City, 8%; Dallas, 10%; Rochester, New York, 10%; Memphis, Tennessee, 12%; Tucson, Arizona, 12%; San Francisco, 15%; Fresno, California, 15%; Houston, 15%; Minneapolis, 20%; Pittsburgh, 22%; Portland, Oregon, 23%; state of Iowa, 23%; Miami 24%; and Milwaukee, 26%. Seattle, Washington, is 46%, based on a combination of good CPR training and the availability of defibrillators where they are needed. In Seattle, they do not regard this as the final destination. I think they are, quite rightly, after 74%, if not the 100% that is available, in principle. We should be too.

Let me tell the House about how faster response times, due to police cruisers having defibrillators, can save lives. I turn here to another study, which tells us that in one case, in Miami, “Response by police averaged about 1.5 minutes faster than that of [emergency medical services] (6.16 versus 7.56 minutes), and the dual-response system”, in which both were notified, “reduced overall first-responder time to 4.9 minutes (compared with 7.6 minutes from historical control). This translated to a statistically significant improvement in the percentage of those who survived...ventricular arrhythmias (17.2 percent survival rate...).”

I will skip the other example I was going to give, except to point out that in the other example, the rate in Pittsburgh went from 6% to 14% after police vehicles installed defibrillators.

Now let us talk about Canada. In Canada there are 40,000 sudden cardiac arrests annually, and there are AEDs in police vehicles in many places. They are in Vancouver, Kingston, Laval, Fredericton, Medicine Hat, and even in Smiths Falls, in my riding. Those are defibrillators that were put into police cars, with my assistance, about 12 years ago.

The city of Ottawa has had them longer than almost anywhere else and has excellent statistics, which I want to quote to make the point about how significant the life-saving can be. Every cruiser in the Ottawa Police Service, 145 in total, has a defibrillator in its trunk. In 2012, this resulted in 22 interventions and nine successful saves of heart attack victims. That means they survived for at least two years. In 2013, there were 23 interventions, and eight lives were saved, which is, on average, one life saved for every 17 AEDs annually. That is a 17% save rate, compared to 5% nationally in Canada. It is not as good as Seattle, but it is three times as good as the national average.

AEDs that are purchased in bulk cost about $1,000 apiece. Training costs are essentially zero, because the cops are already trained. The cost factor of the time to arrive is not a consideration, as they are already first responders.

This means that at one life saved for every 17 AEDs, the 5,600 RCMP cruisers in which these could be installed could result in 300 lives being saved every year. Since AEDs last 10 years, we could save 3,000 lives over the next decade at a cost of $2,000 per life.

At one point I wanted to promote this by saying, “Life is cheap so let us start saving now.” My staff said that might not be the best slogan, but I believe that. Saving lives really is cheap. It has never been cheaper. At $2,000 a life, we could literally repopulate the House of Commons with people whose lives are saved every year from next year forward, if the motion is passed and we begin to work to fulfill the goals it seeks to promote.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the discussion this evening. I will take a bit of a different approach in addressing this very important motion. I commend the member across the way for recognizing an issue about which all Canadians would be very concerned.

Let there be no doubt that there is a role for all of us to play. However, what interested me the most was the amount of information provided. Every speaker talked about the percentages and the strong desire to save lives. It did not matter what side of the House they were on, all members chose to rise in their place and address the issue. They talked about how it could really make a difference.

Over the years, I have seen a lot with respect to the impact of medical technology. Many years ago when I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, I was one of the two health critics for the province. I can recall the amount of money we spent in health care, and most people would be quite surprised. Some of my colleagues have also served in provincial legislatures. I was first elected in 1988 as a parliamentarian, and the health care budget back then was roughly just over $1 billion. Today, I believe it is over $6 billion and counting. The single greatest expenditure in Manitoba is in health care and there is no end in sight it seems.

What I have experienced first hand through those years is how technology has advanced to a certain point where we can make fairly profound and positive impacts. We can look at how that technology can be used to save lives.

The impact of AEDs is second to no other equipment or machinery that has been introduced over the last number of years. As Canadians become more familiar with the benefits of AEDs, that broader knowledge will drive the demand to see more AEDs installed in different places. The results are compelling. The most compelling argument is in some of the statistics that have have been shared by the members.

I thought it was interesting when my colleague across the way referred to casinos. The member is right that casinos have all sorts of elements of stress because of their activities. We can call them security cameras, but a great number of individuals are in the background watching. When someone goes into cardiac arrest, those individuals are very quick. I would be surprised if there were not AEDs in all casinos in Canada. Therefore, I was not surprised when the member made reference to the fact that there was, I believe, a 74% or 71% survival rate. That is a fantastic goal to establish how effective it could be if we had a better educated population. When I say population, we need to look at where most cardiac arrests take place, which is in homes, in public places, and at work. Chances are the person who goes into cardiac arrest is known by the individuals there. More often now, when people witness a cardiac arrest, they wonder if an AED is available.

Another speaker talked about timing being critical. We all know that we cannot be quick enough to get access to an AED, from the moment of the arrest to using it to ultimately save a life.

We have witnessed over the last number of years people becoming more educated about it. They understand its benefits. We are starting to see AEDs in many different places, such as workplaces. In some situations AEDs are brought into people's homes. General knowledge on how to use an AED and making these machines accessible are absolutely critical to saving lives. It would be very beneficial.

We have standing committees in Ottawa. I do not think we take as much advantage as we could of good ideas, such as this motion the member has brought forward today.

I can go through both aspects of the motion, but I want to read the second part of it. It reads:

...the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security should undertake a study to determine the availability of AEDs in first responder vehicles across Canada and make recommendations to the House in that regard while respecting the jurisdiction of other levels of government.

If time permits, I will try to deal with the issue of the RCMP and the issue of jurisdiction.

I do want to pick up on the point of the standing committee and whether this would be the only directive that would be given to the committee, or if we could maybe expand it or widen its scope, because this goes beyond RCMP vehicles.

As the member for Ajax pointed out, we might think it is fairly simple to get a defibrillator put into an RCMP cruiser, but it is not. All sorts of people and groups are involved, such as independent contractors and stakeholders. Negotiations are held at different levels. On my own part, I would like to get a better understanding of it.

I would also like to see how we might be able to use the Standing Committee on Health, or any other standing committee for that matter. I am content, however, with what the member has suggested in regard to the health committee. I would love to have one of our standing committees hear the benefits of taking action on such an important file, as a few of us heard this evening.

I do not think there is a legislator in the House of Commons who would not recognize the importance of trying to advance the file on AEDs. There are organizations in Canada, like the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which have done so much work with different stakeholders. These organizations have heard the stories that clearly indicate the need is there.

A standing committee is in the best position to hear the different stakeholders make their presentations. Let us hear the facts. Let us get some of the statistics. Let us hear how the federal government could play a leadership role in this. Let us enable the standing committee to get a better appreciation and understanding of this issue. Let us establish this as a priority.

That is how I see this particular motion by the member across the way. I consider it a priority. We might differ with some of the words and so forth, but at the end of the day, I see this as a positive suggestion on an important issue that we know our constituents would like us to address.

I would like to expand that. I challenge our standing committees to do just that, to look at ways in which we can deliver on such an important issue that will obviously save tens of thousands of lives.

I am thankful for the opportunity to share a few thoughts on this.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before recognizing the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, I must inform her that there are three minutes remaining for her speech. The rest of her speaking time will be granted another time.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his motion. I think it is very timely. I find it very interesting that, despite our differences, there should be such a wonderful display of unanimity this evening on the importance of having defibrillators. They save lives.

My father died a long time ago of a heart attack. At the time, there were no such devices that could have maybe saved his life.

When we give speeches, I think it is important to provide real examples, as my colleague did, of people who have experienced these events first-hand.

We heard from a number of members on both sides of the House about this super-important topic. How interesting that we all agree this motion deserves to be studied. We need to adopt it here, in Parliament. It would be one of the first times people see parliamentarians stand together, united in their desire to save lives.

It makes quite a difference to see that there is unanimity here, in Ottawa, on a subject that is so far-reaching and so human. What I like about this motion is that it shows the human side of saving lives. It has been quite a while since this issue has come up in the House with any regularity. We often have our differences, but when we make our discussions about the human experience, it results in motions like my colleague's motion.

I hope that the motion will be studied in committee in a non-partisan fashion and that everyone will contribute to the discussion so that it does not become a government or an opposition motion, but everyone's motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix will have seven minutes remaining for her speech when the House next resumes debate on the question.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît not being present in the House to raise the matter for which adjournment notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

Forestry Industry

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on November 3, I asked the following question in the House:

I rise in the House once again to ask the Minister of Natural Resources about his plans to stop the pine beetle from attacking our [Canadian] forests.

Last year alone, the beetle increased tenfold. Even though science and research has been done, the beetle has moved from Jasper Park into central Alberta and is heading east. All of Canada's pine forests are at risk. We need financial assistance to cull the trees.

What is the Liberal government doing to stop this infestation?

Again, I am going to ask a similar question. When is the Liberal government going to step up to the plate? Last week we received an answer that it was doing science and research. I rise again to say that science and research are not applicable at this time. Why is that? We know all about the pine beetle. Science and research have been done for many years. I was there when the pine beetle was first spotted in western British Columbia in the late 1970s. If proper action had been taken then, and the trees culled or burned, I probably would not be asking the question again today.

Our boreal forests are at risk. What is needed from the minister is financial aid. Even the former Liberal government, in 2005, recognized the problem and gave $100 million to fight the pine beetle when it was still in British Columbia. Did science and research stop it? No, they did not. Did we stop the pine beetle? No, we did not.

The Government of Alberta has spent over $85 million to fight the infestation, and that funding helped slow the pine beetle, until this year. This is a drop in the bucket compared to $9 billion in damages, fighting costs, and loss of production that the fire in Fort McMurray caused, or the untold millions that it cost to fight the B.C. fires this year. Those fires were fed by dead pine forests, due to the pine beetle.

Our previous Conservative government gave $10 million in 2009 to fight the pine beetle in northwestern Alberta. The Fort McMurray fire last year helped destroy a large amount of the northern pine beetle, but unfortunately, it destroyed a lot more than that. We all saw that on the news.

I remember going to a pine beetle seminar where scientists told me the pine beetles would never get across the Rocky Mountains. They have gone way across.

During adjournment debate on October 26, I once again called on the federal government to assist Alberta in the fight against the mountain pine beetle. Companies like Weyerhaeuser, Millar Western, and West Fraser have spent millions of dollars of their own money to combat the pine beetle.

I have held meetings and round table discussions with park officials, CFS officials, as well as representatives from forestry and local communities. Parks Canada kept telling us it was going to try to cull the trees. Very little was done.

What do we need? The minister of forestry and agriculture for the Province of Alberta told me 10 days ago that they need financial help. We need need financial assistance now to cull the trees. The beetles killed 40,000 trees last year while we were holding them at bay, between the industry and the province, but it has increased tenfold to more than 500,000 this year. The pine beetle is out of control.

Again, what is the Minister of Natural Resources going to do to stop the pine beetle from attacking our forests? We have moved and must move faster than the pine beetle before it is too late for all of Canada.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yellowhead for his dedication to this important issue affecting the forest sector in his riding and across the country. As an MP from B.C., I empathize. It is a very serious situation.

I would like to reassure him, as our government has last week and the week before when the question has come up in the House, that we are doing everything we possibly can to stop this infestation from spreading.

Unfortunately, climate change has made once inhospitable forests and climates more inviting to the mountain pine beetle and other destructive forest pests. Natural dispersal is allowing them to spread with alarming speed, creating a real threat for forest-dependent communities across Canada.

The member for Yellowhead has seen the impact and the extent of the problem in his own riding. Sadly, the situation is not unique to Alberta's pine forests. That is why our government has invested an additional $87 million in scientific infrastructure upgrades. That includes federal labs conducting research that informs our responses to destructive forest pests, such as the pine beetle.

This new funding is critical to the Canadian forest service, which employs Canada's largest team of scientists devoted to pest management. The forest service is a recognized centre of excellence on pests, and invests $20 million annually to develop scientific solutions that help forest managers and communities respond to damaging pests by slowing their spread, mitigating their impact, and reducing the risk of infestation in areas not yet affected.

Over the last two years alone, the forest service has spent $1.3 million supporting mountain pine beetle research. Through these efforts, we have been able to assess the economic and environmental risks associated with these forest pests, particularly under a changing climate, and develop adaptive options for affected communities and industries. All of this is vitally important as we work toward our ultimate goal, which is to contain the pine beetle spread.

We have also assisted in maximizing value from beetle-killed timber, as well as developing new technologies and products. For example, our research has helped the forest sector adapt its practices to use the affected wood in traditional manufacturing mills, as well as alternative product markets, such as panel board manufacturing and wood biomass recovery.

Nor are we doing any of this alone. Yellowhead is a case in point. The Canadian forest service is working closely with industry, provincial government agencies, and Parks Canada to develop science-based responses under the national forest pest strategy. This means developing and implementing co-operative management strategies, informed by science, to mitigate the infestation and spread of mountain pine beetle at the regional level.

The Canadian forest service, the provinces, industry, and our other partners are fully engaged on this. We are all working together to protect the economic value of provincial forests and preserve the ecological integrity of national and provincial parks.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her reply, but I think it is a lot of bull.

Science and technology has not stopped the beetle. If the government is looking for integrity of our parks, it should just take a drive through Jasper Park and look at all the brown, dead trees from the B.C. border through to the Alberta border. Your science and technology could not even stop it within a confined area of the park, and you are saying you are doing a lot.

The government needs to put up some money to help the Province of Alberta fight the pine beetle situation. Your previous government gave $100 million. Alberta needs help right now. It cannot afford to do it on its own. Science has not stopped the pine beetle. Actual culling or burning will stop the pine beetle. We are asking you for financial assistance to stop it before it gets further east.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind the hon. member to direct speech towards the Chair. We try to avoid using the “you” word in a direct fashion.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand and empathize with the member opposite's frustration with the mountain pine beetle.

It is chewing into a forest sector that employs more than 200,000 Canadians and contributes more than $23 billion a year to our GDP. In fact, our forest industry provides more jobs, dollar for dollar, than any other resource sector. This is why our government is seized with protecting Canada's forests, and the men and women, and communities that depend upon them.

Through the Canadian forest service, we have some of our country's brightest minds developing innovative solutions for these infestations, including the one devastating western Canada's pine forests. Together, I believe we will meet this challenge.

Aerospace Industry

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address a question I asked on October 17. In that question, I ask the government to support Alberta, not Alabama.

Things in Alberta are quite dire. Our economy is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country. Our oil patch is under significant distress. The logging industry has significant challenges from all angles, especially when it comes to accessing wood fibre. Our farmers are increasingly struggling to get their crops off in time due to either a really wet year or a dry year, depending in which part of the province they are. We are looking to the federal government for support for Alberta particularly and support for Canada overall.

My question was about Bombardier and the millions of dollars that had been given to it to prop it up. I understand this was due to the fact the Liberals had promised not to expand the airport in Toronto, which therefore did not allow for the sale of the C Series jet to a particular airplane company, which made that C Series jet unprofitable. Therefore, to allow for that promise to be kept, the Liberals had to pay off Bombardier. In turn, that led to a large tariff being placed on the C Series jet, which was to the detriment of Canada overall.

Going forward, we now are looking at a situation where in order for the C Series jet to be sold in the United States, it has to be produced in the United States. Airbus has come along and taken a share in Bombardier, which is now leading to Bombardier planes being built in Alabama. My question was why we were supporting Alabama and not Alberta. That was the main gist of it. We know the tax dollars have been put into Bombardier, but the planes will be built in Alabama.

If these airplanes are to be built in Alabama, will Canadian taxpayers be reimbursed for all the money that was put into Bombardier? That is the essence of the question.

When it comes to support for Alberta, we have seen major pipeline projects get cancelled or are no longer approved after they have been approved. Major pipelines that have been approved do not look like they will be built or still have significant hurdles to get past. There does not seem to be any support from the government in Ottawa to get these projects built.

Will the government support Alberta and work hard to get the taxpayer dollars that were spent on Bombardier back so those dollars can be used to support hard-working Albertans who are under duress at this point, hard-working Albertans who work in the oil patch, forestry sector, and in the farming sector? We support the aerospace industry. We are purely looking for similar support for the industries that make Alberta thrive.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague.

This government absolutely believes in Alberta. There are many opportunities and jobs there. We approved three pipelines in Alberta, and that is a very good thing for Albertans.

I am pleased to respond to the comment made by the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock about the recent announcement of a strategic partnership between Bombardier and Airbus.

Canada is one of the largest aerospace manufacturing countries in the world. This industry contributes over $28 billion to our GDP and accounts for over 200,000 jobs in every part of the country.

As Canada's aerospace anchor firm, Bombardier is responsible for approximately one-third of Canadian aerospace manufacturing GDP, and has been Canada's top manufacturing R and D spender since 2012.

The proposed partnership by Bombardier with Airbus combines innovation with increased market access for a state-of-the-art Canadian plane that is world class. On the surface, we think it is a very positive step. Airbus and Bombardier's proposed partnership presents an opportunity to increase the ability of the C Series to access markets, meaning more production and more jobs right here in Canada, including in Alberta.

I can say further to the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock that any potential investment requires review by the minister of ISED under the Investment Canada Act to ensure that it will be of overall economic benefit to Canada, and the approval of competition authorities. Our government has been clear from the beginning that any strategic partnership between Bombardier and Airbus would be expected to bring measurable benefits to Canada, and strengthen ties between the Canadian and European aerospace industries.

In reviewing the proposed strategic partnership under the Investment Canada Act, the minister will consider the following factors, among others: the effect on the level of economic activity in Canada, including the utilization of parts and services produced in Canada; the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business; the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation, and product variety in Canada; the effect of the investment on competition within any industry in Canada; the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic, and cultural policies; and, finally, the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets.

It is through these specific factors that the government will ensure that the proposed strategic partnership between Airbus and Bombardier brings concrete, measurable benefits to Canada and Canadians.

Bombardier is, and will remain, an anchor firm for the aerospace sector for Canada moving forward, and we will continue to seek to grow and promote Canada's world-class supply chain in the global industry.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his impassioned speech in defence of and protection of the aerospace industry. However, what we are asking for is the same kind of enthusiasm and protection for the proponents of the industries in Alberta.

The main thrust of my question was: Will the taxpayer be repaid their portion that they put into the Bombardier deal?

The C Series jet is now owned by a foreign entity, which is what this deal is all about. When the government gave the money to Bombardier, it was to prop up jobs here in Canada. Why would we now be allowing Bombardier to be sold off to foreign companies so that Canadian taxpayer money can be supporting companies that are not in Canada? We have seen similar things with this infrastructure bank. Will the taxpayer be repaid?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me be absolutely clear. Under the C Series program, the obligation for repayment remains unchanged. We we can count on Bombardier continuing to be an important contributor to the aerospace sector. This new partnership that it is exploring with Airbus will create jobs here on Canadian soil. This will benefit the community in my hon. colleague's riding. It will benefit all Canadians.

I am proud of all the work that the minister and his entire team is doing on this file.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 20, at 11 a.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 7.

(The House adjourned at 7:22 p.m.)