Transport Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So technically, then Mr. Chair, there's nothing precluding.... I think I should put the question to you and to the clerk, to your adviser, and maybe to the legislative clerks together. Is there anything that prevents us from considering this? Is it void, ab initio, as they say in law, or is it something ultra vires in this bill? Is there something I'm missing here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I think, Mr. Chair, with respect, I'd suggest that the proposal Mr. McGuinty has put forward is inadmissible on the basis of such a dramatic new cost that it would put on a bill that has no purpose...you know, it's not the purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I think it is up to the law clerk to tell us whether or not the amendment is in order. Personally, I think it is. The problem lies in the fact that the analysis has not been done. I feel very uncomfortable voting under these conditions, since we have not spoken to the people from the industry. We did not ask them about the pros and cons and any problems that this could cause. That is very important, and I understand what you are saying.

I will have to vote against the Liberal amendment today, but not because it should have been discussed when we met with the witnesses. That would probably have led to another legislative measure. The Liberal Party, through one of its members, could introduce a bill to that effect.

I think this could cause some aggravation. When we read the text, it is not only a matter of responding to complaints. The text states: "(c) performance indicators for each licensee, including the percentage of on-time arrivals [...]". So this isn't only about complaints. Moreover, they are being asked to do more work than was expected. Therefore, whether rightly or wrongly, I don't feel comfortable with this.

It is probably a good idea, but I would tend to agree that this is perhaps not the right place for it, even if it is in order. The clerk will be able to tell us. Even with my limited experience, personally, I would say that it is in order. However, it would be unfair to spring this on the industry without having asked for their opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I don't agree with my colleague. I think the amendment makes a lot of sense. The airlines already use this indicator in their operations, and consumers should have this information as well. It is not necessarily a good thing to have this item in a report dealing with complaints against the airlines, but that is part of the mix. Consumers are interested in seeing the indicators.

And it is something that exists in the United States.

We're looking at a bill that essentially has revamped our national transportation policy. That certainly wasn't in part of the title of the bill; however, in our initial days of studying this legislation, we revamped in a very significant way the direction that our transportation strategy takes. So this is a very small component of the bill. It is related to airline complaints. It is something that is already gathered by airlines. I don't see it as enormous as some might pretend.

We are talking about an element of additional information that is provided in the report, and I think it's something that consumers would welcome. It allows them to make the comparison they need to make when they're choosing airlines, and that's something that is part and parcel of having that free flow of information that makes a difference when people choose a certain airline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I guess the reason I'm asking this question—and this is back to Ms. Gravitis-Beck—is that the report that would be coming out of the intention of the motion is that we would get a number. It's 1,300, and you could say 600 for lost luggage or whatever it was for on-time. If you're running a business and if we're overseeing an industry that we regulate in this manner, it doesn't let us know what that means. It's almost like talking about the derailments that we're going to study. They say they're down 10%. Ten percent compared to what? The previous year they were up 200%. I don't know. So is it good? Bad?

If you would come to me and say there were 1,300 complaints...out of what? If there were only 12 complaints about late flights but they had 1,000 that were that way...and I appreciate the concern you had about airlines and the question of safety, of trying to be on time, of taking greater risks potentially, I guess. The other kinds of complaints that we would be dealing with--lost baggage, oversold flights--are indicators as to whether government should be taking any further action to service the public so that the public are well served in a regulated industry. So the number of complaints is interesting.

When I was in the business world, if we had complaints, we'd want to know...compared to how many? We've had three this week of a certain kind. How many transactions are we dealing with in our business and what does that represent? Is it one-hundredth of 1%? Maybe that's an acceptable number. If it turns out it's 10%, that's a different issue.

That was the reason for wanting to have the performance indicators or the baseline indicators that give us an indication as to the measurement of something. This represents a certain percentage. Then, from year to year, you can measure the trends, not just the fact that last year there were 1,300 and this year there are 1,400.

It may be that last year when there were 1,300, there were only one million flights and this year there are four million flights and it's only gone up 100,000. That's good. Or they've tripled and the flights haven't changed. It allows us to assess what's happening and whether we need, as government, as Parliament, and as legislators, to be putting more restrictions or guiding the industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Gravitis-Beck.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I would note that in our compromised wording we have indicated that systemic trends will be part of what's observed.

So some of the comments you've just made, Mr. Bell, would be captured in the kind of information that we are ensuring that the agency will continue to provide as part of its annual report. In the context of the detailed information you spoke about, as I indicated, that information goes beyond the kind of detail and the kind of specificity that currently exists. Complaints are currently not assessed against on-time performance, not on particular standards of baggage issue treatment, but rather against the existing tariffs and the terms and conditions that each carrier has. That's the basis on which a complaint is assessed and the validity of the complaint is assessed by the agency. We can introduce performance indicators.

As I say, it's over and above the complaints element. In my view, it is totally inappropriate in this particular section because it does not deal with complaints. It's a separate issue. It may be a nice issue, but it's completely separate. The fact that there are performance indicators for each licensee...there are 1,600 licensees in Canada. So for those who feel that this would not be a substantial burden, both in terms of trees killed to produce the annual report or a burden on both respondents and recipients of the agency to consolidate, particularly to establish where it does not exist today.... I think those are the major concerns we would have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

How many of those 16,000 licensees would you assume now already collect this data?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

As we indicated, because this is not information that's currently assessed, I don't know the answer to that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay. Again, to be clear, this is not going to set an acceptable percentage by the government that a licensee would have to comply with. You understand the wording of this. It's not as if we're telling all 1,600 licensees that if more than 10% of baggage is lost, there will be sanctions, or there will be fallout effects, or there will be some kind of penalty. We're not saying anything of the kind.

We're saying Canadians, travelling passengers, and consumers might benefit from knowing how many on-time arrivals there were under a particular licensee. How many bags were lost under a particular licensee? How many oversold flights were there under a particular licensee?

I would think the travel industry would want to know that, whether or not it recommends a preferred carrier. I would think the airlines would wish this, because I think it would actually drive up the kind of reporting that makes them more efficient and more competitive in a globalized industry.

We have a minister pushing for open skies. It's a wonderful initiative that was launched by our government and it's being expanded. We're going to see more and more competition in this regard.

The thinking is that stepping off a bus in any city in this country, the average Canadian who has saved for several years to go on a trip across the country or somewhere else might want to know where some of these statistics lie. That's the simplicity of them.

Mr. Chair, it's not as if we're asking the government to set any standards at all. We're saying we'd like to know on behalf of Canadians. If they want to go to a website, they can double-click and find out. If the travel industry wishes to do so, it can find out. If lenders want to know, they can find out. If insurance companies want to know, they can find out.

I think it would enhance the transparency of the whole industry. Surely the government can't be opposed to transparency in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, it rather disturbs me that such numbers are being bandied about. There are 1,600 licensees and 1,300 complaints, which would be about three-quarters of a complaint from each licensee. I assume there are really only several major carriers in this country.

Overbooking is one of the problems. When you go to the airport and they suddenly say your flight is not available, it's a serious complaint. A businessperson in Toronto or in Ottawa could go to the airport for six, which I've had happen to me. They'll say the flight's not available because it's overbooked and they'll send you out the next morning. Those are the kinds of complaints we like to talk about.

I'm rather amazed too at the resistance our witnesses have to us as legislators putting it into the legislation. It doesn't seem to be the way that....

We have a Parliament in this country, with people around the table elected by Canadians. In Atlantic Canada we have a serious problem because it's literally a monopolistic company we're dealing with in terms of flying from here to home or flying back.

I think it's good evidence that we should put it into this legislation to make sure, as an agency, there is supervision of the service being provided. They get a licence from us. They should provide a satisfactory level of service to Canadians.

Why do we mention 1,600 licensees? Could the witness tell us why it's 1,600? How many are active in terms of getting complaints from those 1,600? Could I count them on one hand or two hands? Are there 1,000 different complaints from different licensees?

Alain, maybe you could tell me what we're talking about here. I assume there are ten major carriers at the very most.

[Alain Langlois]

I don't have the numbers of complaints per carrier, but if you look at the major five or six, most of the complaints obviously relate to these carriers.

I don't think the department has a major problem. I don't think the reluctance is with respect to the idea, although I understand the security argument. It's the scope of the work to be imposed on the agency.

The last time I checked, the agency had a budget of $25 million for all of its employees and all of its activities. If we look at a similar bureau in the U.S., the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, has a separate budget and a separate organization. If I'm not mistaken, their annual budget is $27 million U.S.

It's the amount of work that will be imposed on an organization, which probably doesn't have the resources to do it, that worries the department more than the idea. Although I again understand the safety argument, it's the scope of what we will be asking of the agency, above and beyond what they're currently doing, that greatly concerns the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Hubbard asked the question I wanted to ask.

From agency reports, we're looking at about 80% to 90% of the complaints being with one or two carriers. Is that correct? We are looking at maybe half a dozen or a dozen carriers that are affected by complaints.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

The complaints mirror roughly the market share that the carriers have in the Canadian marketplace at the present time.

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

So it's 80% to 90% being with two carriers?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

That's on the domestic scene, but it also includes complaints against foreign carriers as well.

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

Okay, so what we are talking about is a handful of carriers. We're not talking about all 1,600 licensees. We haven't got to the point of whether or not Mr. McGuinty is going to be putting forward his motion. If he chooses to put forward that amendment, we could be looking at refining it to meet your carriers, or looking at licensees against whom complaints have been made, which would mean that the vast majority of carriers would not be affected by this. For the carriers that I believe Mr. McGuinty is looking to, which are the major carriers that already provide this information, already have it, already compile it, that information would be made public. That would mean that the consumers would be able to benefit from that.

So I'll wait to see where Mr. McGuinty goes on this, but I support the principle. I think all it takes is a little refinement to make this something that would be of benefit to this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Langlois.