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

Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this government certainly supports consumer protection measures and in September 2008 we launched Flight Rights Canada, an initiative that informs the travelling public of Canada's consumer protection regime and their rights under the regime.
The foundation for Flight Rights Canada already existed in Canadian legislation as the Canadian Transportation Act requires that terms and conditions of carriage, which are the elements of the contract between an airline and its clients, be made readily accessible to consumers. WestJet, Air Canada, Jazz and Air Transat incorporated Flight Rights Canada in their terms and conditions of carriage for international and domestic travel. We are encouraged by such positive action taken by the industry leaders.

The member of Parliament for Elmwood-Transcona introduced Bill C-310 in February 2009, just over a year ago. The bill passed second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for review. Through the parliamentary process, industry and consumer stakeholders were given an opportunity to share their views on the bill as, of course, they would have the best perspective.
Although the bill's intention to improve airline customer service and ensure appropriate compensation was well received by all witnesses, industry stakeholders highlighted how this bill was structurally flawed. After hearing the detailed testimony, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommended that Bill C-310 not proceed further for several reasons that I will share with members now.
During the committee meetings, industry witnesses raised many concerns. In fact, the National Airlines Council of Canada, an industry association comprised of Canada's four largest passenger airlines--Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat and Jazz--argued that while the bill's intent was commendable, it actually penalized airlines for situations that were simply beyond their control.

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

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

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

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

Because Bill C-310 employs Canada's court system as a dispute resolution mechanism, and because imprecise terms...are sprinkled through virtually every major provision of the Bill - no one...can determine with any certainty at this point how C-310 will actually be applied - and no one will know until a series of protracted and costly legal battles take place.
The National Airlines Council of Canada also highlighted the fact that Bill C-310's exclusive focus is the airline in question and not other organizations. As one can imagine, the airline industry itself has many aspects within the chain of travel.
Following is a direct quote from expert testimony that we heard at committee:
Federal agencies or entities such as NAV Canada, CATSA, [Canadian Air Transport Security Authority], CBSA, [Canada Border Services Agency], and Canada's Airport Authorities are not contemplated and there is no consideration given to any foreign entity or legal framework, despite the complex and vital roles those organizations play in every trip Canadian passengers make.

By ignoring these obvious connections, C-310 fails in any meaningful way to address the problems it identifies--instead leaving it to airlines to deal with circumstances beyond their control, or face excessive penalties.
That certainly raised a lot of alarm bells with our members.
In addition to being held to account for the actions of other entities beyond the airlines' control, under Bill C-310 airlines are also taken to task and would be required to provide food and other compensation in the event of unfavourable weather conditions that simply delay flights.

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

The committee also invited Mr. John McKenna, president and CEO and Tracy Medve, a member of the board of directors for the Air Transport Association of Canada. Like the National Airlines Council of Canada, the Air Transport Association of Canada also reiterated that the bill's high fines could put passenger safety at risk. We are not prepared to take that chance. They said that this would be a result of taking away the pilot's ability to decide whether to fly during dangerous weather conditions in order to avoid facing penalties.
They also stated that tarmac delays are usually the result of bad weather. Let us face it, in Canada we have excessive snowstorms from time to time and other weather occurrences that are simply beyond the control of Canadians and beyond the control of this government and the airlines themselves. These should not be blamed on airlines whose flights may be delayed because of the need for de-icing.
The Air Transport Association of Canada actually argued that compensation under the bill should not exceed the cost of the original airline ticket. To do so obviously would be bad business and could hurt the financial bottom line of the airlines. Ultimately, that cost would be passed on to consumers. It penalizes airlines but the cost would be borne by Canadians all across this country.

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

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

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

Another key industry stakeholder present at the committee was Mr. Marco Prud'homme, president and general manager of the Quebec Air Transportation Association. I actually heard from him today on another matter. The association is a non-profit organization whose mission is to serve and work in developing Quebec's air transport industry.
Mr. Prud'homme's main concern with the bill was that it does not recognize the inherent complexities of the air industry and the particular issues for various regions in Quebec. For example, the bill's high fines would have a particularly great impact on smaller, regional carriers like Air Inuit, which primarily services the province's northern community. This would not be acceptable.

I would like to conclude by emphasizing this government's support for consumer protection legislation in the aviation industry especially, and our objective to create a balance in protecting passengers, the safety of Canadians, and ensuring a competitive industry.
Our Conservative government supports passengers and will continue to look at all possible practical ways to protect them while not punishing Canadian businesses or services to remote areas that rely on air transportation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That being said, this bill still passed second reading and went to committee, where we were looking for amendments. Then the companies, especially Air Transat, said we could not do this. I have to mention names because the parliamentary secretary started to name some. They said we could not do any of this because it would be unfair to the companies. Imagine this, that the companies and the Government of Canada are now in bed together to destroy any chances of service the consumers might have. That is great.
We had an opportunity to present some amendments to address their issues. For example, notwithstanding section 1, the amount of compensation under the section would never exceed the total amount paid by the passenger for the flight in question. That means that, no matter what happened, the company would be off the hook beyond the actual cost of that flight segment.

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

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

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

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil-Papineau-Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 minutes, I will try to explain the position that the Bloc Québécois took in committee on Bill C-310.

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

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

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

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

If the air carrier required to provide services or compensation under subsection (1) is of the opinion that the flight cancellation results from a measure or decision taken by an airport authority, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), NAV CANADA or the Canada Border Services Agency, it may submit the matter to the Department of Transport, which shall determine the responsibility of the organization in question and its obligation to refund the air carrier the amounts it had to pay out under this subsection.
The goal was to make whoever was responsible pay, if it was not the airline that was responsible. Transport Canada would have to investigate and make whoever was responsible pay.

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

Once again, I was prepared to improve this bill, but I could not because the amendment was out of order. That is fine, that is how things work. That means that the bill from our NDP colleague could not do what I was hoping it could. I had the opportunity to tell him that it was not a good bill because it only held the airlines responsible.
I am not the only one. I heard the Liberal member and I will probably hear our NDP colleague, but we heard from more than just the airlines in committee. The Canadian Bar Association offered its conclusion about Bill C-310.

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

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

My colleague touched on what happened in the Cubana case. Planes stayed on the tarmac for more than 12 hours. During the holidays, the Cubana company had to divert planes from Montreal because of the weather. There were Quebeckers on board those flights.
In Ottawa, they were not allowed to deplane and go into the airport. They stayed for 12 hours without food, water or toilets until a passenger called the police to say that it made no sense to be held like prisoners in a plane on the tarmac in Ottawa. They managed to resolve the situation. The airline had had to reroute the plane to Ottawa because of the weather. Again, they were exempt because of the weather.

I wrote to the Ottawa Airport Authority, Cubana and Transport Canada. Two years later, I still do not know who is responsible. At first, the Ottawa airport said that Cubana had not paid its fees and that was why the airport did not open its doors to let the passengers off the plane. Cubana told us that it did pay its fees. Was the person in charge of collecting the fees at the Ottawa airport away on vacation? Probably. Someone made a mistake, but it seems it was not necessarily the airline. It was exempt because of the weather.
We cannot solve everything with one bill. That is what our NDP colleague hoped to do. Someone is trying to play politics with a bill that would penalize airlines for things that are not their fault in many cases. The Canadian Bar Association said as much. We have analyzed the situation. After what happened with Cubana, the government asked that all Canadian airlines at least be able to regulate this.

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

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

These companies agreed to do so at the request of the government. It is a step in the right direction. Obviously, if there ever were a public outcry about the behaviour of airline companies, I am convinced that we would amend the law. When the Canadian Bar Association says that there is no need to amend the law, we must listen.
In Quebec, the consumer protection act gives passengers many rights with respect to reimbursement and other things.

I have always had the same focus: I want justice to be served. If the airline company is responsible for damage suffered by a passenger, I want the latter to be compensated. However, it if is not responsible, it should not be blamed. The financial situation of airline companies is fragile. Two companies have shut down in the past six months.
Can we impose an additional burden on the airline industry when the Canadian Bar Association has said it is not necessary? It is simply being done for political gain. In addition, it is good politics to offer this up against an industry that has shown interest by voluntarily participating in the government's suggestion of passenger rights.
Once again, we will support-

The Deputy Speaker:
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Elmwood-Transcona.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood-Transcona, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the bill.
At the outset, the member for Eglinton-Lawrence made a spectacular speech on the subject. It was 100% accurate all around. However, I have to observe that there appears to be two Conservative parties in the House, particularly on this issue. We have the member of the Bloc writing the script for the Conservatives in the committee.

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

The members of the government are complaining about the figure that we had in the bill, which was $500 and we were prepared to take it down to $100. In fact, we were even prepared to amend the bill, as the member for Eglinton-Lawrence said, to make it a requirement that the penalty would not exceed the price of the ticket.
Just two days ago, and members are probably not aware of this yet, a new ruling came out on overbookings in the United States. On Tuesday of this week, Southwest Airlines was fined $200,000 for overbooking passengers. This has all come about in the United States, while we have been sleeping for the last year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was on that basis that we sent this to the lawyer. We told him the Bloc's objections and asked how Bill C-310 would help the Cubana passengers. The lawyer came back and said that was exactly what the bill would do. It would have helped those passengers because the airline would compensate the passengers, as they do in Europe, and then the airline would have every right of subrogation against who it saw would be the guilty party.
When Air Canada was dealing with snowstorms in Vancouver two years ago, and it did not take care of its passengers then either, it sure moved against the airport quickly. It had lawyers chasing the airport for wages that it paid because of the storms and because the airport ploughed the wrong runway. That is always there.

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

The member for Eglinton-Lawrence pointed out that we had an extraordinary circumstances exclusion in the bill, which hard-core consumers would say is way too broad. It would allow those airlines in Europe to use extraordinary circumstances, and some of the airlines are totally irresponsible and use it for everything. To them, everything is extraordinary circumstances. It is up to the passenger to go to small claims court. In Europe a company called EUclaim, based out of Holland, has been very successful in getting claims settled for people. However, it is no picnic in Europe. The airlines are fighting this tooth and nail.
Air Transat has been paying compensation. Do not let Air Transat lie to us. It has been paying compensation. We asked Air Canada several times now how much it had paid in the last five years in compensation to its flights in Europe. It has not stopped flying to Europe. It is flying as many flights as it was five years ago. Air Canada will not tell us that. Nor will Air Transat. They are prepared to ill treat their customers in Canada but treat them a lot better in Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker:
I will have to stop the member there as his time has expired. We will move on to the hon. member for Newmarket-Aurora.

Ms. Lois Brown (Newmarket-Aurora, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada's first priority with respect to air travel is safety. That being said, the government supports consumer protection measures.
Our government understands the stresses associated with air travel, particularly with the effects caused by Canadian weather and the volume of traffic during holiday periods. The recent closure of airspace over Europe as a result of a volcanic eruption in Iceland is another dramatic example of unexpected stresses that can affect air travel.
The government launched flight rights Canada in September 2008, which was intended to inform the travelling public of Canada's consumer protection regime, their rights under the regime and how they can seek redress.

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

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

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

As per information received during the bill's initial consideration, these stakeholders, as well as a number of government and opposition members, felt that the bill's punitive and unfair provisions would have serious repercussions for the airlines' financial viability and services to remote and/or rural communities. After hearing detailed testimony from the witnesses, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommended that Bill C-310 not proceed further. I support this position and I will tell the House why today.
First, the bill does not take existing legislation or consumer protection into account. It is incompatible with the Canada Transportation Act's existing consumer protection regime. The bill would also prevail over the Aeronautics Act, which creates safety concerns. These are fundamental issues.

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

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

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

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

Third, not only is the bill overly punitive to air carriers, but it would also not improve the air passenger travelling experience. First, the bill's fines could incite pilots to fly during difficult weather conditions or with mechanical problems in order to avoid paying compensation to passengers. This is unacceptable and unsafe behaviour that should not be encouraged in any legislation. The bill's excessive penalties could drive higher prices or affect already slim carrier margins. Our airline industry is fragile at the best of times and consumers would not benefit from rising prices, especially during these still challenging economic times.
I will conclude by emphasizing this government's support for consumer protection measures in the aviation industry and our ongoing objective to create a balance between protecting passengers and ensuring a competitive industry. We cannot support Bill C-310.

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

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

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

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

Parliament has already passed a motion requiring all-inclusive pricing by these airlines in Canada. This means that rather than advertising a price of $99 for a flight from Ottawa to Vancouver and then adding all of the taxes on checkout, the full cost must be provided at first glance. The legislation, however, is still not in place and this bill would rectify that.
Voluntary codes are not enough. In September 2008, the airlines in Canada agreed to the flights right proposal that voluntarily limited tarmac delays to 90 minutes. Guess what? Only three months later passengers were on a plane on the tarmac for eight hours without being allowed to get off that plane. It took the RCMP to intervene to get the airline to dock the plane and finally allow passengers off. Personally, I would prefer if we were not forced to use the Criminal Code to protect consumers' rights.

This bill is not unique. This bill is inspired by legislation introduced by the European Union, and since its implementation. overbooking on flights leaving Europe have declined significantly. Air Canada and numerous other carriers that use Canadian airports are already governed by these rules when they fly out to European airports. This means that the implementation of these new rules would require only minimum changes for airlines.
The Obama administration in the U.S. also introduced rules that passengers on U.S. domestic flights are entitled to be let out of planes delayed on the tarmac within three hours and that they must be provided with food and water within two hours. Any airline that h fails to meet these standards would be fined up to $27,000 per passenger. The rules followed a landmark $175,000 fine imposed in November 2009 on Continental Airlines, ExpressJet Airlines and Mesaba Airlines for their roles in the delay of more than five hours in Minnesota.

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

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

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

When Britain sent navy ships to pick up passengers stranded in Spain, Canada set up a 1-800 number, which I believe is completely inadequate, but no one will never hear me criticizing airlines for trying to ensure the safety of their passengers.
However, the airlines in Europe were forced to ensure that their passengers were offered adequate food and water while they were stuck in the airport. If something similar were to happen here in Canada, any stranded passengers would, at best, only be entitled to what the airline felt like providing, and worse, would be left to cope on their own. I believe that is unacceptable.

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

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

--the air carrier can prove that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.
That is stated right in the bill. If members of the committee really have concerns with the fact that these parties, the ones I mentioned earlier, are not taken into account explicitly, there are other ways of moving forward than simply killing the bill.

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker:
Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, April 28, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, May 5, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.
Shall I see the clock at 7:30?
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)
moved that Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking to Bill C-310 this evening, leading off on the first hour of what I hope will be a constructive debate.
I would like to begin by thanking Woodrow French, the mayor of Conception Bay South in Newfoundland, and Bruce Cran of the Consumers Association of Canada, who have been actively supporting the bill and have hit the road recently to promote it across the country.
We have been approached by a U.S. consumers group expressing interest in the bill, a group called FlyersRights.org run by its founder, Kate Hanni, who organized a press briefing in California regarding Bill C-310. She praised the bill as the best airline bill of rights legislation she has seen, and she will distribute copies to the U.S. legislators in Washington D.C.

Bill C-310 has been getting a lot of media interest, and with it, numerous responses from Canadians sending in their personal stories. Almost everyone from whom I received a response has been very supportive of the bill. There are always some people who are not, but most of them are supportive.

The bill is based on Private Member's Motion No. 465, introduced last year by the hon. member of Parliament for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte of Newfoundland and Labrador from the Liberal Party, and the resolution passed unanimously in the House, but the government did not bring in the bill promised in the resolution.

Instead, it introduced the voluntary agreement called flight rights, which had no effect in law, but did promise the tarmac delays, for example, would not exceed 90 minutes before people would be let off the plane, so we then had a recognition at that time by the airlines that 90 minutes was a long enough time to keep people cooped up in a plane on the tarmac.

What did the airlines do? They proceeded to keep people on the tarmac for six to eight hours just three months later. So much for flight rights and I think the Conservatives recognize as well that we need tougher laws to govern this area.

Just three days ago the airlines decided that they will put flight rights in their tariff, voluntarily letting the Canadian transportation agency enforce it, but where are the penalties if they do not follow through? They did not last time, why should they now?
In addition, the airline letter is full of falsehoods about the actual bill. In terms of the National Airlines Council of Canada, it sent us a letter called “reality check”, so I am responding in the same way, saying, “reality check”: I want to deal with the concerns of the National Airlines Council of Canada's March 2 letter to all members of Parliament and the outright factual errors in that communication.

It says the maximum compensation for denied boarding in Bill C-310 is two to three times higher than in the EU, when it is exactly the same. We used the EU figures in the bill.
It says it was not consulted. The reality of private members' business is that there is not a lot of time for consultation with external parties in the development of a bill. A member whose name is drawn near the top of the list has 20 sitting days until the completed bill must be deposited at the House of Commons Journals Branch.
In this case, however, I did speak to representatives from both the National Airlines Council on the phone, gave them complete details of the bill, and invited them to give me an email response before the bill was sent for translation. We were making amendments right up to the very end, and I received no submissions from either party, unlike the Consumers Association of Canada, which did come forward with valuable contributions right up to the last day.

The National Airlines Council claims that the fares will rise as a result of this legislation. I would like to ask, did the fares rise when the Air Canada president earned $26 million in 2007? That was a considerable amount of money that it expended at that time, and I do not think fares rose because of his salary. I do not really believe they would now either, because if airlines follow the rules in the bill, they would not pay any penalties. By our experience in Europe so far, it does not look like they are paying much in the way of penalties over there either.

The National Airlines Council says, “No jurisdiction has ever held airlines responsible for weather delays or cancellations. To do so is fundamentally incompatible with the safe operation of an aircraft”. Well, neither are we. We have taken the exclusion from the European Union bill and put it verbatim into our bill, giving the airlines the extraordinary circumstances exclusion, which they are happily using in Europe the last four years. This statement implies that Bill C-310 would make an air carrier responsible for weather delays and cancellations when that is not the case.

Bill C-310 does not require an air carrier to pay compensation to a passenger in respect of a flight that has been delayed or cancelled due to weather. A flight that is cancelled due to weather falls within the exemption, which I already explained, and is provided for in the bill.
If the air carrier can prove that the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided, even if all reasonable measures had been taken, under this subparagraph the air carrier is not required to pay compensation to a passenger whose flight was cancelled. This is the standard that has been adopted by the European Union and the cancellation due to weather clearly falls within this exemption.

All that an air carrier is required to do in a case of cancellation due to weather is: reimbursement, which is reasonable, or rerouting the passenger; meals and refreshments in relation to the waiting time, nothing wrong with that; hotel accommodation in cases where a stay of one or more nights is required; ground transportation between the airport and the place of accommodation; and a total of two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or emails. There is nothing here that is unreasonable for an air carrier to do.

The European Union commissioned a study two years into their bill, about two years ago, after the rules were in effect. While the airlines have been aggressive in using extraordinary circumstances arguments to avoid paying compensation, all stakeholders agreed that the extraordinary circumstances exclusion was still a good and fair balance between the customer's right to compensation and fairness toward the airline. The reason for that is because it is held up in court. We do not want to tilt the bill too much against the airlines because then they will take it to court and they will win their point.

The bill covers denied boarding due to overbooked flights and specifically trying to get people off the flight by agreement, not by forcing them off the plane.

I was on a Northwest Airlines flight from Minneapolis several years ago. It needed six people off the plane. It got the volunteers by offering free passes to get people off the plane. Everyone was happy with that result and I am sure they are still talking about it to this day. Happy customers are what the airlines need.

If airlines have to deny boarding to customers involuntarily, why should they not be paying compensation of $500, $800 or $1,200, based on the length of the trip? The same compensation applies to cancelled flights. Europe has been doing this for four years. Bill C-310 was inspired by the EU legislation which has been in effect since February 17, 2005.
Air Canada operates in Europe, so it knows all about this legislation. The airlines know that in the EU airlines try to use the exemption as often as possible to avoid paying compensation to passengers. Airlines fought the EU legislation in court and they lost. They know this legislation is sound and it will hold up in court, which is why they are mounting such a big campaign against it. They know it is going to be popular with the public when it is passed.

I have spoken to many MPs, and while they all like the bill, several have questions about the compensation to passengers. I tell them that they can vote for the bill at second reading because it shows they agree with the principle, just like they all did a year ago on the resolution. If they disagree with it, they can come to the committee to try and get it amended. If they think the penalties are too high, they can bring an amendment reducing it to a level that they think is appropriate.

I have even asked the National Airlines Council for amendments, but I got the “Dear Member of Parliament” letter instead, with all the misinformation about the bill. How can it amend the bill when it is clear that it has not taken the time to even read it?
In most cases, we copied the compensation levels of the European Union, and by the way, those compensation levels were doubled in the European Union four years ago because it had earlier legislation from 1991 which dealt with denied boarding only. It did not deal with cancellations and it dealt with scheduled airlines only. It did not deal with charters and it had penalties that were too low, so four years ago it expanded it to include charters. It expanded it to include cancellations and it doubled the penalties. The review panel, two years later, said the penalties were just fine the way they are. They are not too high and not too low.

Why should passengers not have the right to cancel and get a refund after a four hour delay? Why should passengers not get a meal voucher after a two hour delay? Why should passengers not get $100 payment if the airline misplaces their baggage and does not notify them within an hour after finding it? Will the $100 bankrupt the airlines or will it cause them to smarten up and stop misplacing baggage, and not notifying us when the baggage is found?

Why should customers not expect better service? Why should passengers not be informed of flight changes, delays and cancellations under penalty to the airlines? Why should the new rules not be posted at the airline counter to inform customers of their rights and the process to file for compensation? Why should the public not expect all-in-one pricing so they know the total cost of the flight before they click the buy button?

Because the EU carriers have fought the law so hard in Europe, it has taken the small claims court system in Europe to get settlements out of the system. There is no lawyer required. Passengers in Canada can still complain to the Canadian Transportation Agency, but as in Europe, the transportation agencies are not the bodies that are getting the payments. It is the small claims court. British Airways is a good, recent example where it received a settlement on behalf of a large number of claimants through the courts.
The bill would not solve all the people's problems, but it is fair to customers and the airlines. The airlines that follow the rules will not pay a cent. Airlines that claim extraordinary circumstances too often risk getting even tougher rules in the future. Bill C-310 applies to all Canadian air carriers and all air carrier operations that take place in Canada. Why should an Air Canada customer receive better treatment in Europe than in Canada?

In conclusion, I want to issue a call to action. I ask Canadians to not just sit there and say that this is a good idea and hope that it passes. I ask them to go to their computers, send their MP a message requesting him or her to support the bill and send me a copy so that we can keep track of their support. I ask them to send a letter to their local newspaper editor.

MPs listen to their constituents. It is how they get here in the first place. They will keep getting re-elected if they listen to their constituents' concerns. This is a free vote in Parliament and members are free to vote any way they want. The airlines are sending them letters and asking for meetings to try to convince them to vote against the bill. I want Canadians to help me even the odds and counter this special interest lobby that is working against their interests.

All the airlines have to do is keep fresh air and lights working, make sure the toilets are working, make sure food and water are provided, and allow for disembarkation of the airplane if it is possible to do so without risk to health or safety of the passengers. They are suggesting that we have an absolute in the bill that they are going to have to start paying their penalties after one hour no matter what. There is enough of an exemption in there to allow them a certain amount of leeway. If it is going to risk the safety of the passengers, they do not have to let people off within the hour. It is as pure and simple as that.
If they do not want to do these things, why should they not compensate the passengers? If $500 is too high, then bring in an amendment to lower it. However, if it is lowered too much, the airlines will keep the passengers locked up for hours without the lights, air, toilets, food and water.

The next time people are on a flight and things go wrong, they will wish they had emailed or written their MP. They will wish they had written a letter to the editor to support this bill and if that person is an MP, he or she will have wished they had voted for this bill.

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure many of the people he was talking to out in the public would be in favour of an initiative like this, so I would like to congratulate the member and also the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte for coming up with this concept in the first place.
I am pretty excited about the concept, but I have a couple of questions. The success of any bill depends on the consultation with those who would be affected. I would like to ask the member, how many airlines has he talked to and what were their estimated costs? I am particularly interested in what Air Canada and WestJet said. What did they say this would cost them based on their experience? He said that those airlines have had experience in Europe already, so it should be an easy calculation. How much would the fares go up?
The second question is related to fairness. A lot of delays such lineups, de-icing and things like that are caused by the airport, not the airlines. I am wondering if, in his bill, the airport would have to pay that fee or would he unjustly put that fee onto the airlines when they have nothing to do with the problem?

Mr. Jim Maloway:
Mr. Speaker, there were many items in the member's question.
We have had a very difficult time trying to find out how much the airlines are paying in Europe, as did the study commissioned by the European Commission. In fact, almost all the airlines refused to give the information. There were only a couple that were very forthright about it.

We know from the history of the bill that the airlines claim extraordinary circumstances all the time, as many times as they can get away with it. It is up to alert passengers to say, “That is not true; that is not the case at all,” and follow through with small claims court actions.

We need a law, but the enforcement is a big issue. It is really up to the passengers themselves. They cannot take action if there is no law to protect them, but if there is a law, those passengers who are alert will take action.
I have answered this question many times about what it will cost the airlines. The truth is it will cost them nothing if they simply follow the rules. WestJet, for example, does not overbook, so it will pay nothing. As a matter of fact WestJet's criticisms are not very strong at all. I have been on radio shows with its representatives and they are not hostile to the bill, let us put it that way.

However, in terms of trying to--

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barry Devolin):
Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear the member suggest to other members that before they vote on this piece of legislation that they read it first. I think that is a great concept.
My first question is, does that mean the policy of the NDP members will change for the next budget and that they will actually read it before they decide to vote against it?

My second question is, why did the member refuse to meet with the two major Canadian airlines when they asked to meet with him to go over the bill some two weeks ago?

Mr. Jim Maloway:
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, I spoke to the representatives of the airlines before we sent the bill for translation. They did not respond. They were given time. I explained the bill to them and they were given time to respond. They did not. The Consumers' Association on the other hand did respond. In fact, it did get a provision put in the bill because of its response.

I cannot account for why the airlines did not do it, but I received the letter addressed to members of Parliament just as the parliamentary secretary did and I am sure that I will be talking to them again very soon. They are on radio shows that I am on, so I have had occasion to talk to them.

Hon. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill. It follows on the motion that we put forward in the House in the last Parliament that was endorsed unanimously, not only by members of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party, but members of the Conservative Party of Canada as well. The motion called on the government to bring forward legislated consumer protection with respect to the airline industry.

I have read the bill in depth. I agree with the concept thoroughly, as all members do and they voted unanimously for it. However, I was wondering if the hon. member would be open to amendments to his bill with perfections to create better legislation at the committee stage.

Mr. Jim Maloway:
Mr. Speaker, that is the best question I have had all day. I want to tell the member that I would welcome his amendments. I have a half dozen myself.

I have been around politics long enough to know that even ministers when they bring in bills sometimes amend their own bills a half dozen times before they get through the process.

I would look for amendments from all parties in this Parliament to make the bill successful, and it cannot be successful unless everyone is involved.

Mr. Brian Jean (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-310 brought forward by the member for Elmwood—Transcona.
Over the past Christmas season, severe weather wreaked tremendous havoc at airports across the country. I know that because I travel quite frequently. Being a member of Parliament from northern Alberta, I have the opportunity to travel on planes. I can assure the member and others in the House that if anyone knows what it is like to travel in Canada and enjoy the diverse weather across this country, it is members from the west because they have to do more travelling. I remember that bad weather forced many cancellations and delays, which obviously were beyond the control of the airlines. Unfortunately, too many people spent hours in airports lying across plastic chairs and getting snacks from vending machines. Some members in the House probably had that unfortunate experience.

Let me be clear. Protecting Canadian travellers is a priority for this Conservative government and will remain a priority for this government. We are committed to consumer protection and have taken measures to strengthen that protection.

In 2007, for instance, we brought forward Bill C-11, which improved transparency by requiring air carriers to publish their terms and conditions of carriage on their websites, a good step to put forward for consumers to understand what their rights are. The Canadian Transportation Agency was also mandated to continue its complaints process as a permanent program.

In 2008 our government introduced the flight rights program as a result of, in part, Parliament's wish to protect consumers more thoroughly. This is a campaign to inform air travellers of the rights and options available to them should they encounter difficulties when travelling.

In budget 2009, again we introduced measures to modernize the Competition Act and to better protect Canadians from price fixing and misleading advertising, things which are simply not acceptable. The changes that this government made will instill greater confidence in advertising and more meaningful penalties to deter misleading advertising and mass marketing fraud, again things which are unacceptable.

I would like to highlight a few key components of the consumer protection measures we as a government have put in place for air travellers.

Under the Canada Transportation Act, all carriers operating within Canada are required to have written terms and conditions of carriage readily accessible to passengers. These are often printed on the back of the ticket or agreed to when reservations are made online so that consumers will know their rights at the time they purchase their tickets.

These terms and conditions must reflect the carrier's policy regarding persons with disabilities, the acceptance of children, cancelled or delayed flights, lost or damaged baggage, denied boarding due to overbooking, and ticket reservations. These currently exist. They reflect the passenger's rights as a consumer and the carrier's obligation.
Carriers are actually obliged to live up to these terms and conditions and if they fail to do so, consumers can turn to the Canadian Transportation Agency for recourse. The agency can impose different measures, including corrective measures, such as a refund of expenses incurred by the passenger, and can also direct a carrier to change or suspend its terms and conditions of carriage.

It should be noted that in the United States consumers must actually turn to the courts instead of an agency like the Canadian Transportation Agency when carriers fail to live up to their commitments. We all know that turning to the courts is very expensive and time consuming and, quite frankly, not acceptable to Canadians.

Countries in the European Union are required to have a complaints process, but the complaints processes in the European Union actually vary in their effectiveness and are more limited in scope to what we currently have in Canada. In Canada we have a consumer protection regime that ensures that the terms and conditions offered by carriers in Canada are not only reasonable but that carriers actually stand by them and stand up for consumers.

These terms and conditions are determined by international norms of practice, normal travel practice and healthy competition, which is so very important in today's global economic crisis. They are the carrier's commitments to its clients.

It is easy to understand the frustrations of passengers because, let us face it, many in the House are very frustrated by travel from time to time. The people who experienced the frustration of flights being delayed or cancelled over the Christmas season were, quite frankly, unhappy. Everyone travels hoping to arrive at their destinations on time. However, we live in a winter country. We live in a huge country, approximately 1.2 people per square mile, the lowest population density in the world. Given our climate, inevitably there will be unfortunate delays and inconveniences in travel, particularly in our harsh winters, our large snowfall and our dispersal of population.

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard from many industry representatives. I have had an opportunity to meet with representatives from WestJet, Air Canada and from other airline carriers that service our country. Let us talk about what they think. The Tourism Industry Association of Canada stated that it shares the concerns raised by the NACC, the National Airlines Council of Canada, regarding many aspects of the proposed legislation and does not believe that the highly prescriptive and punitive measures such as Bill C-310.
This sentiment was echoed by the Canadian Airports Council and the International Air Transportation Association. It represents 230 international carriers around the world, including all major airlines in Canada. The National Airlines Council of Canada said that while Bill C-310 claims to safeguard consumer interest, the proposed measures would in fact exacerbate delays and add a new layer of traveller inconveniences and costs.
It is also important for us to try to understand the operational realities of running an airline in today's competitive environment. For instance, bad weather in Vancouver will cause delays in Toronto. It will cause ripple effects across the country, especially during the busiest time of travel and especially during the harshest part of winter. We must also be mindful that safety must be the primary concern for our transportation system.
The Air Transportation Association of Canada in a letter dated March 4, 2009, states that it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking.
Yes, it will lower passenger safety in Canada by encouraging more risk taking. There is nothing more important to this Conservative government than the safety of Canadians and we are going to make sure that they remain safe while they travel. Safety must come first.
We can and must learn from other countries. We must review the United States' legislation, the European legislation and look at other options. We must also be mindful that Canada's weather and geography are truly unique and these realities must be taken into consideration when we think about what must be done to enhance consumer protection legislation and ultimately serve those whom we all serve in this place, Canadians.
I look forward to working with the member who introduced this bill and all members of the House and the committee cooperatively to find solutions that will protect Canadian consumers without punishing Canadian carriers for factors beyond their control.
We must ensure during this time of economic global downturn that we protect Canadians' interests and at the same time make sure that airlines remain competitive. It is a balancing act and we as a government will do the best job for Canadians.

Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I was almost encouraged by what I heard the parliamentary secretary say a moment ago. He talked about co-operation in this House and having governments reflect what the people actually want, especially when they have expressed it in this House.
Last June, not that long ago, 240 members of Parliament from all parties stood in their places and unanimously supported a motion by my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, who said that what we need to do is respond to the needs of Canadians when they are consumers of a service that we in Canada have come to take for granted as part of the lifestyle and the standard of living that is demanded by a nation of our size in our part of the hemisphere.

What would a responsible government do when the unanimous voice of the people is expressed in a bill that is reflected in my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona today?
One would expect results immediately.

The parliamentary secretary speaks of all those indications, those motions, those brochures. In fact, some of the initiatives of his government resulted in a paper going forward as a recommendation to the airline industry in September.

That was in September. What did the people in the airline industry do? Well, in September they heard voices of elections, so they said, “Let us wait”. They waited and they waited. The member for Elmwood—Transcona can hardly be blamed for the lack of action on the part of the government.

We could be in an entirely different place if the government had taken the initiative given to it by the authority of a unanimous vote in the House and had said that this was what the public wanted.

There were not penalties of the nature that our hon. colleague calls for in Bill C-310. Now we are talking about making a comparison with what happens in the United States, what happens in the EU, and what the economic and financial implications are for individual companies, collective organizations, airport authorities and tourist organizations.
We would not have to be in that kind of discussion if the government had just done what the parliamentary secretary said it would do.

Is it any wonder that members of Parliament, whether longstanding members of Parliament like my colleague from Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte or new members of Parliament like my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, fill in the need because the Canadian public wants action?

What do we do? We agree in principle with the implied contractual arrangement that is inherent in this legislation. I say the “implied contractual arrangement” because someone who is providing a service wants a contented client, and that client wants a service for which he or she pays. Otherwise, there are consequences. Either there is delivery of service or there is an alternative.

The last motion in this House talked about that contractual framework. Our colleague, newly elected in October, said that we would like to put something else into this contractual arrangement. Nobody is doing anything on it. If it comes across now as being tough on the airlines or tough on the industry, it is because people are looking for an arbiter.
Who is that arbiter? The arbiters are right here. Members of Parliament from the other side are looking for the authority we had already given them in the last Parliament, but the last minister of transport chose not to act.

The current Minister of Transport may choose to act. A private member's bill is here before him. It has, I think, the same kind of support, unless a vote proves otherwise, that was shown for the last motion that was before this House.

A responsible and accountable minister would say that these ideas come not just from opposition members, but from a unanimous expression of the public view in the House of Commons of Canada.

Do we expect members of Parliament to do anything less than transform the frustration of citizens into a positive suggestion for change? Surely we want all stakeholders, all providers of that service to be at the table and work with members of Parliament, who are not the enemy. They are the carriers of the voice that cries for a service and a contractual arrangement that must be honoured by both parties.

Is the European experience the one to follow? Is the American experience the one to follow? Is it one that would nurture the business that would stimulate the Canadian economy and at the same time ensure we enjoy a level of service that everyone should take for granted?

We have demonstrated as consumers a willingness to pay. Perhaps we pay too much. For that willingness to pay, even the willingness to pay more than others, we expect a level of service commensurable, but no. We expect perhaps at least what everybody else gets for less, and I have become an editorialist when I say that.

The only editorializing that a member of Parliament should do in this place is to recall for all members that a unanimous expression of the House asked the airline industry, the business of travel, to respect what everyone in the country had already said was desired, was needed, and in fact should have been done.

Whom shall we blame for this lack of obligation? We cannot blame it on the weather. That is a hot topic today because the weather is blamed for everything. We have to blame it on the government.

The minister has a responsibility to the House and to everybody in Canada to come forward with regulations that would reflect the will of the House. He has a responsibility to put in place a system that would supervise the implementation of those regulations. He has a responsibility to put in place a system that would follow whether any breach of that relationship was modified.

Some would say that perhaps we are building a bureaucracy unnecessarily so, and I would agree. There has been a rupture of the goodwill that was expressed by a unanimous vote in the House. The industry saw that and the government realized it needed to have a working relationship. That goodwill was broken.

When that goodwill was broken, people came forward with compulsion. If people will not work, we will make them work. If they do not like the conditions, we have to come up with the reasons. Who needs that? A good business operation does not need that. A good business model that wants to be successful does not need that.

We used to have a quasi-monopolistic approach to the way the airline business was conducted. We have opened it up, and some people would say that we should not have done that. We have opened up the opportunity to engage in a contractual agreement freely and that the recourse to government, when it comes with a unanimous view of the entire House, is that partners to that contractual arrangement depart from consensus at their own peril.

What the member for Elmwood—Transcona, through Bill C-310, is telling the minister is that he should start fulfilling his obligations to the public. He should start being responsible and demonstrate the accountability about which he so frequently boasts. He should get busy because the House has already given him one chance.

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-310, the private member's bill put forward by our NDP colleague.

Those who are watching will have understood in listening to the speeches that members' positions can differ somewhat. It is important to get to the heart of the matter on this air travel issue.

It is important to avoid creating an imbalance in order to secure an election victory. The Bloc Québécois wants to act responsibly on this issue. We are therefore going to support the bill so that it is sent to committee, but in its current form, it is not very persuasive. I listened to the member who proposed the bill say that he was open to changes and amendments. But proposing amendments to a bill does not mean they will be accepted. It is a bit more complicated than that.

This is a private member's bill, and an amendment that would change the nature of the bill would not be in order. There is some chance that, at the end of the debate, this bill might not pass as written because it could not be amended. I am not making any assumptions. I just want to give all of the options a chance. That could happen, but it would not be for lack of trying.

I understand the Liberal member's position. He pointed out that we were made all too aware of the issue because an incident occurred. In the spring of 2007, passengers were confined to a Cuban Air plane for some 10 hours because, apparently, the company did not pay the fees. The story remains unclear. I wrote to all of the authorities, but nobody wanted to take responsibility. I do not get the feeling that the bill, as written, will solve the problem either.

This situation happens in Canada, and not just with airlines. Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, created and accredited organizations known as airport authorities. These are para-governmental bodies, but they are not private entities. They rent airports; they lease them. They are made up of boards of directors, people from the sector, but they answer only to their boards of directors.

That makes it hard to figure out who is responsible. It may not always be the airline's fault. That is an important thing to understand in a country like ours, where we sometimes have more months of winter than of summer.

That is our reality, one that many European countries do not have to deal with. We have to be responsible and study the situation carefully. We must also avoid compromising the already tenuous situation of some airlines.

The National Airlines Council of Canada is an organization made up of the four largest airlines, but it is brand new. It was part of the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), but it withdrew to create its own association. Things are not that simple in the wonderful world of aviation.

The goal is not to shut down airlines. That would only create monopolies. At any rate, it would not benefit consumers. Fares will increase when airlines are eliminated one by one and only a single airline remains.

Thus, we must be able to create this balance and I am not sure that Bill C-310, as presented, does that. However, we in the Bloc Québécois have sufficient knowledge of the problem to discuss it in committee and call all witnesses, including the government.
I have a message for the government: the time has come, as we send this bill to committee, to consider tabling a bill that would establish that balance and make airlines and airport authorities accountable. Thus, it would be very clear and travellers would know full well that airlines do have a certain responsibility.

Some airport authorities look after traffic control and are also often responsible for providing services. We should realize that, because of our winters, certain operations, such as de-icing, must be carried out. In some airports, de-icing can take as long as two and a half hours. With a bill such as the one before us, if passengers were disembarked after an hour and a half, what would it mean? It would mean that we lose our place in the departure line. That results in an undue delay. It is not easy.

The committee will have to take care to call all of the witnesses and take all the time it needs. If the committee can improve this bill, it will. However, if that is not possible because of the legislative framework, perhaps the government will have to consider drafting its own legislation to send to the committee. I am opening that door because we need to solve this problem. My Liberal colleague is right: this has gone on too long.

However, is a private member's bill the right way to do this? Once again, this has not been discussed with the airlines, and that is all we can find fault with. It is all well and good to try to pass a private member's bill at all costs, but if two airlines were to be put out of business as a result, things would be worse, not better. We would not have solved anything. The only thing we would have done is achieve a personal victory at the expense of all Canadians, and that is not the goal.

As I said, Bloc Québécois members will vote for this bill so that it can go to committee, and we will be there throughout the process. We will try to bring in all of the witnesses we need to shed light on the complex issue of airline passengers' rights. I am reaching out to the government. It needs to understand that the legislation we are considering is important. Now is the time to resolve the issue of protecting airline passengers, and maybe it should introduce a bill that would make airlines and airport authorities take responsibility, because they are the ones responsible for any problems that passengers might experience. That is where things stand.

If we do that all together, this will be a collaborative effort. The member who proposed the private member's bill will be proud to say that legislation came out of what he suggested in committee. Obviously, we are open to that. The important thing is to achieve our objective. That is the result. The important thing is not to score a political victory, where one side wins and the other loses. The important thing is to work for travellers who are fed up with the air travel problems they have to deal with. Airline tickets are expensive, so if we can bring the industry in line and that takes a bill, then we need to have a bill. If we can improve this bill, so much the better. If another bill is needed, then I hope the government will understand, and we will support it. Our promise to users and consumer protection associations is that they will have a voice, they will be heard in committee. We all need to have a clear understanding of the issue.

I personally have a soft spot for airport authorities. I would like to know what is happening with the Cubanair file because, two or three years later, I am still in the dark. No one wants to take responsibility for having kept passengers locked in a plane for more than 10 hours without food or access to toilets. That is the harsh reality. The bill will not fix this because the higher the fines are, the more the airlines will go to the courts to contest them. That means delays. We will not fix the problem, and the lawyers will collect their profit, but travellers will not benefit.

Once again, I am reaching out. We will support this bill so that it can be discussed in committee. If we can improve it in such a way as to satisfy passengers, airlines and those who are responsible for the problems, we will do so. If a new bill is necessary, we would encourage the government to please send it along for the committee's approval.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be the seconder of the bill and I am pleased to speak to it tonight.

All air passengers deserve a bill of rights. Consumers have tolerated subpar service with no recourse for far too long. It is time to have legislation to protect consumers.
Let me illustrate this point with an example. When a person buys a car, which many people cannot do at this point in time because the banks are still charging consumers up to 10% for a car loan, but that is a discussion for another night, it comes with a warranty. There are also various safety and other standards the car must also meet when it is purchased. If anything is not as advertised and promised, consumers have a way to remedy the situation.

Another example is buying groceries. The same principle applies when one buys a loaf of bread. If it is stale, it can be returned. One will either be fully refunded the cost or get a new loaf of bread in exchange. The supermarket will be apologetic and will not demand proof that the bread is stale.
All of these principles seem to go out the window when consumers purchase an airline ticket. If we buy an airline ticket, which in some cases can cost the same amount as a small car, we almost have no rights at all, not even a guarantee that we will get the service for which we paid.

If our seat is broken on a long flight, or if the airline does not have our first choice of meal or if anything else goes wrong with our flight experience, we are unlikely to get fair compensation.

What is worse, if consumers voice their irritation with the poor service they receive, they run the risk of being accused of air rage, being arrested or, worse, banned from certain airlines for life.

The airlines currently have it all their own way. The power should be in the hands of the consumer. Right now, passengers are often trapped on aircraft that remain idled on the tarmac for several hours at a time.

Should this proposed legislation come into effect, airlines will have to pay compensation of up to $1,200 to travellers stranded when their flights are overbooked or cancelled all together. Flights delayed more than two hours will force the airlines to provide passengers with food, drink and access to a telephone.

Passengers are also misled by airline companies that advertise cheap rates only to find out later, after they have booked their ticket, that the cost of their ticket has skyrocketed with administration fees, more taxes and other surcharges

Should the bill come into effect, airline companies will have to advertise their rates honestly and include the applicable surcharges and additional rates.

The current reality is that consumers have little sway with the airlines. This is why consumers need a passenger bill of rights. Airlines currently benefit from bad behaviour, since passengers have little say in how services are delivered and no real recourse for poor treatment. Airlines can often act in ways that perhaps they should not, ways in which they would not act if commitments to passengers were upheld.

An example is cancelled flights. I am sure that almost all of us here have had a flight cancelled at one point in our lives. In addition to the inconvenience, cancellations often force passengers to miss important events, meetings and/or holidays.

This practice, highly unfavourable to passengers, can often serve as a cost saver for an airline because it will not need to pay compensation to its inconvenienced passengers.
New systems could drastically reduce the amount of luggage that goes missing and speed up its tracking and return. Many a time I have had to borrow one of the hon. member's suits and they seem to sag every once in a while, so I like to get some of my luggage back every once in a while. However, airlines are reluctant to invest in new technology. If the cost to the airlines for allowing bags to go missing or to get completely lost were to increase, then airlines would quickly improve their luggage handling systems.

The present situation encourages and rewards bad behaviour on the part of the airlines. Surely it is better to put in place a system that encourages and rewards good behaviour and that penalizes bad behaviour. This is also why we need a passenger bill of rights.

If airlines are required to generously compensate passengers for service shortcomings, this will selectively add extra expense to airlines with poor customer service records. All airlines these days are necessarily obsessing with cutting their operating costs. Currently, customer service is often seen as a cost, but if there is a potential penalty associated with poor customer service, then improving this will be part of their operation.

We, as fare-paying passengers, still have every right to expect service as promised without delay, cancellation or compromise no matter whether the airline is profitable or not. Consumers would not accept any compromise on safety and neither should they compromise on service. If an airline cannot afford to operate at a minimum standard of safety, it is not allowed to fly. Why should the same rule not apply to service?

This legislation is not suggesting that airline passengers receive extra rights above and beyond what is reasonable. Rather, consumers should have the same expectations as when buying other goods and services and if there is a problem, they will be fairly compensated, the same as all other consumers.

Adding an airline passenger bill of rights is not a precedent-setting new form of intrusion into the commercial relationship between a supplier and a purchaser of service. It simply creates some underlying basic principles of fairness in line with those already in place for most other consumer purchases and it is badly needed to fill a huge gap in our consumer rights.

The establishment of a passenger bill of rights will not require a new government department to manage or control it. All it does is establish a legal framework within which airlines are expected to operate and to specify minimum compensations levels which airlines must provide when they fail to provide their services as described and promised.
Airlines are still free to set their own pricing and policies any way they wish within the framework of the passenger bill of rights. Other countries are already doing this. New legislation now in effect in the European Union obliges airlines to pay compensation for delayed or cancelled flights. This legislation took effect on February 17, 2005 and gives passengers cash compensation of £250, £400 or £600, depending on if the problem flight is under 950 miles, between 950 and 2,200 miles or over 2,200. That system is established. Compensation is awarded for delayed flights, cancelled flights, denied boarding or being bumped, as it is called, or for baggage problems. Additional compensation, such as meals during delays and overnight accommodations, can also be earned depending on the circumstances.

Assistance must be provided even when the delay is caused by a factor outside the airline's control, such as severe weather. Other issues are also covered. For example, if someone is downgraded from first class to coach class, the person receives compensation based on a specific formula.

One of Canada's airlines, Air Canada, is already operating under European laws on overseas flights. Two other airline providers have already adopted some of the proposed changes. WestJet and Porter Airlines do not overbook flights.

In conclusion, it is time that the power was put back in the hands of the consumers. Travellers have been at the mercy of airline carriers for too long. Canada has a chance now to borrow the best of existing measures and to create a world leadership role in air travel fairness.

Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, in the short time remaining, it is very important that the House recognize the work the government has done on this issue.

After having been in government for two short years, we introduced the flight rights Canada code of conduct for Canada's airlines. The previous government had 13 years to do something, but unfortunately the Liberals did nothing.

We consulted with stakeholders, the airlines and consumer groups because this issue is not only about consumers, their rights and their comfort on airlines, but it is also about the viability of the airline industry in Canada.

It is important that we truly consult with all stakeholders. These are not just punitive measures, measures that will hurt one sector. They will truly benefit not only the airlines, but all Canadians.

With flight rights Canada we ensured that passengers have a right to information on flight times and schedule changes. We have ensured that passengers have a right to take the flight that they paid for. If a plane is overbooked or the flight is cancelled, the airline must find the passenger a seat on another flight operated by that airline, or buy the passenger a seat on another carrier. This is important and as I said, after two short years in government we introduced this and we are proud of it.

Passengers also have a right to punctuality. All of us in the House have travelled. Those members who have been in the House longer than others have travelled much more than some of the new members, but travelling is part of what Canadians do.
I am proud of the work we have done. We need to continue to work together, but we must consult all stakeholders on this matter.

Jim and his wife Clile and their three sons Kevin, Jose and Carlos with family pets Captain and Frances.

The Latest on
Disraeli Bridge