Essentially, proposed paragraph (c) is the one that's at issue here. It focuses on the performance indicators. My concern is that it goes way too far in directing how airlines do their business. It's one thing to say we're going to provide an avenue through which complaints can be routed. It's one thing to say we're going to keep a record of what these complaints are and how they are resolved. However, because it uses the term “performance indicators”, this particular paragraph is essentially imposing on government an obligation to actually set standards that typically are determined by the industry itself. The last thing we want to get into is trying to direct what is essentially a private business and tell them how to do their job. I think we're going down the wrong road in moving toward setting performance indicators, unless they are very general.
I would also note that the whole purpose behind moving forward with this bill was to provide some simplicity, so that the public has a way of accessing this information without being overwhelmed. A number of the amendments that have been proposed actually add complexity to the bill where it's not needed.
I would encourage Mr. McGuinty to accept the compromise that we've suggested. I believe it's reasonable. It's going to address his concerns, but it's not going to get into the business of trying to dictate how a business should be run. I'm sure the airlines don't appreciate us putting our fingers in, trying to mix it up in their business, and making those kinds of business decisions for them. Ultimately, it's the bottom line that's going to drive how they conduct their business. Presumably, for the most part, if the service isn't there, if the quality isn't there, people are not going to use the service, or not use it as frequently.