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

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

moved 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.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak today with respect to Bill C-52. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I come with respect for this land I am on today and for the past, present and future peoples who reside here.

Canada's vast and unique geography and comparatively small population necessitate an efficient and accessible national transportation system to move people and trade from coast to coast to coast. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed challenges in our national transportation network that have disrupted supply chains and left passengers bearing the brunt of delays, cancellations and frustrations resulting from same. These challenges exposed barriers to accessible transportation and highlighted a need for more collaboration, more accountability and more transparency within the system.

That is why I come today. We introduced Bill C-52, the enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act. Today it is my pleasure to outline the rationale for the benefits of this proposed legislation. Bill C-52 would take concrete action to address transportation sector accountability, transparency and accessibility concerns that have had wide-ranging effects across our transportation system.

The bill focuses on three areas of the federal transportation system. Part one of the bill proposes a new air transportation accountability act. This proposed act would provide the authority to create regulations that would require airports, airlines and other operators to create service standards related to passenger flights. The activities for which standards are to be developed would be defined in regulation. They could include things that directly impact the passenger and their experience on a flight and activities that happen even beyond the aircraft itself.

Examples could include how it would take for a passenger's bag to arrive on the baggage carousel after the flight arrives or the expected wait times to enter security screening. In addition, air sector operators subject to these regulations would be required to publish their performance against these service standards and explain publicly the extent to which they have been met, to ensure transparency.

We have seen in the past what poor communication and a lack of accountability and transparency can do to our air transportation system. The congestion issues experienced across our large hub airports last summer and over the winter holiday period were significant. It is time that we strengthened the accountability and transparency of our air transportation system by creating service standards for air sector operators.

This regulation-making power would help ensure that there are clear standards to meet, proper coordination between the parties to meet them and clear information available about the sector's success or failure in meeting those standards. This would ensure transparency for travellers and operators alike and also support better co-operation and communication among operators to improve the customer's experience.

This proposed legislation would also enable the minister to request information from airport operators, air carriers and any entity that provides flight-related services at an airport. The intent is not to create new regular reporting requirements but rather to establish the ability to request information that may be necessary in the development of policies to improve Canada's air transportation system.

Canada is signatory to various international obligations through treaties, conventions and agreements, such as the Chicago Convention and bilateral air transport agreements.

Bill C-52 would help strengthen as well as maintain Canada's international connectivity by allowing the Minister of Transport to direct airport operators with scheduled global flights to take measures to uphold Canada's international commitments and ensure that there is a consistent approach across all airports with international commercial services.

I also recognize that aircraft noise is an area of great concern for communities located near airports, for travellers and for the aviation industry. That is why the proposed act would ensure that there is a consistent formal noise public notice and consultation regime in place. This requirement would be placed on airports meeting a threshold of 60,000-plus aircraft landing and take-off moments for three consecutive years. The airports that currently meet this threshold are Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. As passenger levels continue to recover, more airports are expected to be captured by this noise notice and consultation process.

The proposed legislation would affirm the airport operator as the appropriate point of contact for the public regarding aircraft noise by requiring airport operators to establish a noise management committee if one is not in use presently. The committee would include representation from, at minimum, the airport operator, Nav Canada, the airlines serving the airport and the local municipality. The bill also outlines public notice requirements for temporary changes to flight paths or airspace design at airports and notice and consultation requirements for permanent changes. If requirements for public notice and consultation on noise were not met, the act would establish a complaints process to be led by the Canadian Transportation Agency. These changes would ensure greater transparency and accountability when it comes to alternative ways in which our airspace is designed and used and the related impacts on the surrounding communities.

The impacts of swift climate change are more apparent than ever and more needs to be done. Climate change adaptation plans are instrumental in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing our airports for the anticipated impacts of climate change on their operations as well as their managed assets. Many Canadian airports are already taking action and have made significant investments to reduce their carbon footprint, namely by investing in infrastructure projects that are high-performing and efficient as well as resilient. Adopting electric vehicles for their ground support equipment and fleet has been a great start.

The proposed legislation seeks to strengthen the standards as well as standardize our airports' climate actions. This proposed legislation would require airport authorities with at least four million annual passengers to develop comprehensive, five-year climate change mitigation and adaptation plans. This threshold currently includes the Toronto Pearson Airport as well as Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary airports.

Under the proposed legislation, these plans would include the following. First, each airport authority would be required to send a greenhouse gas emission reduction target providing a clear direction towards a more sustainable future. Second, the climate change and adaptation plans would entail a detailed description of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change on the airports' operations and assets managed by the airport authority. Lastly, the plan would include a comprehensive set of actions to be taken to strengthen climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

These requirements, which are similar to the requirements for the Canadian port authorities under Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, would ensure that Canada's largest airport authorities are publicly transparent about the environmental impacts they have. Under Canada's aviation climate change action plan, Transport Canada and other key departments will continue to engage and work closely with Canadian airport authorities to support and advance their decarbonization efforts.

Finally, the bill contains provisions requiring that federally incorporated airport authorities publish information regarding the diversity of their directors and members of senior management. These provisions are consistent with requirements that already exist for companies incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. They are intended to ensure that federally incorporated authorities act in a way that is consistent with federal government standards and reflects Canadian society and our values here throughout this great nation.

Part 2 of the bill would introduce amendments to the Canada Transportation Act to support a transportation system that is barrier-free. Persons with disabilities currently represent approximately 16% of the world's population. In our country, more than 6.2 million people aged 15 and older have a disability. That is one in five Canadians. Of the 2.2 million Canadians with a disability who used federally regulated transportation in 2019 and 2020, 63% faced a barrier. We must do more, and we must be better, to ensure that persons with disabilities have the same rights, opportunities and quality of life as each and every Canadian enjoys.

Medical advances and new assistive devices and technologies have made it more possible for persons with disabilities to travel, meaning that an accessible transportation system is more important now than ever before. However, there continue to be incidents of persons with disabilities experiencing barriers in their travel journey, along with a lack of accountability and transparency by regulated entities.

As a priority sector in the Accessible Canada Act, Canadians expect a national transportation system that will help to advance the government's commitment to a barrier-free Canada by 2040. This means ensuring that there is a framework in place to identify and remove barriers and prevent new barriers, so that persons with disabilities can travel seamlessly throughout their journey.

That is why improved data on accessibility in transportation will provide important insights into the lived experiences and diverse needs of travellers with disabilities and the barriers they face. In fact, the absence of data was a key finding from the Auditor General's “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities” audit report, published this past March.

The proposed bill, Bill C-52, introduces amendments to the Canada Transportation Act to enable regulations to be made applicable to federally regulated transportation service providers, such as air carriers and interprovincial ferries, as well as passenger trains; to collect and provide data on key accessibility metrics to the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency; and to set up a process for handling accessibility complaints to support an accessible transportation system.

The proposed changes would strengthen the accessibility performance and its monitoring as follows: First, they would create standards for reporting accessibility-related data to the Minister of Transport and the CTA, the Canadian Transportation Agency, which could include complaints, to support the realization of a transportation system without barriers for all persons. Second, they would allow the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency to publish accessibility data, which would provide Canadians with a greater awareness of the barriers experienced by travellers with disabilities and direct decision-makers in taking the actions needed to achieve real change. Third, they would ensure that all regulated entities have a process in place for handling accessibility complaints and require that records of these complaints be retained.

Improved data metrics on accessibility barriers in transportation would allow the government to act appropriately and quickly on issues impacting barrier-free transportation. This would drive change for Canadians with disabilities. This is an important first step to ensuring that we make the transportation system more seamless, more accessible and inclusive for all.

Lastly, part 3 of the bill would introduce amendments to the Canada Marine Act to enhance transparency and accountability for Canada's port authorities and how they set their fees.

The Government of Canada is proud of its port governance system, which, in 1998, established the Canada port authorities and charged them with managing our country's most strategic ports as part of Canada's strategic trade corridors. While these port authorities are incorporated by the federal government, they operate under a carefully constructed governance framework. This allows them to make the strategic, commercially oriented decisions and act credibly in the marketplace.

As every Canadian knows, the ports are key hubs in our supply chains. Ports are where rail, road and marine modes intersect to support export and import markets. They are, in fact, where road meets rail, which meets water and air.

Now, more than ever, in the wake of a pandemic, supply chain disruptions, climate change events and labour unrest, our port authorities are being called upon to be more adaptable, as well as more responsive to a constantly evolving context, creating fluidity and, once again, strategically placing this country to perform and strengthen our international trade performance.

With adaptability and responsiveness, however, comes an increased need for transparency. Some port users and stakeholders have expressed concerns about the way Canada port authorities establish the fees that they charge to industries and sectors. Some of these same voices have raised similar concerns regarding lease rates for terminal operations.

The government recognizes and is committed to ensuring that port authorities have the tools they need to be financially self-sufficient and self-sustaining, as well as to meet their business plans, as established by their respective boards. At the same time, we are committed to having a transportation system whose operators are transparent and accountable to their users, as well as their stakeholders.

We recognize that there is room for improvement in terms of oversight of our Canada port authorities. That is why the measures being proposed to amend the Canada Marine Act seek to align Canada port authorities' actions with modern experiences and, more importantly, expectations of transparency and accountability.

As managers of key public assets, port authorities are expected to carry out their operations while remaining responsive to users, industry and stakeholders. Proposed Bill C-52 would require Canada port authorities to follow certain principles when establishing or revising fees, along with the related complaint process. Moreover, it would create an authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations to set out dispute resolution.

While the autonomous nature of Canada port authorities would be maintained, as well as their capacity to generate the revenues they need as critical components of their supply chains and the infrastructure attached to them, the overall proposal would strengthen the government's strategic oversight. It would also provide a consistent approach across port authorities to enhance their responsiveness to port users and to be more transparent to their operations with respect to fixing fees and leases.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I look at this bill, and there are a lot of big promises in it, but it is short on details.

For one thing, the bill proposes to require airport operators to take measures to help Canada meet its international aeronautic obligations. What international obligations is Canada not currently meeting in the standards, and how would this bill improve the air travel experience for Canadians?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have numerous obligations internationally with different countries and carriers. Of course, the intent of this bill is to ensure accountability and transparency. If there are complaints by passengers or even jurisdictions, the minister would have the authority to step in and make sure that those obligations are met and, if they are not, to come up with some solutions so they will be met and continue to be consistent.

Once again, it is about being accountable and transparent, so the issues can be recognized and simply be dealt with.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important, and even fundamental, that the federal government consider the matter of air transportation, which, it is important to remember, falls under federal jurisdiction.

In this context, I want to talk about the situation in Rouyn‑Noranda. We have a new airport that is subsidized in part by the federal government. It is wonderful and ready to welcome people, but the problem is that there are no flights available. Regional air transportation is an area sorely neglected by the federal government, which is responsible for it.

How is it that the airlines are unable to offer service in the regions? There is one flight a day. We are the third busiest airport, particularly because of charter flights to the north, but people can only fly to Montreal once a day and those flights are fully booked. Why? The reason is that the federal government is putting money in its coffers by taxing airports rather than subsidizing them like they do in the United States.

Would it not make sense for the federal government to take action and help airlines provide the fundamental service of regional air transportation?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing that up. You are absolutely right. That is something that, when other members of the Bloc, like Mr.—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to address the questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question has been brought up at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and our intent, quite frankly, is to look at this and look at ways the government can work with different airlines, whether it be the bigger ones or the smaller ones, especially in the areas the member brings up. We are looking at areas in the north. The member for Yukon is in discussions with me personally about that.

Once again, our intent is to work with the industry and the jurisdiction to hopefully bring some much-needed flights into those areas, not only in Quebec but also in northern parts of the country such as Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated that the member went into the realities of persons with disabilities and their inability to travel equitably in this country. My question relates to further discrimination in this bill in relation to persons with disabilities. The climate change plans use international standards, but the government has not asked for international standards to be used for persons with disabilities. Why is there unequal treatment?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill addresses something that has been a long-standing problem. We will work in partnership with the airlines to ensure regulations are put in place with transparency and accountability of the airlines to deal with those discrepancies we have been recognizing for the past few years.

However, it is fluid. Although we have it here in the bill, the intent is that once this passes second reading, we will hear from the airlines, members of Parliament and the users to see how we can enhance areas identified in the bill, such as those areas attached to disabilities. It is a start. The bill does address it, but yes, there is some work to be done. I know the member sits on the TRAN committee every once in a while, and we welcome her comments with respect to the part of the bill that addresses disabilities.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad this bill would require the airport authorities to inform the public about diversity among the directors and senior management. Back when I met the board members of the Ottawa airport, I had to point out the lack of diversity among the members.

My question is regarding airport noise and the complaint process. I am glad a new requirement is being brought in. Unfortunately, it does not cover aircraft noise from low-flying aircraft, such as from flying clubs. In my riding of Nepean, there is a community called Country Place, which has been directly affected by the noise made by low-flying aircraft. To prove how low they are flying, they are also dealing with the federal government and Nav Canada. Is there any chance that a mechanism will be established to deal with noise complaints about low-flying aircraft?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill, Bill C-52, does not propose but would impose a process by which complaints are received and dealt with. It would do this in a way that is grassroots. It would attach the local municipality, the residents, the airline and any others identified within the complaint to enter into, first of all, creating a committee. With the dialogue they would otherwise have at that committee, regardless of what that complaint may be, as outlined by the member, there would be a resolve to that. It would allow us, as a government, to ensure that transparency and accountability are undertaken and, therefore, solutions are brought forward to deal with the complaints brought to our attention and to the attention of the airlines.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bill before us, as well as anything that provides transparency toward the operation of airport authorities, is welcome. Airport authorities and harbour authorities operate at arm's length and unaccountably across this country.

I am concerned about something that we have not seen yet. The former minister of transport took a stab at it. I wonder whether there is any progress on improving affordable, reliable low-carbon ground transportation for Canadians. That is the area most in crisis, particularly for low-income people, and as the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls pointed out, without affordable, publicly available transit in rural and remote areas of Canada, indigenous women continue to be at risk, forced into hitchhiking to get from one place to another.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, although I am not part of Bill C-52, it is a point well taken. We are, through committee, through the department and through the Minister of Transport, working with the provinces as well as municipalities to look at providing more ground transportation and transit, to be provided with territories and in local areas. The contributions we have made through the grants we have provided for municipalities throughout the past five or six years prove that the government has an interest in that, but I do want to emphasize the fact that it is a three-government partnership among federal, provincial and municipal governments.

The member is correct; there is a lot more that can be done. We hope to get to that point with the partnerships that have been established and also with the contributions that we are making at all three levels, to ensure that we actually hit the capacities that are currently available and to increase them, especially in the areas of the country that, quite frankly, do not have the same luxuries that other areas have. We are working to that end, and I encourage the member to approach me off-line with some of the ideas she may have.

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

Madam Speaker, the member brought up the challenges faced by persons with disabilities. I could not agree more with him. One of the things the government has recently acknowledged is that the carbon tax is a challenge to people in the affordability crisis. No one has been hit harder by the affordability crisis than persons with disabilities. Whether it comes to heating or transportation, they often feel isolated.

Would the member recommend to the Prime Minister that there be an exemption to the carbon tax for people with disabilities?

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his thoughtful consideration.

The parliamentary system works thanks to the trust that legislators place in the government. The question is whether the government has the confidence of the House. More and more, the current government is increasing its power to determine the details of a bill by regulation, and that is what I am criticizing.

There have always been a certain number of details that are set out through regulations later. However, this is a rising trend. Let me give an example of an ill-intentioned regulation that may actually go against the spirit of the law. Take, for example, the agreement between Canada and Barbados. There is a section in the law that says Barbados cannot be used as a tax haven, but there is an obscure regulation that circumvents the spirit of the act.

That is why I prefer to see accountability in the House. When things are done through regulations, there is no accountability.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague say that the government passes legislation and then enforces it by regulation. We have absolutely stunning evidence of this before us.

I would like my colleague to answer this: Why does the Bloc Québécois support the government so often and, more specifically, why did it support the second carbon tax, called the clean fuel regulations?

How come the Bloc Québécois is helping the government enforce something by regulation that is hurting Quebeckers right now? People are struggling to make ends meet. During oral question period this morning, members of the Bloc Québécois said that 872,000 Quebeckers are using food banks every month.

Does my colleague agree with me that the clean fuel regulations, which the Bloc Québécois supported, are an example that is causing unfortunate consequences?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with the question. It will allow me to clarify some facts. For example, the Conservatives are running ads on television that say that this regulation is a Liberal-Bloc tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a lie that borders on defamation.

The Bloc Québécois has never voted and will never vote for a regulation. As I was saying in my speech, it is the government that makes the regulations. What we have done is vote against two terrible motions moved by the Conservative Party. The Conservatives always word their motions in such a way to get every party to vote against them. That is precisely what happened.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, the member is heckling and preventing me from answering the question properly.

The clean fuel regulations are not a tax because they call on the fuel industry to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, not to collect money for the government.

My time is nearly up. In closing, as far as the increase of 17¢ and 20¢ per litre of gas is concerned, that is absolutely false as well. I will have time to respond to that another time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will remind members that once they have asked a question, they have to wait their turn to make comments. They are not to speak while a member has the floor.

The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising his party's concerns about this bill.

I want to focus on the airline industry and an issue that affects many Canadians and Quebeckers. They are frustrated that the federal government is adopting such a weak air passenger bill of rights and that it is not doing more to stand up to airlines, which are exploiting passengers and putting them in very difficult positions without compensating them or treating them fairly.

Could my colleague comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his important question and his deep outrage. We are all outraged that big companies can behave like this.

Our system is one where, when there is a payment transaction for airline service, the customer is entitled to receive good service. Our current federal legislation is inadequate when that is not the case. Again, I want to mention the work of my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, who sits on the Standing Committee on Transport, among others, and his colleagues, who are working to change this.

Under the current legislation, large airlines have a financial incentive to take more risks to maximize their profits. When their service falls short—if there are not enough seats on a flight because they have oversold tickets, for example—the result is that the consumer has to file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency and wait several years to perhaps receive a positive outcome. The cost of those complaints, given the flawed legislation, means that airlines feel it is worth taking so many risks. This has to change. We need to work on it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the clarity of his remarks.

Earlier, in a response he gave to our colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup he did not have time to finish, but I thought his response was interesting. This would help our Conservative colleagues gain a better understanding of the actual facts on the carbon issue. He was explaining how it was false, absolutely false, that these regulations would increase the cost at the pump by 17¢ or 20¢ a litre. The number changes like the wind with the Conservatives.

I would like him to complete his response. I invite my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup to listen carefully.

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

Madam Speaker, according to the government regulation that the Bloc Québécois never voted for and will never get to vote for because it is a regulation, the industry must to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Government officials calculated that this will cost the industry up to 17¢. If this regulation were not in place, the situation would still apply in Quebec since Quebec has a similar, if not slightly stricter, regulation. To justify this requirement, the government gave the oil industry tens of millions of dollars in subsidies, saying that it was to help the industry reduce its emissions. That means that most of the cost will be covered by subsidies.

Take, for example, oil extraction in western Canada. I would like to remind the House that the price is negotiated on the New York Stock Exchange. What portion of the price at the pump covers oil extraction? The New York Stock Exchange is the one that decides. Is the government's regulation sufficient to drive up the price of oil in New York? I do not think so.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the requirement to disclose the diversity of boards of airport authorities and senior management. A few years back, we passed Bill C-25, which said that public corporations should disclose their diversity policies in their annual communications to stakeholders. In that bill, we delegated the responsibility to the minister to form regulations that defined diversity, which included indigenous people, women, visible minorities and people with disabilities. Does the member not think this could also apply here?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that is very interesting.

The end result is the goal. In the end, people in positions of power must reflect representation in the population as a whole. What I am proposing is that this should be defined in committee so that, in the end, we determine the required means. Once again, when this is done through regulation, it takes control away from the committee and the legislators, putting it fully in the hands of government. I like to try and minimize that kind of intervention.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is timely as I stand today to speak on behalf of my community of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, as well as Port Coquitlam, which recently petitioned the government with the following ask as it relates to the Vancouver airspace modernization project.

They call upon the Minister of Transport to do the following:

...prepare an independent environmental assessment of the noise and emissions impacts of the proposed flight paths, including recommendations for minimizing such impacts, prior to the proposed changes taking place. This environmental assessment should be based on the latest global research and recommendations for noise and emissions limits, should be independent of Nav Canada, and should be made public when completed.

The minister responded to my constituents by stating:

Aircraft noise is a complicated and often difficult issue faced by airport authorities and communities around the world and it is essential that the public has the opportunity to provide their feedback on potential changes.

I agree with that.

He went on to state:

That is why the Government of Canada put forward Bill C-52, which if passed, would create a process for airports to notify and consult the public on changes to airport design that could affect aircraft noise.

The minister went on to state:

Transport Canada previously worked with Canadian airports and NAV CANADA to develop a voluntary protocol for the aviation industry entitled Airspace Change Communications and Consultation Protocol that was published in 2015. This protocol amplified the aviation industry’s commitment to include environmental considerations to communicate and consult with communities.

I am here to tell the government that the voluntary protocol did not meet the standards of consultation in my community. I was at Nav Canada's onsite community consultation in Coquitlam earlier this year with respect to the Vancouver airspace modernization project. I can tell members that the room was not set up to be disability or age friendly, it was difficult to navigate the information boards and there was not enough staff to answer important questions from residents.

In addition, even the City of Coquitlam did not know about the consultation event, the two mayors whose jurisdictions border the City of Coquitlam knew nothing about it and wrote letters to Nav Canada asking for more detail about the flight plans and more time for their residents to provide feedback.

I too wrote a letter to Nav Canada letting it know that the consultation process was inadequate and asking it to agree to an additional extended consultation process. It did not agree to this. This is an example of how the voluntary protocol is not working for people.

This bill focuses on improving accountability and transparency. That is certainly needed, based on the experience of the people in my community. That is why the NDP supports this bill moving on to committee stage. While better data collection, reporting and the committee process are a step forward in the bill, Bill C-52 does little to establish standards or enforce accountability to protect people or the environment. This can be seen in how the bill plans to address airplane noise. Canada's air traffic has increased significantly over the past decade and industry observers forecast this will only increase as passengers and cargo numbers at Canadian airports continue to increase.

The current approach of a performance-based navigation will not be sufficient and has had the effect of exposing previously unaffected residential areas to new air traffic. This led to complaints from some neighbourhoods that had not previously been under flight paths and were unaccustomed to dealing with the noise or public health impacts.

More direct-flight routes and official arrival and departure procedures are here with us now. With a goal to improving airspace efficiency and safety and reducing greenhouse gas emissions where possible, we must also reduce exposure to aircraft noise in residential areas. The government needs to get serious about regulating and enforcing these impacts based on science. That is why the government needs to expand the representation on its noise management committee to include a local public health official as noise pollution can affect and impact population health.

Canadians who live near high-traffic airports face disturbances at all hours due to flight noise. According to research compiled by the World Health Organization, excessive noise can have harmful health effects, including increased risk for IHD and hypertension, sleep disturbance, hearing impairment, tinnitus and cognitive impairment. There is also increasing evidence for other health impacts, such as adverse birth outcomes and mental health problems.

As a result, Canadians impacted by airport noise deserve to see the science of any changes made to airplane noise around them. The NDP would go further than this bill does, to initially propose and implement the World Health Organization standard on noise around large Canadian airports, make Transport Canada's existing data on airport noise public and improve data collection on ground-level airport noise. These recommendations were all made in the 2019 report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Assessing the Impact of Aircraft Noise in the Vicinity of Major Canadian Airports”.

Noise pollution must be addressed by international standards, but so too must accessibility for persons with disabilities, who continue to be impacted by barriers in transportation. There is no example of this with a higher profile than what happened last week, when the wheelchair of the chief accessibility officer did not accompany her on her flight home from Ottawa. She was left without her essential mobility device. There are so many stories of persons with disabilities being disrespected, disregarded, degraded and put in dangerous situations because there is no accountability for the failures of industry.

Too many persons have had similar experiences across Canada, showing how ill-equipped air transportation is in dealing with accessibility concerns. I hope that this high-profile incident will finally make change and that persons with disabilities who want to travel will get the respect and accommodation they deserve.

The Auditor General of Canada published a report in March 2023 entitled “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities”. It examined the accessibility of federally regulated transportation services, such as planes and trains, for people with disabilities. There were a few key findings from the report that we need to look at. Of the 2.2 million persons with disabilities who used federally regulated transportation in 2019 and 2020, 63% faced a barrier. When these barriers are not tracked, there is no accountability and no action to correct it. That is what we are seeing.

It was also found that the Canadian Transportation Agency had insufficient tools and enforcement staff to address barriers. This is seen from the statistic that 31% of CATSA managers and executives did not take the time to complete mandatory disability training. This training is essential and must be taken seriously by industry leaders. They will need legislation to do it, because they have shown that they will not do it on their own.

Right now, the Canadian Transportation Agency does not have the authority to require transportation service providers to provide complaint data on accessibility regularly. It can do so only in limited and specific circumstances. The AG report found that this limits the ability to fully understand the total number and nature of complaints and, thus, identify and address potential barriers to accessible transportation.

For example, when a wheelchair is damaged, a complaint can be lodged with the transportation service provider and, if necessary, with the agency. However, when complaints are submitted only to the transportation service provider, the agency is not made aware. There is no regulation enforcing that. Therefore, it does not know the full extent of the issues faced by persons with disabilities. In contrast, the same Canadian airlines travelling to U.S. destinations must report accessibility performance indicators, such as damages to mobility aids, to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Complaint data is one of the key sources of information that flags discrimination and problem experiences by travellers with disabilities. Not having the authority to regularly access this information limits the agency's ability to more strategically select the provisions of the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations to inspect. This creates an additional risk that the agency is not focusing its limited resources on the areas of the highest risk and those discriminatory barriers.

Recently, the Canadian Transportation Agency ruled that the country's largest airlines need to do more to accommodate passengers with mobility devices. A consultation process with the disability community regarding the proposed accessibility regulation in this act must be the standard we have for all transportation systems. This should also include a new accountability process for accessibility complaints, including current outstanding complaints, to be heard, addressed and monitored for changes to be implemented. They must meet international standards.

The last point I want to touch on today is postpandemic air travel. The pandemic has exposed deep underlying issues in Canada's air transportation sector, which resulted in chaos during the summer 2022 and holiday 2022-23 travel seasons. Airlines have come under fire for poor planning and trying to rebound too quickly in order to maximize profits. This has resulted in Canadians sleeping on airport floors and being stranded abroad, as well as Toronto Pearson airport being ranked as one of the worst airports in the world for delays. This legislation would provide regulation-making authority requiring improved service standards.

In the briefing on this bill to the stakeholders, the government said, “Regulations developed would establish the services that require a service standard, but the intent is not for the regulations to establish specific target metrics.” Why is this not the intent? The NDP supports stronger collaboration and service standards for all aspects of air travel. However, those service standards should be developed and implemented by the government to ensure consistency across the sector and to ensure that airlines and airports are not left to regulate themselves.

We have seen that, when left in their own hands, companies will take shortcuts, do minimal work to make a change and put profits before people. New Democrats would add this: If the government truly wants to address delays and inconsistencies in the air travel sector, it should take steps to improve working conditions for airport screening officers by ending contract flipping and by supporting training programs. The NDP agrees that establishing service standards for air sector providers is important. However, the government should ensure that those standards are consistent across the sector and serve the best interests of workers and travellers.

In summary, New Democrats want changes to this bill that will positively impact those affected by airplane noise and pollution and those who use air travel, including passengers with disabilities. We also want established guidelines for how the new data-sharing provisions will be used to effect positive changes in the sector. Government must strengthen the contents of airport climate plans to ensure that emissions targets are consistent with international commitments to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

I will close by saying that the proposed act requires airport authorities to prepare climate change plans using international standards, but it has no similar requirement for noise or accessibility. This feels discriminatory, so I ask why. This needs to be corrected. Additional accountability is needed in this bill by adding that airport noise committees must evaluate noise complaints in a manner consistent with recognized international standards. Complaints relating to accessibility must also be evaluated in such a manner. We cannot leave this to be fixed in a private cabinet meeting.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned airport noise and the noise complaint process. My riding of Nepean has a problem with small, low-flying aircraft from a flying club. This act does not deal with the noise generated by these aircraft. The data are controlled by Nav Canada, which the residents in my riding do not have access to.

Does the member agree that, if possible, an amendment must be made at committee to include noise pollution caused by small aircraft at flying clubs and that the complaint resolution process should be made much easier for residents of affected localities?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government needs to take into consideration the science. We do need to make sure that those whose health is potentially affected by noise pollution and any other kind of pollution are taken seriously. The government has a lot of work to do to protect the health of Canadians. This would be just one of the ways.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadian travellers are very frustrated with wait times, lost luggage, cancellations and vacations ruined, and the Liberals' solution here seems to be more regulation and more red tape. We have, for example, the international airport in Toronto, Toronto Pearson, which is one of Canada's busiest airports. It ranks second-worst in all of North America as far as efficiencies and delays go.

I am wondering whether the member could answer to this: After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything is broken.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, what we know for sure is that greedy corporations are putting profits before people. This is driving a number of these problems. When I think about persons with disabilities, this is an area we know about and that corporations know about, but they have done nothing to correct it. I say that until we start regulating, because corporations are not going to regulate themselves, we are not going to get change. The regulation needs to be done thoughtfully and in consultation with our communities. That is why the NDP would like to see the bill go to committee, so we can hear from people.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech.

I would like to start with a comment before I ask my question. My fear about the possibility of fully improving the bill in committee is that legislative clerks have a very narrow view of the changes that can be made to the bill in committee. That makes it very difficult to broaden the scope of the bill. That is what I wanted to say.

Here is my question. This bill relies heavily on the government to determine everything by regulation at a later date. My colleague referred to that in her speech. I would like to ask her again whether it is acceptable for the government to work that way. Is it acceptable for the government to say that we have to trust it, that it will take care of everything but that it will not be held accountable?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about human rights, let us talk about the human rights of persons with disabilities. We cannot leave that outside regulation or outside legislation. We know there are international standards of how persons with disabilities should be respected and treated, and how they should have their human rights upheld in the transportation industry, so I think it is fairly obvious, and I am surprised the Liberals did not see it, that the bill cannot be discriminatory.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for all her advocacy in this place for people living with disabilities. I know that was an important theme of her speech, and sometimes we do not get enough time in this place to make all the points we would like to make, so I wonder whether there is a bit more she would like to be able to say about people living with disabilities and access to transportation that she did not have an opportunity to say in her original speech.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to just say a bit about ground transportation because that would not be covered by the bill. When persons with disabilities travel, it is not just the airline or the train that they need to spend excessive amounts of time planning for; they also need ground transportation. In Canada, this is not always available to them. They cannot always actually get accessible transportation when they land at their destination, whether it is in an airport or in a train station, so more work needs to be done on accommodation and equity in travel, not just in airplanes, on boats and on rail.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to particularly thank my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam for bringing the focus back to treatment of travellers dealing with disabilities. It is an important point. To the member for Nepean's point, I think we may have the beginning of an aircraft noise caucus to take amendments forward on Bill C-52. We need to do much more.

There are serious health impacts from aircraft noise, so I will add Saanich—Gulf Islands in, and I think almost every member of Parliament would have constituents who basically have their quality of life reduced to almost nothing from repeated low flights over their homes. Certainly in my constituency, I have tried with Nav Canada, I have tried with Transport Canada and I have tried with various airport authorities to get some relief for constituents. I look forward to bringing forward amendments, and I thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam for bringing that focus to her speech.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly, a noise pollution caucus is a good idea. As it relates to airlines, I think we would get a lot of community input from that.

I just want to highlight simply the amount of and increase in cargo traffic. We now live in a society where people want things delivered to them from across the world in a day. This means that more air traffic needs to be flying around. In B.C. alone, we are shipping crab and cherries overseas more and more because we can get such a great price for them. They go by air. We are just in for more and more noise pollution as it relates to air traffic.

I think we need, as the member said, to get a caucus together to advance some of these new regulations.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the diversity clause in the bill. Is she happy with the way the clause has been worded? Does she think any changes are required in that?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not necessarily want to pre-empt what witnesses say when they come to committee. This is an area where I always like to hear from witnesses and the community first, so I will leave that open. However, I will reiterate my ask that there be a public health official, at least, on the advisory committee. I would also add that since our local municipalities did not know about the consultation for the Vancouver project, we could maybe have some representation from either municipal politicians or even staff within a municipality.

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

Madam Speaker, we all remember the sad incidents at airports in the summer of 2022. People were sleeping on the floor. They were not given food or a place to sleep. They were not getting any answers. We also remember the big snowstorm during last year's holiday season, and especially everything that followed.

Does my colleague think that the contents of Bill C-32 and the other bills passed so far are enough to ensure that these kinds of situations do not happen again?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley has been doing a lot of work around this exact topic and has been advocating better rules and responsibilities for corporations and airports around passenger safety and passenger customer service. I think there is a lot of work to do here. I would leave it with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has been doing incredible work in this space.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking today from the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I am happy to speak today to Bill C-52, which aims to enhance transparency and accountability in Canada's transportation system. One essential element of this proposed legislation is the air transportation accountability act.

Since the pandemic, air transportation in Canada and around the world has faced many challenges on its path to recovery. It has become quite clear that new measures are needed to support the sector in meeting the needs of all Canadians. I have heard from so many constituents and from stakeholders on all sides of this, hearing their feedback and learning about the challenges they have been struggling with as they try to get around across Canada and around the world.

While Canada is not alone in this, the increased number of flight delays and cancellations over the past two years have impacted way too many Canadians. That, combined with other congestion challenges such as long lineups and lost luggage, has made it clear that there is a need for increased oversight of our transportation system. By improving accountability and transparency in the air sector, we could really build a stronger and more resilient system with improved services to Canadians when they travel by air. The bill before us includes many provisions for improving our transportation system, but today I want to focus on the five types of new requirements it would establish related to transparency and accountability in Canada's air sector.

Under the proposed legislation, the Minister of Transport would gain the ability to make regulations requiring airports and air service providers to establish and report on service standards in relation to flights and flight-related services at airports. Airport operators would be required to comply with a formalized consultation and notice process around aircraft noise. Air operators and others would be required to provide information to the Minister of Transport on request, and airport operators would be required to develop climate change mitigation and adaptation plans and to report on diversity among their senior management. Each of these new requirements, in its own way, would help us increase accountability and transparency in Canada's air transportation system, with the ultimate objective being to make sure that Canadians are able to travel safely and efficiently across our country and across the world.

This bill would also enable the creation of regulations requiring air operators to create, implement and report on service standards. This would offer many improvements to transparency and accountability in Canada's air sector. The proposed regulations would specify which services require standards. Air sector entities would be expected to develop targets for those standards so they could be tailored to their individual circumstances. The regulations would also set criteria to establish which airports would be subject to these requirements. As we have seen, we need to have a cut-to-the-challenge approach and make sure that all of our services and all of the regulations are targeted toward addressing the challenges of each unique issue, as it is faced, across the country.

Reporting on these service standards would show Canadians what level of service they can expect from the different service providers in the air transportation system. This would provide Canadians with more certainty about what to expect when they fly. This should incentivize operators to improve service and tailor their operations and their communications to better meet travellers' needs. It would help operators understand where there are challenges in the system and work together to fix them.

Noise management, as we heard from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, has always been a challenge for airports and the communities around them. That is why we are proposing to introduce a standardized process for noise management at busy airports, meaning airports that have at least 60,000 annual aircraft movements. Currently, this would include Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, Montréal-Trudeau, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. Sometimes when I am flying from Ottawa to Pearson and I look down, I can see my own house as we fly into Pearson airport.

The proposed legislation would require airport operators to establish a noise management committee with representation from the airport, air navigation, aircraft operators and local municipalities. This would provide members of the public with a clear point of contact through which they can express any concerns regarding aircraft noise.

When changes are proposed to temporarily alter flight paths or airspace design, the party proposing them would be required to formally notify the local community. For permanent changes, there would also be a requirement to consult local residents, giving them the opportunity to make their voices heard. I know my constituents would greatly appreciate that.

By providing Canadians with additional clarity around noise procedures, this change would also improve communication and enhance transparency at major airports to ensure that local communities are appropriately informed about proposed changes. Information is key to a well-functioning and efficient transportation system.

Bill C-52 would enable the Minister of Transport to require air industry operators to provide information that is not already included in regular data recording requirements on an as-needed basis. This would enable Transport Canada to make more informed decisions to support improvements in air travel. For example, during crises, this new power would help the federal government to better manage disruptions. This would complement measures recently introduced under the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, regarding sharing data.

To strengthen and standardize our airports' climate action, Bill C-52 would support Canada's environmental agenda by requiring certain airports to develop and publish five-year climate change mitigation and adaptation plans. This would include a greenhouse gas emission reduction target.

These plans would describe the current and anticipated impacts of climate change on the airports, and set out an action plan for their intended response. This requirement would apply to airports that have had more than four million annual passengers over the last three years, which currently includes Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, Montréal-Trudeau and Calgary. We expect more airports to reach this threshold within the next few years as traffic returns to prepandemic levels.

Under Canada's aviation climate action plan, Transport Canada and other departments will work with Canadian airport authorities to support and advance their decarbonization efforts. The impacts of climate change are more apparent than ever, and more needs to be done. We know that climate change mitigation is important to Canadians. These requirements would ensure that Canada's largest airport authorities are transparent about their environmental impact and also accountable for their emissions.

Another issue that we know is important to Canadians is equity, diversity and inclusion. Ensuring greater transparency in the air sector would help us address long-standing equity, diversity and inclusion challenges.

Under the proposed provisions, federally incorporated airport authorities would be required to annually report on diversity among their directors and senior management. This would help encourage these entities to ensure that their directors and senior management are reflective of Canadian society and that their reporting is consistent with that of other corporations.

I am proud to support this bill in its efforts to encourage our air sector to be more reflective of the diversity of Canadian society. Not only do we need to reflect the diversity of Canadian society, but we also need to incorporate the lived experiences of diverse communities and use those experiences to ensure that we are providing service delivery in our air sector in an efficient, accessible and accurate manner for all Canadians.

By encouraging the players within the sector to be more transparent and accountable, Bill C-52 would ensure that Canadians can continue to rely on our system now and into the future, regardless of what disruptions may come. That is why I am asking my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-52 and the measures it includes to improve accountability and transparency in Canada's transportation system. These changes would encourage the further development of an air transportation system that is socially and environmentally responsible, strong and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I thought the hon. member was finished her sentence, but I have to interrupt. The hon. member will have eight minutes and 45 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from October 27 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.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start by letting you and the table know that I am splitting my time with my hon. friend and colleague from the beautiful riding of Kenora. Although he is not from western Canada, he is on the western side of Lake Superior and it is a beautiful part of our nation.

It is an honour to rise to enter the debate on Bill C-52 and kick off the debate we are having here today.

I will take a brief moment to acknowledge one member of my team whom I had the honour of honouring last night with the presentation of her five-year service pin, although with a four-year delay, for her time in the House of Commons. I note on the record how appreciative I am of my casework manager Amy. I know that all of us in this place work diligently, but we could not do what we do without the good people who support us in our offices. I give a big congratulations to Amy, although the presentation is four years late because of COVID, for her five-year pin, which she was granted last night at a ceremony where so many long-serving members and employees of members of Parliament were given pins.

We are here debating Bill C-52. Although I cannot show it to members, I did share a video on my social media shortly after it happened that highlights what I would suggest is the failure of the Liberals when it comes to the air transportation sector.

I will take members back a number of months to when the president of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority was holding a press conference and talking about how improved the service at the Toronto airport was. The cameraman, who I hope still has a job, did a great job of exposing something that we often in politics refer to as gaslighting.

As the president of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority was at Pearson airport talking about how great their service record was and how they had recovered from the challenges related to COVID, with a long speech opining on how great their work was, the cameraman simply panned the camera up toward the departures screen of the airport. I encourage members to imagine this shot. Anybody who is watching can google this and easily find the video. If I was not prohibited from showing it in this place, I would show it, because it was a demonstration.

As this high-placed president of the Pearson airport authority talked about how great their service record was, the cameraman simply panned the camera up toward the departures screen. I know all of us in this place spend a fair amount of time in airports. I know my colleagues experience this on a daily basis. What we see when there is a delayed or cancelled flight is an orange or a red line. A majority of the flights that day had been delayed or cancelled, which was completely contrary to the message being presented by this airport official.

I bring that up here today because it is an illustration of the government's record when dealing with challenges that our nation faces. The Liberals are quick to talk and quick to make announcements, but when it comes to delivering results for Canadians, they fail and the facts prove it. As we saw in that video, the cameraman did more investigative reporting than probably the Minister of Transport and his office had done when it comes to showcasing the failures of our transportation sector.

As a member of Parliament who represents a rural area of Alberta, I do not have any international airports in my constituency, although I have a whole host of airports of a regional nature, and I have many constituents who are required to use our transportation system. I have heard from hundreds of people, probably more than a thousand, over the course of the last number of years about how frustrated they are with the level of service being provided.

It was the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the member for Carleton, shortly after he was elected leader of the party in what was the largest leadership vote of any political party in Canadian history, as a note for the record, who made the comment that everything in Canada feels broken. It was interesting that the Prime Minister and many Liberals over there took great offence to that: How dare the Leader of the Opposition make such a statement? Something was quickly repeated to myself, and many of my Conservative colleagues, and I know for a fact that it was shared with many members of the Liberal Party.

I have just a slight aside. I find it really interesting that members of the Liberal Party stand up and say they have never heard from a constituent about a real concern. For example, we can take the carbon tax, frustrations when it comes to our air transportation sector or any other of a host of issues. Maybe my colleagues could enlighten me if I am the only one here, but I am getting cc'd on emails that are being sent by constituents of Liberal members of Parliament who find my content on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter. They cc me when sharing their concerns with Liberal members of Parliament.

It is very interesting when those Liberal members stand up. I believe it was a constituent in the riding of the parliamentary secretary, the member for Pickering—Uxbridge. The member said she had never had a concern brought to her attention related to the carbon tax. I am cc'd on emails sent to those MPs, and I think it speaks to how out of touch the Liberals are.

We have Bill C-52 before us, with three parts that sound great. However, when it comes to the substance of the bill being able to address the challenges we face, we certainly heard from stakeholders who shared that this bill does not deal with the meat of some of the challenges that our airports face. I know we have also heard some concerns about how this would affect other federally regulated transportation sectors, including ports and our rail system. There are concerns about whether the measures in this bill would be enforceable.

The former minister of transport in this country oversaw one of the worst failures in our transportation sector. It led to Canadians facing, in many cases, tragic frustration because they would miss things such as weddings and funerals because of the failures in the system. The minister was fired, yet here we are debating this bill that simply does not address the meat of the challenges that our transportation sector is facing.

I look forward to being able to answer some questions about why we need to ensure that we have a transportation system that works for Canadians. Unfortunately, under the Liberals, we have seen a deterioration of the trust that Canadians should be able to have in that sector. As a large country, we need to know that our infrastructure works for Canadians. Under the Liberals, that system has become broken. This bill would not take the steps required to fix it. I look forward to answering questions on this subject matter.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I am curious about why the members opposite would be opposed to transparency in the transportation system.

Is it because, when they were in office, their infrastructure plan consisted of fake lakes and gazebos? Are they suggesting that transparency in building infrastructure is not needed, so they can continue to build fake lakes and gazebos and pretend that this actually helps Canadians?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the previous Conservative government, we had a legacy of building things for this country. Thousands of projects were built across this country. We saw economic stimulus that built the infrastructure that actually served the best interests of Canadians.

However, the member's government has overseen a multi-billion dollar boondoggle in the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which has built zero projects. I find it rather rich that this member is asking for transparency.

Specifically, let us get back to this bill, which highlights exactly how hypocritical and out of touch the member and the Liberals are. We have a backlog of over 50,000 complaints when it comes to the Canadian Transportation Agency. It is taking more than 18 months for those complaints to be heard.

When it comes to transparency and accountability, the Liberals fall so far short of the mark that I do not think they know whether they are coming or going. Just like the Canada Infrastructure Bank, they have overseen failure after failure.

It is time for real leadership in this country that can bring accountability back to our transportation sector. When it comes to infrastructure, let us be a country that builds again.

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

Madam Speaker, I have always thought about bringing back the Homer Simpson award.

I really believe Conservatives are out of touch. It is unbelievable that they would be so critical of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Does the member have any concept, any idea whatsoever about the tens of billions of dollars, approximately a third of which is coming from government support at the national level, and the projects out there that are going to help millions of Canadians? Why is the Conservative Party so naive that it is trying to mislead Canadians by saying that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad idea? It demonstrates very clearly just how reckless the Conservative Party of Canada is today.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that there seems to be no other Liberal who is capable of standing up and defending the government's record other than the often-on-his-feet member for Winnipeg North.

That aside, we are trying to talk about the transportation sector here. I get why the Liberals are so afraid to talk about it. It is because Canadians are so disgusted with their management of something that is directly within federal jurisdiction.

Coming back to what the member asked about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, let us look at the facts. Infrastructure is meant to be built in this country. The Liberals have been unable to do it. When Conservatives are in charge, we will be a country that builds again to ensure that Canadians have the world-class infrastructure that is required to ensure that we can serve the best interests of Canadians and build prosperity for the future of our country.

The Liberals have failed. Conservatives will bring home a Canada that builds things again.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, we heard the government members talking about the need for transparency. Much of what is being proposed in this legislation will be set forward in regulations from the minister rather than being embedded directly in the legislation and having to pass through Parliament. Does my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot, who was so kind as to split his time with me, have any comments about his frustration or concern, which I am sure he would share with me, in relation to this?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a great question. I am glad the member will be covering that because if I had been given the opportunity to speak for the full 20 minutes, I would have gotten into some of the challenges when it comes to a typical trend the government has undertaken, which is to defer responsibility.

This bill in particular gives the minister an incredible amount of latitude to determine what the regulatory framework will or will not look like in this. Unfortunately, what we have seen in the record of the Liberals is simply one of perpetual failure. Canadians want a bill that has teeth. This bill does not have that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to rise in the House. The Liberals could clap too. I appreciate the warm reception from my colleagues, even if it is a bit sarcastic. I appreciate the opportunity to rise and share some comments today on behalf of the people of the Kenora riding and right across northern Ontario. I apologize for causing so much chaos in this place. It is certainly not my intention.

It is an honour to rise today and speak to Bill C-52, the enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act. As was alluded to by my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot before me, this bill was brought forward on the tail end of a disastrous travel season for Canadians.

Looking back on 2022, we know that there were people who were stranded on the tarmac, stranded in planes for hours and stuck overnight at airports. I heard many colourful descriptions of the Toronto Pearson airport over that period of time. In particular, not just Canadians, but people right around the world expressed their frustration with Canada's air travel system. We were in international headlines for a lot of the wrong reasons throughout this period.

The Liberals dropped this piece of legislation, Bill C-52, on the table in June. I believe it was the day before we rose for the summer break, which is a concerning trend that we have seen from the Liberal government. It drags its feet for weeks and months on end; then, at the 11th hour, it puts forward a piece of legislation, saying that it is very important and that we need to move forward on it, right before the summer break.

In some instances, when it comes to indigenous legislation specifically, the Liberals will drop it on the table without proper consultation and expect it to be rushed through the House of Commons. It is a concerning trend, and we see it here with Bill C-52.

To speak to the bill more directly, I would note that, substantively, this bill proposes to set publicly reported service standards on private sector companies and government agencies responsible for air travel at airports, almost exclusively through regulations created by the minister. I will get into that more specifically later on.

The bill would establish requirements respecting the provision of information to the Minister of Transport by airport operators, air carriers and any entity providing flight-related services. It requires that airport operators take measures to help Canada meet its international obligations in respect to aeronautics in accordance with directions issued by the Minister of Transport.

As well, the bill authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the development and implementation of service standards related to flights and flight-related services. This includes a dispute resolution process in respect of their development and publication requirements for information related to compliance with those standards.

Further, the bill goes on to propose that airport authorities formalize noise consultation processes, publish climate change action plans and publish information on diversity among the directors and senior management of those airport authorities.

I want to bring it back to the issues the transport sector is facing. We particularly talked about them in 2022, with all the issues that we saw as a result of the government's mismanagement. The Liberal government was very focused on the announcement of the bill and bringing this bill forward, again, at the 11th hour, right before we rose for the summer.

Throughout this time, we have seen that the backlog of complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency has grown by an average of 3,000 complaints per month. There are currently over 60,000 complaints awaiting adjudication. This bill does nothing to address that massive backlog.

Passengers who have been unable to resolve compensation claims with airlines are having to wait over 18 months to have complaints considered by the Canadian Transportation Agency. It would have been a positive step to see the bill include some standards for the CTA as well to address the fact that, as we have seen quite clearly as a result of the government's mismanagement, an incredible number of people are waiting for a response from that perspective. Conservatives have been advocating and will always advocate the rights of air passengers to receive compensation in instances where there was inadequate service provided, or perhaps even no service provided in many instances. We believe that every federally regulated entity that has a role in air travel must be financially responsible for delays or cancellations. This should include airlines, of course, and it should include airports, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority and the Canada Border Services Agency.

In looking at Bill C-52, we know that the CBSA would be excluded from it. It is further unclear which entities would in fact be considered under the bill, as it would be broadly left to future regulations. It is unclear what service standards would be and what consequences there would be for those who fail to meet them. Again, as a result, this is setting the pathway for much to be decided through regulation by the government and by the minister directly. That is something that I just want to focus on a bit more. It is part of a concerning trend with the current government, which is moving forward with trying to give its ministers more power, rather than respecting Parliament's ability to debate and pass legislation.

Overall, the bill is at best a toothless one that contains no specific remedies to the issues we are seeing in the air transportation sector, but the more concerning part is the power going directly to the minister. I say it is concerning because it is definitely not the first time we have seen an example of the current Liberal government going for a heavy-handed approach. We see, on a regular basis, the government's desire to move time allocation and limit debate on bills in the chamber, not allowing MPs the opportunity to rise and to speak to issues of concern to them, or to speak to different pieces of legislation.

We also cannot forget that it is the current government that brought forward the online censorship bill, which gives too much power to the government itself to regulate what people can see on the Internet. As a result, as we all know, it has been almost impossible to share certain news articles and pieces of information on social networking sites. I will remind members that it is the current government that brought in the overreaching Emergencies Act during the freedom convoy protests. It is the government that originally looked to ban a number of firearms through an order in council instead of bringing the issue to Parliament to be debated. If members can remember all the way back to 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, buried in an initial aid package, the current Liberal government attempted to grant itself unlimited tax-and-spend powers until the end of 2021, which would have been, at that time, over a year of unfettered and unchecked spending. I share all of these examples because there is a concerning trend of the current government's granting more power to itself and trying to, in many ways, circumvent the will of Parliament.

In terms of Bill C-52, it is difficult to comment specifically on many of the service standards and what their effectiveness may be, because we do not know what they are. The government is asking Parliament and Canadians to trust that it will be able to get this right through regulation. However, after eight years of the government's mismanagement, Canadians are losing their trust in the Liberals, and I would say that I am as well. It is not that they ever had my trust, but I certainly do not trust them to move forward on these regulations.

I look forward to questions, hopefully from the member for Winnipeg North.

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

Madam Speaker, not wanting to disappoint the member, I do have a question, which is in regard to the marine aspect of the legislation.

I understand that members of the Conservative Party are now taking the position that they are going to be voting against the legislation, but there are some substantial changes coming for the marine component. We would have an agency that would be able to look at the ports and establish possible fines and the amounts of the fees being charged, which would really have a significant impact, I would suggest to the member, for producers on the Prairies, for example.

Members of the Conservative Party are very eager to be critical of the legislation, and are now on the record saying that they are going to be voting against the legislation, but it seems to me that there is a lot of good stuff within it. Why is the Conservative Party not actually reading the legislation and providing an alternative with respect to what they would like to see in it?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to respond to a question from my friend across the way from Winnipeg.

It is a good question, because the member raised the point that there are some aspects of the bill that we are certainly in favour of. We are not opposed to many parts of the bill, but again, as I stressed, overall we see that it is moving forward with many regulations and service standards that would be decided solely by the minister and the government, and that is something that is a major red flag to us. I would much prefer that the government were able to explicitly state within the bill what the service standards should be so we could debate them, discuss them and bring in witnesses at committee to have input and just provide more transparency. Therefore, even though there are some aspects of the bill that we are certainly in favour of, it is very difficult to support, not knowing what many of those broader issues would be.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kenora on his speech. We have here a government that is trying to rein in the airlines. I would like to mention a very specific situation that is happening in my region, the Lower St. Lawrence. As of December 4, the Mont-Joli regional airport will no longer be offering any regional flights within the Lower St. Lawrence, nor will it be offering flights to Quebec City, Saint‑Hubert or Montreal. We are isolated. The government has no problem giving billions of dollars in subsidies to Air Canada, but when it comes to finding solutions and requiring airlines to provide services to the regions of Quebec, it does nothing.

In Bill C-52, which is before us today, the government is seeking to increase transparency by requiring airport authorities to publicly disclose information respecting directors and senior management, but that is not what people in the regions need. They need airlines. They are isolated in terms of transportation. It is impossible for them to travel to urban centres. We do not have any trains. As members know, Via Rail is a fiasco. The train comes through twice a week at two o’clock in the morning. That is the service that is provided in my riding. Well done to the federal government on that one. As of June 2020, Air Canada closed its doors and sold all of its assets in the Mont-Joli regional airport.

I would like my colleague from Kenora to tell us what he intends to do if the federal government provides billions of dollars to airlines that are not active in the regions of Quebec.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member highlighted, which I think I made very clear in my remarks, the concern I share with him on the lack of transparency in Bill C-52. He spoke of the transportation difficulties in his area, and I would echo that, as there are many similar transportation challenges in northern Ontario. He mentioned Via Rail, and there is a Via Rail “station” in our riding where people are standing outside, often at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., waiting for the train to come through. It is a very limited service and a difficult service for many people to access, so I share a lot of the concerns the member raised. Hopefully, we will be able to work together and with the other parties to bring more transparency to the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-52.

I think the Conservative Party really needs to get a better understanding of the substance of the legislation. It appears as if Conservatives are going to be voting against the legislation, giving the false impression that it in essence does not do anything for Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are substantial aspects of the legislation that would improve things such as efficiency, transparency, accountability and accessibility. These are all very important aspects of the legislation. We have had two members of the Conservative Party stand up to say virtually that the legislation would not be doing anything. That at least implies that they are going to be voting against the legislation, even though when I posed the question to the member across the way, he indicated that maybe there are some good things in the legislation.

I would encourage those members to take a broader look at the importance of things such as our airports and the roles they play in our community, and at the airlines. The first speaker about the legislation made reference to the Toronto international airport, one of the finest airports in the world, I would suggest. Yes, there are some problems with the Toronto international airport; I have even had my own complaints and concerns in regard to it. I think the member and the Conservative Party are wrong to blame some of those issues strictly on the airport authority. There are many aspects to an airport. The legislation attempts to deal with a wide spectrum of issues that are important in order to make sure that our airports, airlines and different stakeholders are all going in the right direction, because we recognize their true value.

There were interesting topics raised by members speaking to the bill. I made a quick note of some of them. One member made reference to the issue of time allocation, saying that the government is trying to push through legislation. So far, in listening this morning, I suspect that the government is going to have a difficult time without using time allocation on the legislation, primarily because it appears as if the Conservative Party is prepared to continue to talk and talk about this particular legislation. We will have to wait and see. I suggest it is important legislation, and hopefully, the Conservatives will come to the realization that it is in Canadians' best interests. We all know that members across the way could prevent the passage of the bill very easily by just talking. It does not take much to use up time when there are 100 members of the Conservative opposition who are determined to prevent legislation from passing.

Another issue that was brought up by members opposite in dealing with this is the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, about which I was able to ask the member a question. Our airports are very important to us. They are a very important aspect of Canada's infrastructure. We know that as a government, because we have actually invested in airports in a very real and tangible way. We have argued that by investing in infrastructure, we are building the economy. I think members need to be aware of the degree of importance our airports play in contributing to the economic well-being of our communities. There are large international airports, such as the ones in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and in Calgary, which is growing exponentially, along with other airports, like my very own, the Winnipeg international airport.

These airports play a critical economic role, but it is not just the large airports. In the province of Manitoba, there are the Winnipeg Richardson International Airport and the St. Andrews Airport, where training programs are provided. When we look at the St. Andrews community, we can see the impact aerospace has had on that community, which is just north of Winnipeg, just outside of my riding. There are training programs for domestic and international students to make sure there will be pilots into the future. People also rely on the transportation there.

In the past, there have even been industries, such as the aerospace industry, which has invested in aerodrome in that area. Things like potential satellite development have been looked at.

There are smaller airports throughout the province, such as in Brandon. There are also grass runways to help farmers with fertilizer and so forth. Airports are very important.

The member made reference to infrastructure, and I would suggest we undervalue our airports if we are not prepared to invest in them. Investing in airports is something we have done as a government.

Conservatives talk about a lack of actions by the government, trying to give the impression that things are broken. This is a consistent message we hear from the Conservative Party. Its members go around the country espousing how Canada is broken in every aspect. It is as though everywhere a Conservative member walks or flies, there is a black cloud over them. They want to rain negative thoughts as if everything were going wrong in Canada. The degree to which they push that is amazing. Whether it is on the floor here in the House or through social media, they want to give the impression that Canada is falling apart and is broken.

Conservative members have stood already to talk about this legislation. They have said that it was terrible legislation and that they would be voting against it. This is legislation that would make a positive difference. I have news for my friends across the way, and it is that the vast majority of Canadians recognize and know Canada is not broken. They know there is good reason to believe Canada is on the right track and moving forward, especially if we compare Canada to virtually any other country in the world, particularly the G7 and the G20 ones, the most powerful industrialized countries. Canada is doing exceptionally well.

This legislation supports the idea and principles of moving forward. The government has a responsibility to bring in budgetary and legislative measures that would have a positive outcome for Canadians. We have seen that consistently from day one.

I would suggest to my Conservative colleagues that they let a little sunshine come in and start talking about some of the good things that are taking place, even here in Ottawa. I will give some specific examples. Even though the Conservatives are apparently going to be voting against this legislation, let me make references to what this legislation would do.

The bill would establish requirements respecting the provision of information to the Minister of Transport by airport operators, carriers and entities providing flight-related services. It would establish requirements. How is that a bad thing? It is building up expectations. We should all have expectations of the different stakeholders. I would think members on all sides would support that.

The legislation would make regulations respecting the development and implementation of service standards related to flights and flight-related services, including a dispute process. Those who travel, especially who travel frequently, I am sure, could share all forms of stories. I have been to the Ottawa airport, as all of us have, and I have heard the reasons and rationale that are often given. It is not just one sector of the airport.

I have been in a situation of waiting for a flight crew to arrive because of traffic issues. I have been in a plane that sat on the tarmac waiting, as other passengers have, for a ground crew to arrive. I have spoken with constituents who talked about the problems with baggage. The problems are wide and varied. I have had frustrations with Air Canada, in particular, most recently with the cancellation of direct flights and the excuses given. There is a wide spectrum of factors that need to be taken into consideration, so the idea of making regulations respecting the development and implementation of service standards related to flights and flight-related services, including, I would emphasize, a dispute resolution process, is a good one.

How many times do we hear from individuals who have legitimate concerns about what is taking place at airports, things that cause all sorts of delays for people needing to get to their destinations in a timely fashion, which might cause other problems? This aspect of the legislation is very positive, yet the Conservatives seem to have overlooked that because they are again voting against the legislation.

Hopefully, as I go through some of these things, they will reconsider their position on the legislation. What we are really talking about is, in essence, a framework and principles. If the legislation is allowed to go committee, members would be able to add additional thoughts. If there are ways they think they could improve the legislation, they could put them in the form of amendments. Conservatives should at least have an open mind, as opposed to saying they do not support the legislation and that they will not allow it to go committee because they want to talk it out. As Conservative members who spoke before me indicated, they are concerned with issues such as time allocation, so they are setting down some track on that particular issue. They do not want the legislation to go forward.

I will go through other issues, but just based on a couple of the things I have mentioned already, why not allow Canadians to have the types of laws that will impact the quality of services at our airports, such as the dispute mechanism, as I pointed out, to address the frustration?

People want to understand that there is a way to allow them to receive some sort of attention with respect to the concerns they raise, as opposed to, let us say, contacting an airline and hoping to talk to someone live, who then tells them they have to go through a particular department, or whatever it might be, let alone trying to contact an airport itself.

The bill would require airport authorities to publish information on diversity among directors and senior management. I have been to airports that have an airport authority board. The diversity of our boards is important to the government. We saw a feminist Prime Minister who said that the makeup of cabinet needs to reflect the makeup of Canada. I would argue we have the most diverse cabinet in the history of Canada. One should not be surprised to see that we want some of these other corporate entities to also incorporate diversity. Whether it is the federal government through showing leadership or within some of the corporations we are responsible for, sending a message of expectation on diversity is a positive thing.

I would think the Conservative Party would be inclined to support something of that nature. However, if that is one aspect it does not support, then it can attempt to bring in an amendment at committee stage to see if it can get a majority from the MPs. After all, we have a minority government here. That means it takes more than one political party, even at committee stage, to get something passed. Could the Conservative Party get enough support for some of its ideas? Maybe one of the reasons it does not want it to go to committee is that it knows that, in may ways, it cannot generate the support required.

The bill provides for an administration and enforcement mechanism that would include an administrative monetary penalty framework. The legislation does not necessarily have to go into the details, which we have already heard from some of those speaking to the legislation. They are saying that it is not specific enough. The legislation does not have to deal with the specifics of everything, and members know that. This particular point talks about providing an administration and enforcement mechanism that would include an administrative monetary penalty framework. There needs to be a consequence, and that consequence can be defined better through regulations. I again see that as a positive thing. If things are not going right at our airports, being able to establish fines and other potential consequences would be a positive.

I am very quickly running out of time. I wanted to talk about the port authorities and highlight them because the members opposite did not talk about that. I raise the fact that these changes to that aspect of the legislation, the Canada Marine Act, is in the best interests of all of us. I am thinking specifically of our farmers and producers in the Prairies. I am being very fussy on that, but we need to look at how fines and fees are established, and we have to ensure there is some sort of dispute resolution mechanism in place to protect the interests of our prairie farmers.

There is so much within this legislation, but I have already run out of time. I hope the Conservatives will flip-flop and support the legislation.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, that felt like a long 20 minutes. I do want to make a commentary about the member admonishing the Conservatives for simply bringing forward concerns with legislation, expressed both by our constituents and stakeholders. The member for Battle River—Crowfoot mentioned that the legislation would not address the 60,000-plus complaints.

I would draw the attention of all members of the House to the fact that the parliamentary secretary complains about members standing in this place to raise concerns. He has spoken over 3,000 times in this place since 2021. That is more than every other member of the Liberal Party right now. In fact, he has spoken 20 times more than any other member in the House.

If we rise in this place, it is simply to speak on behalf of our constituents and stakeholder groups, which have pointed out defects in the legislation. This information can then be used at a committee. People will follow up and look at the transcripts, as I do when matters are brought up. Members have mentioned organizations and constituents who have concerns. That is the job of this place.

The parliamentary secretary has already said that the government will guillotine the debate if this continues, but we will not stop representing our constituents and Canadians in this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, even the Conservative Party has to acknowledge that, as an opposition party, there is a responsibility to ultimately allow decisions to be made in the chamber. There is only one of two ways that the Conservative Party will allow that to happen. It has to be clearly demonstrated that what we are doing is so terrible that they are literally shamed into allowing a vote to take place, or it has to be done through some form of time allocation. The true Conservative agenda is to debate things endlessly, never allowing it to come to a vote.

The member said that Conservatives would like to make some changes at the committee stage. In order to make those changes, the legislation has to get to the committee. The Conservative members have already said that they do not support the legislation. Maybe the member, and other members, could tell us what kind of amendments they would like to see. They could show us how they want to benefit Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was struck by something my colleague said in his speech. He said that the bill itself does not need to be overly specific.

There is an airport in my riding, the Saint-Hubert airport. I held a public consultation on the subject last year, because this airport's development has been problematic for years. In particular, there are noise-related issues, because this is an airport in an urban environment. That is somewhat new, but there are also many groups who oppose the airport's development as part of the fight against climate change. We know that the aviation industry produces a lot of greenhouse gases. It is a problem and people are very engaged in the issue.

Why does this bill not include measures on that? If the government is serious about fighting climate change, it has to start by legislating and writing bills with measures that will actually help reduce greenhouse gases. It could have done that here. Why are there no specifics in the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but in fact it is done. It would establish requirements for airport authorities to create plans respecting climate change and climate change preparedness, and it would authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting reporting requirements for those plans.

The Liberal government has recognized that there are issues for communities and that airport authorities need to have noise abatement advisory committees to support the airports and protect the people who live in and around the airports.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, we get to hear that member speak a lot, and I guess we do our best to enjoy it.

My question about the legislation is incredibly important. I have a lot of constituents who represent organizations that work on behalf of the community of persons living with disabilities. They talk about the many challenges they face in travelling.

The Auditor General of Canada published a report in March of this year entitled “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities”. It examined the accessibility of federally regulated transport services. Between 2018 and 2020, 2.2 million persons with disabilities travelled. Those were the ones who were willing to take that risk. A lot of people choose not to travel simply because they are not treated in a way that is encouraging and inclusive. Of those 2.2 million people who used transportation during that time, 63% faced significant barriers. That concerns me.

This bill takes some steps in a direction that are somewhat positive, like ensuring that data is available to the public. That leads to more accountability. It would require service providers with the federal transport system to establish a process for dealing with accessibility complaints. The report from the Auditor General stated clearly that the Canadian Transportation Agency had insufficient tools and enforcement staff to address all of these barriers.

Does the member agree with the NDP that we should see more inclusion of these organizations and people living with disabilities, as we figure out these regulations moving forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in part 2 of the legislation, there is a section dealing with the issue the member has referenced. We recognize this and it is one of the reasons we have incorporated that into the framework of the legislation. It would enable the Governor in Council to put together regulations that would assist in dealing with the importance of accessibility for people with disabilities. It was not that long ago that Air Canada made a formal apology for an incident that involved an individual with a disability. It was appropriate for Air Canada to make that public apology. Hopefully more attention will be brought to this when it goes to committee. I suspect we will hear from different stakeholders. I hope one of those stakeholders will be from a disability organizations.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always take great joy when the hon. member is speaking in this chamber. Some days bring more joy than others.

I know I am going to have a bad day when I hear someone on an airplane thanking me for my patience. It usually means I am either having a bad day or I am about to have a bad day, and it is a phrase that unfortunately all of us in this chamber, who are all frequent travellers, hear all too frequently. I noticed that part of this bill is to authorize the Governor in Council on service standards.

Could the hon. member opine on some of the service standards that are not being met on an all-too-frequent basis for those of us who travel on airplanes fairly frequently?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is an area I have not really provided very much comment on to improve standards, and that is the issue of competition. It would be a wonderful thing to see.

I genuinely believe that the best way to improve some of the services we receive is through competition. We need to encourage and promote that competition. Where there is a lack of genuine competition there is an obligation on agencies, such as government, to ensure some basic service standards are being applied. Canadians deserve equality.

Obligating airlines and airports to start publishing records would ensure more accountability. Registering the complaints and how airlines and airports are dealing with them would go a long way in improving service standards. In other words, let us start publishing that information for accountability and transparency purposes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank hon. colleagues for allowing me to be part of this debate on Bill C-52.

I have listened intently to the debate. I even went back to listen to the debate of October 27. Some may ask why I did that. I spent about 25 years in aviation and I am keenly interested in the transportation sector. I think there might be a handful of us in the House who have lived it, breathed it and know what we are talking about when it comes to aviation and our transportation networks, Therefore, I am going to be come at this in a few different areas.

I have heard what our Bloc, NDP and Liberal colleagues have said, and a few things need to be addressed. Bill C-52 was an opportunity that the government had, after eight years, to actually fix some of the problems with the disastrous travel seasons in the last couple of years post-pandemic.

How did we get here? We had a summer season that was horrible. We had a winter season, a Christmas season, when passengers were sleeping on the floors of our national airports. I am probably not going to make any friends with my airport colleagues, probably limiting any of my post-political career job opportunities, when I say that our national airports or our gateway airports are failing us. Why are they failing us? Because the government has failed to put into place measures to make things better for passengers, Canadians and the travelling public, the people coming to and from our country.

Only a decade ago, Canada had a government that understood that our country was a trading nation, that our success as a nation was predicated on our ability to move people and goods seamlessly and securely. Our former Conservative government invested in our ports and airports, our roadways and railways. We were able to move people and goods seamlessly and securely. We did not see the blockages or blockades to the number we see now. We are losing our reputation on the world stage to be a frontrunner of trade and in the movement of goods and people. Our success is predicated on being able to move the goods and the talent we produce here to other countries.

The member for Winnipeg North talked about Bill C-52 and its goals to increase the efficiency, accountability and transparency of our ports and airports. He said that the blame was on the airports, but the blame is spread a little throughout. The government has failed to do what it could in the last eight years. It has really fallen down.

This was most evident during the last Christmas break when thousands upon thousands of visitors to our country and Canadians were forced to camp out on the floors of our airports and major gateways for hours and days. I was on an aircraft for six and a half hours waiting for deicing fluid for deicing tanks. However, my time was minimal compared to those who spent days in that airport. I am so proud of Vancouver, YVR, one of our major gateway airports, but I was very vocal about how it had failed.

The reason I say this is because I have sat in pre-winter briefings with our major airports as a small airport manager. As a regional airport, we have to funnel our passengers through our major gateway airports to get them to and from our country.

We ask our major airport officials whether they are ready for Christmas and for the snowfall. They say, “We are ready.” As a matter of fact, YVR released a shiny video with all its snow removal equipment. We get two or three inches of snow, which is a normal dump of snow for those of us in rural areas and our airports stay open, but it causes chaos in our major airports. Therefore, they will pardon me if I get a little frustrated when our major airports continue to fall down.

I was invited to join a winter debriefing call. I challenged our airport and airline colleagues as to whether they were ready, and what were some of the lessons learned. I heard they have learned their lesson. How many times in 20 years have I heard that? It is so frustrating.

My travel day is 12 to 15 hours on a good day. Most times, it is delayed, but I am okay; I signed up for this and I just take it as it comes. What about the average Canadian passenger who is delayed or cannot make it to a funeral or a wedding?

Our concerns are that Bill C-52 proposes to make airports more accountable, but it does not look at the aviation ecosystem as a whole. What about Nav Canada? What about CBSA? Again, there is flow control. How many times are Canadians forced to sit on a plane due to flow control because Nav Canada has not been able to staff up our air traffic control towers?

I heard from our Bloc colleagues about air service development. Bill C-52 would do nothing about air service development. Here is a news release saying that Bill C-52 would not do anything about it. The only thing they can do is work with their regional carrier. The reality is that we are all in competition. Every community across our country is in competition for air service. There are 26 airports in our national airport system and four regional airports that have over 200,000 passengers. There are 71 regional airports and we are all in competition.

Not only are we in competition with one another, but we are in competition with our border communities in the United States. Billions upon billions of dollars are lost every day because we are failing in our competition with airports and ports just across our border. We have people who leave Canada out of my province and take a flight out of Bellingham. Why is that? It is because a $29 fare in Bellingham is a $29 fare. In Canada, a $29 fare would be probably about $174, if not more. That is because we have a user pay system in Canada. The idea is that the costs for airports, for the operation, for airlines and whatever are borne by the air travellers. It is in the form of airport improvement fees. That was introduced in the 1990s. YVR, I believe, was one of the first airports to allow for airport fees for renovations. We do that because we as a country view our airports as cash cows and not necessarily the economic engines that they really are, so airports have to recover their costs in one of a few ways: landing fees, terminal fees, real estate and commercial fees. That is really the only way that they can do it. There are very limited revenue opportunities for airports.

I will get back to Bill C-52. I am on a soapbox right now, and I apologize for that.

Our colleague across the way said that we over here on the opposition side like to talk and talk about legislation. Is that not what we are here for? Is that not like the pot calling the kettle black? As my colleague just mentioned, that colleague from Winnipeg North has stood up over 3,026 times, I believe, since 2021.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That's not enough.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am hearing from one of the colleagues that it is not enough.

I, on the other hand, have risen 162 times. Shame on me. I should be getting up a little bit more. I have to be doing my job a little bit more. I get heckles from across the way.

I listened to the debate on October 27. In response to a question from a Bloc member about why there is no air service in their region, that they have an airport but they do not have air service, and shame on this government, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport stood up and said that he had heard the same from one of his colleagues in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and that he is working on that.

One is telling me that the government is going to pick winners and losers, once again, as it has throughout this whole eight years, that it will subsidize air service in the Yukon and Northwest Territories but perhaps not in Quebec or not in B.C. or not in some of our rural or remote areas that some of our other colleagues on the opposition side represent. Once again, we see Liberals picking Liberals over the rest of Canadians. That is shameful.

Our colleague from the Green Party talked about the fact that Bill C-52 fails to mention intermodal opportunities. She is right. We missed a great opportunity in following up on the great work that our former Conservative government had started, investing in intermodal opportunities, making sure that we can seamlessly move people and goods through our airports, ports, railways and roadways.

We have the fastest and greenest marine port to Asia in the Port of Prince Rupert just adjacent to my riding. We have the fastest and greenest railway into the U.S. Midwest, connecting the Port of Prince Rupert from Asia and bringing goods by rail into the U.S. Midwest. If Canada ever figured out what we really wanted to be in this world, we could set the world on fire. We could really do some incredible things.

Bill C-52 was a great opportunity for the government to put a stamp on the transportation network and yet it did not.

This government does some things really well. Let us give credit where credit is due. It does photo opportunities incredibly well. We had the transport minister banging his fist on the desk, saying that he sure told those airlines and the aviation business and they are going to listen to him.

Bill C-52 does nothing. It is lacking in so much detail. All we have asked for is to be provided some details. Who are they going to make more accountable? Where are the regulations for CATSA? Where are the regulations for CBSA?

It would require “airport authorities to publish” an annual report on “diversity among directors” of the airport authority and members of “senior management”. We have among the most diverse individuals, with the most expertise, on our airport authorities than any other nation, I believe. We have incredible people on our airport authorities.

It would force airport authorities to create and publish five-year climate change adaptation plans.

One Bloc member talked about how there is no air service in their region and then another Bloc member said that it is GHG emissions and the noise abatement issues. One cannot suck and blow at the same time. One cannot have it both ways. What is it? Does one want air service or not? As for noise abatement issues, there are regulations for airports. Our airports do have to report to Transport Canada. They are heavily regulated. As a matter of fact, we have among the most heavily regulated and we have the highest cost aviation jurisdiction in the world.

Why can we not attract carriers to our country? We cannot attract carriers to our country because it is expensive to fly into our country. It is expensive to even just fly over our country. They have to pay NavCan fees.

I will go back to intermodal opportunities now. Our colleague from the Green Party mentioned bus service. My community of Prince George is on the Highway of Tears and the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls has been widely publicized.

Far too often, members of our indigenous and our rural and remote communities are forced to hitchhike to get to major service centres or other communities because there is no national bus service anymore. Greyhound, the national bus service that we had for so long, that served some of our smaller communities, pulled its service in 2021. I believe the last service was in Ontario and that service was pulled. There are no coordinated services amongst provinces. We have smaller bus agencies that are trying to get another bus service, but without a coordinated plan, either federally or provincially, we are going to continue to see that.

I was amongst the first employees of WestJet. We looked at how to pick markets to go into. We did bus surveys. The idea was we were going to get bums out of bus seats and into planes. WestJet has been pretty good at that, but the ripple effect makes it harder for people in rural and remote communities, because of the departure of our national bus carrier, Greyhound.

Our colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood mentioned service standards. He asked our colleague, the member for Winnipeg North about the service standards that are not being met. It was interesting, because he did not ask about the service standards in Bill C-52. There are no service standards in Bill C-52.

Bill C-52 lacks a ton of details, and that is our concern. It gives the authority to the minister, once again, without having to come before the House or Canadians to say that this is what the government is going to do.

Earlier in the day somebody said to me that trust and respect are earned. I would hazard that the Liberal government received the trust and the respect of Canadians in 2015, but in the last eight years, the Prime Minister and his government have squandered that. Fool me once, shame on them; fool me twice, shame on me.

What we have seen over time is that Canadians are just waking up to the fact that the government is not worth the cost. Bill C-52 is yet another piece of legislation where the government is saying, “Do not worry about it. We will get it to committee and work on it.” The Liberals say all the time that it is the Conservatives who are squandering time and delaying bills, but they have a majority with their NDP coalition, and now with their Bloc coalition. If Liberals really want to force things through, and believe me, I sit on the committees and I see it all the time, they could get it done, if they really wanted to do it.

We are on the record.

I see a colleague across the way waiting to get up and ask me a question. I will simply leave with this, Bill C-52 is just another example of a bill where the Liberals are saying, “Trust us”. Canadians know they can no longer trust the government to get anything done, and that Conservatives will come in and clean up the mess.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, nobody is saying, “Trust us.” I do not think anybody is saying that at all.

All we are saying is that we should use the Westminster parliamentary system in the way that it is intended to work, which is to bring an idea before the House, have a debate here about it and move it to committee to make the required improvements that the member wants. Every Conservative who has stood up so far has basically said that the bill does not go far enough. Why on earth would we not at least get it to committee, which is the way our system works, and then we could try to improve where Conservatives do not think it goes far enough? Then we could bring it back to the House in due course.

The member says Liberals have a majority with the NDP and the Bloc. That is how the system works; that is how Parliament works. We debate things, we vote on things and we move on. Just because the Conservatives might be upset that they are in the minority, and are against a particular bill, does not mean they should just throw up their hands, throw their bike in the ditch and run home.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, is that not what our Prime Minister does when he does not get his way? That is exactly what our Prime Minister does. If he does not get his way, he throws a hissy fit. He grabs his toys and complains that we are picking on him.

Again, I am going to use the same comment. One cannot suck and blow at the same time. One cannot say one wants Westminster style and wants democracy and then force closure all the time. The government lobbied and promised Canadians sunnier ways and that it was going to be truly transparent. I have lost count of how many times the government has forced closure on debate.

I will wait for the next question, because that one was just laughable.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by my colleague's words. A Bloc Québécois member said that the regions are poorly served by Air Canada, and another said that aircraft noise can be a nuisance. My colleague said this is contradictory, so everything should be tossed out and no improvements are possible.

He finished his speech by alleging there is an alliance between the Bloc Québécois and the party in power. This strikes me as symptomatic of something I have noted among the Conservatives for some time, which is an appalling lack of rigour. When a party leader can stand in the House and say there are people asking for medical assistance in dying because they have nothing to eat, and a group of members are ready to vehemently defend the notion that there is a tax on carbon in Quebec when there is none, this kind of speech follows.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps it was in the delivery or perhaps it was in the translation, but what I was saying in terms of noise abatement and regional air service is there are mechanisms in place to deal with that. In his local community, the regional airport will have noise abatement rules it has to follow. Canadian aviation regulations need to be followed. It should have a noise abatement committee or a director responsible for noise abatement.

Another colleague was looking at air service development. Again, I offer to my colleagues, free of service as a matter of fact, some constructive ways their communities can maybe partner with airlines to put air service development plans in place. There are mechanisms in place for those communities to do that.

Bill C-52 clearly is another opportunity that was missed. It does not address any of those areas. That is merely what I was saying. We have one Bloc colleague blaming noise abatement issues and greenhouse gases and then another one talking about not being able to get regional air service. They should coordinate their questions.

Again, if any of them want to talk about air service development, I did it for a long time and perhaps I can offer them some tips on how they can get their community some direct air service.

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

Madam Speaker, the first two Conservative speakers today implied they are going to be voting against the legislation. Given the member's first-hand experience, would he not at the very least acknowledge there are many positive things within this legislation that would in fact be of great benefit for Canadians as a whole, and in particular air travellers? Would he not agree having it go to committee at the very least affords the opposition the chance to improve upon the legislation?

Why would the Conservative Party not want to vote in favour of the legislation? What within the framework is so appalling that the Conservative Party is going to vote against it?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the frustrating things with Bill C-52 and the Liberals' argument is they failed to mention the Canadian Transportation Agency. Complaints to this agency have grown to over 3,000 per month. There are over 60,000 Canadians who are waiting for their complaints to be adjudicated by the agency. Their complaints are waiting to be adjudicated by the agency, and yet Bill C-52 does not even mention the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Liberals continue to tell Canadians or whoever is listening, whether it is with this legislation or others, that Conservatives are obstructionary and do not want to get it to committee. We have seen this time and time again. I go back to the comment, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

Liberals keep asking why we would not just let the bill get to committee where all these issues could be resolved. What we have seen time and again is when we get a piece of legislation to committee, they partner with their NDP colleagues, ram it down the throats of Canadians, and we get flawed bills.

The government should be held accountable. The government should be accountable to Canadians who elect all 338 members of Parliament. However, what we have seen time and again is the Liberals shirk the issues. Bill C-52 is another example of that.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on a comment from another colleague across the way, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

Let me state for the record that I do not enjoy the member for Winnipeg North speaking quite as much as he does, but I want to pick up on the question he asked the member, which my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George also referenced, and that is the lack of service standards. Where is the specificity? That is what Canadians are looking for, not another promise or photo op. Would the member agree?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would agree 100%. That was my comment. Who sets that service standard? Are they going to set up yet another committee of industry experts who will meet and do nothing? Who sets those standards? Who agrees to those standards?

What we see in Bill C-52 is that, once again, it would give all the power to the minister with no accountability to Canadians. Who sets those standards? That is the question Conservatives have.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion between what is law and what is regulation.

This would be a law that possibly sets up an agency for the creation of regulations. This is not the place to ask for specific standards as to when baggage should or should not arrive or when airplanes should fly on time or not fly on time. It probably would be better in committee. Once the bill is passed and the regulations are published, there would be a scrutiny of regulations committee to establish whether the regulations are appropriate.

Can the hon. member give us his understanding of the interaction between the creation of law and the creation of regulations?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague, who has been in this House a lot longer than I have, summed it up quite succinctly.

The issue that Conservatives have with Bill C-52 is it lacks the meat, the intention and the direction for when it gets to committee. What is the mandate for the committee? What is the direction and where is the meat in Bill C-52 that will set the guidelines for the work that the committee is going to do?

Bill C-52 fails to do that. Similar to what the government has done in the last eight years, it has failed Canadians on the transportation file.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would really love some understanding on where the hon. member stands.

I understand that we are talking about service standards and regulations, and I too am concerned about an industry that self-regulates. That has consistently been an issue, especially when dealing with the safety of Canadians.

Is the member saying it is imperative that it be part of this bill, that there should be transparency in government to ensure that transportation standards cannot be self-regulated and that those significant changes be made in the bill?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, if I understand my colleague correctly, no. Our transportation sector is among the most regulated in our country. Are there areas that we need to focus on? Absolutely.

We need look no further than news reports in recent weeks about those who have disabilities and travel. One gentleman was dropped in the middle of the aisle and had to literally crawl his way to the front of the plane. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Bill C-52 has some points in it that I think are great and I support, but there are areas that we need to address. Bill C-52 does not go far enough. That is what concerns Conservatives.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to discussing Bill C-52.

Before I do that, I want to say that just as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was finishing up his speech, I got a real kick out of seeing a Conservative member come running into the House to jump up and criticize the member for Winnipeg North for having spoken over 3,000 times. It was as if somebody had punched things into a computer in the backroom to figure that out. The reality is that we are now in a position where Conservatives are criticizing members for wanting to get up and repeatedly represent members of their community.

The member for Winnipeg North should take great pride in the fact that he stands up for his constituents so many times. Over 3,000 times he has stood up for the people of Winnipeg since 2021. That would be something to celebrate, in my opinion. Only a Conservative would come in here and suggest that it is somehow to the detriment of democracy that the member for Winnipeg North continually stands up and represents his constituents. It is no wonder the man keeps getting elected and sent back to this place by the people of Winnipeg when they see that time after time after time he gets up to represent his constituents. If we could all represent our constituents to that effect, we would be absolutely incredible members of Parliament, all 338 of us. I take great pride in sitting so close to such a passionate member who represents his community.

Let us talk about Bill C-52 for a few minutes. This is a very important piece of legislation.

I find it quite interesting that the most recent Conservative member who got up to speak, in response to a question from the NDP, basically admitted that the bill does a lot of what he thinks it should do, in particular, with respect to the scenario that my NDP colleague brought up. He said that he thought the bill would actually do a lot of that stuff and would be good in that regard; however, it does not go far enough in another area that he is concerned about. However, the Conservatives have had a difficult time articulating that today. None of them have really pinpointed where that is, other than to say that regulation is bad and extreme competition is good.

Why will they not at least send the bill to committee? Why will they not at least get it to committee? Then the member or his colleagues who are represented on that committee could talk about it and try to address the issues they have.

I would suggest it is not because Conservatives are genuinely interested in the bill or genuinely interested in advancing any kind of meaningful policy for Canadians. I think it is just that they do what they always do, which is to delay and prevent legislation going forward at any cost. It does not matter what the issue is.

I actually have a hard time sitting here wondering when the last time was that Conservatives voted in favour of anything the government proposed. I understand if they say they disagree with everything that this government does, but what are the odds that they would just happen to be against absolutely everything? I think that it is really—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I believe we now have quorum.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands may proceed.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if this were the first speech I ever gave in the House and we lost quorum, I would feel personally offended that everyone ran out of the room when I started to speak. However, I am going to assume it is that it is close to lunchtime and people are hungry, so I will not take offence at the fact that we seem to have lost quorum during my speech.

In any event, let us talk about Bill C-52, because I think it seeks to address a lot of the issues we see with airports in our country. Before I identify some of those key challenges, let us reflect on Canada's transportation ecosystem.

In the year 2019, for which I have the data, a total of 162 million people boarded and deplaned at Canadian airports. It is really important to note that 69% of those people either boarded or disembarked from a plane in these four cities: Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal. That is really important, because it speaks to why we need this legislation, given that so many people are using just four airports.

There were 26 airports in the national airport system that served around 90,000 air travellers since the 1990s. Most large airports were operated by private not-for-profit entities, which we know as airport authorities, through long-term leases with the federal government. There were 150-plus other airports owned and operated by provinces, territories and municipalities, including the municipality of Kingston. Of the air carriers, in 2019, Air Canada and WestJet accounted for 86% of the market share domestically. Let us think about that. Two operators accounted for 86% of the market share. Multiple mid-sized and small carriers existed. Those airports would often hire external service providers for baggage, ramp handling and refuelling, for example.

Canada's geography and population density can lead to unique challenges, as members can imagine. We have those four primary locations where people get on and off planes, which literally, if one were in Europe, would be several countries apart with respect to geography.

It is also important to point out that private or not-for-profit corporations are responsible for civil air navigation services across 18 million square kilometres of Canadian airspace, and they oversee more than 3.3 million flights a year through a network of air control centres. That is all done, as we know, by Nav Canada.

There are CATSA, CBSA and U.S. CBP. It was indicated that the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority screened just under 68 million passengers between 2018 and 2019. The Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for guarding our border, for immigration enforcement and for customs services. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection currently provides pre-clearance at eight airports. That provides the context for where the challenges exist, and I think it is important to understand what the ecosystem looks like in order to do that.

There are key challenges, and I will identify five of them.

The first challenge is with enhancing federal oversight legislation in the air sector. Canadian airports are not subject to an oversight framework legislation, apart from, as we know, safety and security. I think that is a major need, in the transportation sector specifically, and we really need to address it to provide that oversight framework.

The second challenge is the accountability deficit that impacts air service to Canadians. There are long-standing concerns, particularly about major disruptions like storms, and about system accountability and transparency, because we quite often hear about them.

I will never forget waiting to board a plane, and it was four or five hours late. We were told it was out of their control. Due to weather, the plane was going to be late, and nobody was going to be compensated. I looked out the window, and it was a bright, sunny day. I wondered how it was even possible that they blamed it on the weather. It turned out, after I bugged some people, that it had more to do with what the weather was like for the crew who had to fly from another area of the country.

There has to be accountability when it comes to those things, and quite frankly, it does not exist right now. How many times can we allow that domino to fall over? Eventually, one is going to hit somewhere in the world that has bad weather that can impact one's flight down the line. That is where there is a deficit in accountability.

A third challenge is that the system lacks service standards and a reporting framework. Canada's air transportation ecosystem lacks clear standards among key operators to ensure the delivery of efficient air transport. Why is having those standards so important? It is very important, especially in a sector that has fewer players, because the competition is not as robust.

We should have standards in the aviation sector anyway. Specifically, when a sector has only two key players, Air Canada and WestJet, that make up 86% of the market in our country, it is extremely important that we have standards in place. In some instances, we cannot rely on the competitive nature to develop those standards, especially when the competition is so low in terms of the number of players.

The fourth challenge is insufficient accountability in the marine mode. We know there are concerns that Canadian port authorities are not sufficiently accountable and are lacking appropriate recourse mechanisms when taking certain decisions like changing fees. Right now, those port authorities can, at their own will, change their fees to whatever they want, and there is no oversight mechanism.

It is important because it is not as though those fees can be done by somebody else. The fee is inelastic from an economic perspective. It is a fee that the marine port authority can charge at its discretion, and users have no recourse. That is a big challenge.

The last challenge I want to address is specifically with respect to data about accessible transportation, which needs to be improved. The Auditor General of Canada has called for better compliance data for service providers to identify and to remove barriers to accessible transportation. That one is self-sufficient. We heard a question regarding that. That is why it is so important. Those are the challenges that exist.

I would now like to talk about how this bill attempts to address those challenges. First, the bill introduces legislation, the air transportation accountability act, that would establish an oversight framework for airports on noise; establish requirements to provide information, environmental reporting, and equity, diversity and inclusion reporting; and provide regulation-making authority for the creation of service standards and the associated public reporting for operators in the airport ecosystem.

As I indicated, there are some authorities with respect to safety, but it pretty much stops there. We brought in a bill of rights back in 2018 for airplane passengers, but that pretty much stops at the actual interaction on the plane itself. That does not extend to everything else that happens from the moment one arrives at the airport to the point when one departs from a Canadian airport. We are looking to extend that framework and to allow it to encompass all those things in the ecosystem of the airport, not just on the plane itself, in addition to the other issues I talked about regarding noise and providing information on environmental reports.

The second thing this bill would accomplish would be to amend the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Governor in Council with the authority to make regulations: to require certain persons to provide data on key accessibility metrics to the Minister of Transport and to the Canadian Transportation Agency to support an accessible transportation system; and with respect to the process of dealing with complaints related to accessibility.

We did hear, earlier in the debate, examples of individuals who were put in extreme hardship as a result of not having that information in place. We know we have to do more for people with disabilities, and we have an obligation to bring in meaningful changes to ensure that people are treated with equity and fairness. However, we also need the data to be able to properly develop those regulations, and that is what the second part of the legislation would do.

Finally, this legislation would amend the Canada Marine Act to improve Canadian port authorities' accountability and transparency on fee setting and the related complaints process established in the regulations of dispute resolution mechanisms. I mentioned earlier that a port authority at a marine location can change its fees at its own discretion, whenever it wants and without consultation. We would put in place a mechanism to ensure consultation would take place with users, and there would be a mechanism to file a complaint if the users did not feel they had been justly informed and included in the creation of fees or the changes made to those fees.

Again, this is about making sure the framework is there to have a better experience for users. This entire bill would do that. It is about making the experiences for users of our airport authority ecosystem and of our marine ports better and more accountable. It is incredibly important.

I am getting the sense, after listening to the debate this morning in the House, that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc will likely be in favour of moving this to committee. I recognize that the Conservatives appear to have some issues with the bill not going far enough, which is what we have heard them say. I do not know why that would prevent the Conservatives from at least voting for it at this point to get the bill to committee.

In the eight years I have been around here, times have become perhaps slightly cynical, but I would suggest that is a bit of a red herring. The Conservatives do not want to support the bill, but it is easier to say it does not go far enough, and it should go further; therefore, they will vote against it. It is probably more along the lines that they do not like the framework and do not think the framework should be in place. They believe in a form of extreme competition, even when it only includes two major players in the airline industry, for example, and they do not believe we should have regulations in place for standards. Perhaps that is just my cynical side, but it certainly has come across over many years of listening to debate in the House.

I hope that, at the very least, Conservatives will not filibuster this bill so it can never get out of the House to committee and that we do not have to work with the NDP and/or Bloc to time-allocate the bill so it does get to committee. However, I know that is another game the Conservatives like to play, so we might end up going down that road as well.

In any event, this is a very important bill. It would improve the experience of people utilizing marine ports and the airport ecosystem. I strongly encourage all members to support it so we can get it to committee, make the required amendments, and then bring it back before the House so it can become law for the betterment of our country and of those transportation systems.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, people living in the northern boroughs of Montreal, be it Ahuntsic or Montréal-Nord, are extremely concerned about the noise from Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport's air corridor. For years, they have been pleading for noise mitigation measures.

While there are good things in Bill C‑52, the New Democrats would go further. We would implement World Health Organization standards for noise around airports. We would make public Transport Canada noise data for areas surrounding airports, and we would improve data collection on ground-level airport noise. All these actions are found in the report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities released in 2019.

Why has the Liberal government not decided to go further, pushing forward to protect citizens suffering from excessive noise in the vicinity of airports?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comment, but I think the important thing here is to recognize the fact that, while this NDP colleague brings forward a concern, he also knows that he can address it when the bill gets to committee.

The member referenced a report where this issue about noise has already come up. The member for Scarborough—Guildwood made a comment earlier about the difference between legislation and regulation. I do not know if the member's concern falls into the legislative part of it, which is what we are dealing with now, or the regulation that comes out of the framework that is created. In any event, what we are trying to do here and what the bill would establish is the oversight framework for those airports.

As I indicated, I think 69% of all air travel in Canada is in four airports, with Montreal being one of the busiest four airports in the country. Obviously, the other three will probably have similar concerns with respect to noise. However, this framework would set up the manner in which the data that the member is talking about will be collected; the rules, decisions and regulations can then come out of that framework to better improve the negative experience that people are encountering at the Montreal airport.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the bill purports to make travel experience better, but it does not really have service expectations or standards set out clearly. A lot of it is just left to the Governor in Council, or in other words, cabinet. I think it would be unfounded, but the member may have comfort in the Governor in Council today. He may not have that comfort in the future. Could he comment a little bit on whether the bill should not have more service standards and expectations built into it?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but the member must not have been in the House to hear a similar question from the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, which would have answered it.

However, this is where I think the Conservatives are just using the issue as a red herring. The member should know better than to suggest that those specific details should be included at this point. The bill is about setting up the framework to be able to collect the data and then make those regulation decisions.

The member is basically asking why that detail is not in here, which I think is a red herring. This is just the Conservatives' excuse to vote against the bill. The member should know better than to suggest that this information should be included at this stage. This is about setting up the framework so that what he is going after can actually be obtained and then decisions made with regard to the regulations.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to carry on from the two previous questions and the information in the bill. The bill would create a formal process for notifying and consulting the public on changes to aerospace designs that affect aircraft noise near airports and ensure that communities would be consulted.

The simple question here is this: Does the hon. member, or any of us, know anything about aircraft noise? I dare say that, in my case, I certainly do not. I am interested in the hon. member's views on his expertise on aircraft noise.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not an expert on it, nor do I claim to be. However, I know that there are experts out there, and they are probably the ones we should be relying on to collect the evidence and to make recommendations.

This is the exact point. From time to time, we have to put in a framework such as this one, with various pieces of legislation. The criticism, which I think is just a red herring, is that we are not doing the regulations. Well, would we not want to consult people first, obtain the information, talk to experts and then put in regulation? Of course we would, and that is what this bill would do; it would set up the process to allow that to happen.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just have a couple of quick comments and then a question for the member.

Early in his speech, the member asked about the last time Conservatives voted in support of a Liberal bill. We did that yesterday, not even 24 hours ago.

The second thing is that I just want to thank the member for putting on the record that every member of Parliament should have as many interventions in the House as the member for Winnipeg North does, with 3,000 in the last two years. We may have two years left in this Parliament. I am looking forward to every other member in the House getting 3,000 interventions in the chamber in the next couple of years. That would be a great way to represent our constituents. I want to thank the member for putting that on the record.

Part of this bill would set up a framework for dealing with the challenges in our air industry, particularly the complaints. The member represents an area that has a local, regional airport. Having flown out of it many times in the past, I have run into a number of challenges flying through Kingston.

Could the member elaborate on whether he has heard any concerns in the last couple of years about his airport in Kingston?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, Kingston has had an airport since World War II. It continues to operate today.

Absolutely, there are always concerns. One of the challenges for Kingston, which other people see as a benefit, is that it is located two hours from Ottawa, two hours from Toronto and two hours from Montreal. The member said he flew through Kingston, and I do not understand that; one is either arriving or leaving to go to one of those other spots. However, the point is that while we have what might be seen as a detriment to Kingston, in terms of our airport, we also have the fourth-busiest train station in the country. People might not expect that of Kingston, but it is the case because of our proximity to the other cities I just mentioned.

In Kingston's case, it makes more sense for the average traveller to take the train, for example, from Kingston to downtown Toronto, jump on the train to Pearson, and then fly out of there. There are some people who still prefer to fly right out of Kingston, but the options are not as great as they are for some other small regional airports.

We have challenges, and I want this framework in place so that some of those challenges could be dealt with. That is what the framework is all about.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend by colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his speech.

While the bill is well intentioned, certain aspects create great uncertainty. I would like my colleague to offer his opinion on the matter.

We note that the regulations in this bill give the minister a lot of latitude. Most of the changes will be through regulations. This raises many concerns for the various industries involved. Furthermore, it does not give legislators either control or certainty regarding the scope of the measures.

I would like my colleague to enlighten us on this matter.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the theme of my questions.

The member for Scarborough—Guildwood said this better than I can. The framework is put in place, the regulations are put in place and then we have a committee that can oversee the regulations. If a member of Parliament has an issue, they should talk to their representatives on that committee, where the regulations that have been put in place by the minister could be scrutinized.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the incredible constituents of Calgary Midnapore.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher. I look forward to his remarks following mine.

When I received the request from our shadow minister for transport, the member for Chilliwack—Hope, I was, in fact, very honoured. One of my greatest achievements in my time in the House of Commons was serving as the shadow minister for transport during the pandemic. I can certainly tell everyone that things did not function as they should have during that time. They did not function at all, in fact.

My experience, based upon that time, leads me to the conclusion that there is, in regard to the government, lots of regulation and no responsibility. This also summarizes my conclusion regarding Bill C-52.

I think that this is a theme we have seen with the government. We have seen this with some recent decisions made at different levels of government, as well as at higher courts, including with regard to Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, as we called it here. There, they put in significant regulation against not only pipelines but also, actually, lots of other pieces of infrastructure. We see that this was, in fact, overturned.

Just this past week, as well, we were very happy to see, on this side of the House, the overruling of the single-use plastics legislation that was put in by the government. Again, the government imposes all this regulation on industry, on Canadians and on third parties without taking the responsibility for the regulations that it has imposed upon itself. I think we are seeing this again in this bill.

I am sure that we are aware that 2022 was a disastrous summer travel season, as well as a terrible holiday travel season through December. Really, if we look back at that, it was for the reason that I gave at the beginning of my speech, which was poor management of the transportation sector through the pandemic.

Frankly, they had no plan for the airline sector at that time. As the shadow minister of transport, I certainly tried to get them to produce a plan. They did no such thing. This had significant and widespread consequences not only for Canadians but also for workers across Canada, as well as for different communities and regions across Canada.

I implored them to come up with a plan for regional airlines at the time. Regional airport authorities were left to fend for themselves. I, along with my colleagues, made a very strong push for them to implement rapid testing and implement it sooner than they did, in an effort to more easily facilitate both travel and the travel sector. As well, I tried very hard to convince them not to use the supports for sectors for executive compensation. All these requests that I made as the shadow minister for transport fell upon deaf ears at that time.

In addition, of course, I was not alone in doing that. There were also my colleagues, the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and the member of Parliament for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

Sadly, in September 2020, we saw 14% of Nav Canada employees being laid off in centres in Winnipeg and Halifax. That is just another example of the lack of action of the government during the pandemic. At that time, 750 families had to go home and tell their families that they did not have a job anymore.

I said back in September 2020, before the throne speech, that our economy simply cannot function, let alone thrive, without major carriers and airport authorities. Ironically, I said that on mini-budget day, and here we are again today.

In 2020, the Calgary Airport Authority alone was expecting a 64% drop in passenger traffic from 2019 levels and projecting a loss of $245 million in revenue. Other airport authorities across the country were facing similar challenges at the time. Stakeholders also reported that some supply chains had been overloaded as a result of the pandemic, with demand for some products having increased by up to 500% and vulnerabilities having become apparent.

At that moment, I asked for the government to develop a plan with common-sense solutions. We continue to ask for such solutions today; again, they are not apparent in Bill C-52. Once again, we see a government that has lots of regulations, yet takes no responsibility.

I will turn my speech now to the point about complaints. Over the past year, the backlog of complaints with the CTA, the Canadian Transportation Agency, has grown to an average of 3,000 complaints per month, with a backlog of over 60,000 complaints now waiting to be adjudicated by the agency. In fact, the bill before us would set no service standards for the Canadian Transportation Agency and would do nothing to eliminate the backlog of 60,000 complaints. I have an example from my riding, where, as of July 2023, I had a constituent waiting two years for a response from the CTA to the complaint they had registered. In the same eight months when the CTA processed 4,085 complaints, the complaints grew by 12,000, doubling in that time. It is no wonder Canadians are dissatisfied with the current process in place, and the legislation would do little to improve it without said standards.

As well, it is not clear which entities would be covered by the bill as the bill would be left to future regulations. A theme we have heard on this side in discussing the bill today is there are lots of regulations. In fact, we have seen from the other side of the House that members take advantage of the regulations. They take advantage of Canadians in using these regulations. We might see something that is perhaps gazetted and then all of sudden brought into implementation, with both industry and Canadians being forced to respond and to pay the price for the use of regulation by the government.

Fundamentally, the bill remains a toothless bill that contains no specific remedies to the problems that have been plaguing the system since the pandemic. I will add that during the difficult time coming out of the pandemic, the then minister of transport blamed Canadians for forgetting how to travel. I talked about the government's shirking responsibility, and there we see it again with the minister of transport's not saying that it was his bad or that he should have come up with a plan during the pandemic, but rather blaming Canadians. He was not even addressing it through the complaint process, nor was he willing to fix the complaint process.

I have a quote from a significant air passenger rights advocate, Gabor Lukacs. Anyone who sits on the transport committee certainly will have communicated with him. He says, “There may be penalties, but even those powers are left to the government to create.” Since I am throwing out Gabor Lukacs's name, I would also like to mention Roy Grinshpan, who has also been an incredible advocate for passenger rights and passenger advocacy.

Even the pilots with whom I worked so closely during the pandemic are not in favour of the legislation. The president of ALPA Canada, Captain Tim Perry, for whom I have a lot of respect, brought to my attention that safety might be compromised as a result of the implementation of the bill to ensure that passengers are taken care of. This is simply another concern, which is that passengers are not being taken care of, and even the pilots who fly the planes are voicing their concern over this.

To conclude, I talked about the implementation of regulation, so much of it, but again there is no responsibility. The then minister of transport said that there would be consequences for service providers that do not meet the standards, but he did not disclose what they would be. Again, there is so much regulation and no responsibility. The government tells Canadians and industry time and time again that they have to do this and that, but it never takes responsibility for the legislation it implements.

In conclusion, Bill C-52 and the government are about lots of regulations but no responsibility.

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

Madam Speaker, because today I understand that the Conservatives are doing a count, I think this is my 3,260th or so time that I have actually stood up in the House. I can honestly say that this is in good part because the Conservative Party continues to want to mislead Canadians and direct them off track. Unfortunately, that means I do have to stand up periodically to set the record straight and put some facts forward, as opposed to the mischief that the Conservative Party wants to constantly create and spread throughout social media.

The bill is a very good example. Bill C-52 is good, solid legislation that would improve the conditions of air travel and port fees for Canadians virtually from coast to coast to coast. It is good, substantial legislation, yet the Conservative Party is going to be voting against it. Why would the Conservative Party vote against the legislation, as opposed to supporting it, allowing it to go to committee and maybe looking at making some changes like the member herself is? It seems to be common sense.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a single thing the member said after I heard that he has stood up in the House 3,000 times and is not a member of cabinet. I think, rather than responding to that, I am actually going to start a petition that the member should be brought to cabinet. I encourage the member to keep advocating anything and everything. I am not getting a lot of support for the idea on this side of the House. I guess with 3,000 interventions, we have to wonder who is listening. I was not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it shows that Conservative members, much like the member said, are not listening. That is part of the problem. Conservative members do not listen to what Canadians are saying. They are more concerned about what I mentioned yesterday: bumper stickers.

The legislation is sound legislation that would improve air travel in Canada, yet the Conservative Party wants to filibuster and to see the legislation defeated, as opposed to recognizing the good within the legislation. If they have some ideas, which has been very rare unless it has been about cryptocurrency or something silly like that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party does not want to contribute to good, healthy legislation but, rather, oppose and filibuster. How does the member justify such irresponsible behaviour to her constituents, given what we hear on a daily basis coming from the Conservative Party of Canada?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think I made it very clear in my speech. I am listening. I am listening to stakeholders that the government has ignored for years, including pilots, passengers, airport authorities, airlines and Canadians. Do we know who has not been listening? It is this member. He is talking and has done so over 3,000 times.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would just like my colleague to elaborate a little bit on the challenges that passengers have been having, maybe from her riding. The Canadian Transportation Agency has a backlog of over 60,000 complaints. I know I have had people in my riding complain. I would just like to give her the opportunity to expand on what she is hearing in her riding of Calgary.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound was instrumental on the leadership team during the time of the pandemic, so I appreciate that.

In fact, I do have an example from my riding. This is from a constituent: “On June 25, 2022, I filed an air travel complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency. By November 25, 2022, I was 10,203 in the complaint queue out of 40,000 complaints. As of today, I am 6,118 in the queue out of 52,000 complaints”. Do members know who should listen to this? The Liberal government should.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak on behalf of Canadians and, particularly, of my constituents in the riding of Provencher. For those who do not know where Provencher is, it is in southeast Manitoba.

Today, I am speaking to Bill C-52, An Act to enact the Air Transportation Accountability Act and to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act. While there are parts of the bill that I believe go in the right direction, I will affirm that I have concerns. Probably one of the biggest concerns is the bill’s title's not living up to its intentions, and not just missing an opportunity but also missing the point. Members may remember the story of the man in a restaurant who calls out to the waiter, “What is this fly doing in my soup?” The waiter is at first silent, then looks down at the soup and exclaims, “The backstroke.” Like the waiter, the bill misses an opportunity and misses the point.

Something Conservatives have observed over the last eight years is that while the current government is very good at photo ops and making announcements, it is much harder for the government to implement initiatives that get to the heart of the real issues. The importance of considering how each decision, each effort and each initiative would make a difference to the big picture in any bill or directive gets lost in the photo ops and glossy announcements. However, let me say what I believe the bill intended to do, based on its title, because accountability is a foreign concept to the NDP-Liberal government and something that has not proven easy for the government to even comprehend.

No doubt my hon. colleagues will remember the summer of 2022, with 9,500 flights being cancelled in July and August, and the Christmas that followed. My colleagues will well remember the time, because their offices were flooded with travel stories that went wrong. After being cooped up, isolated, mandated and restricted, Canadians were finally free to travel, to visit loved ones they had missed through COVID, to catch up celebrating family milestones that had been neglected, and to embark on new adventures and experience the joys of travel, but also free to grieve and mourn with those whose loved ones had passed away.

However, as the stories unfolded, the long-held dreams became deflated with long wait-lists, overflowing baggage halls, stranded passengers, flight cancellations and delays. On-time performance, according to Greater Toronto Airport Authority president and CEO, Deborah Flint, was at 35% in the summer of 2022. That would be a failing grade even by Liberal standards. It was reported that Toronto Pearson Airport was listed as the second-worst in the world for delays. Travellers made every effort to avoid connecting through Toronto, yet luggage lagged even farther behind, with some headlines reporting that airlines were donating unclaimed baggage to charities after 90 days. In some cases, frustrated and angry travellers traced their luggage through the use of air tags and found their luggage stowed away in off-site storage facilities. This past January, it was reported that a shortage of pilots compounded the problem. Regardless, people slept on floors and endured the relentless chaos.

As we can see, the problems were layered and complicated. It was good that the government finally felt compelled to act, and Bill C-52 was its response. Clearly, the layers of accountability need to be considered and addressed, which is why Conservatives believe that every federally regulated entity that has a role to play in the delivery of air travel must be held responsible for delays or cancellations, including airlines, airports, CATSA, Nav Canada and CBSA. If security lineups are delaying people to the point that they are missing flights, airport baggage handling is not functioning in a timely matter or CBSA is not staffed sufficiently, then there are concerns that need to be addressed. Each layer of service and delivery needs to be held accountable.

One of my biggest concerns with the bill is how much power it gives to the minister and cabinet to develop regulations in the future. Instead of including concrete improvements in the legislation, on the final page of the bill, in the closing section, key sections are referenced as coming into force at a later date to be determined.

If I may, let me tell another story. A fellow was walking along a country road when he came upon a farmer working in his field. The man called out to the farmer and asked how long it would take to get to the next town. The farmer did not answer. The guy waited a bit and then walked on. After the man had gone about 100 yards, the farmer yelled out that it would take about 20 minutes. The traveller thanked the farmer, but asked why he did not tell him that when he had asked, to which the farmer replied that he did not know how fast the traveller was going to walk.

Providing the needed information in this bill and considering the fullness of information is important as the details make a difference to the outcome of the expectations. How can we know if we agree with future measures that cabinet and the minister would be putting in place?

As a Conservative, I do not believe that giving more power to government is the solution. Instead, I believe that accountability helps set up organizations for better success and improved service delivery.

The law firm McCarthy Tétrault provides insight into the bill in a blog based on their assessment. Referencing the bill “Authorizing the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the development and implementation of service standards related to flights and flight-related services”, it notes as a concern the uncertainty of what these service standards may entail at a future time, and how they will impact day-to-day operations. It also captures the element that deeply concerns me when it states:

The Act grants the Minister broad powers to request information from airport operators, air carriers, and entities providing flight-related services. Requests may include information regarding (a) the capacity and development of the Canadian air transportation system, (b) operations and air traffic; and (c) compliance by an airport operator with Canada’s international obligations in respect of aeronautics; as well as any information that an airport authority is required to keep in accordance with its governing corporate legislation.

The problem is that this is a toothless bill that contains no specific remedies to the problems that have been plaguing the system. It gathers a lot of information, but does not have any teeth.

Without specifics, we are told that we need to trust the minister and his word to solve all the problems. The minister and cabinet would solve all these problems by future undefined regulations. However, in the interim, the bill would allow for data collection and sharing that would somehow make it better for Canadian travellers. What data would be captured and what it would look like when service standards are not met are not even mentioned.

In his speech in the House, my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope referenced McGill University’s aviation management lecturer, John Gradek on this subject, who 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”. The lack of detail on important issues is alarming. What about the backlog of complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency, which has grown by 3,000 complaints per month with a backlog of over 60,000 complaints, all now waiting to be adjudicated by the agency?

I remember a number of months back, chatting with a friend who said that it had become their expectation that they needed to factor in travel delays in their business planning. In fairness, while we have moved past the horrific status of having the second worst number of delays in the world, people are still waiting for answers. Passengers are unable to resolve their compensation claims and are waiting over 18 months to have their claims considered by CTA. Unfortunately, nothing in the bill deals with this.

This bill is vague and, once again, as is common with many of the actions and posture of the Liberal government, projects “a government knows best” attitude. All we have to do is give away sweeping powers for this to happen. The government and Governor in Council have no business in the boardrooms or management of Canadian corporations or businesses. What the government should be focused on is achieving outcomes.

I will come back to my first point, which is that I think it is unfortunate that this bill missed an opportunity. Having said that, I want to end on the points that we do support. Let me start by saying that we have no problem with the accessibility and disability portions of the bill. We also appreciate that this bill may have had good intentions, but it has missed the mark completely.

Fortunately, common-sense Conservatives will continue to advocate for Canadians and do everything we can to help the government redirect its efforts in support of Canadians.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, if these common-sense Conservatives believe that they are going to do everything to help Canadians, then why would they not support the bill that would help address issues of accessibility and persons with disabilities? Why would these common-sense Conservatives not support measures that create more accountability to create a framework and to create standards?

That does not sound like common sense. That sounds like Conservative politics, which actually disadvantage Canadians. If the member opposite supports the measures in the bill for persons with disabilities, why is he voting against it?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that, if a member supports any one item in a bill, the Liberals think right away that the member endorses or supports the entire bill. That just is not the case.

I think I articulated fairly clearly in my speech that this bill has many flaws. It sets out a regulatory regime that we would be handing over to cabinet or the Governor in Council for them to determine the regulations. This is without any indication that there would be any accountability from the service providers in our transportation industry. That is what is glaringly missing from this bill. There is no mechanism in here for responsibility within the transportation industry or to hold it accountable to its commitments and our expectations.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, in 2018-19, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook a study on the impact of aircraft noise within the vicinity of major Canadian airports.

One of the recommendations was to implement public noise consultation committees, which this bill would implement. We know that community groups have expressed concerns that these committees would be a hollow gesture. There is nothing that would guarantee their ability to be heard or that public input would be implemented moving forward.

Could the member talk about why this is important? How important is it for us to look at this bill at committee to change some of those things so the people's voices can be heard?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is a great question. “Noise abatement” is the term commonly used in the aviation industry. I have first-hand experience in that industry, being a pilot myself.

Just this past summer, I completed my instrument rating. I can talk a bit about Nav Canada and how great the folks were at the Nav Canada office in Winnipeg while I took my flight test. They were a little short-staffed, and they allowed me to complete the approaches necessary to fulfill my licence requirements. I want to thank the good folks at Nav Canada in Winnipeg.

In answer to her question, for those of us who are not necessarily fascinated with aviation, other than it being an opportunity to travel from one destination to the next, some people may wonder why, when a jet aircraft in particular takes off, it does certain things. It will change course, climb to a certain altitude and reduce power. I know some people think that is an engine problem, but it is not. It is noise abatement. They are flying over a built-up or residential area and want to reduce the noise level for the folks on the ground.

I think the aviation industry is very conscious of that. Perhaps it needs to dig further into that subject. It is something I think it is addressing, but we can always do better.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that this bill deals with standards for air carriers and airport authorities. The bill also provides for the production of reports to the minister or the department. There is also an accountability objective. The bill gives the minister a lot of latitude.

This bill may be worthwhile, but what about airport maintenance? Take the Val‑d'Or airport for example. For a year now there have been calls to resurface the 10,000-foot runway and replace the runway lights. What is happening?

The government is not helping the airports, including the one in Val‑d'Or.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to have a Canadian airport strategy. We need to be working, through our infrastructure department, to have a trade corridor that would include upgrading our airports to facilitate international trade.

We talked about a free trade agreement with Ukraine yesterday. We have around 50 active trade agreements with other countries, and we need to build on those. We can do that by investing money in our airports to accommodate that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge, who has some expertise in this subject.

I make no claim to expertise. I am a mere consumer of transportation services, just like pretty well everyone else in the chamber. I would say a lot of us consume a lot of transportation services on a weekly basis because of the requirements of this particular job. I am coming at it from that standpoint.

Before I get to that point, I just want to make a distinction between the passage of a bill and the creation of regulations. When we pass a bill in this chamber, we are essentially setting up the legal framework to be able to promulgate regulations. If we do not have that legal framework, then we will not be able to proclaim any regulations. It is not as if anyone in this chamber actually has any expertise on, say, noise abatement, which was discussed earlier; when baggage should arrive; what the proper standard is for flights to be on time, or not, as the case may be; or the various other irritants that go with travel in this country, which is quite frustrating at times.

This legislation would set up the authority, and the regulations would put meat on the bones. After some period of time, members could initiate inquiries into the quality of the regulations through the scrutiny of regulations committee, which is a jointly chaired committee of the Senate and the House. It is not a very popular committee because it deals with exceedingly boring stuff, but there are certain members who are keen on exceedingly boring stuff.

I want to talk about three things, if I may: service standards, security and competition. I have been switching airlines. I have the good fortune of living in the GTA. Therefore, I do have some choice, which is unlike some members who have no choice. I have a strange idea in how I should make my choice.

My choices should be, number one, for the airplane to fly on time. I know that is a novel ideal to fly the airplane on time, but that is probably going to get me to choose that airline. The second standard I have is to not lose my baggage. Lately I have noticed that people do not put their baggage in. They carry it on, and I dare say that is largely driven by the fact that a lot of baggage is getting lost. I have a third rule, and that is to not treat me badly. Those are the three rules that I have for any airline I use: fly the airplane on time, do not lose my bag and do not treat me badly. I think that is pretty fair. After all, I am paying, or somebody else is paying, a pretty significant sum of money for me to fly to my destination.

In that vein, BillC-52 would bring in an accountability mechanism by permitting the creation of regulations requiring airports and other operators within airports to create service standards for their part of the passenger journey. I do not see what is so complicated about that. Over the course of today's debate, hon. members have shared their experiences, many of which are actually quite negative, so this is a timely bill. We could make the argument that it should have been put forward earlier, and so should a lot of things have been done earlier

However, here we are trying to deal with the creation of a legal framework so that the complaints I just enumerated can be dealt with in an organized fashion. That is the point of this bill. Examples include how long it should typically take for a bag to arrive on the carousel. I have no expertise on that. Maybe other members do, but I do not know how long it should take for a bag to get off the airplane and onto the carousel. This bill, through its regulations, would create some standards. When a bag is lost, and we have all been in airports where there are stacks and stacks of bags, there should be some standards to which the airline is held.

The second part of the standards would create an enforcement mechanism. Currently, enforcement mechanisms are pretty grim. My family was flying to Europe and their connecting flight was through Montreal. That flight was late, they missed the connected flight and they had to do a day in Montreal. It was not a burden, really, but the application just to get compensation required the services of a Bay Street lawyer. Anything to make that process a little easier would be good.

Part of what the bill could do, which I hope to see in the course of its review before committee, is look at the security arrangements at the entry into the airport. There is a delusion, I would say, that redundancy creates security. However, all redundancy creates is redundancy and time wasting.

It was exemplified to me that there was no risk analysis when the former minister of public safety, Ralph Goodale, was taken out of the line for a special security examination. I do not know what Mr. Goodale's security clearance was at the time, but I daresay it was about as high as high gets in this country. Why would someone looking at the passport of a minister of the Crown who has the highest security clearance want to take him out of the line for a special security clearance? That is the height of absurdity, and I daresay it is the height of absurdity for many of us. Why are NEXUS cardholders put through checks that are similar to those of the people who do not have a NEXUS card? After all, we have been checked by the RCMP and checked by the CIA. It just seems to me that no thinking goes on with security.

Finally, I want to deal with the issue of competition. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North, who members seem to be quite fond of listening to, made the comment that competition would start to eliminate some of these absurdities and get better service standards. Interestingly, WestJet has pulled back from eastern Canada, for reasons I do not really know. Porter, on the other hand, has expanded into international flights and many other locations outside of Toronto.

It is an interesting area. I encourage members to give the committee a chance to do its work and to pass this piece of legislation so that the frustrations that I and other members have enumerated can be dealt with.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's explanation of how the framework of the legislation allows the committee to have other potential amendments brought forward to improve it.

I have a concern with respect to the members of the opposition party across the way. They seem to be critical of the legislation for not being specific enough and falling short, and even though they seem to support many aspects of it, they are still going to vote against it as opposed to allowing it to go to committee at some point.

Given the very serious nature of what the member talked about, could he provide his thoughts as to why it is so important to pass the legislation?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me put it this way. If we do not pass this legislation, the complaints we already have, which are in abundance in this chamber alone, will only multiply and the frustration will go forward.

Frankly, I do not know whether the analysis we hear particularly from our Conservative friends is a failure to understand the process or there is something else to it. I would never want to attribute improper motives to colleagues across the way who might have different political agendas than that of the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I emphasize the importance of the fact that we are not just talking about airlines such as Air Canada, WestJet and Porter. The legislation also incorporates airports and airport authorities, and, as one example, the diversity of boards.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the changes to compel more diversity among airport authorities and on the benefits to the consumer.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it should be an operating principle that the board reflects the travelling public. How we achieve that I am not quite sure. My preference would be a less onerous way of going about it, but there is no doubt the principle should be that the board looks like the travelling public so that all perspectives can be brought to bear when decisions need to be made.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin my question, I want to give a shout-out to Antonio and Seraphina Spada, who will be celebrating their 70th anniversary in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. They are key members of the Italian community. I wish them all the best. I wish they were here to tell us their secret for making it to 70 years. Happy anniversary to Antonio and Seraphina.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. The Liberals have bungled transport from day one, it feels like, with delay after delay, whether at Pearson or in transport in general. Why now should we be relying on them to do anything good, when at the end of the day, they have messed up this portfolio so markedly?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I congratulate those folks who made it to 70 years. That is quite impressive.

The hon. member has a contradiction in his question. Here is legislation that would deal with the so-called bungling, which I disagree with profoundly, and he is going to vote against it. He apparently prefers that the current state of affairs in Canada's airports continues. I assume that he, as I do, consumes a lot of travelling services and knows that the state of Canada's airports is not the best. Here he has a chance to do something about it and he is blowing it.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to rise in this House.

As my hon. colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, said, I have the privilege of chairing the Liberal caucus that addresses our relationship with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the GTAA. We call it the airline caucus or the airports caucus. I am very happy to speak to Bill C-52, an act to enact the air transportation accountability act and to amend the CTA and the CMA.

As many of us who live in the greater Toronto area know, whether we live in Mississauga, Vaughan, northwest Toronto, the Etobicoke area or High Park, there is an immense amount of airline traffic. That applies to Brampton, Caledon, Kleinburg and other areas. We hear quite significantly from our constituents about aircraft noise, aircraft routes, changes in aircraft routes brought on by Nav Canada and the subsequent refurbishment of runways at the GTAA and the Toronto Pearson airport, which impact people's daily lives.

It is really great to see that in Bill C-52, we would establish “requirements in respect of noise management committees” and would set out “notice and consultation requirements relating to aircraft noise”. We would provide “a process by which to make complaints respecting notice and consultation requirements in relation to aircraft noise”. That means for constituents who go to the Pearson airport or other airports across Canada, we would have a formalized process for complaints respecting notice and consultation requirements in relation to aircraft noise. We would also provide for “an administration and enforcement mechanism that includes an administrative monetary penalty framework”. This is just another way we are responding to consumers.

Before I make my formal remarks, I will say that it is so great to go back to our constituents and say that we have listened to them, we want a consultative process that works and we are going to have a consultative process. The bill would create a formal process for notifying and consulting the public on changes to airspace designs that affect aircraft noise near airports to ensure that communities that would potentially be affected by such changes can be engaged. That engagement and the consultation process are so important.

Now I will get to my formal remarks.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑52, the enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act, which offers concrete measures to address a number of concerns that were raised about the accountability and transparency of operators across the sector.

I think we can all agree on the importance of having the efficient, accessible, accountable transportation system Canadians deserve. That includes making sure that Canadians have access to a system in which operators are transparent and accountable to stakeholders, users and passengers.

As we all know, air travel has reopened to Canadians since the pandemic. However, as an ecosystem, it is lacking clear terms of service between operators and passengers. As a result, passengers are often unaware of who is responsible for which activities and who they should talk to if a trip does not go as planned. This bill will help address those concerns.

We all dislike when our flights are delayed or cancelled.

I want to take a second to talk about the part of the bill that enables the creation of regulations requiring flight operators and anyone delivering flight-related services to set service standards. These standards would apply not only to airport operators, but also to other companies that deliver a range of flight-related services in airports. The plan would be for the airport operator to coordinate the development of standards at their airport. They would work with airlines, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, Nav Canada and others.

Service levels are an important issue of concern to all Canadian travellers. As we saw when airports were congested in the summer of 2022 and the holiday period that followed, passengers did not really know who was responsible for what, who could provide information, or who they could contact to fix their situation. This kind of uncertainty can be frustrating, causing disruptions and inconvenience.

That is why the new proposed regulatory authorities aim to improve the overall delivery of service in our transportation system. Once the regulations are adopted, the service standards will provide clear guidelines on a variety of services that affect passengers’ experiences. The specific services requiring standards will be defined in the regulations, and the standards themselves will be negotiated among the parties concerned, but examples may include the time allotted for luggage to reach the carousel after the flight lands and the expected waiting time for security screening.

That is not all. To ensure accountability and transparency, the service standards will be published and specify how they are to be enforced. The various operators in the airline industry will be responsible to one another and to the travelling public throughout the trip.

Even though the regulations will describe the types of services requiring standards and include services that affect the passengers’ flight experience, the intention is to make airport operators responsible for ensuring and coordinating the development of these standards.

The specific target parameters, for example, luggage delivered within x minutes after landing, will be more suitably worked out by the parties having business relationships and operational expertise, and they may vary from one airport to the next. We want to make sure that the service standards will be adapted to the specific circumstances of the airport in question.

The regulations could establish another procedure for dispute resolution if the various parties do not manage to come to an agreement on the appropriate service standards.

For the moment, the initial focus will likely be on major airports. Details concerning airline sector participants, services, and other issues will be defined in the regulations.

If Bill C-52 receives royal assent, the development of regulations on service standards will follow the normal regulatory process and consultations will be held with all parties concerned.

The government will remain open-minded throughout the regulatory process and support the industry in implementing these standards, which should support the industry’s actions.

Our objective is to encourage better collaboration among all the entities involved in our travel system and make our airline industry more efficient. By working together, we think that we can improve travellers' overall experience and enhance service quality.

This approach focuses primarily on travellers' needs and on measures that benefit them directly. It also encourages information sharing with the public so that passengers can make more informed decisions while travelling.

In conclusion, the advance creation of service standards and the obligation to publish them, along with a collaborative approach, should result in positive changes for our air transportation system. We look forward to a future of smoother and more efficient travel, centred on passenger needs.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be interested in the hon. member's comments with respect to the ease with which passengers are getting through security, particularly at Pearson airport.

I had the experience on the break week of travelling to Washington and, frankly, the experience was as it should be. I would like to think it would have something to do with my colleague and his group's advocacy. I would be interested in his comments on the security situation there, and indeed at the Ottawa airport, for those who have a NEXUS card.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood is a very learned member of the House.

As the GTAA caucus chair, we meet with the officials regularly on a monthly basis. We inform them and we have a kit for our travellers and our residents. As the member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, the process of going through security at Toronto Pearson airport, at the Ottawa airport, at the Vancouver airport or other airports across the country has vastly improved over the last year or two.

We have put in process improvements and have provided funds, but there is also ongoing collaboration between CATSA, the airport authorities, Transport Canada and the Minister of Transport's office. That type of collaboration is what Canadians want and expect us to do it. They are seeing the results of that in a very streamlined, efficient and effective process when they go through security to get on a plane to go home or to go on vacation.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I also want to call on the expertise of the hon. member with respect to competition in the airlines. We have seen WestJet pull back. We have seen Porter expand. We see the Billy Bishop airport wishing to expand and being able to accept jets. We have seen quite a number of new airlines start up in the last little while. It seems to run contrary to the narrative that we hear. Therefore, I would be interested in the member's observations.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was able to participate in the wall-breaking ceremony at Billy Bishop airport for a new U.S. pre-clearance facility, so Canadians travelling, in particular in the GTA departing from Billy Bishop airport and going down to Boston, New York or Florida or wherever the destination, will save their time. We have seen airlines like Porter Airlines continue to expand their routes across Canada, internationally and cross-border into the United States. We have seen some other airline operators come to fruition and operate. Obviously, we enjoy the services of Air Canada and WestJet. When they are on time, we are always very happy. When they are not, we are kind of grumpy.

However, on the serious side, the hon. member is exactly right. We need competition in our airline sector, along with all sectors of the Canadian economy where competition provides for innovation, lowers prices and provides for better services.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for his speech.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure efficiency and transparency in air transportation. I want my colleague to understand that my region has practically no air transportation. Air Canada closed its offices in June 2020, at the height of the pandemic. It tried to justify its decision by saying that there was no traffic. All planes were grounded.

I would like my colleague to comment on whether he thinks it is responsible for the federal government to spend billions of dollars subsidizing airlines that do not even provide regional service in many regions of Quebec.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Much like the colleague whose riding may be in a rural part of Quebec, I grew up in northern British Columbia in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. We had one airline flying in at the time. It was Air Canada and I believe it still is, though maybe a second one has been added. With respect to the notion that airline service should be provided to rural areas of Canada and that there may not be a very strong business case but it may be marginal or may need assistance, I am very much in favour of that. We need to keep all Canadians connected to all parts of the country. Canada is a big place and airline service is critical for that.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are in the House today to debate Bill C‑52. It is a highly anticipated bill, as far as I am concerned anyway. There are a few things in this bill that we consider to be positive and we think are worth mentioning.

We often complain about the government. In fact, that is the Liberals' chief criticism of us, but that is kind of our role. We are in the opposition. We are across the way from the governing party. Our role is to hold the government to account. Obviously, when things are not going well, it is our job to say so.

Bill C‑52 has several objectives.

The first thing I want to talk about is the thing that excites us the most. It is the idea of introducing service standards for airports. These standards will help determine how long it should take a passenger to go through security, collect their luggage and get to their gate. This idea makes sense. I might have a chance later on to come back to why this did not exist before.

The second good thing that I wanted to mention about this bill is the noise management committees. Certain airports will now be required to set up soundscape management committees, which will force them to discuss the situation with the public, recognize the effects that aircraft noise can have on people and look at how they can mitigate the inconvenience to those living near the airport. We think that this is a positive step forward, but I will talk more about this measure later, because we think that it may need to be fleshed out a little.

The third thing that we want to highlight is the environmental obligations. Not so long ago, the House was debating Bill C-33, which is now being examined by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Bill C‑33 seeks to impose environmental obligations on Canadian ports to make them part of the climate change strategy, so that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I think that it only makes sense that airports should also be part of that effort, that they should be subject to the same type of requirements and that they should prepare this sort of plan. I think that is a very good thing.

The last part of the bill is a little out of step with the rest of the bill. It amends the Canada Marine Act to provide port users with recourse against port authorities if they feel they are being charged too much. It seems as though this may have been left out of Bill C‑33 so it ended up in Bill C‑52. However, the two bills were introduced just a few months or weeks apart, and they were probably drafted at the same time. I have to wonder why it is not in the right bill. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to explore this question further.

First, I would like to emphasize the whole issue of service standards. Why is the government suddenly proposing the idea of implementing service standards at airports? The Liberals did not just wake up one morning with this idea in mind. There have been so many problems over the last few years that they could no longer be ignored. Many people have been traumatized by the chaos at airports and by what they have seen in recent years and even over the past few months.

We know there was a pandemic, and all the planes were grounded. Unfortunately, the reality is that an airport's primary source of revenue is takeoffs and landings, airport fees, the people using the airport infrastructure. It is the same for airlines. Their revenue comes from tickets bought by people who want to fly to visit family, sightsee abroad or take advantage of business opportunities.

During the pandemic, no one was selling airline tickets. This also meant that many staff members were suddenly told they were no longer needed. That included pilots, flight attendants, customer service agents and employees who worked in kiosks and restaurants.

There was no longer a need for pilots, air traffic controllers, customs officers and security guards. All of a sudden, all these people got sent home. For nearly two years, they all stayed home.

Service began to resume when it was announced that the pandemic was over and people could travel again. What were the companies to do now? Could they rehire the people who had just spent two years at home? Some of them had decided to do something else with their lives. They did not just stay at home and wait patiently to magically be hired back. The reality is that everyone has bills to pay.

The other reality is that, while much of the world did one thing, Canada did another. It decided not to help its aerospace industry. It decided not to help its airports. Airports and airlines therefore had to lay off their staff. They had to let them go, pass them off to EI or CERB. That caused a huge problem. The entire aerospace industry protested, wondering how they would ever get off the ground again.

It is important to note that, even if airports let all their people go, they still have infrastructure projects. How are they supposed to expand if they do not have revenue? They still have loans because they may have taken on debt to build that infrastructure. How are they supposed to repay those loans? The same goes for airlines. They have to pay for their planes and maintain minimum staffing levels. They had a massive problem. The government thought it was saving money, but, as it turned out, our industries, our airports and our airlines went into debt. They ran deficits during the pandemic.

For example, Nav Canada unilaterally imposed a 30% rate increase all at once. Even though planes were no longer flying, the airlines were being asked to pay more if they wanted to take off, because the government refused to help them. That killed air transportation, especially at the regional level. Far fewer people fit on a regional airliner than on large aircraft that fly transcontinental. It amounts to a difference of 300 passengers compared to six. A 30% increase gets spread out among a lot more people on a large plane than on a small one.

Clearly, the federal government's dismal management of the pandemic and lack of empathy for airline workers have had consequences. We saw this when travel resumed. Airports were in total chaos. Passengers would get to the airport only to see mountains of luggage piled as high as Everest. People were buried in luggage. No one knew what to do with it all. It was everywhere. The airlines said they had lost it, but customers reported that Air Canada had sent it somewhere. There was too much luggage. It had to be sent somewhere. Things had reached a point where the airlines were practically losing luggage on purpose just to make space. Some clever passengers put tracking chips in their luggage and were able to see where it ended up. This got the airlines in a lot of hot water.

When airlines were finally allowed to operate again, they wanted to make some money. They hired back as many employees as they could but, like it or not, when pilots have not flown for two years, they cannot be retrained overnight. They have to start practising again. The same goes for other staff. Security checks are needed. Not just anyone can work in an airport. There are security risks involved, as we know. Once again, the government was very slow to issue security permits, so airports were stuck. Airlines were also stuck. They could not hire staff. After that, because there were so many delays and late flights, the government blamed the airlines, which is kind of crazy. It was the government that had decided not to help them, but then it blamed those same companies that it had refused to help because they could not keep up with the demand. That is how the government managed things during the pandemic.

There was another problem. We were hearing that airlines were overbooking flights. I think there is some truth to that. If airlines do not have enough staff to handle the number of flights they want to offer and sell tickets for, of course there will come a point when they can no longer manage the same number of aircraft and flights.

The government blamed the airlines, but did not consider its role in this. Some of the problems are on the government. It could take hours for people to get through security. Why is that? It could take hours for people to get through customs. Why is that? Why were there not more air traffic controllers? Why did flights have to get cancelled because there was no one to guide the planes?

The government tried to blame the airlines and the airports saying it was their fault, not the government's fault. In reality, it forgot to consider its role.

We saw all those people in trouble, left on the tarmac. When they got to the airport they were told that their flight was cancelled. Could no one have told them that before they got to the airport? No, they had to wait until they got to the airport to be told that their flight was cancelled. It is totally ridiculous, but that is what happened.

Of course, this resulted in terrible congestion at our airports. People were extremely frustrated. There were people who were sleeping in airports without even a toothbrush, who were not offered a hotel room or anything to eat. There were people stuck in other countries, either down south or in other tourist destinations, who could not get back, and the airlines did nothing to help them.

What happens is that the same aircraft is often used for multiple flights. That means that, when one flight is delayed, the next flight is, too. What about lost luggage? The flight arrives late, but the luggage was supposed to be transferred to another plane. If the flight does not arrive on time and the connecting flight leaves before the plane with the luggage arrives, then the luggage does not get to where it is supposed to be. Imagine the chaos that created.

Among other things, we asked the government to tighten the rules for airlines. For example, people who want their ticket refunded when their flight is cancelled should get a refund, rather than being told they will be put on a plane in two or three days. Never mind the wedding they missed; that is their problem. If their business meeting did not happen because they could not travel, it is no big deal. They get 48 hours. That was the government's policy.

It was even worse before. During the pandemic, they got nothing at all. A credit for some day in the future. They were told that maybe they could get their money back when flights resumed.

Here is what we were asking for. First, we wanted people to be able to get their money back. Second, we wanted to shorten the ridiculous 48-hour deadline that was set last fall. Catching a flight two days later does not always work and makes no sense. Third, people should be able to eat when they are on the tarmac. Fourth, people should be compensated when there are delays.

Many of our demands were heard. Many things were included in this spring's budget implementation act and are soon to be implemented by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Pretty much everyone went through hell, but at least that part is good. We have reason to hope that we will see improvements and progress soon.

But the approach was the same. The government attacked airlines. It put the burden on airlines without considering it's own role in all this.

Service standards might be a stroke of genius. Perhaps the government has seen the light. It has realized that it has some problems to deal with, too. At least with service standards in place, things are measurable.

When a company has to refund a ticket or provide compensation to customers when their flight is late, those customers are not questioning whose fault it is. When flights are late or cancelled, customers want their money back. That makes sense. It is normal. It is what people expect.

That said, there is something wrong with telling airlines to compensate everyone because the government is not doing its job, because there are no air traffic controllers, security personnel or customs agents. That makes no sense.

The idea of service standards is a good place to start, at least. There has to be a minimum level of service that people have a right to expect.

We welcome the idea of implementing service standards. The bill states that the government will be able to impose service standards. That is fine, but we do not know what those service standards will be. Obviously, I know nothing about operating airports.

At some point, it is important to ensure that this makes sense. There is still no guarantee that this is the case.

We will see in committee whether any clarifications can be made or if we can get a bit more information on the direction the government wants to take on this. This bill could allow a lot of progress to be made and that is why we would like it to be referred to committee.

There is another part of the bill that I would like to address, the issue of noise management at the airports. Why do I want to talk about that? Obviously, it is not the strongest aspect of the bill. There are just a few paragraphs where it says that the airports will have to create noise management committees. The airports that use common sense already have such committees. This will not change much for them.

The bill provides a bit of a definition of the type of noise management committee the government would like to see. These noise management committees would bring together at least one representative from Nav Canada, which makes sense, an elected municipal official, an airline representative and a representative from the airport in question. The mandate of these committees would be to answer the public's questions and listen to people's grievances.

We think that the creation of noise management committees is a good thing, but we would like the government to take this a little further. I found out a little bit about what is being done elsewhere in the world, but I will come back to that later.

Under the bill, the obligation to create noise management committees will apply only to airports with 60,000 or more movements per year. I checked to see how many airports in Canada meet that criterion and only four airports do. I do not know exactly how many airports there are in Canada, but there are at least a hundred on the list that I have. I can understand why a small airport that does not even have employees would not be asked to meet this criterion, but these committees need to be set up in a lot more airports. That is what we think.

There are service standards for airports, and we think that there should also be sound emission standards to protect people who live near airports. Such standards do not exist in Canada. Airports can make as much noise as they want and the public has no say in the matter. The way this issue is being dealt with right now is rather unfortunate. There must be social licence for development.

Other countries around the world have noise emission standards. In the United States, there is a noise limit for people living near airports. In Europe, for example, there are noise emission standards. The World Health Organization has worked on noise emission standards to protect people's health. Why, in Canada, a G7 country that is a member of the OECD, modern and all that, are there no noise emission standards for people living near airports? It just does not make sense.

We think we need to move in that direction. We need to measure noise and report it. Noise is already measured, but is the method being used the right one, and can it be perfected? There is a theoretical calculation system for measuring noise, known as noise exposure forecast, or NEF. We think that this NEF system should also be available to the public. It would be great if people who are about to buy a house could find out how much noise they can expect at that location. If the noise exceeds set standards, measures could be put in place to reduce it. This would help everyone make better decisions while promoting community well-being.

That is one of the big changes we want to make to Bill C‑52. We hope everyone at the table will collaborate. We are here to work constructively to improve every bill introduced in the House for the betterment of all. Even though Canada is not our country, at the end of the day, as long as we are part of it, we will work to improve legislation. Our end goal, obviously, is to get out of it ASAP.

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.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to standards or expectations.

Service standards are really important to this government as we understand and appreciate the valuable role that our airports and airlines in general play in society. The legislation, as the member points out, sets out the framework for those standards.

Once the bill goes to committee, I understand that the Bloc members have some details they want to add to those service standards. I am wondering if the member has some specifics in regard to that particular issue that he is prepared to share with us at this time. For me personally, I like to think of on-time departures and arrivals, but I also believe there is so much more that we can do to enhance the experience of travellers.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, which is very relevant in the circumstances.

Bill C‑52 covers service standards for airports. If I understand correctly, it would be up to airports to enforce those service standards, and it would be up to the government to develop them. That sounds good, but there are some unanswered questions. I think we will have the opportunity to hear from witnesses in committee who will tell us exactly what those service standards should be and where the biggest challenges lie.

There is one nagging issue as far as I am concerned. Customs services do not seem to be part of this. Maybe we will find out in due course why the government thought it best not to include that service in this process.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, who seems satisfied and dissatisfied with the bill at the same time.

Could he tell me what he is really concerned about?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but perhaps he could have indulged in a bit of rhetorical flourish at the end, as he usually does when he speaks.

I would say it is as if we were going somewhere for a meal and in the end are only served an appetizer. We are left unsatisfied. We would like to see a little more. This bill is like that. It is as if they began the work, but did not see it through to the end. Clearly we would like to see a little more ambition, more substance, something more dynamic.

That is what we will do in the committee: ensure that this bill improves things for people. If we now adopt it as it is presented, there is no guarantee it will improve anything, either in terms of the soundscape or service standards. We are not told what the service standards are, and in terms of the soundscape, people will only be consulted once in a while. It is not bad, but it does not guarantee results.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a point that I believe touches people from many regions in Quebec, as well as the people of Montreal, in terms of the noise caused by the airports. COVID‑19 aside, air traffic is increasing dramatically. This causes many problems for people, especially in the air corridor in the northern part of the island of Montreal towards the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport.

Having an advisory committee and a citizens' committee is good, but why does my colleague think that the Liberals have not simply adopted the recommendations in the 2019 report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that stated that the standards of the World Health Organization were to be used regarding the noise caused by air traffic around airports?

The Liberals still have the unfortunate tendency of doing things halfway and not going through to the end.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I went and read the 2019 report by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I was not sitting on the committee back then, but I could see that a lot of the people who were committee members at that time are still members today. If they supported the contents of the committee's 2019 report, I hope they will still be receptive to its contents in 2023.

To be honest, I would say that the committee's recommendations are not really included in Bill C‑52, despite the hard work done by a lot of people. As my colleague mentioned, witnesses came and gave evidence, including the citizens' group Les Pollués de Montréal‑Trudeau, and Longueuil's Comité anti-pollution des avions. I am sure that the committee met people from other places who were also experiencing soundscape issues.

Unfortunately, Bill C‑52 only provides for a single committee to cover four airports. It is pretty lacklustre compared to what the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities proposed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a major part of the legislation deals with the Canada Marine Act, where we are looking at ways to ensure that there is a fairer system in place to provide some accountability and transparency on fees. This would apply to our ports. There are many sectors of our economy that very much depend on going through the ports, and this is one way to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency in the way fees are structured. Therefore, if one is a prairie grain grower or exporting a certain product out of Canada, there is a higher sense of accountability. Does the member have any thoughts in regard to that issue?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I imagine port users will be very happy to have recourse should they feel they are being overcharged by the ports. However, we wonder why ports would choose to charge absurd fees. If they are doing this, they must have good reason. Usually, businesses do not want their customers to go elsewhere. They want to stay in business.

We will listen to what people have to say in committee. We will look at both sides of the issue, then make a decision. We are having real trouble making up our minds on this issue. The process will help us determine the best approach. It will show us whether we should fine-tune what the government is proposing, oppose it or go in a completely different direction.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a last question regarding competition. I genuinely believe there is an issue with competition. We have seen a number of direct flights being lost and communities losing air transportation. It is devastating for some communities and very inconvenient for others.

Could the member provide his thoughts on airlines and the government's role in ensuring there is a higher sense of equity within the system, which is one reason why, hopefully, companies such as Air Canada will be called before the standing committee?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question, although I have trouble seeing how something in the bill could address this issue. We know that, in this country, regional air transportation is the poor cousin of air transportation. Canada is a vast country. Quebec is smaller, but still covers a huge area, so the challenge of regional air transportation would still exist in an independent Quebec. Sadly, it seems this government, like its predecessors, lacks the will to do what it takes to make regional air transportation viable. I have seen no specific policy on this issue from the Conservatives, either.

People should be able to fly out of the Gaspé peninsula, the north shore or Abitibi and know the flight will in fact happen and will not cost thousands of dollars. Fares should be reasonable. We need service we can be proud of. Unfortunately, I get the feeling the government takes a more business-minded view and believes flights need to be profitable. What we must ask ourselves is whether regional air transportation is an essential service. If it is an essential service, then we have to ensure that the people who need it can use it. Fixing this problem may take major systemic changes, not just tweaks. I see absolutely nothing in Bill C-52 that will fix this problem.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

I am very pleased to be speaking about the topic we are discussing today, enhancing transparency and accountability for port fees. I will be talking about that.

Canada's ports are vital hubs in our country, in our supply chains and in all aspects of the transportation system. They are a vital part for my home province of British Columbia and our port network, which contributes over 30% of Canada's economy.

The transportation system is in some way connected to the operations that happen at ports every day. Ports help grow our economy, create good jobs for Canadians, deliver goods and support Canada's growing export industry. When our port system works well, it plays a crucial role in helping keep life affordable for Canadians and stores full of consumer products.

There are 17 Canada port authorities that manage our country's most strategic ports. While these port authorities are federal entities, they operate at arm's length from the government in a commercially oriented and financially self-sustaining manner. They also fulfill important public policy objectives, such as supporting national economic development and performing many regulatory functions relating to safety and environmental protection.

An independent board of directors is responsible for managing port activities. This includes ensuring that port planning and operations are made firmly within the public interests, meaning that the projects they embark upon and the decisions they make help ensure affordability for Canadians. Port authorities provide port facilities and offer services to port users; acting as landlords, they lease out port operations to private terminal operators.

For over 20 years, this governance model has served Canada well. It has provided Canadians with world-class services while ensuring that capacity grew in support of Canada's economy in a gradual and financially sustainable manner.

Ports are key gateways in the transportation system, and Canadians rely on them to get the goods they use and consume, as well as to get their products to domestic and international markets. However, as inflationary pressures strain Canadian pocketbooks and make life more expensive, Canadian companies and transportation industry stakeholders are concerned about the rising costs to move goods and do business, including fees that are charged by service providers, such as ports, as well as lease arrangements for the operation of terminals.

As Canada port authorities are part of the federal family and manage key public assets, there are opportunities to improve, to strengthen the governance framework, to make these entities more transparent in their operations and decision-making, and to make sure port users have a voice. Ports need to modernize approaches to enable them to thrive in an increasingly complex environment and be able to align their national mandate with local realities.

As we know, our government tabled Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act. This would amend the Canada Marine Act, among other acts, to promote transparency in port planning and operations and to position the ports for success well into the future.

The Canada Marine Act amendments in Bill C-52 would provide a framework to reinforce port authorities' due diligence and foster more responsible planning and decision-making, building on the reporting and transparency measures put forward in Bill C-33. Enhancing public engagement, accountability and oversight is a key objective at the core of the government's approach to ensuring greater transparency at Canada port authorities.

It is with this perspective that Bill C-52's reforms to the Canada Marine Act would establish new processes focusing on port fee setting and establishing recourse mechanisms for those impacted by port decisions. These new measures would build on what already exists under the Canada Marine Act and expand the provisions to foster greater accountability and consistency in the marine sector.

The first proposal in the bill aims to establish a modernized framework to govern how the port fees are developed and implemented, and establish a complaint process. There is a need to ensure a stronger connection for port users, and for Canadians more generally, on how a port sets a fee. Just as important, when there is a concern about how fees are set and charged, that a process is in place for raising a complaint.

Amendments would establish fee-setting principles to provide port users and stakeholders greater clarity and better understanding of how port fees are set, which would support a consistent and standardized approach across all Canada port authorities. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about a lack of clarity when it comes to how port fees are established and this provision would directly solve the problem.

While I understand there may be some initial concern about how this standardization could impact the ability of ports to continue to pursue transportation infrastructure projects off port lands or even to advance community-based initiatives that are vital to helping ports be good neighbours to the communities in which they operate, I am confident that the measures I am bringing forward for the consideration of members today are sufficiently broad so as to enable ports to fix their fees and spend some of the revenues on these types of initiatives. It is not the intention of this government to constraint the ability of the ports to do the work they do for our country's trade and economy; it is about principles of fairness, transparency and accountability.

The port authorities would need to adhere to these principles, as well as an explicit methodology established and published by the port authority, when setting their fees. To support the capacity of ports to generate revenues, the principles would require that port fees be set at levels that allow the authority to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis and be fair and reasonable.

In addition to the new fee-setting principles, an associated public notice requirement would be established that would provide a formal public consultation process for any port user or stakeholder to raise concerns with a port authority. This would ensure their views are acknowledged in the entire process and provide greater accountability for fee-setting decisions made by port authorities.

In addition, the bill would establish a process where people who made written representations during the consultation process may file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency if they believe a port authority did not comply with the fee-setting principles or the public notice requirements. If the complaint is well founded, the proposed amendments would then enable the agency to order a Canada port authority to cancel the establishment or revision of the fee in question, reinstate the previous fee, provide refunds, reconsider the fee or take any other measure it would consider appropriate. This would help ensure that corrective measures are in place to respond to complaints when necessary.

This will reinforce the rigour and integrity of how fees are set by Canada port authorities. It will maintain the key principle of financial self-sufficiency for port authorities and their ability to generate revenues needed for future developments and investments that support port operations, including those outside the ports, while reinforcing their need to be responsive to users and transparent in the conduct of their activities.

The proposed approach to fee setting is not new for transportation services providers. It is consistent and aligns with the processes already established for pilotage authorities and Nav Canada, which are two entities that also have significant transportation public policy goals in the government's portfolio. The processes have provided both the entities and their users with more clarity in how fee-setting decisions are made as well as clear grounds for objections.

The second proposal in Bill C-52 would enable the government to make regulations establishing an alternative dispute resolution process for lease disputes that might arise between a port authority and port user with respect to leases for the operation of terminals at ports. This would help build fairness and transparency into the relationships shared by ports and their tenants. This may include a role for the Canadian Transportation Agency to administer and oversee the processes.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

The reality is, and I mentioned this to a Liberal colleague earlier, the Liberal government was really asleep at the switch when it came to transport. I know many people were avoiding, for instance, the Toronto Pearson International Airport because there were difficulties.

As I understand it, a backlog of 60,000 complaints remain. I remember experiencing travel issues. I was probably one of many millions of Canadians. As I said, the Liberals have been asleep at the switch, so how can we trust them to eliminate and deal with these 60,000 complaints when they cannot seem to get anything right after eight years in government?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, during the port modernization review, we heard from many stakeholders. I heard from representatives in the trucking industry who welcomed these changes. They look forward to ensuring there is more transparency in what is being set forward, so they can have arguments to pose with regard to the fees set before them.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague finds this somewhat strange. While the Conservatives were in government, they did absolutely nothing to support airline passengers. Now that they are in opposition, they are voting against legislation that would support air travellers.

It is enabling legislation that would establish a framework to provide for a higher sense of accountability, efficiencies and transparency that will benefit air travellers.

Does the member not agree that the Conservatives should, at the very least, support the legislation and allow it to go committee?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised. I spoke about transparency and accountability, the ability to bring complaints forward, to look at measures and bring arguments forward in a clear way.

I have heard from agriculture producers. They have looked at measures in the bill that could improve how they get their exports out, and fees, if set in a certain way, that would be detrimental to their industry. I am hope members opposite are not limiting the voice of farmers and agriculture producers by not voting in favour of this legislation.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know things have not gone back to normal since the pandemic, and we are a bit in the pandemic.

There is no accountability for these big airlines. We know that travelling is still an issue. We know that passenger rights are still not being upheld. I know the member is talking about more accountability, but the Liberal government has really failed to improve things.

I know my hon. colleague has spoken about the vast improvements that have been made. I wonder if he would agree with me that we continue to have a long way to go to really uphold the rights of passengers.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is always more work to be done. We need to continue to chip away at this, and that is what this bill would do.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to rise today on Bill C-52 brought forward by the Minister of Transport. I was his parliamentary secretary when he was the heritage minister. We went through a couple of other pieces of legislation, but it is excellent to be here to speak to this legislation today.

After the 2019 election, I had the fortune of being the parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport, Minister Garneau. It was an unfortunate time to be the parliamentary secretary as we, due to COVID-19, had to see almost the entire sector close. We are still dealing with the impacts of that three years later.

This legislation is fundamentally important. At times, it may seem technical, and this may not be legislation that garners the most excitement and the fiercest debate in this place, but it is important. The legislation would improve Canada's transportation sector in terms of its efficiency, accessibility and accountability. The air transportation accessibility measures would lead to improved passenger experience.

I know you and I, Madam Speaker, seem to find each other at Pearson airport a lot. We seem to be on the same travel itinerary coming to this place. Many other members and Canadians have experienced the air transportation sector and have been rightfully disappointed in their experiences. As I mentioned, with respect to COVID-19, the pandemic and the labour issues, the ripples they have had throughout the entire system have been shocking, and we still see that.

The last few years have been incredibly difficult. I know many of us, except those who are fortunate enough to represent the national capital region and are able to head home to their own beds at night, have to get here by plane. We understand the frustration that Canadians are experiencing. They have saved money for a family trip only to spend additional time at the airport because of cancelled flights or delays.

It is fundamentally important, as we head into another busy travel season, to keep in mind that we have seen how disruption in one part of the system can have effects across the entire network. Together, the measures in the proposed legislation will help create a more accountable, transparent and accessible national transportation system that meet the needs of Canadians. That is what we want to see.

It is unfortunate that we see some members of the opposition throwing a bit of shade this way, but we are used to that. However, as my colleague pointed out, after 10 years of being in government, the Conservatives did nothing on the file. We brought in regulations, the passenger bill of rights, but we see that more needs to be done. We are willing to roll up our sleeves and do that work to ensure there is transparency and accountability, not just with airlines but across the system.

It is something that is fundamentally important to this government and the minister to ensure that when Canadians do go on that vacation, which they have saved hard for, they have an enjoyable experience at our nation's airports. At the best of times, even a positive, on-time airport experience will not be the best part of our vacation experience or our time getting to Ottawa, but it is important we ensure that Canadians are looked after when they head to the airport for those important vacations.

Bill C-52, as I mentioned, would create a more efficient, transparent and accountable system in three parts.

Part 1 would introduce the air transportation accountability act, which would ensure shared accountability by permitting the creation of regulations requiring airports and other operators within airports to create service standards for their part of the journey. Examples could include how long it should typically take for a bag to arrive on the carousel or expected wait times to enter security screening.

Operators would also be required to publish their performance against these standards. The primary enforcement mechanism would be the obligation to publish standards and compliance with those standards. The precise publishing obligations would be established in the regulations, and failure to publish in accordance with the requirements could lead to the application of monetary penalties.

It seems that, unfortunately, my time is up, which may bring some applause from the opposition, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.

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.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

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?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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.

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

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—

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

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

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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.