Bill C-52

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

An Act to enact the Air Transportation Accountability Act and to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act

Part 1 of this enactment enacts the Air Transportation Accountability Act , which creates a statutory framework to increase transparency and accountability in the air transportation sector, including by
(a) establishing requirements respecting the provision of information to the Minister of Transport by airport operators, air carriers and any entity providing flight-related services;
(b) requiring that airport operators take measures to help Canada meet its international obligations in respect of aeronautics, in accordance with directions issued by the Minister of Transport;
(c) authorizing the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the development and implementation of service standards related to flights and flight-related services, including a dispute resolution process in respect of their development and publication requirements for information related to compliance with those standards;
(d) establishing requirements in respect of noise management committees and setting out notice and consultation requirements relating to aircraft noise;
(e) establishing requirements for airport authorities to create plans respecting climate change and climate change preparedness and authorizing the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting reporting requirements for those plans;
(f) requiring airport authorities to publish information respecting diversity among directors and senior management;
(g) providing a process by which to make complaints respecting notice and consultation requirements in relation to aircraft noise; and
(h) providing for an administration and enforcement mechanism that includes an administrative monetary penalty framework.
Part 2 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations requiring certain persons to provide information for the purpose of supporting a transportation system that is accessible without undue obstacle to the mobility of all persons;
(b) allow the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency to make this information public; and
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting a process for dealing with complaints relating to accessibility in relation to the transportation of persons with disabilities.
Part 3 amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) add principles that a port authority must observe when fixing port fees and a fee-related complaints process that is to be administered by the Canadian Transportation Agency;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting alternative dispute resolution in regards to disputes arising in respect of a lease relating to the operation of a port terminal; and
(c) allow the Agency to make rules respecting the fees to be paid in relation to the administration or enforcement of any provision of Part 1 of that Act, or the regulations under that Part, the administration or enforcement of which is the responsibility of the Agency.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a great question. Quite frankly, it is the reason we came up with the disability credits that we actually introduced in the spring under the new act. With that and the help that those new incentives do give those with disabilities, our expectation is that it will, in fact, deal with the issues and the challenges they may have with respect to their daily lives and the expenses that we all try to keep up with in our daily lives. Of course, the help we are giving is hopefully going to deal with those issues.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today with respect to Bill C-52, on behalf of the official opposition and on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack—Hope.

I think we are seeing a trend here with transport legislation from the government. It likes to put things into a press release that make it look like it is doing something, like it is taking action. When, in fact, we get into the details of the bill, no action is actually being taken.

The bill was in response to a disastrous summer 2022 travel season overseen by the Liberal government, when we saw unprecedented cancellations, delays and waits in airports. It was an absolutely catastrophic reopening after the government shut down the industry during the pandemic. In the fall of 2022, the minister brought together a group of airlines, airports and executives in Ottawa because that was apparently going to solve the problem. It reminded me, quite frankly, of the industry minister's calling up the CEOs of Loblaws and other grocery stores to address the affordability crisis. In the end, it did nothing. It did not affect food prices. It did not bring down grocery inflation. It was just a photo op.

The minister of transport gave the idea, assuring Canadians with a photo op he held with airports and airlines in the fall of 2022, that the winter holiday travel season would be different and that the Liberals would come together and solve the problems. We have seen that they had not solved the problems. There were more disastrous delays, cancellations and people sleeping on the floors of hotels because they could not even get into the airports to catch their flights. We saw unprecedented delays in that winter holiday travel season. We held emergency transport committee discussions about that. We called the minister before us and found out that he had not even bothered to pick up the phone to call the airports that were in chaos. He had not called the Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal airports. He had not called Via Rail when it had a massive shutdown that stranded passengers. The minister was missing in action and was called to account for that.

The government, having seen the disastrous summer and winter travel seasons, decided it needed to do something. That something was Bill C-52, which was introduced in the last days of the spring session of Parliament. Once again, we are supposed to take the minister's word for it that this would now solve the problems in the air passenger system. Quite frankly, we have no problem with some of this, but we do have a problem with what is in part 1 of the bill. The government indicates there would be data sharing, there would be visibility on the data, and service standards would be set. It indicates that this would somehow make things better for Canadian passengers.

What the bill does not actually set out is what entities would even be covered by the legislation. The bill would instead give power to the minister and the cabinet to determine which entities would be covered by the regulations. It would all be done by regulation, and there is very little in the bill that is actually defined. We are supposed to trust the minister and government that have presided over numerous travel disasters and numerous travel seasons that have been disrupted and have impacted thousands of Canadian passengers. We are supposed to trust them to get it right, because the bill itself provides a framework but does not provide the details.

There is not even an indication of what data would be captured, but there is also not an indication of what would happen when service standards are not met. It is fine to collect data, to share that data and to have service standards, but if there are no penalties for failing to meet those things, there are no teeth to the bill and passengers would not be better served.

One thing Conservatives have long called for is accountability for all federally regulated entities in the air travel system. Once again, the bill before us, while addressing some concerns, would not be strong enough to ensure that everyone who can impact a passenger's travel experience is held accountable. Airlines are held accountable through our air passenger protection regulations. However, these need to be strengthened, quite frankly, because too often there are cases where things within an airline's control are said by the airlines to be outside their control, and we agree with tightening that up. However, we believe that not only airlines should be held accountable but that entities like CATSA, the security service, also need to be held accountable. When it causes a delay because the security lineups are so long that people miss their flights, it needs to be held accountable.

Nav Canada also needs to be held accountable. When its staffing delays cause airlines to have to throttle down, delay or cancel flights, it is the passengers who are impacted and not compensated, because those issues are outside an airline's control. Another entity that should be held accountable is airports themselves. If their baggage handling systems break down or if they are unable to clear flights in a timely fashion and they cause delays and cancellations, right now they are not held accountable. That is a glaring omission in this bill. We want to see all of these entities included and passengers able to be compensated when those entities cause them cancellations and delays.

We see also that the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, is not part of the legislation. We know that the CBSA's land border service standards are made public and show what its expectations are, but when it comes to airports, that information is not available and would not be captured by this bill. We know that when there were delays at customs halls caused by a lack of CBSA officers, people sat in planes on the tarmac or at gates, unable to deplane because a federally regulated entity, in this case the CBSA, was unable to provide services. Again, that means that passengers who are impacted by that are not able to be compensated because it is not included in the air passenger protection regulations and the CBSA is not held accountable.

We believe that it needs to be explicit that all of these entities would be captured by the bill and that there would be actual repercussions if they fail to deliver for Canadians. Airlines should be held accountable and so should all the other federally regulated entities in the air passenger system.

We have not talked about the Canadian Transportation Agency and whether it should have to share data on its performance, which impacts Canadian passengers. I would argue that it absolutely should be part of this accountability package. Right now, the backlog for the CTA is approaching 60,000 passengers. There are 60,000 people who failed to resolve a complaint with an airline, have gone to the next level and are now being told they have to wait up to 18 months to even have their complaint considered by the CTA. This is unacceptable. The backlog is growing by 3,000 complaints a month, and there is no plan that we have seen to clear this backlog or to hold the CTA accountable for its 18-month processing delays. Canadians who have experienced a delay or cancellation by an airline should not have to experience another 18 months of delay from a government entity to get that matter resolved.

We know that an airline has 30 days to respond to the CTA, and if they do not respond, they get a fine, but the CTA can wait over a year. We have heard of cases where all of the information has been submitted, the airline has responded to the complaint and the CTA is sitting on it for over a year. That is not right for Canadian passengers. This bill should have visibility, data and service standards laid out for the CTA itself.

I did find it a little interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about the climate change policies of the government. I thought perhaps after yesterday's announcement that he might have deleted that section from his speech. The Prime Minister, after having voted numerous times to impose a carbon tax on Atlantic Canadians, on those who use home heating oil, came out yesterday and suddenly reversed his position. This is after his voting record and his actions, which have shown that he has no problem imposing a punishing carbon tax on Atlantic Canadians and those who use home heating oil. Now, just conveniently, for the next three years, until after the next election, he is taking that tax off of Atlantic Canadians.

That is great for Atlantic Canadians and those who use home heating oil, but it does not do anything for those Canadians who use natural gas and are suffering under a carbon tax, which is actually a cleaner burning fuel by 30%. Interestingly enough, choosing to give relief for something he will not even admit causes pain is quite a climbdown for the Prime Minister, but it does not go far enough.

That is why Conservatives would axe the tax for all Canadians, not just those the Prime Minister is concerned with, due to their plummeting support. Again, I think it is quite rich to have a Liberal government talk about how it is going to impose climate change targets or policies on airports when it has just shown that it would flip-flop, swallow itself whole and go against its own votes in the House of Commons when it is politically expedient to do so. We should not be expected to take the government seriously on this issue any longer.

I want to talk a bit about the marine section of the bill. We are currently studying Bill C-33 at committee. We have yet to find a stakeholder who is satisfied with this bill. The witness testimony has been extremely clear that the government did not consult with them, the government did not listen to them and the proposals contained within Bill C-33 on port modernization would actually impose a made-in-Ottawa solution. There is more control from Ottawa and less local control. There was no response to the concerns of those who use and run the ports.

We now have a marine section tacked on to Bill C-52, when the ink was not even dry on Bill C-33, which actually deals with port issues. It is interesting, to say the least, that a government that has a port modernization bill before the transport committee is already amending that bill through another bill in the House of Commons, which proves that the government does not have a plan and that it is not getting this right.

Overall, we have seen that in the approach of the government, and this bill is a hollow shell. All of the major components of the bill would be decided later on in regulation by the minister and cabinet. The bill is something to talk about. It is something to point to, but it actually does not do anything. When it comes to part 1, that would all be left to regulation.

I have feedback from some of the people we hear from, from time to time, such as experts on air passenger rights or aviation management.

John Gradek, a lecturer at McGill University's aviation management program, said, “There’s lots of stuff about data sharing but not much about what or who would be taking action and in what conditions would action be taken”.

Gábor Lukács, the president of Air Passenger Rights, said, “There may be penalties, but even those powers are left to the government to create”, rather than being set out in the legislation from the start.

In its analysis of the bill, McCarthy Tétrault said that the bill contains “vague language, and, most importantly, [gives] significant latitude...to the Minister and Governor in Council to enact wide-sweeping regulations.”

This is a bill that is vague and does not contain specific remedies to the problems that have been plaguing this system for months now. The bill would give way too much power to a minister and a government that have, quite frankly, failed to show leadership in this space for the last number of years. As we have seen with other bills, such as Bill C-33, for the bill we are currently dealing with, the government did not consult with the entities that would be impacted. It did not take their advice into consideration. Once again, it is an Ottawa-knows-best, Liberal-government-knows-best approach that would not serve Canadian passengers well enough.

However, there are some things in the bill that we can support. We have no problem with the accessibility and disability portions of the bill.

The marine stuff, even though it appears to be tacked on, is certainly controversial between port authorities and port users. Many port users are looking for increased accountability, and many port operators are indicating that they already have complex dispute resolution mechanisms that would be impacted by the bill. They anticipate, based on the record of the government, that it has not actually consulted with those entities directly and is just imposing its vision of what it thinks would work best.

We believe the bill is a missed opportunity. There could have been more done to spell out who would be held accountable, how they would be held accountable and that everyone in the air travel space would be held accountable. However, the bill fails to do that. Therefore, we cannot support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it truly amazing that the member would provide comment when the Prime Minister is being sensitive in response to the needs of Atlantic Canada by giving a break on home heating oil.

The member himself voted for a price on pollution, and told Canadians from coast to coast to coast, along with the entire Conservative caucus, that they would support a price on pollution, but they did a major flip-flop. I think he should swallow that before he tries to throw stones in glass houses.

Does the member not agree that the principle of the legislation is something that the Conservative Party might actually consider supporting and possibly even see go to committee? Does the member have any amendments in mind?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is quite rich to hear the parliament secretary, who two days ago would have defended that in the House, and has, in fact, voted on it numerous times.

We proposed a motion to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax, and that member, and every Atlantic Canadian member, voted against that motion because they told us that these phony rebates would more than compensate for the cost of the carbon tax. The Liberals are now admitting that their carbon tax causes affordability problems in Atlantic Canada.

I have news for that member. The carbon tax causes affordability problems from coast to coast to coast under this leadership. Under the Leader of the Opposition, we would axe the tax from coast to coast to coast, and not just for those select Canadians the Prime Minister is suddenly taking an interest in because of his plummeting poll numbers in that region.

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

Madam Speaker, I gather that my colleague said the Conservatives are going to vote against Bill C‑52, partly because a number of entities were left out of it. He specifically mentioned the Canada Border Services Agency.

I do not think we should necessarily vote against a bill because something is missing from it. We should pass it at second reading instead to send it back to committee, where constructive proposals can be made to improve it. I get the impression that the Conservatives are the ones missing out on a great opportunity here.

I would simply like to know what my colleague wishes to see added to Bill C-52 in regard to the Canada Border Services Agency.

To criticize a bill is one thing, but to make constructive proposals is another. Unfortunately, I did not hear any such proposals in his speech.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that experience has taught me, and has taught us as Conservatives, that supporting a bad bill at second reading is not a great strategy for improving the bill. The bill is flawed. We saw this with Bill C-33. We said the same thing. I heard the same comments from members of the Bloc and members of the government. They asked, “Why not support it to committee and then make amendments?” What we have heard confirms our position that the bill is fundamentally flawed. There are issues with that bill that cannot be resolved. The government did not consult, and the bill did not address the concerns of port users and port authorities.

We have very recent knowledge of a transport bill, which we were told to just fix in committee. Some bills are fundamentally flawed, and we believe they should be sent back to the drawing board. That said, if stakeholders come forward and propose changes, we will always try to improve bad Liberal bills. However, we believe that sometimes the best thing to do is just vote against them.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Chilliwack—Hope for having taken the opportunity to express some of the very legitimate frustration that Canadians are feeling around airlines and airline service right now. I wonder if the member would like to take a moment to express appreciation for the ways in which establishing a virtual Parliament has enabled MPs to meet their commitments in the chamber despite a period of poor air service.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, obviously I am appearing virtually. I wish that I were in the House today with my colleagues. My personal circumstances do not allow for that today.

We do have to look at keeping everyone in that air space and the air passenger space accountable. When there are failures in the system, the entity that has failed the passenger must be held accountable. What is really missing in this bill is that the focus is on airlines, and they should be accountable, but so should all of those other entities I talked about, including CATSA, airports, Nav Canada and CBSA. All of those that have an impact on passengers should be held accountable, and this bill would not allow for that. We think the government should have done better, and we will be voting against this bill.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate what my colleague has brought to the floor today.

I really appreciated the words “glaring omission”. That is what we are dealing with here with the bills that come forward from the government. So often, there are glaring omissions to those bills.

Explicitly, the member spoke of the accountability of all air passenger services, and then spoke of the Canadian Transportation Agency and its backlog of 60,000 complaints, taking over 18 months, with a growing number of 3,000 more complaints per month.

It sounds a lot to me like what we are facing with Veterans Affairs with the incredible backlogs, which the government seems to have in its scenario because it does not govern well. Everything seems broken. I wonder if the member could speak to the reality of that and why this bill should not be on the floor at all.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it adds insult to injury when a passenger has experienced a significant delay or a flight cancellation and has tried to get it resolved with the airline, for the airline to say no, that it does not meet the criteria and that it does not believe the passenger is entitled to compensation. Then, when the passenger disagrees, they file a complaint with the agency of the government that is supposed to adjudicate these things independently. The passenger not only has the insult of having slept on the floor of an airport. They now have to wait 18 months to even have their complaint heard by the agency that is supposed to be there to protect them.

That system is also broken. The government has not resourced it well enough. It has not held it accountable enough.

I did not get into this in my speech, but the latest information that we have shows that the government has given bonuses to senior executives. All of them have received maximum bonuses for the last two years. We do not have the data for this year yet, but rather than holding them accountable, the government pays them bonuses for their inability to serve Canadian passengers. That is not right. This bill does not address the failures of the CTA, which is another reason we should not support it.

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

Madam Speaker, the member says the Conservative Party does not support the legislation, and within the legislation there are all sorts of things for communities, such as the noise committees that would be obligatory for airport authorities. Some of the airport authorities already have them in place. The bill would ensure that communities have a voice when it comes to airport authorities.

Does the Conservative Party oppose all aspects of the legislation, or do its members feel there are some parts they could support in some fashion? Could he maybe list one or two examples?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have no problem with part 2 of the legislation, which would increase transparency and visibility for Canadians with disabilities and would provide a response to the Auditor General's report. I said that quite clearly.

With the noise complaints, it is interesting to see the different approaches and contradictions within the bill itself. The noise complaint portion of the bill includes what constitutes proper notice of meeting and what constitutes quorum. It is very prescriptive. The government has decided that it knows how that should be meted out, but for the parts of the bill that deal with passenger protection and that sort of thing, it is all left to regulation. The government should make up its mind. I think that part is very prescriptive. It would impose a very strong standard on airports, and unlike other portions of the bill, it would not leave it to regulation. I am unclear on why that portion was so prescriptive and other portions are left entirely to the minister and cabinet.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑52, An Act to enact the Air Transportation Accountability Act and to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to speak to Bill C‑52.

From the outset I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill to have the chance to study it closer in committee and improve it.

We know that the bill is trying to resolve various problems that have arisen at our airports since air traffic has resumed. Obviously that is a good thing, because there has been no shortage of problems at our airports since the end of COVID-19.

This leads me to the first point of my speech, about airport and airline service standards. I believe that the intention here is good. We all remember, for those who managed to get a federal passport to travel, what a mess there was at Canada's airports in the summer of 2022.

As members will recall, the government refused to propose a plan to lift the health measures. Why? Rather than provide predictability to our citizens, our industries and our businesses, the government chose to contribute to polarizing this issue, like the Conservative Party. Each side did that in its own way.

Consequently, when the government lifted the public health restrictions for travelling abroad, people rushed to our airports. That resulted in all the chaos we witnessed, when hundreds of flights were delayed or cancelled and passengers were stuck sleeping on the floor at airports. There were also extremely long wait times at customs, which, incidentally, is a federal responsibility. That is also not to mention the horrendous lineups for boarding.

The Bloc Québécois's intuition before those problems occurred was right. We warned the government that its passenger bill of rights was by no means a panacea, and sadly, the unfortunate things that happened proved that to be true.

It became very clear that certain airlines preferred to make more money by overbooking their flights. They knew that they would be unable to keep their commitments. However, they also knew that it would not be too much of a problem because the complaints would not go anywhere, given the interminable delays at the Canadian Transportation Agency. Because there is no serious punitive mechanism for these airlines, some of them chose to act unscrupulously, and that is shameful.

The second key moment in this saga happened last winter. Members may recall that a snowstorm left many flights grounded. We agree that no one can be blamed for a snowstorm, not even the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We are not holding the government responsible for rain or good weather—especially not good weather, of course. The fact remains, however, that although events beyond our control can affect air transportation services, airlines have a responsibility to their customers that they cannot shirk. They have to provide food to people left waiting for hours, or even hotel rooms and return flights if their customers are stuck in Mexico, for example. Unfortunately, some airlines failed to live up to their responsibilities that time, too.

Further to that point, I want to talk about Cirium and FlightAware, the firms that compiled data for La Presse. They determined that there were more than 2,400 delays and cancellations during the holiday season last year, that is, between December 19, 2022, and January 4, 2023. Their figures show that over 55% of Air Canada's 1,000 flights were delayed. For Sunwing, the figure was two-thirds. Every airline had issues. It was during this period that Sunwing suspended several return flights from Mexico, stranding travellers there for days. People criticized the company's incompetence, and Sunwing was forced to apologize to its customers.

We talk a lot about airlines, but we cannot forget about Via Rail. This rail company was also singled out for blame. Passengers were trapped on board a train for hours. In one case, it was an entire day. That is unacceptable.

Following this second unacceptable event, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities took up the issue. My esteemed colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, whom I commend, proposed several improvements to the passenger bill of rights.

These improvement include the following: shifting the burden of proof to the airlines; changing the grounds on which a carrier is not required to provide compensation; improving the complaints process to reduce delays, finally; making the Canadian Transportation Agency's decisions public to establish a type of jurisprudence, so that anyone forced to go to court several years after the incident will know exactly what the agency is basing its arguments on; and increasing fines for airlines.

These proposals were included in the government's Bill C‑32. Just one thing was left out, namely the need to ensure that airlines treat people with respect and dignity. I believe that is the objective of the service standards, that is, to ensure that airlines treat people like people, for example, and as I said earlier, by providing them with food when the plane is grounded for several hours, as well as a hotel room instead of the floor to sleep. This is a step in the right direction, and we welcome it.

The only concern that I have about this measure is that it does not force the government to set standards for the services it offers itself. We know that some airport delays are caused by the federal government. I spoke about it a few moments ago. The endless wait times at customs and security because Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding are not the responsibility of airlines or airport authorities. The federal government needs to lead by example and set service standards for itself. That is what we are asking it to do today. Once again, what we are seeing in this bill is that the government is setting standards for airports and airlines. That is good, but the government, the royalty that does not negotiate with its subjects, remains above all that, and the problem remains unsolved. The government should have implemented such measures here at the same time in order to set the example.

My second point about this bill has to do with something entirely different and that is the management of airport noise out of respect for the neighbouring community. The bill forces airport operators to establish a noise management committee, which will be responsible for dealing with complaints from the public and giving notice to the public with respect to noise alterations. The committee is made up of one representative from the airport operator, one representative from Nav Canada, one representative from the municipal or local government and one air carrier representative. Under the bill, the committee will meet at least four times a year and allow public participation.

In practical terms, it is hard to say whether the committee will really improve neighbourliness between airports and residents, but it is safe to say that having this committee will facilitate both the process and communication on this issue. As we know, there are numerous problems that arise between airports and neighbouring residents, and they are often brought to the attention of the MPs who represent these citizens. As I was saying, the committee will not solve everything, but it can facilitate communication. That is why we welcome this party's intention. However, we are aware that this remains a serious and deep-rooted problem. Citizens are reaching out to us, especially to our colleagues who represent ridings with airports near densely populated areas. People are saying they cannot stand hearing airplane noise all day long. We need to continue to do more, but this is a good first step.

Another aspect that we welcome is the establishment of greenhouse gas reduction targets for airports and ports. They will not be exempt.

As members know, the bill requires municipalities to develop and adopt a five-year plan on climate change adaptation measures. We are talking about the current and anticipated impacts of climate change on airport operations for airport authorities and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, this is about targets and adaptation in relation to the previous plan. Governments will also have to publish their plans.

This part of the bill aims to force port and airport authorities to come up with a plan to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. Given the importance of this infrastructure, we welcome the proposal in this area, as well.

However, we did find some problems in several areas of this bill and in many other bills introduced by the government. What is the problem?

Airport obligations are determined by regulations. In other words, they will be determined by the government, who will not have to be accountable to the House, to us legislators. Today, as we debate Bill C‑52, it is impossible for us to determine the effort that will be required from airport authorities. In other words, Bill C‑52 gives the government the power to say that it will impose rules later, that it will determine them alone and it will not be accountable to anyone.

This can likely be explained by haste. They probably want to go too fast and for us not to take the time to do things properly. I will come back to that a bit later in my speech.

This looks good on paper, but since the devil is in the details and those will not be decided until later by regulation, we will remain skeptical about the scope of this measure. As I was saying, this is not the first time the government announces good intentions on the environment, when we know its true nature, namely to continue giving subsidies to the oil companies, authorize Bay du Nord, fund at great cost the expansion of Trans Mountain, and so on. We are not fools.

Let us come back to Bill C‑52. Another part of the bill deals with the collection of information and the handling of complaints regarding airport accessibility for people with disabilities. That is obviously very important. Here again, the intention is highly commendable and it is consistent with the objective of the Accessible Canada Act, which is to eliminate barriers for people with disabilities by 2040. We all saw stories in the news about people with disabilities who were unable to receive the services and support they needed. What is more, quite often, they were not treated with the respect that every person deserves. Every incident like that is one too many and unacceptable. It is imperative that things change, that action is taken. Let us hope that Bill C‑52 helps to improve the situation and that such incidents never happen again.

As I was saying, the problem is that the bill does not indicate what the government intends to do to improve the situation. However, it does indicate that the government will be able to create regulations in that regard. The bill targets a problem that must be resolved to comply with other laws, but it gives the government power to adopt regulations and does not make the government accountable to the House, which is unacceptable.

Again, I will offer some criticism about this approach. Passing legislation that only allows the minister to make the rules bypasses the spirit of the legislative role of Parliament. It does not allow us, the elected members, to properly defend the interests of the constituents we represent.

At some point I would like to officially make this request to the Chair, who is the defender of our rights and privileges in the House. I would like to know whether it is acceptable for the government to operate in this way this often, having everything go through regulations instead of through laws that can be studied thoroughly by us, the legislators. In my opinion, the government is assuming rights that are also those of the House by proceeding in this way. Obviously, when there is a majority vote then it is the House that it is giving these rights to the government. This raises a rather fundamental question. The government is proceeding in this way to go quickly and to hide what will be unpopular. That is an issue that deserves a lot of reflection.

In its current form, Bill C-52 creates a great deal of uncertainty for the industry, which is being told that the government has plans without being informed of how it intends to go about implementing them. Will the industry receive clear information on what will be implemented in the regulations? Will it be able to have a constructive and positive dialogue within the acceptable time frame allowed by the government? The industry has to rely on the government's good faith. This leads to a concentration of powers, which is worrisome, because when power is concentrated in the hands of the minister, this runs contrary to the spirit of the separation of powers necessary for a healthy democracy.

I really wanted to take a moment to point this out. I think it is necessary because we would prefer that the government do its job and legislate through laws rather than regulations. We believe it is necessary, even when one has very noble intentions such as making our airports more accessible and inclusive.

On this point, there is another part of this bill that I want to commend. The bill provides that airport authorities will henceforth be required to produce a report on diversity among their directors and members of senior management.

Once again, the details will be defined by regulation. Based on what Statistics Canada wrote in its report on diversity among directors and senior management, inequities persist among men, women and visible minorities. As we know, the last two groups are under-represented and there are still wage gaps, even when the main reasons for gaps, such as occupation, education, and the number of weeks or number of hours worked, are accounted for in the Statistics Canada study.

We have a duty to address these inequities and we will continue to do so. We applaud the fact that Bill C‑52 includes a part on this subject. However, it does not say what is actually going to be done. It announces an intention in that the matter will be defined by regulation, once again.

In conclusion, there are many, many elements of the bill that I would have liked to discuss, including criticisms about part 3 of the bill and the changes to port fees. Part 3 of the bill amends the Canada Marine Act and provisions regarding the fixing of port fees. A bunch of different taxes are mentioned, like tolls, dues and rates for things like harbour access, berthage and wharfage, not including payments made under a lease or licence agreement. There is a list of principles that port administrations have to observe when fixing fees. Part 3 of the bill also established a framework for complaints regarding these fees.

We have some concerns about these principles, which could benefit from discussions in committee, improvements or clarifications. Proposed paragraph (a), for instance, states that “the fees must be fixed in accordance with an explicit methodology—that includes any conditions affecting the fees—that the authority has established and published”. We wonder if this principle is really necessary and what the reasoning is. There is also paragraph (c), which states that “the fees must not be fixed at levels that, based on reasonable and prudent projections, would generate revenues exceeding the authority’s existing and future financial requirements”. Our concern with this principle is that the wording could hinder development and investments in port infrastructure.

The bill also enables the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations to establish fees to administer the provisions of the bill on fees. The bill does not specify who will be charged these fees because, once again, it will all be determined by regulation. That is how this party governs. It drafts a bill and asks us to vote in favour of it, but everything is determined by regulation so that the government is not accountable to the House. Is it because the members of this party are ill-intentioned and trying to pass things that we do not know about or is it because they are just incompetent? One has to wonder, but this way of doing things is shameful either way.

Obviously, in committee, we will ensure that the principles outlined in the bill do not undermine the competitiveness of Quebec and Canadian ports. We will also take the time to study these principles and their effects. For example, again in relation to this same part, we are not convinced that the complaints process is the best, and we are wondering about the reasoning behind the principles that will determine port fees. I am sure my colleagues will address those aspects in more detail in the speeches that follow.

I want to close by emphasizing that, as usual, the Bloc Québécois will take the time to study the bill in committee to improve it, with our main focus being that this future law must improve the day-to-day lives of Quebeckers. That is what we are always working to accomplish.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned several times that the bill would give power to the minister to regulate. Is it not a fact that this is generally how the Constitution and our governance structure are designed? The act would provide guiding principles while the operation and implementation of procedures would be done through regulation. If we give powers to the minister to regulate, it would allow the minister to make additions or changes depending on the circumstances of the day. That is what I want to check.