Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, those are two points that I was going to make as well, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering what the department's response would be if proposed subsection (3) were amended to indeed force the agency to review it. If the word “shall” were put into subsection (3)--so if the complainant asked for the complaint to be dealt with under this provision the department “shall”, or would be forced to do so--would that be better? Because then it would be a tier two complaint, and indeed the 70% wouldn't fall under that gambit, so for anybody who is not satisfied, the department would be forced to deal with it under that.

Would that be satisfactory? I'm wondering if that would meet the compromise of Monsieur Laframboise.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I am sorry, I missed the comments you made.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Can we have that read back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What he is saying is that in subsection (3), for the “complaint is not resolved” provision, the complainant “shall” request the agency, as opposed to “may”.

Is that correct, Mr. Jean?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

The complainant “may” but the department “shall”.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Monsieur le président.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'd like to propose a subamendment, because I can well understand Mr. Laframboise's concern. I propose that we add the word “may” after “and”, so that the provision would read like this:

85.1(1) The Agency, or a person authorized to act on the Agency's behalf, shall review and may attempt to resolve the complaint [...]

Thus, the review process would be mandatory, but not the actual resolution of the complaint. Admittedly, section 85.1(3) provides for possible follow-up action.

I completely agree with Mr. Laframboise that provision must be made to ensure that all complaints are required to be reviewed and dealt with. That's very important and the Bloc's amendment attempts to do just that. In the bill, the word “shall” qualifies both “review” and “attempt”. Perhaps the word could be made to qualify only the second verb, namely “attempt”. The provision would then read “may attempt to resolve the complaint”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Gravitis-Beck.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Maybe I haven't properly explained the way the current process works.

There are two levels of complaints. Level one complaints received by the agency are not reviewed. They are handled in much the same way that a post office would handle them. They are read and forwarded to the air carriers who look at them and try to resolve the problem. That's the first stage in the process.

The agency is subsequently advised of the outcome of this process which, in most cases, is positive. Only 30% of complaints go on to become level two complaints. At this stage in the process, the agency conducts a more thorough review and attempts to grasp and resolve the problem. If the agency was required to subject all level one complaints -- and we're talking here about nearly 600 complaints -- to this degree of scrutiny, the task would be onerous indeed.

Regardless, I want you to know that we do take note of every new complaint.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

So then, you review the complaints. As such, what Mr. Julian is proposing is rather logical. He's suggesting that the provision read “and may attempt to resolve the complaint”.

During the first stage, you attempt to resolve the complaint by forwarding it directly to the air carriers. What I want to avoid at all costs is a situation where, pursuant to the provision, you are not required to deal with certain complaints. As the bill is now worded, you could in fact decide that certain complaints are of no interest to you. That's what the bill says. Do you understand what I'm saying?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

No.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

That is in fact what it says.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I don't have a problem with your agency's procedures, but the words “may review” imply that you could choose not to review certain complaints. I don't want to see that happen. The wording should truly reflect the procedure that you follow and at present, that's not the case.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Yes, it does.

[Alain Langlois]

The agency is an administrative tribunal. Consequently, regardless of the wording used in the act, the agency cannot exercise its discretion and decide not to deal with a complaint. The provisions of the Transportation Act respecting the powers of the agency do not stipulate that the agency must review complaints. The agency is a tribunal, which means that when it receives a complaint, it is judicially obligated to take note of the complaint and to act on it.

What you're saying is true, but if you're concerned that for whatever reason, the agency does not deal with certain complaints, then I can tell you that this is not the case. In my estimation, that concern is unfounded. As an administrative tribunal, the agency is obligated to take note of all complaints filed and to take steps to address them.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

All the more reason then to use the words “shall review” and “may attempt”.

I didn't want to substitute the word “shall” for “may”. I want to leave you some room to manoeuvre.

[Alain Langlois]

We're saying the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

According to the explanations provided by Ms. Gravitis-Beck, you proceed in the exact same way as is being proposed in the amendment, and in Mr. Julian's subamendment.

The complaint is reviewed to some degree before going on to the second stage. It may then be reviewed more thoroughly, or a simple acknowledgement may be sent to the complainant. The fact remains that we want some assurance that every complaint is at least reviewed. That's all the text of the amendment says.

When the amendment was drafted, I was tempted to insist on the use of the words “doit examiner”. Ultimately, I settled for the word “examine”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty.

On the order, it was Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks.

Ms. Gravitis-Beck, there are 1,300 complaints.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Yes, 1,300 complaints a year.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

And each and every one of those complaints is acknowledged.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Yes, I believe so.