Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2010

Health Care System

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 29, 2010, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I asked the minister a question regarding the major improvements the Obama administration made in terms of air passenger rights. In November it imposed the first tarmac delay penalties in North America. Basically after a three-hour tarmac delay, the airline has to pay $27,500 per passenger in fines. Pretty much out of the gate, Southwest Airlines was fined $200,000 for overbooking flights.

I asked when the Canadian government would catch up with Europe and the United States and start protecting air passenger rights. The minister's response was simply that he had a meeting with me in the next hour and that was it.

Coming out of the meeting the minister did ask if I had any information about how many flights actually were stuck on the tarmac for more than three hours. I pointed out to him at the time that in fact he does not have that information in Canada because Canada does not keep information like that. The United States actually does. We can make reference to numbers of flights that have kept people on the tarmac in the United States for considerable periods of time.

For the information of the minister and parliamentary secretary, up to October 2009 there were evidently 864 flights that held people on the tarmac for three hours or more, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Using 2007-08 data, there was an average of 1,500 domestic flights per year carrying 114,000 passengers that were delayed more than three hours.

The fact of the matter is that these new rules that were announced last Christmas and that came into force around April 1 have already shown terrific results, results that should compel the government to take similar action. For example, in May and June of this year, tarmac delays exceeding three hours numbered a total of eight times compared with 302 occurrences during the same two months in 2009. This is the first evidence we have that President Obama's directive to transportation secretary Ray LaHood last December is actually having an effect.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary to take that under advisement and recognize that the United States has leaped way ahead of Canada. From being behind Canada, it has leaped way ahead by imposing fines on airlines that keep people imprisoned on airplanes for more than three hours.

Having said that, I still like the approach that we have taken here with my air passenger bill of rights that would allow for compensation directly to the passengers. In the United States the airlines are fined and the money goes to the government. In Canada we should have an approach where the money goes to the people who are inconvenienced, the passengers on those planes.

I would like the minister to respond to these points.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this Conservative government is very concerned about Canadian families that experience travel delays when flying, especially during the Christmas and holiday season.

Airline passenger rights are already enshrined in the Canada Transportation Act, which actually requires that terms and conditions of carriage be made readily accessible to consumers.

In the event that a carrier does not respect its terms and conditions of carriage, and passengers are not satisfied with an airline's response, they may actually file in Canada a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency, better known as the CTA.

In September 2008, the government actually launched Flight Rights Canada, rights for consumers, and established a code of conduct for Canadian air carriers. Since airlines incorporated Flight Rights Canada into their terms and conditions of carriage for international and domestic travel, they are now legally enforceable by the Canadian Transportation Agency and are subject to that agency's complaint process. That is good news for consumers.

Indeed, with respect to tarmac delays, as the member brought up, these airlines are now required to offer passengers drinks and snacks, if safe and practical to do so, and if the delay exceeds 90 minutes and circumstances permit, because as we know, a lot of issues come up, these airlines will offer passengers the option of disembarking from the aircraft until it is time to depart.

That is a significant step forward, and of course, I am quite surprised that the NDP would propose that we adopt an American solution, a U.S. solution. Instead, this Conservative government is concentrating on a made in Canada solution for Canadians.

The purpose is to alleviate passenger inconvenience during air travel while making sure, at the same time, that our air travel industry, our air carriers, are financially viable. This is a big economic time. We know how difficult it is for most companies, most consumers, and most workers in Canada right now. It is very difficult, and we are at a sensitive time, so we will make sure that we have a vibrant and good industry to serve Canadians and serve passengers.

Although Bill C-310, which the member proposed before and which went to committee, had some positives, which, in fact, the government looked at, it was problematic. Some witnesses at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which that member participated in for some period of time, and some government and even opposition members, voiced serious concern that the bill's long list of fines and penalties could reduce the financial viability of many airline routes in Canada.

That member flies about the same amount I fly. If we were to adopt the American approach, both of us would probably be millionaires within a couple of years, but quite frankly, we would have no airlines to carry us, and that is not acceptable. In fact, the very goal of the proposal by the member actually contradicts this Conservative government's goal in our economic action plan, which aims to support local communities that have been most affected by the economic downturn. In fact, we heard that most northern communities and isolated communities would actually lose their air service because of some of the difficulties air carriers have, especially in the winter months, in, for instance, places like Newfoundland and other places across Canada.

After hearing detailed testimony, the standing committee voted, all parties in the House at the standing committee voted, that Bill C-310, which the member is speaking about today, not proceed any further. That is the situation. The government will stand up for the people of Canada, for the consumers of Canada, and make sure that we continue to have a very vibrant industry in Canada.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this minister and this government are not standing up for consumers at all. They are apologists for the industry, are completely in the pockets of the industry, and basically take their direction from the industry representatives.

We do not even have statistics in Canada. We do not keep statistics as they do in the United States, so the minister and the parliamentary secretary cannot even tell us how many delays of over three hours or under three hours there are.

The approach they have taken right now with Flight Rights Canada has allowed the airlines to put these rules within their codes, but in actual fact, there is no legal requirement for the passenger to collect if the airline does not voluntarily pay. The airlines have--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that did hurt a little but coming from the member opposite I understand. Sometimes he goes on and on. However, being in the pockets of the airline industry is quite ridiculous. I probably fly a lot more than he does and to suggest that we would somehow be in collusion with the airline industry is absolutely ridiculous.

Frankly, I know the member brought forward some comparisons before, the European Union, for instance, and now the United States. Canada has a different industry. We have a different geography and climate with some of the harshest winters in the world. We must consider these aspects before we move forward.

We have very isolated communities in the north where there are 30,000 or 40,000 people within a 200,000 or 300,000 kilometre geography. It is just not acceptable to compare a place with a population density as low as Canada's to places like Europe and New York. It just cannot happen.

We are doing the best for consumers, for the airline industry and for Canadians.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in May, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question about our fellow citizens of Haitian origin who had tried or were trying to sponsor family members to come to Canada. That was four months after the January 12 earthquake. It has now been eight months.

I have to admit that some files have progressed. Some files, in particular, that had been initiated before the earthquake. But after the minister's answer to my question, I realized that the government did not seem prepared to temporarily broaden the definition of family member, as was done in Quebec, to include family members that do not fit within the existing definition.

I therefore asked the minister whether the government was prepared to broaden the definition of family, because at the time, it was receiving tens of thousands of dollars in sponsorship application fees—$550 per adult and $150 per child. I have several constituents who paid thousands of dollars and who are now left broke and without any family members here.

Here is an example. Before the earthquake, a woman by the name of Magali Micheline Théogène was trying to sponsor her mother. After the earthquake, she contacted the department. Government representatives encouraged her to sponsor her two sisters as well, even though they did not meet the age requirement and were over the age usually allowed. That cost her $1,100 more. Then she was told that her sisters each needed a medical exam at $200 apiece. She spent $1,500, and has just been told that her two sisters are not eligible because they do not meet the requirements, yet it was departmental officials who encouraged her to sponsor their applications.

In light of this situation, there is something my constituents of Haitian origin would like to know. Since the government did not broaden the definition of family members, but encouraged people to sponsor applications costing them thousands of dollars, applications that were then denied, can that money be refunded? Given the situation in which their relatives found themselves and still find themselves in Haiti, the $1,100 that Ms. Théogène gave the government—which really did not need it—could be a big help to her two sisters in Haiti.

Once again, I am asking the government to seriously consider reimbursing our fellow citizens of Haitian origin who submitted sponsorship applications because departmental officials encouraged them to do so even though those applications were never going to be approved. I am asking the government to reimburse these good people so that they can use the money to help their relatives still in Haiti.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I cannot get into the details of specific cases. I understand that he may have some issues with respect to individual cases and, certainly, as the minister offered then and I offer now, we would be prepared to look at those on a case-by-case basis.

The Government of Canada remains committed to helping reunite families affected by the earthquake in Haiti as quickly as possible.

My department, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, continues to receive hundreds of applications every month in the family class, which is one of the most generous definitions of family in the world for immigrant receiving countries. The ministry also expects to receive approximately 5,800 applications under the Quebec special measures in the coming months.

As members know, in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake, the ministry moved quickly to support Canadians and their close relatives, in particular, children, to reunite in Canada. Priority processing was given to spouses; partners; dependent children, including adopted children; parents and grandparents; and orphaned family members who may include brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews or grandchildren under the age of 18.

The Haiti special measures came to an end on September 1 of this year. We will continue to process family class applications received prior to September 1, 2010 under the Haiti special measures program. We are committed to making decisions on these applications within 12 weeks of the end of the month that applications are received. Family class applications received after that date will be processed as quickly as possible. The ministry will also resume processing for certain groups that were previously suspended as result of the earthquake.

This represents the fastest and largest special immigration effort of its kind following a natural disaster. We can be extremely proud of this as Canadians.

Given the lack of infrastructure, the Canadian embassy in Port-au-Prince has been limited but we continue to focus our efforts on specific groups, including family members.

As my hon. colleagues may know, there are about 100,000 Canadians of Haitian descent, including 60,000 Canadians who were born in Haiti, most of whom have extended family in Haiti. If the family class criteria were expanded to allow for sponsorship of extended relatives, the increase in applications would more than likely create processing backlogs and delay family reunification. That is why the ministry is focused on immediate family members.

I would also point out that Quebec has considerable flexibility under the Quebec accord on immigration to select immigrants who will adapt well to living in Quebec. The ministry is in fact working with Quebec to facilitate processing more Haitian cases within provincial targets. As of September 18, the ministry is also granting permission for the entry of 2,500 more Haitians on a temporary basis using either temporary resident visas, with almost 2,000 issued, or temporary resident permits, with more than 500 issued.

We believe that, given the circumstances in Haiti, the special immigration measures implemented in the immediate aftermath of this earthquake were appropriate and timely and that our processing efforts following the end of Haiti special measures will allow us to continue to process family class applications from Haitians affected by the disaster as quickly as possible.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not answering my question in the least. I took part in a public meeting in the weeks following the earthquake. There were nearly 1,000 people of Haitian origin in the room. Not all Haitian Canadians live in Quebec. Officials from the department were encouraging the citizens of my riding to sponsor whomever they wanted, even if those individuals were not eligible under the department's definition of family at the time.

The parliamentary secretary is singing the praises of Quebec. I urged the Canadian government to be as flexible as Quebec, but it did not do so. Haitians have been encouraged to come here, yet they are not being allowed to do so. I think that is awful. The government refuses to reimburse these people, who could have sent money to their loved ones in Haiti. The government has completely missed the boat and is treating these people unfairly. We will revisit this issue.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

That is fine, Mr. Speaker. We can certainly come back to that issue.

The member is asking a very specific question, and I can appreciate it, but I am not so sure it is a question to be answered here with respect to specific cases. As I indicated, we will be prepared to look at those.

However, Quebec's authority to do what it is doing comes from the Canada-Quebec accord signed in 1991. It gives Quebec selection powers and control over its own settlement services. Canada remains responsible for defining Quebec's immigrant categories, setting its levels and enforcement.

Our highest processing priority after the earthquake was for immediate family members and urgent and exceptional cases. With the end of the Haiti special measures on September 1, 2010, we believe that the special immigration members implemented and the immediate aftermath and the processing efforts implemented following the end of the special measures, strike the proper balance between maintaining the integrity of our immigration system and speeding up the reunification process of all Haitians who were affected by the earthquake with their immediate family members here.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:54 p.m.)