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.

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back, everyone.

Just to complete the discussion that we had in the previous meeting, you were all given a subcommittee report. It starts out “Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure”, it's the third report. If you turn it over to the second page, item 5, the only thing that has changed from our discussion is the date on which we will first entertain Bill C-310. Originally in our subcommittee we had talked about October 7. Based on the committee's decision today, it's now November 2.

All I would ask is that the committee as a whole give approval to this as amended.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much.

Now moving into the second part of our agenda, we have notices of motion to deal with. We have two notices of motion from Mr. Kennedy. I'm not sure in what order they were received.

Mr. Kennedy, do you have a preference as to how you would like to deal with each motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So we have the report of the subcommittee in front of us. We now have an amendment to that, which would suggest that we move beyond Canada Post and NavCanada and bring forward Bill C-310.

I'll open the floor for debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for attending the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 23.

Before we proceed with our guests, every member of the committee has received a report of the subcommittee from the previous meeting. I'm advised that I'm going to have to read it very quickly into the record just so that anyone who's listening or following the debate of the committee will know and understand what we're talking about.

Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has the honour to present its Second Report.

Your Subcommittee met on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:

1. That the Committee undertake a study on the management and operation of Canada Post and that the President and Chief Executive Officer be invited to appear before the Committee at the earliest opportunity.

2. That the Committee continue its study on NAV CANADA's Airport Traffic Services and invite the President & Chief Executive Officer to appear at the earliest opportunity with respect to the recent changes in airspace and terminal control services at Mirabel Airport.

3. That the Committee undertake the study of Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, once it reconvenes after the summer recess.

Ms. Chow.

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

Merci.

Certainly I want to advise Mr. Volpe and the Liberal caucus that we, as a committee, have given number one priority to government legislation, and of course that has worked out extremely well in terms of our productivity as a committee. But it is our intention to bring forward BillC-310 for the committee to study, and I would suggest we do so subsequent to this high-speed rail study for at least a couple of meetings before the break for constituency time in the summer. I would suggest that first of all we complete this study, and I would like to expand the study, as I suggested, to include the inter-city light rail.

So that would give us probably two days to hear from at least the airlines in relation to Bill C-310 before the summer break and then we could of course go back to that in the fall if it's at all necessary after we hear from the airlines on some of the economic consequences--as we saw in some of the recent articles--and what the airlines suggest will happen.

So that would be my suggestion.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, 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 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.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to quickly respond to that.

With the current economic conditions, the global crisis, the uncertainty in the marketplace over the past period of time, the tremendous impact that the airline industry has on Canada and Canadian travellers, especially given that our population density of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 people per square mile is the lowest in the world, the major concern of the government is that this particular motion could cause additional uncertainty if it is passed as it is, despite all the concern raised by the airlines. That is my concern and that is the government's concern.

Mr. Kennedy, because a lot of people are listening to this particular motion and a lot of people are paying particular attention to Bill C-310, I want to ensure that all parties and all listeners recognize that this committee is not going to rubber-stamp it. I want to make sure they recognize that this committee is going to give it due consideration, look at all the international norms and practices, and apply a good opinion back to the House on that basis.

That is the concern.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I just wanted assurance from the parliamentary secretary, since he is steering this motion, that this is not about sandbagging or inordinately delaying Bill C-310.

It is coming to this committee. It is a little unusual for us to be in anticipation of the will of the House. We are not trying to be in contempt of the House, but if we are thinking it is coming, we would ordinarily deal with it as that business arises and then set parameters for a study. It is a little unusual to have that done ahead of time. We don't have the benefit of the will of the House or of some of the final discussions of the House with respect to this bill.

We want to make sure that we aren't setting up unequal terms that don't follow the spirit of the bill.

All the members of the committee want to have a good discussion on the issue associated with this bill, but I hope that the committee will study it fairly and quickly. I intend to support a motion if the government gives that assurance.

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

I think concern has been expressed by all members around the table regarding Bill C-310. So while I haven't had an opportunity to rewrite any of the things, I hope that Mr. Jean, on behalf of the government, will accept what I take in a friendly fashion, and maybe we can deal with this very expeditiously.

If you don't mind, I'll read it out, and maybe the clerk can tell me whether it's in order or not. It may be the will of the committee to accept the intent of it the way I read it. I haven't had an opportunity to make the changes in French. Monsieur Laframboise, I hope you will bear with me.

I'm not sure that I want to use “given the complaints”, but:

That, given that this committee has received concerns by air travellers, given the motion passed in the House unanimously, and given the private member's Bill C-310, which may come to this committee in the next 48 hours, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, as part of its study on Bill C-310, include a comparison of the potential economic and consumer impacts of these measures with international norms and practices. Further, that the committee evaluate these impacts with respect to service levels, protection for consumers, air service providers, and on Canadian jobs and competitiveness.

I apologize if the grammar isn't completely perfect, given this, but I hope that the parliamentary secretary will take that comment. I think that on behalf of their parties, Monsieur Laframboise and Mr. Bevington will accept that we're trying to expand what will happen.

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

May I respond to that, Mr. Chair, just very quickly.

I have had the opportunity to review letters and particular issues that have been brought forward by some thirty carriers that service Canada that are not in favour of this particular bill--and it's obviously Bill C-310--including many other stakeholders, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and so on. And in fact, I'm from a northern community, like some of the members here, and I've had particular discussions with Air Canada and WestJet in relation to concerns about many of the airports in northern Canada shutting down and isolating communities as a result of this. Many of the air carriers do not service communities in Newfoundland and other areas because of, quite frankly, compensation and cancellation issues with this particular bill if it is passed. This is of real concern, especially to Newfoundland, and I have some 35,000 Newfoundlanders in my particular riding, and those airlines are telling me that they will not service many of the cities in Newfoundland during the entire winter because of this particular bill, if it's passed, and the issues with snow and snowfall.

So I do believe this bill has particular ramifications, and my proposal is basically not only to study Bill C-310 but also to study the economic impact to Air Canada and particularly rural communities and, in fact, service providers. So that's why I brought forward the motion.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'm sure the committee members are well aware that a private member's bill, Bill C-310, is in front of the House and we are going to vote on that tomorrow. And once this bill is either voted down or is voted for, and the committee does its work, then we'll do the study part of that bill anyway, so I don't see that there is any need to have a motion of this kind at this time, when we have a private member's bill coming to us as a committee. We'll do our job there.

[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.

[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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ask the questions here and I am not getting any answers. We are here this evening to try to get some response from the government.

The answer is really simple. All the government has to do is take the sensible approach and have the minister change the regulations to ban the practice before the airlines start to do it. What is he going to do? Is he going to wait until they start charging and then ban it after they have gone to all the extra expense? That makes no sense at all.

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-310, the airline passenger bill of rights. It is not dealing with the washroom issue. That is a different bill and a different set of issues. We will be dealing with that in our second hour of debate next Thursday and with a vote the following week. He can make up his mind then as to whether he will vote in favour or against it.

We are dealing with an issue that will cause a big problem for a lot of air—