Bill C-459 (Historical)

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

An Act respecting the rights of air passengers

This enactment places obligations on Canadian 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 those 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.

Transportation Modernization Act

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, as it often happens, the Liberal government's bills first and foremost protect big businesses, at the expense of the rights of workers and consumers. By amending 13 acts, the omnibus Bill C-49 is no exception. There is certainly no doubt that the Liberal members are going to support this bill, but I would still like to remind the House why the New Democrats want to oppose it.

After two years of waiting, the minister wants us to rush through a bill that is deeply flawed and primarily favours the interests of foreign investors, while violating the rights of workers and consumers. I will explain all the reasons why the New Democrats oppose Bill C-49.

First, in 2012, the NDP tabled Bill C-459, which clearly outlined the measures to be taken to create a proper passengers' bill of rights. This bill set out concrete measures, for example, providing for appropriate compensation for passengers who were denied boarding. That could have amounted to $600 for flights of 3,500 km or more. However, the Liberals voted against the amendment that proposed to include this bill of rights in Bill C-49, without even trying to study it.

Why did the Minister of Transport reject our amendment? He could have taken a page from our proposal, which included concrete measures to protect air travellers. It is even harder to understand when we consider the findings of a study showing that 0.4% of EU-regulated flights are cancelled, which is four times lower than the cancellation rate of flights under current Canadian regulations. It seems clear that the Liberals are giving in to pressure from the airlines and turning a blind eye to the studies on the issue.

Bill C-49 would also require railway companies to install voice and video recorders in the locomotive cabs. This seems to make sense for dealing with accidents, but it must not prompt the railways to use this information for surveillance or disciplinary purposes. That is why we are calling for the use of these voice and video recordings to be reserved exclusively for the Transportation Safety Board.

The provisions of Bill C-49 are not clear enough and do not spell out how the train conductors' private information will be used by the railways. For example, the minister could decide by regulation that a train conductor's hourly productivity is something to take in consideration in a safety review. Following that reasoning, Via Rail Canada could use this data to manage employee performance, for example, during a stop at the Saint-Hyacinthe station.

The employees are refusing to give up their right to privacy. The government is not listening to the testimony of people like Roland Hackl, vice-president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference. According to him, the bill, as currently drafted, goes against the employees' rights as Canadians, and he is right. Bill C-49 might be in contravention of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it would authorize the government or employers to gather private information without providing adequate protections. What is more, according to the findings of a Transport Canada working group, voice and video recordings are not part of proactive safety management.

The NDP therefore proposed a series of amendments to ensure that only the Transportation Safety Board could have access to the recordings in the event of an accident. Our amendments would also guarantee that the minister and the railways would not be able to use the voice and video recordings. Obviously, the Liberals in committee once again summarily dismissed these proposals.

I would like to talk about the change in the agreement between the airlines included in Bill C-49. Currently, the competition commissioner may make an application to the Competition Tribunal to propose the rejection of a merger of airline companies that stifles competition. The Competition Tribunal therefore has the authority to cancel a merger or a part thereof. However, under Bill C-49, the Minister of Transport will now have the final say in the matter.

As soon as the minister approves the agreement, the Competition Tribunal can do nothing to stop it. The NDP is opposed to clause 14 of the bill because it gives the minister the power to supervise and authorize joint ventures between airlines.

Imagine if Air Canada submitted a proposal to merge with United Airlines. Even if the commissioner found that the agreement would reduce competition among airlines and could raise ticket prices, the minister could still approve the merger if he or she deemed it to be in the “public interest”. I challenge the minister to provide a precise definition of that term. In Bill C-49, it is so vague that the minister could include reasons that are not in Canadians' interest but in the interest of shareholders of major airlines. The Liberal government is trying to erode our consumer watchdog's authority.

Bill C-49 would also amend the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority Act, the CATSA act.

Instead of designating new airports and helping regional airports grow, the government is passing the cost of security screening on to them.

Why did the government not propose a fairer model in which CATSA is responsible for funding screening and security services?

The government has been withdrawing funding from this area for a long time. Statistics Canada data shows that the former government collected $636 million from the public but that it allocated only $550 million of that amount to air security. The Liberal government is no better, since it has continued to underfund CATSA. Clause 69 of the bill provides for the addition of subsection 30.1(1) to the act, under which any airport can enter into an agreement with CATSA to provide new screening and security services.

Everything is fine up to that point. However, it is up to the airport to pay for these new services, which means that passengers will be the ones to foot the bill. In contrast, the NDP proposed that public funding be put in place for the development of regional airports. Our amendment would have also prevented designated airports, such as those in Montreal and Toronto, from being forced to absorb the cost of enhancing security services.

Indirectly, our amendment also sought to ensure that the cost of enhancing security is not passed on to passengers via ticket prices. All of our proposals in that regard were also rejected. Unfortunately, that is not surprising. That is how the government has been withdrawing funding from regional airports and screening and security services in large airports.

The government wants users to cover the cost of its own policy of underfunding. Bill C-49 also creates a loophole in the Coasting Trade Act in clauses 70 to 72. We are asking that these clauses be deleted from the bill. Canadian shipowners and sailors' jobs—and I should point out that my son is a sailor—must be protected from unfair competition from ships registered in the European Union.

Why would that competition be unfair?

Simply because labour on EU-registered ships is not subject to the same requirements as labour on Canadian ships. Under the provisions of Bill C-49, crew costs for European ships authorized to navigate in Canadian waters are 30% of Canadian crew costs. What is even more appalling is that there is no reciprocity whatsoever. In fact, the minister could decide to allow the repositioning of empty containers by ships registered abroad, while Canadian ships will not have reciprocal access to the EU market.

We would also like to see clauses 73 and 74 deleted from Bill C-49, as those clauses authorize the Canada Infrastructure Bank to provide loans to port authorities.

Lastly, with regard to Bill C-49, I want to point out that we fully support improving the rights of air travellers and protections for grain shippers. Many grain farmers have acknowledged that Bill C-49 is a step in the right direction.

Grain farmers have, however, proposed measures that go even further.

I will close by saying that we strongly oppose Bill C-49.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-4, which was to be a budget implementation bill but it is much more. It is that much more that has a bunch of us on this side of the House worried about what the government really intends to do. For example, this budget implementation bill includes a redefinition of what constitutes a danger in the workplace.

The definition has been in the Canada Labour Code for many years and is well understood now by the health and safety officers, workplace safety committees, employers and employees and to change it in a manner that will not allow us to have full and fulsome debate is a dangerous practice in itself.

We will not know what the new definition means. The old definition talked about any existing or potential hazard or condition, or any current or future activity that could reasonably be expected to cause injury or illness to a person exposed to it.

The new definition requires that this danger be imminent or serious. What the heck does imminent or serious mean? To find out, we have to ask the minister. The minister is the only person who is now able, under this legislation, to determine whether something is an imminent or serious threat to an individual, because the government has taken out health and safety officers across the country and replaced them with one individual.

Each and every declaration of a danger to a person in a workplace in Canada now has to be determined by the minister himself or herself. I do not know if the minister has enough time to get to all the workplaces in Canada. The minister is pretty busy legislating companies back to work, so I do not know if he or she has enough time to do that.

It is a very serious measure that is being taken in a budget implementation bill with very limited time for discussion.

The other thing that is happening in the bill is that for the public service the definition of what can be arbitrated, in terms of what we call interest arbitration processes, has changed dramatically. The definition of what constitutes an essential service is now in the head of the minister. It is not in a jointly agreed to by both parties system.

The minister can decide what is an essential service in the civil service. For example, the minister could decide that his or her driver is an essential service and therefore that person would be prohibited from taking any action.

The danger with this kind of tinkering with the existing well-known and well-understood legislation is where it may lead in the rest of Canada. We have police forces, fire departments, ambulance services and paramedic services across the country that rely on an arbitration system to feel as though they are getting paid appropriately for their work and that their terms and conditions of work are dealt with. They are not allowed to go on strike. They are not allowed to exercise what the rest of Canadians have, which is the ability to withdraw their services.

All of those other folks across the country have to be wondering where the heck the government is going and where it will lead the provincial governments that deal with these things as well.

The government has not only redefined what is an essential service and just basically said that the minister can pick and choose what he or she wants it to be, but it has redefined what constitutes the terms under which an arbitrator can decide a collective agreement.

As members will recall from a year and a half ago, or maybe two years, the former minister of labour actually set the conditions under which an arbitrator was free or not free to decide a collective agreement. When it came to Air Canada, Canada Post and CP Rail, those agreements were decided by an arbitrator, except the arbitrator's hands were tied.

If I were in the police force or if I were a firefighter, I would be worried about where this federal government was leading us, down the road of re-defining what could and could not be done by an arbitrator.

I want to talk about this issue, because I am the deputy critic for persons with disabilities. The member for Winnipeg South Centre talked in glowing terms about the fact that the government had made the enabling accessibility fund a permanent feature of future budgets, which is a good thing. The problem is that fund is a Conservative slush fund, unfortunately. I do not mean that any of the groups that receive the money are somehow complicit in this, but 85% of the money goes to Conservative ridings.

Conservatives do not represent 85% of the population of Canada. I think something like 24% voted for them last time. How is it that 85% of the enabling accessibility fund goes to Conservative-held ridings, or if a group or organization is turned down for money under the enabling accessibility fund, all it has to do is have a friend like the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that minister will grease palms or whatever it is he has to do to change the decision by whoever made the decision so a group or association can get money out of the enabling accessibility fund?

We do not have any objections to there being an enabling accessibility fund. In fact, it should be bigger than it is, but we would like to see it distributed fairly across the country. I have groups in my riding that have been turned down for enabling accessibility money and cannot fathom the reasons why, because they are not given. There is no sudden decision that a group did not get it because of X, Y or Z. The decision is made that they just did not get it. When we hear that groups in Conservative-held ridings have no trouble getting money, we wonder where the money is coming from.

The other thing I want to say about the budget implementation act is that the government has determined it can add new stuff that was not in the budget. Not only were the issues dealing with the redefinition of what constitutes a danger, the removal of health and safety officers and replacing them with the minister, the changing of the arbitration for the civil service, but a redefinition of what constitutes a Supreme Court justice has been added, someone coming from Quebec. How is that in a budget bill? How is that something that we can think costs money? The Conservatives response, and I understand where they are coming from, but I do not like it, is that it is something that came up just recently, that they have to fix it really quick and that they can rush this thing through and get it done in a hurry.

There are a whole bunch of other things that came up just recently that have not been included in the bill but have to do with money, that have to do with budgets, that have to do with taxpayers and their pocketbooks. The Conservatives talked about them in the throne speech, but they are not here.

The throne speech talked about “pay to pay”. For those who do not know what that means, a cable TV or a cellphone subscriber with any of the big carriers in Canada has to by $2 to get a paper bill. If they do not have Internet to get their bill, they have to pay $2 and the government collects tax on that $2. No wonder it is delaying it because it wants to keep collecting that tax.

Most of the people affected by that are seniors who do not have access to the Internet, who do not have ready accessibility to electronic forms of payment. Not only that, even those people who have opted to get it electronically are now being told that if they want the detailed billing, they have to pay $3 to get it electronically, and the government will tax that. Therefore, there will 15¢ federally and in Ontario another 8¢ provincially going into the coffers of the government every time people pay their bill or accepts the bill in paper. The Conservatives promised to do something about that in the throne speech. Where is it? If they can do things really quick like this, why can they not put this in the budget implementation act?

There is no help for airline passengers. The Conservatives voted almost unanimously, if not unanimously, against Bill C-459, which would have provided a system to help airline passengers from the vagaries of the airlines bumping them off a flight. There was talk about that before the throne speech, but there is nothing in the throne speech or in the budget bill.

There is nothing in the budget bill that is a relief for the 200% increase in cable TV fares that have cable and satellite fees that have taken place since it was deregulated completely by the CRTC. In the throne speech the Conservatives did not even talk about that. They said that consumers would be able to pick and play whatever they want, but at a cost. If I pick a channel, it would cost me an arm and a leg. There is nothing in here for the pocketbook of the ordinary Canadian. If the Conservatives want to talk about pick and play, let us apply it to this legislation. We would like to pick and play those things that are good for Canadians and not have to vote against them, while we can vote against those things that are not good for Canadians. That is the kind of pick and play I would like to see.

We have no relief for bank fees. People from the Syme Seniors' Centre in my riding told me that just recently the banks told them that in order to get a printed statement of their bank account they would have to pay. It is a not-for-profit seniors centre that is trying to struggle through with whatever little money it can get from grants and the rest. It now has to pay to get that statement. It did not used to because it was a seniors centre. Now that it has to pay to get the statement, there is no relief. There is nothing in the budget bill that actually reduces those exorbitant bank fees.

We need to rethink how we do these budgets and not put things in a budget that have nothing to do with budgets.

Air Transportation

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Canadian Transportation Agency concluded that compensation offered to Air Canada customers bumped from overbooked flights is insufficient. That compensation would have been sufficient if the Conservatives had supported Bill C-459.

Why do the Conservatives feel that Canadian passengers do not deserve the same protection as Europeans and Americans?

The Conservative Government

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, March 28 was a dark day for the House of Commons. On that day, three important bills were arbitrarily rejected by the Conservative caucus.

The Conservative caucus overwhelmingly voted down the good intentions of providing justice and giving the Government of Canada the opportunity to do the right thing and support some just and worthy causes. Bill C-380 would have prohibited imports of shark fins. Bill C-459 would have helped consumers, in particular air passengers. Bill C-464 would have supported Canadian mothers in the event of multiple births.

On March 28, the ignorance of our honourable government colleagues was on display again. Even worse, they failed to grasp the negative consequences for which they will be held to account in the next election.

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-459 under private members' business.

The House resumed from March 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-459, An Act respecting the rights of air passengers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Air Passengers’ Bill of Rights

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's bill addresses a significant need in Canada regarding the rights of air passengers.

This issue can affect all Canadians, anyone who uses air travel. Indeed, some problems that can arise during a flight do not happen in other forms of travel. Whether it involves a cancelled or delayed flight, lost baggage, or if boarding is denied, these things can happen to anyone.

Many incidents can arise during air travel. Accordingly, passengers' rights need to be protected any time airlines are treating their passengers unfairly. Compensation rules and requirements for the carriers need to be imposed in order to ensure that travellers are not put at a disadvantage.

The bill 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.

These rights apply in certain situations. First of all, when a flight is cancelled, passengers have the right to be reimbursed or re-routed to their final destination. They are entitled to meals based on the length of the delay, and to accommodation, if necessary. They are entitled to compensation in the amount of $250 to $600, unless the flight is cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances or if passengers agree to be re-routed.

Second, when travellers are denied boarding as a result of overbooking on the part of an airline, passengers are entitled to compensation in the amount of $250 to $600, as well as any benefits offered by the airline.

Third, when a flight is delayed, passengers are entitled to meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time, as well as accommodation, if necessary.

Fourth, when baggage is misplaced, passengers are entitled to $500 in compensation.

Fifth, when the advertised price is wrong, airlines must include all costs to be assumed by the airline, as well as all duties, fees and taxes that they collect on behalf of other parties.

This bill takes a page from European legislation that has been in place for several years. It must be said that we are lagging far behind in that respect. European regulations establish compensation for passengers when they have problems with air transportation.

If a flight is overbooked or cancelled, the passenger is entitled to financial compensation. Airlines are always required to provide assistance.

This month, the European Commission announced a number of measures to provide air passengers with new rights and better access to good information and assistance when they are stranded at an airport.

New procedures to handle complaints and new enforcement measures are also included in order for passengers to obtain what they are entitled to. Oversight of airlines by domestic and European authorities will be strengthened.

Even persons with disabilities are better served under the rules established by the European Union. The regulations adopted in 2006 are based on the simple principle that persons with disabilities should have the same opportunity to travel by air.

The regulations on the rights of people with reduced mobility when using air transport prohibits operators from refusing to make a reservation or board passengers because of a disability. However, there are some exceptions due to safety reasons established by law.

The person with reduced mobility must be informed of the refusal, together with the reasons, within five days of making the reservation.

Persons with disabilities are also entitled to obtain, from airport authorities, free assistance at airports and aboard aircraft. These services are funded by a levy collected from the airline companies. European Union countries also impose penalties and have independent organizations to deal with complaints.

This is the approach we should take in Canada, given how successful the common rules for the compensation of air passengers instituted by the European Union in 2004 have been.

If Europeans have such rights, then Canadians should have them too. Europeans do not hesitate to exercise their rights when they feel they have a valid complaint against an airline.

Whether passengers have been denied boarding or downgraded, or their flight has been significantly delayed or cancelled, these are forms of abuse, and we must legislate to prevent them from happening again. If people think that they have a legitimate complaint against an airline because they have been denied boarding or downgraded, or their flight has been significantly delayed or cancelled, they must be able to exercise their rights without any hesitation.

It is simply a matter of logic. Travellers should receive a refund or compensation for their trip if it is cancelled. Consequently, travellers must have access to clear rules regarding refunds or compensation in the event that the airline changes their travel itinerary without two weeks' notice. Otherwise, many Canadian families' vacations will end up being disrupted simply because of an airline's bad practices.

If airlines do not honour their commitments, they must compensate travellers. This bill is a good approach in terms of respectful relations between airlines and travellers.

We need to put rules in place to protect the rights of consumers by working with airlines. Quite frankly, some airlines have really good practices. Others, however, quite commonly engage in practices that are harmful to consumers, such as overbooking and cancelling flights.

When such situations occur, it is important to ensure that travellers are compensated by the airline. Reasonable compensation for travellers would be provided depending on the situation and the damage done, without creating false expectations on the part of the traveller.

It is true that some airlines already have good compensation practices in place, but that is not the case for all of them. This bill would penalize only the airlines that take advantage of consumers.

It is common practice among some airlines to offer refunds only to passengers who are refused boarding. When flights are overbooked, which happens often, people are not usually reimbursed. Bill C-459 would also provide compensation to passengers who end up in that situation, based on the distance of the flight in question.

I already hear the Conservatives saying that no one can control the weather, that not all the blame can be put on the airlines and that some of the responsibility lies elsewhere.

That is why this bill allows for exceptions when it is not the airline's fault. For example, passengers will not receive compensation in the case of a cancelled flight caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided. In the case of extraordinary circumstances, airlines do not have to provide the compensation set out in Bill C-459.

That is the essence of the bill that would create a fairer relationship between passengers and airlines, something that has existed in Europe for many years. It will be particularly beneficial to middle-class Canadian families and SME owners. Whether we are talking about a family vacation, a business trip or any other kind of travel, passengers will not end up powerless and will have rights.

There is currently a serious legislative gap to be filled, and the bill introduced by my colleague from Laval fills the major gap we have in Canada. We must ultimately ensure that passengers are properly compensated when there is a problem at the airport.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-459.

From our party's perspective, we support the bill going to committee. I do not think members should be surprised by that, because a number of years ago, a similar motion was brought to the House, which was supported by all political parties.

For many years we have seen a great deal of consumer frustration with airlines. Once one gets to the airport, there are problems getting onto the aircraft and with departures, arrivals and luggage. There have been a litany of horror stories, and they continue today. There are significant issues that need to be addressed.

If we are able to get Bill C-459 to committee stage and to possibly make some amendments, it would actually give it some teeth. In that sense, consumers across Canada would benefit immensely. The Liberal Party would like to see the bill go to committee.

First, just to illustrate our concerns, a colleague of mine introduced a motion in 2008. It was M-465. It is a very short motion, which I will read into the record:

That the House call upon the government to bring forward an airline passenger bill of rights similar in scope and effect to legal instruments being either proposed or enacted by jurisdictions within Europe and the United States for the purpose of protecting passenger interests in a consistent and rules-based way and to provide a means of ensuring adequate compensation...by the airline industry to airline passengers who experience inconveniences such as flight interruptions, delays, cancellations, issues with checked baggage and other inconveniences incurred while travelling on commercial passenger airline services originating from anywhere in Canada.

This motion was brought forward by the Liberal party by one of my colleagues back in April 2008. What is most interesting is that at the time, it passed the House unanimously. All political parties were supportive of the motion, and justifiably so. If we were to canvass our constituents, we would find wide support for motions, bills or legislation of this nature. We were encouraged that it actually garnered the support of all parties in the House.

Not that much later, the government attempted to bring in legislation that they referred to as “flight rights Canada”. It was a government initiative and was an attempt to deal with the issue. However, there was a serious flaw. There really were no regulations that followed that provided some teeth.

As a result, we see the types of issues raised five, six or seven years ago being raised today. In part, it is because the government has decided that it is not an important enough issue for Canadians.

That is why I was interested in the previous speaker saying that the Conservatives did not believe there was a need to support this bill. I would disagree. The Conservatives have very little to lose by at least allowing the bill to go to committee where we could possibly amend it.

The reason I read the motion to remind members was to reinforce the fact that there was a time in which MPs of all political parties supported the importance of consumer rights within our airline industry. It would appear that the Conservative Party is starting to back away in terms of recognizing those consumer rights. Therefore, I encourage the government to give more reflection and consider the benefits to consumers by at the very least allowing the bill to go to committee.

Bill C-459 had been introduced in another form, by the former member for Elmwood—Transcona, someone I knew reasonably well from the House and from serving together in the Manitoba legislature. From what Mr. Maloway talked about when he introduced his bill, it is fair to say that Canadians responded well to it. For that the reason, I reinforce the fact that not only would people from Winnipeg benefit, as I represent Winnipeg residents, and Mr. Maloway used to as a member of Parliament, but it would benefit people far beyond Winnipeg or Manitoba.

Our busiest airports, whether Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal or Halifax, coast to coast, all have significant increase in traffic. Looking to the future, as airline tickets continue to be reasonably affordable on a larger scale as more consumers find themselves in a position where they can afford to fly, the demand for this type of legislation, if crafted correctly, would be of great value and benefit. That is the reason we need to look at how we can bring in legislation that would protect the interests of the consumers.

When a flight has been cancelled or delayed, there are circumstances beyond an airline's control. An example of that would be a number of weeks when we get whiteouts, or snowstorms or things that are beyond the ability of airlines to control. It is understandable that we would see airlines being cancelled or delayed.

Then again, there are other issues that cause passengers a great deal of concern in why a flight has been delayed yet another hour or two hours. It might relate to maintenance and to what degree proper diligence was done by the airline, or the amount of time which one had to spend due to misplaced luggage. My son's mother-in-law came for a visit from the States and had her luggage all torn up, and it had to be wrapped in plastic. The luggage was replaced.

Very real issues are happening in that whole industry. It is an industry that will be growing into the future. It would be wonderful to have legislation and regulations to protect consumers. Not only would Winnipeg North residents want to see something of that nature, I argue all Canadians would welcome consumer-friendly airline industry legislation and regulations.

[Joe Daniel, Conservative, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House of Commons on private member's Bill C-459, an act respecting the rights of air passengers, which was introduced in this chamber in November of last year. Our government strongly supports consumer protection measures, however, the bill is fundamentally flawed and would likely have impacts contrary to what it seeks to achieve. Furthermore, it is redundant given the passenger protection approach that already exists in Canada and this government's effort to strengthen it in recent years.

Let me start by noting that the bill calls for all-in advertising. I am pleased to remind the House that our Conservative government has already put in place these measures by way of regulations that were brought into force in December 2012, following extensive consultation with industry, consumers and other stakeholders.

Beyond that, Bill C-459 proposes a prescriptive regime that would increase the regulatory burden on air carriers and on travellers. It would introduce additional costs into our air transport system and it would not improve the passenger protection approach that already exists in this country. In Canada today, airline passengers are protected through provisions in the Canada Transportation Act. All carriers operating in Canada, or arriving or departing from Canada, are required to develop terms and conditions of carriage that they must respect. They must make those terms and conditions readily accessible to passengers.

The Air Transportation Regulations under the act specify the items that must be included in the terms and conditions of carriage, such as the carrier's policies regarding cancelled or delayed flights, lost or damaged luggage, and denied boarding due to overbooking. This establishes a clear basis on which passengers can raise concerns if they feel they have not been treated appropriately.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is mandated to resolve travellers' complaints by examining whether the carriers are acting in compliance with their terms and conditions of carriage and by assessing the reasonableness of the terms and conditions. The act also includes significant provisions to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities.

If a traveller is not able to resolve his or her issues directly with the carrier and submits a formal complaint to the agency, the agency would begin by seeking a mutually satisfactory solution to the problem by way of alternative dispute resolution. If this is not successful, arbitration is an option. We know that in fact most complaints are resolved by way of mediation. In some instances, the agency has found that a carrier's terms and conditions of carriage are not reasonable, resulting in significant changes to the benefit of passengers. Recent such decisions have addressed questions such as lost baggage and denied boarding.

In short, our current system works. Furthermore, it does so because of the proactive stance that our Conservative government has taken on passenger rights.

In 2007, we took action to strengthen the consumer protection regime for air travellers by introducing measures as part of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. These amendments improved the transparency of carriers' terms and conditions of carriage and made the complaint process under the Canadian Transportation Agency permanent.

In 2008, we introduced Flight Rights Canada, an initiative to inform Canadians of their rights under the act. This also resulted in the creation of a plain language voluntary code of practice, which our major carriers adopted into their terms and conditions of carriage. I have already mentioned the airfare advertising regulations brought into force last year.

The prescriptive regulatory regime proposed in C-459 is not consistent with Canada's approach to consumer protection in transport. As written, the bill raises a number of questions and creates systems that would ultimately increase the burden on all parties.

To begin with, the proposed bill would only empower the agency to enforce provisions relating to duty to disclose pricing, announcements at airports and obligations to inform passengers of their rights at check-in. With respect to other matters such as cancellations, delays and denied boarding, consumers would seemingly have to seek redress through the courts if they are not satisfied with a carrier's response. This would be costly, time-consuming and a burden on the passengers as well as on the Canadian court system.

Bill C-459 seeks to address concerns that were identified with previous private members' bills on this subject, which made air carriers responsible for problems that are the fault of other parties, such as airports or navigation providers.

However, the current bill would introduce a new regulatory burden, namely that carriers would need to make a submission to the Canadian Transportation Agency proving the third party's responsibility. This would result in more red tape for the carriers and more work for the agency. The additional costs, obviously, would likely be borne by travellers and taxpayers.

Furthermore, the bill would recognize that carriers would not be made responsible for cancellations arising as a result of force majeure, particularly weather. The carriers would remain responsible for the situation resulting from force majeure, such as airport or tarmac delays, and we all know that weather is a major factor in this country.

The bill would create confusion between its provisions and the current provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. There is also potential conflict between Bill C-459 and the Carriage by Air Act, which brings into force passengers' rights provisions enshrined in the Montreal convention, an international treaty to which Canada is a party.

In conclusion, we are committed to promoting passengers' rights by way of an approach that minimizes costs and regulatory burden on all travellers in the air industry.

Bill C-459 would add nothing to this, but it does have the potential to significantly increase the regulatory burden and cost to Canada's air transportation sector and to create confusion within the regulatory regime without further addressing passenger needs.

For this reason, we cannot support Bill C-459.

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-459, An Act respecting the rights of air passengers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the deputy critic for consumer protection, I am very pleased to speak today about Bill C-459, which was introduced by the hon. member for Laval.

The Air Passengers' Bill of Rights proposes implementing a new regulation that will better protect the rights of air passengers when they are treated unfairly by airlines. In fact, Bill C-459 could protect Canadians from the time they purchase their plane ticket until they arrive at their destination.

To quickly summarize the provisions of Bill C-459, the new regulation would require air carriers to compensate passengers if their flight has been overbooked or delayed for a long time or if their luggage is lost. This bill is based on a European law that greatly reduces delays and problems with overbooking. The Air Passengers' Bill of Rights applies to all air carriers, including Canadian carriers that land on European soil. Why should Canadians be treated better in Europe than they are at home?

I have heard many stories about airline employees who bend over backwards to help passengers when their flights are delayed or cancelled, and I would even like to personally thank a number of Canadian airline companies for the outstanding service they provide every time I travel. Unfortunately, passengers continue to be the victims of the poor practices of certain air carriers.

Many of these stories are well known. Someone buys a plane ticket and, upon their arrival at the airport, they find out that their flight has been overbooked and that, unfortunately, it is already full. That person must then wait for hours for the next flight. Or, without any explanation, passengers are forced to wait for hours before they are able to board the plane and, because of that delay, they miss their connecting flights. Other passengers have boarded the plane, only to wait for an hour or longer without anything to eat or drink before the plane takes off. These situations are unacceptable, and it is time to change the regulations in order to ensure that passengers' patience is not pushed beyond the limit unnecessarily.

Last December, the NDP questioned the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to find out whether the government would agree to a law regarding the rights of air passengers. The minister's response focused on aspects that are beyond air carriers' control. This is what he said:

...it is nice to hear that the NDP has a solution for snowstorms, ice storms and all other unforeseen circumstances at airports.

I think that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities should take the time to carefully read Bill C-459. The minister is implying that the problem with this bill is that it makes airlines responsible for weather-related cancellations and delays. He will be happy to hear that this bill copies verbatim the exemption included in European legislation that exonerates airlines in extraordinary circumstances. This exemption has been used successfully in Europe for many years.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities implied that Bill C-459 would make airlines responsible for weather-related cancellations and delays, but that is untrue. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill C-459 does not require airlines to compensate passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled because of the weather. A flight that was cancelled because of the weather is considered an extraordinary circumstance, and as I already explained, this is set out in the bill introduced by my colleague from Laval. He wisely thought of everything.

The European Union commissioned a study two years after it implemented its legislation. I am sure my colleagues on the other side would love to hear the results of this study. The study concluded that European airlines extensively used the extraordinary circumstances argument to avoid compensating passengers. However, all of the stakeholders agreed that the extraordinary circumstances exemption nevertheless struck a good balance between a passenger's right to compensation and fairness to the airlines.

Under Bill C-459, all that an air carrier is required to do in a case of cancellation due to weather is: reimburse or reroute each passenger, which is reasonable; offer meals and refreshments in relation to the waiting time, nothing wrong with that; and provide hotel accommodation in cases where a stay of one or more nights is required. There is nothing here that is unreasonable for an air carrier to do.

That said, it is important to recognize that many airlines already offer passengers good compensation. The purpose of this bill is not to attack the airlines, but rather to level the playing field for carriers and penalize only those companies that try to fleece customers in order to increase their profits. That is the difference.

Companies that follow the regulations will not have to pay. However, those that make a profit at the expense of passengers will have to compensate travellers for their mismanagement. It is as simple as that.

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?

These are simple, obvious measures. There is no doubt that this is a good bill. I invite all of my colleagues in the House to vote in favour of Bill C-459.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the House regarding Bill C-459, the air passengers' bill of rights, which would establish terms and conditions including compensation and rerouting for the treatment of air passengers under various circumstances when air travel is cancelled, delayed, or baggage is misplaced.

This is a big country and as a result Canadians travel more by air than most people elsewhere. Many of us have experienced situations where our flight was delayed or cancelled due to weather conditions, mechanical issues or other reasons that we may not understand. Occasionally the delivery of luggage may be delayed due to tight connections, mishandling, malfunctions and various human factors. That is the key part.

People make mistakes every now and then. We do not like them, but they are a fact of life. Sometimes as passengers we feel we have not been treated fairly. We all find these situations frustrating. I have been there and I am sure all members have. One thing should be noted though. We are fortunate that in Canada there is a mechanism that provides passengers with a means to address these situations efficiently without engaging in onerous or costly legal wrangling.

Consumers have the right to expect to be treated fairly by airlines and therefore a process is in place for the impartial investigation of concerns. In particular, this means that a passenger, who has been inconvenienced and feels that his or her concerns have not been addressed adequately by the airline, can choose to file a formal complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency. The agency is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal that has a mandate to review unresolved consumer complaints against air carriers and to assist consumers to the extent possible.

Please allow me now to describe the regime that exists in Canada for the protection of air passengers' rights. As I have noted, Canada's policy for airline passenger consumer protection is based on a complaints-driven process. The carriers are expected to comply with their terms and conditions of carriage, which must be made readily available to the passenger. The terms and conditions of carriage are set out in carriers' policies with respect to important consumer protection matters including, but not restricted to, acceptance, loss and damage of baggage, taxes and fees, reimbursement, claims, flight cancellations, et cetera.

Air carriers are required to publish their terms and conditions of carriage on their websites and to live by these terms and conditions. This is enshrined in legislation through specific provisions in the Canada Transportation Act. If a passenger feels that a carrier is not respecting its terms and conditions of carriage, he or she should begin by bringing a complaint first to the airline. As I mentioned earlier, if not satisfied with the airline's response, passengers may then take their complaint to the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is empowered to provide recourse.

In 2007, our government took action to strengthen Canada's consumer protection regime for air travellers by introducing measures as part of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, which improved the transparency of carriers' terms and conditions of carriage and made the complaints process under the Canadian Transportation Agency permanent.

During the same period, our government introduced Flight Rights Canada, an initiative to inform the travelling public of the consumer protection approach that we have in place in Canada, their rights under this approach and how they can seek redress if something goes wrong when they are travelling by air. Flight Rights Canada included a six-point, plain language code of conduct defining service standards.

Canada's largest airlines have adopted these standards into their terms and conditions of carriage. They are now accountable for them as they are for all their terms and conditions of carriage. As my colleagues have no doubt noticed, Bill C-459 also includes provisions that regulate full fare advertising. On this issue, I am pleased to remind hon. members that this government has already taken action with the recently announced all-inclusive airfare advertising regulations.

On December 14, 2012, new air services price advertising regulations came into force that required any person who advertised the price of an air service to display the total price, inclusive of all taxes, fees and charges when selling flights within or originating in Canada. That is something I have experienced. Individuals book a flight, they think they have a price and all of a sudden all the other little things get added to it and it is not what they thought it was at the start. That is no more, thanks to this government.

The two key objectives of this new regulation are to enable consumers to readily determine the total price of an advertised air service and to promote fair competition between all advertisers in the air travel industry. When Canadians are travelling by air, they expect to be treated fairly by their carrier, as well as to be able to readily determine the full price of the air services they are purchasing.

Hon. colleagues must consider this private member's bill with prudence, as we cannot overturn the current policy by implementing a prescriptive and more burdensome framework. The bill could result in consumers having to take their cases to court in certain situations, as well as changes to the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency. It could translate into more red tape and costs to the taxpayer. That is the last thing we need.

Furthermore, elements of the bill could potentially have significant financial implications for airlines, which would translate into higher costs for travellers. This is not what we want. For example, while the bill recognizes that airlines should not be held responsible for incidents that are caused by third parties, such as air navigation service providers or airports, the onus could be on the carriers to prove that this is the case in a submission to the Canadian Transportation Agency.

Similarly, under the bill, carriers would not be responsible for cancellations caused by weather, which is a major factor in our country. However, again, they could be placed in a situation where they would have to prove this by way of submissions to the agency. All of this would result in additional work and cost for both the airline and the agency. I need not remind members that higher costs to carriers would definitely translate into higher fares for air travel.

Let me underscore that this government is, as always, firmly committed to promoting a healthy Canadian air industry, without compromising the protection of the rights of Canadians. We have a robust system for protecting air passengers' rights and this government is proud to reiterate that it has taken steps to reinforce this and will continue to do so.

We do not have a perfect system, but it is a pretty good one. The bill would definitely make it worse, not better.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-459, introduced by my colleague from Laval, which would create the air passengers' bill of rights.

The aim of the bill is simple. It is fair and will protect consumers. In short, air travellers deserve to have clear rules around compensation and reimbursement when their travel plans change without two weeks notice. The bill would do just that.

The bill addresses five situations that may affect air passengers and provides details of how consumers will be compensated in those situations.

First, when a flight is cancelled, passengers would have the right to choose between being reimbursed and being rerouted to their final destination. They would also have the right to meals in a reasonable relation to the waiting time, as well as accommodation if necessary. They would be entitled to between $250 and $600 in compensation, depending on the situation unless the flight was cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances or if they agreed to be rerouted.

Second, if a passenger was denied boarding because of the air carrier overbooking the flight, the passenger would be entitled to receive between $250 and $600 in compensation in addition to any benefits offered by the airline.

Third, if a flight were to be delayed, every passenger would be entitled to meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time and to accommodation when necessary.

Fourth, If a passenger's bag was lost, and this happens quite often unfortunately, the passenger would be entitled to $500 in compensation.

Finally, if passed, the bill will require airlines to include all costs to the carrier of providing the service, as well as fees, charges and taxes it collects on behalf of another person or business and would apply administrative penalties to air carriers who did not comply with this requirement.

How would this work in practice? I will use two examples.

The first example is someone is booked to go on a vacation to the Caribbean. I know that might be hard to imagine, especially when the weather networks right now are talking about all the snow that Ontario will receive. When that person arrives at the airport, he or she is informed that the carrier has now overbooked the flight. To try and solve the problem, the airline asks all passengers if any of them are willing to take another flight in return for a reduction on the ticket price that they have already paid. Since not enough travellers are willing to change their flights, our vacationer is denied boarding.

If the bill were passed, our traveller will receive an amount of $250 to $600 in compensation, depending on the length of the trip, as well as either being rerouted to his or her destination or having the full cost of the flight reimbursed.

In the second situation a traveller's flight is cancelled and he or she is stuck at the airport, while waiting for the next flight to arrive. After several hours of waiting at the airport, the airline then informs the passenger that his or her flight would not be available until the following day. In this case, the “right to care” set out in Bill C-459 means that if the bill were to become law, the air carrier will be required to offer meals and refreshments, accommodation, transportation between the airport and the place of accommodation and a total of two telephone calls, faxes or emails per passenger.

Our aim is not to vilify or punish air carriers. Many air carriers already have very good compensation policies and customer service.

I found myself stuck in Winnipeg a couple of weeks ago when it was so cold. The main cabin door was frozen and could not be shut. We had very good customer service and the carrier looked after all of the passengers on that flight.

There is no consistency across the industry. We need that type of consistency to protect consumers, small businesses and business travellers. The bill would create that consistency.

A similar system has been in place in the European Union since 2004, where the common rules for the compensation of air passengers in these situations was put in place across the EU member states.

All that the bill would do is build on the success achieved in Europe by identifying the best practices that have been put in place across the Atlantic and implement them here in Canada.

These are simple rules that would protect consumers. For this reason, I am very upset by the suggestion we hear from the other side of the House that Conservative MPs will not be supporting the bill. When the NDP has questioned the government as to whether it will support the bill, it has attempted to deflect by focusing on weather difficulties or extraordinary circumstances as a way to avoid supporting the bill.

I would, therefore, like it on the record right now that Bill C-459 explicitly states that air carriers would not be required to offer compensation for such circumstances; specifically, paragraph 4(1)(c), and subsections 4(2) and 4(3) of the bill cover this exemption. If the Conservatives focus on imagined problems as a reason to not support the bill, it is clear that they therefore do not properly understand the legislation in front of them today or that they are looking to find excuses not to support it.

In conclusion, it is clear that ensuring that consumers are protected in one of those five situations outlined in the bill is a relatively easy way for the government to improve upon the rather lacking federal consumer protection regime. For that reason, I ask all members from all parties to support this initiative and to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a clearer picture this time around as to where the government is going to stand on this particular issue.

It is obvious it will not be supporting Bill C-459. That is a little different from the position it took in the past. Members of the House who have been around for a little while will recall that this is not the first time this issue has come forward. I am not speaking about the efforts of Mr. Jim Maloway, consumer protection advocate, who did a great job introducing a bill in a previous Parliament. He is not here today, but his bill is being echoed in the current mover's presentation.

There was an earlier attempt to provide consumer protection for airline passengers, and that occurred in 2008. In May 2008, I submitted a motion for consideration by this House, that the House call upon the government to enact an airline passenger bill of rights similar in context and form to that presented to the European Union Parliament and passed, and also similar to legislation before the U.S. Congress at that time.

That motion would have put statutory effect to airline passenger rights. Now, the interesting thing is that the government was all for it, on its face. While the government suggested it was in support of enhancing and protecting airline passenger rights, it was doing something very different on the inside. What the government was doing was contacting its buddies, and this was only revealed through access to information.

The government members voted 100% in favour of the motion to enact legislative, statutory protections to airline passengers. The Minister of Transport voted in favour of doing that. The entire front bench, in fact every Conservative member of the caucus, voted for my motion.

What we found out, though, was that was not what the Conservatives were doing on the inside. Through some very skilful investigative journalism by some members of our press gallery, it was discovered that while they were suggesting they were in favour of this and actually voted for it in the House, a member of the transport minister's office, Paul Fitzgerald of Lawrence Cannon's office, was actually writing to lobbyists from the airline industry.

He was saying that they were going to have to do some lobbying to stop this motion in its tracks, and that if they did not lobby the Grits, the Conservatives were going to find themselves in the position where they were outvoted by the opposition parties. Fitzgerald added that he did not want the government to be forced into regulating passenger protection issues.

Now what the Conservatives did, after actually saying that they did not want to be forced into regulating passenger protection issues, was that they voted for it. Imagine the contempt, the pure raw contempt of what this place is all about. This is a legislative body.

What we say in here is what we say to the country, and when we say in here that we support airline passenger rights and we are actually going to put our stamp on that by standing in our place and voting for it, we do not actually go out and commission lobbyists saying, “Let us scuttle this. Let us get this done. Let us create a pack of lies. Let us try to create much innuendo about this. Let us try to smear this effort. Let us try to make sure that the Canadian public turns against those who would actually favour such a thing and promote such a thing in Parliament”.

Then after they fail at that, what do the Conservatives do? They vote for it. If that is not contempt for what we are supposed to be doing in this place, what is? It is called a lie. If members stand in this place and vote for something, should they not actually have the guts to stand with it all the way?

Now, all of sudden, we hear from the parliamentary secretary and few others. I can see I have a few tempers flaring here, because the Conservatives do not like being caught. A few of their senators do not like getting caught either, but that is another story.

If members are going to stand in this place and vote to enact legislative mechanisms to protect passenger rights, why would they not do it? The government actually tried to suggest that it was going to do that.

Right before the 2008 election campaign, the government created Flight Rights Canada. The Conservatives took a flight all right. They flew as fast as they could from what they did earlier in the spring of 2008, and they created this voluntary mechanism called Flight Rights Canada. Flight Rights Canada was a totally voluntary mechanism. The Government of Canada spent a total of $6,000 promoting it. It was supposed to be an omnibus way of protecting airline passengers. A fancy press release was put out 48 hours before the government dropped the writ for the 2008 election campaign, just to clear the issue off the books so that it could say it was doing something. Nobody ever heard of Flight Rights Canada ever again.

Since then, the government has been suggesting that it is on board with protecting airline passengers. It also started the narrative that it was not necessary, that the market would do its job, and that people are not held prisoners.

Perhaps a person pays $1000 for an airline ticket and walks into the secure area of the airport. The airline has that passenger's bags in the hold of the aircraft, and suddenly, the flight is cancelled. Apparently a passenger has market power at that point in time and can simply walk over to another airline desk and say, “I have paid $1000 to that airline. My bags are in the hold of that aircraft, but I would like to use my market power to fly on your airline”. Is that going to happen?

The government denied and denied. It said that these rights were already available to passengers. The Canadian Transportation Agency did not see it that way. As a result of a complaint filed in 2009 against the domestic and international operations of WestJet, Air Canada and Air Transat, the Canadian Transportation Agency ruled, on June 28, 2012, that the consumer protection of airline passengers on those three airlines was inadequate and unreasonable, and it made amendments. The agency forced those three Canadian-based airlines to change their published tariffs. It forced them to improve their protections, their promises and their enactment of their promises to airline passengers. This happened while the government was saying that this was absolutely unnecessary. The Canadian Transportation Agency, a quasi-judicial body, did not quite see it that way.

We have an opportunity now to stand in this place and say as we mean and mean as we say. There are times when the market does not necessarily always protect consumers. I would hope that people on the other side would agree with that. I can think of one case in particular. A passenger walks into the airport, gets a boarding pass at the counter, gives the luggage to the airline, walks past security and finds out that after spending $1,000 on a ticket, the flight is delayed for 24 hours because it cannot get personnel, the plane has mechanical problems, or whatever. It happens. Is that a realistic scenario that suggests to anyone that the market is going to fix the problem? Can a passenger simply walk over to another airline counter, pay $2,000 now, because it is a last-minute ticket, retrieve that luggage from the previous flight, and carry on?

When passengers are dependent on the airline, the airline has a duty of care to the passengers. If the passengers are incapable of adjusting the circumstance to beat that reality, can the market fix the circumstance? No, it cannot, and that is why an airline passenger bill of rights is not a bad idea.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this esteemed chamber again.

It has been my purpose in politics in my own small way to help expand free choice so people can earn success, take responsibility for their lives and enjoy the maximum spectrum of choice they can possibly enjoy.

That ideal of free enterprise, free exchange, has delivered humanity the most unprecedented buildup in prosperity in all of known history. That can only happen when we limit government to doing the things that people cannot do for themselves, which brings us to the question before the House today, and the overall airline industry and its service to customers.

What we see when we look at this industry is that the vast increase in choice and quality of service the industry has experienced is the result of decisions by governments over the last 25 years to allow free enterprise competition to lead the way. We have commercialized our airports, we have privatized areas that were formerly government controlled and we have given consumers the tools to make decisions for themselves.

The advent of the Internet has allowed consumers to compare prices and make purchase decisions in a way that was not even imagined 15 or 20 years ago. The power of a traveller to go online and investigate all of the pricing options and review the service of all of the other passengers who have written public reviews is a far greater power for that customer than anything we in this chamber could impose upon the industry or upon the customers.

Our role then is to continue to empower the customer to enjoy maximum service, so how are we doing that?

First, we are signing agreements with countries around the world to allow their carriers to compete for Canadian customers and our carriers to compete for their customers. This gives Canadian business a world of customers and Canadians customers a world of choice. The best thing we can do to enhance the service and treatment of customers who use airlines for transportation is to give them more choice and more competition.

Second, we are giving them more information. Our government instituted the “what you see is what you get” pricing system, wherein an airline has to advertise the real price of the ticket, not just the base price. That avoids the situation of a customer, a passenger purchasing a flight and then learning that it is far more expensive than the advertised rate that was offered.

When the passenger gets on the flight and has an unfortunate experience, the greatest penalty to the sector is the devastating effect of word-of-mouth criticism by the passenger, because other people will refuse to take the same airline if they hear enough anecdotal evidence of bad treatment. Therefore, it is already in the interest of airlines to provide the best quality service they can, or risk losing out to competition. Because of new competition from airline carriers like WestJet and now Porter and others, Air Canada has to work extra hard to retain its passenger base.

At the same time, we monitor the kinds of complaints that come from the sector. In 2011-12 the Canadian Transportation Agency received a total of 518 air travel complaints, 499 for informal facilitation and 19 for formal adjudication, not including an additional 77 complaints that had not been resolved in the previous year.

Let us put this in perspective. We are talking about 518 complaints out of 78.4 million passenger flights travelled. Clearly, the passenger understands that the airline industry has to respond to them, or the passenger can seek another carrier for the services sought. However, that brings about debate here in this House of Commons on this and so many other issues.

On this side of the House, we believe in maximum choice and competition. We believe in empowering customers. The NDP believes in empowering bureaucracy. We believe in allowing business to run business. The NDP wants to run everyone else's business. The NDP believes in nationalizing whole sections of the Canadian economy and has opposed privatization of enterprises that the vast majority of Canadians believe the government has no business running. It is with that mentality that the NDP comes forward with Bill C-459.

I will share more statistics. Of the 365 air travel disputes addressed through the Canadian Transportation Agency's informal resolution process, 293 were settled through facilitation. With respect to the formal process in the same period, 13 air travel disputes were resolved through adjudication. Again, that is out of 78 million passenger flights.

I think we can all agree that we have a system that works. The data clearly demonstrates that the agency performs a useful task and a constructive function when it comes to responding to the few customer complaints in the airline sector, without onerous regulations or court action. The compensation afforded to passengers for various infractions identified in the bill would supercede a function that is already performed by the existing agency.

One layer of government is never enough for the NDP members. They always want layer upon layer. They want an apartment building of layers of bureaucratic regulation and duplication to address every problem, real or perceived.

Given that the bill is largely silent with respect to how customers would obtain the monetary compensation laid out in the bill, disputes could be channelled to the courts, which would be an additional burden on all parties. Therefore, where we have a simplified, streamlined system that allows customers to address their legitimate concerns within the system in a timely fashion and at limited cost to Canadian taxpayers, the NDP would force customers into the courthouses, enriching lawyers at the expense of both the passenger and the business.

That is not the solution. At least, that is not the Canadian way. In fact, it seems a lot more like a litigious American approach to a problem that is otherwise resolved through commercial competition and dispute mediation.

The danger of the bill is that it might place an important additional regulatory burden on air carriers that would render them unable to compete with their international peers. While the bill recognizes that the carrier should not be held responsible for cancellations due to weather or other extraordinary circumstances or incidents that are caused by other parties, the burden of proof would remain on the carrier. That would mean more cost for the carrier. What do carriers have to do when they face increased costs? They have to pass them on to the passengers. The very people the NDP purports to be helping would be paying the price.

I would also note that the biggest variable cost to our air carriers is fuel. What would drive up the cost of fuel more than anything? It would be a carbon tax. There would be taxes, regulation, bureaucracy and the command and control and big government. On this side, we reject those ideas in favour of more freedom and more choice.