Health Committee on Nov. 4th, 2009

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

So you are going to make a ruling? What is the process? Do you make a ruling on it or do you recommend to somebody? What happens?

[Joan MacDonald]

If the agency, at the end of the day, were to find that there was an obstacle to travel.... I mean, we do apply the law when we're going through any process and rendering a decision, but it will have to go through the steps to determine whether the people are indeed persons with disabilities, whether or not they encountered an obstacle, and whether or not that obstacle was undue, meaning can the carrier remove that obstacle without undue hardship. If so, then it will order corrective measures.

So it's sort of a sequential process that the agency takes.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

If the allergy is not deemed to be a disability, there's nothing you can do?

[Joan MacDonald]

That's correct. They would not be deemed to be a person with a disability for the purposes of our act.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Who can do something, then, in terms of banning pets?

[Joan MacDonald]

I guess that's one of the things that this committee is looking at today.

If the agency does determine that a person with an allergy has an impairment and they are facing an activity restriction in the context of travel....

I know I'm sounding a little bureaucratic here.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes, you are.

[Joan MacDonald]

The issue really is that you are dealing with a wide spectrum of allergies. The very first step is determining what that allergy is really about. What is the impact on the person, and what is the impact in relation to travel?

If indeed those line up, then the agency will make the finding that there's a person with a disability and they'll go on to look at the next step. If there is an undue obstacle, how does it get removed?

I can't tell you where we're going to end up. We're in the early stages of weighing all that evidence right now.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is there an expected timeframe?

[Joan MacDonald]

These types of issues can be very complex. They're not clear-cut. The answer is not always twofold. We'll be looking at a myriad of evidence. Some of the work that we've done to date in some of the other allergy cases, they are not about pets, but we're a bit further along. We're looking at such issues as the circulation in an aircraft cabin. We're looking at some of the specialists' reports that have been tabled with the agency.

There are a lot of pieces to pull together as the agency weighs the evidence.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Vice-Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Judy Wasylycia-Leis]

Is it all right with the committee if I take my seven minutes from here? Christine will keep the time and let me know--with some flexibility.

I'm really glad we're having this session. I want to thank all of you for taking the time to present to us. I especially want to thank the Lung Association for actually starting this whole process, starting with letters to all of us and making us aware of the issues. Since you spoke out, the Canadian Medical Association has also joined this project of trying to get back to the days when at least one Canadian airline was pet-free.

I want to start with a question to any of you in terms of what happened this year. We in fact had an airline, Air Canada, that up until sometime in 2009 did not allow pets. They made that decision in 2006. I imagine they made that decision because they were made aware of problems in terms of allergies and problems for people with breathing problems.

Is that your understanding? Do any of you have a background in terms of Air Canada? Or could the CTC folks tell us anything in terms of what caused that reversal?

Did people complain that they had a human right to bring their pets on planes, and therefore the Canadian Transportation Agency looked at the evidence and decided that their human rights were more important than people with allergies? Or was that just Air Canada's decision?

[Joan MacDonald]

I can point to a decision that the agency had before it shortly after Air Canada decided to discontinue its pets-in-cabin program. We had a complaint from someone who wanted to travel with their pet and found this new change in policy was unreasonable.

The reason that Air Canada gave to the agency for that change was they had complaints from persons with allergies. They also had complaints from other travellers just about the nuisance factor of having dogs in the cabin. So it was largely feedback that they had received from their travellers, and that was their decision.

I think you'd be best to ask Air Canada why they have changed it again.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Judy Wasylycia-Leis]

You're right, we need to ask Air Canada. We're hoping at some point that Air Canada, WestJet, and Boeing will be able to come to this committee before we conclude our study.

It sounds to me as though Air Canada jumped when people complained, and it was afraid of losing dollars and of a threat to its profit base. Yet when people have written and complained, they get the kind of answer that I think is quite offensive for most people: I'm sorry to hear that you were ill on your latest flight, and you're dissatisfied with the response, but that's too bad.

If Air Canada can't bring forward a more responsible position, and your agency can't—it sounds as though what you have to go through is to get a doctor's certificate to prove you have a certain kind of disability, you have to justify that there's an obstacle on an airline that would aggravate that disability, and so on—it doesn't sound to me that there's much hope of going that route. Maybe what we have to do is bring in a law or do something in Parliament to make this happen.

So what's the best we should aim for? I know we have to deal with the issue of guide dogs and that's important, but first, in terms of the broad policy, do we go for a complete ban? Is that the ideal, notwithstanding the question of guide dogs? Or do we go towards the WestJet approach in having certain flights designated? Well, I don't think they do that, but one idea is that certain flights be designated pet-free and others not. Or do we just let airlines decide to keep the seats apart and that will be good enough?

I'd like to hear from each of your organizations on what you think is the best approach.

[Dr. Thomas Kovesi]

Madam Vice-Chair, given that pet allergen is going to linger, especially on the seats, even if there isn't a pet on that particular flight, and given that there aren't that many service animals on flights in Canada, really the best-case scenario would be a complete ban on the flight except for service animals.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Judy Wasylycia-Leis]

Thank you.

[Dr. Robert Schellenberg]

Madam Chair, I agree.

The argument I had in a letter back from the CEO of Air Canada was that other international airlines allowed them, and therefore they had to. Well, it turns out that the largest one, British Airways, does not allow it. So I think that's a spurious argument.

Optimally, still a ban, aside from service animals, is the ideal.

[Jennifer Schenkel]

I would agree with that.

In addition to British Airways, we can also look at Cathay and Southwest Airlines, which also don't allow pets on board. So we would ask for a complete ban, as well as a notification to passengers if a service animal is on board a flight.

I will note that it's disappointing that the airlines aren't here today to clarify the policy and the rationale for this decision. We've been asking for a dialogue and we hope we have that opportunity.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Judy Wasylycia-Leis]

Thanks.

Mary Allen, and then I'll go to Jill.

[Mary Allen]

The Allergy/Asthma Information Association members would agree that a complete ban would be the ideal, with the exception for service animals.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Judy Wasylycia-Leis]

Jill, and then I'm going to ask Diane a question.

[Jill Frigon]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I definitely agree with the panel that a ban of all animals in the air cabin, other than service dogs, would be ideal.

I also want to point out something that hasn't been brought up today. Not all people have been diagnosed with asthma and their allergies yet. You look at people, young children for example, the first time they are exposed to peanut allergies, they don't know they have that reaction yet. It would be quite terrible to have a young child have his or her first asthma attack in an airplane because of a dog or a cat, an animal, in the aircraft.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Judy Wasylycia-Leis]

Thank you. Good point.

Diane, if the committee ended up recommending a complete ban of pets on planes except in cases where guide dogs are essential and with the proviso that notice be given to other passengers, would that be acceptable, in your mind?

[Diane Bergeron]

Absolutely. I think it's important that everybody work together. Even with Jill and I coming here today, we had to compromise, and we worked with Christine to come up with a solution that would work for both of us.

I think it's important that we do that, that we work together and come up with a way. I won't tell you that every person with a guide or service animal identifies in advance. It is recommended that they identify in advance that they have a service dog or a guide dog that they're using for their mobility, and I typically do. In other situations, though, such as when I call taxis, I never tell them I have a guide dog or I'd never get a cab.

It's very different when you're on the ground and you can open a door or open a window, step out of the vehicle, and get some fresh air. It's very different when you're at 40,000 feet. I think the disability community that uses guide and service dogs needs to cooperate as well and make that advance notice.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Judy Wasylycia-Leis]

Thank you, Diane.

My time is way up.

Now let me go to Joyce Murray.