Bill C-310 (Historical)

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights.

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

moved that Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking to Bill C-310 this evening, leading off on the first hour of what I hope will be a constructive debate.

I would like to begin by thanking Woodrow French, the mayor of Conception Bay South in Newfoundland, and Bruce Cran of the Consumers Association of Canada, who have been actively supporting the bill and have hit the road recently to promote it across the country.

We have been approached by a U.S. consumers group expressing interest in the bill, a group called FlyersRights.org run by its founder, Kate Hanni, who organized a press briefing in California regarding Bill C-310. She praised the bill as the best airline bill of rights legislation she has seen, and she will distribute copies to the U.S. legislators in Washington D.C.

Bill C-310 has been getting a lot of media interest, and with it, numerous responses from Canadians sending in their personal stories. Almost everyone from whom I received a response has been very supportive of the bill. There are always some people who are not, but most of them are supportive.

The bill is based on Private Member's Motion No. 465, introduced last year by the hon. member of Parliament for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte of Newfoundland and Labrador from the Liberal Party, and the resolution passed unanimously in the House, but the government did not bring in the bill promised in the resolution.

Instead, it introduced the voluntary agreement called flight rights, which had no effect in law, but did promise the tarmac delays, for example, would not exceed 90 minutes before people would be let off the plane, so we then had a recognition at that time by the airlines that 90 minutes was a long enough time to keep people cooped up in a plane on the tarmac.

What did the airlines do? They proceeded to keep people on the tarmac for six to eight hours just three months later. So much for flight rights and I think the Conservatives recognize as well that we need tougher laws to govern this area.

Just three days ago the airlines decided that they will put flight rights in their tariff, voluntarily letting the Canadian transportation agency enforce it, but where are the penalties if they do not follow through? They did not last time, why should they now?

In addition, the airline letter is full of falsehoods about the actual bill. In terms of the National Airlines Council of Canada, it sent us a letter called “reality check”, so I am responding in the same way, saying, “reality check”: I want to deal with the concerns of the National Airlines Council of Canada's March 2 letter to all members of Parliament and the outright factual errors in that communication.

It says the maximum compensation for denied boarding in Bill C-310 is two to three times higher than in the EU, when it is exactly the same. We used the EU figures in the bill.

It says it was not consulted. The reality of private members' business is that there is not a lot of time for consultation with external parties in the development of a bill. A member whose name is drawn near the top of the list has 20 sitting days until the completed bill must be deposited at the House of Commons Journals Branch.

In this case, however, I did speak to representatives from both the National Airlines Council on the phone, gave them complete details of the bill, and invited them to give me an email response before the bill was sent for translation. We were making amendments right up to the very end, and I received no submissions from either party, unlike the Consumers Association of Canada, which did come forward with valuable contributions right up to the last day.

The National Airlines Council claims that the fares will rise as a result of this legislation. I would like to ask, did the fares rise when the Air Canada president earned $26 million in 2007? That was a considerable amount of money that it expended at that time, and I do not think fares rose because of his salary. I do not really believe they would now either, because if airlines follow the rules in the bill, they would not pay any penalties. By our experience in Europe so far, it does not look like they are paying much in the way of penalties over there either.

The National Airlines Council says, “No jurisdiction has ever held airlines responsible for weather delays or cancellations. To do so is fundamentally incompatible with the safe operation of an aircraft”. Well, neither are we. We have taken the exclusion from the European Union bill and put it verbatim into our bill, giving the airlines the extraordinary circumstances exclusion, which they are happily using in Europe the last four years. This statement implies that Bill C-310 would make an air carrier responsible for weather delays and cancellations when that is not the case.

Bill C-310 does not require an air carrier to pay compensation to a passenger in respect of a flight that has been delayed or cancelled due to weather. A flight that is cancelled due to weather falls within the exemption, which I already explained, and is provided for in the bill.

If the air carrier can prove that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided, even if all reasonable measures had been taken, under this subparagraph the air carrier is not required to pay compensation to a passenger whose flight was cancelled. This is the standard that has been adopted by the European Union and the cancellation due to weather clearly falls within this exemption.

All that an air carrier is required to do in a case of cancellation due to weather is: reimbursement, which is reasonable, or rerouting the passenger; meals and refreshments in relation to the waiting time, nothing wrong with that; hotel accommodation in cases where a stay of one or more nights is required; ground transportation between the airport and the place of accommodation; and a total of two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or emails. There is nothing here that is unreasonable for an air carrier to do.

The European Union commissioned a study two years into their bill, about two years ago, after the rules were in effect. While the airlines have been aggressive in using extraordinary circumstances arguments to avoid paying compensation, all stakeholders agreed that the extraordinary circumstances exclusion was still a good and fair balance between the customer's right to compensation and fairness toward the airline. The reason for that is because it is held up in court. We do not want to tilt the bill too much against the airlines because then they will take it to court and they will win their point.

The bill covers denied boarding due to overbooked flights and specifically trying to get people off the flight by agreement, not by forcing them off the plane.

I was on a Northwest Airlines flight from Minneapolis several years ago. It needed six people off the plane. It got the volunteers by offering free passes to get people off the plane. Everyone was happy with that result and I am sure they are still talking about it to this day. Happy customers are what the airlines need.

If airlines have to deny boarding to customers involuntarily, why should they not be paying compensation of $500, $800 or $1,200, based on the length of the trip? The same compensation applies to cancelled flights. Europe has been doing this for four years. Bill C-310 was inspired by the EU legislation which has been in effect since February 17, 2005.

Air Canada operates in Europe, so it knows all about this legislation. The airlines know that in the EU airlines try to use the exemption as often as possible to avoid paying compensation to passengers. Airlines fought the EU legislation in court and they lost. They know this legislation is sound and it will hold up in court, which is why they are mounting such a big campaign against it. They know it is going to be popular with the public when it is passed.

I have spoken to many MPs, and while they all like the bill, several have questions about the compensation to passengers. I tell them that they can vote for the bill at second reading because it shows they agree with the principle, just like they all did a year ago on the resolution. If they disagree with it, they can come to the committee to try and get it amended. If they think the penalties are too high, they can bring an amendment reducing it to a level that they think is appropriate.

I have even asked the National Airlines Council for amendments, but I got the “Dear Member of Parliament” letter instead, with all the misinformation about the bill. How can it amend the bill when it is clear that it has not taken the time to even read it?

In most cases, we copied the compensation levels of the European Union, and by the way, those compensation levels were doubled in the European Union four years ago because it had earlier legislation from 1991 which dealt with denied boarding only. It did not deal with cancellations and it dealt with scheduled airlines only. It did not deal with charters and it had penalties that were too low, so four years ago it expanded it to include charters. It expanded it to include cancellations and it doubled the penalties. The review panel, two years later, said the penalties were just fine the way they are. They are not too high and not too low.

Why should passengers not have the right to cancel and get a refund after a four hour delay? Why should passengers not get a meal voucher after a two hour delay? Why should passengers not get $100 payment if the airline misplaces their baggage and does not notify them within an hour after finding it? Will the $100 bankrupt the airlines or will it cause them to smarten up and stop misplacing baggage, and not notifying us when the baggage is found?

Why should customers not expect better service? Why should passengers not be informed of flight changes, delays and cancellations under penalty to the airlines? Why should the new rules not be posted at the airline counter to inform customers of their rights and the process to file for compensation? Why should the public not expect all-in-one pricing so they know the total cost of the flight before they click the buy button?

Because the EU carriers have fought the law so hard in Europe, it has taken the small claims court system in Europe to get settlements out of the system. There is no lawyer required. Passengers in Canada can still complain to the Canadian Transportation Agency, but as in Europe, the transportation agencies are not the bodies that are getting the payments. It is the small claims court. British Airways is a good, recent example where it received a settlement on behalf of a large number of claimants through the courts.

The bill would not solve all the people's problems, but it is fair to customers and the airlines. The airlines that follow the rules will not pay a cent. Airlines that claim extraordinary circumstances too often risk getting even tougher rules in the future. Bill C-310 applies to all Canadian air carriers and all air carrier operations that take place in Canada. Why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

In conclusion, I want to issue a call to action. I ask Canadians to not just sit there and say that this is a good idea and hope that it passes. I ask them to go to their computers, send their MP a message requesting him or her to support the bill and send me a copy so that we can keep track of their support. I ask them to send a letter to their local newspaper editor.

MPs listen to their constituents. It is how they get here in the first place. They will keep getting re-elected if they listen to their constituents' concerns. This is a free vote in Parliament and members are free to vote any way they want. The airlines are sending them letters and asking for meetings to try to convince them to vote against the bill. I want Canadians to help me even the odds and counter this special interest lobby that is working against their interests.

All the airlines have to do is keep fresh air and lights working, make sure the toilets are working, make sure food and water are provided, and allow for disembarkation of the airplane if it is possible to do so without risk to health or safety of the passengers. They are suggesting that we have an absolute in the bill that they are going to have to start paying their penalties after one hour no matter what. There is enough of an exemption in there to allow them a certain amount of leeway. If it is going to risk the safety of the passengers, they do not have to let people off within the hour. It is as pure and simple as that.

If they do not want to do these things, why should they not compensate the passengers? If $500 is too high, then bring in an amendment to lower it. However, if it is lowered too much, the airlines will keep the passengers locked up for hours without the lights, air, toilets, food and water.

The next time people are on a flight and things go wrong, they will wish they had emailed or written their MP. They will wish they had written a letter to the editor to support this bill and if that person is an MP, he or she will have wished they had voted for this bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure many of the people he was talking to out in the public would be in favour of an initiative like this, so I would like to congratulate the member and also the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for coming up with this concept in the first place.

I am pretty excited about the concept, but I have a couple of questions. The success of any bill depends on the consultation with those who would be affected. I would like to ask the member, how many airlines has he talked to and what were their estimated costs? I am particularly interested in what Air Canada and WestJet said. What did they say this would cost them based on their experience? He said that those airlines have had experience in Europe already, so it should be an easy calculation. How much would the fares go up?

The second question is related to fairness. A lot of delays such lineups, de-icing and things like that are caused by the airport, not the airlines. I am wondering if, in his bill, the airport would have to pay that fee or would he unjustly put that fee onto the airlines when they have nothing to do with the problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, there were many items in the member's question.

We have had a very difficult time trying to find out how much the airlines are paying in Europe, as did the study commissioned by the European Commission. In fact, almost all the airlines refused to give the information. There were only a couple that were very forthright about it.

We know from the history of the bill that the airlines claim extraordinary circumstances all the time, as many times as they can get away with it. It is up to alert passengers to say, “That is not true; that is not the case at all,” and follow through with small claims court actions.

We need a law, but the enforcement is a big issue. It is really up to the passengers themselves. They cannot take action if there is no law to protect them, but if there is a law, those passengers who are alert will take action.

I have answered this question many times about what it will cost the airlines. The truth is it will cost them nothing if they simply follow the rules. WestJet, for example, does not overbook, so it will pay nothing. As a matter of fact WestJet's criticisms are not very strong at all. I have been on radio shows with its representatives and they are not hostile to the bill, let us put it that way.

However, in terms of trying to--

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the member suggest to other members that before they vote on this piece of legislation that they read it first. I think that is a great concept.

My first question is, does that mean the policy of the NDP members will change for the next budget and that they will actually read it before they decide to vote against it?

My second question is, why did the member refuse to meet with the two major Canadian airlines when they asked to meet with him to go over the bill some two weeks ago?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, I spoke to the representatives of the airlines before we sent the bill for translation. They did not respond. They were given time. I explained the bill to them and they were given time to respond. They did not. The Consumers' Association on the other hand did respond. In fact, it did get a provision put in the bill because of its response.

I cannot account for why the airlines did not do it, but I received the letter addressed to members of Parliament just as the parliamentary secretary did and I am sure that I will be talking to them again very soon. They are on radio shows that I am on, so I have had occasion to talk to them.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill. It follows on the motion that we put forward in the House in the last Parliament that was endorsed unanimously, not only by members of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, but members of the Conservative Party of Canada as well. The motion called on the government to bring forward legislated consumer protection with respect to the airline industry.

I have read the bill in depth. I agree with the concept thoroughly, as all members do and they voted unanimously for it. However, I was wondering if the hon. member would be open to amendments to his bill with perfections to create better legislation at the committee stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the best question I have had all day. I want to tell the member that I would welcome his amendments. I have a half dozen myself.

I have been around politics long enough to know that even ministers when they bring in bills sometimes amend their own bills a half dozen times before they get through the process.

I would look for amendments from all parties in this Parliament to make the bill successful, and it cannot be successful unless everyone is involved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-310 brought forward by the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

Over the past Christmas season, severe weather wreaked tremendous havoc at airports across the country. I know that because I travel quite frequently. Being a member of Parliament from northern Alberta, I have the opportunity to travel on planes. I can assure the member and others in the House that if anyone knows what it is like to travel in Canada and enjoy the diverse weather across this country, it is members from the west because they have to do more travelling. I remember that bad weather forced many cancellations and delays, which obviously were beyond the control of the airlines. Unfortunately, too many people spent hours in airports lying across plastic chairs and getting snacks from vending machines. Some members in the House probably had that unfortunate experience.

Let me be clear. Protecting Canadian travellers is a priority for this Conservative government and will remain a priority for this government. We are committed to consumer protection and have taken measures to strengthen that protection.

In 2007, for instance, we brought forward Bill C-11, which improved transparency by requiring air carriers to publish their terms and conditions of carriage on their websites, a good step to put forward for consumers to understand what their rights are. The Canadian Transportation Agency was also mandated to continue its complaints process as a permanent program.

In 2008 our government introduced the flight rights program as a result of, in part, Parliament's wish to protect consumers more thoroughly. This is a campaign to inform air travellers of the rights and options available to them should they encounter difficulties when travelling.

In budget 2009, again we introduced measures to modernize the Competition Act and to better protect Canadians from price fixing and misleading advertising, things which are simply not acceptable. The changes that this government made will instill greater confidence in advertising and more meaningful penalties to deter misleading advertising and mass marketing fraud, again things which are unacceptable.

I would like to highlight a few key components of the consumer protection measures we as a government have put in place for air travellers.

Under the Canada Transportation Act, all carriers operating within Canada are required to have written terms and conditions of carriage readily accessible to passengers. These are often printed on the back of the ticket or agreed to when reservations are made online so that consumers will know their rights at the time they purchase their tickets.

These terms and conditions must reflect the carrier's policy regarding persons with disabilities, the acceptance of children, cancelled or delayed flights, lost or damaged baggage, denied boarding due to overbooking, and ticket reservations. These currently exist. They reflect the passenger's rights as a consumer and the carrier's obligation.

Carriers are actually obliged to live up to these terms and conditions and if they fail to do so, consumers can turn to the Canadian Transportation Agency for recourse. The agency can impose different measures, including corrective measures, such as a refund of expenses incurred by the passenger, and can also direct a carrier to change or suspend its terms and conditions of carriage.

It should be noted that in the United States consumers must actually turn to the courts instead of an agency like the Canadian Transportation Agency when carriers fail to live up to their commitments. We all know that turning to the courts is very expensive and time consuming and, quite frankly, not acceptable to Canadians.

Countries in the European Union are required to have a complaints process, but the complaints processes in the European Union actually vary in their effectiveness and are more limited in scope to what we currently have in Canada. In Canada we have a consumer protection regime that ensures that the terms and conditions offered by carriers in Canada are not only reasonable but that carriers actually stand by them and stand up for consumers.

These terms and conditions are determined by international norms of practice, normal travel practice and healthy competition, which is so very important in today's global economic crisis. They are the carrier's commitments to its clients.

It is easy to understand the frustrations of passengers because, let us face it, many in the House are very frustrated by travel from time to time. The people who experienced the frustration of flights being delayed or cancelled over the Christmas season were, quite frankly, unhappy. Everyone travels hoping to arrive at their destinations on time. However, we live in a winter country. We live in a huge country, approximately 1.2 people per square mile, the lowest population density in the world. Given our climate, inevitably there will be unfortunate delays and inconveniences in travel, particularly in our harsh winters, our large snowfall and our dispersal of population.

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard from many industry representatives. I have had an opportunity to meet with representatives from WestJet, Air Canada and from other airline carriers that service our country. Let us talk about what they think. The Tourism Industry Association of Canada stated that it shares the concerns raised by the NACC, the National Airlines Council of Canada, regarding many aspects of the proposed legislation and does not believe that the highly prescriptive and punitive measures such as Bill C-310.

This sentiment was echoed by the Canadian Airports Council and the International Air Transportation Association. It represents 230 international carriers around the world, including all major airlines in Canada. The National Airlines Council of Canada said that while Bill C-310 claims to safeguard consumer interest, the proposed measures would in fact exacerbate delays and add a new layer of traveller inconveniences and costs.

It is also important for us to try to understand the operational realities of running an airline in today's competitive environment. For instance, bad weather in Vancouver will cause delays in Toronto. It will cause ripple effects across the country, especially during the busiest time of travel and especially during the harshest part of winter. We must also be mindful that safety must be the primary concern for our transportation system.

The Air Transportation Association of Canada in a letter dated March 4, 2009, states that it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking.

Yes, it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking. There is nothing more important to this Conservative government than the safety of Canadians and we are going to make sure that they remain safe while they travel. Safety must come first.

We can and must learn from other countries. We must review the United States' legislation, the European legislation and look at other options. We must also be mindful that Canada's weather and geography are truly unique and these realities must be taken into consideration when we think about what must be done to enhance consumer protection legislation and ultimately serve those whom we all serve in this place, Canadians.

I look forward to working with the member who introduced this bill and all members of the House and the committee cooperatively to find solutions that will protect Canadian consumers without punishing Canadian carriers for factors beyond their control.

We must ensure during this time of economic global downturn that we protect Canadians' interests and at the same time make sure that airlines remain competitive. It is a balancing act and we as a government will do the best job for Canadians.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was almost encouraged by what I heard the parliamentary secretary say a moment ago. He talked about co-operation in this House and having governments reflect what the people actually want, especially when they have expressed it in this House.

Last June, not that long ago, 240 members of Parliament from all parties stood in their places and unanimously supported a motion by my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, who said that what we need to do is respond to the needs of Canadians when they are consumers of a service that we in Canada have come to take for granted as part of the lifestyle and the standard of living that is demanded by a nation of our size in our part of the hemisphere.

What would a responsible government do when the unanimous voice of the people is expressed in a bill that is reflected in my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona today?

One would expect results immediately.

The parliamentary secretary speaks of all those indications, those motions, those brochures. In fact, some of the initiatives of his government resulted in a paper going forward as a recommendation to the airline industry in September.

That was in September. What did the people in the airline industry do? Well, in September they heard voices of elections, so they said, “Let us wait”. They waited and they waited. The member for Elmwood—Transcona can hardly be blamed for the lack of action on the part of the government.

We could be in an entirely different place if the government had taken the initiative given to it by the authority of a unanimous vote in the House and had said that this was what the public wanted.

There were not penalties of the nature that our hon. colleague calls for in Bill C-310. Now we are talking about making a comparison with what happens in the United States, what happens in the EU, and what the economic and financial implications are for individual companies, collective organizations, airport authorities and tourist organizations.

We would not have to be in that kind of discussion if the government had just done what the parliamentary secretary said it would do.

Is it any wonder that members of Parliament, whether longstanding members of Parliament like my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte or new members of Parliament like my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, fill in the need because the Canadian public wants action?

What do we do? We agree in principle with the implied contractual arrangement that is inherent in this legislation. I say the “implied contractual arrangement” because someone who is providing a service wants a contented client, and that client wants a service for which he or she pays. Otherwise, there are consequences. Either there is delivery of service or there is an alternative.

The last motion in this House talked about that contractual framework. Our colleague, newly elected in October, said that we would like to put something else into this contractual arrangement. Nobody is doing anything on it. If it comes across now as being tough on the airlines or tough on the industry, it is because people are looking for an arbiter.

Who is that arbiter? The arbiters are right here. Members of Parliament from the other side are looking for the authority we had already given them in the last Parliament, but the last minister of transport chose not to act.

The current Minister of Transport may choose to act. A private member's bill is here before him. It has, I think, the same kind of support, unless a vote proves otherwise, that was shown for the last motion that was before this House.

A responsible and accountable minister would say that these ideas come not just from opposition members, but from a unanimous expression of the public view in the House of Commons of Canada.

Do we expect members of Parliament to do anything less than transform the frustration of citizens into a positive suggestion for change? Surely we want all stakeholders, all providers of that service to be at the table and work with members of Parliament, who are not the enemy. They are the carriers of the voice that cries for a service and a contractual arrangement that must be honoured by both parties.

Is the European experience the one to follow? Is the American experience the one to follow? Is it one that would nurture the business that would stimulate the Canadian economy and at the same time ensure we enjoy a level of service that everyone should take for granted?

We have demonstrated as consumers a willingness to pay. Perhaps we pay too much. For that willingness to pay, even the willingness to pay more than others, we expect a level of service commensurable, but no. We expect perhaps at least what everybody else gets for less, and I have become an editorialist when I say that.

The only editorializing that a member of Parliament should do in this place is to recall for all members that a unanimous expression of the House asked the airline industry, the business of travel, to respect what everyone in the country had already said was desired, was needed, and in fact should have been done.

Whom shall we blame for this lack of obligation? We cannot blame it on the weather. That is a hot topic today because the weather is blamed for everything. We have to blame it on the government.

The minister has a responsibility to the House and to everybody in Canada to come forward with regulations that would reflect the will of the House. He has a responsibility to put in place a system that would supervise the implementation of those regulations. He has a responsibility to put in place a system that would follow whether any breach of that relationship was modified.

Some would say that perhaps we are building a bureaucracy unnecessarily so, and I would agree. There has been a rupture of the goodwill that was expressed by a unanimous vote in the House. The industry saw that and the government realized it needed to have a working relationship. That goodwill was broken.

When that goodwill was broken, people came forward with compulsion. If people will not work, we will make them work. If they do not like the conditions, we have to come up with the reasons. Who needs that? A good business operation does not need that. A good business model that wants to be successful does not need that.

We used to have a quasi-monopolistic approach to the way the airline business was conducted. We have opened it up, and some people would say that we should not have done that. We have opened up the opportunity to engage in a contractual agreement freely and that the recourse to government, when it comes with a unanimous view of the entire House, is that partners to that contractual arrangement depart from consensus at their own peril.

What the member for Elmwood—Transcona, through Bill C-310, is telling the minister is that he should start fulfilling his obligations to the public. He should start being responsible and demonstrate the accountability about which he so frequently boasts. He should get busy because the House has already given him one chance.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-310, the private member's bill put forward by our NDP colleague.

Those who are watching will have understood in listening to the speeches that members' positions can differ somewhat. It is important to get to the heart of the matter on this air travel issue.

It is important to avoid creating an imbalance in order to secure an election victory. The Bloc Québécois wants to act responsibly on this issue. We are therefore going to support the bill so that it is sent to committee, but in its current form, it is not very persuasive. I listened to the member who proposed the bill say that he was open to changes and amendments. But proposing amendments to a bill does not mean they will be accepted. It is a bit more complicated than that.

This is a private member's bill, and an amendment that would change the nature of the bill would not be in order. There is some chance that, at the end of the debate, this bill might not pass as written because it could not be amended. I am not making any assumptions. I just want to give all of the options a chance. That could happen, but it would not be for lack of trying.

I understand the Liberal member's position. He pointed out that we were made all too aware of the issue because an incident occurred. In the spring of 2007, passengers were confined to a Cuban Air plane for some 10 hours because, apparently, the company did not pay the fees. The story remains unclear. I wrote to all of the authorities, but nobody wanted to take responsibility. I do not get the feeling that the bill, as written, will solve the problem either.

This situation happens in Canada, and not just with airlines. Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, created and accredited organizations known as airport authorities. These are para-governmental bodies, but they are not private entities. They rent airports; they lease them. They are made up of boards of directors, people from the sector, but they answer only to their boards of directors.

That makes it hard to figure out who is responsible. It may not always be the airline's fault. That is an important thing to understand in a country like ours, where we sometimes have more months of winter than of summer.

That is our reality, one that many European countries do not have to deal with. We have to be responsible and study the situation carefully. We must also avoid compromising the already tenuous situation of some airlines.

The National Airlines Council of Canada is an organization made up of the four largest airlines, but it is brand new. It was part of the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), but it withdrew to create its own association. Things are not that simple in the wonderful world of aviation.

The goal is not to shut down airlines. That would only create monopolies. At any rate, it would not benefit consumers. Fares will increase when airlines are eliminated one by one and only a single airline remains.

Thus, we must be able to create this balance and I am not sure that Bill C-310, as presented, does that. However, we in the Bloc Québécois have sufficient knowledge of the problem to discuss it in committee and call all witnesses, including the government.

I have a message for the government: the time has come, as we send this bill to committee, to consider tabling a bill that would establish that balance and make airlines and airport authorities accountable. Thus, it would be very clear and travellers would know full well that airlines do have a certain responsibility.

Some airport authorities look after traffic control and are also often responsible for providing services. We should realize that, because of our winters, certain operations, such as de-icing, must be carried out. In some airports, de-icing can take as long as two and a half hours. With a bill such as the one before us, if passengers were disembarked after an hour and a half, what would it mean? It would mean that we lose our place in the departure line. That results in an undue delay. It is not easy.

The committee will have to take care to call all of the witnesses and take all the time it needs. If the committee can improve this bill, it will. However, if that is not possible because of the legislative framework, perhaps the government will have to consider drafting its own legislation to send to the committee. I am opening that door because we need to solve this problem. My Liberal colleague is right: this has gone on too long.

However, is a private member's bill the right way to do this? Once again, this has not been discussed with the airlines, and that is all we can find fault with. It is all well and good to try to pass a private member's bill at all costs, but if two airlines were to be put out of business as a result, things would be worse, not better. We would not have solved anything. The only thing we would have done is achieve a personal victory at the expense of all Canadians, and that is not the goal.

As I said, Bloc Québécois members will vote for this bill so that it can go to committee, and we will be there throughout the process. We will try to bring in all of the witnesses we need to shed light on the complex issue of airline passengers' rights. I am reaching out to the government. It needs to understand that the legislation we are considering is important. Now is the time to resolve the issue of protecting airline passengers, and maybe it should introduce a bill that would make airlines and airport authorities take responsibility, because they are the ones responsible for any problems that passengers might experience. That is where things stand.

If we do that all together, this will be a collaborative effort. The member who proposed the private member's bill will be proud to say that legislation came out of what he suggested in committee. Obviously, we are open to that. The important thing is to achieve our objective. That is the result. The important thing is not to score a political victory, where one side wins and the other loses. The important thing is to work for travellers who are fed up with the air travel problems they have to deal with. Airline tickets are expensive, so if we can bring the industry in line and that takes a bill, then we need to have a bill. If we can improve this bill, so much the better. If another bill is needed, then I hope the government will understand, and we will support it. Our promise to users and consumer protection associations is that they will have a voice, they will be heard in committee. We all need to have a clear understanding of the issue.

I personally have a soft spot for airport authorities. I would like to know what is happening with the Cubanair file because, two or three years later, I am still in the dark. No one wants to take responsibility for having kept passengers locked in a plane for more than 10 hours without food or access to toilets. That is the harsh reality. The bill will not fix this because the higher the fines are, the more the airlines will go to the courts to contest them. That means delays. We will not fix the problem, and the lawyers will collect their profit, but travellers will not benefit.

Once again, I am reaching out. We will support this bill so that it can be discussed in committee. If we can improve it in such a way as to satisfy passengers, airlines and those who are responsible for the problems, we will do so. If a new bill is necessary, we would encourage the government to please send it along for the committee's approval.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the seconder of the bill and I am pleased to speak to it tonight.

All air passengers deserve a bill of rights. Consumers have tolerated subpar service with no recourse for far too long. It is time to have legislation to protect consumers.

Let me illustrate this point with an example. When a person buys a car, which many people cannot do at this point in time because the banks are still charging consumers up to 10% for a car loan, but that is a discussion for another night, it comes with a warranty. There are also various safety and other standards the car must also meet when it is purchased. If anything is not as advertised and promised, consumers have a way to remedy the situation.

Another example is buying groceries. The same principle applies when one buys a loaf of bread. If it is stale, it can be returned. One will either be fully refunded the cost or get a new loaf of bread in exchange. The supermarket will be apologetic and will not demand proof that the bread is stale.

All of these principles seem to go out the window when consumers purchase an airline ticket. If we buy an airline ticket, which in some cases can cost the same amount as a small car, we almost have no rights at all, not even a guarantee that we will get the service for which we paid.

If our seat is broken on a long flight, or if the airline does not have our first choice of meal or if anything else goes wrong with our flight experience, we are unlikely to get fair compensation.

What is worse, if consumers voice their irritation with the poor service they receive, they run the risk of being accused of air rage, being arrested or, worse, banned from certain airlines for life.

The airlines currently have it all their own way. The power should be in the hands of the consumer. Right now, passengers are often trapped on aircraft that remain idled on the tarmac for several hours at a time.

Should this proposed legislation come into effect, airlines will have to pay compensation of up to $1,200 to travellers stranded when their flights are overbooked or cancelled all together. Flights delayed more than two hours will force the airlines to provide passengers with food, drink and access to a telephone.

Passengers are also misled by airline companies that advertise cheap rates only to find out later, after they have booked their ticket, that the cost of their ticket has skyrocketed with administration fees, more taxes and other surcharges

Should the bill come into effect, airline companies will have to advertise their rates honestly and include the applicable surcharges and additional rates.

The current reality is that consumers have little sway with the airlines. This is why consumers need a passenger bill of rights. Airlines currently benefit from bad behaviour, since passengers have little say in how services are delivered and no real recourse for poor treatment. Airlines can often act in ways that perhaps they should not, ways in which they would not act if commitments to passengers were upheld.

An example is cancelled flights. I am sure that almost all of us here have had a flight cancelled at one point in our lives. In addition to the inconvenience, cancellations often force passengers to miss important events, meetings and/or holidays.

This practice, highly unfavourable to passengers, can often serve as a cost saver for an airline because it will not need to pay compensation to its inconvenienced passengers.

New systems could drastically reduce the amount of luggage that goes missing and speed up its tracking and return. Many a time I have had to borrow one of the hon. member's suits and they seem to sag every once in a while, so I like to get some of my luggage back every once in a while. However, airlines are reluctant to invest in new technology. If the cost to the airlines for allowing bags to go missing or to get completely lost were to increase, then airlines would quickly improve their luggage handling systems.

The present situation encourages and rewards bad behaviour on the part of the airlines. Surely it is better to put in place a system that encourages and rewards good behaviour and that penalizes bad behaviour. This is also why we need a passenger bill of rights.

If airlines are required to generously compensate passengers for service shortcomings, this will selectively add extra expense to airlines with poor customer service records. All airlines these days are necessarily obsessing with cutting their operating costs. Currently, customer service is often seen as a cost, but if there is a potential penalty associated with poor customer service, then improving this will be part of their operation.

We, as fare-paying passengers, still have every right to expect service as promised without delay, cancellation or compromise no matter whether the airline is profitable or not. Consumers would not accept any compromise on safety and neither should they compromise on service. If an airline cannot afford to operate at a minimum standard of safety, it is not allowed to fly. Why should the same rule not apply to service?

This legislation is not suggesting that airline passengers receive extra rights above and beyond what is reasonable. Rather, consumers should have the same expectations as when buying other goods and services and if there is a problem, they will be fairly compensated, the same as all other consumers.

Adding an airline passenger bill of rights is not a precedent-setting new form of intrusion into the commercial relationship between a supplier and a purchaser of service. It simply creates some underlying basic principles of fairness in line with those already in place for most other consumer purchases and it is badly needed to fill a huge gap in our consumer rights.

The establishment of a passenger bill of rights will not require a new government department to manage or control it. All it does is establish a legal framework within which airlines are expected to operate and to specify minimum compensations levels which airlines must provide when they fail to provide their services as described and promised.

Airlines are still free to set their own pricing and policies any way they wish within the framework of the passenger bill of rights. Other countries are already doing this. New legislation now in effect in the European Union obliges airlines to pay compensation for delayed or cancelled flights. This legislation took effect on February 17, 2005 and gives passengers cash compensation of £250, £400 or £600, depending on if the problem flight is under 950 miles, between 950 and 2,200 miles or over 2,200. That system is established. Compensation is awarded for delayed flights, cancelled flights, denied boarding or being bumped, as it is called, or for baggage problems. Additional compensation, such as meals during delays and overnight accommodations, can also be earned depending on the circumstances.

Assistance must be provided even when the delay is caused by a factor outside the airline's control, such as severe weather. Other issues are also covered. For example, if someone is downgraded from first class to coach class, the person receives compensation based on a specific formula.

One of Canada's airlines, Air Canada, is already operating under European laws on overseas flights. Two other airline providers have already adopted some of the proposed changes. WestJet and Porter Airlines do not overbook flights.

In conclusion, it is time that the power was put back in the hands of the consumers. Travellers have been at the mercy of airline carriers for too long. Canada has a chance now to borrow the best of existing measures and to create a world leadership role in air travel fairness.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the short time remaining, it is very important that the House recognize the work the government has done on this issue.

After having been in government for two short years, we introduced the flight rights Canada code of conduct for Canada's airlines. The previous government had 13 years to do something, but unfortunately the Liberals did nothing.

We consulted with stakeholders, the airlines and consumer groups because this issue is not only about consumers, their rights and their comfort on airlines, but it is also about the viability of the airline industry in Canada.

It is important that we truly consult with all stakeholders. These are not just punitive measures, measures that will hurt one sector. They will truly benefit not only the airlines, but all Canadians.

With flight rights Canada we ensured that passengers have a right to information on flight times and schedule changes. We have ensured that passengers have a right to take the flight that they paid for. If a plane is overbooked or the flight is cancelled, the airline must find the passenger a seat on another flight operated by that airline, or buy the passenger a seat on another carrier. This is important and as I said, after two short years in government we introduced this and we are proud of it.

Passengers also have a right to punctuality. All of us in the House have travelled. Those members who have been in the House longer than others have travelled much more than some of the new members, but travelling is part of what Canadians do.

I am proud of the work we have done. We need to continue to work together, but we must consult all stakeholders on this matter.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House resumed from March 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the serious job of responding to the question of consumer protection of Canadian airline passengers must be of paramount importance to this particular Parliament. Our constituents are expecting it of us.

It was nearly one year ago, in the previous Parliament, that I tabled my private member's Motion No. 246, calling on the federal government to enact an airline passengers' bill of rights for Canadian consumers. My motion instructed the government to model its response to the already enacted airline passengers' bill of rights which is already in force within the European Union, and as well, on no less than four pieces of legislation that were being reviewed within the U.S. Congress. These were legally binding measures that would create greater consumer protection for U.S. passengers.

My motion called for the federal government to respond to the growing expectation by Canadian travellers that their basic rights as paying passengers be protected from the kind of arbitrary, and yes, often unethical decisions that were increasingly being made by an industry that, once the customer entered its care, used that control in an unfair way and seriously inconvenienced those passengers, costing them their time and their money.

Let us be clear. Airlines are in a position of total power and control over every choice and every decision of an airline passenger once they are under an airline's care.

In a feat that I have all too rarely seen in my 13-plus years in this place, my motion calling for this legislation passed unanimously, 249 to zero. Not only did I get the full support of my own Liberal caucus, but the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and yes, the Conservative caucus stood together with me that day and said new laws and new regulations must be made to protect airline passengers in this country because the existing regulations were no longer working.

It was a proud moment for me and a historic moment for this House. Everyone agreed that something very substantial needed to be done, including both the former minister and the current Minister of Transport, both of whom that day stood up and agreed with me about the necessity of my plan, and they said so to the entire country.

This is even more relevant today than it was a year ago. The Prime Minister just announced that the government plans to sign the Canada-European Union comprehensive air transportation agreement and that a separate agreement will harmonize civil aviation safety regimes between our two jurisdictions.

What was missing, however, from the Prime Minister's announcement was a harmonization of consumer protection regimes between our two jurisdictions. The European Union has an airline passengers' bill of rights. Canada does not. If we are to have an integrated system for this proposal to work, obviously consumer protection has to be based on an equal footing between the two jurisdictions.

Therefore, why did we say this? Why did we initially call for this? What is the necessity of government-imposed consumer protection within the airline industry? Why not simply let the marketplace do the work? Why the government interference, some may ask?

The answer goes, however, even deeper than just the simple truth that the Canadian airline industries and the players therein operate with relatively little to no competition. The marketplace is not genuinely open to competition. It also goes further than the obvious point to any frequent flyer that customer care is increasingly being jettisoned by airlines in favour of cost cutting. It even goes beyond the realization that the airline industry today is more about selling tickets than it is about moving passengers.

There is a constant fact about this industry that parliamentarians must recognize will never change, even if a dozen new national airlines enter the Canadian marketplace. The fact of this matter is that no matter how sincere any particular airline's promise of better customer service in the future sounds today, there are currently no rules, no ways to complain, and no penalties to hold airlines to this standard.

The same airlines that now want to move in this enlightened direction just weeks ago refused to acknowledge that any problem ever indeed existed. That undeniable reality is that every airline holds total control and power over their customers once the boarding pass is issued, once bags are checked, and the passenger passes through security en route to the departure lounge to await boarding. This control is one-sided. It is a one-sided position of power fostered in part by government regulation.

The relationship between an airline and its customers is unlike any other. Once a ticket is purchased and a boarding pass has been issued, the reality is that every single option of personal choice is at that point immediately and effectively stripped from the customer and placed exclusively in the hands of the carrier. Here are some examples of what I mean.

A passenger arrives at the airport and is told the plane is delayed 30 minutes. Bags are checked, security is cleared, and the passenger sits and waits. Two hours later the passenger is told the plane is delayed for yet another hour, and then another hour.

Realistically, I ask the question: Can that individual now just simply go to the next counter and buy yet another $1,000 ticket? No. The bags are in the cargo hold of the original airline. It is very difficult to get them out and put on the other aircraft. That passenger is, in effect, an economic hostage.

Picture this. A passenger is on a trip from Calgary to Halifax with a stop and an aircraft change in Toronto. Bags have been checked. The crew, however, is late arriving and boarding in Calgary is delayed by 30 minutes. When the crew does arrive, the plane is quickly boarded, and that plane, for all practical purposes, is on its way. However, the airline scheduled nine other aircraft to depart Calgary that same hour for various other destinations. The plane is number 13 in line for takeoff. However, it is held up for de-icing and sits for a full two hours more. This is a real problem.

As a result of this two hour delay in taking off from Calgary, the plane lands in Toronto two hours late. The passenger discovers that the connecting flight to Halifax has left and is now disappointed and frustrated because he or she will not get to the intended destination for what is expected to be another while longer.

The airline is approached, with the customer expecting some sort of meaningful customer service response. After all, the ticket was paid for and there is a contract with the airline to go back and forth on a specific date and time. It is the airline's responsibility, one would think, to honour its contract. That is very far from reality.

Forget about the 30 minute delay due to the airline not having staff on the plane because that, according to the airline, is not a factor. What counts to the airline is that the delay was caused by de-icing, ice, and ice is caused by a drop in temperature, and a drop in temperature is a weather delay. The airline says it is not responsible for weather delays.

Forget the fact that the airline chose to schedule an entire fleet of planes to leave at the exact same time in the middle of a Canadian winter thereby causing 13 planes to show up for de-icing at the same time. Apparently, that is not considered management incompetence. That is weather, and because it is weather the airline does not have to ensure that a passenger gets the next convenient flight. The airline can put that passenger on the next flight that is convenient to it. It goes on.

From that, the passenger discovers that the next convenient flight will be in seven days. The passenger will arrive in Halifax seven days later, three days after supposedly leaving to go back home. For those seven days, waiting in Toronto for the next flight that was re-booked, the passenger is responsible for hotel bills at $150 a night, meals at $50 a day, and taxi fares to and from the airport. The original $1,000 trip to Halifax is now about to cost less than the $1,500 trip to Toronto that was never wanted. The airline can just say that it was not it's problem.

That is why we need an airline passengers' bill of rights, and it has to be initiated by this Parliament, not by the airlines. The government attempted something 48 hours before the last election call. It was called flight rights Canada, a totally voluntary initiative, which had no teeth whatsoever. Even the airlines today recognize it was not worth the paper it was written on, and they are now scrambling to devise tariff structures which would respond to customer needs.

This Parliament needs to protect Canadian airline passengers while the airlines want to save money each and every day by not treating customers well.

In 2007 Mr. Robert Milton of Air Canada made $42 million in salary. That was more than any level of compensation paid by that airline to its passengers. That is not right and that is why this Parliament must act.

I am supporting Bill C-310.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to debate this particular bill on an airline passengers' bill of rights. I should also let the House know that I may have been the only person who has served 18 and a half years in the airline industry itself. I served nine and a half in Watson Lake, Yukon and nine in the Halifax area.

When I joined CP Air in 1979, it was one of the greatest days of my life. In fact, in the industry, I am known as what is called an orange tail. Working at Watson Lake, Yukon, we tried to provide the best possible service for people who would come up to Yukon, not just to visit our wonderful territory and northern B.C. but for all the miners, expediters, tourists, hunters, trappers and all the people who would come through there.

The type of service we would provide was absolutely wonderful. We started with two flights a day: flight 18, which would go north, and then flight 19, which would turn around at Whitehorse and then come back. It was called the “milk run” in those days. Out of Watson Lake, we would serve a nice meal with beverages. There was no charge for wine and beer back in those days. Everything was there.

The reality is that the people who work for the airline industry must always look over their shoulder to see if they have jobs the following day. I have yet to meet one airline agent of any airline who caused an airline to fall or have problems. I have seen a tremendous amount of managers and board directors that simply do not know how to run an airline. We had top-quality customer service, probably some of the best in the world. Now, with the conglomeration with Air Canada, we have some of the worst.

I certainly do not for one second want my comments to infer that the agents on the ground handling either the luggage or the customers are in any way, shape or form responsible. The head of Air Canada, Robert Milton, leaves the airline and takes $42 million in salary with him. Then, Monty Brewer leaves after him and takes millions of dollars with him. Then, the airline turns around and says to these agents and retirees that they are not sure about their pension plans anymore.

When people go to work looking over their shoulders, they see their deductions. First, they are wondering if they are going to have jobs. Second, they are wondering if they will have pensions. These are the people that customers meet. Through all of that, they still provide friendly customer service from all the other carriers as well.

Why is it that we had Bruce Hood as the complaints commissioner for the airlines many years ago? Why did the government have to institute that type of individual? It is because the airlines have been nickel-and-diming their customers slowly but surely.

I will give a few inside tips on what the airlines used to do. Whether they still do it, I do not know, but I have a hunch that they may. We used to have maybe six or seven flights to a particular destination from point A to point B. If, at around 10 o'clock, a flight was showing two or three people on it and the 12 o'clock flight had maybe eight people, there was a good chance that the 10 o'clock flight would be cancelled. Why? It was mechanical. I love that answer. That is what we told our customers. We moved them over to the 12 o'clock flight.

First, one saves crew time, because the crews only get paid when they are in the air. Then, of course, one saves on fuel and other expenses. The aircraft that was supposed to leave Halifax to go to Charlottetown had to pick people up from Charlottetown and come back. They were also disrupted. Why? It was mechanical. As an airline agent, I never believed that one. At times it was, but the reality is that we used to cancel flights like that just to save money. If that is a management decision, fine. However, we should be honest and tell the people why we did it. We should not mislead them.

I want to provide a classic example of what happened. I was working at Canadian Airlines on Christmas Day many years ago at Halifax Airport. Our friends over at Air Canada had a flight leaving at around 12 o'clock in the afternoon from Halifax to Bermuda. We were rather jealous because we would have loved to have had that service. Many people were there. This was their Christmas holiday. This was Christmas Day. A lot of them saved up all year. A lot of them had anniversaries. This was their trip: to leave the cold of Halifax and go to Bermuda.

Everybody got out and checked in on time. At about 11:30, when the people should have been boarding, it was announced that the flight was going to be delayed by an hour because of a slight mechanical problem. Okay. No worries. No sweat. It was Christmas. They were on holidays. Everyone was happy.

At about 12:50 p.m., when that flight should have been ready to close the doors, they made an announcement telling us they had another delay until 2:30 p.m. In the industry we call that a staggered delay. It creeps. It is like bracket creep in taxes; it creeps up.

They just said it was mechanical. They did not tell the people anything else. I went to the ramp and found out exactly what was wrong, but because I worked at the other airline, it was not my position or right to tell the customers what was happening.

What happened was that there was a no-go item on the aircraft. They had to have it, but it was not in Halifax. That part was in Toronto. In order for the plane to leave Halifax, they had to get that part from Toronto to Halifax. They did not tell the people that until 2:30 p.m. They announced a further delay and then told them what happened. They said the flight may leave at 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., that they were waiting for a part to come in from Toronto.

Fine, they did the right thing. They fed everybody. They got a nice turkey meal in for everyone, because it was Christmas. Everyone said, “Okay, we will be in Bermuda later on this evening. We will be all right.”

Guess what? A part was brought in from Toronto, and it was the wrong part. No go. What did they do? They said, “We are further delayed. We have to get another part.”

The fact is there were no other aircraft to bring in that part. They did not tell the people that. At 9 o'clock at night, they finally announced, “Ladies and gentlemen, we regret to inform you that the flight to Bermuda is now cancelled.”

I was very fearful for the customer agent. She immediately broke into tears, because these people were verbally violent towards her. They were very, very angry. They demanded to see the managers. And where were the managers? They were at home, enjoying Christmas.

That is just one example of many I could tell from my experience in the airline industry. If they had only told the people the honest truth, yes, they would have been disappointed, but the fact is they would have understood. It was a legitimate mechanical problem. Because of the Christmas schedule and the crew times and everything, they would have understood that they simply would not be able to do it that day.

At least they could have gone home or gone somewhere to enjoy that Christmas day and flown out the following day, which they did. Why did they have to mislead them time and time again?

When I leave today, there might be a flight scheduled to leave at 2:30 p.m. They want everyone on that aircraft at least 10 minutes prior to departure. Everyone up, doors bolted down, let us go. But there is a very good chance, in many cases, that at about 2:15 p.m., we will not have boarded yet. There will be no announcements, no signs. People will be saying, “What is going on here? Should we not have already boarded?” Sure enough, they will already be into a delay. Why do they not come out and say something?

During the hassles in Halifax a couple of Christmases ago, people demanded to see the managers. It was during the daytime. There were tremendous lineups because of the weather problems. They were told, “Here is the 1-800 number for your customer service.” The agents were too busy, so people wanted to speak to the managers. Where were the managers? They were upstairs on the third floor, not wanting to come out of their offices.

This passenger airline bill of rights would once and for all tell the people who buy the tickets, use their hard-earned money to travel on business or vacation that this House has turned around and respected their will.

As an airline agent, I have seen customer service go to all-time low levels. If the airlines stopped nickel-and-diming their customers and treated them with respect, we would not have to have a bill of rights. But because of what the airlines have done to customers in this country, we are following the lead. My hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona is right. We want to follow the lead of the Americans and Europeans to make sure our customers are treated with the respect, dignity and the honour they deserve. It is no less and no more than that.

As an airline employee for 18 and a half years, I was proud to serve my airline and proud to serve the customers. The fact is that as a frequent traveller myself, I have witnessed the diminishing of customer service. It is time to bring it back, and this bill of rights will do just that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on the private member's bill introduced by the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

This government shares the member's concern over travellers' best interests. We understand there are sometimes stresses associated with air travel, particularly around holidays. The combination of an increased number of travellers and the harsh winter weather can often cause grief for travellers, airlines and airports alike.

This past winter, weather-related delays were all too common for far too many. That said, in a winter country such as ours, it seems unfair to punish airline companies for factors beyond their control. That is what this bill would do.

At the outset, before the member becomes too excited, let me share with him some good news. There is a high degree of support for the intent of this bill. No one has spoken against the desire to continue to improve consumer protection. In fact, I commend the member for his passion in that area, and I commend the member for bringing this debate forward, as well as other members who have done the same.

At the same time, several members, as I just pointed out, in the last Parliament unanimously passed a motion by the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte on similar issues. There is a strong degree of consensus from all members that something needs to be done.

With that in mind, during the first hour of debate on this bill many members have also indicated they have some reservations about this bill. For example, the Liberal member for Eglinton—Lawrence said:

Is the European experience the one to follow? Is the American experience the one to follow? Is it one that would nurture the business that would stimulate the Canadian economy and at the same time ensure we enjoy a level of service that everyone should take for granted?

These are all good questions from my Liberal colleague. They are excellent questions, in fact, but I would suggest they should be raised in the broader context of looking at the different experiences around the world. One, for example, is the European system, on which I believe this bill is to some degree modelled. The problem with it is that its penalties go beyond those in the European Union.

The Americas, I would remind the House, have no such penalties for delays or other passenger inconveniences. Under the open skies regime that has been in place for several years now, consumers have enjoyed greater choice. More U.S. airlines have increased their service to Canada and Canadian cities.

However, if this bill were to pass, we could expect to see the number of American carriers serving in Canada decrease. They would have to weigh the costs and the benefits of serving the Canadian market and the risks that would certainly increase as a result of penalties included in this bill. Is that what we want for Canadian consumers, to reduce competition and therefore consumer choice?

On this side of the House we want better service, but with this bill we risk decreasing the competition that can lead to that better service.

These are just a few of the concerns that come to mind when we remember the excellent questions posed by members opposite.

On this side of the House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities pointed out that it is not only airline industry stakeholders that have strong reservations about this bill, the tourism industry has the same kinds of reservations. They both believe this bill is too narrow and punitive and that it could have serious impacts on the overall economy.

There are many potential pitfalls in this bill. I do not believe it has been carefully enough debated at this point, nor do I think that the advice and input of stakeholders is contained in the final product. We need to listen to consumers, to the industry and to experts on travel and tourism as we move forward.

We want to do more to protect consumers, and I believe the hon. member who sponsored this bill does want to do more.

There should be appropriate consultations with industry and consumers. This would ensure a good balance between a strong consumer protection regime on the one hand and continued viability for the airline industry on the other.

The fact is the measures put forward in Bill C-310 raise some serious concerns for Canadians. They have the possibility to hurt airlines in our country and put Canadian jobs at risk. We need to be mindful of this in a time of economic uncertainty. Punitive measures, like the ones outlined in the bill, will not solve the problem. Paying the passengers $500 for every hour their plane is stuck on the tarmac does not get the plane up in the air any faster. It seems especially punitive when we consider that many of these delays are associated with weather and are outside the control of the airline or the airport. It is not fair to risk air carriers and put them out of business because Canada happens to be a country where we have severe weather conditions.

I know this legislation is based upon the model put forward in Europe. However, solutions like these may be appropriate across the ocean, on a different continent, but not in a country that gets blizzards and severe thunderstorms in summer, as we do. Not only is our weather severe, I am sure the member and his colleagues opposite would agree, it is also fairly unpredictable in Canada.

I know all members in the House would like to find ways to promote air passengers' rights. We have all heard the horror stories. In fact, we have all lived these horrors stories. As members of Parliament, we are all travellers, by necessity of our job. However, at the same time, we have to ask ourselves whether the bill before us is the best way to deal with the problem.

Our government is open to suggestions on how to improve air travel for Canadians. I am looking forward to hearing the ideas that are brought forward in this debate.

Earlier this week, we saw the four major airlines, Air Canada, Air Transat, Jazz air and WestJet, through the National Airlines Council of Canada, come forward with major changes to increase airline passenger rights in our country by leaps and bounds. This proposal follows the flight rights program that was introduced by our government in 2008. It takes the voluntary codes outlined in the program and makes them a binding part of the tariffs. This is a good first step, and I think all members would agree that that is a good first step.

We are encouraged by such positive action taken by the industry. It is always good to see an industry or a private company step up to the plate and take the necessary action to fix the problem. We look forward to working with the airline industry and with airports to ensure that these are enforced and abided.

Although the member for Elmwood—Transcona should be commended for his dedication to protecting the Canadian air traveller, a bill with such wide-reaching implications for the travel industry and our economy should require further consultation with stakeholders.

I hope members will join with me in voting against this bill in particular. I urge them to join with me in working toward a better system for passengers' rights.

Once again, I will reiterate that our government is very much interested in hearing additional thoughts from the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He has clearly put a lot of time and effort into the subject. Though we have come to different conclusions than has he, I believe he has much to contribute to this debate. We thank him for advancing his bill.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to contribute to the debate on Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers.

This bill was introduced by the member for Elmwood—Transcona, and at the outset, I would like to commend him for the intent of this bill. All members, including those on this side of the House, share his concern for strong consumer protection, whether for airline passengers or for other consumers.

Pressure has been mounting from many different sources for parliamentarians to address consumers' complaints against the airline industry. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I can tell the House that we have received a number of pieces of correspondence from airline industry representatives and other Canadians regarding this issue, and this private member's bill in particular.

Complaints have become even more frequent and action is more urgently needed. Given the delays many air travellers have faced in the past two Christmas seasons, and by the travellers who encountered difficulty in leaving Mexico following the H1N1 crisis, while many of their stories are unfortunate, both of these instances serve as reminders that there are many aspects of air travel, including blizzards and outbreaks of disease, which are completely out of our control.

The bill before us proposes that we address these concerns by imposing a range of obligations on air carriers, as well as stiff penalties should the carriers fail to meet those obligations.

The bill is well meaning for consumers, in the sense that it clearly intends to address some of the concerns that they have raised, but well meaning is where it ends. Its appeal to populism is punitive and it is potentially devastating to Canada's airline industry.

This bill would place some very serious financial constraints and penalties on airlines in this country. We on this side of the House have a duty to be mindful of this during a time of economic uncertainty.

At the transport committee, we have heard from a number of airlines and other industry representatives, many of whom believe that Bill C-310 is highly punitive and will cause adverse consequences. For example, the Air Transport Association of Canada, which has approximately 185 members, had this to say about Bill C-310:

The financial “compensation” paragraphs of Bill C-310...bears no relationship to the economic realities of air transport in Canada. Where is the equality in paying a customer who purchased a $99.00 ticket to Florida $1200.00 in “compensation”? Canada has an open market place. If a particular carrier routinely delays or cancels flights there generally are alternatives available to customers. There are no similar strictures on other transport modes that have delays or cancellations. Why air transport? Why not let passengers vote with their wallets?

The Air Transport Association of Canada went on to say that if this legislation moves forward, we can expect to see the following consequences: it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking; air carriers will have to increase ticket prices substantially in order to recover costs contemplated by this bill; and service to some communities, mostly remote, and segments of the population, for example, unaccompanied children, will be reduced or eliminated.

These serious concerns from industry should make it very obvious that this legislation was drafted without consultation with the industry.

There is an old saying that we should beware of what we wish for. Should we pass this legislation, I believe we may well find that consumers will not be better off. In fact, they may face bigger problems.

There are many unanswered questions still lingering about this bill. What would it cost for the airline industry to implement the provisions? What would the consequences of their implementation be? Who would enforce these provisions? Because of this uncertainty, our government cannot support this bill.

We have heard from industry. The Canadian Airports Council specifically said, “Passage of C-310 would directly add costs to air carriers that would have to be passed on to consumers”. This is counter to the intention of the bill. Consumers would not be better off with higher fares.

I would also point out that if Canada were to adopt the provisions in Bill C-310, we would be seriously out of sync with the regulatory regimes of our trading partners at a time when we should be seeking regulatory harmony.

The penalties in the bill are harsher than those in the European Union air passenger bill of rights. The United States, our largest trading partner, does not impose such strict obligations and harsh penalties on its carriers.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona has at heart the same interest that we share on this side of the House. We all want better consumer protection for air travellers, but ultimately, the bill before us would not serve the best interest of the consumer. This bill would almost certainly result in the unintended consequences of fewer choices and higher prices. Moreover, it could produce an air transportation system that is less safe.

We need a more thoughtful and nuanced approach to passengers' rights. I am sure that members on both sides of the House join me in supporting the intent of the bill. However, due to its adverse consequences, I would ask that all members join me in voting against Bill C-310.

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

Mr. Speaker, things have developed much the way I expected they would with the bill. We have just heard two speeches from members opposite who basically regurgitated all of the misinformation the airlines council has been trying to get out, I would say more unsuccessfully than not.

I know members are used to one-page private member's bills, but this is only 11 pages long. The bill is very simple to read and I am going to go through some of the exemptions we gave to the airlines, but obviously those members do not recognize them as such.

I sent a letter to one of the newspapers the other day and I sent a copy to MPs today. The letter reads:

There is a great deal of misinformation about the air passenger bill of rights being circulated by Canada's airlines in a bid to scare the public. I would like to set the record straight on a few key points.

Currently, there are no provisions for monetary compensation for flight delays in Bill C-310.

The Conservatives say there are monetary penalties and compensation for flight delays. There are none.

However, the Bill does require, in case of delay of two hours or more, that the airline provide meals and refreshments.

That is reasonable.

If a delay requires an overnight stay, accommodation and local transportation must be provided.

That is reasonable, and is already done in many cases.

The passenger also has the option of receiving a full refund for a delay of five hours or more.

That is new. That is taken from the European Union legislation. I think it is reasonable that if people have been waiting for five hours and they want their money back, they should be able to get it back. Most people will not ask for their money back. Most people will stay and wait a few hours longer. Their bags are packed and they are ready to go. They will stay longer. Maybe at least the airline would be nicer to them, maybe give them an extra meal voucher to keep them there so that they will not cash in the ticket. However, people would have the right to get their money back after five hours and that is reasonable.

In the case of passengers who have had flights to Mexico cancelled by the airline, Bill C-310 would require the airline to offer reimbursement of the full fare, which some airlines are currently refusing to do. Under the extraordinary circumstances exclusion in the bill, airlines would not have to pay compensation, just refund the cost of the ticket.

Those great consumer advocates in the airlines, while making their big announcement on Monday, are refusing to give back fares that passengers have paid to go to Mexico as we speak. The bill would not offer any compensation. It would say to reimburse them the money, which is what they should do, but in terms of compensation, there is no compensation payable. Why? Because it is an extraordinary circumstance exclusion. Weather is an extraordinary circumstance as would be the flu situation in Mexico. There would not be compensation for those.

Overbooking involves airlines selling your seat to someone else. If you're not allowed to board a flight because your seat has been sold, why shouldn't you get $500, $800 or $1200 in compensation for the inconvenience? Air Canada has been paying customers these amounts for 4 years in Europe.

Actually, that has been occurring since 1991, but at a lower amount.

Why should Canadian passengers receive lesser treatment?

As regards the tarmac delays, airlines are given an exclusion if it is unsafe to disembark from the aircraft.

Why do they not recognize that?

As you can see, there is plenty of leeway for the airlines under the bill if they would take the time to read its provisions rather than trying to scare the public.

I am going to deal with the exclusions because that seems to be the key to this whole situation. All they have to do is look at subclause 4(c) on page 3 of the bill. It states:

(iii) the air carrier can prove that the cancellation of the flight was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

We leave it wide open. The airlines do not have to pay a cent. If they follow the rules, they would not pay a cent in any event.

Let us deal with the tarmac delays. They love to get on this. Subclause 6(1)(d) states:

(d) an opportunity to disembark from the aircraft if it is possible to do so without causing any undue risk to the health or safety of the passengers or any other person or the safe operation of the aircraft or any other aircraft.

That is their exclusion. If it is a weather problem, they can say it is unsafe to get off the plane. What is the problem?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 13, 2009, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

It being 1:45 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:45 p.m.)

The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-310 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #65

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)