SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 197 - May/15/23

May/15/23 6:46:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the hon. member across the way on the science and research committee. Part of this bill has to do with science and research in that animal testing and the use of toxic treatments on animals are things this bill addresses. Through testimony we received from Dr. Chandrasekera, we are going to chip-based technology, which can simulate the testing done currently using toxic chemicals on animals. Could the hon. member comment on how this is an important move forward on behalf of animal rights?

90 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:46:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I agree that we have seen a gradual improvement in the way we treat animals broadly, especially within the research context, and I am happy to see that included in the bill. The bill has a lot of good things in it. That is why I think it is important that we support it. It just has many shortcomings that make me feel disappointed about it in other ways. I hope we will see a new bill, a fresh bill, on CEPA shortly, but I agree that it is a good step forward.

95 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/15/23 6:47:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, we are discussing a bill to establish the right to a healthy environment. However, this bill does not actually give Canadians such a right. In its current form, Bill S‑5 does not really give citizens a way to assert this right. Does my colleague acknowledge that this would depend on the government's goodwill or lack thereof? At the moment, it seems reasonable to question whether certain government actions show that it really wants to move in the direction of a meaningful right to a healthy environment.

92 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:48:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, indeed, one of the major problems with Bill S-5 is that the enforceability of the right to live in a clean and healthy environment is left up to the minister. It is not up to the residents of Canada, who should be able to bring forward concerns to the minister and then follow a transparent and timely path so we can make sure this right is upheld in a proper manner. It should not be left entirely up to the minister, as it is now.

88 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/15/23 6:49:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his leadership in introducing a true right to a healthy environment through Bill C-219. I think this is the third speech I have heard sharing an interest in introducing better legislation before we even get this bill passed. We know that the Conservative Party intends to support this legislation, but it does not even support a carbon tax as a starting point, the simplest environmental policy of any to begin with. What does he think this says about the quality of the legislation in front of us now?

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:49:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. This bill is one of the steps in the right direction. It is something we feel we should support because we want to make a step in the right direction. We just wish there were several steps or bigger steps. At least with the right to a clean and healthy environment, for instance, we now have that enshrined within legislation. However, we do not have a good method of enforcing it. That is one thing we should do next, one of several things I outlined. A lot of these issues could have been fixed if the government had listened to what people were saying, after Bill C-28 was introduced, about ways to fix it. It should have made Bill S-5 a much better bill from the start.

137 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/15/23 6:50:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Madam Speaker, I like to think that Bill S-5 is a piece of legislation that really demonstrates the government's commitment to bringing forward good, solid legislation with the co-operation of both the House and the Senate. We have seen amendments proposed by all political parties, and different amendments were accepted. I think we have good, sound legislation, and we can all take some pride in its passage. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to how ultimately this legislation is in fact advancing something worthwhile by giving Canadians the right to a healthy environment.

102 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:51:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5 Bill C-28

Madam Speaker, again, we had 22 years before Bill C-28 to fix this. We have had two years since then. This should have been a much better bill. We now have the right to live in a clean and healthy environment within the scope of CEPA, not within the scope of the rest of the federal mandate, so it is a tiny step. We should be doing better. We could have done so much better if the government had done so.

82 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on Motion No. 1. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

65 words

Deputy

Mr. Richard Cannings

May/15/23 6:52:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for a recorded vote, please.

12 words

Recorded
Ask

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:52:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on the motion also applies to Motion No. 3. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:53:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded vote, please.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:53:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3. At this time the House should proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Tuesday, May 16, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:54:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 7:20 p.m. so we can begin the late show.

33 words

Late
Call

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/15/23 6:54:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 7:20 p.m. so we can begin the late show.

33 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/15/23 6:54:40 p.m.
Watch

Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:20 p.m.? Some hon. members: Agreed.

18 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/15/23 6:55:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, on April 25, I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding air passenger rights, the response to which I found wholly lacking, and so I am glad I have a chance this evening to speak at greater length to this issue. As a quick recap, the Liberals brought in their first air passenger rights framework in 2019 promising that Canada's approach was going to be one of the strongest in the world, and yet what we have seen over successive travel seasons is anything but. We have seen thousands of passengers greatly inconvenienced, sleeping on airport floors, out thousands of dollars and having their much-awaited travel plans uprooted. Last September, the Liberals brought in further changes, again promising that this was going to make it one of the strongest in the world, and yet the complaints have piled up. Now there are over 40,000 air passenger complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency, and we see the government going into its approach yet again and trying to finally fix what is clearly broken and not working. The European Union has had an effective approach in place for over decade, an approach that gets passengers the compensation they deserve. However, instead of copying that approach or following my private member's bill, which is based very closely on the European approach, this minister and this government have taken a circuitous, complex and bureaucratic tack in trying to finally put in place something that protects air passengers. I want to highlight some of the specific concerns, the first of which is the concern that I raised on April 25, which is that as part of the mediation process envisioned in Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, passengers who enter into mediation to resolve their complaints with the airlines would be forbidden from speaking about any matter that was covered as part of that mediation. This is a confidentiality clause that I do not believe any air passenger who has a grievance with an airline would want to commit to. Passengers deserve transparency, they deserve a process that is open and transparent, and so this confidentiality clause, which was the topic of my question on April 25, seems entirely misplaced in the legislation. There are other concerns too. There has been much said about a loophole in the current approach that allows airlines to deny passengers compensation for reasons within the airline's control but on what they deem to be required for safety. Now, the minister has stated very vehemently that the legislation before us would close that loophole, and yet we see the phrase “required for safety” repeated time and time again in the legislation we are debating. Much of the meat of this approach the minister has put off to regulations, which will not get debated in the House, and he has gone one step further. He has given the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to establish guidelines that will set out the extent and manner in which the agency enforces the regulations, which are based on the legislation. We need accountability, and when we see an agency that is supposed to be at arm's length from this government given such great powers to determine the extent to which it upholds the spirit of the legislation, that is very concerning indeed. We need an approach that is transparent and has air passengers' backs. We are not seeing it in this legislation, and we certainly intend to bring forward amendments that will finally get air passengers their due.

596 words

Ms. Annie Koutrakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

May/15/23 6:58:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, protecting the rights of air passengers when air travel does not go as planned is a priority of our government. Creating the air passenger protection regulations provided an important framework for travellers' rights; however, lessons learned throughout the pandemic, which began shortly after the regulations were implemented, have provided the Government of Canada with valuable information, including areas that need strengthening. Legislative amendments to the Canada Transportation Act have been introduced to clarify and strengthen Canada's passenger rights regime while increasing air carriers' accountability and streamlining the process for administering air travel complaints by the Canadian Transportation Agency. With these changes, air carriers would be required to pay compensation to travellers unless they can demonstrate that a disruption was caused by specific allowable circumstances. These allowable circumstances would be predetermined and regulations would be established by the agency in consultation with the Minister of Transport. Our government recognizes that changes are needed to ensure that passenger complaints are dealt with as quickly as possible. Legislative changes are being proposed to streamline the process by which dispute resolution services are provided to Canadians and to help reduce the agency's backlog of complaints. The current process involves three steps, including time-consuming and resource-intensive adjudication. The new process is simplified with mediation and a decision, if no settlement is reached. This would ensure Canadians obtain decisions more rapidly while having their complaints thoroughly addressed. It is important to note that the mediation process for air passenger complaints has always been confidential, since we introduced these protections in 2019, becoming the first Canadian government to enshrine the rights of air travellers in legislation. The amendments being proposed in Bill C-47 do not impose any new restrictions. While a confidentiality obligation is typical in mediation processes to allow a frank and open discussion between a complainant and an air carrier, the new process has been designed to ensure that more passengers have access to the information they may need to claim compensation. Under the new process, the agency would be required to make public a summary of each case, including the flight number and the date, as well as the reason for the flight disruption and whether compensation was awarded, which would provide insightful information to other passengers on that same flight. In addition, because compensation amounts are publicly available in the air carriers' terms and conditions of carriage, there is nothing to prevent the agency from publishing this information. I expect the agency to do just that. Our government is confident that the proposed changes will improve transparency while allowing for more timely resolution of air travel complaints.

441 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

May/15/23 7:02:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the parliamentary secretary believes that this third approach at getting it right is going to finally work. However, we have some grave concerns. From a passenger perspective, this is a complex approach that they have to navigate. It is not two steps. First of all, passengers have to complain to the airline about the disruption that has impacted their lives. Then, when the airline gets back to them and denies them compensation, they have to enter this mediation process, and possibly go on to a third stage of obtaining an order. One of the things we are very concerned about is the fact that an order of these mediation processes is not considered to be a decision of the agency. Therefore, the passengers who file the complaint would not have the ability to pursue an appeal under the provisions of the Canada Transportation Act. We are very concerned that Bill C-47's air passenger rights actually reduce the ability of passengers to pursue the full compensation that they are due.

176 words

Ms. Annie Koutrakis

May/15/23 7:03:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that travellers' rights are respected by airlines when air travel does not go according to plan. The proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act will increase airlines' burden of proof by requiring them to compensate travellers unless they can prove that a disruption was caused by a circumstance set out in the list of exceptions. The proposed measures would also streamline the processes for administering air travel complaints at the Canadian Transportation Agency and requires the agency to make public a summary of each decision made by complaint resolution officers. This would inform passengers on that same flight whether compensation has been awarded.

113 words