Gerry Byrne

[Canada Elections Act, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on this particular legislation. I will join with my colleague in asking the government to resume a principled position of respecting the will of Parliament, the will of committees, and maintain the substance of the amendments that were put forward by the committee during the course of its deliberations. These, of course, were very well thought out. They received input from Canadians from all over, from all walks of life, but expert opinion as well.

I think it is very important that when we look at new drafts of the Canada Elections Act, we look at all the issues. One of things that I think is missing here is that there are obviously other issues as well that the government has not brought forward for consideration.

For example, just not too long ago, there was an issue where the governing party, the Conservative Party of Canada, was involved in a dispute with Elections Canada over the inclusion or the non-inclusion of convention fees as they relate to a political contribution which is tax receiptable. The dispute went on. There was much dissatisfaction expressed by the government toward Elections Canada on its point of view.

However, I believe, at the end of the day, there was some reconciliation that the Conservative Party of Canada had the matter wrong and Elections Canada had the matter right. We do not really know exactly what the Conservatives did about that, it has not been widely reported, but we understand that they have accepted that because they have offered no amendments or revisions to the Elections Act to provide any further clarity toward their point of view.

The second issue, of course, is related to the supposed in and out scandal. In my own constituency, the Conservative candidate in the last election was named by Elections Canada as participating in that. I understand, and I fully believe, he probably did so completely unwittingly. His official agent was given specific information from the party offices, the headquarters, related to the nature of the transfer.

Probably questions should have been asked, but they were not. But, of course, within the Elections Canada Act, if there is a dispute about that, the governing party has offered no amendments to put forward its point of view on that. That I think is very relevant.

In my own constituency of Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, about a year and a half ago, the entire Conservative riding association resigned en masse, I was told this by a former executive of the riding association, over a dispute about the Atlantic accord. It took this position principally on principle, but it did so because it was very dissatisfied with the nature of the political process. It was given a promise and a commitment that it would indeed be honoured. The government's position at the time was that--

[Canada Elections Act, June 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the eloquence of my hon. colleague from Cape Breton—Canso in talking about matters that I think are important to this entire Parliament.

He mentioned that several amendments were brought forward at committee and were subsequently withdrawn. I would ask the member to give us this thoughts on this.

After a committee has deliberated on this, taking valuable input from witnesses and using its own collective wisdom as parliamentarians from all sides of the House, after all of that, why is it that a standing committee of the House of Commons could forward amendments after significant deliberation only to have them thrown out? Could the hon. member comment on what that does to the whole process of crafting better legislation for the protection of the interests of all Canadians?

[Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, June 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say to each and every one of my colleagues how appreciative I am of their increased support for this particular motion and their understanding as I walked each and every one of them through this. I have enjoyed the opportunity to work with all parties in the House, informing them of exactly what the intention of the motion is and of its important consequences as it affects air travellers and the Canadian economy right here at home.

I have spent many hours with each and every member explaining the ramifications of this motion. I can see now, by the debate tonight, that it has been very successful. I appreciate the fact that it now appears that a majority of parliamentarians in the House will indeed be supporting this motion and we will move forward with a better set of consumer protections for airline passengers in this country.

It will be important to reinforce that support and move forward, because of course there is still a road ahead of us. There is still the drafting of the bill itself, devising exactly what are the key and important issues and making sure that every inevitability, every potential consequence that negatively affects airline passengers and is directly in the purview and in the influence of the airline industry itself, is indeed protected. That is what is expected of us.

However, after listening to the debate tonight, I also want to point out that there are some things I would like to put on the table before we embark on the next step.

I would not want the sense to be created that this is a Newfoundland and Labrador issue. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport did properly and rightfully note that it was born out of some airline issues that did indeed come from Newfoundland and Labrador, but they are not unique or exclusive to that province. This is indeed a Canadian issue. In fact, our overall position in the international airline industry is directly impacted by this.

On my website, in addition to briefing materials related to this particular issue, I did have a form whereby individual Canadian airline passengers who were experiencing a certain amount of inconvenience, and in fact for many great discomfort, were able to email me with their experiences to inform me of exactly what they went through.

Some of the examples were quite horrific and they did indeed come from every part of this country, not just Newfoundland and Labrador. However, it bears mentioning that much of the leadership for this issue did come from that particular province. I want to say thanks to and congratulate Mayor Woodrow French. My friend and colleague Woody French is someone who took a stand and that is really part of the reason why we are here today.

Another part of it, of course, is that hon. members listened to what I had to say as I briefed them and discussed this with each and every one of them. Members took the time to listen and I appreciate that.

One other point is that I would not like to proceed from here with a minimum sense of urgency and importance placed on this issue. It has been noted that there is some level of consumer protection for airline travellers in this country. Much stock has been put in the fact that airlines do indeed have a responsibility and a requirement to publish tariffs and to make those tariffs known. Those tariffs can indeed possibly deal with issues such as delayed flights, cancelled flights, baggage delays and other things.

We have to be very clear here. There is a requirement to publish tariffs, but what those tariffs are may not necessarily be in the best interests of passengers. In other words, an airline has a requirement to say whether or not it will indeed provide compensation for lost baggage and, if so, how much, or for cancelled flights or delayed flights, but the fact that it has to publish does not mean that it actually has to do anything. It can actually publish that it will not provide compensation. That is part of the regulation. That is one of the reasons why this particular action is very much required. It is a must.

In today's modern aviation industry, other jurisdictions are now enjoying increased consumer protections, such as the European Union, and other jurisdictions are contemplating and on the verge of passing consumer protections, such as our friends in the United States. Four pieces of legislation are currently before the U.S. Congress, two in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate, both providing very prescriptive mechanisms to protect the rights of consumers. We can bet that those legal instruments will be in effect very soon.

The Canadian industry, if we think this through, could be at a serious competitive disadvantage. If the European industry provides consumer protections for its passengers and the American industry does as well, but the Canadian industry does not, if we were consumers--

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, May 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on certain aspects of this agreement.

However, I would like to ask him a question as well. Does this agreement with the four European continental countries involved explicitly provide a basis for those four countries that prevents them from banning seal products from their marketplace on the basis of perceptions of the animal cruelty aspects, which other European countries are currently providing? Does this agreement provide a rules-based approach that prevents those four countries from doing so?

Would the minister, in consideration of any potentially expanded European free trade agreement with other European countries, put the marker down right now that Canada will not engage in any discussions with any other European country unless they agree immediately to put into a rules-based approach that the banning of Canadian seal products would be explicitly illegal?

[Marine Atlantic, May 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce to this House, and to every Canadian veteran as well as every member of the Canadian armed forces, that Marine Atlantic will be offering free, unlimited travel to and from Newfoundland for an extended period of time during the summer of 2009.

For several weeks, I have been working to have Marine Atlantic, a federally-owned crown transportation company, offer our veterans and soldiers the same benefits being offered to them by VIA Rail this summer.

VIA Rail is providing free, unlimited travel to every veteran and all military personnel for the entire month of July, plus 50% off the ticket price for up to five of their immediate family members. Bravo, VIA Rail. Regrettably, VIA Rail does not extend into Newfoundland, but Marine Atlantic does.

As a result of my efforts, the acting president and CEO confirmed to me Marine Atlantic's intention to act on my request and to offer a similar gesture of thanks to our soldiers and veterans in 2009, when proper planning and promotion can occur.

I made this announcement yesterday in the province and now announce it to all Canadians through this House.

[Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a global marketplace and we live under the examples and the benefits of best practices models.

I will repeat again the clearly logical example that if a Canadian airline fails to operate under a set of norms or a consistent set of rules, rules which are being applied in other jurisdictions by other competitors, and if those rules do not raise the standards for customer service and expectation, then Canada is really left at a competitive disadvantage. The Canadian airline industry will be held to a competitive disadvantage. Customers will make their choices.

Again, if there is an airline operating with state-guaranteed protections for a customer's interests in one instance and another airline is operating without such guarantees, where will the international customer gravitate its business to? Obviously to the airline operating under a better customer service quality standards. That is a good best practices model.

[Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, April 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the international governance model for air carriers is covered under both the Warsaw and Montreal conventions. There are rules in place related to international carriage. What the European Union has decided is that there needs to be further enhancement to that. As we know, both the Montreal and Warsaw conventions do not apply uniformly because not all states have signed on.

One of the issues that I think is really relevant is there are a number of discount carriers that exist in the European Union. Some of them offer flights for one pound or one Euro per flight. The European Union has decided, regardless of the price of the ticket, to put in place specific mechanisms, specific fees or fines that are payable back to the consumer should there be a breach of a contract related to the passenger bill of rights. That is a very important point because in Canada there are no consumer airline passenger orientated rights that go with them.

Each airline in our country, under the Canadian aviation regulations, is required to submit and publish tariff schedules, but those tariff schedules do not guarantee or require specific remedies or prescriptions should a customer issue service arise. It simply says that the airline must indicate what it would do in a particular circumstance. The Canadian airline, when it publishes its tariffs, could simply say that it will do nothing, and that complies with the Canadian aviation regulations. There is a void on this issue.

While there are some basic protections, we obviously need to do more. Ask the passengers on Cubana Airlines if those are the facts.

[Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, April 17th, 2008]

moved:

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 being offered 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.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Parliament must take immediate and decisive action on a matter that is of vital importance to Canadians, creating a guaranteed protection for the rights of airline passengers.

Air travel is not an elitist privilege or at least it should not have to be. Air travel is the way that millions of Canadians, living and working in every part of this country, reunite with their families and stay connected to each other. It is how many Canadians from coast to coast to coast choose to explore the beauty and expanse of this great country, and it is vital for a country as large as ours that we remain truly linked together.

Air travel is an important part of that. The actual experience, however, is not always a positive one.

How many Canadians have felt the sheer frustration of sitting in an airport waiting area, straining to listen to hear the crackle of an inaudible overhead PA system wondering if this might be the long awaited boarding call for their flight, one that has already been delayed for five hours, and one for which absolutely no explanation has been offered by the airline as to the original cause of the delay?

How many Canadians have felt the anxiety of having a connecting flight cancelled while in mid-journey, a situation completely beyond their control and one that will inevitably force them to incur unanticipated, unbudgeted for, additional costs, such as hotel bills, taxis and meals? This is money they may not necessarily have.

How many Canadians have arrived at the assigned gate for their flight, boarding passes in hand, only to be told to go back to the desk because the airline decided several weeks ago to oversell the same flight to ensure that it would take off full?

How many Canadians have been forced to remain on board an aircraft, held captive with no place to go, no choices available for them to make themselves, and delayed for hours with no end in sight?

How many Canadians have arrived at their destination only to find that their bags have not and then to discover that there is no one available at the airport to explain what they should do next?

Instead, they are told to get in touch with a call centre located in India where the person on the other end of the phone tells them how they can make a claim in 30 days if their bags are not found by then. Obviously, it is impossible they are told to say from India whether their bags are still in Winnipeg or in Toronto.

How many times do Canadians, who are grieving loved ones and who are awaiting the remains to be returned back home in time for the funeral services, have to find out that the body was bumped in Montreal for either better paying cargo or because clerical errors at the airline? We are not sure which?

The answer is that these situations occur far more often than any of us may actually think. These are the stories of real passengers and real problems, and these problems in the airlines are getting worse.

Let me be clear at the outset. Canadians should rest completely assured that when it comes to flight safety, Canada has one of the most effective regulatory regimes in the world. Canada is a global leader in ensuring mandatory flight safety. We are always looking for better ways to make improvements on that impressive record.

The problems, however, that I refer to are not ones of flight safety but of that woefully inadequate consumer protection for passengers of commercial airlines. Let me put it this way. These issues do not occur while the planes are in the sky. They are ones more typically that occur when the planes are still on the ground.

A well run competitive airline should not consider reasonable customer service as an option to be exercised occasionally and then only for the highest paying passengers.

In Canada airline passengers are left completely vulnerable to the recent industry turbulence that has been created by a complete lack of any regulated consumer protection. In Canada there are precious few rules protecting passengers, but there is a lot of legal language that limits the liability of the airlines themselves.

This inadequacy of voluntary compensation strategies and yes, commercial greed and abuse directed toward paying customers is the issue at hand. Once we pass through security or on the aircraft, the airlines duty of care and the responsibility inherent in that relationship are no longer a matter for the marketplace to direct.

It is a matter for the regulator to oversee. In any other circumstance this lack of consumer protection would never be tolerated, especially when we consider that the airline industry is guarded by the oversight responsibility of the federal government.

Since tabling my motion in the House, my office has been inundated with faxes, emails, telephone calls and letters from ordinary Canadians, airline passengers and consumers, who paid good money for a ticket thinking it was a contract to travel from one destination to the other.

Reaction to their experiences range from genuine empathy to sheer horror at the extent to which greed and neglect has been shown to them by certain airlines. They all have an interesting story to tell. All were paying customers.

None, however, can illustrate any better why a Canadian passenger bill of rights is so badly needed here in Canada than Cubana Airlines flights 170 and 172, which flew on March 8, six short weeks ago.

Having left Havana en route back to Montreal, two plane loads with hundreds of Canadian passengers on board had to be diverted to Ottawa when Montreal closed down due to weather. When they arrived, there was no bus waiting for them to continue on to their final destination. Nor was there a lounge where they could relax, get a cup of coffee and wait it all out. Instead, after five hours in flight, over 300 Canadian passengers were held on a runway for 12 hours, with the cabin doors closed and no way for them to escape. The plane did not connect to a gate.

After about eight hours of this, food and water began to run out. Then toilets completely filled and began to overflow. Still neither the company, nor the captain, nor the Ottawa airport authority took effective action to ensure that the flight hooked up to a gate and the passengers were unloaded. Fingers are still pointing as to whose fault this all was. Personally, I do not particularly care. It should never have been allowed to happen, period, not in Canada.

It was not until one of the passengers had the good sense to dial 911 on his cellphone, demanding to be put through to an RCMP duty officer, that something finally happened. The clear distress and desperation in the passenger's voice caused police to intervene and the plane finally docked so passengers could leave.

I can only imagine what law was used by the RCMP against those who caused all of this. I can only imagine because there are no rules in Canada against such clear cut consumer abuses when it comes to the Canadian airline industry.

I can only assume that the sole tool police had available to them that night to assist those passengers was the powers of the Criminal Code. Without any laws or regulations to protect these passengers, I can only presume that the police must have advised all involved that if those passengers were not allowed to get off those planes of their own free will, immediately, police would be forced to seize the planes and lay charges related to involuntary confinement under the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code seems like a rather blunt instrument to ensure basic consumer rights are protected in Canada. Plainly put, that is why we need a airline passenger bill of rights, legislation similar to what is already in force throughout all of Europe.

On February 17, 2005, European parliamentarians brought in a passenger bill of rights, requiring all European airlines, as well as foreign-based airlines flying out of European airports, to provide reasonable care and compensation to passengers in the event of delays, cancellations, denied boarding, delayed or lost baggage, along with legal requirements to publicly report the reasons for flight delays and to ensure that customers were made aware of the full extent of their rights.

Three years after coming into force, no one in Europe today is saying “let's get rid of it”. The legislation is applied fully regardless of what the actual cause of the original delay to begin with, whether it was a storm, company negligence, or mechanical issues.

Jacques Barrot, the European Commission's vice-president responsible for transportation, noted that when he announced the European airline passenger bill of rights back in 2005, “Competitiveness and competition in the air sector must go hand in hand with guaranteed passengers' rights”.

Here is a special point of interest to the debate. Even non-EU airlines that fly from European airports are required to comply with the European airline passenger bill of rights.

In other words, when Air Canada or any other Canadian airline leaves an EU airport to fly back home to Canada, its passengers are given statutory rights to service and compensation through the EU's bill of rights. However, when that same Air Canada flight arrives back home and goes on to a new destination, these rules no longer apply. It is an interesting point.

People might be interested to know as well that the United States has already enacted airline passenger rights legislation. They may have heard about the state of New York's laws that created significant legal obligations on air carriers choosing to fly in and out of that state. The rules that New York created were clear and meaningful and provided for significant fines against any breach by an airline. It was struck down, however, but only because responsibility for aviation regulation is a federal jurisdiction, not a state prerogative. This regulatory void, however, is quickly being filled by the legislature with appropriate jurisdiction, the U.S. Congress.

H.R. 1303, the airline passenger bill of rights act of 2007, which is currently before the House of Representatives, and S. 678, the airline passenger bill of rights act of 2007, which is currently before the U.S. Senate, are both moving forward. These bills deal specifically with airline passengers' rights in the case of flight delays.

At the same time, there are also two other bills before Congress that include the same provisions as the two bills I just mentioned, but are part of a much broader package of amendments to certain other acts that create even greater airline passenger rights for U.S. customers. Those bills are H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization act of 2007, which has already been passed by the House of Representatives, and S. 1300, the aviation investment and modernization act of 2007, which is currently before the Senate.

Bill H.R. 2881, namely, sections 401, 406 and 418 to 423, may be of particular interest to members as the legal requirements established for both U.S. and Canadian carriers flying within the U.S. clearly protect consumer rights. My question then is: Are we prepared to have a two tier international aviation system, with Canada being on the bottom rung?

It is almost a certainty that the U.S. will be imposing these regulations, similar to what is already in place in the European Union. This creates an important consideration for the Canadian airline industry and its oversight of it. Failure to at least match consumer protection standards of our international competitors will leave the Canadian industry with a serious competitive disadvantage.

If one has an option to travel on a British Airways flight, for example, or on Air Canada on a return trip to the U.K., which airline would one fly on? The airline in which the European parliament will be guaranteeing a person's consumer rights or one where the Canadian Parliament is guaranteeing a person nothing?

The international context of an emerging best practices model in the aviation industry is moving rapidly toward providing superior state enforced customer service minimums and this is not something that Canada should ignore or avoid. The time for the Canadian airline passenger bills of rights is now.

I implore the House to dig into this issue further. I would enjoy the opportunity to work with each and every member to draft legislation and bring it forward.

Given that my time is up, if anyone wishes to continue this exchange or look for more indepth information or analysis, I invite people to visit my website at www.gerrybyrne.ca, where they will find significant research and background information on this issue and an opportunity to provide feedback.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. The tradition of military service and performance is deeply ingrained and entrenched in the psyche of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I will not get into the specifics because we all know them well. At the battle of Beaumont-Hamel, Newfoundland and Labrador truly became an entity onto itself, a nation.

Since then, we have been bestowed a huge legacy, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. We have members of the Canadian armed forces in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, both active and reserve, who have served in Afghanistan and continue to serve there. Members of my own constituency, members of the reserve, are currently active in the field.

As the hon. member mentioned, the contribution that has been given by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not only historically but current day, is significant. While Newfoundland and Labrador represents approximately 1.7% of the Canadian population, well over 10% of the Canadian armed forces are proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and proud Canadians.

I remember having a conversation with the—

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental truth to that in the sense that if there was a complete removal of a military presence to provide protection, there is no doubt about it, as we have heard from the president of Afghanistan and others, the country would collapse and there would be anarchy. That cannot be allowed to happen.

At the same time, this motion is very clear. Consistent with the principles of rotation within the NATO family and alliance, there must be an end date. We will hold the government to account to ensure that after 2009, the mission will take on a very different tenor for Canadian Forces and personnel, both civilian and military, than what currently exists. That is important for all Canadians to know. That is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada and it is articulated within the context of this particular motion.

While we say that we will not abandon the people of Afghanistan, we will do this right. We will be there to fulfill our commitments as we promised, as we said we would. We will be sensible about this and not pander to a populist point of view in some circles that the simple, fast and immediate removal of all Canadian armed forces would somehow allow for any measure of peace and security to take hold in Afghanistan. It would not, but there must be closure to this and that is exactly what is contained within the context of this motion.