Consumer Protection: A Contemporary Oxymoron?

As a consumer, it has always been my practice to get the best possible deal. Whether it be electronics, clothes, optional grocers, you name it - I have always waited for sales and discounts before purchasing. Impulse control has never been a problem for me. 

However, there is one area in which consumers have little power, and that is in the airline industry, especially when it comes to the misnamed Air Passenger Protection Regulations. Enacted ostensibly to protect the Canadian flying public, it is supposed to, among other things, provide compensation for flight delays within the control of the airlines, And therein lies the rub.

If you have ever tried to file a claim, you will know that the deck is stacked against you, because the standard airline response is that the circumstances necessitating the delay were beyond the airline's control. and even if you have grounds to appeal, the tribunal's backlog would give you pause.

A personal experience perhaps best illustrates how the cards are stacked against the flying public.  In 2025,  we were travelling to Cuba via Air Canada, but were delayed on the tarmac for close to three hours and 40 minutes. The initial reason was the netting in the plane's cargo bay required repair. Once that was effected, a new problem arose: a frozen water line. (That problem, by the way, was never fixed, bottled water in the washrooms being the immediate solution.) The third reason  was the delay meant some of the crew exceeded their hours, and had to be rotated out.

While waiting for the flight to depart, we were issued food vouchers that could only be used in the next 72 hours, within the air terminal. Since we were not allowed off the plane, that was a useless measure; instead, we were given protein bars by the flight attendants that were seriously out of date.

Passengers were understandably upset, and most intended to file for compensation, as did I. However, that request from the airline was immediately denied upon our return, the stated reason being the circumstances were beyond their control. There was no forum in which to contest this finding, and ultimately the only recourse would have been to go to small claims court, which would have necessitated a payment of $108. I decided to cut my losses at that point, since success in court was far from assured. 

Why am I writing about this today? An article in The Star suggests that even these anemic regulations are just too much for airlines to endure.

WestJet has been trying to make the case that removing passenger rights regulations would lead to more competition among airlines, according to an internal government document. 

A briefing note, prepared for Canada’s associate deputy minister of finance Alison O’Leary, reveals that the country’s second-largest air carrier requested a private meeting with the Department of Finance Canada last October to discuss how to “ensure aviation continues to drive growth and opportunities for Canadians.”  

The document, obtained via Access to Information and Privacy, says that WestJet has criticized the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) for increasing airlines’ operating costs. 

“WestJet is of the view that competition in the industry has improved since pre-pandemic, citing the rise of smaller airlines, such as Flair and Porter,” the document reads. “However, it argues that lower fees on air tickets and the removal of the APPR would result in more competition.”

This claim about competition is risible, according to air passenger rights Gabor Lukacs.

 “If I was WestJet’s CEO, I would not want any competition. I would want to make it as monopolistic or duopolistic for maximizing profit,” he told the Star. 

“There are a number of reasons why passenger rights are important,” Lukács went on. “If someone genuinely cares about the Canadian airline industry and the Canadian tourism industry remaining competitive, then that’s one very good reason for (passenger rights) because they have it in Europe.”

Lukács added that Canadian airlines will be more attractive to consumers if they offer the same passenger protections as European ones. 

And so it goes. My entire life I have fought for my rights when I think they have been abused, but I am doubtful that this is a winnable battle. I expect no improvements, only diminution, of air passenger rights under our current federal government, which has been on a mission since the election to extol the private sector, even at the expense of 'ordinary' Canadians.   

 

Each Of Us Is The Resistance

One of the most diabolical efforts of both the corporate and American political world is to convince us that we, as individuals, have no power, and that resistance is futile. The more they can make us feel atomized, the more they can reduce us to being simply cogs servicing their machines, nothing more.

But those powers fail to reckon with a simple fact: we do have power. Take, for example, the Trump attempt to reduce our country to a vassal state. Every time we refuse to buy American produce, every time we refuse to travel to the U.S.,  everytime we buy Canadian alcohol, we are actively engaging in the resistance that obstructs and prevents the realization of their vile vision.

If we tend to forget or doubt our strength, the following video serves to strongly remind us of our power. While I don't think the suggestions near the end about American cars is necessarily realistic, the thrust of Klaus Kellerman's argument is solid.

Resistance is never futile. May we always remember that, and may we always stay strong in our convictions.

The People Speak

  

Sometime when I write, I wonder how many of my views are shared by others. Given current media political coverage, it is often difficult to gauge. That is one of the reasons I always read newspapers' letters-to-the-editor section. And it is there that I almost always find a basis for hope, offering proof as they do that critical thinking is not dead.

The following take issue with the direction the Carney Liberals are taking.

Carney, Smith sign carbon price deal, suggest fall 2027 pipeline approval, May 15

As a lifelong Canadian and supporter of Liberal governments I am very disappointed by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s oil and gas agreement with Alberta.

Surely clean air to breathe is a priority for the good health of Canadians. Surely a sustainable way forward is harnessing solar, wind and other non-polluting energies.

Let’s leave our children and their children energy sources that provide clean breathable air, good water to drink and heating and cooling sources that don’t shorten lives.

Judith Murray, Burlington

 

When is our government going to finally put the environment first?

I am a scientist who has worked hard to learn about, teach and protect our earth and its environment.

May I suggest members of the federal Liberal party (and everyone else for that matter) read the following two books: The Lorax by Dr. Seuss (a quick five-minute read) and Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (about an hour’s read).

If you don’t have time, here are two quotes I think sum up what is being done to our environment under the current government, with its many new bills and policies.

Rachel Carson: “The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials.”

Dr. Seuss: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

I have learned over the years we must constantly fight for our environment in both good economic times and the bad ones. As a government priority it has never been given the attention it deserves.

It is time to put solar energy, wind power and the protection of animal and plant habitat on the front burner. It is time for companies to prove something is safe before they are permitted to sell it rather than waiting 10 to 20 years to see the effects on our environment.

It is time for companies to put money up front, before they begin fracking, building pipelines, or transporting toxic materials through our waterways and along our roads, to cover the cost of the inevitable environmental spills that will occur.

Who is going to put the environment first? Who is going to make Canada a great economy built on protecting our environment?

Because, “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

Yvonne Clifford, Cambridge, Ont.

Oil is a dirty and finite resource. The sun is neither

I boggles my mind why Canada and Alberta are spending enormous amount of money, time and expertise on extracting dirty oil and building expensive pipelines to generate electricity and other forms of energy. Why indeed, when in about 40 years oil will be depleted, as it is a finite resource.

But the sun will shine for millions, perhaps billions, of years, providing free energy to everyone on Earth.

Gwen Petreman, Barrie, Ont. 

As long as the spirit of resistance and critical thinking are alive, falling into despair is not an option.

Stars In Their Eyes

 

There is an obvious problem with those who have stars in their eyes. Blinded by the light, they fail to see the darkness surrounding those stars. This seems an apt metaphor for those who view Mark Carney and his Liberal government in an unqualified way, assuming everything they do to build Canada's bulwarks against American assaults on our economy and our sovereignty is good and beyond criticism.

Such a surrender of critical-thinking skills is not in the national interest, and it certainly does a massive disservice to climate-change mitigation efforts. Consider, for example, the following:

The federal government and Alberta will try to clear the way for construction of a major new oil pipeline to the Pacific coast by September 2027, as part of a new deal that showcases Prime Minister Mark Carney’s softer approach to fossil fuel emissions in a bid to boost economic development. 

Friday’s “implementation deal” follows the memorandum of understanding signed last November that scrapped, suspended and watered down major national climate policies created under Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau.

Now, there will be some who contend Carney is just playing a game with Danielle Smith, who is quite freely wielding the separation cudgel against the feds, and that the prospect of building another pipeline is indeed remote.  However, as always, the devil is in the details, which seem a bit opaque at this point, save for this crucial point:

[W]hile Carney has repeatedly stressed that his government won’t support the pipeline unless a group of major oilsands companies builds their long-discussed “Pathways” carbon capture project, Friday’s deal includes no time frame for when that development would need to start construction. 

Instead, it outlines how Pathways would need to result in annual emissions reductions of six megatonnes from the sector by 2035, and another 10 megatonnes per year by 2045. 

Now, the Pathways project, like other technologies, seems more a dream concept than a reality at this point. I asked ChatGPT about its status, and this is what I learned:

The short version: the Pathways carbon sequestration project is still alive, but not yet under construction at full scale and remains politically and financially unresolved.

The project — led by the oil sands consortium now operating as the Oil Sands Alliance (formerly Pathways Alliance) — is a proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) network in northern Alberta. It would capture CO₂ from more than 20 oil sands facilities and send it via a long pipeline to underground storage near Cold Lake.

Note that it is not yet under construction, and remains financially unresolved. In other words, it doesn't really exist, and it likely never will be without massive taxpayer support.

The project is estimated at roughly C$16.5 billion, and oil sands companies have long argued they need stronger government incentives to make the economics work. Ottawa has offered a federal CCS investment tax credit, while Alberta has discussed provincial support, but negotiations over cost-sharing and carbon pricing have dragged on.

As you also might already be aware, a project of the Pathways scale would require massive amounts of energy, which would seem to be at odds for a technology touted as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

The key issue is the “energy penalty” of carbon capture: capturing CO₂ takes energy because you have to separate dilute CO₂ from exhaust gases, regenerate solvents, compress the gas, and pump it underground.

A rough rule of thumb for post-combustion carbon capture in heavy industry/oil sands is:

• Electricity: ~100–200 kWh per tonne of CO₂ captured
• Heat/steam (often the bigger requirement): ~1–3 MWh thermal per tonne of CO₂
• Compression and transport: additional energy for pipelines and injection

Using a middle estimate for 10–12 Mt CO₂/year, Pathways could require roughly:

Electricity

About 1–2.5 terawatt-hours (TWh) per year of electricity.

All of this has the whiff of a pipedream, if you will forgive the pun. It seems like a fraud being perpetrated on the Canadian public, given the Carney government's current penchant for gutting environmental standards in order to fortify Canada and keep it intact. 

Taken together, the changes are the latest in a series of decisions by the Carney government to remove or soften major climate policies at the federal level.

Last year, the government scrapped a planned emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and cancelled the national consumer carbon tax-and-rebate scheme. It also ditched plans for mandated sales of zero-emission vehicles, and signalled it will change national electricity regulations to allow for more gas-fired power plants. 

There will always be apologist for everything the Caney government does. I, for one, have no intention of joining that politically-blinded group. 

 

All Manner Of Excuses

 

In the debased environment that now constitutes our politics, our 'leaders' can without a doubt justify just about anything they do as being in the national interest. For example, if you are Mark Carney, you can explain the proposal to sell out our public infrastructure, (i.e., airports) by saying that it will unlock value, the funds derived from which can be repurposed for 'national' projects. 

The next item on Carney's hit list seems to be climate-change mitigation. It is being widely reported that, in order to placate Alberta (an oxymoronic concept if I have ever heard one) he is about to gut that emission standards for that province's oil giants.

Ottawa and Alberta are close to finalizing a new accord on industrial carbon pricing that would result in the fee going up to $130 a tonne by 2040, two government sources, one federal and one provincial, said Tuesday.

The problem is that this is a severe departure from one arranged under the Trudeau government.

An industrial carbon price is a critical element of Canada’s climate change strategy and, under the previous Liberal government, it was projected to contribute to significant reductions in emissions. However, if cabinet approves the new deal struck with Alberta, that price will be far less stringent than the $170-by-2030 charge announced by Mr. Trudeau.

If the federal cabinet approves the plan to raise the industrial carbon price only to $130 per tonne by 2040, analysis from the Canadian Climate Institute suggests it will result in “little to no emissions reductions in heavy industry.”

While on the subject of paying obeisance to the private sector, it is interesting to note that Mark Carney's strategy to double Canada's electricity generation seems to omit any renewables other than hydro:

In a speech Saturday at the Global Progress Action Summit in Toronto, ... [Carney said]: 

“We need a willingness to use — it can be sometimes hard to accept — we need a willingness to use all sources of energy, including some gas and all technologies beyond conventional renewables,” he said, listing nuclear, hydro, small modular reactors, carbon capture, and geothermal energy sources.

Why no mention of solar and wind as energy sources? Indeed, in all of the projects thus far approved by the government to "build Canada Strong," I am unaware of any federal support for either of those technologies. Could one of the reasons be they don't sufficiently enrich corporate coffers?

And finally, if you can forgive the rather discursive quality of this post, I see that our prime minister is mulling over more opportunities for private sector enrichment.

Buried deep in the pages of a discussion paper released Friday — one of two published for swift 30-day public consultations — is the announcement that the government is open to and seeking a report on the potential amalgamation of certain unnamed “key ports” in Canada and “divestiture” of others.

It comes two weeks after the federal budget revealed Ottawa is looking at privatizing airports as the Carney government pledges to maximize the value of assets for Canadians, streamline operations, and sets its eyes on the creation of a $25-billion sovereign wealth fund.

While no further details have been released, the trend is clear. My late father-in-law had a favourite saying: "Socialism for the rich, free enterprise for everyone else." Considering what seems to be on the prime minister's mind these days, selling off infrastructure that has been built and maintained by the Canadian taxpayer certainly underscores the truth of his observation. 

 

 

A Prescription For Our Times

 But I doubt grandpa will take it.

Paved With Good Intentions

 

To want Canada to prosper during these tumultuous times is both noble and natural. Federal government leadership to forge that path is something we expect, given that our problems are countywide. However, this is the point at which visions on how to achieve that sought-after prosperity diverge.

For the Carney government, it seems that more privatization is the route to go. He is openly talking about 'unlocking the value' of our airports.

Canada is willing to let foreign investors buy stakes in Canadian airports, Prime Minister Mark Carney suggested Wednesday, as the federal government considers trying to raise money to fuel its economic growth agenda through the privatization of public assets. 

“We are wide open to foreign investment,” Carney said when asked whether the government would allow foreign investment into Canada’s network of publicly owned airports that could be worth billions of dollars. 

Following its spring economic update last month, Carney’s government signalled it is looking at selling off Canadian airports to private owners as part of an effort to improve operations for travellers and raise money. The prime minister said the goal is to make airports “better serve Canadians” and to raise money that is “tied up in those airports” to reinvest in “other ventures that will grow are economy.” 

While those airports' revenue streams would induce salivation in many an investor, there are reasons to be cautious.

Drawing upon Ontario's disastrous experience in the selling of cash cow Highway 407 under Mike Harris, Linda McQuaig suggests the real losers will be consumers.

[S]ince its privatization in 1999, the 407 has cost drivers an estimated $25 billion in tolls. And we’re only getting started! The privatization deal lasts for 99 years, and by the end, Ontario drivers will have paid tolls likely amounting to a gut-wrenching $150 billion. The National Bank of Canada described the 407 as “a value-generating monster.”  

A sale of our airports will not, despite Carney's claim, be good for the flying public. 

Of course, not all privatizations are as disastrous as the 407. But one feature they all seem to share is that they ultimately cost consumers more — even though this higher cost is typically denied at the outset, when the privatizers often maintain consumer costs will actually fall.  

Because Hwy 407 is a monopoly, regular market forces such as competition do not apply. 

Airports are also regulated monopolies, offering lucrative revenue streams that make them highly attractive to private owners who can raise parking rates and charge airlines higher landing fees, which are passed on in higher ticket prices. 

Passengers can’t just switch to another airport any more than Toronto commuters can just move to another highway. In both cases, travellers are captives, even though they paid to build these assets through their tax dollars. 

Sufficient privatization of assets has taken place to draw some pretty solid conclusions: 

A 2022 study published by the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research examined more than 2,400 airports worldwide; about 20 per cent had been privatized. The study concluded that, while airport privatization can increase efficiency, it often makes flying more expensive for travellers.  

To a hammer, everything is a nail. Given Mark Carney's extensive experience in the private sector, it is not surprising that he is looking at the issue of privatization through a very narrow lens. Unfortunately, that lens means he neither sees nor really cares about the negative effects it will have on those many of us ( i.e., the majority) who live outside his very privileged circle.