Mr. Speaker, things have developed much the way I expected they would with the bill. We have just heard two speeches from members opposite who basically regurgitated all of the misinformation the airlines council has been trying to get out, I would say more unsuccessfully than not.
I know members are used to one-page private member's bills, but this is only 11 pages long. The bill is very simple to read and I am going to go through some of the exemptions we gave to the airlines, but obviously those members do not recognize them as such.
I sent a letter to one of the newspapers the other day and I sent a copy to MPs today. The letter reads:
There is a great deal of misinformation about the air passenger bill of rights being circulated by Canada's airlines in a bid to scare the public. I would like to set the record straight on a few key points.
Currently, there are no provisions for monetary compensation for flight delays in Bill C-310.
The Conservatives say there are monetary penalties and compensation for flight delays. There are none.
However, the Bill does require, in case of delay of two hours or more, that the airline provide meals and refreshments.
That is reasonable.
If a delay requires an overnight stay, accommodation and local transportation must be provided.
That is reasonable, and is already done in many cases.
The passenger also has the option of receiving a full refund for a delay of five hours or more.
That is new. That is taken from the European Union legislation. I think it is reasonable that if people have been waiting for five hours and they want their money back, they should be able to get it back. Most people will not ask for their money back. Most people will stay and wait a few hours longer. Their bags are packed and they are ready to go. They will stay longer. Maybe at least the airline would be nicer to them, maybe give them an extra meal voucher to keep them there so that they will not cash in the ticket. However, people would have the right to get their money back after five hours and that is reasonable.
In the case of passengers who have had flights to Mexico cancelled by the airline, Bill C-310 would require the airline to offer reimbursement of the full fare, which some airlines are currently refusing to do. Under the extraordinary circumstances exclusion in the bill, airlines would not have to pay compensation, just refund the cost of the ticket.
Those great consumer advocates in the airlines, while making their big announcement on Monday, are refusing to give back fares that passengers have paid to go to Mexico as we speak. The bill would not offer any compensation. It would say to reimburse them the money, which is what they should do, but in terms of compensation, there is no compensation payable. Why? Because it is an extraordinary circumstance exclusion. Weather is an extraordinary circumstance as would be the flu situation in Mexico. There would not be compensation for those.
Overbooking involves airlines selling your seat to someone else. If you're not allowed to board a flight because your seat has been sold, why shouldn't you get $500, $800 or $1200 in compensation for the inconvenience? Air Canada has been paying customers these amounts for 4 years in Europe.
Actually, that has been occurring since 1991, but at a lower amount.
Why should Canadian passengers receive lesser treatment?
As regards the tarmac delays, airlines are given an exclusion if it is unsafe to disembark from the aircraft.
Why do they not recognize that?
As you can see, there is plenty of leeway for the airlines under the bill if they would take the time to read its provisions rather than trying to scare the public.
I am going to deal with the exclusions because that seems to be the key to this whole situation. All they have to do is look at subclause 4(c) on page 3 of the bill. It states:
(iii) the air carrier can prove that the cancellation of the flight was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
We leave it wide open. The airlines do not have to pay a cent. If they follow the rules, they would not pay a cent in any event.
Let us deal with the tarmac delays. They love to get on this. Subclause 6(1)(d) states:
(d) an opportunity to disembark from the aircraft if it is possible to do so without causing any undue risk to the health or safety of the passengers or any other person or the safe operation of the aircraft or any other aircraft.
That is their exclusion. If it is a weather problem, they can say it is unsafe to get off the plane. What is the problem?