Transport Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Mr. Julian raising the operative paragraph being put forward by Monsieur Laframboise. I wasn't dealing with that, but I will take the opportunity to say that I did have a concern.

Maybe the government can tell us why Bill C-11 as presently written does talk about submitting it to the minister, who shall cause it to be laid before both houses of Parliament, when this draft proposal with compromise language does not. Is it merely a drafting—?

[Alain Langlois]

The current compromise refers to the agency's annual report. The annual report is already provided for in another section of the statute, section 42.

So the requirement to table the annual report in front of both houses is already included in section 42 of the CTA. By making a reference to the annual report, you're compelling the filing of that report to the House as per section 42 of the CTA. It's already implicitly included in that language.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Are we then, in effect, cleaning up the language of Bill C-11--cleaning up this bill--anyway?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

We're looking for compromise language in terms of the two motions that have been put before us on this particular clause.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can I turn, then, to L-3 again, Mr. Chair, and respond to some of the discussion on this?

My understanding is that the proposed amendment I put forward here in terms of performance indicators would not, I think, as Mr. Fast suggested, compel the government to set acceptable targets. There's nothing in the language here, in my view, that can be interpreted as saying that the government is going to set acceptable targets in these areas of on-time arrivals, amount of lost baggage, and number of oversold flights. I don't think it's the intent of this amendment, so I don't accept that interpretation.

Second, I think what this does is capture, in essence, what was already being reported by the commissioner, de facto, anyway, in part. But what it does is actually allow for the agency to report, in statistical fashion, to the Canadian people, to the travelling public, to consumers, what's going on with on-time arrivals or lost baggage or oversold flights.

Third, I would think that the government in particular, being a pro-business government, would want to see enhanced transparency and competition fostered through the bill. I would only think that if I were in the airline business, I might in fact embrace this, because I'd be looking to race to the top. I don't think I'd be afraid at all of hearing about on-time arrivals or lost baggage or oversold flights. I just don't see this as a particularly onerous reporting function. I don't see the security and safety implications at all.

As far as costs go, I don't know what it would cost to collect this information. I would think that airlines already have this information, and it would be quite easy, through the agency, to get it disclosed and report it in English or French in language that every travelling citizen or consumer in this country could understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Langlois.

[Alain Langlois]

First of all, in terms of what the air travel complaints commissioner used to do in reporting, it's important to understand that the air travel complaints commissioner, when he was reporting semi-annually to Parliament, was only reporting on complaints received. He received, for example, 1,300 complaints a year. He used to report to Parliament on these complaints alone. So however many of these complaints dealt with baggage loss, however many of these complaints dealt with delays--whatever the subject matter may have been--he focused on these complaints alone.

Performance indicators would be industry-wide. So for every airline that lands or takes off in this country--I don't have the figures, but we surely have them--how many of them were on time? How many passengers, out of the millions of passengers who land or depart from this country, have lost their luggage? The agency doesn't have that information offhand, unless somebody complains. Most people, obviously, don't.

There are a number of complaints filed. I don't have the figure, but from my recollection, it's averaging about 1,300 a year, and you're now going to ask the agency, if this motion is carried, to report back not only on the ones who have complained but on every passenger who travels. That is far, far beyond what the agency currently does right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

With respect to that information, in paragraph (c), my understanding is, and I would stand to be corrected, is that that information is currently being gathered in the U.S.A. Do they not require that now in the U.S.?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

There is a program in the United States that requires carriers to provide that information. That is completely separate from the complaints process. It has nothing to do with this particular section in the bill. We think it is totally misplaced.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

If we wanted to get that information, where could we then appropriately request it? Where would you suggest that it go?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I'm going to suggest that it is the wrong place to put it--in this bill--because of the substantial requirements it would create administratively.

I would disagree strongly with the view that this is a very straightforward kind of thing. It is something that is not collected today. It is not information that is collected. It is not information that the carriers readily have.

Any time you put into place a brand new policy initiative--which is exactly what this would be--to ensure that this data is put into one place means that someone will have to set up a data system to store it, someone will have to set up parameters to ensure that apples and apples are being compared.

I think concerns have been raised that when you start looking at things like on-time arrivals, as they do in the U.S.... There is a very active debate in the U.S. about safety concerns when on-time data is posted, because it becomes a little bit of a race to make sure that consumers are happy in terms of on-time performance. There is a concern that perhaps that is starting to get to the edge, as costs are becoming a more and more significant factor in terms of safety considerations.

But I think the main argument is that this is separate, new, over and above anything the organization does right now, and it is not envisaged as a part of this bill.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

If I understand your answer--and I think I do--you're saying it's not within the context of this bill as you see it, and further, you think that although they do it in the States, whether it's in this bill or anywhere else, it's not necessarily a good thing to do.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I did not say that it was not a good thing to do. I did say that it is inappropriate in this particular bill.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay, but if we wanted to have it somewhere...and that was my question. I interpreted your comments to mean that you thought, because of some of the factors you mentioned, that maybe the gathering of that information.... The other airlines have to do it in the U.S. Why wouldn't we want them to do it in Canada so we could do a comparison?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

You're asking a policy question. I'm not sure we're here to debate policy writ large; we're here to debate the bill--I thought.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The question I'm asking you, as staff, is that if this is not the right place to put it, and this committee wants to deal with it, where is the right place to deal with it?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I think, in the first instance, because it would be a brand new policy initiative, it would be something that the government would have to take under consideration and take to cabinet in terms of assessing the cost implications and the most appropriate method of pursuing it. That would have to go through the full policy debate in terms of deciding when, how, and through what mechanism.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I just want to go back to something you said earlier, if I could, Ms. Gravitis-Beck.

You feel it's not appropriate, given the mandate of the agency now. You feel this is a public policy initiative that ought to have been--and if I'm misunderstanding this, please let me know--initiated by the government. You don't believe it belongs in this bill. You can't tell us where it might belong, in terms of this reporting requirement for Canadian citizens or consumers, and I think you went further and said that the airlines don't have this information.

Do you know that for a fact?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

I'm not aware that carriers are keeping the information that you're proposing.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So you can't tell us for sure whether or not the airlines have the information.

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

No, because again, it is a policy initiative that is outside the scope of this particular legislation. No, we have not made those inquiries.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay, so there is nothing technically, then, to prevent this committee, if it wishes, to send a message to the people of Canada as parliamentarians to amend this bill in such a way, is there?

[Brigita Gravitis-Beck]

Again, I think the concerns that have been raised with respect to cost and scope would have been brought to bear in terms of making that kind of decision.