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.

Persons with Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say it is unacceptable that anyone, regardless of their abilities, should experience the treatment that we have seen in some cases in the media recently. Today, at the national air accessibility summit, we convened a diverse group of participants from across Canada, including representatives from the community of persons with disabilities and the air travel sector, to ensure that all service providers in the air travel ecosystem uphold their responsibilities to help make travel a seamless experience for all.

Rest assured that we are also taking steps, like the introduction of Bill C-52 and new proposed provisions for accessibility related data to address these issues, and to reduce barriers and the risk of such incidents from happening again. We will continue to work tirelessly to create a more inclusive and barrier-free Canada for all.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you a good evening on this late night and a good week in your constituency.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have the right to travel, and this is especially important to the more than eight million Canadians who have a disability and expect a barrier-free travel experience.

We know that barriers in the transportation system often result in unacceptable impacts for passengers with disabilities, including to their health, independence and dignity. That is why we convened a national air accessibility summit today, to bring together partners from the community of persons with disabilities, the air transportation sector, government and its agencies to engage on this important issue. The summit led to productive and engaging discussions to find solutions for a more consistent and seamless travel experience for all Canadians.

We have also put in place safeguards for the rights of passengers with disabilities, including regulations. The Canadian Transportation Agency created the accessible transportation for persons with disabilities regulations. These regulations guide transportation service providers like airlines on how to communicate with passengers with disabilities, offer assistance, ensure that planes, ferries, trains and buses are accessible, and train workers to assist travellers with disabilities. The Canadian Transportation Agency has the mandate to ensure that airlines follow these rules and treat passengers with disabilities fairly.

Recently, the agency fined Air Canada $97,500 for violating parts of these regulations. Also, if a passenger with a disability experiences physical or psychological harm due to an airline breaking the rules on purpose or through negligence, the agency can order compensation for their pain and suffering.

While regulations set the basics for making travel accessible, we know that airlines need to go beyond just following the rules.

Air Canada also announced new measures to improve its services for passengers with disabilities. This includes the formation of an advisory group of persons with disabilities to provide lived experience to improve its services and training. It is also accelerating the timeline of its accessibility plan required under the Accessible Canada Act. This is in addition to measures it took in November of last year.

Transport Canada and other stakeholders recently partnered with the International Air Transport Association to create guidelines for safely and efficiently transporting mobility aids by airline staff and contractors.

The Government of Canada also introduced Bill C-52, the enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act, which includes a proposal for collecting and publishing accessibility complaints data. This addresses a need to get better complaint data regarding accessible transportation for passengers with disabilities. In fact, this was a recurring topic of discussion at the summit today. We know this will also allow the Government of Canada to gain insights into systemic issues and act appropriately to provide necessary accountability for air carriers.

The Government of Canada remains steadfast in its commitment to forging a barrier-free Canada and holding airlines accountable for providing services to passengers with disabilities.

[Craig Hutton]

The change in foreign ownership rules just prior to the pandemic, which rose from a 25% threshold to a 49% threshold, was significant and makes sure that airlines have sufficient access to capital to support their operations. It's a very capital-intensive business to be in, and recognizing that, the government made this important change. As a result, we did see some new entrants, and we have since seen some further expansion plans.

The government has also been working very closely with the industry on a regular basis. As I mentioned, our airport recovery operations committee meets monthly, and it was meeting up to twice a week during the pandemic to help with recovery and to troubleshoot issues where we knew different players within the air ecosystem were having challenges in meeting the recovery of demand. That has continued to be a focus for all of us within the industry, to make sure we can support that returning passenger demand.

As your colleague mentioned, challenges around slot allocation at airports and the provision of CATSA services have been the focus of the air operations committee. That collaboration piece has been really important to finding a new balance within the industry.

I would say that Bill C-52 is another significant step towards ensuring that there is a balance within the industry, that there is transparency around service levels between partners within the air sector so there is consistency in how those services are provided, and that there is transparency for passengers so they understand what levels of service they can expect and how the industry is performing.

Finally, we want to make sure there is data sharing between industry players.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Hutton, I think that's fantastic.

The government really has given up, it seems, on Bill C-52. It's sitting at second reading. Why has the government committed to more aggressive APPRs in Bill C-52 but not done anything to see these provisions implemented?

[Craig Hutton]

One other thing that Bill C-52 makes reference to is an important aspect of some of the changes we are proposing. It would enact the air transportation accountability act, which would guide the relationship between air service providers within the ecosystem. Where carriers wish to negotiate with service providers on certain levels of service, or vice versa, and where an airport may be looking for a certain flexibility from service providers, that would come to a negotiated settlement between the various parties. That's going to bring more transparency to the level of service that each service provider is offering—

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

They're required to, but I think you can understand that airlines don't always abide by the rules.

In terms of your department making recommendations for changes, we've had Bill C-52, which looked at customers themselves. However, in terms of making specific recommendations that airports should abide by, even looking at where the Competition Bureau could interfere with this, has your department ever made recommendations that could see more of those gates opened up?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To all our witnesses, thank you for your very compelling testimony before us today. I have to tell you that as a parliamentarian, I'm very privileged to be sitting around this table and participating in this very important study. I also have to tell you that I'm compelled to apologize to the entire community of persons with disabilities, because in many ways I feel that as an able-bodied person, I had turned a blind eye or wasn't sensitized to this information.

For me, it's been a great educational journey, learning from and listening to all of you. The time has come: As Canadians, we need to change this going forward. This is incredible testimony. We cannot have a country like Canada not doing better in that space. I think we all learned through the pandemic about the vulnerabilities. Many different areas had to be fixed in the transportation system. This is why in June 2023 the Minister of Transport at the time introduced Bill C-52. You may be familiar with it. It's the enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act. The measures proposed in this legislation would create a more accountable, transparent, accessible national transportation system that meets the needs of Canadians—everything that we heard here, through you, today.

I'll ask only one question and give everyone the opportunity to once again stress, for this study and for everyone who is watching, if you had the ability to make any improvements to the overall experience of travelling with a disability, what you would recommend that the sector focus its efforts on. Obviously, a lot has to be done. What should we be focusing on to make it a better experience?

I'll start with Ms. Hewitt. Then I'll go to Mr. Brault and those who are joining us virtually. I'd like to hear from everyone, so if you could keep your answers short, perhaps we'll have a chance to hear from everybody.

Thank you.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First off, I want to say thank you to all of you for being here today. There's no doubt that it's going to add to the testimony, which we'll then add to the final report and, of course, the response from the minister.

I had the opportunity to go to the GTA and tour the airport last Thursday and to discuss with them their accessibility action plan 2023-26: their processes, the internal action plans, the communications and their long-term goals, as well as the overall experience and environment they're trying to provide for the customer and, quite frankly, for their employees.

I'm going to dive right into it and ask Ms. Hogan about this.

First off, many of the recommendations were directed directly to the sectors. However, they were not granularly directly directed to the airlines. You do mention Via Rail a few times, but ultimately, for the airlines, you basically tend to recommend based on sector.

My question for you, Ms. Hogan, is, from your discussions, what recommendations would you actually make—being a bit more granular—to the airlines, etc., within those sectors, any regulatory actions, whether it be government or whether it be the CTA or others?

I would only assume, for example, that you had discussions with the CTA with regard to applicable accessibility-related legislation—and I'll underline this statement—to encourage being proactive versus reactive, which the CTA often is, with a whole-of-sector approach, including the airlines. Hopefully, once we have that discussion and those recommendations, those with a disability won't need the CTA because we're being more proactive than reactive. That's question number one.

Question number two is, how important is it for the airlines to be required to release their disability-related complaint data ASAP so that we recognize the scope of their problem? Therefore, as well, the CTA can be involved, if need be, to react to those complaints. To add to that question, will Bill C-52 be an enabler to this?

My last question sort of goes outside the scope of today, but it's something that I often have to deal with in my riding. Do you think there is a need to expand the study to include the effects of airline and rail operations—underlining “operations”—on disabled people?

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

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.

[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.

[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.