Evidence of meeting #29 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mcguinty.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, I sense that the only proposed paragraph in dispute here right now is proposed paragraph (c) in Mr. McGuinty's amendment.
Is that correct, Mr. McGuinty?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Essentially, proposed paragraph (c) is the one that's at issue here. It focuses on the performance indicators. My concern is that it goes way too far in directing how airlines do their business. It's one thing to say we're going to provide an avenue through which complaints can be routed. It's one thing to say we're going to keep a record of what these complaints are and how they are resolved. However, because it uses the term “performance indicators”, this particular paragraph is essentially imposing on government an obligation to actually set standards that typically are determined by the industry itself. The last thing we want to get into is trying to direct what is essentially a private business and tell them how to do their job. I think we're going down the wrong road in moving toward setting performance indicators, unless they are very general.
I would also note that the whole purpose behind moving forward with this bill was to provide some simplicity, so that the public has a way of accessing this information without being overwhelmed. A number of the amendments that have been proposed actually add complexity to the bill where it's not needed.
I would encourage Mr. McGuinty to accept the compromise that we've suggested. I believe it's reasonable. It's going to address his concerns, but it's not going to get into the business of trying to dictate how a business should be run. I'm sure the airlines don't appreciate us putting our fingers in, trying to mix it up in their business, and making those kinds of business decisions for them. Ultimately, it's the bottom line that's going to drive how they conduct their business. Presumably, for the most part, if the service isn't there, if the quality isn't there, people are not going to use the service, or not use it as frequently.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm certainly prepared to listen to more debate, but I will just advise the committee of the order in which these amendments will be voted on. The government amendment would come next and, if supported by the committee, would render the Liberal amendment, simply because of the order the amendments are in.... The changes that are made in the first amendment by government would be impacted in the second one by the Liberals, so a vote for the government amendment would take the Liberal amendment out of play. I just want the committee to know that.
Mr. Jean, and then Mr. Julian.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I just want to mention that because of the nature of this expenditure, indeed, I would suggest that it goes far beyond what is available. It might actually be out of order. I don't think we have to get to this point.
I want to address Mr. McGuinty's comments and say to him that the United States does do some semblance of reporting. My understanding, though, is that it costs in the multi-millions of dollars. In fact, it's over $20 million a year to do such reporting. We have a thousand licensees in Canada, and I would suggest that economies of supply would not benefit us in any great degree even though they have more carriers there.
There's another issue that I don't want to see, and I'm sure Mr. Julian feels the same because of his comments before. When airlines are reporting on-time data and such things like that that are outside the market place, I'm worried about their compromise of safety. If they're in such a rush to be on time, such a rush to make sure bags are done right, such a rush to do everything according to the book, I'm concerned, because I fly quite a bit, about 6,000 kilometres a week. I'm quite concerned—as Mr. Julian would be, I would suggest—about the safety aspect of this.
I would hate to see a compromise of, indeed, the reporting of the safety just to make sure somebody's job is saved or just to make sure they look good in the annual report that is done by Transport Canada. That is a concern, I think. It's a reverse process from what Mr. Fast was saying, but I think it is relevant. Indeed, because of the additional expenditures, I would suggest that it might even be beyond the ability of this committee to put forward such a motion as Mr. McGuinty has.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank Mr. Jean for his comments, although I don't think it's an either/or question in terms of choosing between disclosure for consumers and safety. There are two elements missing from the government's proposal. The first is the part that Mr. Laframboise has raised. It's a very legitimate one. It has the minister laying a report before the House of Commons. That's an important element, and with the government's compromise, we're missing that important component.
Second, as far as Mr. McGuinty's amendment is concerned, raising the performance indicators for each licensee, the percentage of on-time arrivals, the amount of lost baggage, the number of oversold flights, I think that's an important component of consumer protection. People need to know. In an economy such as ours, the more information that's available--not spin, not commercials, but actual facts--the more the consumer can make an intelligent choice.
These are things that are already tracked by larger carriers. I don't see it as a problem to have that kind of disclosure, because it allows in our economy free choice and full information for consumers.
I'm concerned about the government's amendment because there are two elements lacking. I'll leave it to Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Laframboise to state whether they feel those elements are important, but I believe they should be amended and re-crafted onto the government's motion so that we actually have a compromise that includes all the elements that have been brought forth.
4:05 p.m.
Alain Langlois Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
To clarify one point, the government proposal will have to be tabled in the House. This mentions the agency's annual report. Under subsection 42(3) of the CTA right now, the annual report has to be tabled by the minister in front of the House each year. So that element is still maintained by the government proposal.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
In the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the minister receives it, to both houses of Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
You will find it in another clause, but not in this one.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
It is already in section 42 of the act.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport
There is no ambiguity.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
And what if we were to request a second report? What we were asking for was a second report.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Then what I will do is ask the committee if they are prepared to vote on the government proposal....
Mr. McGuinty, the way it's presented in the bill is that the government amendment precedes the Liberal amendment. If the government amendment is voted on favourably, then your motion is not inadmissible, but it's—
Yes, Mr. Julian.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this committee can choose to amend the government motion, incorporating elements from Mr. McGuinty's amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
With a subamendment, absolutely. I had asked Mr. McGuinty to speak to his because the government motion was actually dealing with Mr. Laframboise's and Mr. McGuinty's.
Mr. Jean, and then Mr. McGuinty.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm wondering if we could deal with the government motion first and then deal with Mr. McGuinty's, if there are any amendments.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If we're going to amend the government amendment, I would think we'd have to deal with it collectively.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I don't know if there is such a thing as a friendly amendment. I think anyone can offer an amendment to an amendment. It's subject to the will of the committee to accept it.
Mr. McGuinty.
