44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 21, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, we are in the House today to debate Bill C‑52. It is a highly anticipated bill, as far as I am concerned anyway. There are a few things in this bill that we consider to be positive and we think are worth mentioning.
We often complain about the government. In fact, that is the Liberals' chief criticism of us, but that is kind of our role. We are in the opposition. We are across the way from the governing party. Our role is to hold the government to account. Obviously, when things are not going well, it is our job to say so.
Bill C‑52 has several objectives.
The first thing I want to talk about is the thing that excites us the most. It is the idea of introducing service standards for airports. These standards will help determine how long it should take a passenger to go through security, collect their luggage and get to their gate. This idea makes sense. I might have a chance later on to come back to why this did not exist before.
The second good thing that I wanted to mention about this bill is the noise management committees. Certain airports will now be required to set up soundscape management committees, which will force them to discuss the situation with the public, recognize the effects that aircraft noise can have on people and look at how they can mitigate the inconvenience to those living near the airport. We think that this is a positive step forward, but I will talk more about this measure later, because we think that it may need to be fleshed out a little.
The third thing that we want to highlight is the environmental obligations. Not so long ago, the House was debating Bill C-33, which is now being examined by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Bill C‑33 seeks to impose environmental obligations on Canadian ports to make them part of the climate change strategy, so that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I think that it only makes sense that airports should also be part of that effort, that they should be subject to the same type of requirements and that they should prepare this sort of plan. I think that is a very good thing.
The last part of the bill is a little out of step with the rest of the bill. It amends the Canada Marine Act to provide port users with recourse against port authorities if they feel they are being charged too much. It seems as though this may have been left out of Bill C‑33 so it ended up in Bill C‑52. However, the two bills were introduced just a few months or weeks apart, and they were probably drafted at the same time. I have to wonder why it is not in the right bill. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to explore this question further.
First, I would like to emphasize the whole issue of service standards. Why is the government suddenly proposing the idea of implementing service standards at airports? The Liberals did not just wake up one morning with this idea in mind. There have been so many problems over the last few years that they could no longer be ignored. Many people have been traumatized by the chaos at airports and by what they have seen in recent years and even over the past few months.
We know there was a pandemic, and all the planes were grounded. Unfortunately, the reality is that an airport's primary source of revenue is takeoffs and landings, airport fees, the people using the airport infrastructure. It is the same for airlines. Their revenue comes from tickets bought by people who want to fly to visit family, sightsee abroad or take advantage of business opportunities.
During the pandemic, no one was selling airline tickets. This also meant that many staff members were suddenly told they were no longer needed. That included pilots, flight attendants, customer service agents and employees who worked in kiosks and restaurants.
There was no longer a need for pilots, air traffic controllers, customs officers and security guards. All of a sudden, all these people got sent home. For nearly two years, they all stayed home.
Service began to resume when it was announced that the pandemic was over and people could travel again. What were the companies to do now? Could they rehire the people who had just spent two years at home? Some of them had decided to do something else with their lives. They did not just stay at home and wait patiently to magically be hired back. The reality is that everyone has bills to pay.
The other reality is that, while much of the world did one thing, Canada did another. It decided not to help its aerospace industry. It decided not to help its airports. Airports and airlines therefore had to lay off their staff. They had to let them go, pass them off to EI or CERB. That caused a huge problem. The entire aerospace industry protested, wondering how they would ever get off the ground again.
It is important to note that, even if airports let all their people go, they still have infrastructure projects. How are they supposed to expand if they do not have revenue? They still have loans because they may have taken on debt to build that infrastructure. How are they supposed to repay those loans? The same goes for airlines. They have to pay for their planes and maintain minimum staffing levels. They had a massive problem. The government thought it was saving money, but, as it turned out, our industries, our airports and our airlines went into debt. They ran deficits during the pandemic.
For example, Nav Canada unilaterally imposed a 30% rate increase all at once. Even though planes were no longer flying, the airlines were being asked to pay more if they wanted to take off, because the government refused to help them. That killed air transportation, especially at the regional level. Far fewer people fit on a regional airliner than on large aircraft that fly transcontinental. It amounts to a difference of 300 passengers compared to six. A 30% increase gets spread out among a lot more people on a large plane than on a small one.
Clearly, the federal government's dismal management of the pandemic and lack of empathy for airline workers have had consequences. We saw this when travel resumed. Airports were in total chaos. Passengers would get to the airport only to see mountains of luggage piled as high as Everest. People were buried in luggage. No one knew what to do with it all. It was everywhere. The airlines said they had lost it, but customers reported that Air Canada had sent it somewhere. There was too much luggage. It had to be sent somewhere. Things had reached a point where the airlines were practically losing luggage on purpose just to make space. Some clever passengers put tracking chips in their luggage and were able to see where it ended up. This got the airlines in a lot of hot water.
When airlines were finally allowed to operate again, they wanted to make some money. They hired back as many employees as they could but, like it or not, when pilots have not flown for two years, they cannot be retrained overnight. They have to start practising again. The same goes for other staff. Security checks are needed. Not just anyone can work in an airport. There are security risks involved, as we know. Once again, the government was very slow to issue security permits, so airports were stuck. Airlines were also stuck. They could not hire staff. After that, because there were so many delays and late flights, the government blamed the airlines, which is kind of crazy. It was the government that had decided not to help them, but then it blamed those same companies that it had refused to help because they could not keep up with the demand. That is how the government managed things during the pandemic.
There was another problem. We were hearing that airlines were overbooking flights. I think there is some truth to that. If airlines do not have enough staff to handle the number of flights they want to offer and sell tickets for, of course there will come a point when they can no longer manage the same number of aircraft and flights.
The government blamed the airlines, but did not consider its role in this. Some of the problems are on the government. It could take hours for people to get through security. Why is that? It could take hours for people to get through customs. Why is that? Why were there not more air traffic controllers? Why did flights have to get cancelled because there was no one to guide the planes?
The government tried to blame the airlines and the airports saying it was their fault, not the government's fault. In reality, it forgot to consider its role.
We saw all those people in trouble, left on the tarmac. When they got to the airport they were told that their flight was cancelled. Could no one have told them that before they got to the airport? No, they had to wait until they got to the airport to be told that their flight was cancelled. It is totally ridiculous, but that is what happened.
Of course, this resulted in terrible congestion at our airports. People were extremely frustrated. There were people who were sleeping in airports without even a toothbrush, who were not offered a hotel room or anything to eat. There were people stuck in other countries, either down south or in other tourist destinations, who could not get back, and the airlines did nothing to help them.
What happens is that the same aircraft is often used for multiple flights. That means that, when one flight is delayed, the next flight is, too. What about lost luggage? The flight arrives late, but the luggage was supposed to be transferred to another plane. If the flight does not arrive on time and the connecting flight leaves before the plane with the luggage arrives, then the luggage does not get to where it is supposed to be. Imagine the chaos that created.
Among other things, we asked the government to tighten the rules for airlines. For example, people who want their ticket refunded when their flight is cancelled should get a refund, rather than being told they will be put on a plane in two or three days. Never mind the wedding they missed; that is their problem. If their business meeting did not happen because they could not travel, it is no big deal. They get 48 hours. That was the government's policy.
It was even worse before. During the pandemic, they got nothing at all. A credit for some day in the future. They were told that maybe they could get their money back when flights resumed.
Here is what we were asking for. First, we wanted people to be able to get their money back. Second, we wanted to shorten the ridiculous 48-hour deadline that was set last fall. Catching a flight two days later does not always work and makes no sense. Third, people should be able to eat when they are on the tarmac. Fourth, people should be compensated when there are delays.
Many of our demands were heard. Many things were included in this spring's budget implementation act and are soon to be implemented by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Pretty much everyone went through hell, but at least that part is good. We have reason to hope that we will see improvements and progress soon.
But the approach was the same. The government attacked airlines. It put the burden on airlines without considering it's own role in all this.
Service standards might be a stroke of genius. Perhaps the government has seen the light. It has realized that it has some problems to deal with, too. At least with service standards in place, things are measurable.
When a company has to refund a ticket or provide compensation to customers when their flight is late, those customers are not questioning whose fault it is. When flights are late or cancelled, customers want their money back. That makes sense. It is normal. It is what people expect.
That said, there is something wrong with telling airlines to compensate everyone because the government is not doing its job, because there are no air traffic controllers, security personnel or customs agents. That makes no sense.
The idea of service standards is a good place to start, at least. There has to be a minimum level of service that people have a right to expect.
We welcome the idea of implementing service standards. The bill states that the government will be able to impose service standards. That is fine, but we do not know what those service standards will be. Obviously, I know nothing about operating airports.
At some point, it is important to ensure that this makes sense. There is still no guarantee that this is the case.
We will see in committee whether any clarifications can be made or if we can get a bit more information on the direction the government wants to take on this. This bill could allow a lot of progress to be made and that is why we would like it to be referred to committee.
There is another part of the bill that I would like to address, the issue of noise management at the airports. Why do I want to talk about that? Obviously, it is not the strongest aspect of the bill. There are just a few paragraphs where it says that the airports will have to create noise management committees. The airports that use common sense already have such committees. This will not change much for them.
The bill provides a bit of a definition of the type of noise management committee the government would like to see. These noise management committees would bring together at least one representative from Nav Canada, which makes sense, an elected municipal official, an airline representative and a representative from the airport in question. The mandate of these committees would be to answer the public's questions and listen to people's grievances.
We think that the creation of noise management committees is a good thing, but we would like the government to take this a little further. I found out a little bit about what is being done elsewhere in the world, but I will come back to that later.
Under the bill, the obligation to create noise management committees will apply only to airports with 60,000 or more movements per year. I checked to see how many airports in Canada meet that criterion and only four airports do. I do not know exactly how many airports there are in Canada, but there are at least a hundred on the list that I have. I can understand why a small airport that does not even have employees would not be asked to meet this criterion, but these committees need to be set up in a lot more airports. That is what we think.
There are service standards for airports, and we think that there should also be sound emission standards to protect people who live near airports. Such standards do not exist in Canada. Airports can make as much noise as they want and the public has no say in the matter. The way this issue is being dealt with right now is rather unfortunate. There must be social licence for development.
Other countries around the world have noise emission standards. In the United States, there is a noise limit for people living near airports. In Europe, for example, there are noise emission standards. The World Health Organization has worked on noise emission standards to protect people's health. Why, in Canada, a G7 country that is a member of the OECD, modern and all that, are there no noise emission standards for people living near airports? It just does not make sense.
We think we need to move in that direction. We need to measure noise and report it. Noise is already measured, but is the method being used the right one, and can it be perfected? There is a theoretical calculation system for measuring noise, known as noise exposure forecast, or NEF. We think that this NEF system should also be available to the public. It would be great if people who are about to buy a house could find out how much noise they can expect at that location. If the noise exceeds set standards, measures could be put in place to reduce it. This would help everyone make better decisions while promoting community well-being.
That is one of the big changes we want to make to Bill C‑52. We hope everyone at the table will collaborate. We are here to work constructively to improve every bill introduced in the House for the betterment of all. Even though Canada is not our country, at the end of the day, as long as we are part of it, we will work to improve legislation. Our end goal, obviously, is to get out of it ASAP.
2933 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:29:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), I would like to designate Wednesday, November 22, for the conclusion of debate on the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:29:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member made reference to standards or expectations.
Service standards are really important to this government as we understand and appreciate the valuable role that our airports and airlines in general play in society. The legislation, as the member points out, sets out the framework for those standards.
Once the bill goes to committee, I understand that the Bloc members have some details they want to add to those service standards. I am wondering if the member has some specifics in regard to that particular issue that he is prepared to share with us at this time. For me personally, I like to think of on-time departures and arrivals, but I also believe there is so much more that we can do to enhance the experience of travellers.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, which is very relevant in the circumstances.
Bill C‑52 covers service standards for airports. If I understand correctly, it would be up to airports to enforce those service standards, and it would be up to the government to develop them. That sounds good, but there are some unanswered questions. I think we will have the opportunity to hear from witnesses in committee who will tell us exactly what those service standards should be and where the biggest challenges lie.
There is one nagging issue as far as I am concerned. Customs services do not seem to be part of this. Maybe we will find out in due course why the government thought it best not to include that service in this process.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:31:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, who seems satisfied and dissatisfied with the bill at the same time.
Could he tell me what he is really concerned about?
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:31:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but perhaps he could have indulged in a bit of rhetorical flourish at the end, as he usually does when he speaks.
I would say it is as if we were going somewhere for a meal and in the end are only served an appetizer. We are left unsatisfied. We would like to see a little more. This bill is like that. It is as if they began the work, but did not see it through to the end. Clearly we would like to see a little more ambition, more substance, something more dynamic.
That is what we will do in the committee: ensure that this bill improves things for people. If we now adopt it as it is presented, there is no guarantee it will improve anything, either in terms of the soundscape or service standards. We are not told what the service standards are, and in terms of the soundscape, people will only be consulted once in a while. It is not bad, but it does not guarantee results.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:32:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a point that I believe touches people from many regions in Quebec, as well as the people of Montreal, in terms of the noise caused by the airports. COVID‑19 aside, air traffic is increasing dramatically. This causes many problems for people, especially in the air corridor in the northern part of the island of Montreal towards the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport.
Having an advisory committee and a citizens' committee is good, but why does my colleague think that the Liberals have not simply adopted the recommendations in the 2019 report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that stated that the standards of the World Health Organization were to be used regarding the noise caused by air traffic around airports?
The Liberals still have the unfortunate tendency of doing things halfway and not going through to the end.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I went and read the 2019 report by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I was not sitting on the committee back then, but I could see that a lot of the people who were committee members at that time are still members today. If they supported the contents of the committee's 2019 report, I hope they will still be receptive to its contents in 2023.
To be honest, I would say that the committee's recommendations are not really included in Bill C‑52, despite the hard work done by a lot of people. As my colleague mentioned, witnesses came and gave evidence, including the citizens' group Les Pollués de Montréal‑Trudeau, and Longueuil's Comité anti-pollution des avions. I am sure that the committee met people from other places who were also experiencing soundscape issues.
Unfortunately, Bill C‑52 only provides for a single committee to cover four airports. It is pretty lacklustre compared to what the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities proposed.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:35:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a major part of the legislation deals with the Canada Marine Act, where we are looking at ways to ensure that there is a fairer system in place to provide some accountability and transparency on fees. This would apply to our ports. There are many sectors of our economy that very much depend on going through the ports, and this is one way to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency in the way fees are structured. Therefore, if one is a prairie grain grower or exporting a certain product out of Canada, there is a higher sense of accountability. Does the member have any thoughts in regard to that issue?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:36:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I imagine port users will be very happy to have recourse should they feel they are being overcharged by the ports. However, we wonder why ports would choose to charge absurd fees. If they are doing this, they must have good reason. Usually, businesses do not want their customers to go elsewhere. They want to stay in business.
We will listen to what people have to say in committee. We will look at both sides of the issue, then make a decision. We are having real trouble making up our minds on this issue. The process will help us determine the best approach. It will show us whether we should fine-tune what the government is proposing, oppose it or go in a completely different direction.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:37:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a last question regarding competition. I genuinely believe there is an issue with competition. We have seen a number of direct flights being lost and communities losing air transportation. It is devastating for some communities and very inconvenient for others.
Could the member provide his thoughts on airlines and the government's role in ensuring there is a higher sense of equity within the system, which is one reason why, hopefully, companies such as Air Canada will be called before the standing committee?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question, although I have trouble seeing how something in the bill could address this issue. We know that, in this country, regional air transportation is the poor cousin of air transportation. Canada is a vast country. Quebec is smaller, but still covers a huge area, so the challenge of regional air transportation would still exist in an independent Quebec. Sadly, it seems this government, like its predecessors, lacks the will to do what it takes to make regional air transportation viable. I have seen no specific policy on this issue from the Conservatives, either.
People should be able to fly out of the Gaspé peninsula, the north shore or Abitibi and know the flight will in fact happen and will not cost thousands of dollars. Fares should be reasonable. We need service we can be proud of. Unfortunately, I get the feeling the government takes a more business-minded view and believes flights need to be profitable. What we must ask ourselves is whether regional air transportation is an essential service. If it is an essential service, then we have to ensure that the people who need it can use it. Fixing this problem may take major systemic changes, not just tweaks. I see absolutely nothing in Bill C-52 that will fix this problem.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.
I am very pleased to be speaking about the topic we are discussing today, enhancing transparency and accountability for port fees. I will be talking about that.
Canada's ports are vital hubs in our country, in our supply chains and in all aspects of the transportation system. They are a vital part for my home province of British Columbia and our port network, which contributes over 30% of Canada's economy.
The transportation system is in some way connected to the operations that happen at ports every day. Ports help grow our economy, create good jobs for Canadians, deliver goods and support Canada's growing export industry. When our port system works well, it plays a crucial role in helping keep life affordable for Canadians and stores full of consumer products.
There are 17 Canada port authorities that manage our country's most strategic ports. While these port authorities are federal entities, they operate at arm's length from the government in a commercially oriented and financially self-sustaining manner. They also fulfill important public policy objectives, such as supporting national economic development and performing many regulatory functions relating to safety and environmental protection.
An independent board of directors is responsible for managing port activities. This includes ensuring that port planning and operations are made firmly within the public interests, meaning that the projects they embark upon and the decisions they make help ensure affordability for Canadians. Port authorities provide port facilities and offer services to port users; acting as landlords, they lease out port operations to private terminal operators.
For over 20 years, this governance model has served Canada well. It has provided Canadians with world-class services while ensuring that capacity grew in support of Canada's economy in a gradual and financially sustainable manner.
Ports are key gateways in the transportation system, and Canadians rely on them to get the goods they use and consume, as well as to get their products to domestic and international markets. However, as inflationary pressures strain Canadian pocketbooks and make life more expensive, Canadian companies and transportation industry stakeholders are concerned about the rising costs to move goods and do business, including fees that are charged by service providers, such as ports, as well as lease arrangements for the operation of terminals.
As Canada port authorities are part of the federal family and manage key public assets, there are opportunities to improve, to strengthen the governance framework, to make these entities more transparent in their operations and decision-making, and to make sure port users have a voice. Ports need to modernize approaches to enable them to thrive in an increasingly complex environment and be able to align their national mandate with local realities.
As we know, our government tabled Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act. This would amend the Canada Marine Act, among other acts, to promote transparency in port planning and operations and to position the ports for success well into the future.
The Canada Marine Act amendments in Bill C-52 would provide a framework to reinforce port authorities' due diligence and foster more responsible planning and decision-making, building on the reporting and transparency measures put forward in Bill C-33. Enhancing public engagement, accountability and oversight is a key objective at the core of the government's approach to ensuring greater transparency at Canada port authorities.
It is with this perspective that Bill C-52's reforms to the Canada Marine Act would establish new processes focusing on port fee setting and establishing recourse mechanisms for those impacted by port decisions. These new measures would build on what already exists under the Canada Marine Act and expand the provisions to foster greater accountability and consistency in the marine sector.
The first proposal in the bill aims to establish a modernized framework to govern how the port fees are developed and implemented, and establish a complaint process. There is a need to ensure a stronger connection for port users, and for Canadians more generally, on how a port sets a fee. Just as important, when there is a concern about how fees are set and charged, that a process is in place for raising a complaint.
Amendments would establish fee-setting principles to provide port users and stakeholders greater clarity and better understanding of how port fees are set, which would support a consistent and standardized approach across all Canada port authorities. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about a lack of clarity when it comes to how port fees are established and this provision would directly solve the problem.
While I understand there may be some initial concern about how this standardization could impact the ability of ports to continue to pursue transportation infrastructure projects off port lands or even to advance community-based initiatives that are vital to helping ports be good neighbours to the communities in which they operate, I am confident that the measures I am bringing forward for the consideration of members today are sufficiently broad so as to enable ports to fix their fees and spend some of the revenues on these types of initiatives. It is not the intention of this government to constraint the ability of the ports to do the work they do for our country's trade and economy; it is about principles of fairness, transparency and accountability.
The port authorities would need to adhere to these principles, as well as an explicit methodology established and published by the port authority, when setting their fees. To support the capacity of ports to generate revenues, the principles would require that port fees be set at levels that allow the authority to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis and be fair and reasonable.
In addition to the new fee-setting principles, an associated public notice requirement would be established that would provide a formal public consultation process for any port user or stakeholder to raise concerns with a port authority. This would ensure their views are acknowledged in the entire process and provide greater accountability for fee-setting decisions made by port authorities.
In addition, the bill would establish a process where people who made written representations during the consultation process may file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency if they believe a port authority did not comply with the fee-setting principles or the public notice requirements. If the complaint is well founded, the proposed amendments would then enable the agency to order a Canada port authority to cancel the establishment or revision of the fee in question, reinstate the previous fee, provide refunds, reconsider the fee or take any other measure it would consider appropriate. This would help ensure that corrective measures are in place to respond to complaints when necessary.
This will reinforce the rigour and integrity of how fees are set by Canada port authorities. It will maintain the key principle of financial self-sufficiency for port authorities and their ability to generate revenues needed for future developments and investments that support port operations, including those outside the ports, while reinforcing their need to be responsive to users and transparent in the conduct of their activities.
The proposed approach to fee setting is not new for transportation services providers. It is consistent and aligns with the processes already established for pilotage authorities and Nav Canada, which are two entities that also have significant transportation public policy goals in the government's portfolio. The processes have provided both the entities and their users with more clarity in how fee-setting decisions are made as well as clear grounds for objections.
The second proposal in Bill C-52 would enable the government to make regulations establishing an alternative dispute resolution process for lease disputes that might arise between a port authority and port user with respect to leases for the operation of terminals at ports. This would help build fairness and transparency into the relationships shared by ports and their tenants. This may include a role for the Canadian Transportation Agency to administer and oversee the processes.
1386 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:49:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
The reality is, and I mentioned this to a Liberal colleague earlier, the Liberal government was really asleep at the switch when it came to transport. I know many people were avoiding, for instance, the Toronto Pearson International Airport because there were difficulties.
As I understand it, a backlog of 60,000 complaints remain. I remember experiencing travel issues. I was probably one of many millions of Canadians. As I said, the Liberals have been asleep at the switch, so how can we trust them to eliminate and deal with these 60,000 complaints when they cannot seem to get anything right after eight years in government?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:50:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during the port modernization review, we heard from many stakeholders. I heard from representatives in the trucking industry who welcomed these changes. They look forward to ensuring there is more transparency in what is being set forward, so they can have arguments to pose with regard to the fees set before them.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:51:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague finds this somewhat strange. While the Conservatives were in government, they did absolutely nothing to support airline passengers. Now that they are in opposition, they are voting against legislation that would support air travellers.
It is enabling legislation that would establish a framework to provide for a higher sense of accountability, efficiencies and transparency that will benefit air travellers.
Does the member not agree that the Conservatives should, at the very least, support the legislation and allow it to go committee?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:52:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am surprised. I spoke about transparency and accountability, the ability to bring complaints forward, to look at measures and bring arguments forward in a clear way.
I have heard from agriculture producers. They have looked at measures in the bill that could improve how they get their exports out, and fees, if set in a certain way, that would be detrimental to their industry. I am hope members opposite are not limiting the voice of farmers and agriculture producers by not voting in favour of this legislation.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:53:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know things have not gone back to normal since the pandemic, and we are a bit in the pandemic.
There is no accountability for these big airlines. We know that travelling is still an issue. We know that passenger rights are still not being upheld. I know the member is talking about more accountability, but the Liberal government has really failed to improve things.
I know my hon. colleague has spoken about the vast improvements that have been made. I wonder if he would agree with me that we continue to have a long way to go to really uphold the rights of passengers.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/23 1:54:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is always more work to be done. We need to continue to chip away at this, and that is what this bill would do.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to rise today on Bill C-52 brought forward by the Minister of Transport. I was his parliamentary secretary when he was the heritage minister. We went through a couple of other pieces of legislation, but it is excellent to be here to speak to this legislation today.
After the 2019 election, I had the fortune of being the parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport, Minister Garneau. It was an unfortunate time to be the parliamentary secretary as we, due to COVID-19, had to see almost the entire sector close. We are still dealing with the impacts of that three years later.
This legislation is fundamentally important. At times, it may seem technical, and this may not be legislation that garners the most excitement and the fiercest debate in this place, but it is important. The legislation would improve Canada's transportation sector in terms of its efficiency, accessibility and accountability. The air transportation accessibility measures would lead to improved passenger experience.
I know you and I, Madam Speaker, seem to find each other at Pearson airport a lot. We seem to be on the same travel itinerary coming to this place. Many other members and Canadians have experienced the air transportation sector and have been rightfully disappointed in their experiences. As I mentioned, with respect to COVID-19, the pandemic and the labour issues, the ripples they have had throughout the entire system have been shocking, and we still see that.
The last few years have been incredibly difficult. I know many of us, except those who are fortunate enough to represent the national capital region and are able to head home to their own beds at night, have to get here by plane. We understand the frustration that Canadians are experiencing. They have saved money for a family trip only to spend additional time at the airport because of cancelled flights or delays.
It is fundamentally important, as we head into another busy travel season, to keep in mind that we have seen how disruption in one part of the system can have effects across the entire network. Together, the measures in the proposed legislation will help create a more accountable, transparent and accessible national transportation system that meet the needs of Canadians. That is what we want to see.
It is unfortunate that we see some members of the opposition throwing a bit of shade this way, but we are used to that. However, as my colleague pointed out, after 10 years of being in government, the Conservatives did nothing on the file. We brought in regulations, the passenger bill of rights, but we see that more needs to be done. We are willing to roll up our sleeves and do that work to ensure there is transparency and accountability, not just with airlines but across the system.
It is something that is fundamentally important to this government and the minister to ensure that when Canadians do go on that vacation, which they have saved hard for, they have an enjoyable experience at our nation's airports. At the best of times, even a positive, on-time airport experience will not be the best part of our vacation experience or our time getting to Ottawa, but it is important we ensure that Canadians are looked after when they head to the airport for those important vacations.
Bill C-52, as I mentioned, would create a more efficient, transparent and accountable system in three parts.
Part 1 would introduce the air transportation accountability act, which would ensure shared accountability by permitting the creation of regulations requiring airports and other operators within airports to create service standards for their part of the journey. Examples could include how long it should typically take for a bag to arrive on the carousel or expected wait times to enter security screening.
Operators would also be required to publish their performance against these standards. The primary enforcement mechanism would be the obligation to publish standards and compliance with those standards. The precise publishing obligations would be established in the regulations, and failure to publish in accordance with the requirements could lead to the application of monetary penalties.
It seems that, unfortunately, my time is up, which may bring some applause from the opposition, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak today.
725 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
