Peter Stoffer

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, May 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the government arbitrarily and arrogantly ripped away the agreement, through an email, just prior to Christmas. If the RCMP were unionized, there is no way it could have done that. There would have been no chance. The government would have had a fight on its hands.

We in the NDP would be in lockstep with the RCMP in that battle. However, because the RCMP officers do not have a union or a formal association, there is very little they can do unless they want to challenge it in court, which would probably cost way too much money.

This goes to the core of what happened. Why would the Conservatives go across the country saying they are the party of law and order? The law and order people are the RCMP officers. They are the ones who keep law and order in our country.

Do not get me wrong, there are 143 Conservatives, and I like them all, but collectively they did a really stupid thing. They ripped away the trust of the RCMP, and that was simply wrong. I urge the government to reconsider and to reinstate the pay increase that the RCMP negotiated fairly. If they do not, they are always going to be known as the party whose word cannot be trusted when it comes to our police forces, especially that of the RCMP.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, May 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, just like the Bloc, we in the NDP believe that the right to unionize, the right to organize, is our core being. This is what makes us tick, the ability in a free and democratic society to organize ourselves and to collectively bargain, whether we are steelworkers, machinists, airline workers or a police force.

All civil, municipal or provincial police forces in this country are unionized. The RCMP has asked for the same ability to offer that opportunity to its members. Now that is not to say it is a fait accompli. That is up to the RCMP to decide. It should not be up to governments to decide whether or not its police force can organize and unionize.

It shows the difference between the Conservatives, those on the far right, and those of us on the left. We believe in fair collective bargaining for those who wish to have it. They do not. They like to dictate. They like to abdicate any responsibility at all in that regard. Basically, it is my way or the highway. That is why they challenged that court case in the Ontario Supreme Court. There is not much we can do about stopping the government from appealing that court case now. We wish it would rescind it and turn the clock back, but we do not think it will do it.

I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule, like it has before and as an hon. colleague from the Bloc has mentioned. The day will come when the RCMP will have that right. No more further complaints from the Conservatives or the previous Liberals on this. Allow the RCMP officers the right that all other workers in this country have, the right to organize and the right to assemble, and the right to collective free bargaining with their employer. That is what makes the NDP tick, and in many cases the Bloc as well.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, May 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He is absolutely correct. I know that he has risen in this House on many occasions, defending the interests and actions of our police forces, not just in Quebec but across the country as well.

He is absolutely correct. How can any government ever be trusted when it negotiates for six months with pay councils, an agreement is reached, it is signed on the bottom line, and then arbitrarily, arrogantly, without any word of advice, and just before Christmas, it sends out an email. It doesn't even have the courtesy of picking up the phone. It sends out an email saying, “Too bad, so sad. We're rolling it back to 1.5%”.

What a cold, callous way to treat our RCMP officers. I can assure members, come the next federal election, I plan on reminding every RCMP officer and their families exactly what these Conservatives did on that day just before Christmas.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, May 12th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to provide a synopsis of what Bill C-18 proposes to do.

On March 9, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts.

The bill proposes changes to the pension plan provided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act. The key changes grant the necessary authorities the right to expand existing election for prior service provisions and introduce pension transfer agreements. The expanded election provisions will allow eligible pension plan members to elect for prior service under Canadian pension plans.

The introduction of pension transfer agreements will allow the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to enter into formal agreements with other Canadian pension plans to permit the transfer of pension credits into and out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension plan. I am proud to say the NDP fully supports this initiative.

While I am on the subject of the RCMP, allow me to congratulate and thank every member of the RCMP and their families who have supported our country beyond Confederation.

We are talking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is one of the few federal services in the world to have a “royal” designation. The men and women of the RCMP serve our country with great pride and great distinction. As well, many of them have paid the ultimate sacrifice in providing services to us, which has allowed us to have a good night's sleep.

Without our police forces, who knows what kind of things would happen on our streets. Some of our cities are facing big challenges in dealing with organized crime, drugs, et cetera. Who do we always call when we are in trouble? We always call the police. It is for this reason that I thank all honourable members of the RCMP and their families for the great service they provide to our country.

If I asked if everybody in this chamber supported the men and women of the RCMP and their families, the answer would probably be a unanimous yes. Why are the Conservatives, who like to pass themselves off as a law and order party, viciously attacking RCMP members when it comes to the other things they do?

Last year the pay council of the RCMP, which is not a union or an association but a group that negotiates with Treasury Board on future pay scales, negotiated a 3.5% increase in pay over a six month period. A 3.5% increase in a constable's pay is not much.

Just before Christmas, RCMP officers were sent an email telling them that the pay increase of 3.5% had been rolled back to 1.5%. An email is the coldest form of communication, and they received it just before Christmas. No negotiations were held and no discussions took place. They were told to take it.

That is not the way to treat our RCMP officers. They deserve a lot more respect. If changes were to be made, they should have been invited back to the bargaining table where explanations could be given and then return to the negotiation process again.

The Ontario Superior Court ruled recently that the RCMP had the right to unionize if it so wished. A union was not being forced on it. It said that if RCMP officers wished to form an association or a union for collective bargaining purposes, which over four million Canadians have the privilege of doing, then they should have the right do so as well.

What did the Conservative government do? It appealed the decision. Why would the Conservatives, who say they support the police force, not allow the RCMP to organize like other police forces? Halifax police are unionized as are police in Moncton, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. Why not the RCMP? Maybe the government is afraid that the good old NDP members will have their fingers all over this kind of thing. The ruling stated that the RCMP should be allowed to unionize if members so chose to do so. There is nothing saying they have to do that. It would give officers that right and that option, and they deserve it.

There is another issue that the RCMP has been working on for quite some time. We all know that when RCMP officers are injured, retire or have difficulties, whatever benefits they ascertain afterward go through the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is the DVA that looks after all their pensionable concerns, medical or whatever.

Many members of the RCMP, including Mr. Pumphrey of Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, in my riding, a retired RCMP officer, have been asking that RCMP officers be treated in the exact same way that our military veterans are treated and that is with regard to the veterans independence program. RCMP officers have been asking for quite some time that when they are at an age where they can no longer look after their housekeeping or groundskeeping services, that they be eligible for and be allowed to receive VIP benefits like our military men and women do now.

We know that a proposal was on the previous minister's desk. There is one on the current minister's desk. I asked the current minister if I could meet with him on this issue and he basically said, no. It was as simple as that.

So I will try it again. I am in the House right now, standing and asking the Conservative government to rethink this proposal and to treat our RCMP veterans the way that we treat our military veterans.

Now do not get me started on the military veterans because there are many faults of the government in the way it treats them. However, there are some who get treated very well, and DVA deserves credit for that. The VIP works very well for those who receive it. The problem is that many people do not get to receive it, and that is the flaw in the system. However, we believe that RCMP officers and their families should be treated the same when it comes to the VIP.

The RCMP looks after the internal laws of our country on a federal level, from coast to coast to coast. We all know the history of Sergeant Sam Steele, who brought law and order to the wild west and to Yukon at that time. These were people who did not get paid very much money for what they did.

A book written by an RCMP sergeant talked about the concerns that RCMP officers had when they went to rural postings, how they were not allowed to marry for the first five years, and how they were not allowed to enter the services if they were married at that time as well. This was back in the 1930s and the 1940s. When they could get married, then the spouse, although she never got paid in most cases, was expected to be the sort of second constable in those small towns. She was the one who would provide the jailing services. She would provide the food. She would provide the messages. She would do everything while her husband would leave to do his work. The problem is the spouse was left behind to do all the other duties and was never paid for them. Thus, when it came to pension time, an awful lot of the spouses were left out in what we call the “pension freezer” because they were not eligible for that. That is really something.

When we talk about RCMP officers, we do not just talk about the individual officer. There is an entire family unit around that officer. The husband or wife who is home along with the children are just as important to the security and the laws of this country as the officer who wears the red serge.

While I am on my feet, I cannot let it go without congratulating my good friend, Mr. Curt Wentzell. In October, Mr. Wentzell will be serving his 35th year as an RCMP officer in this country. What a great tribute to a wonderful man who will have provided services to his country uninterrupted, in October, for over 35 years. I personally want to congratulate Curt, his wife and his family for his tremendous service to our country. There is no man prouder in this country to wear the red serge than Curt Wentzell, and that is a fact. He is also from that great community of Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia.

There are other things that have happened to the RCMP over the years that are quite challenging as to why they were done.

The Liberals, in 1999, stole, actually took, over $20 billion of superannuation surplus money from all public servants in this country, including the RCMP and the military, in order to fight the deficit. They never once returned that money. There were court challenges for that. So why would the government take that money which was destined for pension benefits for RCMP officers, the military and the general public service? Why would it have done that?

Again, there was no consultation with the RCMP, no consultation with anyone else. It just arbitrarily did it and then used that money for other purposes.

It is ironic, when the government took this $20 billion they announced corporate tax cuts. In many ways the pensions of RCMP officers paid for corporate tax cuts.

That is just like the employment insurance premiums that RCMP officers have to pay, which they cannot collect by the way. That money, over $56 billion, accumulated by Liberals and Conservatives went toward the deficit. In many cases it also allowed the government to use that phoney surplus to give corporate tax cuts and other tax cuts to other concerns.

Anyone can pay off their car loan if they are going to steal from their mortgage. The reality is this was not the government's money. The EU money belonged to employers and employees, not the government. It is not for the government to decide what to do with that money. It is up to the employees and the employers to decide, in my personal view.

Instead of stealing the money from the superannuation plan and putting it into general revenues and thus equating that to tax cuts for companies like Exxon, Mobil, Shell and so on, and that is what the oil and petroleum companies need is further tax cuts and subsidies, that money should have stayed there to enhance the benefits of those who have served us.

I am thankful the minister today has reintroduced Bill C-18 and we are glad to see it proceed forward. However, if we are truly interested in the welfare of our RCMP officers and their families, there are many other ways to go. Ironically, at 5:30 this afternoon we are going to have that opportunity once again to talk about my bill, Bill C-201, which would end the clawback of RCMP pensions at age 65.

Let me give an example of what happened to an RCMP officer in my riding, Mr. Jim Hill. He had a stroke at work. He left the airport and went to the hospital. He was told he had cancer. He was also told that he would never go to work again, so he might as well apply for Canada pension disability. He applied and received it. The money he received from Canada pension disability he thought, if he survived his health problems and received his superannuation and CPP disability, would allow him and his wife to be okay financially. However, he was told, “Jim, sorry. You served your country for 32 years, wearing the red serge, that's not how it works. The CPP disability money would be immediately clawed back from your superannuation”. His question was, “Why did I bother applying for CPP disability?” That question has yet to be answered.

At 5:30 p.m. today, the House can show in another debate for RCMP and military personnel how we feel about them and getting that clawback stopped.

We thank the hon. minister for bringing in Bill C-18. We want to let the government know that our party fully supports it.

However, if we are on our feet talking about RCMP officers, let us not forget there are many other deficiencies that they are suffering that we can correct. There is absolutely no reason why members of Parliament or senators would not want to stand in their place and do everything to ensure that if anything happens to RCMP officers or their families that we are there to help them, no questions asked.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the government credit. The government has gone with industry and Nunavut individuals to Europe on repeated occasions. This is the number one issue of the ambassador for Fisheries Conservation, Loyola Sullivan. The Minister of Fisheries has said that this is her number one priority.

Everyone has tried, within the realms of democracy and politics, to get the message out, that what we are doing is correct. The difficulty is when others, such as Europe, never allow facts to get in the way of a good story.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely correct. Those people will lie, distort, do whatever it takes to stop the seal harvest. Going to extremes of this nature, to have a naked woman painted in red lie on the Canadian flag, is just one example of what they would do.

If LUSH Cosmetics or anyone else does not like the seal harvest, then they should not buy seal products, but they should not get in the way of those people who earn a livelihood from an honest living.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary brings up a very good point. Who in the world can tell the difference? When somebody walks down the Champs Èlysées or the streets of Berlin with a seal vest on, how does someone know whether that seal was caught by an aboriginal or non-aboriginal person?

I lived in Yukon in the early eighties, when the animal rights groups went after the fur trappers. It had a devastating effect on first nations people in Yukon. Mary Simon is absolutely correct. People of Nunavut are trying to teach their children traditional ways, the ways of their grandfathers and grandmothers. What Europe is saying to them is that their traditional ways are wrong and they should not do that.

That is simply wrong. This ban will have a devastating effect on the territory of Nunavut. I hope all of us would look at that territory and understand its traditional cultures.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, in my previous speech during the take note debate, I mentioned a bumper sticker I once saw in Nunavut that said, “Eat seals, 1,000 polar bears can't be wrong”. That is absolutely correct.

I was in Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago. A store called LUSH had posted a big advertisement that said, “Stop Canada's commercial seal hunt”. It had a picture of a whitecoat. This was just a little while ago. I went into the store and asked the manager if she knew anything about the seal hunt. She said no. The poster came from somebody in Canada and she was asked to hand out postcards to people so that they could send them off to the Prime Minister to stop the seal hunt. She knew nothing about the seal hunt. It was just that somebody presented a good story without any facts.

This is the problem with the commercial seal harvest. A lot of these environmental groups, what we call “greenies”, on the extreme side are not allowing facts to get in the way of a good story. A good story is that Canadians are barbarians, destroying and knocking the heads and skulls of these cute little critters and wiping them off the face of the earth just so we can make money. This is how they portray it, and that the seals have no chance at all.

I have been here since 1997, through five Parliaments, two different governments, six different ministers, six different parliamentary secretaries and many different critics and roles of people in and out of committees. Every single time, the committee has agreed. It did not matter which Parliament or which government. It was agreed unanimously by those committees that the commercial seal harvest was the proper thing to do to provide livelihood for people on the east coast as well as our first nations and Inuit people in the far North.

It completely upsets me when we have people who are very good at exploiting what we call an open abattoir. It is very difficult to combat those photos of white ice, blue sky and red blood. There is just no way around that. Yet, these same people should take the time to go into a normal abattoir where chickens, pigs, cows or anything else are slaughtered. They would have a different view.

In our society, we are omnivores. We eat meat and plants. Some people prefer to be vegetarians for either health reasons or personal reasons. God love them for it, but they should not get in the way of people who prefer to have seal or to utilize the entire seal for its coat or medicinal purposes. As my colleague from St. John's East said, hunting of seals has been going on for centuries.

What will happen if this ban is successful? If these animal rights groups are successful, the seal population will increase further in size to a tipping point where it will either have a natural, massive die-off or we will have to cull them in the millions. A cull means that we would go out, kill them and let them sink to the bottom to become crab or lobster bait. I simply would not support something of that nature. I do not think anyone in the House would.

That is why we have to utilize the complete seal when we can. That is why the government authorizes a certain percentage of over 250,000 to 270,000 seals per year. Out of 7 million, that is not very much at all. However, it provides an important livelihood and an economic base for thousands of people in Newfoundland, the Gaspé, Nunavut and other parts of Atlantic Canada.

It is unbelievable that the EU, with some of the worst fishing practices on the planet, can tell Canada what to do when it comes to the commercial seal harvest. What right do the EU countries have to say to people in Newfoundland and Labrador that they do not have a right to earn a living? What right do they have to say that our traditional peoples, the Inuit and first nations, do not have a right to sustain themselves by hunting seals? What right do they have to tell Canada about fishing practices when they themselves, in many cases, are the scoundrels of the sea?

If this complete ban on seal products follows through, then what are the animal rights groups going to go after next? I can assure members that putting a live lobster into boiling seawater cannot be very pleasant for the lobster. I can assure members that de-beaking a chicken cannot be very pleasant for the chicken. I guarantee members that castration of a bull cannot be very pleasing for the bull. I can tell members that branding of cattle cannot be very pleasant for the cattle.

Where does it stop? Which animal or which species is next on the list? It will be at a point where we will be unable to consume anything of that nature. For hunters who wish to go out and hunt deer, it cannot be very pleasant for deer to get shot. It cannot be very pleasant for bear, or caribou, or sheep, or whatever. Which species will be next on their hit list?

This is why the halting of the ban on the seal harvest is so critical to the traditional ways of life of our hunters, anglers and our first nations people. If we do not stop this now, they will go after another species. It will be to the point where we are left eating lima beans and tofu. I do not have any problem with lima beans and tofu except that it gives me gas. However, the problem is this. I like variety in my diet, so do many other Canadians and so does the rest of the world.

To say that the seals are endangered is simply false. To say that we are hunting white coats is an outright lie. To say that the hunt is inhumane is wrong. For the EU to take this stand is simply wrong. We know it is doing it for crass politics and not based on a scientific decision.

When the member for Malpeque and I spoke to some Dutch folks in P.E.I. a few years ago, they said very clearly that this was not based on any scientific numbers of the humaneness of the hunt. They said that this was strictly politics, that it was about getting re-elected, that it was about listening to thousands of people who signed a petition, but gave it no extra thought after that.

When people talk about banning the seal harvest, if we speak to most of these people who sign these petitions and ask them if they have really thought about what they have done, most of them say that they do not know many people who hunt seals, or they do not know many people who make a livelihood from the seals, but they are awfully cute on the camera, and that is why they sign the petitions.

My colleagues in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially, and those in Nunavut and the Gaspé, are having to go through this and having to defend this traditional practice over and over again. I really feel sorry for them. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador have a lot better things to do than worry about what the EU says about their practices when it comes to the seal harvest. I wish the EU would leave the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut alone and allow them to traditionally harvest their products in a sustainable manner, in a manner that provides them an economic livelihood so they have the dignity of work, the dignity of feeding their families, the dignity of knowing when they get up in the morning and they go to bed at night that they have done something that their forefathers and grandfathers have done.

I warn the House and I warn Parliament, what is next on the chopping block? A lot of members of Parliament are from rural areas in Ontario, in the west and in the north. What is next? If the House does not stand united in support of those people in the commercial seal harvest, then what else will people do?

I plead with members of all parties to look at this resolution for what it is. This is a sustainable harvest. If the government does it right and provides the market scenarios for them, if it ensures it is well checked, well in balance, we can ensure the livelihood for future generations to come. However, more important, if we do not do this and we allow this ban to occur, it will have reverberations throughout not only Atlantic Canada, but throughout the entire country.

[Fishing Industry, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the east coast of Canada, a perfect storm is developing around the lobster industry. From low catches, to very low prices, to high prices for fuel and so on, the fishermen are facing a very difficult time. In fact, many of them may be tying up their boats this season just because they cannot meet their costs.

One of the solutions for the industry is to allow the fishermen access to EI based on 2008 catches.

Will the government stand in the House today and commit to these fishermen and their families that they will be allowed access to EI so they can cover their cost--

[Air Passengers' Bill of Rights, May 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to debate this particular bill on an airline passengers' bill of rights. I should also let the House know that I may have been the only person who has served 18 and a half years in the airline industry itself. I served nine and a half in Watson Lake, Yukon and nine in the Halifax area.

When I joined CP Air in 1979, it was one of the greatest days of my life. In fact, in the industry, I am known as what is called an orange tail. Working at Watson Lake, Yukon, we tried to provide the best possible service for people who would come up to Yukon, not just to visit our wonderful territory and northern B.C. but for all the miners, expediters, tourists, hunters, trappers and all the people who would come through there.

The type of service we would provide was absolutely wonderful. We started with two flights a day: flight 18, which would go north, and then flight 19, which would turn around at Whitehorse and then come back. It was called the “milk run” in those days. Out of Watson Lake, we would serve a nice meal with beverages. There was no charge for wine and beer back in those days. Everything was there.

The reality is that the people who work for the airline industry must always look over their shoulder to see if they have jobs the following day. I have yet to meet one airline agent of any airline who caused an airline to fall or have problems. I have seen a tremendous amount of managers and board directors that simply do not know how to run an airline. We had top-quality customer service, probably some of the best in the world. Now, with the conglomeration with Air Canada, we have some of the worst.

I certainly do not for one second want my comments to infer that the agents on the ground handling either the luggage or the customers are in any way, shape or form responsible. The head of Air Canada, Robert Milton, leaves the airline and takes $42 million in salary with him. Then, Monty Brewer leaves after him and takes millions of dollars with him. Then, the airline turns around and says to these agents and retirees that they are not sure about their pension plans anymore.

When people go to work looking over their shoulders, they see their deductions. First, they are wondering if they are going to have jobs. Second, they are wondering if they will have pensions. These are the people that customers meet. Through all of that, they still provide friendly customer service from all the other carriers as well.

Why is it that we had Bruce Hood as the complaints commissioner for the airlines many years ago? Why did the government have to institute that type of individual? It is because the airlines have been nickel-and-diming their customers slowly but surely.

I will give a few inside tips on what the airlines used to do. Whether they still do it, I do not know, but I have a hunch that they may. We used to have maybe six or seven flights to a particular destination from point A to point B. If, at around 10 o'clock, a flight was showing two or three people on it and the 12 o'clock flight had maybe eight people, there was a good chance that the 10 o'clock flight would be cancelled. Why? It was mechanical. I love that answer. That is what we told our customers. We moved them over to the 12 o'clock flight.

First, one saves crew time, because the crews only get paid when they are in the air. Then, of course, one saves on fuel and other expenses. The aircraft that was supposed to leave Halifax to go to Charlottetown had to pick people up from Charlottetown and come back. They were also disrupted. Why? It was mechanical. As an airline agent, I never believed that one. At times it was, but the reality is that we used to cancel flights like that just to save money. If that is a management decision, fine. However, we should be honest and tell the people why we did it. We should not mislead them.

I want to provide a classic example of what happened. I was working at Canadian Airlines on Christmas Day many years ago at Halifax Airport. Our friends over at Air Canada had a flight leaving at around 12 o'clock in the afternoon from Halifax to Bermuda. We were rather jealous because we would have loved to have had that service. Many people were there. This was their Christmas holiday. This was Christmas Day. A lot of them saved up all year. A lot of them had anniversaries. This was their trip: to leave the cold of Halifax and go to Bermuda.

Everybody got out and checked in on time. At about 11:30, when the people should have been boarding, it was announced that the flight was going to be delayed by an hour because of a slight mechanical problem. Okay. No worries. No sweat. It was Christmas. They were on holidays. Everyone was happy.

At about 12:50 p.m., when that flight should have been ready to close the doors, they made an announcement telling us they had another delay until 2:30 p.m. In the industry we call that a staggered delay. It creeps. It is like bracket creep in taxes; it creeps up.

They just said it was mechanical. They did not tell the people anything else. I went to the ramp and found out exactly what was wrong, but because I worked at the other airline, it was not my position or right to tell the customers what was happening.

What happened was that there was a no-go item on the aircraft. They had to have it, but it was not in Halifax. That part was in Toronto. In order for the plane to leave Halifax, they had to get that part from Toronto to Halifax. They did not tell the people that until 2:30 p.m. They announced a further delay and then told them what happened. They said the flight may leave at 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m., that they were waiting for a part to come in from Toronto.

Fine, they did the right thing. They fed everybody. They got a nice turkey meal in for everyone, because it was Christmas. Everyone said, “Okay, we will be in Bermuda later on this evening. We will be all right.”

Guess what? A part was brought in from Toronto, and it was the wrong part. No go. What did they do? They said, “We are further delayed. We have to get another part.”

The fact is there were no other aircraft to bring in that part. They did not tell the people that. At 9 o'clock at night, they finally announced, “Ladies and gentlemen, we regret to inform you that the flight to Bermuda is now cancelled.”

I was very fearful for the customer agent. She immediately broke into tears, because these people were verbally violent towards her. They were very, very angry. They demanded to see the managers. And where were the managers? They were at home, enjoying Christmas.

That is just one example of many I could tell from my experience in the airline industry. If they had only told the people the honest truth, yes, they would have been disappointed, but the fact is they would have understood. It was a legitimate mechanical problem. Because of the Christmas schedule and the crew times and everything, they would have understood that they simply would not be able to do it that day.

At least they could have gone home or gone somewhere to enjoy that Christmas day and flown out the following day, which they did. Why did they have to mislead them time and time again?

When I leave today, there might be a flight scheduled to leave at 2:30 p.m. They want everyone on that aircraft at least 10 minutes prior to departure. Everyone up, doors bolted down, let us go. But there is a very good chance, in many cases, that at about 2:15 p.m., we will not have boarded yet. There will be no announcements, no signs. People will be saying, “What is going on here? Should we not have already boarded?” Sure enough, they will already be into a delay. Why do they not come out and say something?

During the hassles in Halifax a couple of Christmases ago, people demanded to see the managers. It was during the daytime. There were tremendous lineups because of the weather problems. They were told, “Here is the 1-800 number for your customer service.” The agents were too busy, so people wanted to speak to the managers. Where were the managers? They were upstairs on the third floor, not wanting to come out of their offices.

This passenger airline bill of rights would once and for all tell the people who buy the tickets, use their hard-earned money to travel on business or vacation that this House has turned around and respected their will.

As an airline agent, I have seen customer service go to all-time low levels. If the airlines stopped nickel-and-diming their customers and treated them with respect, we would not have to have a bill of rights. But because of what the airlines have done to customers in this country, we are following the lead. My hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona is right. We want to follow the lead of the Americans and Europeans to make sure our customers are treated with the respect, dignity and the honour they deserve. It is no less and no more than that.

As an airline employee for 18 and a half years, I was proud to serve my airline and proud to serve the customers. The fact is that as a frequent traveller myself, I have witnessed the diminishing of customer service. It is time to bring it back, and this bill of rights will do just that.