Bill C-310 (Historical)

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers

This enactment places obligations on air carriers to provide compensation and other assistance to passengers in certain cases when a flight has been cancelled or delayed, when boarding has been denied, and when an aircraft has remained on the ground for a period of more than an hour at an airport. It also requires air carriers to disclose all relevant information to the public regarding the pricing of flights and to keep passengers informed regarding any misplaced baggage and any developments in respect of their flights that could have a significant impact on their travel plans.

[Marco Prud'homme, President and General Manager, Quebec Air Transportation Association]

Thank you very much.

We would like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to present our concerns and recommendations regarding Bill C-310.

The AQTA is a non-profit organization working for the development of the Quebec air transportation industry. We represent all industry stakeholders, airline companies, airports, schools, maintenance and service companies.

Upon reviewing the bill, our association wonders what justifies such an initiative. After consulting the Canadian Transportation Agency, we learned that the number of new complaints regarding air transport services has decreased since 2005.

In 2005, there were 1,337 new complaints and, as you can see, this figure has decreased from year to year. For the period 2008-2009, there were 901 new complaints. It should be noted that not only has the number of complaints dropped, but according to Statistics Canada, the number of domestic flights has increased since 2003. The percentage of complaints versus the total number of passengers has also gone down.

Aside from peoples' perception, the reality in terms of air transportation services is statistically well documented in Canada. With respect to the percentage of complaints, I believe this ratio would be appreciated by a number of industries. Moreover, I believe our air transportation system is adequate, even though there is always room for improvement.

Our analysis has revealed that this bill does not reflect a negative industry trend. Our research has also revealed that according to the Canadian Transportation Agency's report for the period of 2008-2009, only 9% of those complaints applied to small- to mid-size carriers. It is therefore surprising that the bill does not make any distinction between various categories of carriers.

Article 21 of the bill refers to the Canadian Transportation Agency, however, it seems to give it only a purely administrative role. It is however a fact that if there is a real need in the field, the agency, according to its mission, vision and values, must respond to the concerns of Canadians and put forward a code of practice regarding transport conditions to solve the issue.

Furthermore, we believe that the bill does not address a number of issues. Does this bill cover the complex nature of air operations? How will this bill financially impact carriers? What will be the impact on remote routes? Will it lead to fair increases for passengers?

Air Inuit is a native-operated carrier that has been active in Quebec for several years. One of the company executives has provided us with the following example. On the Salluit-Montreal route, the distance is 1,864 kms; the aircraft would be a 45-seat Dash-8, and in case of cancellation the penalty would be $36,000 per flight for 45 passengers, or $800 per passenger. In the case of a five-hour delay, a penalty of $22,500 per flight would have to be paid. The carrier has mentioned that its rate, as submitted to the Canadian Transportation Agency, already includes measures in the case of cancellations, delays and denied boardings.

Adversely, this bill would lead to a degradation of services and create hardship for a number of regional carriers. This is also true for carriers providing service to northern Quebec, the Maritimes, the Magdalen Islands. Please review the letter from Air Inuit outlining this issue.

Could we improve on this bill? Some stakeholders would like to change its spirit as well as the content of the bill, while others would like to add exceptions and specifics. We do not believe that a bill with such a simplistic view of our industry can solve a systemic problem, because this bill does not take into account the numerous key players influencing the system, the complex nature of air operations, or our geographic reality.

The right question we need to ask ourselves is the following. Which tool available in Canada would be the most suitable to address the concerns that have prompted the creation of such a bill? In our opinion, that tool is the Canadian Transportation Agency. The agency is composed of a team of qualified, experienced and knowledgeable individuals, and above all, it is independent. It is not influenced by private or political interests in its actions regarding those issues.

These are our recommendations. Carriers should not be the only ones bearing the financial burden when they operate within an environment that includes a number of stakeholders and variables. It is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt what may have caused a delay, something which unfortunately can be a byproduct of our network's operations.

The concerns that are at the root of this initiative could be validated and analyzed by the Canadian Transportation Agency in view of finding viable solutions that effectively meet real needs.

In the interest of our air transport network and that of the Canadian public, we recommend that this committee reject this bill because it is unjustified, inappropriate and inapplicable.

Thank you.

Air Passenger Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition is a call on the government to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights. Bill C-310 would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. It includes measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. It deals with late and misplaced baggage. It deals with all-inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising.

It is inspired by the European Union law. Air Canada is already operating under the European laws for their flights to Europe, so the issue is why Air Canada customers should not receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada. It would ensure that passengers would be kept informed of flight changes, whether they were delays or cancellations. The new rules would be required to be posted in the airports and on the airlines to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they would not have to pay one dollar in compensation to travellers.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that calls for the adoption of Canada's first air passenger bill of rights. Bill C-310 will provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian airlines including charters anywhere they fly. The bill includes measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays.

The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage. The bill requires airline companies to use all-inclusive pricing in their advertising.

The legislation is inspired by European Union law which has been in place for four years now. Since Air Canada is already operating under European laws for its flights in Europe, why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The bill will ensure that passengers be kept informed of flight changes whether they are delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted in the airports, and airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation.

The bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay $1 in compensation to passengers.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 which would introduce Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition calls upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights by supporting Bill C-310.

The bill would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly.

The bill includes measures towards compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. It also deals with late and misplaced baggage. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising. Air Canada currently operates under European laws, so certainly Canadian customers should receive the same treatment in Canada as they do in Europe.

The bill would ensure that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether they are delays or cancellations.

The new rules must be posted at the airports and passengers must be kept informed of their rights for compensation. The bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they will not pay a cent in compensation.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

[George Petsikas]

I think that you have fully understood what we are saying. During plane travel in Canada or abroad, there are many stakeholders. Everyone with a direct or indirect impact on the process needs to come together and talk about their responsibilities, their obligations and their potential roles.

I would like to add Transport Canada, which has a direct impact on everything that happens, particularly with regard to standards and hours of service. In order to establish a legislative or regulatory framework that makes sense, we must ensure that this discussion takes place. This was not done with regard to Bill C-310. That was a missed opportunity. That is why we are saying that things need to be done over again but in the right way. We are prepared to take part in that exercise and to have a serious discussion.

We need to take into consideration the factors that were mentioned earlier. Obviously, we cannot undermine security; nor must we try to pin the blame on anyone; we need to find a way to improve the consumer's experience and, if something is not working, try to provide them with fair and reasonable compensation, without costing the system a fortune. Unfortunately, that is not what we see here. I think that you have understood what is happening.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand my colleagues. Some of them have taken a personal stand, like Mr. Maloway and Mr. Byrne, but there is something that bothers me and that I am wondering about. I want the people watching us to understand this clearly. I agree with you: if Bill C-310 is passed in its current form, all the blame will go to the airline companies, and you do not deserve that because there are other bodies in the system that create problems and yet they would not have to comply with the rules.

You referred to NAV Canada, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, the Canada Border Services Agency and airport authorities. These institutions are of paramount importance when it comes to passenger service. Am I wrong?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like Mr. Regan, I thought that we were allowed to ask questions on both of the minister's presentations, but since you don't want us to, we will stick with Bill C-20.

You evaluated all of this and came up with these figure of $650 million. I assume that you studied what is done elsewhere in the world. Are there legislative authorities in other countries that opted for an unlimited amount of liability?

[George Petsikas]

Mr. Byrne, thank you for that.

If that takes place in the context of no Bill C-310, I'm going to tell you now that we're prepared to discuss any possible scenarios.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I note from your testimony before us that it seems your preoccupation is with the liabilities that you suggest are beyond your control, supply chain issues. You note that under the current provisions within Bill C-310 it's a bonanza for lawyers.

Let me ask you this. You seem to have a lot of respect for the Canadian Transportation Agency. It seems to be working out okay for you. It's a quasi-judicial body, with a vested interest and a competence in investigating and enforcing matters pertaining to commercial transportation issues.

Let me give you a suggestion and see how you respond. To prevent matters that are not in your control from being deemed your liability, how about actually having the Canadian Transportation Agency, a quasi-judicial body with competence in monitoring regulation pertaining to the commercial aviation industry, actually determining whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, it is indeed a commercial airline liability that created a particular delay or other inconvenience or a matter beyond their control?

One of the things suggested to us is that.... We're frequent travellers, but it's not about us, it's about our constituents, it's about the travelling public that we hear from. We hear that often airlines will provide a mitigating circumstance to a failure to provide a customer service on an issue out of their control. At certain times, evidence is presented that suggests that maybe it was indeed in the airline's control, that it was a commercial decision.

Why not have the Canadian Transportation Agency be granted the authority to investigate and enforce these matters? Would you agree with that?

That's good transparency, in my opinion.

[Brigitte Hébert, Director, National Airlines Council of Canada]

Thank you, honourable members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today on private member's Bill C-310, which, as you will hear, contains measures that are deeply troubling not only to air carriers, but also to consumers and Canadian communities.

We are here today on behalf of the National Airlines Council of Canada, which is an industry association comprised of Canada's four largest passenger airlines--Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat, and Jazz Air LP. Together the member carriers of the NACC directly employ 34,000 Canadians and directly serve 59 Canadian communities. We operate on average 1,800 flights a day, or 657,000 annually. We carry 126,000 passengers a day, roughly the entire population of Kelowna, B.C., or 46 million annually, about 1.36 times the current population of Canada.

This massive undertaking occurs each day, despite the best that Canada's climate can throw at us, and within the regulatory and security frameworks of the Government of Canada and the international jurisdictions we serve. Most importantly, it all takes place safely.

Inevitably, when dealing with that volume of passenger traffic there are going to be instances where passenger inconvenience, either beyond or within the control of the airline, is bound to occur. Airlines work hard to limit such instances, but like any other customer service industry, we are not perfect. Mistakes happen, and when they do, passengers should have rights, and they should have effective recourse if those rights are not respected.

NACC's member airlines understand this and have adopted into our tariffs the provisions of the flight rights program announced last year by Transport Canada. Let it be understood by members of this committee that this is a significant step. It is a formal, legal change to the contract between us, as carriers, and the customers we serve.

If we fail to live up to those conditions, the Canadian Transportation Agency has the power to investigate the circumstances of our failure and determine individually and according to circumstance the appropriate restitution or compensation due.

Furthermore, I would like to restate a commitment we made when Mr. Byrne's original motion on passenger rights was adopted by the House of Commons.

NACC urges parliamentarians, through this committee, to undertake a serious and detailed study of the public policy issues around passenger service in Canada—including an evaluation of airlines, Canada's airports, federal institutions and bodies and the regulatory regimes that affect international destinations served directly from Canada.

We want to find solutions. We want to move our passengers more efficiently. We welcome your interest, and in the context of a sincere effort to help our customers, we welcome your scrutiny.

That brings us to the reason we are here today, a discussion of private member's bill C-310. Unfortunately, Bill C-310 is not going to help passengers in Canada. Bill C-310 is not about rights for passengers and it does not aspire to improving the travel experience or growing the travel options of Canadians.

There is not one single provision contained in Bill C-310 that would in any way serve to actually reduce instances of passenger inconvenience if the legislation were adopted.

Bill C-310's only aspiration is to penalize airlines in numerous instances for situations that are clearly far beyond the control of even the most conscientious carrier.

And let there be no mistake, the penalties proposed in Bill C-310 are very severe. If passed, this bill will hurt airlines operating in Canada, profoundly affect the cost structure of our businesses, force dramatic price increases on Canadian consumers and lead directly to service reductions, not only in Canada's busiest airports, but also in rural communities across Canada—specifically, airport communities in Atlantic Canada, northern Canada and in rural northern Quebec—that are dependant on reliable air service to provide a business and social link to the rest of the country.

Firstly, because Bill C-310 employs Canada's court system as a dispute-resolution mechanism, and because imprecise terms are sprinkled through virtually every major provision of the bill, no one can determine with any certainty at this point how Bill C-310 will actually be applied, and no one will know until a series of protracted and costly legal battles takes place.

Undoubtedly you will hear, or have already heard, that this language is based on European legislation—an assertion which is deeply troubling—when we know that the courts of EU member states are so confused by the wording and intent of the regulations on which Bill C-310 is based, that they have—after numerous protracted legal proceedings—referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Essentially, they have thrown up their hands.

Surely these are not problems Canada is seeking to replicate in the creation of our own framework for passenger rights.

As was stated earlier, air carriers are, for whatever reason, the exclusive focus of this bill. Federal agencies or entities, such as Nav Canada, CATSA, CBSA, and Canada's airport authorities are not contemplated, and no consideration is given to any foreign entity or legal framework despite the complex and vital roles those organizations play in every trip Canadian passengers make.

By ignoring these obvious connections, Bill C-310 fails to address in any meaningful way the problems it identifies, instead leaving it to airlines to deal with circumstances beyond their control or face excessive penalties.

But more troubling is that Bill C-310 doesn't provide any allowance in key clauses for the most obvious and frequent culprit in airline disruptions. Bill C-310 makes airlines responsible for the weather.

For instance, in clause 5, in case of delay, airlines must provide a total of two phones calls, e-mails, faxes, or telex for each passenger, as well as meals and hotel accommodation if required. If the airline fails to comply with any of these obligations, it must pay each affected passenger $500. If a flight is delayed more than five hours, the airline must also offer to reimburse all airfares.

Clause 5 offers no exemption—even in the form of loose “extraordinary circumstances” language—from obligations if the delay is caused by a weather event or a safety concern. Clearly, an airline is not doing anything wrong if snowfall in Gander or Trois-Rivières is preventing the on-time departure of an aircraft. But the airline is liable.

There are clearly some serious problems with Bill C-310, but its most egregious flaw is its failure to consider the safety of passengers and crews. In numerous instances Bill C-310 discourages and penalizes airlines for ensuring the safe operation of a plane, imposing substantial financial liability on carriers when flights are cancelled or delayed for safety reasons. It is counterintuitive to the promotion of aviation safety for the Government of Canada to implement a system of penalties to be imposed on airlines precisely because they will not operate in instances when public safety could be jeopardized.

Throughout the entirety of Canada's regulatory framework governing aviation, safety is the top priority. In adopting this legislation, members would in effect undo that principle. Passenger convenience is of greater concern than public safety in the drafting of private member's bill C-310, and that cannot be acceptable.

These are our top-line concerns with Bill C-310, but by no means is my presentation here today comprehensive in terms of the significant problems legislation like Bill C-310 would create for commercial aviation in Canada and the significant expense and inconvenience it would create for the public at large. I could quite literally go on for hours, but I'm sure members have questions.

Before I close, I would like to address the assertion that Bill C-310 can somehow be quickly amended to deal with its deficiencies. That is simply not practical.

The bill's reliance on punitive measures, its adoption of open-ended definitions, and its complete exclusion of all other aspects of the aviation supply chain mean it is fundamentally flawed. Bill C-310 requires complete redrafting of almost every clause contained in the legislation as proposed. Undertaking the work to do so would require a comprehensive review of the entirety of the aviation service and value chain to ensure that committee members can make the necessary amendments without unduly negatively affecting the state of Canadian aviation.

In summary, Bill C-310 does nothing to improve the passenger experience and has the potential for wreaking havoc on industry costs and the viability of air services. It needs to be withdrawn and replaced with a new initiative, which the NAC would wholly support and which would be based on a balanced, reasoned approach that considers the concerns expressed today and the totality of Canada's aviation system.

We hope that this cooperative approach is the path this committee chooses to follow, ultimately to the benefit of all Canadians. Bill C-310, unfortunately, benefits no one.

Thank you for your time.

[George Petsikas, President, National Airlines Council of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. We're very pleased to be here today to have a chance to comment on Bill C-310.

It was my intention to allow my colleague Brigitte Hébert, director of operations of the NACC, to open with a 10-minute statement. She'll do that, but with your indulgence, I'd like to take the opportunity to add some facts to the debate that has begun here on a specific issue by the previous witness, and that would be concerning Air Canada flight 32 from Beijing to Toronto. Let me take just a few minutes to clear up what happened in that particular case. Then we'll move on to our comments and, of course, I'll be happy to take your questions.

Air Canada flight 32 was inbound to Toronto to land. Nav Canada, because of inclement weather conditions, shut down a runway on which it was supposed to land. It could not land on the other existing runways at Pearson, and as such circled in an attempt to at least wait for conditions to improve. They did not.

The captain therefore made the decision, in consideration of the safety of all aboard, of course, to head to his alternate, which was Ottawa, and to land. Ottawa of course accepted the flight.

The problem with Ottawa is that Air Canada doesn't operate 777s, the largest aircraft in their fleet, into and out of Ottawa. As such, they did not have on that night the ground equipment necessary to tow the aircraft in and out of the gate. So the aircraft had to make some special manoeuvres to sidle up to the gate, if you will. That took a little bit of time. They were able to get some air stairs and get the passengers out.

The passengers had to clear customs, as per Canadian law. Customs officials were not expecting that flight at that time of day. They don't usually handle flights that big with that number of people coming off at the same time. They had to scramble to get people to get those people cleared. So there were additional delays as a result of customs clearance procedures.

Once cleared, those passengers were offered coupons for meals and beverages. Air Canada was able to rebook at least 100 of those passengers onto earlier flights departing from Ottawa, on regularly scheduled flights from Ottawa to Toronto, including a group of 40 who were connecting on a flight to Buenos Aires. Air Canada held the flight leaving from Toronto to Buenos Aires in order to ensure that these passengers made their connection. The rest of the passengers were able to fly back on the 777. However, because of flight duty time restrictions, the captain and the co-pilot who brought the aircraft in from Beijing had to basically desist for the rest of the day, because they were past their duty time. In the interest of safety, they could no longer operate. Another crew was brought in. That plane eventually got back to Toronto.

Those are the facts of Air Canada flight 32. I just wanted to put them on the record.

I pass the floor now to my colleague Brigitte.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm very pleased to be speaking on Bill C-310 and leading off on the committee stage of debate on the airline passenger bill of rights.

I'd like to begin by thanking Mario Laframboise and the Bloc caucus and Dennis Bevington and the NDP caucus for their ongoing support of this bill. I'd also like to thank Gerry Byrne, Joe Volpe, and the Liberal caucus for supporting this bill at second reading. Without all three parties' support we would not be here today discussing the details of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the Air Passengers' Bill of Rights flows from private member's motion 465, introduced last year by Gerry Byrne and passed unanimously by this House of Commons.

The motion has still not been acted upon by this government. Instead there was a voluntary agreement called “Flight Rights Canada”, which had no effect in law but did promise that tarmac delays, for example, would not exceed 90 minutes. Even the airlines now recognize that 90 minutes is the maximum time to confine people on a plane.

What did the airlines do? They proceeded to keep people on the tarmac for six or eight hours, just three months after they agreed on September 7 to adhere to flight rights. So much for flight rights.

On March 2, 2009, the airlines decided they would put flight rights in their tariff, voluntarily letting the Canadian Transportation Agency enforce it. Unfortunately, these tariffs are airline-specific, and the only passengers who will be protected are those on the four airlines that adopted flight rights. That's just four airlines. That doesn't even include all the Canadian airlines. For example, all foreign carriers would be excluded. That's why we need Bill C-310. Bill C-310 covers all carriers operating in Canada.

Furthermore, even if the four airlines do not follow their own tariffs, there are no penalties if they do not comply with the flight rights provisions. They did not follow through the last time, so why would we believe they would do so now?

We've heard criticisms that fares may rise as a result of Bill C-310. I ask you, did the fares rise as a result of Air Canada's president earning $26 million in 2007? If the airlines follow the rules in Bill C-310, they won't pay a cent.

The news media have tried to find out how much Air Canada has paid out to passengers in Europe as a result of the European legislation enacted in February 2005, and so far no one has been able to find out. How much did Air Canada pay under the previous European legislation in 1991, which dealt with denied boarding only? This information is important to know when determining the financial impact on the airline. Did Air Canada stop flying in Europe because of this legislation? Absolutely not.

Bill C-310 does not require an air carrier to pay compensation to a passenger with respect to a flight delayed or cancelled due to weather. A flight that is cancelled due to weather falls within the exemption that is provided for in the bill. We've taken the exclusion from the EU law and put it verbatim into the bill, giving the airlines the extraordinary circumstance exclusion that they've used in Europe for the last four years, and they're very familiar with it.

If the air carrier can prove that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, then the air carrier is not required to pay compensation to the passengers. This is the standard that has been adopted by the European Union. Cancellation due to weather clearly falls within this exemption and would not be covered by the bill.

All an air carrier is required to do in the case of cancellation due to weather is reimburse the passenger, which is reasonable; reroute the passenger; cover meals and refreshments in relation to the waiting, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that; provide hotel accommodation if a stay of one or more nights is required; provide ground transportation between the airport and the place of accommodation; and provide a total of two telephone calls, fax calls, or e-mails. There's nothing here that is unreasonable for an air carrier to do.

The EU commissioned a study about two years ago, after the rules were in effect, and while the airlines have been aggressive in Europe in using the extraordinary circumstances argument 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.

There is a very comprehensive Steer Davies Gleave report, which I have here. It's probably 100-plus pages long. It studied this whole area and came to the conclusion that the extraordinary circumstances exclusion was the best vehicle to use in this circumstance.

The reason for extraordinary circumstances is to ensure that the bill is able to survive court challenges. In Europe it survived two. The bill covers denied boarding due to overbooked flights and encourages 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. The airline had overbooked by six people, and volunteers to deplane were offered free passes. Everybody was happy with that result, and I'm sure they are still talking about it to this day. In Canada, for example, WestJet and Air North, Yukon's airline, do not overbook, so they will pay nothing.

The point is that happy customers are what the airlines need. If airlines have to deny boarding to customers involuntarily, then why should they not be paying the 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, and Bill C-310 was inspired by the EU legislation, which has been in effect since February 17, 2005. Air Canada operates in Europe and under that legislation. The review panel notes that the EU airlines try to use the exemption as often as possible to avoid paying compensation to passengers. The airlines fought the EU legislation in court and lost. This legislation is sound and is backed up by the courts.

If MPs think that the penalties of the bill are too high, then they can propose amendments reducing penalties to a more appropriate level. In most cases, we accepted the compensation levels in the EU law. The original EU legislation from 1991—there was a bill in effect before 2005—dealt with denied boarding only. The compensation levels were only one half of what they are in Europe today. The 2005 rewrite to the EU legislation doubled the compensation and expanded the scope of the regulation to include cancellations, flight delays, and charter flights. The review panel that I spoke to you about said, just two years later, that the penalties were just fine the way they were; they were not too high and not too low.

Mr. Chairman, why should passengers not have a right to cancel and get a refund after a five-hour delay? Last year there were flights to Mexico that were cancelled through no fault of the people, and they were denied the right to get their money back. We say that if they're going to a cancel a flight, you have a right to a refund after a five-hour delay—not that many people will take them up on the option. Why should passengers not get a meal voucher after a two-hour delay? Why should passengers not get a $100 payment if the airline misplaces their baggage and doesn't notify them within an hour after finding it? Will $100 bankrupt the airlines? Or will it cause them to smarten up and stop misplacing the baggage in the first place, not notifying the passenger when the baggage is found?

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

While the intention of the legislation is for voluntary payment directly from the airline to the passengers, because EU carriers have fought the law so hard in Europe, it has taken the small claims court system to get settlements for passengers. 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 ones that are getting the payments; it's the small claims courts that are getting people settlements. In fact, recently a large number of British Airways passengers received their settlements through small claims courts.

Mr. Chairman, Bill C-310 is fair to customers and to the airlines. The airlines who follow the rules will not pay a cent. Airlines that claim extraordinary circumstances too often will 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, rather than to the flight rights only, which cover only four carriers and have no specified penalties.

Why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The airlines are suggesting that Bill C-310 is not flexible enough on tarmac delays.

Well, Mr. Chairman, paragraph 6(1)(d) on page 5 of the bill says: 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 to the safe operation of the aircraft or any other aircraft.

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 if it's possible to do so without risk to the health or safety of the passengers. If they're unable to do these things, why should they not compensate passengers? If the $500 amount is too high, then bring in an amendment to lower it.

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

I've answered the question many times about what it will cost the airlines, and the truth is it will cost the airlines nothing if they simply follow the rules.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition calls for the adoption of Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

Bill C-310 would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. The bill includes measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage. The bill requires all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

The legislation is inspired by the European Union law that has been in place for four years, and since Air Canada is already operating under European laws for its flights in Europe, why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada.

The bill would ensure that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether they are delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted at the airport and the airlines must inform passengers of their rights and process to file for compensation.

This bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they would not need to pay $1 in compensation to passengers.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 that would introduce Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

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

Madam Speaker, citizens of Manitoba have signed my petition to call upon the Parliament of Canada to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights, Bill C-310, which would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers including charters, anywhere they fly. The bill includes measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights, and unreasonable tarmac delays. It deals with late and misplaced baggage. It deals with all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising. It would ensure that passengers be kept informed of flight changes whether they were delays or cancellations. It will require that the new rules be posted at the airports and that the airlines inform passengers of their rights for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay one dollar in compensation. On behalf of the constituents who signed the petition, I am very pleased to present this and ask that Parliament support the bill.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to reiterate that indeed the economic action plan our government put forward.... The opposition had requested that we put forward three report cards, as it were, and we were on probation—I believe that was the word being used—until those reports were brought forward. Our government, on its own initiative, offered a fourth report card, and that report card has now been delivered to the Canadian public in the form of the economic update. We are putting forward those numbers on a regular basis.

About this report that the member opposite has compiled, I too have been made aware of phone calls that were made under the auspices of an infrastructure secretariat doing a review, but the number went back to his office. So I question the report. How else did he compile those numbers? That would be my question.

But my third point is that the people who have been in attendance at this committee on a regular basis have made the decisions on the issues on which we want to go forward. We've been discussing high-speed rail. We have a major project there that has been undertaken. We have spent public money on that trip to the United States, and that needs to be dealt with. We have Bill C-310 coming forward. We have the legislation on the capital commission that needs to be done. And those of us who were here had made the decision quite some time ago that we were going to be discussing the Arctic, and that is nowhere on our agenda at this point in time.

I suggest that this is an inappropriate motion for us to be discussing, and I am going to be voting against it.