Debates of Oct. 25th, 2023

Canadian Aviation Regulations

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, why go through a motion when this is really a regulatory process that the member could see the minister about? That would be the quickest way to get an effect, especially when they have their own caucus.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if it was that simple, it would have been done 25 years ago, but it was not. It has been lingering for a very long time.

We are all experienced in the ways of committees and certainly in the ways of Parliament. However, Parliament only has so much bandwidth, as do committees, and sometimes we need to take the initiative to bring something to the foreground that we believe has been neglected for too long. This is one of them. This is one mechanism, and hopefully a very good one, to bring this to the attention of the government and then kick-start the kinds of changes that are needed.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion and, more importantly, for educating Canadian travellers, who are probably not aware of the fact that right now, certain airports do not have the capabilities they would expect when travelling. That is part of this motion and why it is so important.

The motion is not only to educate members of this House representing Canadians across this great land, but also to fix a problem. We have identified a gap, and I think that any Canadian travelling would be willing to put in that little extra dollar or two knowing that in the event of a fire on an airplane or airport runway, it is a question of not only putting out the fire but going in and rescuing.

Could the member elaborate a little on the importance of educating Canadians about this issue?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her encouragement to take up this issue.

Education is a very important thing, but without needlessly scaring people. This is a scary proposition. The fact is that Canadian airports are by and large extremely safe. Those of us who fly have made many trips back and forth without incident, and we will all touch wood so that will continue.

This is an opportunity to draw out an old saying: Being a firefighter is the best job in the world until there is a fire; then it is one the worst jobs in the world. I think Canadians will appreciate this and certainly understand what we are talking about and what we are asking our fire services to do to meet standards. As one of my colleagues said, people expect this to happen, and if it is not happening, we have to move it in that direction.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I want to thank the member for his presentation as a volunteer firefighter. I appreciate his comments today.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and engage in critical discussions about the policies that effect the lives of everyday Canadians. Today, we are being presented with a motion that calls for the adoption of International Civil Aviation Organization standards in Canada's airports for rescue and firefighting regulations. This could potentially increase fees imposed on passengers and shippers to cover the costs.

Safety is paramount and is certainly something that unites all of us. Conservatives believe that this is an issue that deserve more study. We will be calling on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, upon which I happen to sit, to take this issue up. We must carefully consider and evaluate the consequences of implementing these proposed changes.

The mover of the motion just spoke about the fact that Canadian airports are exceptionally safe. That is something we are all proud of. What is the signal we are sending in debating this motion today? Are we giving the impression that it is lacking?

Canada is not out of step with the rest of the world on this. Many countries, including our neighbours to the south, make necessary adjustments to ICAO standards to best suit their own unique circumstances. It is a standard practice that recognizes the need for flexibility, while maintaining high safety standards.

Why are we signalling there are perhaps deficiencies in our safety regulations? Canadian aviation regulations are designed to be robust and thorough. They are tailored to the specific needs of communities and circumstances. In fact, in some areas, such as aircraft rescue and firefighting training, we even surpass ICAO standards by threefold, demonstrating our commitment to safety and preparedness.

It is important to acknowledge that airport emergencies are well managed across Canada through close collaboration with community resource partners. Municipal police, ambulance services and firefighting resources play pivotal roles in emergency response. Airports cannot be expected to staff for every conceivable emergency scenario, so they rely on these mutual aid partners to ensure a comprehensive response. It is worth noting that all of our airports are already working closely with their local fire departments, actively planning and conducting exercises to ensure a swift and effective emergency response.

We can talk about Hamilton International Airport, which I am proud to say is located in my constituency of Flamborough—Glanbrook. It is the fastest-growing cargo airport in the country, plus it serves over a million passengers a year. It is owned by the City of Hamilton, so naturally, there is a strong partnership with the Hamilton Fire Department.

This partnership is already in place and exemplifies the importance of a well-coordinated approach to aviation safety. We have heard this from other airports across the country. They recognize the significance of a collaborative approach, which is why they have expressed concerns that the proposed regulation and added costs are unnecessary. That is why we need to study this further.

It is essential to consider that these additional expenses would inevitably be passed onto travellers and shippers, and would further raise the costs associated with air travel in Canada, which is already expensive on a global scale. In a country where air travel and cargo is already subject to significant fees and taxes, these costs are going to be one more thing added onto the backs of Canadians at a time when we are already dealing with 40-year-high inflation.

It is crucial to remember that increasing costs for passengers and shippers does not necessarily translate into increased safety. We must be mindful of the impact on Canadians' wallets.

Additionally, the regulatory changes proposed in this motion are designed to provide a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best approach. However, our vast and diverse Canadian landscape necessitates a more flexible approach to regulation. What works for one airport, may not be suitable for another. Flexibility in our regulations is essential to accommodate these variations.

We must recognize the merits of our existing Canadian aviation regulations and the partnerships we have built with community resources to ensure the safety and well-being of airline passengers. Thorough studies have been conducted, and sound research has supported it, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our current approach.

The proposed changes, while they may sound appealing on the surface, risk imposing unnecessary costs and red tape. There is just no clear evidence to suggest that this would result in a safer air travel environment. That is why we are proposing additional study on this.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by taking a few seconds to thank the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing this motion forward. The member chairs the Special Committee on the Canada‑People's Republic of China Relationship. I know that he is deeply interested in issues that transcend party lines, that promote the common good, the public good. He is a man of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I must interrupt the hon. member because I think the interpretation is not working.

It is working again. The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have turned everything off around me. For once, I am the one who is disconnected. That is a first.

I wanted to thank my colleague for moving this motion because airport safety is so important. What we read in the motion is rather shocking. It first talks about how there are significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at our airports. That is a matter of passenger and employee safety, but it is also a matter of the country's international reputation, since Canada is known for being a safe place to fly.

Here is what the motion calls for. It says that we need to change the safety standards in Canadian airports so that airport firefighters can reach any part of the runway in less than three minutes. Those are international standards, and Canada is lagging behind in terms of International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, standards. Right now, Canada requires firefighters to be able to reach the mid-point of the runway in three minutes, rather than all points on the runway. The three-minute time frame is very important. We know that some runways are very long, particularly those at the Mirabel airport in my riding. That time frame can extend to four, five, six or even seven minutes.

We are talking about airport safety, and it can seem as though fires in and around airports never happen. Let me remind members that a tragedy took someone's life at the Mirabel airport on October 18, 2022. A vehicle caught fire at the airport. Aéroports de Montréal, the supposedly independent Crown corporation that manages the facility, decided not to send firefighters and instead waited for municipal firefighters to arrive.

A second call was made to notify the firefighters that there was a fire, and Aéroports de Montréal again decided not to send their firefighters. They have to come from far away. When Mirabel's municipal firefighters arrived, the individual had died inside his car. Municipal firefighters are not trained for that. These things happen. People often do not know that airport firefighters exist. However, when they are needed, it is a matter of life and death. They have to act quickly.

I would like to take advantage of today's debate to salute the 31 valiant firefighters who work at the two airports, located in Mirabel and Dorval. Nine are in Mirabel, and the other 22 are in Dorval. Just think, there are nine firefighters for one airport. These people risk their lives, and all they ask is to do their job; all they ask is to save lives. I salute these people, who put the safety of passengers and airport staff first.

I am thinking in particular of Philippe Gagnon, president of the Syndicat des pompiers d'Aéroports de Montréal, and of Alexandre Bertrand, vice-president of the Syndicat des pompiers d'Aéroports de Montréal. I am also thinking of Yvon Barrière and Jonathan Choquette from PSAC‑Quebec. For his bravery, I salute hero Francis Labrie, a firefighter who was suspended because he took the fire truck, went to the scene and tried to save a life. This is no laughing matter.

Aéroports de Montréal tells us that municipal firefighters are to intervene inside an aircraft. Canadian airport firefighters can hose down a plane from the outside, but they are not allowed to go inside the plane. This is against the rules of the ICAO, which is headquartered in Montreal a few kilometres from our airports. To be able to intervene in an aircraft, they need to have completed 333 hours of training. Municipal firefighters do not have this training, and they cannot get there in time. They lack the necessary resources.

In his motion, my colleague says quite rightly that firefighters need to be able to reach the mid-point of the runway in three minutes. However, under municipal standards, firefighters arrive in 25 minutes.

People inside a burning aircraft die after three minutes from the smoke. It is extremely serious. Airport firefighters who follow international rules are needed because there are inherent risks to aircraft fires.

For example, aircraft fires release toxic gases that are specific to airports. There are chemical, physical and thermal dangers, the combustion of composite materials, the oxygen and halon tanks, the sulphur, the exhaust from the running engines, engine fires, the hydraulic systems, and radioactivity.

I do not want to hear that Montreal firefighters are trained for these specific types of risks. Think of the hot brakes, tire fires, flammable synthetic oil, door openings, deployment of emergency slides that are specific to planes, batteries that produce hydrogen gas and lead to a risk of fire and explosion, radar systems, the inflatable cushions, and so on.

We need to have trained firefighters who arrive on time. In France, Great Britain and most industrialized countries, the international standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or the ICAO, apply. In Montreal, where the ICAO headquarters are located, these standards are not used, which is rather ridiculous. It is shameful. Our colleague is giving us an opportunity to take note of these shortcomings today.

For example, the Canadian aviation regulations, called CARs, require only three trucks. Unlike the rules at most airports around the world, personnel is not specified, and Aéroports de Montréal takes advantage of this omission to excuse its understaffing.

For six years now, firefighters at Mirabel airport have not received any medical training. The Canadian aviation regulations say that medical training must be up to date. However, since Mirabel no longer has the required number of passengers and is supposedly a cargo-only airport, they say medical training is not required. All they are trying to do is save money at the expense of human lives, when we know that chartered planes, flight schools and general aviation operate out of Mirabel. The situation is extremely serious.

One of the main problems we are having in my riding has to do with the airport administration structure. It is a non-profit organization that essentially leases the land the airport is on for a very long time. These folks are being asked to make money, to make their activities profitable, to open shops and to break even.

At one point, Aéroports de Montréal got a new president. The first thing he did was cut the number of firefighters, the number of trucks available to respond and firefighter training. I guess this means that if there is ever a fire with radioactive elements, the airport firefighters will respond with three trucks and three firefighters. There are even cases where there are so few firefighters that the support truck carrying the equipment cannot even get to the plane. Firefighters are then told to hose down the outside the plane, to get there in three, four, five or six minutes, but to wait for municipal firefighters before boarding the plane. Now we are relying on the municipalities.

I commend the initiative of my colleague who moved this motion. He took action instead of waiting for dozens of deaths in a crash landing or fire. He is looking ahead. The people, the passengers and the staff come first for him.

There is an urgent need to act and amend the outdated Canadian aviation regulations. There is an urgent need for greater transparency in the management of our airport facilities. These facilities belong to the taxpayers, to Quebeckers, Canadians, the people of Mirabel.

At some point, these people need to be held accountable for their actions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on motion M-96. It is a motion that the House recognize that an assessment of the International Association of Fire Fighters concluded significant regulatory shortfalls.

Basically, the shortfalls are failing to specify rescue as a required function of airport firefighters and requiring only that firefighters must reach the midpoint of the furthest runway in three minutes, rather than all points of operational runways within that time period. Another part of the motion seeks to give firefighters at major Canadian airports the mandate and resources that are necessary and specify that the required function of firefighters must be rescuing passengers.

I do not want to go through the whole motion here. I want to talk a bit about process and how it relates to our airports and the holes we have in the services there. I know that the Speaker is flying tomorrow, and we do have a very good record in aviation, but we still have some improvements that need to be made. Sadly, this problem has been around this place longer than I have. I find interesting that it is a regulatory change that any minister can do at any point in time, so there really is not the requirement for this to go through as a motion.

A motion is not binding. It would not mean that the government has to follow the motion that is passed. That is one of the reasons we might want to look at regulation through the minister as a quicker more direct process, or we could have legislation that would bind the government once it passes this chamber and the Senate.

I think the motion is good for public awareness. I commend the member for bringing this forward, but the government, if it wanted to, could act on this really quickly. There is not really much of an obstacle, because it has the support of the rest of this chamber here. It is good that the member brought this through to discuss it, because maybe his government and the minister will listen to what is taking place here today and act on it even before the motion takes place. Perhaps, in the best scenario, the minister would actually act on the regulations and let the member have a victory lap.

That would be awesome, because the intent of the motion, in terms of fire safety at airports, is critically important, and he needs to be clear that there is support in the chamber for that.

I do want to also acknowledge that our critic on this, who has done a lot of work, is the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is our transport critic, but he is also a former mayor. We look at airports in municipalities. I was on the City of Windsor city council when things were offloaded to municipalities. Local taxpayers had to pick up, basically, from deregulation, which we have seen Conservatives and Liberals do on a number of different things, including airline safety. They tried to get a safety management system employed there. We were able to stop that.

We face a number of things that have been deregulated. This was downloading onto the municipalities, so municipalities like Windsor and others have had to pick up the slack for fire safety.

There are some really good things here in this motion, as discussed. A good one one is regarding persons with disabilities. In the case of accidents, there is very little direction about how we would help get passengers, especially those who are disabled, off planes.

The government was very lackluster when it came to Nav Canada, which was responsible for airport towers. It was looking at closing several across this country and studying them, and they included the Windsor one in that, despite the fact that we have five air zones in the Windsor district area.

We are on the border, so our air zones are not just domestic, but they are international, and they overlap. I was fortunate to be invited by Mr. Chris Kenney, the central regional vice-president who requested a meeting with CATCA with regard to touring my airport tower just recently. I want to thank everybody who was there for the education they also gave me, which confirmed that saving our airport tower was important.

When Nav Canada was looking at this, they basically wanted to close it down so they would not have people in the airport tower. If members can imagine it, we not only have domestic flights, but we also have other services like coast guard and the U.S. air services and so forth that overlap in our region. That would have been detrimental. Losing that, especially as we are growing the airline industry, would have been wrong.

The first response from the government on this, by our local Liberal MP, was that it could not do anything about. It was Nav Canada, so it could study this. All heck broke loose.

I started working with a number of different people, because it came to me. I want to thank the flight instructors at that time: Dante Albano, Ryan Lee, Patrick Li and Craig Borowski. They are international airport pilots and are involved in the issue with the Windsor Flying Club. I also thank Karan D'Souza, Mayor Dilkens and Rakesh Naidu from the Windsor chamber of commerce.

We pushed back at the fact that Nav Canada was doing this, and it became a significant incident. We went from the government saying originally that it could not do anything about it to it saying the minister does not have the legal authority for it to get done. What I did was drafted legislation for the minister and tabled it here in this chamber so he could act. The heavens opened up and the light was on this issue after the government said it could not act. We prepared and tabled the way the minister could do it. Thank goodness that at that time, soon after we tabled the legislation for the minister, the issue was resolved. Nav Canada backed off, and we saved the airport tower.

It was a good story to tell in the sense of activism, but it also showed the vulnerabilities of municipalities in the deregulation that can take place. I mentioned the safety management systems with regard to the airport issue, because in the past, it has been the NDP that stopped the safety management systems from being in the airline industry. That is a system members might have heard about in the rail systems. The rail systems have safety management systems in place.

People are wondering what the heck a safety management system is. Basically, at the end of the day, an employee is supposed to report any of the problems they have on a daily basis about safety to their employer. Imagine that. The employee has to be a whistle-blower in their job to prevent some things from taking place. We saw Lac-Mégantic and other types of rail problems.

A rail study done independently talked about CP and CN having a culture of fear and intimidation over their workers. We were expecting, and we still expect, the workers to report those problems to the people who employ them and control their futures as employees. That system has failed quite significantly, and it does not empower workers. We have seen other whistle-blower problems in this chamber, even more recently in some of the departments.

I point back to this because it is why we have to make sure the government never brings in that system for the airline industry. That has been attempted in the past, but we used what was called a “hoist motion” to end debate at the time, creating a stalling tactic. Another election took place in between, and no government has come back since that point in time to bring in that legislation.

To come back to this motion again, I think there has been a lot of work going on. In fact, our critic, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, rightly pointed to Senate and other types of studies in the past about this issue, going back to the 1990s. That is important. He has done his due diligence, and we do think there is a lot of value in this.

I always encourage there to be discussions among government members that could get the minister to move right away, especially if we can get this in the chamber and have some consensus. With unanimous consent, we could get that regulatory process going.

In all sincerity, I want to again thank the member for bringing this up, because it is an important issue. We will support it, but we do not want to see that be a reason not to do it now with the regulatory changes that could be done. It should also come with resources for municipalities. Local taxpayers should not be paying for federal responsibilities. One would think that fire and other safety issues would be under a federally regulated industry that is required to have different types of security and support systems.

We will see where this goes. The time in this place is always shorter than we think. That is why I am hoping this regulatory process will come into effect sooner rather than later.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the motion we have before us. I want to address a couple of the points.

I always find it interesting that, when we get into debates on motions or private members' bills, sometimes individuals will read into them things that are not necessarily there from the sponsor's perspective. I have seen that before. When I look at this particular motion, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has done a wonderful job in identifying an issue that is very important to many people.

Most people would be quite surprised. Some might say that the centre of a runway or the total length of a runway is a bit of a nuance. I was in air traffic control before, posted in Edmonton. It has the longest runway in the Commonwealth. A space shuttle could land on it. I can recall the fire hall's having drills, and I can say that it takes quite a while to get down a 14,000-foot runway. I can understand and appreciate that every second counts.

We need to recognize that when members bring forward motions, not very many of them will pass in the life of a session. The member has been inspired to bring this issue forward, and I suspect it might have had something to do with discussions we had about recognizing cancer agents for firefighters. The government was made aware of this in a very real and tangible way by another member of the chamber, the former deputy House leader. By their raising the issue, the public and the House of Commons became more familiar with it and ultimately passed legislation. Today, firefighters from coast to coast to coast have benefited from that.

The motion my colleague from British Columbia has brought forward deals with the issue of safety. When we canvass about different professions and ask which ones Canadians really respond positively to, I suggest that firefighters are close to the top of the list. I will not say where politicians are. When I think of the firefighters in the community I represent, Winnipeg North, I have an incredible amount of confidence in people like Alex Forrest and the associations that not only advocate for the safety of their membership but also ensure that Canadians are safe, whether they are in their homes or in international or domestic airports.

To be honest, I had no idea that firefighters at airports are not allowed to go into a plane. That surprises me. I think it would surprise a lot of people. The other point that is raised in the motion is that the location of fire halls is also important. If there is a three-minute standard and the location of a fire hall could make the difference, then why would we not give some sort of consideration to that?

Across the way, some would ask why the member brought this forward in the form of a motion as opposed to talking to the department. After all, it is a so-called regulation, and the regulation should be changed, as one member across the aisle pointed out. However, the member also indicated that this has been an issue for many years, for decades.

Let us not try to make it a political partisan issue. Let us believe that the member has taken an initiative during private members' hour and that he feels that, at the very least, he now has a mandate to be able to bring it to a standing committee. Not only are we having a debate here, but if it passes the chamber, it can also get the standing committee engaged.

I think there was one member who spoke, talking about whether the matter should be brought to a standing committee. I love the answer that was provided. We are setting this as the goal, saying that people need to be aware of this. This motion makes us all aware of a very important issue.

In terms of how it is actually implemented, the standing committee could assist in that. Members who want to pick up the ball from where the member has brought it to now, to date, could ultimately bring it to a standing committee. The committee could work out the different ways in which it can actually be implemented.

If at some point in time, unlike in the last 40 or 50 years, it is determined that this could be done, I think there would be a greater likelihood today that we would actually see the change as a direct result of the initiative from the private member. This is if a standing committee has also taken a look, and, through the standing committee, there have been invites to professionals, whether firefighters or municipalities, to come forward to make presentations.

I do not think we should be discouraging private members from identifying issues that are important to them. We should be encouraging it. Through that, we get the type of changes into the future that can really make a difference. I respect that about the member's motion.

As I said, as a member of the Canadian Forces, I sat out in a tower. It is no longer there, as this was a few years back. I do not want to date myself, but I can say that one builds up a bit of a relationship and sees the practice that is taken, and justifiably so.

Our firefighters take their jobs seriously. They are very quick to respond. There is a standard that we are talking about, in terms of three minutes, and maybe it is time that we try to raise the profile of this issue to a degree where we can see some specific action.

That may mean, at the end of the day, that the municipalities and Ottawa need to work together and maybe even bring in the provinces. Our airports are economic engines. They provide so much to our communities, and they need to be safe.

That is why, ultimately, when I would see the fire trucks going out onto runway 29-11, back at Lancaster Park, I saw first-hand the types of responses.

I must say that they actually did, at least in the military, even more than that, by going out. There are other types of benefits. They are not just direct but also indirect.

I hope that members will, in fact, support my colleague's motion with the idea that the issue has now hit a point in time where we will at least have some sort of discussion on how it can actually be done. Then we can work on ways in which we can improve the issue of safety at our airports.

I thank the member for bringing the resolution forward.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be rising on Motion No. 96.

As many people know, I spent 30 and a half years as a firefighter. I am actually trained as an aircraft rescue firefighter. I spent a week up at Base Borden trudging through AFFF, which I am now finding out is a cancerous material.

Where I worked in Markham, we had Buttonville Airport. There was no active firefighting capabilities on site, and all of it was done through the municipality in Markham. I remember responding to several incidents of aircraft crashes, such as landing gear coming up and the aircraft not being able to land, and aircraft landing on top of buildings, so it was interesting.

I enjoyed being an aircraft rescue firefighter, to be frank, because of the training involved, such as understanding the different aircraft and some of the emergencies that could occur, including making sure that a means of regress was the number one priority and protecting the exits of those aircraft that were in trouble. I dealt with multi-engine aircraft, but I never dealt with large aircraft that we would see, for example, at Pearson or Vancouver international airports.

I want to thank the member for bringing Motion No. 96 forward. I think that it is well intentioned. I believe that none of us in this place want to limit or diminish the value of safety, either for the passengers, pilots and crew of an aircraft, or for those firefighters who are intended to respond. However, I am not sure that Motion No. 96 is the way to go about it, quite frankly.

There are a lot of stakeholders who need to be involved in this process, not the least of which is the International Association of Fire Fighters, whom I spoke with this afternoon, along with airports and the Airports Council. There are other stakeholders that need to be included in the process, including, for example, the pilots associations, such as ACPA, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and regional airport authorities. They all need to be involved in this process of understanding the full impact of what the motion proposes. In my opinion, this motion would be better off going through the process of the committee, and I heard the member for Winnipeg North talk about that. That way, we could get all of the stakeholders together.

How would this affect municipal agreements? There are many across this country in which local and regional airports have an agreement with a municipality. What are the impacts on cost? What are the impacts on personnel? These are the types of discussions that we should be having on this.

The motion does identify a problem, and I can tell members that in my time of being here, every time I have met with the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Barrie firefighters, they come advocating for improved responses at airports. There is no question that this is an issue. In fact, the regulations have not been addressed since the 1990s, so it is time that we have this discussion. Furthermore, the government has within its power the ability to initiate the type of regulations that are required to increase safety at airports. The minister, in fact, could do it with one swoop of the pen if he wanted to.

I believe that I will have more time to speak about the logistics of this at the next intervention, but as I stated, and I will make the point again, all of the stakeholders need to be involved in this process, and that would include the firefighters, the Airports Council, regional airport authorities, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and a whole list of others. The only way that can be done is through the process that is in place, and that is through the transportation committee.

Let us make sure that we get it there, have a fulsome discussion and look at the implications. I do not want to take away from the good nature of what the member is proposing here, because I believe it has been done in good faith, but this needs to be studied in its entirety to understand what the full impact is going to be on airports, on municipalities, certainly on our country and on safety as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence in the Order Paper.

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

Finance

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight on adjournment business and talk about a question I put to the government last June. I asked the government about interest rates, and I pointed out the devastating effect that interest rates are having on Canadian homebuyers and homeowners.

I asked when the Prime Minister would take the advice of other Liberals, including former finance minister, John Manley. John Manley asked the Liberals to take their foot off the inflationary gas pedal and stop pouring gas on the inflationary fire, so there would be less pressure on interest rates so we could avoid a crisis among mortgage holders and mortgage payers, and also get some relief to homebuyers amid this affordability crisis.

The response I got was really quite disappointing. The parliamentary secretary at the time did not even make any attempt to answer the question. I am not even sure if he heard the question, because his response was totally unrelated to any of the elements that my question contained. He talked about small business loans.

He actually said something that is false. He should probably be brought to the House and made to withdraw his statement. He falsely claimed that opposition parties voted specifically against the CEBA support program for small businesses during COVID. That is an untrue statement. That is a fact. He should apologize and withdraw the remarks; they were unparliamentary and false.

Be that as it may, it gives me an opportunity tonight to get a little deeper on this issue. The truth is homeowners across Canada are concerned about whether they are going to be able to stay in the house that they already own. Mortgage payments are more than doubling for most mortgage customers when their mortgages renew.

We have people who bought homes in 2018 with five-year fixed mortgages that are maturing this year, and they are beside themselves because they do not know how they are going to make the payments. People are seeing their mortgage payments go from $2,500 to $6,000 a month. They cannot do that; they do not have the income to do that. In some cases, people are going to lose their homes. Depending on what city they are in, depending on what their local market is doing, they may not even be able to sell their home. We saw transactions that could not close.

At the time I asked the question, I had been speaking to some people in the industry. I have over 20 years in the mortgage brokerage business before I was a member of Parliament. I was talking to some of my colleagues and some of the industry people in Calgary. We have people who could not close on new construction deals because of the enormous shift in interest rates that occurred.

The government is absolutely oblivious to this and the role it has played in pouring inflationary gas onto the fire. It has a responsibility to do something, to rein in inflation. It talks about the support payments during a small period of its time in office, but most of the deficits that it has piled on were before and after COVID, or had nothing to do with COVID support payments. We have half a trillion plus in new debt, more than every government in history combined. This has an effect on interest rates and inflation.

When are the Liberals going to rein it in and do something to help quell the inflationary fire?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think at times Conservatives are challenged when it comes time to look at the reality of what is taking place not only in our communities, but around the world.

First and foremost, it is important for us to recognize that Canadians are, in fact, hurting. We are very much concerned about inflation rates, interest rates and the whole issue of affordability. We do not need to be lectured by Conservatives who have the mentality that the way to resolve things is to just cut, aimed recklessly at where it is they would like to take the country and at a huge risk. That is the Conservative way.

We have been consistent. Let us compare Canada to any other country. Let us look at the U.S. or the G20 countries, from Germany to France to England, and what they have for interest rates and what is happening with inflation. In comparison, Canada is doing relatively well. That gets completely lost on Conservatives, because they have a specific agenda of trying to say that everything in the country is broken. They are like the Prince of Darkness. They have nothing to say that is positive about the economy, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created and the supports that have been put into place. That does not mean that we do not have to provide additional support. We have legislation before us, which Conservatives continue to filibuster, that is going to put money into the pockets of Canadians and ensure we see thousands more homes being built.

I have news for the member opposite and the Conservative Party. No government in the last 50 or 60 years has invested more into housing. Stephen Harper was an absolute failure when it came to investing in housing. One of the reasons we have a shortage today is because of the former government's inability to have affordable housing. It was this government that came up with the housing strategy that ultimately led to millions of dollars of investment into the repair of affordable housing, and thousands of affordable homes. It is this government that has supported things such as infill housing through non-profit agencies and working with provincial entities to ensure that we can improve Canada's housing stock.

Compare that to Stephen Harper. Yes, we have seen substantial growth, and growth throughout the pandemic, which had created very difficult times for a lot of people. Let us put it in the proper perspective, in a context that is fair, which is something Conservatives are not. I think $300 million was spent on 99 homes built. The reality is Conservatives were missing in action when it came to the issue of affordability in housing. There is no doubt they did not believe there was a federal role, that the national government should play a strong leadership role. That is the absolute opposite of us.

When it comes time to deal with things such as interest rates and the issue of inflation, the member's leader said that he would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Now he is glorifying him and putting him on a pedestal when a number of months ago he said he would fire him. Those are the flip-flop policies we cannot count on.

It is risky to go with Conservatives. I can say that much.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not imagine anything riskier than another four years, or any number of years, with the current government. The greatest risk to Canadians is if the government should last much longer. It has the coalition, of course, that is propping it up now, but we need a common-sense government that can get serious about these issues facing Canadians.

After this scattered four-minute mess here, we are left to conclude that the parliamentary secretary is looking for a pat on the back for a job well done. After eight years, there are two kinds of families now in this country: those who owned real estate before and those who never will. That is the affordability legacy of the government, a generation of Canadians who have no hope and have given up on home ownership.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the slogans and the bumper stickers will do well under the Conservatives, leading up from now until whenever the next campaign is going to be. The Conservatives are more concerned about character assassination. They are more concerned about saying how broken Canada is and about getting as many people as possible worked with anxiety. They are not interested in resolving issues, because when it comes time for them to actually step up to the plate and put money in the pockets of Canadians, they choose to play games and filibuster. That is the reality.

All we have to do is take a look at what the members have actually done. One can take a look at the affordability legislation and moving motions of adjournment and concurrence motions. There is not enough time for me to explain to the member how much of a game this is for the Conservative Party. We take it seriously.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have done a lot of adjournment debates. This is exciting tonight.

Continuing debate with the hon. member for Bow River.

Carbon Pricing

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a new term we could use tonight: “prince of darkness”, or something of darkness. Maybe we can use that new term.

In February 2022, the Conservative member for Huron—Bruce introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-234, which would also exempt natural gas and propane used on farms for essential tasks like drying grain and heating barns. A year later, in March 2023, it passed the House of Commons with full support from the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and a handful of Liberals. However, the bill is now in the Senate and has been there for some time. Then the Senate amended the bill and took out the exemption for buildings. This was a piece of legislation passed in the House through three readings and through committee, and it went to the Senate.

This is with respect to the exemption for farmers on carbon tax. These are the people who do not get a rebate. We hear all the time that the government is sending a rebate. I have talked to many people at farm operations, because my riding is a rural one, including last weekend at a meeting I had in the small community of Enchant. The farmers do not get a rebate, but they are paying a huge carbon tax. The bill has now been amended. I have the utility bills from one of those people, and for one their buildings, they paid $15,000 in carbon tax. This would have been exempted, but now the bill is sitting in the Senate, amended.

For the bill to get out of there, amended, it has to come back here and go through the process. Is there a likelihood of the bill's being passed before we get to another summer? The bill has been kicking around for two summers. For two summers, farmers across the country, from coast to coast, have been paying carbon tax on propane and natural gas for grain dryers and buildings. The bill was what we needed for our agricultural sector. Now, the Senate has amended it and taken out the exemption for buildings. Like I said, a constituent of mine paid $15,000 for carbon tax. It was not the price of the power and the electricity; it was carbon tax because they are using natural gas.

The bill is going to come back here. The delay costs the agriculture sector because of Prime Minister-appointed senators making the amendment to it. Let us understand that: It was Prime Minister-appointed senators who made this amendment. They knew what they were doing. They knew the delay that they were causing. This is hardship. The carbon tax allows no rebate to these kinds of farmers. They do not get the rebates that the government members constantly talk about. It is a travesty to our agricultural sector that this has happened.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about a very important issue, and there is no doubt about that. I am very sympathetic to the farmer, and also very understanding of the Conservative Party's positioning on the issue of the price on pollution, or carbon tax, whatever one wants to call it.

When it comes to farmers, I do believe there have been some healthy discussions with different ministers, in particular the Minister of Agriculture, who has been following this issue very closely. We want to ensure, as much as possible, we are helping farmers.

At times I too get frustrated. I remember when I was in opposition and there were huge ships out in the Pacific Ocean that were not able to come in and pick up the wheat piles all over the Prairies. The wheat, in many cases, was getting wet, and there were serious issues back then. The member would know, if he recalls, at the time there was that issue along with the one of the Canadian wheat board.

I bring this up because I do very much follow agriculture and the importance of food supply. Canada plays a critical role in this whole area. I would like to think, given the number of stakeholders out there, that they will continue to work with not only the federal government but provincial jurisdictions, and to a certain degree the many municipalities. We need to ensure farmers are supported in a very real and tangible way.

However, then the member brings in the issue of the carbon tax. As the member is very much aware, it is very much an issue of contention in Ottawa nowadays. The Conservative Party says it will get rid of the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, and its members have made that commitment. If by chance, whether it is in two years, four years, six years or eight years, they ever get the opportunity to govern, I suspect there is a very good chance that commitment will happen. I say that tongue in cheek to a certain degree because in the last campaign, they actually campaigned in favour of a price on pollution. When it was in the election platform, did they exempt the farmer? If not, why did they not do that? I would be very much interested in knowing if the member is aware of that.

Having said that, I realize there has been a change, but it is an important point. It demonstrates consistency of party policy. The member knows full well the government's position on the price on pollution and the carbon tax. We will continue to provide rebates. We should continue to have dialogue with farmers and see how the government can continue to work with the agricultural community to ensure it is able to continue to grow and prosper. The agricultural community as a whole is one of the greatest environmentalists in the nation. On many of the techniques and ways it cultivates land, we lead the world. We also lead the world in many different ways when it comes to the environment.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, I know he is from Winnipeg, which used to be the grain exchange centre of the world. It is part of the heritage of the Prairies. I am very pragmatic about this. In my riding, which has 70% irrigation, the costs are huge, as is the money paid on the carbon tax, and there is not the recognition of the value irrigation brings to the amount of crops we can produce in this country and the variety.

We grow more potatoes than P.E.I. these days in my riding and we have the only sugar plant left, and we grow sugar beets because of irrigation. Farmers tell me on a regular basis the carbon tax is so hard on them, so we lose from our communities hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, up to millions and millions. This hurts our communities because those farmers are not able to buy what they could if they did not lose it on the carbon tax. They cannot support our rural communities. They cannot volunteer to donate things they would have donated before.

It is a piece pragmatic for me that those who produce the best and highest quality and variety of foods because of irrigation are paying the highest price for carbon tax. That exemption needs to be understood, and I think it has been recognized there should be more conversations about agriculture.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member is presenting the case. In the agricultural sector, there are many strong advocacy groups and farmer personalities. They are always very happy, I have found in the past, to share their opinions.

Many of us recognize that we need to do more for the environment. When we are doing that, there is no intention to devastate an industry. The diversification of crops benefits not only the farmer but also all the communities in many different ways. We could talk about what we see on the food table for Canadian products and of the overall future through diversification. I love the amount of diversity we have witnessed.

Being from a Prairie province, I think of strawberries from Portage la Prairie, which irrigation plays a role in. The member made reference to potatoes. Manitoba grows a lot of potatoes, too, and irrigation is important. I am sympathetic to what the member is saying, and I am going to have—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am glad to hear that, but we are out of time.

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:27 p.m.)