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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

Thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It deals with issues such as late and misplaced bags. It deals with issues such as all-inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising.

Legislation of this type has been in Europe now for the last five years. The question is, why should travellers have better treatment in Europe than they do in Canada? Airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at the airport. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed the rules, it would cost them nothing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.

Thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights, Bill C-310. This bill would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It deals with late and misplaced bags. It would require all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising.

This type of legislation has been in effect in Europe since 1991 and in its current form for the last five years. Why should Canadian passengers or any passengers from Canada get better treatment in Europe than they do in Canada?

The airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The rules would have to be posted at the airport. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. There would be no cost to the airlines if they follow the rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions for the House today.

The first petition is signed by thousands of people and calls for Canada to catch up with Europe and the United States and adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. The petitioners ask for support for Bill C-310, which would provide for compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. This type of legislation has been in Europe now since 1991 and in its current form for the last five years. The bill would ensure that passengers were kept informed of flight changes whether they were delays or cancellations. It would require that rules be posted in the airports. The airlines would be required to inform the passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. It would deal with late and misplaced baggage. It would require all-inclusive pricing to be in the airline companies' advertisements.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition is signed by thousands of Canadians calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights, Bill C-310. The bill would compensate air passengers with all carriers in Canada, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would address late and misplaced baggage issues. It would require all-inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising.

The legislation has been in effect in Europe since 1991, but it has been revamped into its current form in the last five years. The question is why Canadian passengers on Air Transat and Air Canada get better treatment in Europe than they get in Canada.

Airlines would have to inform the passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at the airport. The airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed the rules, it would cost them nothing.

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

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the New Democrat consumer protection critic, I hear from hundreds of Canadians about their interactions, both good and bad, with businesses. Most of those people who contact me with complaints simply want a straightforward way to have their concerns addressed and be compensated for any losses they have faced.

This is exactly what Bill C-310 would do for airline passengers. It would put in place simple rules regarding cancellations, delayed flights, delays on the tarmac and overbooking. It would put in place policies for late and misplaced baggage. It would legislate that airlines must advertise all-inclusive pricing. It would ensure that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. It would ensure that the new rules be posted at the airports and that the airlines inform passengers of their rights for compensation.

For those reasons, I will be opposing this motion because I believe it is important for consumers across Canada that we move forward with this bill.

The compensation that would be put in place would not be punitive or harsh but would be remedial, aiming to recognize and correct the fact that passengers should be compensated when their plans are disrupted by airlines. More important, it would force airlines to provide passengers with a minimum standard of care, for example, food, air and water, when their flights are delayed or cancelled.

Parliament has already passed a motion requiring all-inclusive pricing by these airlines in Canada. This means that rather than advertising a price of $99 for a flight from Ottawa to Vancouver and then adding all of the taxes on checkout, the full cost must be provided at first glance. The legislation, however, is still not in place and this bill would rectify that.

Voluntary codes are not enough. In September 2008, the airlines in Canada agreed to the flights right proposal that voluntarily limited tarmac delays to 90 minutes. Guess what? Only three months later passengers were on a plane on the tarmac for eight hours without being allowed to get off that plane. It took the RCMP to intervene to get the airline to dock the plane and finally allow passengers off. Personally, I would prefer if we were not forced to use the Criminal Code to protect consumers' rights.

This bill is not unique. This bill is inspired by legislation introduced by the European Union, and since its implementation. overbooking on flights leaving Europe have declined significantly. Air Canada and numerous other carriers that use Canadian airports are already governed by these rules when they fly out to European airports. This means that the implementation of these new rules would require only minimum changes for airlines.

The Obama administration in the U.S. also introduced rules that passengers on U.S. domestic flights are entitled to be let out of planes delayed on the tarmac within three hours and that they must be provided with food and water within two hours. Any airline that h fails to meet these standards would be fined up to $27,000 per passenger. The rules followed a landmark $175,000 fine imposed in November 2009 on Continental Airlines, ExpressJet Airlines and Mesaba Airlines for their roles in the delay of more than five hours in Minnesota.

In comparison, the fines in Bill C-310 are much more modest. The aim of the bill is not to force payouts on airlines, it is to ensure passengers are treated fairly. In fact, if the airlines follow the rules set out in Bill C-310, they would not have to pay out a single dollar in compensation.

The bill does not punish airlines for cancellations that are out of their control. We can take, for example, the recent disruption to air travel due to the volcanic eruption in Iceland. Hundreds of Canadians were stranded in Europe as the ash cloud spread from the eruption. Even flights leaving the Atlantic Canada area were affected. However, in this case, flights were grounded because of safety concerns and we recognize that safety must be the primary concern of airlines.

This bill recognizes that reality. In fact, my criticism of the handling of the situation was not directed at the airlines in any way. When I rose in question period on April 18, I questioned the government's response, or more properly, its lack of response in helping stranded passengers in Europe.

When Britain sent navy ships to pick up passengers stranded in Spain, Canada set up a 1-800 number, which I believe is completely inadequate, but no one will never hear me criticizing airlines for trying to ensure the safety of their passengers.

However, the airlines in Europe were forced to ensure that their passengers were offered adequate food and water while they were stuck in the airport. If something similar were to happen here in Canada, any stranded passengers would, at best, only be entitled to what the airline felt like providing, and worse, would be left to cope on their own. I believe that is unacceptable.

The transport committee has claimed that the House should not move forward with this bill because it “excludes the responsibility of other parties such as an airport authority, Nav Canada, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), and the Canada Border Services Agency.”

The fact is that this bill specifically states that airlines are not responsible for compensation when cancellations are caused by circumstances beyond their control. Let me read right from the bill. Subparagraph 4(1)(c)(iii) says:

--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.

That is stated right in the bill. If members of the committee really have concerns with the fact that these parties, the ones I mentioned earlier, are not taken into account explicitly, there are other ways of moving forward than simply killing the bill.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona, who introduced this bill, has already shown a desire to work with the committee members on their concerns with this bill. When members of the committee and witnesses expressed that they felt the compensation legislated in the bill was too high, the member for Elmwood—Transcona volunteered to amend the bill by halving the fines.

I believe that members of the committee could have suggested amendments which would have dealt with these concerns. The fact that they instead decided to try to kill the bill completely worries me. The fact is that this bill has the support from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and numerous consumer advocacy groups. These people's legitimate concerns are being ignored if we choose not to proceed with this bill.

Rather than supporting this motion, I believe that we as parliamentarians should move forward with this bill and ensure that air passengers are properly protected when their flights are delayed, cancelled or overbooked.

There are other ways to address concerns that people may have with this bill. The EU and the U.S. have already recognized that airlines need to be regulated in these matters. Canada risks being left behind and our consumers left exposed. If we do not act now, we will end up doing the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's first priority with respect to air travel is safety. That being said, the government supports consumer protection measures.

Our government understands the stresses associated with air travel, particularly with the effects caused by Canadian weather and the volume of traffic during holiday periods. The recent closure of airspace over Europe as a result of a volcanic eruption in Iceland is another dramatic example of unexpected stresses that can affect air travel.

The government launched flight rights Canada in September 2008, which was intended to inform the travelling public of Canada's consumer protection regime, their rights under the regime and how they can seek redress.

When Bill C-310 was initially presented to the House in 2009, a number of issues were raised regarding how the bill's punitive measures penalized airlines for events outside their control, such as weather and tarmac delays. In doing so, air passenger safety is potentially put second to passenger convenience, where pilot risk-taking to avoid paying compensation may take hold. Such high penalities, likely to increase ticket prices, could also threaten the number of flights to more remote locations.

It is clear that this legislation, while well intended, was not drafted in consultation with industry stakeholders who brought forward these concerns. It was also found to be inconsistent with European or United States legislation in this regard.

After the bill passed second reading in May 2009, Bill C-310 was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for review where the committee invited key industry and consumer stakeholders to present their views on the bill. Although the bill's intention to improve airline customer service and ensure appropriate compensation was well received by some witnesses, industry stakeholders raised serious concerns.

As per information received during the bill's initial consideration, these stakeholders, as well as a number of government and opposition members, felt that the bill's punitive and unfair provisions would have serious repercussions for the airlines' financial viability and services to remote and/or rural communities. After hearing detailed testimony from the witnesses, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommended that Bill C-310 not proceed further. I support this position and I will tell the House why today.

First, the bill does not take existing legislation or consumer protection into account. It is incompatible with the Canada Transportation Act's existing consumer protection regime. The bill would also prevail over the Aeronautics Act, which creates safety concerns. These are fundamental issues.

Current procedures clearly specify how unsatisfied air passengers may seek redress from the Canadian Transportation Agency on matters such as baggage, flight disruptions, tickets and reservations, denied boarding, passenger fares and charges, and various carrier operated loyalty programs. However, consumers seeking compensation under this bill would have to seek redress through the courts. Such a pattern, which is costly, time-consuming and a burden on Canada's legal system, could be especially protracted since it would take some time for the case law to develop an appropriate redress under the bill to be defined. This work would be especially challenging and would require additional legal, governmental and financial resources to be carried out.

Second, by failing to take into account the role of other entities in delays or cancellations, the bill's sole focus on airlines is unfair and would not forgive future delays and cancellations. For example, air carriers would be held liable to passengers for delays and cancellations due to inclement weather, slow de-icing procedures, airport congestion and air traffic control issues, such as the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland.

While the bill includes exceptions where airlines would not have to pay compensation because of extraordinary circumstances, such circumstances are not defined. So, again the courts would have to define what these are.

The bill's measures are especially significant for the financial viability of smaller carriers serving remote locations, such as northern and/or Atlantic Canada and rural areas. There is a risk that given the costs associated with the bill, be they to provide food or accommodation, even in the case of weather delays that are outside of the airlines' controls, services to these areas could be reduced or potentially disappear. This could lead to higher unemployment and reduced tourism, affecting the economic viability of these communities. It could also force residents to rely on ground transportation modes that may not be readily available or convenient for everyone.

Third, not only is the bill overly punitive to air carriers, but it would also not improve the air passenger travelling experience. First, the bill's fines could incite pilots to fly during difficult weather conditions or with mechanical problems in order to avoid paying compensation to passengers. This is unacceptable and unsafe behaviour that should not be encouraged in any legislation. The bill's excessive penalties could drive higher prices or affect already slim carrier margins. Our airline industry is fragile at the best of times and consumers would not benefit from rising prices, especially during these still challenging economic times.

I will conclude by emphasizing this government's support for consumer protection measures in the aviation industry and our ongoing objective to create a balance between protecting passengers and ensuring a competitive industry. We cannot support Bill C-310.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the bill.

At the outset, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence made a spectacular speech on the subject. It was 100% accurate all around. However, I have to observe that there appears to be two Conservative parties in the House, particularly on this issue. We have the member of the Bloc writing the script for the Conservatives in the committee.

I am quite surprised, for a Conservative government that normally wants to follow the United States. The United States has rocketed ahead of Canada just since January in the following areas. For example, in terms of tarmac delays, Mr. Ray LaHood, the secretary of transportation, is now penalizing the airlines $17,500 per passenger for tarmac delays longer than three hours. If that does not smarten the airlines up, I do not know what will. I spoke to him on February 20 when I was in Washington. I tried to get an explanation as to why it would be such a huge amount.

The members of the government are complaining about the figure that we had in the bill, which was $500 and we were prepared to take it down to $100. In fact, we were even prepared to amend the bill, as the member for Eglinton—Lawrence said, to make it a requirement that the penalty would not exceed the price of the ticket.

Just two days ago, and members are probably not aware of this yet, a new ruling came out on overbookings in the United States. On Tuesday of this week, Southwest Airlines was fined $200,000 for overbooking passengers. This has all come about in the United States, while we have been sleeping for the last year.

The rules in the United States and the aggressiveness of the authorities is right up there with the EU.

Let us deal with the EU for a moment. The European Union has been mentioned a few times. Its legislation started originally in 1991. It was expanded to include charters five years ago.

We are dealing with a number of countries. We are dealing with England, Germany, France and Portugal. They have tremendous experience and we have simply taken their model. In fact, if we read their legislation and we read our legislation, it is word for word in many areas. Therefore, there is experience with this.

Therefore, why do we have these apologists for Air Transat's operating in the legislative environment. I do not understand this, how lobbyists can get to elected politicians so easily and some how convince them that black is white and white is black.

We even went back to our legal team to get an opinion on the issue brought forward by the Bloc that this was not enforceable. We presented the legal argument from the lawyer saying that this was totally constitutional. These bills are drafted by lawyers. They will not waste their time drafting bills that are not constitutional. We have an opinion from the lawyer, which says that there is nothing wrong with this wording.

I specifically sent it to the lawyer on the basis that I wanted his opinion on the Cubana Flight 170, 172, about which the member is concerned. For those who do not know, that was the flight of March 12 when several hundred people were held captive for 12 hours on a plane in Ottawa with no food, no water, overflowing toilets. They were saved by somebody after 12 hours, realizing that they should phone the RCMP. That is how they got off the plane. Otherwise they might still be there.

It was on that basis that we sent this to the lawyer. We told him the Bloc's objections and asked how Bill C-310 would help the Cubana passengers. The lawyer came back and said that was exactly what the bill would do. It would have helped those passengers because the airline would compensate the passengers, as they do in Europe, and then the airline would have every right of subrogation against who it saw would be the guilty party.

When Air Canada was dealing with snowstorms in Vancouver two years ago, and it did not take care of its passengers then either, it sure moved against the airport quickly. It had lawyers chasing the airport for wages that it paid because of the storms and because the airport ploughed the wrong runway. That is always there.

In insurance principles, if a car hits our fence, we get our cheque from Wawanesa Insurance, but then Wawanesa turns around and goes after the automobile insurance company. That is its business. We are the passengers and we want to be dealt with by the airline. If the airline can recover from CATSA or from an airport for shared responsibility, then that is its business.

The member for Eglinton—Lawrence pointed out that we had an extraordinary circumstances exclusion in the bill, which hard-core consumers would say is way too broad. It would allow those airlines in Europe to use extraordinary circumstances, and some of the airlines are totally irresponsible and use it for everything. To them, everything is extraordinary circumstances. It is up to the passenger to go to small claims court. In Europe a company called EUclaim, based out of Holland, has been very successful in getting claims settled for people. However, it is no picnic in Europe. The airlines are fighting this tooth and nail.

Air Transat has been paying compensation. Do not let Air Transat lie to us. It has been paying compensation. We asked Air Canada several times now how much it had paid in the last five years in compensation to its flights in Europe. It has not stopped flying to Europe. It is flying as many flights as it was five years ago. Air Canada will not tell us that. Nor will Air Transat. They are prepared to ill treat their customers in Canada but treat them a lot better in Europe.

The member for the Bloc says that he does not know what is going on with the ash situation over in Europe. He thinks maybe Air Transat and Air Canada are treating the passengers the way they are supposed, paying for the hotels and the meals. That is what they are supposed to do, under the EU regulations. He is wrong.

I get complaints constantly. I can tell members that it did not take very long to hear from a passenger who was flying on Air Transact, although we had complaints emanating out of Air Canada, as well. Jason Keats, who was from Toronto, contacted my office on April 20, not long ago. He told us about how he had bought tickets for him, his wife and children to London, England. He was going to fly to Paris in two weeks and then was going to fly home from Paris.

Guess what the responsible airline did in the crisis? Not only did it not pay for any hotels, it did not pay for any meals and it stiffed the guy for his return tickets from Paris. The airline would not give him his money back.

He had to buy regular priced tickets back from London for he and his kids when the ash cleared. Meanwhile, he missed his Paris flight because he could not get there. Air Transat would not give him his money back. The two seats were vacant all the way home and people were stranded in Paris, looking for seats. It did not even sell the seats to somebody else, which a responsible carrier should do.

Do not tell me that somehow these airlines are responsible. They are not responsible at all. They may smile at us when they are lobbying. However, when they get out there in the market, they only pay what they have to under the rules. The sooner we recognize that, the better.

This is not the only example. There was the swine flu incident in Mexico last year and the airlines would not give people back their money.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 minutes, I will try to explain the position that the Bloc Québécois took in committee on Bill C-310.

I will take a moment to reread the motion before us today. The committee report reads as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, and, after some hearings on Bill C-310...the Committee recommend that the House do not proceed further with Bill C-310—” because it makes air carriers solely responsible.

This is important because our position has always been as clear as day. I think that airlines should be held responsible for what they do, but I will never agree that they should be held responsible for actions that may have been or may yet be taken by other air industry participants, such as airport authorities like ADM in Montreal or the Toronto or Ottawa airport authorities. They are responsible for, among other things, de-icing planes. I could say much more on the subject. CATSA, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, which conducts searches, could also be responsible. I would not want companies to have to pay for delays. NAV CANADA is responsible for flights, and its air traffic controllers make sure that planes are always safe. I would not want companies to have to pay if ever there was a problem and NAV CANADA grounded flights or if the Canada Border Services Agency, Customs and Excise, delayed a flight for safety or security reasons. I would not want airlines to be held responsible for that.

This has always been the Bloc Québécois' position. I agree that airlines should be held responsible for their mistakes and their actions, but I do not think that they should be responsible for the actions of other parties.

The Bloc Québécois submitted a proposal. The Bloc examined Bill C-310. The problem with private members' bills is that we do not have unlimited options. A government bill can be amended with the consent of the government, but the nature of a private member's bill cannot be changed. In this case, the bill introduced by the NDP member holds airlines accountable. I will read the amendment that we proposed for clause 4 in particular, but it was always the same amendment. The Bloc Québécois proposed adding the following to all the clauses:

If the air carrier required to provide services or compensation under subsection (1) is of the opinion that the flight cancellation results from a measure or decision taken by an airport authority, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), NAV CANADA or the Canada Border Services Agency, it may submit the matter to the Department of Transport, which shall determine the responsibility of the organization in question and its obligation to refund the air carrier the amounts it had to pay out under this subsection.

The goal was to make whoever was responsible pay, if it was not the airline that was responsible. Transport Canada would have to investigate and make whoever was responsible pay.

I think it was logical and useful, except that it was deemed to be out of order because the amendment concerned a private members' bill and would change the nature of it. Consequently, the House of Commons law clerks said that the amendment was out of order.

Once again, I was prepared to improve this bill, but I could not because the amendment was out of order. That is fine, that is how things work. That means that the bill from our NDP colleague could not do what I was hoping it could. I had the opportunity to tell him that it was not a good bill because it only held the airlines responsible.

I am not the only one. I heard the Liberal member and I will probably hear our NDP colleague, but we heard from more than just the airlines in committee. The Canadian Bar Association offered its conclusion about Bill C-310.

The CBA Section does not believe that Bill C-310 is required in the public interest. Passengers have established avenues for redress that appear to be functioning well. Bill C-310 imposes a universal standard of conduct that cannot necessarily be met – at all or without costs that may not be appropriate for the benefit obtained. The Bill's scheme of compensation and penalties is arbitrary to the point of unfairness.

The Canadian Bar Association came to tell us that this bill is unfair and I agree. It is unfair to the airlines that would have to pay for damages they did not cause.

My colleague touched on what happened in the Cubana case. Planes stayed on the tarmac for more than 12 hours. During the holidays, the Cubana company had to divert planes from Montreal because of the weather. There were Quebeckers on board those flights.

In Ottawa, they were not allowed to deplane and go into the airport. They stayed for 12 hours without food, water or toilets until a passenger called the police to say that it made no sense to be held like prisoners in a plane on the tarmac in Ottawa. They managed to resolve the situation. The airline had had to reroute the plane to Ottawa because of the weather. Again, they were exempt because of the weather.

I wrote to the Ottawa Airport Authority, Cubana and Transport Canada. Two years later, I still do not know who is responsible. At first, the Ottawa airport said that Cubana had not paid its fees and that was why the airport did not open its doors to let the passengers off the plane. Cubana told us that it did pay its fees. Was the person in charge of collecting the fees at the Ottawa airport away on vacation? Probably. Someone made a mistake, but it seems it was not necessarily the airline. It was exempt because of the weather.

We cannot solve everything with one bill. That is what our NDP colleague hoped to do. Someone is trying to play politics with a bill that would penalize airlines for things that are not their fault in many cases. The Canadian Bar Association said as much. We have analyzed the situation. After what happened with Cubana, the government asked that all Canadian airlines at least be able to regulate this.

That is when the famous flight rights Canada program came into being, referring to the rights we have when we buy a plane ticket. During the recent events in Europe, Canadian airlines were able to accommodate their passengers, at least.

I have been trying to follow what is being said in the media to see if any official complaints have been filed. I have contacted some airlines. They seem to have been able to accommodate people. They did not punish people who were unable to fly to Europe because of the volcano. They tried to transfer flights and reservations. These accommodations are included in passenger flight rights. They are included in the plane ticket.

These companies agreed to do so at the request of the government. It is a step in the right direction. Obviously, if there ever were a public outcry about the behaviour of airline companies, I am convinced that we would amend the law. When the Canadian Bar Association says that there is no need to amend the law, we must listen.

In Quebec, the consumer protection act gives passengers many rights with respect to reimbursement and other things.

I have always had the same focus: I want justice to be served. If the airline company is responsible for damage suffered by a passenger, I want the latter to be compensated. However, it if is not responsible, it should not be blamed. The financial situation of airline companies is fragile. Two companies have shut down in the past six months.

Can we impose an additional burden on the airline industry when the Canadian Bar Association has said it is not necessary? It is simply being done for political gain. In addition, it is good politics to offer this up against an industry that has shown interest by voluntarily participating in the government's suggestion of passenger rights.

Once again, we will support—

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

Mr. Speaker, after having heard that and the government's position, I can only suggest to you and to anybody who is watching that one can craft words in order to deprive consumers of their rights. One can shape arguments so as to prevent them from moving forward. Indeed one can fabricate facts to support those who are in a position of authority and power against those who would be served by the companies that are mandated to provide a service.

This bill is about protecting consumers against unscrupulous behaviour by service providers who care not a whit about them, and more importantly, it is about reflecting the will of this House.

Keep in mind, and you were here, Mr. Speaker, that on June 12, 2008, by a vote in this House of 249 to 0, there was unanimous acceptance of a motion by the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, which mandated the government to come up with a list of rights for passengers not only on scheduled flights but on chartered flights. The House will recall as well that this concern had been raised as a result of some unscrupulous and rather dismissive behaviour by some operators that kept passengers on a plane, on a tarmac, for 12 hours.

We are trying to work with the airline companies to provide a service that would be acceptable, and indeed I say humane, for all those who pay for the privilege of flying from one place to another. All this business about the weather in Canada and the business model of all of these companies is mere hogwash, because the government members accepted, as part of that 249-to-0 vote, that the government would be obligated to come up with a bill of rights, not legislation.

We were all in the mood to work with the companies, and the government took until September of 2008 to come up with a flights rights bill. It was nothing more than a recounting of all the rights that a consumer has when he or she buys a ticket, and it referred to the websites of the appropriate companies. It was laughable. The only reason the government was not laughed out of this House is that it prorogued Parliament and went to an election.

Subsequent to that election, to his credit, the member for Elmwood—Transcona introduced Bill C-310 in February of 2009. He did it following what that motion indicated, that the will of this House was for the government to come up with a model. It was not that difficult. It was provided by legislation in the European Union and in the United States that said these are the rights a passenger acquires once he or she buys a plane ticket, elementary service considerations. We want those for our Canadian passengers on Canadian routes and on routes that go from Canada to elsewhere.

Every single consumer who embarks upon one of these flights in Europe already has the protection of legislation that has been operative in the European Union for 10 years, by the same companies that came before the committee. No, I am sorry, they did not come before the committee. They went first to the minister's office and said that he could not do this to them. It would destroy their business model. It would make them less competitive. It would increase their costs. They could not operate in Canada because they would not be able to offer service to those remote communities. All the members of his caucus who come from remote areas would never get another flight there again. They begged him to understand what this meant.

The government understands the word “fear” really quickly. We heard the parliamentary secretary say that the government was concerned about security. Notice that he did not say “service”. He said “security”, and then he said “safety”, because now the fault is all about those pilots, who might do something irrational like take off in the middle of a situation that clearly calls out danger. For example, in the last several weeks, a cloud of ash came out of volcanic eruptions in Iceland. Pilots said they could not travel, that they would not put passengers at risk.

The government is going to blame pilots, then an economic model and then consumers for wanting the service they paid for. The airline companies went to the minister's office and asked the government to fight back against this thing because they would come up with something. They said they would come up with some sort of accommodation in their tariff structure. They promised that, as long as this bill would not go forward.

Imagine a private company going to the Government of Canada, thanks to the minister, and saying it does not matter what Parliament comes up with and it does not matter that there is a piece of legislation that could be improved. It said nothing good could come out of this legislation or the process of debating, second reading, going to committee, garnering some amendments, trying to reach a compromise, making accommodation and trying to see the interests of business and how they are coincident with the interests of consumers. The companies came to the government and asked it not to do that, and the government said yes, aye aye, ready.

That being said, this bill still passed second reading and went to committee, where we were looking for amendments. Then the companies, especially Air Transat, said we could not do this. I have to mention names because the parliamentary secretary started to name some. They said we could not do any of this because it would be unfair to the companies. Imagine this, that the companies and the Government of Canada are now in bed together to destroy any chances of service the consumers might have. That is great.

We had an opportunity to present some amendments to address their issues. For example, notwithstanding section 1, the amount of compensation under the section would never exceed the total amount paid by the passenger for the flight in question. That means that, no matter what happened, the company would be off the hook beyond the actual cost of that flight segment.

We also wanted to propose amendments that would keep the companies safe, harmless, in the event that conditions were precipitated by circumstances beyond their control, such as decisions by the airport authority or by NAV Canada, or the weather. It is the same sort of things Europeans abide by. It is the same sort of thing these same companies abide by when they travel to Europe or the United States. But no, they could not have it in Canada because consumers in Canada who are using Canadian product do not deserve the same level of service as consumers in Europe and in the United States from those same Canadian companies.

Imagine the audacity and the insolence of those companies and the subordination of the Government of Canada to those kinds of presumptions. We were deprived of the opportunity to present amendments that would strengthen the bill, because the government accepted lock, stock and barrel the position of the companies that said this bill should not go forward because it was unacceptable to them. The companies said that we could not amend it or make it better and that the only people who could make it better were the companies.

They went on to promise that, if we killed this bill, they would do something. They have not done anything for a year and a half. The Government of Canada is aiding and abetting the total insolence of companies that hold consumers to ransom and then deny them the rights to the service that they should have and that they do enjoy everywhere else those companies operate except in Canada. Shame on the government for accepting such tripe as that which was enunciated a few moments ago by the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the companies and against Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, this government certainly supports consumer protection measures and in September 2008 we launched Flight Rights Canada, an initiative that informs the travelling public of Canada's consumer protection regime and their rights under the regime.

The foundation for Flight Rights Canada already existed in Canadian legislation as the Canadian Transportation Act requires that terms and conditions of carriage, which are the elements of the contract between an airline and its clients, be made readily accessible to consumers. WestJet, Air Canada, Jazz and Air Transat incorporated Flight Rights Canada in their terms and conditions of carriage for international and domestic travel. We are encouraged by such positive action taken by the industry leaders.

The member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona introduced Bill C-310 in February 2009, just over a year ago. The bill passed second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for review. Through the parliamentary process, industry and consumer stakeholders were given an opportunity to share their views on the bill as, of course, they would have the best perspective.

Although the bill's intention to improve airline customer service and ensure appropriate compensation was well received by all witnesses, industry stakeholders highlighted how this bill was structurally flawed. After hearing the detailed testimony, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommended that Bill C-310 not proceed further for several reasons that I will share with members now.

During the committee meetings, industry witnesses raised many concerns. In fact, the National Airlines Council of Canada, an industry association comprised of Canada's four largest passenger airlines--Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat and Jazz--argued that while the bill's intent was commendable, it actually penalized airlines for situations that were simply beyond their control.

Although the National Airlines Council of Canada's president reiterated the industry's commitment to quality service, he noted that the bill's excessive penalties on matters external to the airlines' responsibilities would substantially increase their business costs. We know when business costs increase, those costs are put directly on consumers. In doing so, this extra financial burden would simply be passed on to them in the form of higher priced tickets and would also risk reducing services to remote Canadian communities.

I come from a constituency with several remote communities, including Fort Chipewyan. The expert testimony in the committee greatly concerned me and many of the other members on that committee. This reduction in service also includes rural areas in Atlantic Canada, including Newfoundland. I spoke with one industry representative who simply said the airline would stop flying into some of these communities if this bill were passed. Northern Connect also goes to some very remote communities as well.

The most important concern raised by witnesses, however, is that Bill C-310, by imposing such harsh penalties for circumstances that were simply beyond the control of the airlines, could compromise passenger safety. In order to avoid paying high levels of compensation to jilted passengers, pilots may be inclined to fly in unsafe conditions. Pilots may simply put the issue of safety behind them and worry more about the monetary penalty that may be assessed to the airline and ultimately, their jobs. Although the government is committed to consumer protection, as we have seen in many pieces of legislation that this Conservative government has put forward, safety of Canadians is always our ultimate, number one priority.

Bill C-310 does not mandate any enforcement agency to implement most of its provisions, many of which are unclear. As the National Airlines Council of Canada testified to the committee:

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 C-310 will actually be applied - and no one will know until a series of protracted and costly legal battles take place.

The National Airlines Council of Canada also highlighted the fact that Bill C-310's exclusive focus is the airline in question and not other organizations. As one can imagine, the airline industry itself has many aspects within the chain of travel.

Following is a direct quote from expert testimony that we heard at committee:

Federal agencies or entities such as NAV Canada, CATSA, [Canadian Air Transport Security Authority], CBSA, [Canada Border Services Agency], and Canada’s Airport Authorities are not contemplated and there is no consideration 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, C-310 fails in any meaningful way to address the problems it identifies--instead leaving it to airlines to deal with circumstances beyond their control, or face excessive penalties.

That certainly raised a lot of alarm bells with our members.

In addition to being held to account for the actions of other entities beyond the airlines' control, under Bill C-310 airlines are also taken to task and would be required to provide food and other compensation in the event of unfavourable weather conditions that simply delay flights.

We do not have control of the weather. I know members on the other side think we do have control of the weather because we are doing such a great job in keeping Canada's economy on track, but the reality is that as a government, we do not have control of the weather. It would be unfortunate to hold airlines to account for things that are simply beyond their control.

The committee also invited Mr. John McKenna, president and CEO and Tracy Medve, a member of the board of directors for the Air Transport Association of Canada. Like the National Airlines Council of Canada, the Air Transport Association of Canada also reiterated that the bill's high fines could put passenger safety at risk. We are not prepared to take that chance. They said that this would be a result of taking away the pilot's ability to decide whether to fly during dangerous weather conditions in order to avoid facing penalties.

They also stated that tarmac delays are usually the result of bad weather. Let us face it, in Canada we have excessive snowstorms from time to time and other weather occurrences that are simply beyond the control of Canadians and beyond the control of this government and the airlines themselves. These should not be blamed on airlines whose flights may be delayed because of the need for de-icing.

The Air Transport Association of Canada actually argued that compensation under the bill should not exceed the cost of the original airline ticket. To do so obviously would be bad business and could hurt the financial bottom line of the airlines. Ultimately, that cost would be passed on to consumers. It penalizes airlines but the cost would be borne by Canadians all across this country.

By imposing such harsh conditions on airlines, the bill neglects to take into account, and I quote again from the organization, that:

Some small airports don't even have a terminal building. If an airline flying to and from such a location takes a look at the financial risk that Bill C-310 engenders against a smaller return to flying the route, it is possible that the air carrier will not service these locations, or, alternatively, will provide service on a reduced basis.

There are many northern communities, many aboriginal settlements, many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of the country that simply cannot afford to be isolated without airline travel on a regular basis. The government, as a result, cannot support legislation that would contribute to a reduction in the number of flights serving remote locations throughout the country, especially in our north.

Another key industry stakeholder present at the committee was Mr. Marco Prud'homme, president and general manager of the Quebec Air Transportation Association. I actually heard from him today on another matter. The association is a non-profit organization whose mission is to serve and work in developing Quebec's air transport industry.

Mr. Prud'homme's main concern with the bill was that it does not recognize the inherent complexities of the air industry and the particular issues for various regions in Quebec. For example, the bill's high fines would have a particularly great impact on smaller, regional carriers like Air Inuit, which primarily services the province's northern community. This would not be acceptable.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing this government's support for consumer protection legislation in the aviation industry especially, and our objective to create a balance in protecting passengers, the safety of Canadians, and ensuring a competitive industry.

Our Conservative government supports passengers and will continue to look at all possible practical ways to protect them while not punishing Canadian businesses or services to remote areas that rely on air transportation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(2), the motion to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, presented on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 is deemed to be proposed.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning.

The first is signed by thousands of Canadians and calls on the Parliament of Canada to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

If passed, Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would address issues such as late and misplaced baggage. It would require the airlines to provide all-inclusive pricing in their advertising.

The legislation has been in effect since 1991 in Europe but was revised five years ago. The question is why Air Canada and Air Transat passengers should receive better treatment in Europe than they do here in Canada.

Airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at airports. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed the rules, it would cost them nothing.

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

Business of the House

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the next speaker.

There have been discussions among the parties and I believe that if you seek unanimous consent you will find there is agreement for the following motion. I move:

That, at the conclusion of tomorrow's debate on the motion to concur in the First Report of the Standing Committee on Transport (recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers), the question be deemed put, a deferred recorded division be deemed to have been requested and deferred to Wednesday, May 5, 2010 immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would like to inform the House that under the provisions of Standing Order 97.1(2), I am designating Thursday, April 29, 2010, as the date fixed for the consideration of the motion to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. The report contains a recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers. The one hour debate on the motion will be held immediately after the usual private members' business hour after which the House will proceed to the adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition, signed by thousands of Canadians, calls on the government to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays.

The legislation has been in Europe since 1991. It was revamped five years ago and Canadian air passengers, up to just days ago, are receiving benefits in Europe that they are being denied in Canada.

Bill C-310 would require passengers be kept informed of flight changes whether delays or cancellations. The new rules have to be posted in the airports. The airlines must inform the passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation that deals with late, misplaced baggage. It also deals with all inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertisements. It is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, it will not cost them one cent.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

In the first petition, thousands of Canadians are calling upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengerss' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly.

The bill would provide compensation for overbooked or cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues, such as late and misplaced bags, and requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines on all of their advertising.

Legislation such as this has been in effect in Europe since 1991 but, in its current form, for the last five years. The question is why Air Canada passengers should be treated better in Europe than in Canada. In fact, in the current environment in Europe, we find out that they are not being treated the way they should be even under European law.

Airlines would need to inform passengers of any flights changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would need to be posted at airports and airlines would need to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If airlines follow the rules, they would not pay any compensation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. Thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere in the world that they fly.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues such as late and misplaced baggage. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising. The airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted at the airport and airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed the rules, it would cost them nothing.

This legislation has been in effect more or less in this form for the last five years. The question is why Air Canada passengers get better treatment in Europe than they do when they fly in Canada.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

In the first petition, thousands of Canadians are joining the call to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights, Bill C-310, which includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays.

The legislation has been in place in Europe since 1991 and was revamped in 1995. Under that legislation, Air Canada passengers receive compensation in Europe but when they fly in Canada they do not receive any such treatment. The bill would ensure that passengers will be kept informed of flight changes, whether delays or cancellations. The rules would need to be posted in airports and the airlines would need to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage. It also would require all-inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertisements.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they would not need to pay a dime in compensation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.

The first petition is signed by thousands of Canadians who are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights, Bill C-310, which would compensate air passengers travelling on all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world.

The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses such issues as late or misplaced baggage. It would require all inclusive pricing by the airlines in all of their advertising. Airlines would need to inform passengers of flight changes, delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted in the airport and airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation.

If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing. In fact, legislation of this type has been in Europe for over five years. Why should Air Canada passengers be treated better in Europe than they are in Canada?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition involves thousands of Canadians who call on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would address issues such as late and misplaced bags and requires all-inclusive pricing in the advertising of all airlines.

Legislation of this type has been in effect in Europe for five years and actually a lot longer in a different form. The question is why passengers with Air Canada should get better treatment in Europe than they do in Canada.

Airlines would have to inform passengers of any flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted in airports and airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. In fact, if airlines follow the rules, it would cost them nothing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

Dozens of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues such as late and misplaced baggage. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising.

Legislation of this type has been in effect in Europe now for well over five years. The question is why Air Canada passengers should be treated better in Europe than in their home country, Canada.

Airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at the airports. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed these rules, it would cost them nothing.

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

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly request for the member. As he knows, the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP all supported Bill C-310, the air passengers' bill of rights, but when it got to the transport committee, the Bloc critic, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, basically turned against Quebec air travellers and joined forces with the Conservatives and recommended that the bill not be proceeded with. I know that most Bloc members are very progressive people, so I was quite surprised by this development.

I would like to ask the member whether he would investigate why his party's critic joined the Conservatives and effectively attempted to kill the bill. It still has to be dealt with in Parliament and I just want to make certain that all members are aware of what actually happened at the committee.

If he would investigate this, that would be a very positive step.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member at the outset for all his help last year in promoting the air passengers' bill of rights, Bill C-310, which is still alive after all this time, thank goodness.

Last year the member will recall we had an emergency evening session in this House in which we debated the actions taken by the European Union to ban seal products while I believe the Europeans themselves were engaged in some culling process of the seal population.

What is the current status of that European boycott that we debated last year?

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

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

Madam Speaker, today I have two petitions to present to the House.

Thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights, Bill C-310, which would compensate passengers with all air carriers, including charters, anywhere that they fly in the world.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would address other issues such as late and misplaced bags. It would require all inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising. The airlines would have to inform the passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted at the airports and the airlines must inform passengers of their rights, and the process to file for compensation.

If the airlines follow the rules it will not cost them a cent. This type of legislation has been in Europe now for five years and the question is, why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment when they fly in Europe than when they are in Canada?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers on all Canadian carriers including charters anywhere they fly in the world.

The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would address issues such as late and misplaced baggage, would require all inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising.

The airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations, and new rules would have to be posted at the airports. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to follow for compensation.

This type of legislation has been in Europe now for actually a lot longer than five years but certainly five years in its current form. The question is, why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment on flights in Europe than in Canada itself? In fact, if the airlines follow the rules, it will cost the airlines nothing.

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry; I actually reported Bill C-310 yesterday. I apologize.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. Thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues such as late and misplaced bags. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising. The airlines have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules have to be posted at the airport and the airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation.

This type of legislation has been in effect now in Europe for five years. Why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment in Europe than they do flying in Canada? If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing. The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

Thousands of Canadians are calling upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues, such as late and misplaced bags, and it requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising.

The airlines would need to inform passengers of all flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would need to be posted at the airport, and airlines must inform the passengers of their rights and the process they have to follow for compensation.

If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing. This type of legislation has been in effect in Europe for five years, and the question is why should an Air Canada passenger be treated better in Europe than in Canada.

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

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on its study of Bill C-310 concerning the air passengers' bill of rights.

The committee recommends that the House does not further proceed with the bill.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition regarding an air passengers' bill of rights.

Thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers on all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. The bill deals with issues such as late and misplaced baggage. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines on all of their advertising. The airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at the airports. Airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed these rules, it would cost them nothing.

Legislation of this type has been in effect in Europe for five years. Why should an Air Canada passenger be treated better in Europe than in Canada? The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310, which would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first one is from thousands of Canadians who are calling upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses late and misplaced baggage. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines when they advertise. The airlines would need to inform the passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would need to be posted at the airport. Airlines would need to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation.

The legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. The question is: Why should a passenger flying with Air Canada get better treatment in Europe than in Canada? If the airlines follow the rules, it will not cost them anything.

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Members, as we discussed at the subcommittee in regard to Bill C-310, an Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, in the last Parliament we had a motion that went to the House. I think everyone has it in front of them. It was decided at the subcommittee that we should deal with it, or at least address it.

Monsieur Laframboise, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions this morning.

Thousands of Canadians are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers on all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly.

The bill would also provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would also address issues such as late and misplaced baggage. It would require all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all their advertising.

The legislation has been in effect in Europe for five years. Why should an Air Canada passenger receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted in the airport and airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, it would cost them nothing.

The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310 that would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions today.

The first petition is signed by thousands of Canadians who are calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 will compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters anywhere they fly.

The bill provides compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It also addresses issues such as late and misplaced bags. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all their advertising.

The legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. Why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada. Airlines will have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted in the airport. Airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions today.

The first is signed by dozens of Canadians calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly.

The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would also address issues such as late and misplaced bags. It requires all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all of their advertising. The legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. Why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The airlines will have to inform passengers of any flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules would have to be posted at the airport and the airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process they have to follow to file for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, it will cost them nothing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today.

The first one, signed by dozens of Canadians, calls on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It would address issues such as late and misplaced bags and would require all-inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertising.

The legislation has been in effect in Europe for five years. Why should Air Canada passengers receive better treatment in Europe than when they are flying in Canada?

The airlines would have to inform passengers of their flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted in airports and airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines follow the rules, it would cost them nothing.

The petitioners call on the government to support Bill C-310 that would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first petition deals with Bill C-310. Dozens of Canadians call upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. The bill would compensate air passengers with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. The bill would provide compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and long tarmac delays. It addresses issues such as late and misplaced bags. It would require all-inclusive pricing by airlines in all advertising.

Legislation has been in effect for five years in Europe. Why should an Air Canada passenger receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada? Airlines would have to inform passengers of flight changes, either delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted at the airport and airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. If the airlines followed the rules, it would cost them nothing.

The petitioners call upon the government to support Bill C-310, Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by dozens of Canadians. It is a call to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. Bill C-310 would provide compensation to air passengers flying on all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world.

The bill would include measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. It would deal with late and misplaced baggage. It would deal with all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising. It would ensure that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations.

The new rules would be posted at the airports. The airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process they must use to file for compensation. It is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they would not have to make any payment for compensation.

The petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by dozens of Manitobans calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's air passengers' bill of rights.

Bill C-310 would provide compensation for air passengers flying with all Canadian airlines, including charters, anywhere they fly. It would include measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. It would deal with late and misplaced luggage. It would require all-inclusive pricing when airline companies advertise their products. It is basically inspired by a European Union law where overbookings have dropped off significantly. The residents feel that Air Canada is already operating in Europe, so why should Air Canada customers receive better treatment in Europe than they would in Canada.

The bill would also ensure that passengers are kept informed of their flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules are required to be posted in the airports. The airlines must inform the passengers of their rights and the process for them to file for compensation. The bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they will not have to pay one cent in compensation to travellers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition signed by dozens of Canadian citizens. The petition calls upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' 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.

The bill is inspired by European law, where overbooking has dropped significantly in the last five years. Air Canada is already operating under European laws for its flights to Europe, so why should Air Canada passengers be treated better in Europe than in Canada?

The bill ensures that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules must be posted at the airport, 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 any compensation at all.

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

Air Passenger Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition has dozens of signatures calling on Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights. In fact, Bill C-310 would provide compensation to airline passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly in the world. The bill would include measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The bill would deal with late and misplaced baggage. It would deal with all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

It is inspired by the European Union law where overbookings have dropped significantly in Europe in the last five years. Air Canada is already operating under these European laws for its flights to Europe, so the question is why should Air Canada customers receive better treatment in Europe than they do in Canada?

The bill would ensure that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules have to be posted at the airport. Airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they will not have to pay one dollar in compensation to travellers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, dozens of Canadians are calling for the adoption of Canada's first air passenger bill of rights, Bill C-310.

Bill C-310 would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly. It would include measures on compensation for over-booked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. It would deal with late and misplaced baggage and it would deal with all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

This law was inspired by a European law where overbookings have dropped significantly. In fact, Air Canada is already operating under European laws for their flights to Europe. The question is: why should Air Canada customers be getting better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

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

This bill is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they will not have to pay one cent in compensation to the passengers.

This petition calls on the government to support Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition is a call to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights, Bill C-310. The bill would provide compensation to air passengers flying with all Canadian carriers, including charters, anywhere they fly.

The bill would include measures on compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage, all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

The legislation is inspired by the European Union law where overbookings have dropped significantly. Air Canada is already operating under European laws for flights in Europe. Why should a Canadian customer receive different treatment in Europe than in Canada?

In addition, the bill would ensure that passengers are kept informed of all flight changes, whether they are delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted at airports and airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill is not meant to punish their airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not to pay one dollar in compensation to travellers.

I encourage the Government of Canada to pass this bill.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition is a call to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. The petitioners support Bill C-310, which includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays.

The legislation is inspired by European Union law. In fact, Air Canada is already operating under European laws for its flights to Europe, so 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 would be posted in airports and airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage and all-inclusive pricing by air companies to be included in their advertisements.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they will not have to pay a dime in compensation to passengers. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 that would introduce Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition is a call to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

The petitioners support Bill C-310, which includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The legislation is inspired by a European Union law. Air Canada is already operating under the European laws for its flights to Europe, so 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 there are delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted in airports and airlines would have to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill also deals with late and misplaced baggage. The bill would require that airlines provide all-inclusive pricing in their advertisements.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If they follow the rules, they will not have to pay a dime in compensation to passengers.

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

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

Madam Speaker, my petition is a call to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

The petitioners support Bill C-310, which includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The legislation is inspired by a European Union law. Air Canada already operates under the European laws for its flights to Europe. Why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The bill would ensure that passengers would be kept informed of flight changes, whether there were delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted at the airports and airlines would inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill would deal with late and misplaced baggage. It would also require all-inclusive pricing by airline companies to be in their advertisements.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay a dime in compensation to passengers.

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

Air Passenger's Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition is a call to adopt Canada's first air passenger bill of rights.

The petitioners support Bill C-310, which would include compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The legislation is inspired by a European Union law. In fact, Air Canada already operates under the European laws for its flights to Europe, so 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 would be posted at the airports and the airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage. It deals with all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertisements.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they would not have to pay a dime in compensation to passengers.

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

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition in which the petitioners from Manitoba are calling for the adoption of Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

The petitioners support Bill C-310, which includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The legislation is inspired by a European law. In fact, Air Canada is already operating under the European laws on its flights to Europe, so 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 would be posted in the airports, and airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage. It also deals with all-inclusive pricing by airlines in their advertisements.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay a dime in compensation to passengers.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon Parliament to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights.

The petitioners support Bill C-310 which includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The legislation is inspired by a European Union law which has been in effect for five years. Air Canada is already operating under the European laws for its flights to Europe. Why should Air Canada customers receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The bill would ensure that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, whether there are delays or cancellations. The new rules would be posted in the airports. The airlines would be required to inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill deals with late and misplaced baggage. The bill requires all-inclusive pricing by airline companies to be in their advertisements.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay one dime 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, last week the United States transportation department imposed the first penalties in North America for tarmac delays, collecting $175,000 from three airlines, including Continental Airlines, for leaving 47 passengers stranded on a plane for six long hours in Rochester, Minnesota. This sends a clear signal to the rest of the airline industry that companies must respect the rights of air travellers in the United States.

A week ago, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that passengers are entitled to compensation for flight delays, the same as for cancellation and overbooked flights under the air passenger rules that have been in place in the European Union for the last five years.

Will Air Canada and Air Transat stop flying into the United States and Europe because of fear of these new penalties?

When will the government get out of the pockets of the airline industry and support Bill C-310, the air passengers' bill of rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, my petition is a call to adopt Canada's first air passengers' bill of rights. The petitioners support Bill C-310, which includes compensation for overbooked flights, cancelled flights and unreasonable tarmac delays. The legislation is inspired by European Union law and, in fact, Air Canada is already operating under the European laws on its flights to Europe. Why should an Air Canada customer see better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

The bill would ensure that passengers are kept informed of flight changes, weather delays or cancellations. The new rules will be posted in the airports and the airlines must inform passengers of their rights and the process to file for compensation. The bill also deals with late and misplaced baggage, and it requires all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

Bill C-310 is not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines follow the rules, they will not have to pay a dime in compensation to passengers.

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

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in relation to the study of Bill C-310, the air passengers' bill of rights.

The committee recommends that the House do not further proceed with the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm a little disappointed that if we were to choose that option.... I'll tell you that we presented a couple of amendments for the purposes of clarifying what we think is the intent of the bill. They go to some of the concerns that have been expressed by members, by stakeholders, and others.

It is our view that the legislation already addresses something in the legal environment with which we are seized as a country. We operate in the same airspace and in the same markets as the European Union and North America. It is clear that there is already a body of law that addresses the issues we are asked to address in this legislation. Those laws are ones that our carriers must abide by when they travel beyond our own domestic market.

It seems rather strange to us that we would hold the carriers to a standard that is clearly higher than the one they have to follow in the domestic environment. Nonetheless, to address some of the concerns—because we did not receive any specific documentation from the carriers in respect of this law—we proposed amendments that, in our estimation, are not inconsistent with some of the others that are put forward.

They go as follows, Mr. Chairman. They go to define a little more clearly and more specifically the extraordinary circumstances. In fact, they go so far as to replicate the language preferred by KLM and Delta Air LInes when they went to courts to present what they meant by extraordinary circumstances. Second, they address the issues of the amount of liability, in order to get away from the red herring of suggesting that people can actually turn this into a business enterprise by booking a $99 ticket and then reaping $500 in benefits, hoping that some things will go wrong. It's an interesting kind of focus on how to buy lottery tickets.

Our amendments address those two issues: to put fines into a particular context of reasonableness, and to place Bill C-310 in a jurisprudence that is already existent.

For us to consider that we not report this to the House or even allow the House to reflect on this once more would seem a bit excessive. So we wouldn't support that motion.

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

I am not questioning the decision that has been made, Mr. Chair, it is simply that it is important for my consideration of Bill C-310. I have always said that in a bill that is a passengers' bill of rights, in my opinion, I think all the players who are responsible should be the ones who pay damages when they have caused a problem. I have always given the example of the Air Cubana case. The bill I have in front of me has merit, the idea is good, but in my opinion the result is not satisfactory.

When you stated the options at the beginning, Mr. Chair, I had already analyzed all my options. I am prepared to move that we report to the House, and I would make the following motion, which I will read:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, and, after concluding hearings on Bill C-310 (Air Passengers' Bill of Rights), the Committee report that it recommends that the House do not proceed further with Bill C- 310 because it makes air carriers responsible for passenger inconveniences and excludes the responsibility of other parties such as an airport authority, NAV CANADA, Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), and the Canada Border Services Agency.

That is the sense of my amendments, that is what I have always said, and this bill does not make airlines responsible. I know there will be a slew of amendments introduced by the NDP, I know there is goodwill on the part of the Liberals, the idea is to exclude a lot of things or not make them responsible.

But we are not doing passengers any favour if, when we enact this bill, we solve all the problems of delays and incorporate exclusions and ways of doing things that mean that airlines are not held responsible. We are not doing passengers any favour.

There should have been a major joint effort, is what the witnesses have told us. Everyone should have sat down at the same table: NAV CANADA, the airport authorities, CATSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, and they should have worked out a policy on this, unless the government introduces a new bill. The bill that we have before us doesn't do passengers any favour. This is the report I am proposing, and if I have a seconder, I would be prepared to speak to it.

Airline Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, this week we learned that the transport minister's office has been trying to sabotage efforts to pass Bill C-310, the air passengers' bill of rights. The Conservatives have been working with airline executives to kill the bill, putting their lobbyist friends ahead of Canadians' interests.

The European court of justice in Luxembourg has ruled that passengers are entitled to compensation for flight delays, the same as for cancellations and overbooked flights.

Will the government follow the lead set by the EU and put passengers first? Will it work with us to pass the bill of rights?

[Mel Fruitman]

Our mandate is to inform and educate consumers on marketplace issues, to advocate for consumers with government and industry, and to work with government and industry to solve marketplace problems in beneficial ways.

For the past 25 years, the performance of successive Canadian governments with respect to consumer protection has been less than stellar. I would even go so far as to say it has been all but non-existent. We now have before us an opportunity to give at least that portion of the Canadian public who travel by air the service and protection they deserve. While we have seen increased competition in recent years, since the demise of its major competitor, Canadian Airlines, Air Canada and other carriers, to a lesser extent, seem to treat their customers with disdain.

Some examples are misleading advertising, finding out that only one seat is available at the advertised price when trying to book for a family of four, inappropriate add-ons to ticket prices, charges for checking bags, and, most recently, extra charges for seats that have a little extra leg room because of where they are situated within the aircraft. Those tend to pale by comparison with those situations that Bill C-310 attempts to modify or correct.

Before I go any further, let me note that safety is always paramount. We do not feel that safety should be, nor will it necessarily be, compromised by the types of measures introduced in this bill.

This bill deals with a number of the most egregious insults foisted upon the flying traveller: cancellations, delays, sitting on the tarmac, denial of boarding, overbooking, and lost baggage. Even though the CAC is not set up to receive complaints, nonetheless we do receive thousands of them each year relating to these specific problems. I will not take time now to describe the situations, since they are well known to committee members and have been mentioned by Mr. French.

In fact, I guess we know they are very real when they find their way into a cartoon in this morning's Globe and Mail. “Bizarro” shows a patient lying on a psychiatrist's couch saying, “I'm not afraid of flying per se, I'm afraid of long lines, hidden fees, irrational security requirements and unexplained delays.”

I will note, however, comments made before this committee by a frequent flyer who calculated that his own incidences were less than one-quarter percent of his flights. I would suggest that those of us who fly a lot have become so inured to these occurrences that we hardly notice them unless they actually cause us to miss a meeting or a grandchild's birthday celebration.

But what about the vacationers who lose several days or miss out completely because of cancellations or overbookings? What about the parents trying to amuse two toddlers while waiting for their delayed flight to depart; the elderly lady who becomes ill while incarcerated for hours sitting on the tarmac with inadequate air or water or other facilities; the wedding party left without their attire because of lost luggage? It does not matter to them that this happens less than one-quarter percent of the time.

Contrary to statements made before this committee, Bill C-310 is about rights for passengers and it does aspire to improve the travelling experience of Canadians. From a consumer's perspective, all of the provisions contained in the bill would reduce incidences of passenger inconvenience if airlines reacted appropriately. The aspiration of the bill is not to penalize airlines but to act as a deterrent, to encourage the airlines to do right by their customers and to try harder and thus to avoid penalties. Please do not be swayed by blackmail, the threats to reduce service to rural communities across Canada. This bill does not have to “profoundly affect the cost structure” of the business or “force dramatic price increases on Canadian consumers”, not if the airlines view it as an incentive to have satisfied, happy customers.

The requirements that would improve customer convenience and satisfaction and compensate them for egregious abuses are not onerous. The bill does not, as stated, “make airlines responsible for the weather”. If the current wording is less than satisfactory, particularly with respect to delays, it can easily be rectified.

Frankly, I am astounded at the response to the phrasing in there regarding extraordinary circumstances. This is the kind of escape hatch that lawyers generally love to have in legislation. I do not understand why it's being objected to right now. It covers a gamut of everything and really gives them a huge out.

There is nothing in this bill that requires airlines to subjugate public safety to passenger convenience. The whole gloom-and-doom scenario is written by those who do not treat their customers with respect, do not aspire to improve the passenger experience, will not accept responsibility for their own shortcomings, do not wish to alleviate the pain felt by passengers in these situations, and, as a result, can only see penalties and not opportunities.

We urge the committee to please endorse Bill C-310 and give Canadian air travellers the protection and comfort they pay for and expect to receive.

[John McKenna]

That's fine.

Good afternoon. My name is John McKenna and I'm the president of the Air Transport Association of Canada.

I'm accompanied today by members of our board of directors: Tracy Medve, president of Canadian North Airlines, and Mark Williams, president of Sunwing Airlines. Michael Skrobica, vice-president of industry monetary affairs at ATAC, is also here.

The Air Transport Association of Canada has represented Canada's commercial air transport industry for 75 years. We have approximately 185 members engaged in commercial aviation operating in every province in Canada and providing service to the vast majority of the more than 700 airports in the country.

Bill C-310, in the view of our members, could jeopardize safety, is highly punitive, and could cause unintended adverse consequences both for the industry and for consumers. We would like to focus on four specific elements of this bill that merit serious review. These concern threats to safety; unreasonable financial compensation to consumers; inapplicability in small, remote, or northern regions; and airlines becoming financially responsible for issues beyond their control.

Safety of passengers should be paramount. Accordingly, the Aeronautics Act and the Canada Transportation Act should be respected prior to any consumer rights legislation.

Currently, Canada enjoys one of the safest air transportation systems in the world. The cornerstone of the system is the Aeronautics Act. A key principle of the bill is that the pilot in command decides whether a flight is safe to complete. Bill C-310, under threat of monetary penalty, negatively influences the decision of the captain to undertake a flight.

The bill contemplates exempting airlines from penalties only if an airport has been closed. Airports almost never close and the airports are not currently permitted by regulations to determine whether a flight should depart or land. We believe this bill makes it appear that the authority to make such a decision would be taken away from the captain.

A pilot will also consider the type of aircraft, its load, range of flight, weather conditions en route, its destination, and other considerations. With the decision of whether to depart left in the hands of a third party and penalties on a Boeing 737-200 as high as $120,000, there is a likelihood that pilots would be enticed into risk taking. We're convinced that this is not the intent of the proposed legislation.

Another safety issue is tarmac delays. These delays occur in weather conditions, like snow and freezing rain, that necessitate de-icing of the aircraft. Because airports have installed glycol recovery pads for environmental reasons and there are only a limited number of spots, there is occasional congestion in the lineup to use these pads.

Given that the penalty for an hour's delay on a Boeing 737 could add up to $50,000, there's a clear inducement in a marginal weather situation for a pilot to avoid the lineup. The lesson of the 1989 Dryden accident is that the de-icing must take place.

ATAC recommends that all penalties in Bill C-310 relating to events beyond the airlines' direct control, and all elements that could have potential safety ramifications, be eliminated and that the no-go determination continue to be left in the pilot's hands.

The compensation set out in Bill C-310 bears no relationship to the economic realities of air transport in Canada. Where is the equity in paying $1,200 in compensation to a customer who purchased a $99 ticket to Florida?

The tarmac delays of $500 an hour referred to previously will have every passenger on board eagerly checking his watch. If this indeed is going to compensate the passenger, it should not equal winning a lotto.

Canada has an open marketplace with competition on most routes. If a particular carrier routinely delays or cancels flights, there are generally alternatives available to customers. I would point out that there are no strictures on other transport modes that may experience delays or cancellations, so why air transport?

Let passengers vote with their wallets. Nothing sends out a stronger message than consumers opting for competitors or other modes of transportation when they're not satisfied. ATAC recommends a review of these fines so that, combined, they never exceed the price of the ticket.

Bill C-310 was written envisaging the infrastructure that exists in large airports. Unfortunately, in Canada, circumstances in remote, small, and northern airports are more austere, and communications may be unreliable at best. Some small airports don't even have a terminal building. If an airline flying to and from such a location takes a look at the financial risk that Bill C-310 engenders against a smaller return to flying the route, it is possible that the air carrier will not service these locations, or, alternatively, will provide service on a reduced basis. Was that the intent behind the legislation?

The member for Western Arctic and many of your colleagues from coastal regions could see service to their constituencies severely affected by reduced service during unstable weather seasons. Airlines could simply decide to suspend service to those regions during part of the year rather than run the risk of being penalized on a regular basis because of unstable weather conditions.

ATAC recommends that remote, northern, and smaller communities be excluded from the bill, and that it is not applied to operations that use aircraft with fewer than 60 seats. Most of the aircraft service in small, remote, and northern regions fly within this category. These are all the Beech 1900s; the Dash 8s' 100, 200, and 300 series; the Metroliners; the ATR 42s; and the Convair CV-580s , just to name a few of the planes serving our regions. Also, many jets operate in the north in combi configuration with less than full passenger complement. This could result in a 737-200 operating with as few as 20 seats.

Many of the provisions in Bill C-310 hold the airline accountable for events beyond the direct control of the airlines. Airlines would be liable for weather, ground delays as a result of de-icing paths, congestion, gate availability, and slow snow clearance. Tarmac delays may result from lightning threats that necessitate ground handlers moving indoors. Air traffic control may impose further delays. Is it right to make the airline financially responsible for such issues? The answer is a resounding no.

ATAC recommends that the wording of this bill make a clear distinction of responsibility. Airlines cannot be accountable for delays beyond their control. To make a profit, airlines have to fly their planes as much as possible. Any delays result in a cascade of other delays, inconveniences, and other cancellations, all of which affect passengers flying later that day or even subsequent days using the same aircraft. This leads to lost revenues.

Unfortunately, we have to live with occasional mechanical failures that result in flight delays and, on occasion, the cancellation of flights. A simple instrument warning can lead to a delay to pushback and takeoff while pilots and maintenance crew complete complex checking procedures to ensure the flight can be carried out safely. Airlines certainly do not hesitate to put safety ahead of a good departure record. Certainly it is not the bill's intention to change our commitment to safety.

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have both come out against this bill, saying it could only result in higher costs to consumers and businesses alike. The air transport industry in Canada is already struggling to be competitive and sustainable, in that it is already considerably burdened with high structural costs, security infrastructure costs, and taxes of all sorts, including the fuel excise tax. The threat of added costs--namely, unreasonable punitive damages out of all proportion to the magnitude of the carrier's revenue on any given flight--could only result in the deterioration of our viable air transportation system for Canadians.

In conclusion, we want to make it perfectly clear that ATAC is opposed to Bill C-310 as it reads today. We feel that should this legislation proceed without substantive amendments, there would be unintended consequences that could lessen safety and ultimately result in reduced service for the travelling public and consumers at large. However, should legislators decide to move forward with this bill, we've prepared a series of suggested amendments, which we have already sent to each member of the committee. We hope that you will seriously consider these amendments, because the safety, quality, and availability of air transport in Canada are at stake.

In closing, I want to reiterate that the Air Transport Association of Canada is opposed to this bill because in its present form, it gives the priority to compensating passengers rather than ensuring the safe operation of an airline. That is unacceptable for the air transport industry.

We thank you for your time and attention. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

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

How many airports in Quebec do you think will be unable to meet the requirements of Bill C-310?

[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.

[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—

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a an important one. I think consumers in Canada are very interested in whether they would have to pay to use the washroom at some time in the future. At this stage, it would be a question that would be answered by the airline itself. I fly almost every week out of my constituencies in northern Alberta and I can assure members that I would not fly on an airline that charged to use the washroom.

Our government also has some concerns with the bill the member has brought forward. Bill C-310 is part of the promotional activity that brings about this question. In fact, we spoke to members of the opposition at second reading a few weeks ago.

The government has stood up for consumers over the past three years. We are trying to stand up for consumers, while at the same time not impeding economic growth, which is so important for our country. Right now, there is a tremendous amount of job loss in the world. Although somewhat better off than any other country in the world, Canada will not be insulated from the fact that we will have some job losses. As such, we want to ensure we continue to promote economic growth.

Our economic action plan has outlined a very ambitious plan to stimulate the economy through targeted investments in infrastructure, industry and tax credits. We are getting the job done and protecting consumers at the same time. We want to ensure that the families, mothers and fathers continue to have jobs and continue to have the great quality of life that they have come to expect from a Canadian economy.

Our government has also met with consumer associations, industry representatives and airlines in relation to the member's proposed bill. There are a lot of issues with the bill and we want to ensure we balance them. On one side, we want to ensure consumers and people who use planes throughout the country have the rights they need in order to encourage them to fly. Flying creates economic growth as well. At the same time, we need to ensure those airlines continue to operate effectively in Canada, with a Canadian logo and flag on their aircraft.

From my consultations, even with the members opposite, I can honestly say there is a sincere interest from all sides of the House, especially from the government side, to improve the protection of the travelling public. However, as I mentioned, we cannot turn a blind eye to the economic realities facing the airline industry at this moment. From your knowledge of the industry, Mr. Speaker, as well as from the knowledge of the members opposite, we know the airline industry is going through somewhat of a change at this stage. Indeed, the industry around the world is going through somewhat of a change.

The global economic downturn has had a serious impact on both business and recreational travel. We have heard from stakeholders involved. They have said that this would be the worst possible time to introduce punitive measures into the industry. We are going to use a balanced approach to deal with this matter. We want to focus on creating jobs, not cutting jobs, as the member is proposing. We are going to support Canadian families.

How many times has the member opposite been on a plane that charged to use the washroom? Even though I fly many times a week, I had never heard of such a thing before he raised the question. Could he answer that for me?

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a private member's bill that would provide compensation to air passengers and a bill of rights protecting travellers in Canada.

The bill includes measures on compensation for overbooked flights, unreasonable tarmac delays, cancelled or delayed flights, the concern for late and misplaced luggage, and all-inclusive pricing by airline companies in their advertising.

The legislation is inspired by a European Union law, where overbookings have dropped significantly. Air Canada is already operating under the European laws in their flights to Europe. Why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

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

The changes are not meant to punish the airlines. If the airlines were to follow the rules, they would not have to pay $1 in compensation to travellers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)