Transport Committee on Nov. 28th, 2006

[Alain Langlois]

The agency does periodic checks to see if the insurance is current. The insurance requirement is ongoing. An operator is not required to have insurance when he applies for a licence. However, as soon as his insurance lapses, his licence must be revoked immediately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Can I go back to Mr. Julian's suggestion and perhaps, with the willingness of the committee, stand this?

I'd like the department to contact some of the communities that access this service that has been discontinued for the interim periods we're talking about and get their reactions. Ask them if they're satisfied with what is being done, or even present them with the clauses in the bill and get some feedback from them.

Would that be a reasonable request?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Which communities are we talking about? How much time do we have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I don't think we have to make this too detailed. We can phone people in a couple of communities that get discontinued service and start-up service and talk directly with them. I'm sensing there's a concern about the small communities.

I represent small communities, and I've also represented communities that rely on services on a seasonal basis. My sense is that if I'm an operator looking at some of the details and difficulties I have to go through in a process, it influences my decision on whether to even try to apply the service.

So we could get feedback from those communities, perhaps in areas where there are fly-in services over a very short period of time. I may be wrong, but I'm even thinking about winter roads. The only reason they extend the service on those kinds of things is because the conditions prevail and allow them to happen. If not, a person is pretty regulated by the conditions.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I support your suggestion, Mr. Chair. Could I add to it? On the question of winter roads, I read somewhere recently--and maybe the department has information around this--that with climate change we're seeing a shortening of the use of winter roads because of when they're freezing and thawing. The government members, and I think Ms. Gravitis-Beck, have repeated four or five times that this would become such an onerous test for seasonal carriers that it would be a disincentive to enter the market.

Can you help us understand? Would you be able to provide any evidence to the committee that this kind of change would drive small or even large seasonal carriers out of the marketplace? I've heard it asserted repeatedly that it's a market disincentive. I'm just trying to get my head around whether that's the case or not, or whether most carriers would simply say, “We comply with a very onerous and difficult set of transport regulations and legislation anyway, so this is really not a big deal.” I don't know.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I think your question is a little speculative and therefore would be kind of hard to get to. What wouldn't have happened “if” is kind of hard to get a grip on.

I'll undertake what the chair has suggested and see if we can provide some additional information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I suspect these are smaller operators that are trying to provide service as long as possible to recapture their investment.

Mr. Jean has the last word, and then I'll ask the committee if they're prepared to let this stand.

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

With respect, I think everybody has lost focus of what these seasonal carriers do. Everybody needs to go back and ask what they are doing. They are taking tourists to particular places during the fishing season, or when the aurora borealis is out, or when there's an opportunity to go somewhere. They're not seasonal carriers that provide services to particular communities to get the community members in and out. That's not who they are. They are seasonal carriers that provide tourists or different types of people to seismic areas, etc., only.

We've lost focus to think that these carriers provide a service to the communities, other than tourists dollars, which many of them don't see because they don't go directly there. Everybody needs to refocus on that particular issue. If the department has any comments on that, it would be relevant.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I agree one hundred percent. These are very specific benefits, for very specific carriers, in the very specific context of seasonality and cyclicality. The measures we've tried to introduce for operations for a period of eight months out of twelve were intended to streamline the process and remove the paper burden for something that did not seem to be providing any benefits to either the carrier, the community, or the agency, without any impacts on the economics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I ask that we stand this amendment and have you report back to us. I don't think the chair or the committee will tell you to pick a certain company. I'm sure there are instances you can use, and we trust your good judgment on this. So we're going to stand the second amendment on clause 17.

(Clause 17 allowed to stand)

(Clauses 18 to 24 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 25)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Clause 25 brings us to page 18 in our document file. It is a Bloc amendment, BQ-2.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

That's right. The amendment proposed to delete from clause 25 of the bill which amends section 85.1(1) the words “may review“ and substitute the word “shall”. The provision in question would thus read:

behalf, shall review and attempt to resolve the [...]

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Julian.

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

I support the amendment, Mr. Chairman. The objective here is to clarify and strengthen the wording . . .

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

Yes. It introduces an obligation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect, when I went through this originally I thought it was a reasonable request, until I actually heard from the department regarding the process itself and how they deal with complaints. I think it might benefit the committee to hear from the department in relation to this particular section and dealing with level one and level two complaints, how the process actually goes and how we can streamline that process here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Please.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

We would prefer language that retains flexibility for the agency. The flexibility is very important. We've used the “efficiency” word a lot, and we come back to it again in this particular case.

It's interesting to think of what the implications would be if we had an obligation, a “shall”,

as proposed.

It's at the low end. Right now there is a certain number of complaints that the agency can dismiss fairly quickly without need for review in an attempt to resolve the complaint. Some of those complaints are purely frivolous or vexatious in nature and get dismissed very quickly. Under the proposed wording, they would have to be given full consideration.

Certain other complaints are dismissed. Roughly 20% of the 1,300 complaints received are generally found in favour of the carrier very quickly, without a great deal of analysis. In this case the agency is very familiar with perhaps the tariffs and the terms and conditions of the carrier and can see very quickly that the complaint will be in favour of the carrier. Again, those are dismissed without much review in an attempt to resolve the complaint.

Similarly, if we look at level one and level two complaints, level one complaints, as I think the agency explained when they appeared as witnesses, really involve the agency acting as a post box. They don't review. They don't attempt to resolve. They simply, in the first instance, if a complainant has not done so himself or herself, would forward the complaint to the carrier for response.

In a post box function, what they find is that 70% of level one complaints are resolved with the carrier. So they are never reviewed and attempted, and only 30% of level one complaints go to that more additional due diligence. It means that the agency can put its attention on those cases that demand the most analysis and due diligence.

That's at one end, those complaints that do not require a great deal of detailed analysis or review. At the other end, the agency does receive some complaints that are considered very serious. These are complaints that deal with issues like unruly conduct that may create safety risks on an aircraft. They relate to things like unreasonable tariffs, potentially the discontinuance of service, undue obstacle in terms of disabilities.

These are complaints that the agency views with a great deal of seriousness, and they may choose to move them immediately into the formal review process rather than go through the informal review process. Again, if we had the “shall review and attempt to resolve”, it would slow down the consideration of serious proposals that come in and that the agency wants to look at very quickly.

A third area that causes us concern in terms of the language of “shall” instead of “may” relates to instances where carriers go bankrupt and are no longer functioning. Again, if we have a “shall” requirement, the agency may be forced to continue to look at those complaints, even when the carrier no longer exists. The current situation is that those complaints are dropped.

All of those elements, to us, argue very strongly for the “may” language, to retain flexibility so that the agency can put its resources where it can do the most benefit in terms of due diligence, rather than putting scarce resources into looking into complaints that perhaps do not merit the informal process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

The problem is that the provision is currently worded as follows: “The Agency, or a person authorized to act on the Agency's behalf, may review [...] ”. What if the agency chooses not to review the complaint? I can understand your telling the complainant that his complaint is frivolous, but as I see it, you have a duty to review the complaint. It's fine if you decide the complaint is frivolous, but I can't see the agency not reviewing the complaint at all. I can't understand that.

When I'm asking you to review a complaint, I'm not asking you to resolve it, to launch an investigation or to mediate the situation. If you receive a complaint and tell the complainant that his complaint is frivolous, that's fine. I'm sure some complaints do indeed fall into that category. However, if you're telling me that some complaints are not even reviewed, then I do have a problem with that.

The wording “The Agency [...] may review” implies that some complaints are not reviewed at all. If that's the case, I want to know which ones are not reviewed. Otherwise, I feel it is your privilege and duty to review all complaints, even if you ultimately find that some are frivolous. In the process, if the complainant is not satisfied, then he can always appeal. However, to say “may review” implies that some complaints will not be addressed at all. That doesn't sit well with me.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I think it's a good idea to also look at the proposed section 85.1(3) which reads as follows:

If the complaint is not resolved under this section to the complainant's satisfaction, the complainant may request the Agency to deal with the complaint in accordance with the provisions of this Part [...]

Therefore, this provision provides the complainant with some recourse if he feels that his complaint warrants more serious consideration from the agency. It strikes a balance with the first provision. It's not much, but it allows for the complaint to be addressed.

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

Instead of “may review” or “review”, I suggest that the provision read “ is notified of all complaints”. When a complaint is filed, the agency responds. Otherwise, it would mean that some complaints are not addressed. What procedure do you follow when you receive a complaint? Do you reject some complaints outright because you don't like the complainants?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

When I testified earlier before the committee, Mr. Julian brought up the issue of complainants' level of satisfaction with the procedure followed by the agency. It's important to know that complainants are almost 100 per cent satisfied with our procedure. Ninety-seven per cent of complainants claimed to be satisfied with the process and with the outcome in the case of level one complaints. We take that to mean that the agency exercises its discretion in an appropriate manner and that the current legislative provisions adequately ensure that the process is effective and fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.