Health Committee on Nov. 4th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My apologies for the delay. It was requested that I delay the health committee meeting because a tribute is being paid to former Governor General Leblanc.

Monsieur Malo has requested that we start because we have a lot of business to do.

Thank you for that request. Now that you've made it, I can do it, so thank you very much.

Today we have a very interesting presentation. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are to have a briefing on airline policy to allow small pets in passenger cabins.

We will have a five-minute presentation from each of the witnesses. Following that, we will have a seven-minute question and answer period.

I have to tell you that someone else will be taking the chair shortly, because I am required to go back into the House and deliver a speech very soon. I will return after that speech. It's going to be a busy day today, kind of like a skateboard.

Appearing before us is Diane Bergeron, a guide dog user; we have the Allergy/Asthma Information Association, Mary Allen, chief executive officer; and the Canadian Lung Association, Jennifer Schenkel, director of communications.

Then we have a video conference with Jill Frigon, a registered nurse who is the health initiatives coordinator for the Canadian Lung Association; Dr. Robert Schellenberg, head of the division of allergy and immunology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, and Thomas Kovesi, pediatric respirologist, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, both from the Canadian Thoracic Society; and from the Canadian Transportation Agency, we have Joan MacDonald, director general, dispute resolution branch, and Mary-Jane Gravelle, director, accessible transportation directorate.

I want to thank you very much for being here today, and I want to thank you for your patience.

We will begin with Diane Bergeron, a guide dog user.

Diane, please begin. You have five minutes.

[Diane Bergeron, Guide Dog User, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I really appreciate having the opportunity to come and talk to you for a few minutes today. I wanted to come to make sure that people understood the differences between a guide or service dog and a pet, and to differentiate those when looking at rules, regulation, and legislation.

A guide or service dog is specially trained, usually by an organization of specialized and qualified trainers to mitigate a disability and to ensure the safety of the individual they are protecting because of their disability. It also enhances their independence and allows them to be more free to do the things they want to do and give them a higher quality of life.

When I was first thinking about this topic, I found it quite ironic that I was having the opportunity to come and talk about this, because a year ago I tried to get my dog in the cabin of a plane and was refused. I was going to London. I had a three-month issue where I couldn't convince the agency that my dog should be in the cabin though, finally, it did happen. I think it's kind of ironic that I'm here today to talk about not having pets in the cabin of a plane.

Dogs that are trained as guide or service dogs are trained very well. They usually take between $30,000 to $60,000 to train and get qualified. The people who are the handlers are also trained. We go to special schools to train with our animal. There's a big process and a heavy-duty process to go through to have and work a service or guide animal.

One of the things that we learn is to handle the dog in any situation. The dog has a natural instinct to be distracted by other animals and to want to go and interact with other animals, but they are trained to work through that process. But there's still an instinct. You can't train the instinct out of them, you simply train them to work through it. Having pets on an aircraft in the cabin is a distraction for guide and service dogs. I have been on a plane where there has been a cat right next to me. My dog wasn't nearly as stressed as the cat was, but there were still some distractions there. In a situation where there may be an emergency evacuation, it may be difficult for a guide or service dog to maintain its attention.

My main purpose for being here is to make sure that people understand that guide dogs and service dogs are there for a reason and should be exempted from any regulation refusing the allowance of pets inside the cabin.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

I now have to go into the House of Commons, so I'm asking one of our vice-chairs, Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, to take over for a few minutes. I will be back after my speech and we'll continue on.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

The pertinent part of that statement was that it was for only a few minutes, so I get to ask lots of questions, right?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Now we go to Mary Allen, chief executive officer of the Allergy/Asthma Information Association.

[Mary Allen, Chief Executive Officer, Allergy/Asthma Information Association]

Thank you.

I'll start by saying a bit about allergy. It's believed that about 30% of Canadians are allergic in one way or another. Although I don't think we have exact figures, maybe 10% of those are allergic to pets in varying degrees. It tends to be pet dander and saliva that cause problems and the pet dander can float in the air. It's light, people breathe it in, and it can lead to symptoms in their nose, eyes, or lungs, if they have asthma. I think it's admittedly difficult to predict the seriousness of a reaction in advance, because it can really vary from person to person, and even within the same person at different times. There can be coexisting factors that occur, whether they're reacting to other allergies, other triggers, have a cold, and so on.

People who do avoid pets tend to believe that the policy of allowing them in the cabin restricts their mobility rights and imposes undue obstacles for them when they're travelling. I'll run through some of the concerns that we have heard.

They fear having a reaction in the air, where they can't leave the premises, where they're stuck on the plane, and where they may not be able to get medical help if it's needed.

They're also uncertain as to what to expect in advance. They don't know when they leave whether or not they're going to unexpectedly have a little pet sitting next to them. Some of them have said that when they do fly, when there is a pet seated next to them, their request to change seats is not honoured; they're not able to get an alternative spot on the plane. They know that after the pets leave the planes, a lot of the allergen may stay behind, even if the seat is cleaned properly. Even if they are able to find out in advance that a pet is on board, it would be a big inconvenience to them to have to change flights and pay penalties and so on.

They're also aware that even if they don't react on the flight, there can be delayed reactions. They could have symptoms four to twelve hours later. Not knowing in advance, they don't know whether they need to adjust their medications before they come on board. Some people have raised the fact that even flight attendants and other airline employees could also be infected, if they are asthmatic.

They would clearly prefer to have a pet-free environment on planes. If that is not to be--that is what we are advocating for, with the exception, of course, of service dogs--they would certainly like to be able to find out in advance of the flight that a pet is on that flight. They'd like other procedures that reduce risk and improve communication, possibly confining pets to one area at the back of the plane; the right to change seats; they want airlines to improve the cleaning processes, perhaps switch to leather seats; they would like the right to cancel and rebook with no penalty, or a mechanism where they can even register their allergies in advance. Perhaps, after that point, pets wouldn't be accepted on the flight.

I know it's a difficult issue because there are animal lovers and people who are allergic to them--sometimes one and the same--and it's not an easy topic on which to get consensus from everyone. However, these are the main points that I have heard.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much.

The next presenter is the video conference with Jill Frigon, Canadian Lung Association.

Can you hear us, Jill?

[Jill Frigon, Registered Nurse, Health Initiatives Coordinator, Canadian Lung Association]

Yes, I can. Can you hear me?

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

Yes.

Go ahead. You have five minutes.

[Jill Frigon]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members of the committee.

My name is Jill Frigon. I'm a health initiatives coordinator with the Lung Association of Saskatchewan and a registered nurse.

I am here today to represent the many patients I work with every day who have severe pet allergies, asthma, and various other respiratory diseases. I'm here not only as a health care professional but also as a patient. I have asthma and have lived with asthma my entire life. That is one of the reasons I'm presenting to you by video conference down the street from you all, because I could not be in the same room as an animal without having an asthma attack.

Asthma is a chronic lung disease that causes the airways to become inflamed, making it very difficult to breathe. Asthma is the one of the leading causes of the hospitalization of children and is the most common chronic disease among children.

Asthma attacks can be brought on by exposure to pets and can lead to episodes of extreme breathlessness. Asthma attacks require treatments immediately, and often medical attention. Asthma attacks can in fact be life-threatening.

Pets are a common trigger for asthma, causing flare-ups and asthma attacks. When I am exposed to a dog or cat and/or their dander, I experience an asthma attack. I'll give you an example of what that looks like.

In addition to sneezing, coughing, and having watering eyes, I find that my chest becomes very tight; it feels like an elephant is sitting on my chest. I struggle to breathe. When that happens, I am forced to increase my medications, as my airways have become inflamed, constricted, and narrowed. After the initial attack and after taking my medications, it's important to point out, I won't feel healthy again for weeks, as the inflammatory process is actually quite a bit longer than the initial attack. With that, I'm often so ill I have to miss work, and I'm unable to provide for my family or care for my patients, which is really important.

For much of the first ten years of my life, I lived in the hospital because of my asthma. At the age of three, I was exposed to a family friend's cat, and as a result ended up staying for several days in the intensive care unit at the Regina General Hospital. That gives you a picture of how severe asthma can really be.

Over the years, I have developed a much better understanding of how to manage my asthma, for sure. I want to point out that the research is very clear: people with asthma need to avoid their triggers, in addition to taking their medications and lifestyle interventions. One of these triggers is often pets.

The consequences of being exposed to triggers such as pets vary. The spectrum is rather broad. There are people who can have mild reactions, just experiencing watery eyes, sneezing, and coughing. But people can also be at the other end of the spectrum and experience severe breathlessness, which can be life-threatening, for sure.

I work very hard to keep healthy and physically fit, and I avoid my triggers at all costs, just so I can do the things I love to do. I'm training for a half marathon; I'm a dancer in a dance company; and I teach fitness classes on the side on a regular basis, when my asthma is under control.

In my career I studied in the fields of kinesiology and adapted physical activity, working with people with disabilities, which led me to nursing. So I have seen first-hand how a disability can really affect one's quality of life. I do not wish to feel disabled because of my asthma.

Today I represent the many patients, families, and loved ones whom I care for, and they all wish to travel safely. I'm asking you today not to put corporate needs ahead of the public's health—and mine.

I flew with Air Canada from Saskatchewan to be here to speak with you today. If a dog or cat had been on my flight, I would not have had this opportunity to speak with you, to share my story, and to represent my patients. I would simply be too ill and too short of breath to speak.

So please consider the Lung Association's request today.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Jill.

Now we'll now go to the Canadian Thoracic Society and hear from Thomas Kovesi, a pediatric respirologist at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

[Dr. Thomas Kovesi, Pediatric Respirologist, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Canadian Thoracic Society]

Madam Vice-Chair, members of the committee, I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Thoracic Society and CHEO, the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, to speak on this important issue.

I am a pediatric respirologist, or children's lung specialist, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Ottawa, and a senior author of the Canadian Pediatric Asthma Consensus Guidelines. I am recognized nationally for my research on air quality and respiratory health in Inuit children. I should admit that I'm currently redeployed as a physician at the CHEO emergency treatment unit for H1N1.

I want to outline for the committee today the issue of air circulation in an airplane passenger cabin and why that may present a problem for those with asthma and/or pet allergies.

As committee members have already heard, the main allergen produced by cats that people get allergic to is stored in their skin and fur. This is often referred to as dander. The allergen is often present in very tiny particles that can remain suspended in the air for extended periods of time.

Modern commercial airliners provide about 15 to 20 air changes per hour, which compares very favourably to a typical level of about 12 air changes per hour in a room, such as in an office building or this room, or about five changes per hour in your house. In addition, airliners have sophisticated HEPA filters for filtering out small particles, including allergens or micro-organisms. However, the situation is not as simple as this for two reasons: ventilation patterns and the use of upholstered seating.

Let's look at both issues one at a time. In terms of airliner air ventilation and circulation, air normally enters near the cabin ceiling, circulates around the cabin, and exits near the cabin floor. Less air moves along the length of the inside of the cabin. Research has shown that cabin airflow patterns do not entirely eliminate the risk that airborne bacteria travelling from one section to another. In any enclosed space, micro-patterns of air circulation can occur and can be very difficult to predict. For this reason and despite the sophisticated ventilation systems and HEPA filters, infections of tuberculosis and SARS, for example, have occurred on commercial flights, particularly among passengers a few seats over.

That's why in 1998 Air Canada banned serving peanuts aboard their flights. It is impossible to predict the possibility of allergens travelling from one part of an airplane to another.

Before Air Canada banned peanuts from being served on planes, I had one patient with peanut anaphylaxis who nearly died on a flight from London, England, to Ottawa after being exposed to the odours from other people eating peanuts.

Life-threatening reactions to nuts have been reported on commercial airliners by Comstock and co-workers in California. He reported two patients with severe life-threatening reactions, including one requiring diversion of the airplane, and a total of six who had to visit emergency departments after their flights. Over 60% of these reactions were caused by inhalation of allergens.

The second issue we need to consider is the cloth upholstery used in most airplane seats. Numerous studies have shown that pet owners can transmit pet allergens from their clothes to carpets and upholstered furniture in other locations such as schools. As well, allergens deposited on these surfaces can cause allergies and asthma in people exposed to these surfaces who have the relevant allergies.

A study by Martin and co-workers in New Zealand has already shown increased concentrations of cat allergen on commercial aircraft seats. In that study, 100% of the seats on commercial domestic flights and 14% on commercial international flights contained clinically significant levels of cat allergen.

A study by Custovic and co-workers shows that the amount of cat allergen present in upholstered furniture in the homes of people who have cats is 300 times higher than on the upholstered furniture in the homes of people who don't have cats. Thus, the amount of allergen deposited on aircraft seats is going to be vastly higher if that pet is present on board the plane than if only the owner is present on the plane.

While both Air Canada and WestJet have proposed moving people with animal allergies away from pets on airplanes, there are no proposed plans to ensure that people with pet allergies don't sit on a seat that was just occupied, or recently occupied, by a pet.

In addition, seating people with animal allergies away from animals on board may be impractical, given that families may want to stay together and given how crowded most airline flights are.

The issue isn't just one of allergic reactions and asthma attacks, but where these events could potentially take place. As you can imagine, having an asthma reaction here in Centre Block would not be a good thing, but it would be a vastly worse thing if it were happening at 40,000 feet, especially over water, where even an aircraft diversion would take time. People with allergies and asthma can and do have life-threatening asthma attacks, and the risk of having one on an airplane outweighs the purported commercial benefits to the airline of allowing people to bring their pets on board. There may also be a cost to the airline due to flight diversions.

In 2005 the Province of Ontario banned smoking in public places. At the time, the Ontario Medical Association noted--to be a little crude here--that having a non-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a non-peeing section in a swimming pool. From a medical perspective, maintaining a ban on pets on board Air Canada flights makes as much if not more sense than banning smoking in restaurants and voiding in swimming pools.

Thank you very much, Madam Vice-Chair.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to go to Robert Schellenberg, also with the Canadian Thoracic Society. He is the head of the division of allergy and immunology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia.

Thank you, Robert.

[Dr. Robert Schellenberg, Head, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canadian Thoracic Society]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to be here with the Canadian Lung Association and my colleague Dr. Kovesi.

I'm an allergist who personally doesn't have allergies and who has owned both cats and dogs, some of which have travelled with me on planes, but safely in the cargo hold. With these pressurized areas guaranteeing safe transport of animals, my question to committee members and to the airlines is why should we jeopardize the health and safety of humans by allowing pets in the main cabins of planes?

As committee members may know, and as Mary Allen has already pointed out, the prevalence of animal allergies in our general population is high, with estimates suggesting that 10% of individuals are allergic to cats, and 5% to dogs. There's such a high incidence that the likelihood of someone having an allergic reaction to cats and dogs on any large commercial airline, or at least having exposure, is close to 100%, and there's certainly a significant risk of reactions.

As a physician, I must say that many of my patients have raised the issue of allowing pets on planes and expressed their concerns over the matter. One of these patients who's allergic to cats had cat exposure on a recent flight to Ottawa to receive a national award for her contributions to science. The flare-up of her severe asthma forced her to stay an additional three days in Ottawa for medical attention and prevented her from carrying on to Boston to visit her grandchildren, which she was looking forward to. She's now very reluctant to get on any airplane.

Another young woman who's highly allergic to cats contacted me from the U.K. regarding her return flight. She was just being released from hospital after a one-week stay because of her asthma. Needless to say, both she and I were very worried that she might have an acute exacerbation if she had cat exposure on the flight. Managing this somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean would be a nightmare.

Although some pet-allergic individuals will have only eye and nose symptoms with exposure, cat and dog allergens are major triggers of severe asthma attacks in others. These can be life-threatening, as Jill has told you. A single exposure, even treated aggressively, can lead to persistent symptoms for days.

The greatest risk of reaction is to those sitting nearby an animal and those who cannot avoid exposure. This would include flight attendants who suffer from allergies to animals. All allergists and respirologists have numerous patients who develop severe asthma when exposed to cats and dogs.

With the vast distances between our cities in our country, everyone should have the right to safe air travel. The alternative modes of transportation for many of us are simply impractical, as would have been mine coming from Vancouver yesterday.

An additional concern raised by many with whom I speak is hygiene. Do you really want to sit next to a cat or dog? I don't, and I must admit I also prefer not to have to spend my flight attending to someone with a severe asthma attack.

If breeders of cats and dogs ship their highly prized animals in the cargo hold of planes, surely this is appropriate for an individual with a single pet. Why should a small minority of individuals jeopardize the comfort and health of the much larger population who have the misfortune of being allergic to pets? Safe air travel entails more than appropriate maintenance of aircraft. Ensuring such for all Canadians requires legislation or regulations restricting pets from the cabins of aircraft.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Canadian Lung Association, with Jennifer Schenkel.

[Jennifer Schenkel, Director, Communications, Canadian Lung Association]

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, on behalf of the Canadian Lung Association, thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to address our concern about the decision by Canada's airlines to allow pets to travel in the passenger cabins of airplanes.

At the outset, let me thank you, Madam Chair, and vice-chairs Ms. Wasylycia-Leis and Ms. Murray, for being so attentive to this issue, and all committee members for agreeing to today's meeting.

I want to take a moment to explain how the Lung Association became aware of the problem of pets in passenger airplane cabins.

In May 2008, a Lung Association volunteer with severe allergies to pets attempted to board a WestJet flight departing from St. John's. At the last minute he noticed a passenger with a cat carrier standing in line behind him about to get on the plane. As he was fearful that he might have a severe allergic reaction to the cat while mid-flight, the volunteer asked to be placed on a different flight. Unfortunately, he was refused. He subsequently bought a ticket with Air Canada, which at that point did not allow pets to travel in the cabin.

Based on this experience by one of our volunteers, the Lung Association contacted WestJet to clarify its policy in regard to animals on board planes. We learned that WestJet allows up to two dogs, cats, birds, or rabbits to travel in the passenger cabin on every flight, and they do not let passengers know which flights will include pets.

To ensure a safe trip for allergic passengers, we asked WestJet to consider offering pet-free flights. WestJet indicated that they were not willing to change existing policies, instead preferring to seat people with lung disease and allergies several rows apart from any animals.

In July 2009 Air Canada began to allow pets in airplane cabins as well, something it had not previously allowed. As we had done with WestJet, the Lung Association wrote to Air Canada's president and CEO requesting that the airline consider our recommendation to make air travel safer for people with pet allergies. Like WestJet, Air Canada rejected our recommendations, speaking of their desire to be pet-friendly.

Given that both major national airlines now permit pets in the passenger cabin and knowing that this puts at risk a large number of Canadians with lung disease, the Lung Association felt compelled to take this issue to the Canadian public. In late June 2009 we commissioned four questions in an Angus Reid omnibus poll asking Canadians to let us know their feelings on the issue, the results of which I'm happy to table with the committee. Eighty per cent of Canadians stated that they wanted Canada's airlines to offer pet-free flights, and seventy-five per cent of Canadians said they felt the federal government had a responsibility to act on this issue in the interest of protecting passengers and crew members who have asthma and severe pet allergies.

We then conducted a national web-based advocacy campaign. This was advertised only through word-of-mouth and earned media. In the 12 weeks of the campaign nearly 3,000 Canadians came to our website to send letters to members of the health committee and to the CEOs of Air Canada and WestJet to call for hearings on the issue of pets on planes. We were impressed at the large number of Canadians who expressed concern about this issue and who urged airlines and government to protect them and their family members from the possibility of a serious allergic reaction mid-flight.

The Lung Association is extremely concerned about the health of airline passengers and crew who may suffer from severe allergies to pets. I do wish to highlight that prior to this meeting today, the Lung Association spoke with a representative from WestJet, who informed us that in the last 18 months, 25% of their flights had a pet on board the airplane. This number excludes service animals. The average number of animals per flight was 1.2. We're conscious that any solution we propose will not be perfect, but the association is committed to a compromise that serves to reduce the risk presented to those with asthma or pet allergies that could be exacerbated by exposure to an animal.

Our recommendation to your committee is that you ask the airlines to ban pets in the passenger cabins of airplanes. People with lung disease should not be prevented from travelling by aircraft. At the same time, we do not want to see people with other disabilities who require service animals denied access to an aircraft. As such, we recommend that on flights where a service animal is present, passengers be informed in advance and given the option of either staying on board the flight or being moved to the next available flight at the airline's cost. Although this compromise is not perfect, it will greatly reduce exposure to pet allergens and the risk of asthma episodes.

We believe that in an age where Canadians can pre-select their meals, their seats, and numerous other options associated with travel, existing information systems can easily accommodate requests from people with pet allergies to be booked on a flight with no pets in the cabin.

Many people love pets. Indeed, many members of the Lung Association are also pet owners. This is not about trying to deny people the privilege of travelling with their pets. Rather, this is about finding an important middle ground that balances the love of our pets with the health and safety of airline passengers and crew who are at risk due to their allergies and asthma.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

Now we will go to the Canadian Transportation Agency and Joan MacDonald, director general.

[Joan MacDonald, Director General, Dispute Resolution Branch, Canadian Transportation Agency]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

I'm Joan MacDonald, the director general of dispute resolution at the Canadian Transportation Agency. My colleague is Mary-Jane Gravelle, our director of accessible transportation at the agency.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is a federal administrative tribunal whose jurisdiction covers a wide range of economic matters affecting air, rail, and marine modes, and includes accessible transportation for persons with disabilities. Its role is to provide effective dispute resolution and economic regulation through its mandate that is set out in the Canada Transportation Act.

As an independent administrative tribunal, the agency has the powers of a court of justice and can make binding decisions.

Rulings are made by the agency's five full-time members, who are appointed by the Governor in Council and supported in their work by the 260 staff of the agency.

Before I go any further, I would like to underline that my observations today do not apply to service animals such as guide dogs for blind persons, which are obviously not considered pets. Canadian carriers operating larger-size aircraft in Canada are required by agency regulation to carry these service animals in the cabin.

Before addressing complaints related to pet-related accessibility issues, I would briefly describe air tariffs.

A tariff is the contract between the passengers and the airline. Carriers are generally free to set the terms and conditions contained in them, provided they are clear, just, and reasonable. Tariffs can cover a wide variety of matters, including whether or not pets can be carried in the cabin, the cargo hold, or the baggage compartment.

Today most of the pet-related tariff cases the agency has handled involve the carriage of pets in airplane baggage compartments. But one tariff case was about allowing a pet in the aircraft cabin, which the carrier's tariff at that time did not allow.

The agency has also received access-related complaints filed by air travellers who are allergic to pets.

Although the agency's mandate does not cover health issues per se, its enabling statute provides it with the power to remove what we call undue obstacles to the mobility of persons with disabilities. The agency does this through various means: voluntary codes of practice, regulations, binding decisions on individual complaints, and ordering corrective measures to remove barriers to travel.

One complex question the agency has had to answer is whether an allergy is a disability for the purposes of the Canada Transportation Act. The agency has ruled that an allergy per se is not a disability, but there may be people with allergies who may be considered as having disabilities under the act. So we examine each allergy-related complaint on a case-by-case basis using the World Health Organization model of disability to determine if a health impairment affects the person's ability to travel. If it is in the affirmative, the agency then examines whether the person experienced an obstacle, and if so whether it was undue. Then corrective measures can be taken.

At present we have eight active allergy-related cases involving Air Canada and WestJet. Four of these involve allergies to animals in the aircraft cabins.

To assist the agency in its understanding of allergies it has hired a doctor who is an allergy specialist to prepare a report for us. It also includes a component related to dog and cat allergens.

Regarding the specific pet allergy complaints, as the cases are currently being formally adjudicated before the agency I can only speak to the process we are following.

At the present time, the agency is receiving written pleadings from the complainants and the air carriers. The pleadings of complainants include medical documents.

Once these pleadings are complete, the agency then will be in a position to weigh all the evidence and decide on the next course of action, which could include decisions on the disability status, the obstacles and their undueness, and possible corrective measures.

I hope this quick overview will answer some of your questions about the role of the agency in relation to the concerns of persons with allergies travelling by air.

Madam Chair, this concludes the Canadian Transportation Agency's presentation to the Standing Committee on Health. We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much.

We'll now start with a seven-minute question and answer period.

Can you hear me, by the way?

[Joan MacDonald]

I think I can hear, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We'll start with Madam Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm not a usual member of this committee, so excuse my ignorance on the depth of the matter.

I would like to know, from Ms. MacDonald, please, whether there are other international airlines that have this kind of policy already developed. Are you aware of any?

[Joan MacDonald]

There is a variety of different policies as to whether or not carriers allow them. It really depends on the airline. Some do, some don't. Some restrict the number, some will not even allow it in baggage. It really does vary.

I would submit, though, that probably more do than don't.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

More that allow than don't.