Debates of June 17th, 2021

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his hard work. I know he works day and night on these issues.

One of the issues that I know he cares deeply about as well is that the government intends to cut the CRB in the last eight weeks, from July to September, for members of the community. I know the member has been trying to bring these issues to the attention of the government to get it to walk this back. I wonder if he can update the House on what he has done on this issue, and what the response has been from the government.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East is just an extraordinary member of Parliament, speaking out on behalf of not only her constituents but also people right across the country.

The member points out that so many people are concerned about this dramatic cut the Liberal government wants to bring in. Five hundred dollars a week is certainly not a sinecure. Five hundred dollars a week is just getting by. It is making sure they have a roof over their head, hopefully, and food on the table. Slashing it to below the poverty line at a time when Canadians desperately need it is simply the most mean-spirited cut that one could possibly imagine at this time.

The NDP tabled amendments and tried to push them through the finance committee. The Liberals have continued to say no. Their thinking is that they have taken care of banks and they have taken care of everything. Canadians' voices need to be heard. These cuts should not take place. The government should roll back on that and ensure that Canadians can get through the pandemic. We will continue to fight to make that so.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a family where my father and my mother used to say that the best way to effect change is to start looking, and start with oneself.

The member talked about everybody enriching themselves, billionaires and whatnot, but on April 1 all of us in this chamber had a salary increase. Could he confirm whether he donated his salary increase to a local organization?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do that every year. It is fundamental that we support organizations in our community that do good work.

In the past, I have flagged in the House the Burnaby Firefighters Charitable Society, the New Westminster Firefighters Charitable Society, Caring During COVID in Burnaby, Helping Hands in New Westminster and many other organizations across the country that are struggling with this pandemic.

That is why we need to provide supports to people and families, and make sure that seniors and people with disabilities and students are taken care of. This is why I am so critical of the government. The Liberals should not be saying that the charitable sector can just pick that up. If they can give $750 billion in liquidity supports to Canada's big banks, they can make sure every Canadian is taken care of.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on June 9, the member for Calgary Midnapore submitted a notice of opposition regarding Vote 1, “Operating expenditures”, in the main estimates, under Department of Transport, in the amount of $741,693,237.

The notice of opposition calls on Nav Canada executives and managers to pay back $7 million in bonuses they received in the last fiscal year, supposedly during the pandemic, while the private not-for-profit organization was receiving government assistance and issuing layoff notices. To protest those bonuses, the member is suggesting that $7 million be cut from the Transport Canada budget.

Let me begin my remarks by discussing what such a cut would mean for Transport Canada's programs and, by extension, for Canadians. A $7‑million reduction to Transport Canada's main estimates funding for 2021-22 would significantly reduce its ability to deliver on its commitments. This reduction would have undesirable consequences, such as weakening the implementation of monitoring, testing, inspection and subsidy programs across all modes of transportation, including air, marine, rail and road. It would also result in reduced enforcement activities that could increase the potential risk to the safety and security of Canadians.

Furthermore, reduced surveillance of equipment, operations and facilities in the transportation industry could lead to accidents, malfunctions and loss of life. It would also have a negative impact on the department's efforts to support the economic recovery of the air sector and other transportation sectors affected by the pandemic. This reduction would set a precedent for departments to pay for organizations that operate at arm's length from the Government of Canada.

Allow me, for greater emphasis, to reiterate some of these points in English.

The impact of a $7-million reduction to Transport Canada's 2021 main estimates funding would significantly reduce its ability to deliver on its commitments. Undesirable consequences could include reduced levels of inspections across all transportation modes: air, land and marine. It could include reduced enforcement activities and reduced surveillance of the transportation industry's equipment, operations and facilities.

How would these cuts impact ordinary Canadians? I will give some examples. Transport Canada recently announced the funding of $7 million in Lethbridge for the rehabilitation of runways, $5 million through the national trade corridors fund to improve the efficiency of rail logistics in Alberta's industrial heartland; $2 million to the remote air services program to British Columbia to ensure essential air services to remote communities in the province; a combined $8 million to the communities of Smithers and Terrace in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley to rehabilitate airport infrastructure; and $11 million to the community of Mont-Joli in the electoral district of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia to rehabilitate the airport.

Which of these projects would the opposition cancel in order to recuperate the $7 million it is purporting to cut?

The cuts also negatively impact the department's efforts to support the economic recovery of the air sector, as well as other transportation sectors affected by the pandemic. It would also set a precedent for government departments to pay for organizations that are operating at arm's length from the Government of Canada.

In short, this would be a very unwise way to protest Nav Canada's financial decision, which again has nothing to do with the supply vote in front of us.

I would like to say a few words about Nav Canada. Nav Canada is a private, not-for-profit corporation tasked with managing Canada's air navigation services. This model was introduced for the first time in 1996 to replace the air navigation services that were previously provided by Transport Canada. All subsequent governments kept that model in place.

Nav Canada oversees air traffic in Canada through a sophisticated network of area control centres, air traffic control towers, flight service stations, maintenance centres, flight information centres and navigation aids across the country.

Its customers include airlines, business aviation and air cargo operators, air charters and air taxis, helicopter operators and general aviation pilots and owners.

Nav Canada is independent from the Government of Canada because it does not report to the Minister of Transport or Parliament. Nav Canada is not part of the Minister of Transport's main estimates. As a result, it is not included in Transport Canada's Vote 1 estimates of $741,693,237 for 2021-22. What is more, Nav Canada's financial statements are not included in the Government of Canada's main estimates process.

As a not-for-profit corporation, Nav Canada invests directly in its operations, people and infrastructure to keep Canada's air navigation system as safe, efficient and innovative as it can be.

Nav Canada's governance structure is composed of federal government representatives, users and unionized employees. In turn, these representatives select the members of Nav Canada's board of directors.

Now I will turn to the bonuses paid out to Nav Canada executives. Nav Canada bonuses are paid to senior executives and exempt staff, who are managers. Bonuses are usually between 5% and 20% of an employee's total compensation. They are accounted for in Nav Canada's vision, which is to pay wages equivalent to the market average.

Bonuses are normally paid to about 550 employees, but they are not distributed evenly. The average amount paid out from that $7 million would be $13,000, but the amount varies from one person to the next.

Recent media reports stated that Nav Canada was planning to issue layoff notices to 49 employees. Those notices have since been rescinded. Nav Canada chose not to publicize its senior executives' compensation because of its policies stating that disagreements with the unions are not resolved immediately.

Now I would like to talk about Nav Canada's independence from Transport Canada. Once again, there is no connection between the payment of Nav Canada bonuses and Vote 1 of the main estimates for Transport Canada in the amount of $741,693,237. Nav Canada receives no direct funding from Transport Canada and is not accountable to either the Minister of Transport or Parliament.

Nav Canada is primarily funded by the fees it receives for managing more than 18 million square kilometres of airspace. Additional revenue is generated through technology sales and other related business activities. The company operates with a break-even business model, balancing costs and revenues by borrowing to meet cash flow requirements.

I want to make a few points about the $7 million in bonuses paid by Nav Canada while the company was receiving government assistance and issuing layoff notices. The bonuses reported in the news were paid for the first half of the company's fiscal year, from September 2019 to February 2020, before the industry suffered significant negative impacts from COVID‑19. Budget 2021 proposed requiring that publicly listed corporations repay the wage subsidy for any qualifying period after June 5, 2021. The Nav Canada bonuses were paid outside of the period set out in budget 2021.

In response to COVID‑19, Nav Canada executives agreed to significant reductions to salary and benefits, and there is no immediate plan to restore them before the airline industry recovers.

Note that salaries were reduced by 3% to 5%. Pensions were restructured and became less generous. The annual salary review for senior executives to reconsider possible raises was cancelled. The management team was also cut in half and, during that time, the company issued layoff notices to 49 employees. As I was saying earlier, these notices were rescinded.

Like other Canadian companies, the employees at Nav Canada can receive wage subsidies through the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or CEWS. Nav Canada noted that its employees had benefited from the CEWS and that the company had not received the large employer emergency financing facility, or LEEFF, nor had it received any special financing under favourable terms.

As far as the rule around the wage subsidy is concerned, budget 2021 stated that the wage subsidy should be paid back in certain cases where senior executives' compensation increased.

Budget 2021 proposes to require a publicly listed corporation to repay wage subsidy amounts received for a qualifying period that begins after June 5, 2021, in the event that its aggregate compensation for specified executives during the 2021 calendar year exceeds its aggregate compensation for specified executives during the 2019 calendar year.

For the purpose of this rule, a publicly listed corporation's specified executives will be its named executive officers whose compensation is required to be disclosed under Canadian securities law in its statement of executive compensation.

This generally includes its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and three other most highly compensated executives. A corporation's executive compensation for a calendar year will be calculated by prorating the aggregate compensation of its specified executives for each of its taxation years that overlap with the calendar year.

The amount of the wage subsidy required to be repaid would be equal to the lesser of the following: the total of all wage subsidy amounts received in respect of active employees for qualifying periods that begin after June 5, 2021, and the amount by which the corporation's aggregate specified executives' compensation for 2021 exceeds its aggregate specified executives' compensation for 2019.

This requirement to repay would be applied at the group level and would apply to wage subsidy amounts paid to any entity in the group.

I hope that my remarks have clarified some of the questions about the bonuses paid to Nav Canada executives. I think that what should be quite clear is that the proposed $7‑million reduction to Transport Canada's operating budget is an ill-advised and irresponsible way to protest these bonuses. The funds used to pay these bonuses did not come from Transport Canada's budget.

Furthermore, the cuts would hurt Transport Canada's ability to carry out its mandate. As I mentioned earlier, this would weaken the implementation of monitoring, testing, inspection and subsidy programs across all modes of transportation. It would also result in reduced enforcement activities that could increase the potential risk to the safety and security of Canadians.

In addition, reduced surveillance of the transportation industry's equipment, operations and facilities could result in accidents, malfunctions and, of course, loss of life.

I will give the member who proposed these cuts the benefit of the doubt and assume that she did not consider some of their potential consequences.

It is very easy to fan the flames of anger about executive compensation, and in some cases, this is often completely justified. However, as legislators, we must also act responsibly when making decisions and ensure that we do not inadvertently hurt Canadians.

I urge all members to vote in favour of Vote 1, “Operating expenditures”, in the main estimates, under Department of Transport, in the amount of $741,693,237.

Transport Canada worked very hard to maintain the safety and security of our transportation system throughout the COVID-19 crisis. This work must continue, and the department needs the resources required to do that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this transport minister and his cabinet colleagues left our international borders open for too long. Flights were coming into Canada carrying COVID-positive individuals as the virus was spreading around the world, and was continuing to be brought into Canada. Yet, we had tourism operators, like guide outfitters and fishing lodge operators, who were crying for assistance. They had COVID management plans in place and quarantine management plans in place to bring in customers so that they could at least maintain their business, and yet this government turned a blind eye to them.

Why did this government take so long to close our borders, and why did it turn a blind eye to tourism operators who were crying out for help?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

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

My colleague is well aware that, from the start, the government implemented all of the necessary measures to ensure the health security and safety of Canadians and provide the social and economic safety net they needed to get through the pandemic.

Whether through the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which was made available to many of the country's economic sectors, the Canada emergency response benefit or business loans, all sectors were supported during the pandemic because our goal is to leave no one behind.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the introductory course on Nav Canada. It was very interesting.

I would like to ask her a question about ports and wharves.

There is one expenditure that I would have liked to see in the estimates, but it was not there. I would have liked to see an agreement with Municipality of Nouvelle regarding the Miguasha wharf. Since 2009, Nouvelle has been trying to become the owner of the port facilities so it can make something of them and attract visitors.

When will Transport Canada come to an agreement with small municipalities like this one? That would boost regional economic development. The government is using COVID-19 as an excuse for not coming to an agreement and for putting an end to the negotiations.

When will Transport Canada assume its responsibilities with regard to the Gaspé?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

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

I think she is aware that we have done a lot for ports and for a number of small ports in several municipalities. One example is Cap‑aux‑Meules, where we made sure there would be a fishing season this year. We are working very hard to make sure there will be fishing seasons in future years.

I would be happy to work with my colleague on the Miguasha file. I can see that it is really important to her, and it is to us too.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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

I know there are people in her riding who still need the Canada emergency response benefit, which is set at $500 per week. The NDP lobbied hard for that amount. The government is about to reduce it from $500 to $300 per week. That means the people still receiving it will dip below the poverty line.

I have a simple question. How will this drastic reduction in the CERB affect her constituents, especially at a time when variants are spreading and COVID‑19 is still with us?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it gives me a chance to talk about my riding.

What I can tell him is that I recently spoke with someone at the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve community kitchen who told me that if not for the government her organization would not exist.

Thanks to the many programs we brought in during the pandemic, several organizations like the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve community kitchen and Chic Resto Pop, to name just a couple, survived the pandemic. The Canada emergency benefit has helped people in my riding pay their rent and buy groceries. We provided the social safety net that was needed. People in my riding thank us for being there for them.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

The Liberal government is incapable of accepting responsibility. I am so tired of receiving the response that Nav Canada is an arm's-length organization. The government has to take responsibility for the decisions of Nav Canada.

However, we have seen this consistently. We see this with the documents from the Winnipeg lab. We saw this with Bill C-10. We saw this with General Vance. We saw this with the WE scandal. We saw this with SNC-Lavalin.

Here is the solution to where we find the $7 million: We go to the executives and ask for it back. It is as simple as that.

When will the government take responsibility for something?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passion and for her question.

I would like to reiterate once again that there is no connection between NAV Canada and the appropriations that are before us today. There is no connection between NAV Canada and Transport Canada, or Parliament. It is a not-for-profit corporation.

My colleague calls the government all kinds of things, but I notice that the opposition is sticking to its narrative of budget cuts. I invite her to tell me where she would like to make cuts. The official opposition continues to see what it wants to see and ignores the reality. I invite my colleague to tell me which Transport Canada budget items she would like to cut.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to spend and spend. There is no doubt that there was a need to spend during the pandemic. There was a need to bridge. However, as the PBO said, we are walking on a very thin tightrope right now. If we were to have a crisis like an economic recession or a climate-related crisis, we would have big financial problems.

If we were to reach a financial crisis, which tax would the member increase? Would she put a tax on principal residences? Would she cut spending? Would she cut civil servants? What is her approach for the crisis that we will almost inevitably face?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for his question.

Once again, it is the classic example of the opposition party. I entered politics and I decided to get involved at the federal level because the previous government had made cuts across the whole cultural and social system.

Our government decided to help Canadians and businesses get through the situation. Now is not the time to take on individual debt. We must take on collective debt. Now is not the time for austerity measures, as my opposition colleague would have us do.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to rise in the House to speak to the main estimates for the Department of Transport. I note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Wascana.

Since the beginning of the current session of Parliament, it has been my pleasure to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This committee is filled with a good group of parliamentarians working to get answers for Canadians on transport-related issues and to secure the future of transport in this country.

This past fall, we began a study to examine the impacts of COVID-19 on the aviation sector in Canada. We heard heart-wrenching stories from many witnesses about how much of their workforce had to be laid off. Many were struggling to put food on the table in cases where there were gaps in federal support.

What is interesting to note is that, while some companies were getting little to no support and could not secure a meeting with the minister, other companies were receiving much more support and getting meetings with the minister on a regular basis. The patchwork approach the government has been taking when it comes to getting support to Canada's aviation sector ignores all the workers in the aviation sector who have lost their jobs as a result of the government's inaction on this file. Canadians have been watching closely over the past year, and many in this sector still have not received the support they require. Hope is dying.

It is nice for aviation workers to hear from the government that help is on the way, but when is it coming? When days turn into weeks, weeks turn into months and then months turn into over a year, I can see why so many in the industry who have still not received support have lost hope. However, members should note that not all airlines are still waiting for support. Air Canada received a $5-billion package from the government in April, and shortly after, it awarded more than $10 million in bonuses to executives and managers. The Conservatives have been clear from the beginning: We must get support out the door to those who need it most, and no taxpayer money should ever be used for executive bonuses.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard from a constituent who, prior to COVID, booked a vacation for himself and his wife for their 30th anniversary. Because of travel restrictions, their vacation was put on hold and they received a travel voucher that was good for 24 months. This was all good until my constituent lost his job because of COVID and needed to access the funds that were tied up in a vacation that he and his wife never got to go on.

Many travel companies have said that passenger refunds are tied to government support. Sunwing received a temporary support package back in February and set aside money for customers, but it has not dispensed that money, as it is still in negotiations with the government regarding its full support package.

The predicament this constituent and many other Canadians in similar situations now find themselves in is that they still have no clear indications from the government about when travel restrictions will be lifted, and the end of the 24-month period for the travel voucher is coming quickly. If the government does not soon finalize the support package, customers in this situation are at risk of losing the thousands of dollars they saved for a vacation that they may never get to go on. This is just one story of how the government's inaction on this issue is costing Canadians.

On the border, as I mentioned, the government has still not provided Canadians with any sort of indication as to when the border might open. The government waited far too long to close the border. Now we are nearing the end of the pandemic, and it refuses to provide Canadians with certainty as to when we will reopen it.

I would like to thank all those who work at the CBSA and have been challenged over the past year to quickly adapt to the ever-changing rules and travel restrictions thrown at them. COVID began in March 2020, and we knew very early on that COVID was entering Canada because we left our borders open and the government repeatedly failed to take meaningful action to secure them.

The spending that is occurring in the transport budget is important, and I agree that we must provide support to the industries that were hardest hit by COVID. However, with the government, we repeatedly see money being allocated in the budget and then either not getting out the door fast enough, like all of the lapsed infrastructure spending, or getting out the door and into the wrong hands, like with the WE Charity scandal and Air Canada's executive compensation package.

An area that needs support is the tourism industry. When I talk about targeted support being needed, an area that comes to mind with a shortfall is tourism.

COVID-19 has been incredibly tough on the tourism industry. I talk with many stakeholders in my riding, and a concern I hear from them is that, while the $500 million in support the government is offering is appreciated, when stretched to companies from coast to coast to coast, this support is being spread too thin. Businesses have suffered major losses through no fault of their own. The support they need should be available to continue their operations.

It is extremely important that we fully recover the tourism industry, especially in communities that rely on the industry as a significant part of their economy. A factor we need to think about in relation to tourism recovery is the transportation of people and how easy it is for tourists to get to their destinations. In many cases, taking a bus over a flight or driving can make for a more economical vacation. With the closing of Greyhound Canada, this is leaving a gap in our transportation network.

Many Canadians across Canada who live in rural or more remote regions depend on intercity bus services to travel large distances between smaller towns and urban areas. As Greyhound continues to operate in the United States, we must recognize that the decision to close down operations in Canada will have a ripple effect on our tourism industry and will result in consumers having less choice in how they reach their vacation destinations.

Our transportation sector is of vital importance for the tens of thousands of Canadians employed in the sector. These are real people who need support and must not be treated as political pawns. For nearly a year, the government has been promising them support but repeatedly failing to deliver in a meaningful way.

To conclude, my Conservative colleagues and I are calling on the government to deliver support to our aviation sector. That means restoring Canada's regional routes, ensuring passengers receive refunds, making sure travel agent commissions are not clawed back, ensuring Nav Canada maintains adequate service levels for air traffic controls and bringing forward a comprehensive travel restart plan so that Canadians are no longer left in the dark.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke of the tourism industry. In the Lower Saint-Lawrence, the Bas-Saint-Laurent Tourism Association has come up with an ambitious plan to become one of the 30 most popular destinations in eastern Canada, which, of course, comes with certain challenges.

We spoke a bit earlier about the labour shortage, but there is also the problem of entrepreneurial renewal and the lack of proponents. In fact, the federal government invested in the tourism sector, but—it must be said—the devil is always in the details: The government invests in awareness campaigns, but that will not supply manpower and workers.

What more does my colleague think the government should do to help our small tourist operators?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has brought up some very good points that we need to start looking at.

One of the big things is that many businesses are financially not viable because clients are not coming in to support the business. They do not have funds because no one can travel and be part of tourism, or it is because of the isolation. Since we cannot properly distance in a lot of tourism opportunities, we cannot have proper engagement.

That is where the government needs to either secure loans or create a compensation package in order to make these businesses viable once again. That is the challenge that the Liberals are not responding to for Canadian businesses. Small businesses such as those in the tourism industry are going to suffer greatly without this compensation package.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we heard the hon. member speak about the need for supports in tourism. He talked about rural isolation and in particular the abandonment by Greyhound of some critical routes. I am wondering if the hon. member would support our plan, which is to expand VIA Rail to include bus service in a nationalized public transit system to allow northern rural communities to connect with southern cities and municipalities and have the kind of inter-regional travel that is necessary to keep communities like his going.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has brought up some very interesting points. I am not saying the plan is not a great concept; the problem is financial viability. Unfortunately, Canada does not have enough densely populated areas, so it would be very expensive to build and operate and maintain that kind of rail system. That is the only downside to that kind of concept. It would be fantastic if we had better populations in the remote areas.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the difficulties is that with the failure of the government on border controls in this pandemic and the flawed vaccine rollout that the Liberals are scrambling to catch up on, what has happened is that the government introduced programs to help businesses at the beginning, but a lot of people were falling through the cracks. Even though the defects in the programs were identified in March of last year, the government has continued to extend the programs and not repair them. Now we find that a lot of tourism and travel businesses are out of runway, and the support is simply inadequate.

I wonder if the member could comment on how that is happening in his riding.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has brought up some very good points. We remember how our Prime Minister spoke to start off with, saying that we should not worry, that the government was there to help the majority of the people first and that then it would be able to help those people who fell through the cracks. When are the Prime Minister and the government going to actually help the people who have fallen through the cracks?

Many people have commented to me that they applied for this program and got a couple of dollars from it or they applied for that program and were not eligible. Unfortunately, they fell through the cracks, and because of that they have now lost their businesses. Very many business owners are experiencing the same type of financial situation.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to rise in this virtual chamber to participate in tonight's debate.

I have the privilege of serving on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with an outstanding group of MPs from all parties. Over the course of the past several months, the committee had the opportunity to hear from many representatives from the country's air travel sector. Yesterday the committee presented to the House its report, entitled “Emerging from the Crisis: A Study of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Air Transport Sector”. However, the committee witnesses were unanimous in their bleak assessment of the effects of the pandemic on air travel.

Few sectors have been hit harder by the pandemic than the air travel sector. Airlines, airports, independent travel advisers, air traffic controllers and small business owners who run the souvenir shops at the airports have all experienced job losses, cutbacks and hardship. However, unlike many sectors, restarting the air travel sector will not be like turning on a light switch. The air travel sector has faced many unique challenges during the pandemic, the effects of which will be felt for years to come.

For this evening's debate, I will focus my remarks on the difficult situation in which Canada's airports find themselves.

The air travel sector cannot function without financially viable airports. After all, the airplanes have to have some place to land and some place to take off from. When most of this country's airports were privatized in the 1990s, a fee structure was established with the airlines that was based on air traffic volumes. This country's airports could rely on a steady stream of revenues as long as there was also a steady stream of commercial airline flights. All of that came to a halt in the spring of 2020 at the start of the pandemic.

In my home city of Regina, the Regina International Airport went 10 days at the beginning of the pandemic without a single commercial passenger flight. For much of the pandemic, air travel levels were down as much as 90% compared to pre-pandemic levels. This lack of air travel means a lack of revenue for this country's airports.

As a result, airports had to lay off staff and dip into cash reserves. When the cash reserves ran out, they had to go to the bank and borrow. Today, this country's airports have debt loads that they have never seen before. How will they pay off this debt? It will be by passing the cost on to consumers as air travel resumes after the pandemic.

Now, some people may shrug their shoulders and say “So what? Airport debts and debt servicing fees get passed on to air travellers; that is life.” Maybe it would not be such a big deal if Canada were a closed country that lived in isolation, but we are not.

Air travel policies of the American government are bound to affect Canada and the rest of the world as well. It is worth noting that within weeks of the start of the pandemic, the U.S. Congress passed the CARES Act to provide $10 billion in financial relief to American airports. This means that American airports have had financial certainty throughout the pandemic and have not had to go deep into debt. It means that American airports will not have the financial burden of debt and debt servicing costs to pass on to their customers.

Even before the pandemic, flying out of a Canadian airport was significantly more expensive than flying out of an American one. This is because, historically, American governments have viewed airports as an infrastructure investment, while in Canada, most airports operate on Crown land and serve as a source of revenue for the federal government through ground lease payments.

As Canadian airports take on more and more debt and pass more and more debt and debt servicing costs on to passengers, American airports become relatively less expensive by comparison. This poses a real long-term problem for Canadian airports, especially those that are located within driving distance of the U.S. border. The Bellingham airport in the state of Washington is just a short drive across the border from Vancouver. The Niagara Falls airport is on the American side of the border, just a short drive down the highway from Hamilton and St. Catharines. The airport in Plattsburgh, New York, already advertises itself as “Montréal's U.S. Airport”.

All along the Canada-U.S. border, the story is the same. American airports will become more attractive options as Canadian airports struggle to find ways to pass their crippling debt loads on to Canadian travellers. These debt loads will have a ripple effect across the air travel sector as Canadian airlines, independent travel advisers and hotels lose business across the board.

What could the government do to help this country's struggling airports? I would say one thing the air travel sector really needs right now is a safe reopening plan. The quicker we could get Canadians flying again, the quicker airline and airport revenues will rebound, and all of the harmful effects of the pandemic that I have described could be minimized.

However, the biggest challenge facing the air travel sector is a lack of customers, caused by uncertainty in the marketplace. The pandemic has thrown many sectors of the economy into chaos, including restaurants, movie theatres and clothing stores. Most businesses are primarily governed by their provincial governments, and most provincial governments have already spelled out a safe reopening plan based on vaccination levels.

For example, in my home province of Saskatchewan, in just three more days restaurants will no longer have to limit the number of customers seated at a single table, although customers will only be able to order à la carte and buffets are not allowed yet. Just think of how much easier it will be for restaurant workers and owners and their customers to plan a major dinner party when there is a clearly spelled out reopening plan for restaurants.

Now, imagine if the federal government were to do the same thing for air travel. I am sure that after well over a year of this pandemic, many Canadians would really like to start making their summer travel plans. Airlines, travel advisers, tour operators and hotels would all like to start making bookings.

What are the rules? More importantly, what will the rules be next week and next month and in the coming months as vaccination levels continue to inch upwards?

If someone who is fully vaccinated flies down to the States and then flies back, how much longer will that person still have to go through the mandatory 14-day quarantine? How much longer will that person still have to go to the quarantine hotels? What about someone who is only partially vaccinated? What about a husband and wife who are fully vaccinated but whose children are too young to receive the vaccine?

That is just for international travel. What about travelling within Canada? Are we going to see a patchwork of different rules within Canada, whereby some provinces require quarantines and others do not? Will it be easier for Canadians to fly to the United States for their summer holidays than to other provinces within Canada?

These are all very reasonable and practical questions that Canadians are starting to ask. The absence of any answers and the absence of any safe reopening plan from the federal government is putting another summer travel season in jeopardy. The loss of another summer travel season would cause undue harm, not only to this country's airports but to our airlines, independent travel advisers, air traffic controllers, tour operators and so many Canadians who depend on a properly functioning air transport sector.

I call on the government to present, as soon as possible, a safe reopening plan for air travel.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I was listening carefully because I also have an airport in my riding; its volume is relatively small, but large enough to warrant a control tower.

As air travel declined during the pandemic, Nav Canada quickly decided to slash air traffic control services. However, getting a control tower back up and running is very difficult because air traffic controllers are highly trained.

Could my colleague tell us whether it was a good idea to delay making a decision about shutting down control towers until more was known about how the pandemic would play out? Also, does he think, in general, this is a service that should be maintained as much as possible?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, some of the vocabulary is a little technical, so I am going to respond in English.

It is my hope that this is not just a delay in the closing of these air traffic control towers. It is my hope that once air travel resumes to normal levels, there would not be a need to close these towers at all and that life would be back to normal, Canadians would be flying again, and there would be no need for layoffs at Nav Canada.

I would encourage the hon. members to read the report that was tabled in the House yesterday. One of the themes of the report, and one of the recommendations, is the need for alternative funding models for not just Nav Canada but air travel in general during the times of a pandemic. The funding model for Nav Canada has worked very well for the first quarter-century of Nav Canada's existence, but when a pandemic hits, everything becomes quite topsy-turvy.

We have a social safety net in place for workers in the form of employment insurance and workers' compensation and that sort of thing. Maybe we need a self-funding social safety net for Nav Canada, where it could draw—