SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 252 - Nov/21/23

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Nov/21/23 3:16:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, certainly, enhancing building efficiency is extremely important in the fight against climate change and in the appropriate utilization of our natural resources. We put into place a number of programs, including the oil and heat pump program, but also the green buildings program, which actually provides a $5,000 grant to Canadians to improve the energy efficiency of their home. The number one implementation is heat pumps. We sourced money for that program. It has been enormously popular. We will continue to receive applications, and of course we are going to look, as with every program, at the results and what we will do to supplement those things on a go-forward basis.

115 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Nov/21/23 3:17:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canada's leading humanitarian aid agencies have united together to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. People in Nanaimo—Ladysmith are demanding action from the federal government. All hostages need to be released and a ceasefire declared so that no more children are killed, but the Prime Minister does not seem to recognize the killing of over 13,000 innocent civilians and more than 1.7 million displaced is an atrocity and it must end now. I will ask again. When will the Prime Minister call for a ceasefire?

92 words

Hon. Mélanie Joly (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)

Nov/21/23 3:18:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we saw horrific scenes on October 7, when Hamas attacked innocent Israelis. Of course, we also know Gaza is one of the worst places on earth to live in right now, so we need to make sure all civilians are protected. We need to make sure as well that humanitarian aid can be sent to Gaza. We are seeing right now there are negotiations happening between Israel and Hamas, brokered by Qatar. We look forward to seeing all hostages released and humanitarian aid allowed into Gaza.

88 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback

Nov/21/23 3:19:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my question today, I asked the minister whether there were going to be 1,600 workers from Korea. On his way into the House of Commons, he was asked that question and he said, “I'm not surprised” that there would be a “transfer of knowledge” as “no one has done batteries in North America before.” Therefore, he is admitting there will be those workers and then accusing me of misinformation. He should withdraw—

91 words

The Speaker

Nov/21/23 3:19:41 p.m.
Watch

Order, please. I would like to thank the member for Dufferin—Caledon for raising this point. It has skated over into a point of debate. I encourage the member to pose questions on this at the appropriate time.

39 words

The Speaker

Nov/21/23 3:21:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-57

It being 3:20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-57. Call in the members.

34 words

The Speaker

Nov/21/23 3:34:46 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

17 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC)

Nov/21/23 3:37:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country. Today, I stand to discuss Bill C-52, a piece of legislation that, at its core, aims to address the complexities and inefficiencies plaguing our air transportation system. This bill, introduced in the final hours of the spring session, came on the heels of what can only be described as a disastrous period for Canadian air travel: a summer and a Christmas season marked by unprecedented disruptions and dissatisfaction among air travellers. While the introduction of Bill C-52 appears to be a step toward rectifying these issues, we must critically assess whether this legislation as it currently stands truly holds the potential to bring about meaningful change. The bill proposes to set service standards for entities within the air travel sector and enforce stricter regulations. However, it is important that we look at the details of this bill, or the lack thereof. It is clear that the government is attempting to show action, yet we have to ask ourselves this: Is this action substantial, or is it merely a facade? The backlog of complaints at the Canadian Transportation Agency, or CTA for short, is a glaring issue, ballooning to over 60,000 complaints, with passengers waiting over 18 months for resolutions. This bill, however, would not address this critical problem. It would fail to set explicit service standards for the CTA, leaving thousands of Canadians without a timely solution to their grievances. Moreover, the manner in which industry service standards would be defined raises concerns. The bill would leave much of this to future regulations and consultations, which could potentially result in standards that favour the industry and the Liberal government rather than passengers. The lack of clarity about which entities would be covered by this bill and the exclusion of key players such as the Canada Border Services Agency only add to the uncertainty. The power that the bill would vest in the minister and cabinet to develop future regulations is troubling. It suggests a hesitance to take decisive action now and, instead, a preference to leave critical decisions for later. This approach does not inspire confidence that the issues at hand would be resolved promptly or effectively by the current Liberal government. We must question whether Bill C-52 would be the robust solution that Canadian air travellers desperately need. The introduction of Bill C-52 serves as a response to the air travel blunders under the current Liberal government, but the contents of the bill lead to more questions than answers. First, let us consider the backdrop against which this bill has been presented. We witnessed not just one, but two travel seasons of chaos. Passengers across the country faced cancellations, delays and a customer service nightmare. The response is this bill, which seems more focused on regulatory processes than on delivering immediate relief to the Canadian traveller. While the bill proposes standards for services and operations in our airports, these standards are left undefined, to be shaped by future regulations. This vagueness would do little to instill confidence in a swift resolution to the problems at hand. The bill gives the impression of action; however, in reality, it would defer the most critical decisions, leaving travellers uncertain about when and how improvements would materialize. The issue of the backlog in complaint resolution is particularly shocking. Thousands of Canadians are currently stranded in a bureaucratic limbo, awaiting responses to their grievances. Bill C-52 offers no concrete solution to expedite these processes. The situation is unacceptable, and it is a glaring omission in a bill that proposes to enhance transparency and accountability in our transportation system. Furthermore, the bill's approach to addressing the broader aspects of air travel, such as the inclusion of diversity, reporting and climate change action plans, while noble in intent, seems to detract from the urgency of solving the immediate operational challenges. It is important to note the irony in the Liberal government's demanding action plans on climate change from airport authorities, when its own strategy has been riddled with inconsistencies and shortcomings, such as the recent exemption from the carbon tax for Atlantic Canadians. When we turn to the specifics of the bill's provisions on service standards, we find ourselves confronting ambiguity once again. The absence of clear, defined standards raises concerns about the effectiveness of any future regulations. How can we ensure that the standards, once set, would genuinely benefit passengers, not just the industry? Another point of contention is the bill's exclusion of certain key entities, notably the Canada Border Services Agency. The role of the CBSA in the smooth functioning of our airports is undeniable, and its exclusion from the scope of this bill is both puzzling and concerning. The extensive powers granted to the minister and cabinet to develop future regulations also merit scrutiny. While it is understandable that a degree of flexibility is necessary in regulatory matters, the extent of discretion afforded here is worrisome. It suggests a reluctance to establish firm, decisive policies within the legislation itself. Instead, a wait-and-see approach that delegates critical decisions to future regulatory processes is opted for. In light of these issues, the characterization of Bill C-52 as a toothless piece of legislation is not without merit. The bill seems to lack the specific actionable provisions needed to address the immediate challenges facing our air transportation system. The Canadian public deserves more than just a promise of future regulations. Canadians need tangible, impactful changes now. As we proceed with this discussion, it is vital that we focus on what truly matters: the experience and rights of Canadian air travellers. Our evaluation of this bill must be grounded in a commitment to ensuring that their needs are met, their rights are protected and their voices are heard. As we discuss Bill C-52 today, we must recognize that while legislative intent is a starting point, tangible outcomes are what truly matter. Having endured significant disruptions in air travel, the Canadian public deserves more than just promises for future action. It needs immediate effective solutions that address the core issues impacting travel experiences. Conservatives remain committed to advocating for a robust, responsive air travel system that upholds the rights and needs of passengers. We believe in a framework that holds all federally regulated entities accountable, ensuring that they bear the financial responsibility for delays or cancellations. This includes airlines, airports and several other federally regulated organizations and entities involved in the air transportation sector. While Bill C-52 takes a step toward addressing some aspects of our air transportation system, it falls short in delivering the comprehensive reform needed. Its lack of specific service standards, exclusion of key entities and overreliance on future regulations leave much to be desired. As representatives of the Canadian people, it is our duty to ensure that any legislation passed by the House truly serves the best interests of our nation. We will continue to push for a more definitive and effective approach to resolving the challenges in our air transportation system. We owe it to the Canadian public to get that right. I look forward to taking questions in response to my comments on this bill.

1214 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/21/23 3:46:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52

Mr. Speaker, we take Bill C-52 at second reading. In its title, the bill refers to passenger transportation, but it only applies, as we know, to air travel and some marine travel. Passenger rail continually gets neglected in this country. Now that we are at second reading, would my hon. colleague agree that, in committee, we could specifically get at the question of aircraft and jet noise, as well as how it affects constituencies across this country?

78 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Nov/21/23 3:47:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of things can definitely be improved upon in this bill once it goes to committee. That is the biggest challenge. We have so much uncertainty and ambiguity within this bill; once again, it is the Liberal government's attempt to make it look like it is doing something, when it is actually accomplishing nothing in the end. It is not really protecting the rights and freedoms of any traveller, regardless of whether it is air, train or whatever mode of transportation. We definitely need to reassess this when it comes to committee.

98 words

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

Nov/21/23 3:47:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are making things fairly difficult to understand. They say there are some positive things within the legislation, yet they are going to vote against it going to committee. That is what they are signalling. It is much like the vote we just had on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement—

54 words

Signalling

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/21/23 3:48:02 p.m.
Watch

I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but we are having an interpretation problem.

14 words

Interpretation

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Nov/21/23 3:48:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are problems with the member's microphone, which are preventing the interpretation into French. The microphone is too close and is causing interference. We have to consider the interpreters' health.

33 words

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/21/23 3:48:25 p.m.
Watch

I would ask the hon. member to make sure to keep his earpiece as far away from the microphone as he can. The hon. parliamentary secretary. I will allow him to start from scratch.

34 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Nov/21/23 3:48:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question is with respect to the Conservative Party and its approach to legislation. Today, the debate is on legislation that is obviously going to help Canadian travellers. Conservatives say they support certain aspects in it, but they are voting against it. They do not want it to go to committee, it would appear. It is much like the vote we just had, and they voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It is unbelievable. Why? They say they have some problems with it, yet on the other hand, they say they are international trade supporters. My question for the Conservatives today is this. Why are they not consistent with respect to their votes on issues here on the floor of the House of Commons? They seem to be very reckless.

133 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Nov/21/23 3:49:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the hon. member for Winnipeg North sure does talk a great game about how great the Liberal government is doing. However, even he has said it appears we are going to be making it better for air transportation passengers, but is it truly? No. That is the problem. We gave the response that, yes, we would support the bill, in concept, because it could potentially help air transportation passengers, but that is the problem. It only looks like it is going to do it; it is not actually going to accomplish it. It is only going to come back with more regulations. What a surprise. That is the problem with our air transportation system already. It is highly burdened with over-regulation. We do not need more. We need short, clear, concise situations where passengers would know their rights, and the people who would be doing it would be upholding them.

158 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Nov/21/23 3:50:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois has pointed out, Bill C‑52 gives the Minister of Transport a lot of freedom to proceed by regulation. That is raising many concerns among stakeholder organizations. As lawmakers, it allows us less control in performing our opposition role or in monitoring whether what is there is good, while giving the Minister of Transport too much power to introduce measures. Will this really permit the creation of an advisory committee on the issue of noise in communities located near airports? Are the airports really going to prepare a plan to limit pollution? If the minister proceeds by regulation and if we have less power as lawmakers, we will not be able to properly carry out our opposition role. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about these drawbacks.

142 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Nov/21/23 3:51:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought up very good points. There is a lot of ambiguity with this, because we do not know how much power the minister would grant himself or herself, nor what kinds of rules or regulations would need to be followed. Also, is it going to truly protect not only the rights of air passengers but also the rights of the public, as she mentioned, with respect to noise pollution on the ground? There is so much in the bill that needs to be addressed at committee, and I look forward to it being sent back to committee as quickly as possible.

107 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Nov/21/23 3:52:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52 Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today, I rise to speak to the government's legislation, Bill C-52, enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act. The bill was initially introduced by the former minister of transport. Bill C-52 has far-reaching implications for Canada's transportation system, and as the official opposition, it is our duty to ensure it will truly meet the serious and ongoing concerns many Canadians have within the transportation sector. The bill proposes to set publicly reported service standards for private sector companies and government agencies responsible for air travel at Canada's airports almost exclusively through regulations, which would be created by the minister and the cabinet. Furthermore, it proposes to require airport authorities to formalize noise consultation processes and environmental standards, and to publish information on their directors and senior management. Finally, Bill C-52 aims to amend the Canada Marine Act regarding the setting of fees by Canadian port authorities. First and foremost, the timing of the bill's introduction raises concerns. Bill C-52 was presented on June 20, just one day before the House recessed for the summer. That raises questions about the government's motivations and intentions. It is essential to consider whether the timing was chosen to deflect attention from previous travel-related crises and to create an impression of swift action. Between the summers of 2022 and 2023, Canadian travellers faced a disastrous travel season with numerous flight cancellations and unacceptable delays. Previous to that was the disastrous mismanagement of passports that affected travellers, but that is a whole other issue. In particular, the Christmas travel season last year brought further chaos and frustration in airports. Those events highlighted the need for significant improvements in our transportation system. However, the Liberals are focusing on announcements and consultations rather than delivering tangible results for Canadian travellers. What is their solution? It is to empower themselves further. One of the most pressing issues within our transportation system is the backlog of complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency, the CTA. This backlog has grown by 3,000 complaints per month and has resulted in a staggering 60,000 complaints now waiting to be adjudicated. That backlog represents thousands of Canadian passengers who had their travel experiences disrupted or delayed, or had some form of service situation, and all those people are awaiting resolutions. Those passengers have been unable to resolve their compensation claims with airlines, and they have now been asked to wait over 18 months to have their complaints considered by the Canadian Transportation Agency. This adds insult to injury and prolongs what could be serious problems. People are out-of-pocket, and airlines are not being held accountable for mismanagement and poor service. Most recently, we heard damning reports of Air Canada's and WestJet's treatment of passengers with disabilities. For Air Canada, in one case in May, two employees, instead of being trained on the proper equipment, attempted to physically lift a passenger but ended up dropping him. In another report, a woman's ventilator was disconnected and a lift fell on her head. A man was forced to physically drag himself off a flight in Vancouver. Air Canada admitted it had violated federal accessibility regulations. We heard that those passengers got notice, forgiveness and, hopefully, amends to which they are entitled, and Air Canada said it would be looking to ensure proper compliance. I am looking forward to ensuring that Air Canada's CEO will be appearing before the human resources committee I serve on, as we have called for him to testify and to explain to Canadians exactly how this airline intends to comply. The latest example was from WestJet where a paralympian was forced to lift herself up the stairs to the plane. It was reported that she commented that she was frustrated and humiliated, and there was a ramp within 50 metres. All those situations are disturbing, disappointing and unacceptable for persons with disabilities to have gone through. Unfortunately, Bill C-52, which we are debating here today, does not provide solutions to eliminate the complaints backlog or set specific service standards within accountability mechanisms. Federally regulated entities involved in air travel must also be held accountable for delays or cancellations. They include airlines, airports, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, Nav Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. However, this legislation falls short of those expectations. While the bill addresses some aspects of accountability and transparency, it fails to hold all relevant entities responsible for ensuring smooth and reliable air travel. A comprehensive approach to accountability should encompass all stakeholders involved in the travel experience. One of the significant concerns with Bill C-52 is the concentration of power in the hands of the minister and the cabinet to develop regulations in the future. While regulatory flexibility can be useful, this bill does not include concrete improvements in legislation. We see this often with the Liberal government, where so much is left to regulation, which leads to uncertainty and lack of transparency. We saw this with the Internet censorship bill, Bill C-11, and with the disability benefits bill. Instead, this legislation relies on promises of future regulations, which raise concerns about vagueness and the potential for arbitrary decision-making. It is not even a band-aid. It is an IOU for a band-aid. In a matter as critical as transportation where there is essential service provided, and the comfort and convenience of the Canadian people are at stake, it is crucial that regulations are well defined and not left to the discretion of the government and the minister of the day. The lack of this clear direction with specific remedies in this bill to address the long-standing problems in our transportation system is a significant shortcoming. While the bill aspires to enhance transparency and accountability in the transportation system, it fails to deliver. It fails to provide the concrete solutions to the issues that have been plaguing the system for years. As for the results and who will be held accountable, there are no answers in this legislation. We need legislation that not only identifies problems but also provides tangible solutions. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that any legislation passed is effective and beneficial to the Canadian people. Bill C-52, as it stands, is lacking.

1077 words

The Speaker

Nov/21/23 4:00:07 p.m.
Watch

I apologize for interrupting the member for Kelowna—Lake Country in the middle of her speech. It being four o'clock, pursuant to an order made Thursday, November 9, I now invite the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement.

46 words